The Second Amendment
- Thread starter Kakumei
- Start date
D
Dervish
Guest
As somebody who's pretty much one of the resident firearms enthusiasts in this thread, I'd like to preface this with pointing out that even after years of shooting, I still suck with a handgun. Being able to hit accurately (if at all) from ten meters with a pistol is actually a pretty decent feat of marksmanship. Unlike a rifle or shotgun, where you have something lovely called a stock to bury in your shoulder, a pistol is basically putting the entirety of your recoil in your hands, and unless you have your hands and arms locked properly, which takes a LOT of practice, it's pretty darn hard to be accurate with a pistol, especially since you don't have anything to brace the pistol against to stabilize it. Most people who end up doing mass shootings are familiar with their weapons, and anyone who's concealed carrying is likely very proficient with their firearm, and that comes with a lot of practice. Somebody picking up a gun for the first time are going to be lucky to hit anyone if they aren't standing still and are effectively at blank range.
That said, topic at hand.
@Brovo summed things up nicely. Firearms are often the scapegoat, and it's often not the kinds of guns that's the issue, it's the question of proliferation and ease of obtainment that's the issue. Some places, as I've been told by some Americans I've talked to before and I think in a prior gun control thread, in the US don't require licenses or background checks, and that is insanity. At the very least, you should require anyone looking to purchase a firearm to apply for a license and pass a background check. If they have a criminal history or a history of mental illness, then they should not be issued a license. Something designed for the express purpose of killing should not be less regulated than a car. Requiring licensing isn't against the second amendment. You still have the right to own a firearm, you just need to prove you're capable and responsible enough to do so. As others have touched on, when the second amendment came into being, it was all about keeping a well regulated militia at the ready to dispose of tyrannical governments. Part of being in a militia implies some measure of training and responsibility. I'm also pretty sure the founding fathers didn't really foresee a future with gunships, cruise missiles, missile drones, tanks, and artillery that can shoot 26 kilometers, and since muskets and rifles were pretty much the only guns in town, everyone's on the same footing. Technological advancement and government spending vs. personal income kind of all but ensured that the intention of being able to dispose of a tyrannical government is no longer a feasible thing, despite but Bubba Joe NRA might insist, his portly ass and his AR-15 aren't going to do a hell of a lot against a convoy of Bradley IFVs. So the second amendment, for today's purposes, means that guns are legal and everyone should be allowed to possess them, if they so desire.
But as we're seeing, when you live in a country where firearm ownership is seen as a right rather than a privilege leads to all sorts of bad people getting firearms way too easily and powerful organizations and lobbyists fighting against any type of gun control, you end up with firearm violence that's unparalleled in any other Western country. As mentioned before, Switzerland is the oddball European country where firearm ownership is widespread and largely unregulated, but they have very low crime rates and comparable homicide with a firearm statistics to other Western European nations, despite being the oddball country that isn't trying to effectively ban firearms outright. Here in Canada, firearms ownership is prolific and our firearms crime statistics are also very low and have been steadily declining since the 1970s, despite the large number of Canadians who own firearms. Culturally, we don't really have a fixation on guns. They're tools that are used for sporting and hunting and collecting. We largely don't worry about home invaders and violent crime, and most Canadian firearm owners are responsible people who lock their guns and ammunition away securely. I haven't met anybody who says they leave loaded guns laying around the house, which is something that's very irresponsible, especially if you have kids around.
My big issue with a lot of gun control is it's really misguided, like, stupidly so. A lot of guns are banned because of cosmetic features instead of functionality, and states like California and New York force gun manufactures to design stupid looking shit like this:
Both of those rifles are AR-15s, both are still the same functionally, and both have the same potential for abuse, but the top one is "New York Compliant", meaning it meets all the criteria to be sold in that state to make it "safer", despite the only changes being cosmetic. The bottom AR-15 is illegal as fuck in New York state.
A bullet is a bullet; as a fanatical shooter who killed an Ottawa soldier and stormed Parliament Hill before he was taken down has proven, even a lever action hunting rifle can be greatly abused, or the Moncton shooter who shot five RCMP officers during a multi-day manhunt who used a semi-automatic Chinese M-14 knockoff, which is no different than any other semi-automatic .308 rifle for killing potential and accuracy, and a extremely common Mossberg 500, which is a popular hunting and sporting shotgun that is widely available. None of those are the dreaded "black rifles" of military design that people seem to think being legal means that everyone's going to get shot up by some teenager playing Call of Duty while fucked up on Mountain Dew and Doritos mixed with cocaine. Most firearm homicides are committed with handguns, and most of those in turn are illegal, but in the US, their obtainment is ridiculously simple.
