Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Post #11

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 10 by Clownboat]
The thesis is simple. Where there are fewer guns there are fewer shootings. At the same time, using a gun in a crime becomes an automatic sentence of life without parole.
Any gun that is part of a collection must be rendered inoperative. If you want to shoot, your guns must be stored at an armory.
The wannabee heroes ignore that guns are far more likely to kill the gun-owners or their families than they are to be used against home invaders. Gun ownership should go the way of chattel slavery. We can't stop all gun crime but we can certainly cut it down by strictly regulating the ownership, supply, and use of firearms.
Other countries have done it.




:study:

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7876
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Post #12

Post by Clownboat »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 10 by Clownboat]
The thesis is simple. Where there are fewer guns there are fewer shootings. At the same time, using a gun in a crime becomes an automatic sentence of life without parole.
Any gun that is part of a collection must be rendered inoperative. If you want to shoot, your guns must be stored at an armory.
The wannabee heroes ignore that guns are far more likely to kill the gun-owners or their families than they are to be used against home invaders. Gun ownership should go the way of chattel slavery. We can't stop all gun crime but we can certainly cut it down by strictly regulating the ownership, supply, and use of firearms.
Other countries have done it.




:study:
That seemed very emotional (wannabee heroes) (chattel slavery) and gave me little to respond to.

I said: "My point is that making things illegal would affect those who abide by the law. Like myself. Someone that does not commit drive-bys.
I don't see how taking my hunting guns would affect the result you are after here in this example."


Nice attempt at comparing gun ownership to slavery though.
(My hunting guns are in one building, ammo in another. Am I to be one of your wannabee heroes? Since I approve of responsible gun ownership, should I be compared to a slave owner?)

I'm OK with changes to our gun laws btw. What I would like to see is something proposed that would take them from the criminals though, or just as importantly, more focus on mental health (what I would argue is the actual problem).

If someone wants to kill another and all guns had vanished from the planet, the killing will take place none the less. On top of that, I view all accidental deaths as a travesty. Like a car accident. We regulate who can drive though, we don't take away the vehicle. I'm a responsible driver and I don't think my vehicles should be taken from me.

Taking guns from law abiding citizens would be an easy task. It's taking them from the criminals that I see as a problem.
Therefore it leaves this responsible gun owner with some questions.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Post #13

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 12 by Clownboat]
"Taking guns from law abiding citizens would be an easy task. It's taking them from the criminals that I see as a problem."

Well, you would only have to take them from criminals once. Then provide them room and board and security, maybe some non-toxic crayons and a supply of coloring books.

:study:

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7876
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Post #14

Post by Clownboat »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 12 by Clownboat]
"Taking guns from law abiding citizens would be an easy task. It's taking them from the criminals that I see as a problem."

Well, you would only have to take them from criminals once. Then provide them room and board and security, maybe some non-toxic crayons and a supply of coloring books.

:study:
I assume you would employ men with guns to take the guns from the other men? If these men don't willfully give up their guns (remember, they are criminals), I assume we will allow the other men with guns to use their guns to get the guns from the other men. The ones that aren't killed would then be caged (but given coloring books?).

We already have a failed war on drugs. I fear you are advocating for a failed war on guns with an emphasis on 'war'.

I think we would do far better with educating and revamping gun laws. If more gun owners were responsible with their fire arms, we could prevent some accidental deaths (don't store guns and ammo in the same building or the importance of electrical gun locks for example). If more people were aware of mental health issues/signs, we could prevent deaths and perhaps even mass killings (whether buy gun or some other means).

Sending men with guns to take guns from other men with guns doesn't sound like a good solution to me. Even if we are giving them crayons in return.

Remember, I'll give up my guns freely as I'm law abiding. It is not gun owners like myself that are the worry though.

I would hate for this to be a reality:
Accidental gun deaths on the decline. (I would approve of this part obviously).
Tens of thousands killed and imprisoned due to the war on guns.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Post #15

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 14 by Clownboat]
The response to adrenaline flow is fight, flight or freeze. Conservatives, according to neuroscientists, tend to react before thinking. But most are not going to fight, and there is no longer anywhere to run. All that chest thumping and barroom beer braggadocio will largely fall to silence when face with the overwhelming force of well regulated militia with armor and gunships. They will sit in silence for a while, then talking about football.
And remember, conservatives value obedience over justice, so even most of the conservative members of the militia are going to obey.

