Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The purpose of the second amendment isn't for hunting or self defense. Rocket launchers are not even used for crimes either as it is a very ineffective tool to use to commit crimes. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government. With every dictatorship, the first step taken almost always is to disarm the public, because once the public is disarmed, there is nothing stopping governments from infringing on the rights of its people and massacring them.
Then the second amendment clearly hasn't aged very well. Even if you have the right to own and operate something like an AC-130 (and believe me, anyone I know who wants one of those really should not get one), do you have the cash to pony up to buy one of them? How about a fleet of them? How about a surveillance satellite? Predator drones? The changes in how war is waged and the technology required has made essentially any past meaning of the second amendment as an anti-tyranny device completely meaningless.
In that scenario, it would be even more ridiculous to give up any sort of firearm. Just because advancements in warfare have happened over the past years doesn't mean we should give more ammunition in strengthening government by disarming the public by any means. Any sort of armed militia will be hard to disarm, and it is most definitely a lot harder to disarm individuals in an a armed militia rather than individuals who go out of their way to give up their firearms. The point of allowing us to keep and bear firearms is that whenever are government gets tyrannical, we will be able to have some resistance to fight the oppressive government. No matter the circumstances. Just because our government is heavily equipment doesn't mean we should give up any basic rights and liberties to live in a police state.
Our constitution prevents such totalitarian actions. We try to not be a police state.
You truly have no idea how the world works do you? Nobody allows a criminal to do anything. They do what they want. Guns don't have to be legal for criminals to get them. I could buy one made straight out of a make shift warehouse. People manufacture fully automatic guns, as well as any other type of weapon, illegally on a large scale. I'm going to ignore your insult on another culture and heritage no matter how rude it was. Instead, let me explain why banning guns everywhere would be a problem. Have you ever had to call an officer to your aid? How long do you think that takes? I can tell you without a doubt it's not faster than the time it takes for the criminal committing the crime to end your life. So imagine if guns were allowed nowhere. That would be a field day for a criminal now wouldn't it? Them knowing they have absolutely no chance of getting shot when breaking into a home. Just like how, if you would notice, most mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Now that's strange isn't it? They must not have read the sign or maybe they read it as saying "Easy target". I call for mandatory armament and gun classes for all citizens if you want gun crime to go down. Good thing you are not a boxing coach concerned about your fighter getting hit. You would probably suggest trying to take both boxers arms off. Good look convincing the other boxer or even your own to be disarmed. If you are concerned about the high amount of unstable people in this country then you can look to big pharma for that as well as a lot of other corporations fueling the problems of the world. All these bull anti-depressants do nothing but destroy a persons psyche. We have extreme problems in this world and people think they are doing good by supporting disarming law abiding citizens. What a load of ignorance.
So your stance is that the possibility of a household being armed with guns serves as a stronger deterrent against possible home invasion than a household without? First let me ask you this: why is it that in other countries where firearms are NOT mass produced or mass marketed, this isn't a problem?
Well first off which other countries are you referring to? You insulted a culture, calling it barbaric, because it doesn't fit within the lines of a culture that you feel is right. Also what accidents are you referring to? People have car accidents on a daily basis. Should we ban cars or just keep them for sport? Sorry, but I won't give up my rights and my safety, seeing as i don't trust a police officer to just be there, because idiots exist in the world. Idiots will always exist but it doesn't mean we should trade rights for security. Also yes, A household that is known to have a firearm is extremely less likely to be broken into. You are also more likely to survive a home invasion if you hold a firearm and know how to use it. That is common sense that I shouldn't have to bring up. You seem to forget that everything is not clean cut or "black and white". You cannot say what happened at some mall determines how we should defend ourselves. Why not look at all the home invasions that turned out for the better because they owned a fire arm. I find it weird you are using what happens at a mall to justify not owning a firearm at your house anyway. These are two different scenarios. Also I doubt you know the training and discipline of every gun owner out there. Most of them have the training and, if you haven't noticed, a lot of our officers seem to lack efficient training. I am not saying every officer doesn't know what they are doing but they are not perfect just because they wear a badge. Most of these gun owners are veterans and retired officers as well so that is kind of a contradicting argument. Also militia doesn't refer to your government ran army. Militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency or to fight against the army in a rebellion. The national guard is a branch of the army and not a militia. The militia is the armed citizens of the states. We have tons of regulated militia all around the states and the 2nd amendment is there to insure us the right to fight a tyrannical government. Want to guess what else could be considered a militia? All of these gangs that already have stockpiles of guns and ammunition. Guess what they see when they look at a gun free zone? Easy pickings. Your arguments make no sense. Go get a gun and learn how to use it before your country falls because no country lasts forever. They may need an extra soldier in that militia the 2nd amendment gives us a right to partake in.