Point is, nobody at this point should be against something as simple as licensing and background checks. If you aren't mentally ill or a criminal, nothing is preventing you from getting your license, and as long as law makers aren't idiots and start banning individual gun models that are functionally identical to something else that's legal, then I think it's a step in the right direction. Something has to be done, because how many more mass shootings are going to come and go before somebody decides enough's enough?
I also do want to point out as a closing point that automatic weapons in the US are heavily regulated and expensive as hell, so despite what YouTube makes it seem like, the vast majority of US gun owners do not own automatic weapons, and even fewer can really afford it. A semi-auto AR-15 can run you between $1000-$5000, depending on brand and make, and an equivilant AR-15 with automatic fire selection can bump that price easily to the tens of thousands of dollars, so if anyone's shooting somebody up with an automatic gun, there's a good chance it's illegal as hell and is being used by somebody who got it off the black market.
That said, topic at hand.
@Brovo summed things up nicely. Firearms are often the scapegoat, and it's often not the kinds of guns that's the issue, it's the question of proliferation and ease of obtainment that's the issue. Some places, as I've been told by some Americans I've talked to before and I think in a prior gun control thread, in the US don't require licenses or background checks, and that is insanity. At the very least, you should require anyone looking to purchase a firearm to apply for a license and pass a background check. If they have a criminal history or a history of mental illness, then they should not be issued a license. Something designed for the express purpose of killing should not be less regulated than a car. Requiring licensing isn't against the second amendment. You still have the right to own a firearm, you just need to prove you're capable and responsible enough to do so. As others have touched on, when the second amendment came into being, it was all about keeping a well regulated militia at the ready to dispose of tyrannical governments. Part of being in a militia implies some measure of training and responsibility. I'm also pretty sure the founding fathers didn't really foresee a future with gunships, cruise missiles, missile drones, tanks, and artillery that can shoot 26 kilometers, and since muskets and rifles were pretty much the only guns in town, everyone's on the same footing. Technological advancement and government spending vs. personal income kind of all but ensured that the intention of being able to dispose of a tyrannical government is no longer a feasible thing, despite but Bubba Joe NRA might insist, his portly ass and his AR-15 aren't going to do a hell of a lot against a convoy of Bradley IFVs. So the second amendment, for today's purposes, means that guns are legal and everyone should be allowed to possess them, if they so desire.
But as we're seeing, when you live in a country where firearm ownership is seen as a right rather than a privilege leads to all sorts of bad people getting firearms way too easily and powerful organizations and lobbyists fighting against any type of gun control, you end up with firearm violence that's unparalleled in any other Western country. As mentioned before, Switzerland is the oddball European country where firearm ownership is widespread and largely unregulated, but they have very low crime rates and comparable homicide with a firearm statistics to other Western European nations, despite being the oddball country that isn't trying to effectively ban firearms outright. Here in Canada, firearms ownership is prolific and our firearms crime statistics are also very low and have been steadily declining since the 1970s, despite the large number of Canadians who own firearms. Culturally, we don't really have a fixation on guns. They're tools that are used for sporting and hunting and collecting. We largely don't worry about home invaders and violent crime, and most Canadian firearm owners are responsible people who lock their guns and ammunition away securely. I haven't met anybody who says they leave loaded guns laying around the house, which is something that's very irresponsible, especially if you have kids around.
My big issue with a lot of gun control is it's really misguided, like, stupidly so. A lot of guns are banned because of cosmetic features instead of functionality, and states like California and New York force gun manufactures to design stupid looking shit like this:
Both of those rifles are AR-15s, both are still the same functionally, and both have the same potential for abuse, but the top one is "New York Compliant", meaning it meets all the criteria to be sold in that state to make it "safer", despite the only changes being cosmetic. The bottom AR-15 is illegal as fuck in New York state.
A bullet is a bullet; as a fanatical shooter who killed an Ottawa soldier and stormed Parliament Hill before he was taken down has proven, even a lever action hunting rifle can be greatly abused, or the Moncton shooter who shot five RCMP officers during a multi-day manhunt who used a semi-automatic Chinese M-14 knockoff, which is no different than any other semi-automatic .308 rifle for killing potential and accuracy, and a extremely common Mossberg 500, which is a popular hunting and sporting shotgun that is widely available. None of those are the dreaded "black rifles" of military design that people seem to think being legal means that everyone's going to get shot up by some teenager playing Call of Duty while fucked up on Mountain Dew and Doritos mixed with cocaine. Most firearm homicides are committed with handguns, and most of those in turn are illegal, but in the US, their obtainment is ridiculously simple.
Point is, nobody at this point should be against something as simple as licensing and background checks. If you aren't mentally ill or a criminal, nothing is preventing you from getting your license, and as long as law makers aren't idiots and start banning individual gun models that are functionally identical to something else that's legal, then I think it's a step in the right direction. Something has to be done, because how many more mass shootings are going to come and go before somebody decides enough's enough?
