The 2nd Amendment

[Sucumbio]

Is it time to amend the Constitution of the United States of America and specifically the 2nd amendment?

I vote yes.

-----------------

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

 

[Wigglerman]

That is far too broad a question.

Amend it in what way, specifically?

 

[Sucumbio]

That is far too broad a question.

Amend it in what way, specifically?

That's the topic lol. The poll choice can be made at any time and you can change your vote.

 

[Wigglerman]

That's the topic lol. The poll choice can be made at any time and you can change your vote.

I mean, my stance is unless someone can put forth compelling, well reasoned arguments as to why we need to change our fundamental right to bear arms and just what way they intend to take that change be it to try and revoke it entirely or to make it so it's so diluted and useless that it might as well be deleted anyway.


Typically I don't find the 2nd Amendment to be any issue. Where so many issues come from is gun laws countrywide. Without being a gun expert a lot of the laws come across as reactionary and poorly reasoned. Becoming more restrictive to the every day American while claiming it'll stop the baddies when, surprise surprise, it didn't stop the baddies because...also surprise surprise, baddies don't care about those laws. Just inhibiting the people from defending themselves adequately.

 

[Sucumbio]

I mean, my stance is unless someone can put forth compelling, well reasoned arguments as to why we need to change our fundamental right to bear arms and just what way they intend to take that change be it to try and revoke it entirely or to make it so it's so diluted and useless that it might as well be deleted anyway.


Typically I don't find the 2nd Amendment to be any issue. Where so many issues come from is gun laws countrywide. Without being a gun expert a lot of the laws come across as reactionary and poorly reasoned. Becoming more restrictive to the every day American while claiming it'll stop the baddies when, surprise surprise, it didn't stop the baddies because...also surprise surprise, baddies don't care about those laws. Just inhibiting the people from defending themselves adequately.

I actually agree partially.

The language needs proper federal laws governing its meaning.

On one hand you have

"we the people shall not have our right to own and carry a gun just in case the Sheriff calls and we have to defend the town.."

But on another we have "since I have it I'll use it."

Okay.
.. If that's the case why do we need cops?

Better question if everyone should have a gun cool... Get it legally great. We had a shotgun in our home growing up in Massachusetts which is source to much in terms of where these rights bore fruit.

What about impulse buyers?
Gun tourists?
Idiots?

I mean.... If it's going to hinge solely on the militia being necessary then you should have to be trained in a standard federal program detailing what being in a militia is. There's plenty of schools that used to train their students. It was a thing. Bringing it back in now ways makes sense and by by putting it as an amendment it becomes compulsory.

Then when you complete the training and go off into the world with your legal gun you have the knowledge necessary to avoid being a victim to gun violence and better still how to engage an active shooter, how to asses a firearm incident from outside of range.... What to do in enclosed spaces with or without civilians..

I mean the documents and training are available but in many places you don't have to even read much.

So anyway am for just adding more than a background check. Classes even online would be a start.

 

[Wigglerman]

I actually agree partially.

The language needs proper federal laws governing its meaning.

On one hand you have

"we the people shall not have our right to own and carry a gun just in case the Sheriff calls and we have to defend the town.."

But on another we have "since I have it I'll use it."

Okay.
.. If that's the case why do we need cops?

A rather broad interpretation. The amount of people who genuinely think "since I have it I'll use it" are ridiculously small. If someone is breaking into your home and you call the police but they are 10 minutes away and you're family is in danger, you should have a means to protect yourself and them. Still call the cops but if they aren't going to arrive in time to save you or your family from a very imminent threat then you need to be able to save yourself. This all boils down to threat assessment and is something every gun owner should be educated on. Just because we have a gun isn't license to use it indiscriminately. But wouldn't it be a tragedy to know a family was killed in their own home because the cops couldn't get there in time and the family wasn't afforded a means of self protection?

Better question if everyone should have a gun cool... Get it legally great. We had a shotgun in our home growing up in Massachusetts which is source to much in terms of where these rights bore fruit.

I agree. Get your firearms legally. I can't imagine anyone unironically supporting illegal firearms purchases.

What about impulse buyers?

What about them?

Gun tourists?

What does this mean? Someone who travels to gun shows or is this meaning someone who tours to use their guns maliciously? if it's the latter then yeah, people having a means to defend themselves against looneys like that is more relevant than ever.

Idiots?

If idiocy was a metric we could deny people certain things on then we'd be revoking people's ability to breed, drive or various other aspects of life. And 'idiocy' isn't exactly a measurable metric anyway. Someone can be an 'idiot' but still be responsible where it matters. The best way to stem 'idiocy' is education. And if anything, gun education should be important to anyone looking to own a gun and to be responsible with it while understanding the gravity of the consequences that can come with just owning a gun. Gun ownership, especially in a family, changes things. New levels of awareness/diligence and security with the weapon to keep it out of small hands but also having it accessible enough that it's actually usable when it's needed.
[/quote]

I mean.... If it's going to hinge solely on the militia being necessary then you should have to be trained in a standard federal program detailing what being in a militia is. There's plenty of schools that used to train their students. It was a thing. Bringing it back in now ways makes sense and by by putting it as an amendment it becomes compulsory.