I assume you're referring to assault weapons, and if that's the case, assault weapons are nowhere near the main cause of gun related deaths.
First, the national guard is mainly a reserve unit for the actual United States military, and it serves to be a militia to protect us from foreign attacks. However, the second amendment isn't there for protection from foreign invaders, self-defense, or recreational uses. It's meant to be a deterrent and defense from tyrannical government, therefore a government run militia wouldn't make much sense in that context. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right for private citizens to protect themselves from similar governments the founding fathers had left. All tyrannical governments throughout history have had some form of gun regulation (if not outlawed outright), because the only thing stopping a government from becoming tyrannical is its people. Tell me, without the second amendment, who's to prevent tyranny from coming out in the first place? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from infringing on our basic constitutional rights? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from chipping away at our republic? Who's to prevent our nation from becoming an Orwellian police-state? The answer is, without guns, not a single entity is capable of preventing such a thing.
No, why are you making that random assumption? None of what I said requires assault weapons in particular.
Within that paragraph you quoted I already gave my answer to that question.
rather than mental illnesses causing violence and gun crime (though this could be considered one of them) drugs/addictions lead to most gun crimes and bad situations. drugs ruin peoples lives in so many ways, and people with good lives rarely do major crimes
You consistently stated that you feared what can be done, therefore it lead me to assume that you were referring to assault weapons as you did indeed infer that "introducing such weaponry to society could have a negative impact."
The reply was still relevant and within context.
It doesn't change the fact that government over time could grow to ignore such principles. It's not going to be one executive stripping arms from the American people, just like it won't take one executive to unbalance the political scale, rather it would take a big government coalition to infringe upon such principles and disarm the public of their only protection against totalitarian government.
Self-defense is legal for the most part in the United States. That's one of the many added benefits: It serves to be added protection against a criminal when there is no time for the police to react.
This variable is largely irrelevant due to the fact that criminals would still have access to such weaponry beyond the law. Just a brief look at Europe shows large black markets for firearms due to the illegal demand there is for a firearm.
To be fair, according to my source about half of mass shootings were committed by people who were legally able to acquire a gun, while a quarter were prohibited possessors and the other quarter is unknown.
Pretty much this. Making it illegal for citizens to own guns would only prevent people who OBEY THE LAW from having them. Criminals will have guns either way because they don't care what is illegal.
US does have a lot more death by shooting than other similarly developped countries, but I wonder what are the reasons behind that. Stricter gun control seems relevant, but I doubt that is the only reason, I don't know enough of US society to pinpoint the reason : any idea if it is not about gun being more openly available ? Is it just a more violent society overall ?
And cops
Precisely.
And cops
A criminal with a gun and a badge is still a criminal.
Because sometimes people are stupid enough to support future tyrants without knowing what they're bargaining for. For better or worse, people NEED to be armed against such eventualities because, more often than not, it's what comes to pass. As that old saying goes, "Tyrants always support the laws, before destroying them". Over here in the US, the government would love nothing more than to abolish the Second Amendment, because they know once that is gone all other rights of the people will follow suit, since the people would no longer have any means to protect their rights. And then we're faced with the very situation the Founding Fathers suffered through: being under the heel of a power-hungry, totalitarian government, with the people having absolutely NO rights. But trying to outright get rid of the Second Amendment would only cause the people to retaliate against them, so they've been trying to chip away at it slowly.