I also do want to point out as a closing point that automatic weapons in the US are heavily regulated and expensive as hell, so despite what YouTube makes it seem like, the vast majority of US gun owners do not own automatic weapons, and even fewer can really afford it. A semi-auto AR-15 can run you between $1000-$5000, depending on brand and make, and an equivilant AR-15 with automatic fire selection can bump that price easily to the tens of thousands of dollars, so if anyone's shooting somebody up with an automatic gun, there's a good chance it's illegal as hell and is being used by somebody who got it off the black market.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per day
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Mix of Fantasy or Magical. Or even just a grand open world with a mix of odd styles.
@J_"Kraken" - Ill have to respond tomorrow. Sleepiness.
@Grumpy - The English language is a funny thing, isn't it? Such a large variety of words that are colorfully descriptive and yet it is still so easy for anyone to read misinterpret and misidentify the tone(s) of what somebody(s) writes.
Despite that this is a debate, not a single Personal Attack or even Ad Hominem has been used in this thread at all.
I guess I should ask though (Objectively speaking). Why have debates as a type of thread if people aren't supposed to get a least bit steamy over them? Dispute, Hash Out and Thrash Out are synonyms of debate after all...
@Grumpy - The English language is a funny thing, isn't it? Such a large variety of words that are colorfully descriptive and yet it is still so easy for anyone to read misinterpret and misidentify the tone(s) of what somebody(s) writes.
Despite that this is a debate, not a single Personal Attack or even Ad Hominem has been used in this thread at all.
I guess I should ask though (Objectively speaking). Why have debates as a type of thread if people aren't supposed to get a least bit steamy over them? Dispute, Hash Out and Thrash Out are synonyms of debate after all...
- Invitation Status
- Not accepting invites at this time
- Posting Speed
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- 5PM EST - 11PM EST
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Genres
- Horror, Fantasy, Modern, Historical, Adventure, Apocalyptic, Survival, Military, Action
Yes, I know that. I just remember him being accused of vigilantism as part of the general outcry and it contributed to the prosecution.
Because Diana won't let me remove the tag in my continuing quest to ensure no fun is had anywhere on the forum?
But no, seriously. Debate threads can get out of hand sometimes, is all. I just like to remind people to play nice or suffer the spankings.
But no, seriously. Debate threads can get out of hand sometimes, is all. I just like to remind people to play nice or suffer the spankings.
S
Shadon Xarian
Guest
I know that all too well DX One of the oddest things I find about this place is people sure like to post "OHHHHH!!!!! THERE'S GONNA BE A BIG FIGHT!!!!!!" Kinda post before anything is even said. Or lots of reminders to behave when everyone is behaving. I understand why, and perhaps it's the reason why this community has remained so pure. But still interesting to me none the less (And a bit of a pet peeve, but I understand it so yeah)
Now then :D
It is, but I'm not talking about science. You don't conduct a science experiment to determine someone being guilty now do you? I'm talking more about crime style evidence. When you gather evidence at a crime scene, and things relating. You don't go through a scientific process of repeating experiments, you find a bunch of connections to someone guilty, and eventually it becomes so overwhelming that there's basically no denying it. It's not a full proof system, but it works a vast majority of the time. Sadly innocents do get framed/wrongly accused, but in the bigger picture, it's better that one person goes to jail than thousands of dangerous people walking the streets due to their process not being scientific enough DX
I'd rather be in jail then standby, call police who will be far too late (And potentially get myself shot) and let some rapist/murderer have his way with someone(s)
I don't mean vigilantism either, I don't know how you got someone walking the streets looking for trouble in my post DX if you just happen to be in an area where a crime is taking place, it is also a citizens duty to keep the peace. (Which is why citizens arrest is a thing) Even if it wasn't a thing, then as I said above (And many more will say too) I'd rather be in jail than let some murderer have his way with say 20+ people.
Huh... I was always under the impression that the amendments (At least the first 13 or so) are not changeable any under circumstance. Sure you can add/remove amendments and stuff, but only past number 13.
Even so, it's gonna be quite the fight to remove that amendment. Primarily because the world isn't anywhere near ready for it to be removed. (I think so anyway.)
Well then I'll be that guy who has shot guns for you :D
This one is a bit difficult for me as I am naturally good with fire arms (aiming in general) so what I say probably can't apply to everyone...In pool I constantly get the nickname "Sharpshooter" In video games people like to call me the human aimbot. (Or in TF2, the mobile century as I hit my shots perfectly WITH max aim AND mouse acceleration) And with real life shooting, it's no different. With a pistol I can shoot pretty tiny things on a hill from quite the distance. And I've only gone shooting probably less than 6 times in my life. (Coincidentally enough, every once in a while my hazel eyes turn grey, also known as the eyes of a marksman)
So how hard is it to aim? Not that hard at all. For me the hardest shot is the first one, just to get a feel for the weapon. But once that's understood, I can hit targets very well, and pretty quickly. And that's WITHOUT using proper stances (Which i'm not a fan of to be honest XP I aim best with a pistol with one hand, my other hand being on my wrist rather than under the pistol. I'm a weird lefty, I know XD My dad used to go after me about stance when I switch it but then when he saw how well I shot in my own personal stance he would quit talking about it) In other words, I don't think there's such thing as a "proper stance" or at least in the universal sense, everyone feels comfortable in a different position.