The militia portion isn't something I consider much because it's rarely a factor. But the idea is militias aren't conventionally trained and are generally a last resort. It's the people themselves defending the land and them being armed to be able to do so is the fundamental idea. Training isn't a requirement but it would be nice to have. They're the last line of defense. Not many in the Revolutionary War were trained soldiers but look how that turned out. However training militias isn't a terrible idea. Though I don't think it belongs in public schools. A separate program for adults who want to be trained would be alright. I'm not okay with training child soldiers in schools.

Then when you complete the training and go off into the world with your legal gun you have the knowledge necessary to avoid being a victim to gun violence and better still how to engage an active shooter, how to asses a firearm incident from outside of range.... What to do in enclosed spaces with or without civilians..

I mean the documents and training are available but in many places you don't have to even read much.

So anyway am for just adding more than a background check. Classes even online would be a start.

I agree there should be a real effort made to educate folks before owning their firearm. Similar to driving school there should be some very detailed classes that really go over everything about being a gun owner. From proper handling, maintenance, proper storage, etc. I do feel not enough people understand it. I'm not a gun owner myself (yet) but even I have enough wherewithal to understand the gravity of owning a firearm. There's a lot too it and one shouldn't buy a gun just because 'it's cool' or 'it's hip', etc. Nothing is quite as tragic as a gun owner being harmed or outright killed by their own weapon because they weren't educated, skilled or otherwise determined/confident enough to actually use the thing.

But all we've discussed is education in just about everything is important. Which, in itself, isn't a problem with the amendment but just people in general.

 

[Sucumbio]

A rather broad interpretation. The amount of people who genuinely think "since I have it I'll use it" are ridiculously small. If someone is breaking into your home and you call the police but they are 10 minutes away and you're family is in danger, you should have a means to protect yourself and them. Still call the cops but if they aren't going to arrive in time to save you or your family from a very imminent threat then you need to be able to save yourself. This all boils down to threat assessment and is something every gun owner should be educated on. Just because we have a gun isn't license to use it indiscriminately. But wouldn't it be a tragedy to know a family was killed in their own home because the cops couldn't get there in time and the family wasn't afforded a means of self protection?

Let me clarify, those were various examples of extremes - "the 2nd Amendment is only necessary to keep up a militia", or people who carry guns in public ready to fire (as in already loaded, maybe no safety on, etc.). But you touch on this later on so I'll move on.

What about them?

Impulse buyers I'm referring to people who may have been wronged and decide to go to a pawn shop, buy a gun, and then go commit a crime.

What does this mean? Someone who travels to gun shows or is this meaning someone who tours to use their guns maliciously? if it's the latter then yeah, people having a means to defend themselves against looneys like that is more relevant than ever.

Gun tourism is traveling usually out of state to find gun shows to purchase weapons that are either illegal in their home state, or simply easier to get their hands on because of the gun show themselves.

And if anything, gun education should be important REQUIRED to anyone looking to own a gun and to be responsible with it while understanding the gravity of the consequences that can come with just owning a gun.

Yeah. Required. At the federal level.

The militia portion isn't something I consider much because it's rarely a factor.

And yet the entire amendment hinges on it, indeed if you remove that little part of the beginning, then the Amendment reads like how people have interpreted it. But with it in there, everyone's read it wrong, or more precisely, have changed the word militia in their minds to mean "self defense." And this is the real problem.

Which, in itself, isn't a problem with the amendment but just people in general.

This is the issue. The first part of the amendment makes it clear that the reason why Americans' rights to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed is ONLY because of the need to keep a militia. If that weren't the case, it'd have said so and not have started with that conditional clause. It doesn't even go on to define what a militia is!

since approximately 1665, militia has taken the meaning "a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers"

source

So obviously coming off the heels of the Revolutionary War, the drafters of the Constitution did not want the people to be faced with a situation where the government could go door to door and disarm everyone, thus making it impossible for a coupe to be stopped. Or worse, like when England invaded America in the War of 1812, the regular army needs help and can't get it because the people don't have guns. That's clear. But what it doesn't do is explain how wanting to avoid these calamities translates into Kenosha.

I mean let's just say it. Kyle Rittenhouse killed 2 people because the 2nd Amendment failed.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Wrong. Guns do kill people. And if you want one, you should have to be an official militiaman/women to have one.

By making this compulsory you eliminate lots of ways people can get guns for a nefarious purpose. By the US goverment contracting gun manufacturers, outlawing private gun sales, and federalizing gun and ammo marketplaces in general, you essentially ensure that the 2nd Amendment is kept in place, but add enough burden on a prospective gun buyer to make them commit to the enormous responsibility required to own one.

Look, I get it. In this day and age it seems silly to make it harder to own a gun, because so many people already have them, so many mass killings, so many gun violence incidents. You have to have one yourself to keep it "fair." But ya know what? I think if all gun owners were indoctrinated by the government on what it means to be a gun owner, you'd have fewer people out there actually toting them. I see a day when even cops won't need them. You don't see the US Army marching into towns and causing panic riots and stuff. Some countries have mandatory service even. I'd be willing to subject my kids to firearms awareness training even as early as when sex education comes in. Okay, maybe this will lead to a deeper underground off the books gun scene. Great! Shove the (idiots) people further into breaking the law so when they're busted they can be taken off the streets and out of our movie theaters, our malls, our public spaces. We don't need armed-and-ready citizens roaming around all over the place.