:study:

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post #16

Post by 2ndRateMind »

AgnosticBoy wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: So, it seems to me that properly construed, the second amendment champions the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, within the context of a well regulated militia, where that militia is considered necessary to the security of the free state. If the security of the state is not threatened, there is no need for a well regulated militia. And if the militia is unnecessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms evaporates. The second amendment, on examination, certainly does not justify the the widespread and unregulated distribution of fire-arms the NRA might like it to.
While I'm not worried about Alabama attacking another state but I am worried about the Federal government abusing their power and forcing states to comply.
It's your government. You elected it. If you don't trust the people you elected, that is not a problem to be rectified by a dispersed right to carry firearms, just by a better class of politician, and (dare I say) a better educated electorate.

Best wishes, 2RM,
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7876
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Post #17

Post by Clownboat »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 14 by Clownboat]
The response to adrenaline flow is fight, flight or freeze. Conservatives, according to neuroscientists, tend to react before thinking. But most are not going to fight, and there is no longer anywhere to run. All that chest thumping and barroom beer braggadocio will largely fall to silence when face with the overwhelming force of well regulated militia with armor and gunships. They will sit in silence for a while, then talking about football.
And remember, conservatives value obedience over justice, so even most of the conservative members of the militia are going to obey.

:study:
Slaying me with irony I see.
Guns are a problem!
We need men with guns to take care of this problem where men have guns!

(The thinking seems to be)
If we give the 2nd set of men good enough guns, the 1st group of men, most of them anyway will just drink beer and watch football.

It's almost as if you are ignoring the fraction of peoples that will not drink beer or watch football and you certainly seem to be ignoring that I'm addressing criminals and not conservatives.

We have gun enthusiests and those that are apathetic and everything inbetween.
I have guns for hunting (of which I don't partake in much these days as my girls consume most of my time). I store my guns in one building and ammo in another. I do not own firearms for self defense (though they could be, just not reasonably of course).

I feel like I'm middle ground when it comes to guns.
Where would you think you fall?
Just curious if you think you may fall to an extreme (or perhaps I'm not as middle ground as I think I am).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

AgnosticBoy
Sage
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Post #18

Post by AgnosticBoy »

2ndRateMind wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: So, it seems to me that properly construed, the second amendment champions the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, within the context of a well regulated militia, where that militia is considered necessary to the security of the free state. If the security of the state is not threatened, there is no need for a well regulated militia. And if the militia is unnecessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms evaporates. The second amendment, on examination, certainly does not justify the the widespread and unregulated distribution of fire-arms the NRA might like it to.
While I'm not worried about Alabama attacking another state but I am worried about the Federal government abusing their power and forcing states to comply.
It's your government. You elected it. If you don't trust the people you elected, that is not a problem to be rectified by a dispersed right to carry firearms, just by a better class of politician, and (dare I say) a better educated electorate.

Best wishes, 2RM,
Seeing how the Democrats are calling Trump presidency a dictatorship, I don't think what I'm saying is too far-fetched.

I can also say that my voting is not a matter of getting what I really want but nowadays, with all the dishonesty and corruption, it is about voting for the lesser of two evils.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post #19

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Daedalus X wrote: In another thread a member made the following claim.
Danmark wrote: You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The 2d amendment was not created to facilitate armed rebellion against the very country the Constitution created. As it says itself, it was created so a 'well regulated militia' could protect the State.
Question for debate, why did the founders create the second amendment?
Why did the founding fathers give you the second amendment? Clearly because they foresaw, approved, and wanted, the school massacre shootings of innocent children.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Post #20

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 17 by Clownboat]

"Slaying me with irony I see.
Guns are a problem!
We need men with guns to take care of this problem where men have guns!
"

More specifically, we need well-regulated, well-trained, disciplined persons with guns to take care of the problem violence until it can be taken by well-regulated, well-trained, and disciplined persons without guns.

A terrorist with a knife killed one and stabbed another before being killed by police. A terrorist with a semi-automatic weapon would almost certainly claimed more victims.
Just because we can't get a utopia doesn't mean we can't make things better.


:study: :study:

Post Reply