As for dealing with moving targets, that's a problem for the bad guy too. But if at a mall shooting, multiple people had a gun, then that one guy will be dealing with a room full of people (If it's legit, I hear that back in the wild west one guy would get pissed off and pull out a revolver, only for like 10 more guys to pull theirs out too and aim at the guy. Though wild west things are difficult to determine fact and fiction due to many legends and wild west movies XP) Regardless, there would be allot less death if more people other than one guy who gets shot 7 times charging at someone would fight back (Which I don't know how that one guy here didn't hear that story. It's pretty big news, a guy who got shot 7 times stopping a mass shooter. If he had a GUN then he probably wouldn't have gotten shot so much >.<
In other words, it doesn't matter how hard it is. If it's hard, then why does it matter so much that random people get a hold of them? Similar to the discipline part. If someone struggles, then their as good as dead weather they have a gun or not. So they'll just be shot down no matter what. (Sadly) So why not have the chance to perhaps surprise yourself and maybe be the guy who saves 30+ lives in the end?
Personally though, if I wanted to kill a bunch of people at a movie theater or a mall, I'd use a knife. At a mall and you rush it in the middle, you can probably kill about 5-7 people before people start realizing people are dropping. With a gun, people realize the moment the first bullet is shot. If you choose the rushing option, there will be lots of confusion. People who witness will run and scream, there will be confusion, and many may think they are some crazy fool running at a mall shouting nonsense. That is until they start witnessing it also.
And at a movie theater. Start from the back row, and just go throat to throat, you can potentially kill off the entire theater without anybody even realizing that anyone died till it's too late. Most people seem to go to a theatre in pairs. So when you slice the throat of their partner, you can get them before they have the chance to say anything. You can probably get up to say 3-4 people in the same group of friends before someone in that group catches the others attention. Even then, people will get up to help his/her buddies, and the killer could sneak out unnoticed in all that confusion. Or if that killer decides to keep going, people this generation are so weak that the guy could just walk through the crowd shaking everyone until that ONE guy that fights back starts a small group to fight back and/or knows how to deal with that situation and be more skilled.
There's a saying my dad told me. Run towards a gun, and run from a knife. In running towards a gun, the guy will start freaking out and perhaps miss. Even if he doesn't, that one guy not too long ago took 7 shots, stopped the shooter, and survived. With a knife though... Well, let me tell ya, knife combat is not fun DX Personally I HATE knife training with my friend. But people use knives, so I need to know how to combat it -.- Same with guns, people use guns, so I need to know how to combat it.
Personally I'm more of a sword kinda guy, but nobody uses those anymore (I was born far too late... Or born too early assuming people with enhancements get so fast that guns become useless and blades become a thing again, but that's a different story XD)
So really, i'd rather people be stupid with a gun than have dumb luck with a knife.
D
Dervish
Guest
You've always been prone to gross exaggeration and ouright lies, but this is the first time I've seen you avocate something that will outright get somebody killed if they listened to you @Pharaoh Shadon.
Also pray tell how a killer is going to slice the throats of the back row of a movie theater when the seats are flush against the wall with nobody noticing, and how anybody wouldn't notice the person next to them struggling if somebody grabbed or attacked them from behind.
Your amusing story of colour changing snowflake eyes while you shoot things with marksman accuracy with a handgun is charming, considering the front sight post becomes far too large to be used with any sort of precision from a distance, like any wide bladed iron sight. I also don't care who you are, but you are prone to "humblebragging" about how much better at things than everyone else all the damn time, especially how you do it just different enough from everyone else, that I would be amazed if anyone took you at your word anymore, especially anyone who's experienced and proficient about half the stuff you claim to be incredible at with clockwork regularity. This debate isn't about peacocking to a bunch of strangers on the internet, it's about the second amendment and it's application.
That's all I am going to say on the matter because it's getting off topic, but I am sick and tired of you outright lying to make yourself look good all the time, especially in serious conversations. If you want to continue this, take it to PMs, but do me a favour, do it as the real you and not this internet personna you've built up.
The only reason I brought this up in a public forum instead of messaging you is because this is definitely an instance where your tips for surviving someone will absolutely get them killed, and that is something I do not fuck around with.