 

[Nah]

There's the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be changed and/or what measures should be taken to deal with the US's obvious gun violence problem (even if some people don't want to believe there is), but nothing's going to happen or change.

For altering the 2nd amendment itself, we're taking about an amendment of a set of 10 that many Americans consider of the utmost importance on a document considered holy to a lot of Americans, second only to their favorite religious text. Even if the idea of changing that amendment somehow comes up in Congress, what exactly are people expecting them to change about it? The most realistic scenario is nothing really, just "changes" that give the illusion that it's different. And then after that, there's still the matter of interpretation and enforcement. Laws and changes to them mean little if they aren't enforced and judges and people are still allowed to interpret them in ****ty ways.

For things other than the 2nd amendment, there's no reason to believe that the US will take any meaningful action that way either. If 20 little kids and their teachers getting ****ing murdered in broad daylight didn't spur the country to do anything, nothing will. And it's not like we haven't had other shootings both before and after Sandy Hook (Columbine and Vegas for example) that could've been the US's potential watershed moment. The federal government is struggling to pass bills on an issue (infrastructure) that has recognized by both major political parties as a problem for as long as I've been alive, they won't do anything about a more partisan issue.

 

[Sucumbio]

There's the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be changed and/or what measures should be taken to deal with the US's obvious gun violence problem (even if some people don't want to believe there is), but nothing's going to happen or change.

For altering the 2nd amendment itself, we're taking about an amendment of a set of 10 that many Americans consider of the utmost importance on a document considered holy to a lot of Americans, second only to their favorite religious text. Even if the idea of changing that amendment somehow comes up in Congress, what exactly are people expecting them to change about it? The most realistic scenario is nothing really, just "changes" that give the illusion that it's different. And then after that, there's still the matter of interpretation and enforcement. Laws and changes to them mean little if they aren't enforced and judges and people are still allowed to interpret them in ****ty ways.

For things other than the 2nd amendment, there's no reason to believe that the US will take any meaningful action that way either. If 20 little kids and their teachers getting ****ing murdered in broad daylight didn't spur the country to do anything, nothing will. And it's not like we haven't had other shootings both before and after Sandy Hook (Columbine and Vegas for example) that could've been the US's potential watershed moment. The federal government is struggling to pass bills on an issue (infrastructure) that has recognized by both major political parties as a problem for as long as I've been alive, they won't do anything about a more partisan issue.

Abstained. A choice. But we should focus on why it's important.

Your very reasons for inaction actually speak for change. The document no longer functions as intended.

Think of it like this.

What is the worst mass casualty event before 1776 where one person killed 20 kids that we know of?

Or even a rampage killing?

Mass murderer?

These words are misleading because we know of genocidal maniacs going back eons.... That's not what we're talking about.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't even challenged until after the Civil War.

Gun proliferation is what's at stake. Westward Expansion, Civil Rights, these movements have all involved them and yet the Federal Government relies on the States. And then let's a citizen (idiot) travel to another state and kill two people.

Were there enough "militia"? Did anyone train them on anything as a group? No this just a dude. Had Training, underage still (didn't he get a ride there lol?) and joined "the right side" and felt empowered to use lethal force to protect himself. He wasn't deputized or activated in any sense of the Federal law. And that jury's still out but highly unlikely as has been posited by news outlets.

This could have been avoided. But as you say it's unlikely. I didn't ask if the amendment will change but rather should it. Yes. It should.

 

[Goomboi]

I think it should be changed, as we can see for the most part the people who go out and shoot people are clearly mentally ill and should not have possession of a gun under any circumstance. I can see having a hunting rifle if you like to hunt though. I think we need stricter gun laws and we should stopselling anything other than guns used for hunting, or maybe a handgun for specific circumstances.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think it should be changed, as we can see for the most part the people who go out and shoot people are clearly mentally ill and should not have possession of a gun under any circumstance. I can see having a hunting rifle if you like to hunt though. I think we need stricter gun laws and we should stopselling anything other than guns used for hunting, or maybe a handgun for specific circumstances.

Better communication between atf and state bureaus is an example of a small change that could help...

Limiting gun sales to club members (fish and game, nra, etc) as you pointed out, that's a great suggestion and a considerable step.

Requiring a federal permit to own, carry or use a firearm is probably the pinnacle of Asks...

I think it's important to make changes where necessary but honest change will have to start at the top with a long overdue revisiting of what the 2nd Amendment really means.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

You can increase gun control and gun regulation without changing or removing the second amendment.

I find the idea that we have to change the entire amendment a bit silly. You can't get rid of the right to bear arms. It would go the way of prohibition. Ignored and ridiculed, and eventually reversed. Guns are a part of the American culture in both good ways and bad ways.

Should there be changes to gun laws? I argue yes. But changing the amendment isn't the way to get that done.

