Ask Your Question today
like in other countries school shootings don't happen because, guns aren't allowed.
in the first place you only needed guns because everyone can have guns, including crazy mentally ill people, and criminals.
other countries prolly just have to deal with knives, which the us also have to deal with in general. except they have guns to also worry about.
the thing is there are other countries that allow guns and yet they don't have as common mass shootings as america does, i think america itself is the problem
I believe you will find that Iceland has more guns per head of population than the USA, yet the wacky vikings don't go around killing each other.
I wholeheartedly agree. America is a unique place. What works for europe wont have the same effect in america. In fact it might make the situation somehow worse.
Also it's impossible to enforce. So let's go with the do nothing option as it's the cheapest and doesnt require more work.
The solutions that are free and dont require much work are the ones that tend to be implemented. People are lazy, get used to it.
Nah fuck that. I'm a Brit and even I see the reason for it. Firstly you can overthrow a tyrannical goverment much easier than a non-armed populace and secondly if you're invaded then you can fight a bloody hard guerilla war.
No you can't eliminate a basic right but it must be updated to the times. Ban assault rifles and high capacity clips. Background checks and close gunshot loopholes.
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, about 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes each year, making alcohol the fourth-leading preventable cause of death in America. By comparison, guns are far less dangerous. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports less than 33,000 people die each year from gun violence, and of those, nearly 20,000 are suicides. That means alcohol is more than twice as deadly as guns in the United States and 650 percent more deadly if suicides are excluded from the comparison.
At the risk of being downvoted into oblivion, we wouldn't have to remove the second amendment, just interpret it more literally. It reads:
"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."
A bunch of dudes in wifebeaters with ARs isn't a well-regulated militia, they aren't the National Guard, and they aren't doing anything to contribute to the security of free states. They aren't significant or serious protection from our government or foreign powers and haven't been for a long time because military technology has far outclassed them.
Not that it matters, since the 2023 US armed populace is just as likely to attack its government as its government is to attack the populace. Meaning, not at all. Not because they're afraid of the guns, but because they know that would spell the end of the United States as a country. We're not exactly loved the world over. As it is, the biggest threats to our lives right now are the people in our communities. You're protecting yourself from them. I don't trust my government, but the last thing I think they're going to do is kill me. At least, not in a way anyone's going to be able to react to.
So I don't really care either way. I think guns should be further restricted, but the logistics of removing the guns is its own issue since you can't just snap your fingers and make them disappear.
But do note, it says "The people's right.... shall not be infringed". It does not say "the people in the militia". It's the same people as mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.
The word Regulated has also meant "To keep in functioning order".
As I mentioned in an above post There are something like 1.9 million active duty & 778,000 reserve military personnel in the US. There are about 2 million active duty Chinese military personnel. The civilian population of the US owns about 20 MILLION AR15's. They are world's largest standing civilian army.
Just look at the problems we had in Afghanistan & we are supposed to be the world's most advanced military. Imagine if those Afghani's had 20 million AR's? Climate change is a phrase that can also be applied to politics. Just because things are stable today doesn't mean it will always be that way.
It says "the people's right shall not be infringed" under the conditions of being "a well regulated militia" and "being necessary to the security of a free state". There's otherwise no reason for that first half to be there, it could just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", no commas. At best, you could say it was a lack of foresight because it's an old document and it was actually meant to be read backwards ("the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state and forms the basis of a well-regulated militia", though that's not what it actually says).
In the age of nuclear arms, carpet bombings, and guerrilla warfare, the number of troops in your army isn't very important. If the Afghani's had 20 million ARs (I don't know how many they had), things would have gone exactly the same way.
It's there as an example. The entire Constitution is based on clarifying the rights of the people, not the government.
So you think a government is going to use a nuclear weapon on it's own soil? No one wants to use a nuclear weapon because it makes the land uninhabitable for centuries. And if there was a guerilla war, who do you think would be the guerillas? Armed citizens defending themselves.
If the Afghanis had 20 million AR15's ever other person in Afghanistan would have been armed on top of whatever weapons they already had and we'd have had a rougher time than we did & left that place years ago.
Definition Guerilla War, from CIA.gov- The term guerrilla (Spanish, “little war”) originated in the early 19th century during the Peninsular War when, after the defeat of Spain's regular forces, Spanish irregulars and
civilians rose up against the French occupying forces.
No, bombings would be the most plausible. Not that it would be functionally different from just nuking us since, like I said, it would mean the end of the United States either way.
As for Afghanistan, this wasn't Vietnam. We happen to have a very well trained and equipped military, they weren't being held off by simple rifle fire. A lot of our casualties were from RPGs, suicide bombings, and car bombs, weapons that you will note, the American people already cannot legally own. When that Chinese balloon floated over the US, an AR-15 isn't what shot it down, a jet with a missile is what shot it down. When Ukraine requests weapons, they request tanks, jets, and explosives, not AR-15s. I don't know why you're romanticizing the AR-15, but there's more to war than simply being "armed."
You'll still have guns being used to murder people, just now there will be no guns in the hands of the common citizen to defend oneself.
Also, it'd take a huge amount of political fuckery to overrule an amendment, something put in by the founding fathers themselves.
I have a feeling that Americans are going to need to protect their homes soon.
Millions of people have been killed in countries with strict gun laws by their own governments. They've also had their borders & names changed by invading forces.
Armed citizens guarantee our freedom. Otherwise you are just relying on the promise of politicians & we all know how much you can depend on the promises of politicians.
There are something like 1.9 million active duty & 778,000 reserve military personnel in the US. There are about 2 million active duty Chinese military personnel. The civilian population of the US owns about 20 MILLION AR15's. They are world's largest standing civilian army.
I sleep better at night knowing that.
I feel very safe when I go out with my family and I have a 9mm concealed. I dont have to wait 20 minutes for another man with a badge to get there with a gun to save me from someone with a knife or gun or whatever. I can protect my family myself.
If it was up to me the answer to gun violence would be more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. The places where gun violence is the worst in the USA ironically had the most gun control. The criminals only have the guns and they know it. They terrorize the community. In the history of America theres never been a mass shooting at a shooting range. Its always gun free zones they go to for a reason.
The second shit hits the fan all your registered firearms are going to put you on the “armed” list and your feds will be poppin’ ya
For all you legal purists
Go go gadget ghost gun
Don't tell me your dreaming about trolls now. Make sure to hide that from your girlfriend, she might get jealous!
Don't argue with me then try to play victim. Argue back or downvote and leave. You are not welcome in my website.
Use what's left of your brain to make an actual counter argument instead of attempting to insult me.
comparing an addiction to a weapon isnt gonna make you seem right miss tumblr
Seeing how removing it would be in no uncertain terms impossible even if the amendment was agreed upon with a overwhelming majority, I'm going to say naw.
In fact I'd reckon that a lot of weapons will be lost in a boating accident so no need to check.
If we remove the second amendment, does the third get bumped to second and so on, or do we skip the second slot when teaching the amendments?
Or are we gonna replace it with something more badass like mandatory all potholes be fixed no questions asked, or removal or red light cameras and speed traps.
Wait no! Second amendment decrees the moon is made of swiss cheese!