Also pray tell how a killer is going to slice the throats of the back row of a movie theater when the seats are flush against the wall with nobody noticing, and how anybody wouldn't notice the person next to them struggling if somebody grabbed or attacked them from behind.
Your amusing story of colour changing snowflake eyes while you shoot things with marksman accuracy with a handgun is charming, considering the front sight post becomes far too large to be used with any sort of precision from a distance, like any wide bladed iron sight. I also don't care who you are, but you are prone to "humblebragging" about how much better at things than everyone else all the damn time, especially how you do it just different enough from everyone else, that I would be amazed if anyone took you at your word anymore, especially anyone who's experienced and proficient about half the stuff you claim to be incredible at with clockwork regularity. This debate isn't about peacocking to a bunch of strangers on the internet, it's about the second amendment and it's application.
That's all I am going to say on the matter because it's getting off topic, but I am sick and tired of you outright lying to make yourself look good all the time, especially in serious conversations. If you want to continue this, take it to PMs, but do me a favour, do it as the real you and not this internet personna you've built up.
The only reason I brought this up in a public forum instead of messaging you is because this is definitely an instance where your tips for surviving someone will absolutely get them killed, and that is something I do not fuck around with.
- Invitation Status
- Not accepting invites at this time
- Posting Speed
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- 5PM EST - 11PM EST
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Genres
- Horror, Fantasy, Modern, Historical, Adventure, Apocalyptic, Survival, Military, Action
@Pharaoh Shadon @Brovo
You both do realize that the Bill of Rights is meant to be added on to and not removed from? They designate the rights of the American Citizen and are not meant to be infringed upon. This includes the second amendment.
Again as I stated to Gwazi, it's all in whether you're okay for America to go to war over the issue and/or move away from being a Republic/Democracy/Oligarchy or whatever you view it as in the present. However, I would not blame any American citizen for going up in arms and resisting the change if they feel their rights and freedoms promised to them are being infringed upon by the government. After all, a government who does not fear it's citizens is one step closer to being a tyrannical dictatorship.
With that said, I doubt anyone in government actually has the gnads to try to remove it unless they want the next civil war on their hands. Americans can be pretty apathetic on most issues, but most get their jimmies rustled if someone touches their freedoms.
On the other topic, I agree with most of the other points you brought up, Brovo. You as well, @Dervish.
I'm pretty pro-gun myself and I believe some tighter restrictions are due. The only problem I can forsee is the mental health screenings. It sounds all well and good on paper but something like that is very hard to enforce with any amount of fairness. After all, where is one supposed to draw the line? Will it even help curb the problem?
You both do realize that the Bill of Rights is meant to be added on to and not removed from? They designate the rights of the American Citizen and are not meant to be infringed upon. This includes the second amendment.
Again as I stated to Gwazi, it's all in whether you're okay for America to go to war over the issue and/or move away from being a Republic/Democracy/Oligarchy or whatever you view it as in the present. However, I would not blame any American citizen for going up in arms and resisting the change if they feel their rights and freedoms promised to them are being infringed upon by the government. After all, a government who does not fear it's citizens is one step closer to being a tyrannical dictatorship.
With that said, I doubt anyone in government actually has the gnads to try to remove it unless they want the next civil war on their hands. Americans can be pretty apathetic on most issues, but most get their jimmies rustled if someone touches their freedoms.
On the other topic, I agree with most of the other points you brought up, Brovo. You as well, @Dervish.
I'm pretty pro-gun myself and I believe some tighter restrictions are due. The only problem I can forsee is the mental health screenings. It sounds all well and good on paper but something like that is very hard to enforce with any amount of fairness. After all, where is one supposed to draw the line? Will it even help curb the problem?
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Afternoons and evenings, some weekends.
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Fantasy, Science Fiction, Post Apocalypse, Horror, Romance, Survival...
Wot?
Step 1: Go to therapist.
Step 2: Get diagnosed if you have anything.
Step 3: Make two categories. Minor day-to-day shit that can be lived with? Don't need to worry. (Ex: ADHD.) Major shit that can impede the logical processes of a human being and cause them to become dangerous, either to themselves or to others? Don't give them guns. (Ex: Depression, psychopathy.)
It's actually not particularly difficult. Any random joe can schedule an appointment with a therapist, and within 1-4 sessions, they'll generally know enough to properly diagnose you most of the time. The vast majority would easily screen clean, too. From that point forward, if you want to get a gun, all they have to do is make a medical history check. That same medical history check would cover if you had a problem with addictions in the past and required hospitalization for it, too. Most companies already automatically do criminal history checks before employing someone, so it would use the same processes for this too.
As for helping to curb the problem, this would primarily remove ease from the equation for suicidal people. I have no doubt that the underground market of guns in the US is sufficiently prolific that if someone really wanted a gun, it wouldn't be hard to get one.