It's also worth mentioning that... regardless of what we do. These things will still happen. We simply can't control every person or firearm. There is no magical fix here.

 

[StrangeKitten]

It's kinda weird to me that so many view the Constitution as something that shouldn't change when, quite frankly, it was designed to. That's the whole idea behind amendments! And I absolutely think the 2nd should be changed to make acquiring a gun a lot more difficult. It's clear to me that gun enthusiasm should take a backseat to protecting peoples' lives. And state laws don't really cut it when it's easy to go to another state with lax laws. Were we not having so many shootings and gun deaths, I'd have no problem with the way things are, but that's sadly not the case. I think making things more similar to cars, where you need tests and a license (and may even need to take classes) in order to get one is a good idea that doesn't stop responsible people from getting a gun if they really want one. I also think there's a ton of validity to the point about how poorly we handle mental health. Destigmatization of issues such as depression, Medicare for all to make therapy affordable for everyone, and better mental health facilities and treatments would go a long way towards helping the problem.

Come to think of it, overhauling the school system would also help a ton. There's a reason so many shootings happen in schools in the US, and it's because they're ineffective and, generally, horrible. There is shockingly little help when it comes to bullying, the adults often use their positions to flex and abuse their power (for example, a teacher being mean to a student they dislike), they're a terrible place to go if you're struggling with mental health and/or a learning disability, and I had an ungodly amount of homework when I was in school, which only makes things worse. If you're not from the US, imagine getting up at like 6 every day, spending 7 hours in school on subjects that don't interest you (and have little real-world application if you're not going into those fields professionally), and another 7 hours on those same subjects at home. This is definitely something that would lessen the amount of shootings if we severely changed it for the better.

 

[Alicorn]

There has always been a problem with the massive amounts of shooting in the US compared to other countries. And yet time and time again we always have a difficult time tackling the issue for some reason, despite the fact that other countries like Canada for instance are able to act quickly in passing gun regulations. I feel America's main problem is the second amendment and how we give the amendment too much power.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean I have the right to carry a sword in public? A sword is an "arm" just like a firearm. The second amendment is just too vague to be of use to anyone but Gun lobby and I think its time to repeal it, it is outdated. Because as long as the Second amendment stands we will still be going through this nightmare every few months in America.

 

[StoicPhantom]

There seems to be an already implied contextualization of the problem, that guns are problem in the OP. I think we should first ascertain whether guns are an issue before we worry about anything else.

Because I'm lazy, I'm just going to borrow from this article even though I generally frown on user-generated content these days and I'll quote some interesting facts that tend to get buried in this debate.

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is higher in statistical metropolitan areas of the U.S. than it is in non-metropolitan counties

People with a criminal record are more likely to die as homicide victims.[91] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[107] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[91][108] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[109]

And due to lack of time and interest, I'm going to forgo a heavily detailed and sourced post and just cut straight to the chase.

1. Most gun homicides are perpetuated by criminals in the context of criminal activity (shocker).

2. Most gun homicide victims are also criminals.

3. Most of the guns used in gun homicides are illegally obtained (i.e. stolen)

4. Most of the criminals are organized (i.e gangs) and the procurement and use of stolen guns are for the facilitation of gang related activities.

5. Most of the civilians killed by criminals with guns (e.g. children) were in the presence of gang members or hanging around gang members.

6. Most gun deaths are suicides.


Above all other statistics that are thrown around in this conversation, crime is the number one cause of gun homicides. The type of gun, the location, the age or identity of the perpetrator or victim, or the general prevalence of guns in the country do not matter. The number one indicator of being at risk for being a victim of a gun homicide is being in the presence of criminal activity. If you don't want to be killed by a criminal with a gun, don't hang around criminals with guns, screw with criminals with guns, or be a criminal yourself.

One particular thing of interest in that Wikipedia page is how rural areas had higher rates of gun ownership than metropolitan areas of which had higher rates of gun homicides. Kind of kills the whole argument that too many guns in a particular area is what causes gun violence.

"But what about mass shootings!!!"

What about them? Mass shootings make up a minuscule amount of homicides, which make up a small amount of violent crime overall, which makes up a small part of crime overall. You have a very, very, very small chance of being a victim or perpetrator of a mass shooting despite what the media might make it seem.

"Well we can at least mitigate the damage done by banning guns!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Japan

Despite having strict bans on civilians owning weapons, Japan has a weirdly high body count that dwarfs even most of our high-profile mass shootings (on an individual basis). Perhaps the tool itself isn't as important as the planning and defenselessness of the victims. And a civilian populace that isn't allowed to defend itself makes it easier to rack up kills.


With all of the above, I fail to see how a gun ban would be a real solution to the perceived problems that guns supposedly cause. Most guns used in homicides are obtained illegally and crime is too lucrative for criminals to not find alternatives in the event of an unlikely scenario where all guns in the world are wiped off the face of the earth. People ultimately are the ones that kill people and as long as they feel there's a need, they will always find a way to do it.


And to really punctuate this post, let's dive into an interesting angle by bringing up another topic: the war in Ukraine.

