Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

[Daedalus X]

In another thread a member made the following claim.

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?

[Clownboat]

I'm a Brit. Look, I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart, and want you all to enjoy happier, safer lives.

Random mother: If you cared about my safety and managed to take my gun away, how would I protect my family from a home invasion for example. This argument is valid and could be discussed.
2ndRateMind: 'You just love guns more than each others children'. This shuts down any possible arguments we could discuss and is why you have lost me.

I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart and want you to enjoy better debating.

[Purple Knight]

But even if it wasn't, are you really suggesting that c20 history justifies school massacres in our day and age?

It's a tradeoff. It's not just, remove guns and no more school shootings. It's remove guns and in all likelihood fewer school shootings + consequences of removing guns. That's what's being weighed.

Personally I'm not willing to take Granny Weatherall's gun that she shoots herself in the foot with every day, even if the only reason she has it is that she likes it. Even at worst it's not about loving guns. The American ideal is more about being unwilling to take things away from people who do love those things, even if it puts us in slight danger.

For example, I also hate tiny foo dogs, a lot more than I hate guns, and one even tore my leg open at one point. Nasty, shiftless little blights on the planet, immune to consequences because oh he's so small, while larger specimens get put down for a stray play bite. I fantasise about crushing their skulls in regularly. Still, if someone is trying to take your tiny foo dog, this catman is going to fight for you.

Now, you can say, but, the children didn't sign up to potentially be shot. They didn't sign up for this ideal that Russian Roulettes their life so somebody else can have something they merely wish to have. It's a fair point, only tempered a bit by bullying being tied up with these massacres. The vast majority of children gladly participate in a social hierarchy that leaves those at the bottom with no recourse against torment but violence. But the goth girl in the corner who didn't participate? Yeah she dies too, and that's why it's a fair point.

However, you stop bullying and you stop a decent amount of school shootings. Since that's all criminalising guns can boast, I say leave Granny alone, don't talk to her about what she has to sacrifice for poor dead Billy, unless you (here meaning the rest of society) has already sacrificed to help poor dead Billy. Clean up the public schools first. They're cesspits.

[2ndRateMind]

I'm a Brit. Look, I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart, and want you all to enjoy happier, safer lives.

...
2ndRateMind: 'You just love guns more than each others children'. This shuts down any possible arguments we could discuss and is why you have lost me.

Read my post #57, in which I explain why the rest of the developed world looks on in askance at the USA in this respect. You should be able to find something there to disagree with. Of course, if you can't, that would tend to prove the matter.

I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart and want you to enjoy better debating.

Facile. And I think the topic more important than to attempt to make cheap points around it..

Finally, if you are going to quote me, please do so verbatim. Otherwise you might (inadvertantly, I'm sure) give the wrong impression. Copy and paste are your friends.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Clean up the public schools first. They're cesspits.

Fine. Try it your way, first. It is, as I previously pointed out, your country. I just suggest you keep my way as a plan B.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

I'm a Brit. Look, I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart, and want you all to enjoy happier, safer lives.

...
2ndRateMind: 'You just love guns more than each others children'. This shuts down any possible arguments we could discuss and is why you have lost me.

Read my post #57, in which I explain why the rest of the developed world looks askance on the USA in this respect. You should be able to find something there to disagree with. Of course, if you can't, that would tend to prove the matter.

I'm not getting at you for the sake of it, but because I genuinely have your best interests at heart and want you to enjoy better debating.

Facile. And I think the topic more important than to attempt to make cheap points around it..

Finally, if you are going to quote me, please do so verbatim. Otherwise you might (inadvertantly, I'm sure) give the wrong impression. Copy and paste are your friends.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Copy/paste, which like you said are my friend: "Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children?"
How I relayed your position that I did not claim to be quoting: "'You (I'm American to clarify) just love guns more than each others children'."

Best wishes to you as well and try to remember to be rational. The above about quoting was once again not.

[2ndRateMind]

Best wishes to you as well and try to remember to be rational. The above about quoting was once again not.

Just laying down a marker. Accuracy in quoting is an ordinary academic courtesy. And what I actually said was:

Or is the truth, as I suspect, that Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children?

There is a significant difference between a question seeking to solicit information, and a statement seeking to impart it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Daedalus X]

Many countries have high gun ownership but the killing of children with guns is rare. For example Switzerland, high gun ownership but I could not find a single mass shooting of children.

Precisely. Maybe the Swiss love each other's children more than you do, or maybe it's just that they are trained better during their national service that, as part of the civil miltia, they are expected to be better disciplined than your civilians are.

I think that we agree on this point, it is not the guns that are the problem but rather it is the failure to love.

We don't have guns in private hands (apart from hunting rifles and shot guns, under strict license), but we still have a nation. The defense of yours does not depend on an armed rabble, but on a professional, federal military.

How can you say you still have a nation, you have the same situation as in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Over the last three years your nations went from liberal democracies to full Nazi. If these nations had more guns the police would not have trampled down all these harmless people. So, what is there to prevent this from happening again when more tyrants assume political office?



A failure to love can't be solved with a gun ban any more than a failure to love can be solved with a car ban.

[Purple Knight]

Clean up the public schools first. They're cesspits.

Fine. Try it your way, first. It is, as I previously pointed out, your country. I just suggest you keep my way as a plan B.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm actually on the side of gun control, ultimately, because I took modern politics out of it and thought about whether I would wear a mutant collar if that was what was on the table, whether I would force them on my mutant friends. That doesn't mean I'm on the side of gun control in every situation. It just means I don't think there's any overriding natural right to have any weapon you want, yes, even if it's part of you.

And I would wear a mutant collar. I would give up something actually precious to me like my superpowers. But I have a couple of conditions. This needs to actually make me safer. I am not putting on this collar, well knowing nobody's going to take it off me again and I'm now stuck as a mundane, unless I have excellent proof that it's going to be enforced, consistent, fair, and above all actually protect me.

It's actually because the American government does not have the best history enforcing things, especially against real criminals who always seem to have a sea of rights, rights, rights, piled up to the moon that stop anyone from punishing them, that I don't think it's the best option.

I don't buy that guns protect people. Some studies say yes, but that's not enough for me. But look. Look at this Bacardi commercial where they proudly boast that they broke the law!

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/75Qh/bacardi-go ... since-1862

Do you see this?! Because I see it and it makes me pretty sure that what will actually happen is that criminals will proudly break the law, laugh about how it's illegal for the police to toss their homes, pile their rights, rights, rights up to the sky and tangle everyone in too much red tape to actually take their guns, and continue to shoot people. And everyone will exalt them for it.

[Purple Knight]

If these nations had more guns the police would not have trampled down all these harmless people. So, what is there to prevent this from happening again when more tyrants assume political office?

This doesn't work. The American government is already as corrupt as a government can possibly be. As corrupt as the Venezuelan government at least. You can't just shoot the government to get rid of it, and if they want you in jail they will arrest you and you will be in jail.

Guns protecting people from the government would entail armed militias with military-grade weapons that were independent of the government, or at very least the Federal government.

[Clownboat]

Best wishes to you as well and try to remember to be rational. The above about quoting was once again not.

Just laying down a marker. Accuracy in quoting is an ordinary academic courtesy. And what I actually said was:

Or is the truth, as I suspect, that Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children?

There is a significant difference between a question seeking to solicit information, and a statement seeking to impart it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This has gone on long enough...
Do you think Americans love their guns more than they love each other's children? Remember what you asked and that you noted that you do in fact suspect it (bolded above) to be a true statement.