As for that quote about liberties, it's all well and good, but if you tried to build an entire society on that, all you would have is an anarchistic nightmare. Police are the very embodiment of security over liberty. So are any laws that impede a person's individual choices in the name of the greater good. Like speed limits, jaywalking, laws preventing quacks from selling pseudo-medicine that only ends up killing people, private property laws impede a person's ability to travel freely, et cetera.
I'm not talking about creating a big brother state where nobody has any liberties and Stalin loves you very much. I'm talking about putting up screens to try and catch problematic people, without stopping law abiding citizens from ultimately getting what they want. I advocate control, not systematic bans. As for changing the constitution, it makes sense as society changes. "The right to bear arms" is vague enough that you could even argue it applies to nuclear weapons, and I'm fairly sure you and I can agree that giving Redneck Joe a nuclear weapon is a horribly awful idea for all sorts of reasons. Yet, we don't sell nuclear weapons to common people. We don't sell F-16 fighter jets to common people. We don't offer to sell people rocket artillery, or state of the art tanks. We don't offer to sell them Agent Orange, or Mustard Gas. The second amendment has already been abridged, multiple times, at the federal level. Usually for good reason.
Morality is subjective. The truth is a three edged sword. Therefore: Rights and freedoms should change as necessary to befit the society. Never to disempower, though, as that would go against the western, individualistic view of the world that has so enabled success for centuries and continues to do so. Ergo, don't ban guns: Control them, screen candidates. Like driver's licences: Don't ban cars, teach people how to use them, test them, and licence them. It won't get rid of every fucktard behind the wheel, but it'll at least improve the overall situation, which is the only objective of a law. Because trying to get rid of all crime is impossible, but you can certainly impede it and make it harder.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Fantasy is my #1; I will give almost anything a chance if it has strong fantasy elements. Post apocalyptic, superhero, alternate history, science fantasy, some supernatural, romance, and a few fandoms (especially Game of Thrones) are also likely to catch my eye.
I've only bothered skimming things and I'm only going to respond to one thing that popped out at me, so I may be echoing what someone else has already said. That never stopped me before, so here we go.
My view of the Second Amendment is a fun mix of things from both ends of the political spectrum, so I've had people call me both a conservatard and liberal hippy when I mentioned only part of my stance on this. People are fun like that.
Now, on the one hand, the text of the amendment is pretty clear by itself: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" can be recast as "the people have a right to keep and bear arms" without losing anything of value (because that "shall not be infringed" bit never really held water anyway, but I'll get to that in a bit). This is unambiguously saying that people are allowed to have and carry and use weapons, full stop. I used to be one of those people who tried to argue that it says only people in a militia can bear arms, but that's silly because it would say "the militiamen" or similar have the right to bear arms. As everywhere else in the US Constitution, the use of the term "the people" means everyone in general, not "everyone in militias" like some hopeful souls like to argue. This truth of the meaning of the language is very obvious if you look back at the time and situation it was written in, where colonial Americans were only able to fight off the British because they had weapons and could form militias. The Second Amendment says, in essence, "people can have and use weapons, and they can use them to form militias to fight off tyrannical dickwads if needed." However, no right granted by the Constitution is infinite, and the reason for that is...
The Second Amendment, like all other amendments, is beholden to all other parts of the Constitution. Some of those give Congress broad power to make any laws that are required to carry out their enumerated powers, even if it covers something that wasn't specifically listed in the document, because the Elastic Clause is cool like that; this clause plus the power to regulate commerce is why Congress was able to create a national bank despite the commerce thing saying nothing about banks, for example. Another part gives the Supreme Court the power to clarify and interpret the meaning of parts of the Constitution in case of conflicts. Various rulings by the Supreme Court have made it clear that nowadays pretty much everything in the Constitution which governs federal government all necessarily apply to state governments thanks to the 14th Amendment. These three things combined means that various regulations of gun ownership and use have been passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court for various reasons, and some gun control powers and limits are also granted to state governments. Time after time after time, regulations to gun ownership and use have been challenged and shot down by various levels of courts around the country. The decision has been made that some parts of the main body of the Constitution trump the Second Amendment, therefore gun regulation does not violate Constitutionally granted rights.
Now that that has been laid out, here's my personal opinion: I think the Second Amendment was a fucking mistake and that it should have just been a thing saying militias are cool and militia members can have guns. Hell, I don't even like the idea of that much being a thing, but it would have been rather reasonable back when it was written and modern interpretations of the Constitution could easily allow for hardcore regulation of militias that would require extensive safety training and gun permits and background checks and so on. The fact that there are so many guns just around is pretty shitty, in my opinion, and I wish that wasn't the case.
