3 ms·

The 2nd amendment is 2nd for a reason. banning guns will strip you freedom more than anything else. Every once in a while there is a horrible incident that the

The 2nd amendment is 2nd for a reason. banning guns will strip you freedom more than anything else. Every once in a while there is a horrible incident that the government can use to blame the 2nd amendment. A guy in china just stabbed 20 people yesterday so let's ban knifes. Is this logical to you?. Just imagine the power grab that will happen when you won't have access to weapons in order to protect yourself.

edouard1234567 14y ago
I wasn't referring to this very sad incident only but to this stat http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/America-is-violent-graph.png http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07... BTW, the fact that it's the second amendment doesn't mean it can't be changed it just means it will get more people to agree to be able to change it and the solution is probably more complicated than a simple ban anyway. I'm just advocating using empirical evidence derived from a real life test to drive this debate.
readme 14y ago
Cars are dangerous! You can run people over with cars, so we should ban them! As you point out, what many people don't know is that the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a tyrannical government. Not for hunting, not for home defense. Now, the A/B test thing sounds like a perfectly great idea. The problem? Doing such a test would mean placing authority over our right to self-determination to a faceless bureaucratic government. That's exactly the opposite of what pro-gun people want. I don't personally own a gun, but I am not against the responsible ownership of firearms for self defense or even defense against a tyrannical state. As long as the police and military are allowed to have guns, you should have them too. You trust someone to power, just because they wear a uniform, or are more financially well endowed than yourself? In NYC, the only people who have guns are the private security details of the elites, and of course, those who possess illegal guns. As it is, violent crime is higher in the areas with the more restrictive gun laws. Chicago, for example! Shootings, we have had a problem with. But honestly, it's not the gun that killed those people. He could have looked up bomb recipes on the internet, ran people over with a car, or slashed people up with a machete, furthermore, he could have obtained an illegal gun, since he was going to break the law anyway, why would he care? Kennesaw, Georgia, has a MANDATORY firearm posession law. All adult heads of household must own a gun, unless disabled. Crime rate there is < 1/2 the US average. BTW, this is why our system is great. If you don't like the gun laws in your state, move to a state that is more suited to your tastes.
- plinkplonk 14y ago
  "the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a tyrannical government" by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? I understand these weren't available at the time of The War of American Independence, but going by the spirit of the Second Amendment, one would want people fighting tyranny to have the most effective weapons possible to do said fighting. Those(IEDs etc) seem to be the most effective weapons for a guerilla force fighting a tyrannical government (vs Glocks or whatever). And if you are considering non guerilla forces facing off with government forces, you probably need artillery and heavy machine guns (to start with).
  - readme 14y ago
    >by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist. Notice what you quoted me saying. "The purpose of the second amendment was..." That is past-tense. Obviously in today's age the original scope of it must be limited. I don't even support the idea that everyone should have an absolute right to a gun. There should be some regulation, but outright outlawing guns? I am glad that I can say I'm confident that it won't happen across the entire US any time soon. I believe they should have about the same level of regulation as automobiles. Both are deadly. Yet, with proper training and mental clarity, they are both useful and safe.
    - plinkplonk 14y ago
      just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue. Just saying that if the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe those too?). I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny, but the latter don't?

edouard1234567 14y ago

I wasn't referring to this very sad incident only but to this stat http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/America-is-violent-graph.png http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07... BTW, the fact that it's the second amendment doesn't mean it can't be changed it just means it will get more people to agree to be able to change it and the solution is probably more complicated than a simple ban anyway. I'm just advocating using empirical evidence derived from a real life test to drive this debate.

readme 14y ago

Cars are dangerous! You can run people over with cars, so we should ban them! As you point out, what many people don't know is that the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a tyrannical government. Not for hunting, not for home defense. Now, the A/B test thing sounds like a perfectly great idea. The problem? Doing such a test would mean placing authority over our right to self-determination to a faceless bureaucratic government. That's exactly the opposite of what pro-gun people want. I don't personally own a gun, but I am not against the responsible ownership of firearms for self defense or even defense against a tyrannical state. As long as the police and military are allowed to have guns, you should have them too. You trust someone to power, just because they wear a uniform, or are more financially well endowed than yourself? In NYC, the only people who have guns are the private security details of the elites, and of course, those who possess illegal guns. As it is, violent crime is higher in the areas with the more restrictive gun laws. Chicago, for example! Shootings, we have had a problem with. But honestly, it's not the gun that killed those people. He could have looked up bomb recipes on the internet, ran people over with a car, or slashed people up with a machete, furthermore, he could have obtained an illegal gun, since he was going to break the law anyway, why would he care? Kennesaw, Georgia, has a MANDATORY firearm posession law. All adult heads of household must own a gun, unless disabled. Crime rate there is < 1/2 the US average. BTW, this is why our system is great. If you don't like the gun laws in your state, move to a state that is more suited to your tastes.

plinkplonk 14y ago
"the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a tyrannical government" by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? I understand these weren't available at the time of The War of American Independence, but going by the spirit of the Second Amendment, one would want people fighting tyranny to have the most effective weapons possible to do said fighting. Those(IEDs etc) seem to be the most effective weapons for a guerilla force fighting a tyrannical government (vs Glocks or whatever). And if you are considering non guerilla forces facing off with government forces, you probably need artillery and heavy machine guns (to start with).
- readme 14y ago
  >by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist. Notice what you quoted me saying. "The purpose of the second amendment was..." That is past-tense. Obviously in today's age the original scope of it must be limited. I don't even support the idea that everyone should have an absolute right to a gun. There should be some regulation, but outright outlawing guns? I am glad that I can say I'm confident that it won't happen across the entire US any time soon. I believe they should have about the same level of regulation as automobiles. Both are deadly. Yet, with proper training and mental clarity, they are both useful and safe.
  - plinkplonk 14y ago
    just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue. Just saying that if the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe those too?). I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny, but the latter don't?