The US passed a 40 billion dollar weapons package intended to replenish Ukraine's weapon supply. The general excuse given why this was passed and the similarly priced package to provide post-COVID relief to struggling businesses and families failed is that democracy necessitates sacrifices. In other words, we have to give an absurdly expensive weapons package to a faraway country on the basis that we must defend the ideals of democracy from the Russian invaders. So my questions to those who agree with this move and believe we need gun control are as follows:

Is there not a contradiction with stating that the prevalence of guns causes gun violence and subsequently flooding Ukraine with guns in order to prevent violence? Is it not a concern to have weapons flooding into Ukraine and Europe overall possibly ending up in the hands of criminals?

Is there not a contradiction with stating that people would have no need for self-defense if we banned weapons and arguing that Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself against a perceived enemy (and not just the current war but all the previous justifications for arming them leading up to the war)?

If Ukraine joining NATO in order to receive "protection" (really military installations) from potential Russian aggression shouldn't reasonably provoke fear and aggression from Russia why argue that arming the populace will only encourage violence?

If manufacturing and selling guns are bad and need to be curbed, why are we still allowing the US to be the #1 exporter of arms to the world by giving tens of billions of dollars worth of arms to Ukraine?

If gun lobbies need to be stopped, why are we feeding their war chest by paying private gun manufacturers billions of dollars to provide arms for Ukraine?

Is it not a contradiction to allow and encourage the sale and export of weapons that harm the people of the world and attempt to deny domestic sales on the basis that it would bring harm to the domestic population if the overall goal was to reduce gun violence?

I've noticed a major double-standard when it comes to guns in domestic versus foreign contexts. There seems to be quite a lot of issues Americans (really liberals) need to work out regarding their views on the necessity of violence abroad as opposed to domestic. Why do we allow the use of violence as tool for the government and foreign interests, but insist civilians have no need for it even in the context of self-defense? If violence is wrong then it should be wrong everywhere, right?

Edit: I also agree that the ban on other types of weapons makes no sense in the context of the right to bear arms. I think all weapons should be made legal carry to fix this contradiction, but there's been a major push to strip people of their ability to defend themselves.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah I mean we all need rocket launchers nowadays. Don't Tread on Me and whatnot. Heh.

This seems like an extension of a previous thread about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Alicorn]

My bad I didn't know there was already a thread on the topic.


Seeing all the mass shooting going on and politicians using the second amendment as a shield to block gun reform which in turn leads to nothing really being done to handle the issue. It really shows how much of a failed state the US is. That we can't protect our children and the best thing we can come up with is arming teachers and increasing funding for police when that has been shown to not work. In Uvalde Texas 40 percent of the city's annual budget go to the police and yet they chose to sit and do nothing until the last minute. So what's the point of giving the police more funding when they aren't willing to do the job required of them?

 

[Sucumbio]

My bad I didn't know there was already a thread on the topic.


Seeing all the mass shooting going on and politicians using the second amendment as a shield to block gun reform which in turn leads to nothing really being done to handle the issue. It really shows how much of a failed state the US is. That we can't protect our children and the best thing we can come up with is arming teachers and increasing funding for police when that has been shown to not work. In Uvalde Texas 40 percent of the city's annual budget go to the police and yet they chose to sit and do nothing until the last minute. So what's the point of giving the police more funding when they aren't willing to do the job required of them?

It's fine I will merge them.

As I'm sure you can see from previous posts I am in camp amend the constitution but another less scrupulous way would be executive order which sucks frankly ..

 

[Alicorn]

Sadly I think you are right executive order is the only way unless the Filibusters gets thrown out.

This is a issue only the Federal Government can handle. The states can't do gun reform because there are ways to can get around them. New York and Chicago have very strict gun laws and yet people circumvent them by getting guns from Indiana and bringing them into Chicago. Showing that having a patch work of fifty different gun laws isn't going to work.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Yeah I mean we all need rocket launchers nowadays.

Not really rocket launchers (except Ukraine apparently) so much as basic protections from violence. But it does seem a little odd to ban less lethal weapons like billy clubs or ban practically every form of knife regardless of its application while keeping legal perhaps the most lethal weapon a civilian can own. Weapons don't have to be used to be a deterrent. Just signaling that you won't be an easy victim can do wonders for fending off predators that prefer not to get killed.

I mentioned in my previous post that gun violence is largely based around crime and avoidance of crime and criminals, including refraining from criminal activity yourself, is a key strategy in avoiding becoming a victim of a violent crime. In fact, most people in society go through their lives without ever becoming victims of violent crime by following this rule that's been pounded into their heads from a young age.

But suppose you are poor and forced to live in a poor neighborhood with high rates of crime or were just simply born in such a neighborhood and are unable to buy your way out. Living in the neighborhood that the rest of society avoids out of fear is naturally going to violate that rule and put you in harms way. You can do your best to employ street smarts and use awareness to spot potential problems and avoid danger as much as possible, but sometimes that crackhead still breaks into your house looking for money to facilitate his addiction.