But here's the kicker: it's too fucking late for idealism and the facts must be faced. There are around 300 million privately owned guns in this country. The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Trying to go ham on regulation now to try to control guns and gun violence is just stupid and never really going to work. If you want to actually solve the gun violence problem we have in this country, you have to come at it from other angles because gun control is dead on arrival. The guns are already out there, determined people can easily get their hands on one off the books no matter how many laws you pass (fun fact: the more regulated a product is, the more lucrative the black market for it becomes), so it's honestly pointless to try to do anything more than like universal background checks and keeping the real heavy stuff like grenades and rocket launchers out of public circulation. Instead what should happen is far stricter laws to punish violence done with firearms to give a little extra deterrence, revamp the shit out of the crappy mental health system in this country to try to catch mentally unstable people before they shoot a place up, and stop the media putting so much morbid attention on mass murdering dickwads so those unstable people don't have fucked up inspiration and idol worshiping fuel so ready at hand. I'm a pretty far left leaning liberal in most things, but I've gotten so damned tired of liberal people crying "more gun control!" after every mass shooting while conveniently ignoring the problems they could actually effectively deal with.
Nothing in the Constitution says that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered or removed entirely. It's just a list of rights with no special rules or regulations for alteration, governed by the exact same rules as the main body of the Constitution and the rest of the amendments that aren't part of the Bill of Rights. Part of that says how things can be altered by further amendments. For example, what happened to the 18th Amendment could indeed happen to the 2nd if all the proper procedures were followed.
Also, that "not meant to be infringed upon" thing is nonsense. Most, maybe all, of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights have been limited or reduced (AKA infringed upon) in various ways over the years. Freedom of speech has been curtailed by laws about harassment and such, freedom of press has been limited by things like laws against publishing classified information, the Patriot Act and various other things have shit all over the 4th Amendment, so on and so forth. The 2nd Amendment is the same. See above for my brief explanation of how gun regulation has been found totally legal, or go look up relevant Supreme Court case law for yourself.
My view of the Second Amendment is a fun mix of things from both ends of the political spectrum, so I've had people call me both a conservatard and liberal hippy when I mentioned only part of my stance on this. People are fun like that.
Now, on the one hand, the text of the amendment is pretty clear by itself: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" can be recast as "the people have a right to keep and bear arms" without losing anything of value (because that "shall not be infringed" bit never really held water anyway, but I'll get to that in a bit). This is unambiguously saying that people are allowed to have and carry and use weapons, full stop. I used to be one of those people who tried to argue that it says only people in a militia can bear arms, but that's silly because it would say "the militiamen" or similar have the right to bear arms. As everywhere else in the US Constitution, the use of the term "the people" means everyone in general, not "everyone in militias" like some hopeful souls like to argue. This truth of the meaning of the language is very obvious if you look back at the time and situation it was written in, where colonial Americans were only able to fight off the British because they had weapons and could form militias. The Second Amendment says, in essence, "people can have and use weapons, and they can use them to form militias to fight off tyrannical dickwads if needed." However, no right granted by the Constitution is infinite, and the reason for that is...
The Second Amendment, like all other amendments, is beholden to all other parts of the Constitution. Some of those give Congress broad power to make any laws that are required to carry out their enumerated powers, even if it covers something that wasn't specifically listed in the document, because the Elastic Clause is cool like that; this clause plus the power to regulate commerce is why Congress was able to create a national bank despite the commerce thing saying nothing about banks, for example. Another part gives the Supreme Court the power to clarify and interpret the meaning of parts of the Constitution in case of conflicts. Various rulings by the Supreme Court have made it clear that nowadays pretty much everything in the Constitution which governs federal government all necessarily apply to state governments thanks to the 14th Amendment. These three things combined means that various regulations of gun ownership and use have been passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court for various reasons, and some gun control powers and limits are also granted to state governments. Time after time after time, regulations to gun ownership and use have been challenged and shot down by various levels of courts around the country. The decision has been made that some parts of the main body of the Constitution trump the Second Amendment, therefore gun regulation does not violate Constitutionally granted rights.
Now that that has been laid out, here's my personal opinion: I think the Second Amendment was a fucking mistake and that it should have just been a thing saying militias are cool and militia members can have guns. Hell, I don't even like the idea of that much being a thing, but it would have been rather reasonable back when it was written and modern interpretations of the Constitution could easily allow for hardcore regulation of militias that would require extensive safety training and gun permits and background checks and so on. The fact that there are so many guns just around is pretty shitty, in my opinion, and I wish that wasn't the case.