This is where the gun debate becomes a class issue and the predominately liberal anti-gun crowd is arguing from a place of privilege. What amazes is how they'll sing the black struggle in hoods and ghettos while subsequently trying to strip their few protections from the violence in those areas. It's like they think that because they live in areas where guns aren't necessary to deter violence everyone else must also live in those areas. While it might be true that most people in modern society can live in peaceful areas, that isn't true for everyone in an unequal society. And this is especially true when we have sentiments like this:

In Uvalde Texas 40 percent of the city's annual budget go to the police and yet they chose to sit and do nothing until the last minute. So what's the point of giving the police more funding when they aren't willing to do the job required of them?

If he thinks police are useless, and especially if he is one of those who think abolition of the police is necessary, then wouldn't that make the argument that the individual is responsible for their own safety? I would agree that the police as an institution have decayed like all of our institutions and aren't much better than the gangs they are supposed to protect us from, but that is why I believe in self-defense. Abolishing the police and abolishing the right to bear arms is completely insane and leaves people defenseless against the monsters that are contained in those bad neighborhoods.

And I think the current calls to bypass the Constitution really illustrates this privilege. The same people crying about how the Supreme Court overturning their own ruling violated the Constitution and their rights are the same people calling for ways to subvert the actual Constitution. If you want to amend the Constitution there is a certain process. You need 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate or among State legislators to propose an amendment. You then need 3/4ths of the States to actually ratify them and make them official parts of the Constitution.

If you think that is a pipe dream, then exactly. You are not the majority opinion on this and you either believe in democracy or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose when you adhere to majority will based on your pet issues. Abortion was never an official part of the Constitution and relied on a shaky ruling by the Supreme Court to pretend it was. Said Supreme Court can naturally overturn their own rulings anytime by the same process. The Second Amendment is an actual part of the Constitution and thus must be overturned by the same process that instated it. Good luck getting that many people onboard.

I'm all for anti-violence, but we are not there yet. Try claiming your utopian society doesn't need guns or violence when you actually successfully implement a utopian society free from violence and the need for guns. Ivory tower liberalism is the cancer killing the left.



Though speaking of violence, there is a very obvious elephant in the room when it comes to the abnormally large amount of violence in American society. Guns are the issue until facts prove there exist other societies with a robust gun culture and low amounts of gun violence. People love to compare America to countries with a low prevalence of guns and gun violence, but they never seem to want to control for biases by comparing America to other countries with a high prevalence of guns. Seems to me that America is the odd one out not due to a high prevalence of guns, but a high prevalence of violence. The US ranks right up there with cartel-laden Mexico and various war-torn countries in the Middle East.

Guns are the number one cause of gun violence yes (duh), but would removing guns lower the amount of violence? That's a question that's never answered and the implicit assumption is that guns are somehow the source of violence despite being a relatively modern invention in a history steeped in violence. Is violence itself a problem or is it that you just have a particular distaste for guns that's what's ultimately driving this? Why is it that mass shootings, despite being incredibly rare, seem to be the central driver of this conversation, but the "ordinary" violence is generally ignored? It's not frequent and constant gang violence that calls for the abolition of guns, but the rarest form of gun violence.

Is it because gang violence is quarantined to those poor neighborhoods (courtesy of the police) and thus the greater society is ultimately not concerned with what happens to those people? Would certainly jive with the desire to strip them of their protections in the pursuit of pet causes and why we even have the concept of poor or "bad" neighborhoods in the first place. And is it because mass shootings are one of the rare forms of violent crime that affect "normal" society that it gets more attention? You know, I personally think that's a bingo.

One of the most amazing things that is never mentioned is how there isn't a nonviolent solution to the topic of mass shootings. The right favor physical violence and that's why the solutions from them tend to be arming teachers and children to kill another person. The left pretend to be above violence, but merely outsource it to the government in the form of mass surveillance and tracking as well as the stripping of one's rights and freedoms. But there are no mainstream solutions that aren't steeped in violence coming from any side.

Isn't that amazing? A society that is confused about why random acts of violence happen is also completely incapable of coming up with nonviolent solutions to its problems. You beat your homeless in the hopes that they'll squat in other districts that beat them a little less bad instead of providing them with houses. You lock up drug offenders and build more prisons in the hopes of outpacing the growing number of abusers instead of providing people with a fulfilling life and a habitable environment and decriminalizing drugs. Your answer to the student loan crisis is to "forgive" them for society mandating advanced degrees for entry level jobs.

This country is incapable of coming up with nonviolent solutions to foreign and domestic problems and that's why it suffers unique consequences. The knee-jerk reaction from all Americans, regardless of ideology, is to subjugate, dominate, and annihilate their problems. War on terrorism, war on drugs, war on Christmas. We declare war on whatever it is we don't like. And before liberals try to foist this on conservatives, I don't see conservatives talking about subverting constitutional rights and people being too obsessed with their freedom. State-sanctioned violence is still violence.

The elephant in the room is that all Americans L-O-V-E violence. They might prefer different forms of violence, but they share a love for it all the same. One of their daily rituals is to "dunk on" (shame and emotionally hurt) people on the internet now. They publicly fantasize and masturbate about what they'll do to their perceived enemies once they subjugate them. Now they're physically going to rallies and demonstrations of their perceived enemies to "counter protest" AKA try to start violent conflict. Everything about them is now willfully being weaponized to hurt their perceived enemies. They gleefully gloat and cheer deaths of people from groups they don't like and every mass shooting seems to be a rush in figuring out the race and ideology of the perpetrator.

They are in multiple wars and are desperately trying to add another one in the form of Ukraine even as their economy is beginning to collapse. When they aren't attempting to shame a foreign country for not strictly adhering to American values, they are publicly calling for the deportation of their own for having a different opinion. There are nonstop calls for censorship, deplatforming, surveillance, and additional laws for people and opinions they don't like.

I saw a grown man on CNN cry tears of joy when Trump launched airstrikes on Syria for no reason.

Is it really any wonder that a society as obsessed with violence as the US has abnormally high rates of violence? Has anyone here recently thought about a problem that didn't start and end with identifying a problem group and then employing a violent solution? Are you even capable of thinking about a problem that doesn't entail destroying someone else, their feelings, their rights and freedom, as a first step?

You are a society in decline. Like all collapsing empires, that aggression that you wrought upon other countries is now being turned inward. You are no longer able to facilitate foreign wars and now you are seeking domestic ones. Why else would you be acting like color gangs when it comes to solving the problems of this country? Americans aren't interested in solutions to the problems so much as whether the solutions would make them feel good. If a solution can't be used to subjugate another person or further their self-righteousness it doesn't even enter their periphery.


This is a fundamental problem that banning guns, which are at most a symptom of this issue, won't address. And it's a problem that won't be solved because the solution is being willfully ignored. It's being willfully ignored both because Americans are completely incapable of admitting fault and because the solution means taking more peaceful routes and removing the last joy that Americans can feel: Sadism.

While this debate will inevitably pass until the next mass shooting in favor of more recent culture wars, I think you're going to find more important things to worry about in the coming collapse. Guns might end up feeling like a necessity for more people in due time.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't blame victims.

I blame systemic failures in quickly identifying divergent patterns of social normative behavior before tragedy strikes.

If someone wants to kill they will find a way.

Prevention efforts should be focused on removing the triggers (no pun intended) that drive people to kill.

The law was never the problem.

But because the actual problem is so far evolved now the only way to act IS to revisit the one law people of all walks of life remember from learning at a young age: you have a right to bear arms in America.

(And yes you can carry a sword Alicorn ).

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

If someone wanted to shoot you with a handgun, keeping a semiautomatic in your back pocket isn't going to save you if they have already pulled the trigger.

What stops a baddie with a gun? Man **** if I know. But I would take kevlar, riot shield, an RFID notification system, a restriction of firearms from schools/churches, and almost anything aside from being the good guy with a bigger gun.

 

[ZephyrZ]

I think the right to bear arms should apply to nukes.

I wanna walk into a Walmart and buy a nuke, America.

Actually while we're at it let's give all teachers nukes. That'll end gun violence for sure. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Sucumbio]

I think the right to bear arms should apply to nukes.

I wanna walk into a Walmart and buy a nuke, America.

Actually while we're at it let's give all teachers nukes. That'll end gun violence for sure. What could possibly go wrong?

Ha!

The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Nuclear Weapons

The Second Amendment has nothing specifically to do with guns.

www.google.com

But to be serious a moment, only a federally licensed manufacturer can make weapons involving chemicals, of any kind (including enriched plutonium lol!).

That's one reason why this Amendment isn't the problem it's the Government's handling of it. But here's the irony... It's a States Rights issue especially when viewed in the humours light of the article's example... That of the US Armed Forces invading a member of the Republic. What this really means is there's a conflict of interest because it's up to the states to define how it's citizens will prepare for such a happening, and yet to do so fairly would require approval from a potential belligerent.

So, honestly the only way I see things changing is with the involvement of the Executive Branch or the Supreme Court. Amend the Constitution. Issue an Executive Order.

But then the Legislature which makes up most of America's opinions due to sheer sample volume, would step in. Checks and balances between the 3 are also clearly outlined in the Constitution and no Amendment will change those key aspects.

It's possible Congress could pass a law that doesn't violate the Constitution (as in if someone sued and it went to SCOTUS we know it'd be rejected even for hearing) and would be properly Enforceable as is the Executive's responsibility. This avoids an Amendment and an Executive Action.

Such legislation is actually up for a vote!

Oh wait no it's not... They almost did.

Then again it wasn't gonna do much anyway.

If someone wanted to shoot you with a handgun, keeping a semiautomatic in your back pocket isn't going to save you if they have already pulled the trigger.



What stops a baddie with a gun? Man **** if I know. But I would take kevlar, riot shield, an RFID notification system, a restriction of firearms from schools/churches, and almost anything aside from being the good guy with a bigger gun.

Absolutely good ideas actually.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Something that no one has mentioned in this thread as well is that gun violence is a symptom of the many failures within our country and is never an intrinsic issue. I'm surprised that since 2021, no one has brought up 2020 in terms of it being used as a contextual data set as it involves perhaps one of the highest homicide rates that we have seen in the United States. This data set clearly correlates historically with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of George Floyd in May, and a subsequent increase in altercations of police brutality against activists (Minneapolis police hunting activists incident "Elmer Fudd" impression) and vice versa as communities began to increase their distrust in the police with their systemic and systematic mismanagement and abuse of using the blue code of silence as a means to shield inept and malicious officers who should have been retired years ago.