But here's the kicker: it's too fucking late for idealism and the facts must be faced. There are around 300 million privately owned guns in this country. The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Trying to go ham on regulation now to try to control guns and gun violence is just stupid and never really going to work. If you want to actually solve the gun violence problem we have in this country, you have to come at it from other angles because gun control is dead on arrival. The guns are already out there, determined people can easily get their hands on one off the books no matter how many laws you pass (fun fact: the more regulated a product is, the more lucrative the black market for it becomes), so it's honestly pointless to try to do anything more than like universal background checks and keeping the real heavy stuff like grenades and rocket launchers out of public circulation. Instead what should happen is far stricter laws to punish violence done with firearms to give a little extra deterrence, revamp the shit out of the crappy mental health system in this country to try to catch mentally unstable people before they shoot a place up, and stop the media putting so much morbid attention on mass murdering dickwads so those unstable people don't have fucked up inspiration and idol worshiping fuel so ready at hand. I'm a pretty far left leaning liberal in most things, but I've gotten so damned tired of liberal people crying "more gun control!" after every mass shooting while conveniently ignoring the problems they could actually effectively deal with.
This is false.
Nothing in the Constitution says that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered or removed entirely. It's just a list of rights with no special rules or regulations for alteration, governed by the exact same rules as the main body of the Constitution and the rest of the amendments that aren't part of the Bill of Rights. Part of that says how things can be altered by further amendments. For example, what happened to the 18th Amendment could indeed happen to the 2nd if all the proper procedures were followed.
Also, that "not meant to be infringed upon" thing is nonsense. Most, maybe all, of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights have been limited or reduced (AKA infringed upon) in various ways over the years. Freedom of speech has been curtailed by laws about harassment and such, freedom of press has been limited by things like laws against publishing classified information, the Patriot Act and various other things have shit all over the 4th Amendment, so on and so forth. The 2nd Amendment is the same. See above for my brief explanation of how gun regulation has been found totally legal, or go look up relevant Supreme Court case law for yourself.
A
Asuras
Guest
"A well regulated Militia"
Meaning one that is fucking regulated.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
Doesn't specify the number of arms, nor the type of arms.
That pretty much summarizes my opinion on the Second Amendment.
Meaning one that is fucking regulated.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
Doesn't specify the number of arms, nor the type of arms.
That pretty much summarizes my opinion on the Second Amendment.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per day
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Mix of Fantasy or Magical. Or even just a grand open world with a mix of odd styles.
You are missing the comma in the amendment that acts as a sentence breaker between the Militia bit and the guns part.
N
nyther
Guest
A lot of people talk about banning guns, but you take away guns, and someone's just going to invent, manufacture, and use a high-powered knife launcher.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per day
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Mix of Fantasy or Magical. Or even just a grand open world with a mix of odd styles.
Its just silly to think that gun grabbing is going to stop violent murders from being violent murders.
All you do is take away the greatest self defense option from an unknowing target.
Guns are the greatest tools of empowerment that we have. Its the only item that you can give a women that she can effectively use to stop a predator from raping and in a lot of cases, killing her. A firearm doesn't care about the persons size. It doesn't care about a persons intent. It is the one thing you can give to a would be victim that can equalize a deadly situation.
During the Civil War, the people believed in the Second Amendment so much that when the North defeated an army, they sent them back home with their sidearms.
For those that think that the 2nd Amendment only refers to Muskets..
And just some 2nd Amendment comedic gold..
And just more obvious proof that banning guns doesn't magically prevent someones intent to kill.
Spencer Stone, U.S. Air Force airman who helped thwart France train attack, stabbed multiple times - CBS News
All you do is take away the greatest self defense option from an unknowing target.
Guns are the greatest tools of empowerment that we have. Its the only item that you can give a women that she can effectively use to stop a predator from raping and in a lot of cases, killing her. A firearm doesn't care about the persons size. It doesn't care about a persons intent. It is the one thing you can give to a would be victim that can equalize a deadly situation.
During the Civil War, the people believed in the Second Amendment so much that when the North defeated an army, they sent them back home with their sidearms.
For those that think that the 2nd Amendment only refers to Muskets..
And just some 2nd Amendment comedic gold..
And just more obvious proof that banning guns doesn't magically prevent someones intent to kill.
Spencer Stone, U.S. Air Force airman who helped thwart France train attack, stabbed multiple times - CBS News
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- Multiple posts per day
- 1-3 posts per day
- One post per day
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Online Availability
- Western Mountain Time
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Genres
- Medieval Fantasy, Science Fiction, Romance, horror.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per day
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Mix of Fantasy or Magical. Or even just a grand open world with a mix of odd styles.
If people can't debate this issue without wanting to punch each other in the throat, then they probably shouldn't post here. If someone gets all "uppity" in here, then its best just to ignore it. Thats what I do.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- Multiple posts per day
- 1-3 posts per day
- One post per day
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Online Availability
- Western Mountain Time
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Genres
- Medieval Fantasy, Science Fiction, Romance, horror.
It just seems like opening a can of worms
But then again, with people like Jorick and Bravo around, I think I can count on the extremist stupidity of either viewpoint from infecting this place