Figure A. Homicide Rate in the US

Figure B. Firearm Sales in the US

An even more core issue that doesn't get any press coverage is the fact that suicides in the United Stated still dwarfed homicides in 2020 despite it hitting ATHs that we have not seen in thirty years. More than half of gun deaths in 2020 were recorded to be suicides with less than half being homicides even if you were to account for the "other" category to be unaccounted for homicides. What this means is that at the core of American society, there is a severe mental health crisis that continues to go ignored, unaddressed, and brushed aside while we have lobbyists on both sides of issues like gun control, fund/defund the police, and massive networks painting this as a safety/protection issue. When honestly the people who feel obligated to buy a gun out of necessity for self protection are likely doing so more out of mental insecurity. Perhaps these people live in a high crime rate area, poorly policed or perhaps police are the issue in these areas for these people. Perhaps it could be due to 2020 being a record high for job unemployment which also was unprecedented as the economy had been eliminating unemployment at a gradual and persistent pace. It's impossible to account for every single variable, but with the second amendment as is and historical precedent as a guidepost, it is highly likely that when guns are purchased at high volume that it subsequently will result in high homicides with low clearance rates.

Figure C. Suicide vs Homicides for 2020 via Gun Deaths

Figure D. Job Employment in 2020

The issue with how we have perceived the second amendment and have framed this question within the very context of this thread itself is that we observe it as a right of protection. I do not fundamentally believe that if our country continues to exist in a state in which its citizens are under severe stress that medications like antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, narcotics, alcohol consumption to the point of delirium tremens with cirrhosis and oncogenesis (cancer), and consumption of reality altering medications like psilocybin are increasingly consumed because people perceive the actual world to be nasty, brutish, and short that this is an environment in which we can openly endorse that everyone having access to a gun correlates with safety. I do not believe that when we are in a state of inflation so much so that the people who pack your groceries cannot afford groceries when they go home due to uncontrolled inflation is a safe environment for people to own guns. Perhaps there is a United States where people actually own houses, own a slice of America which involves extensive swaths of private property, and a sense of pride in protecting America as a whole and not just people of the same race that would merit the consideration for people to own firearms. However, the threat has never been some existential armed boogeyman who creeps in the shadows and ambushes in the middle of the night with a handgun depriving you of the American dream. The American dream has been deprived from us by short sighted greed and a sense of taking a share of what is mine with no intention of considering what will happen ten years down the road to our future generations.

Nihilism runs so rampant that consequentialism is the de facto normative theory and people create their own moral framework according to the flavor of the month rather than attempting to adopt an axiomatic approach that they can adhere to as a definitive moral code that can be applied to anyone, anywhere, and anytime. Religion is so dead in the United States that I can't feel any spirituality in a Baptist, Methodist, Protestant, Baptist, or Anglican church. I'm the ****ing crazy person who still tries once in a blue moon to find a shred of God in Christianity while all my peers basically see church as a function to find some "good girls" to hook up with after being burned by bad dates at the bar. And in the midst of being someone trying to find meaning in a meaningless world, people want to argue that what they really need are guns.

 

[Doc Monocle]

I do not think an adjustment is really necessary. The amendment literally allows for the interpretation that while a "well-regulated" militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the common person to bear arms will not be infringed upon.

This has two important consequences:

1. That a militia, as opposed to the civilian, is necessary implies that it is adequately equipped for the task of securing the peace. This adequate equipment hardly necessitates the possession of military-grade equipment by the civilian for security.

2. The amendment still does allow for the bearing of arms, the 'meager' of which (such as a handgun) is sufficient for the civilian, whether military equipment is needed or not.

Loosely speaking, I often hear that it is not of our national identity to tear each other to pieces. If that is so, then those who would testify against that with their actions (say, with threats of gun violence) are not Americans, 'not bound by its constitution, and should be deported,' and if we are truly citizens of the U.S., by that condition, then we really have no need to fear anything from ourselves; no need to regulate, nor to bear military equipment in the common populace. On the other hand, if it is our "identity," to do such, then perhaps we should be afraid, and we should regulate sharply any tool designed to destroy the fellow human beyond recognition on our soil. In that case, anyone who does NOT threaten gun violence is the one who is 'un-American,' 'is not bound by the constitution, and should be deported.' Either way, if we claim any sort of "identity," then we already have war on our land, necessitating a militia for its security. Let that be of use in ANY situation which threatens the peace now.

My two cents, in the brief:

If a militia is necessary for a situation of security, then let the militia handle it with their tools. If not, then neither is their equipment. The Second Amendment is fine as it is. There is no need to adjust it, and military weapons would never be privately needed, provided a militia always did its job where appropriate. If one finds themself or their family in a situation where military-grade equipment is absolutely necessary, then that family is probably not the only one in a state of worry! If gun control is needed, then the amendment does not need to be changed to provide for it, and it should be without contest that decision. If it has, then perhaps our integrity as a nation is not such as either side claims it to be if they do... Two cents in.