Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

not the point-try again. I just keep waiting to hear what those who want to confiscate guns will do if it ever comes to that?

 

I said, the threat and application of force.

 

I don't see a response to the question I asked.

 

What's the question?

 

The world is full of 'free' countries without a second amendment. We don't need one, and should not have one.

 

not if you are a competitive shooter or gun collector.

 

I couldn't care less about competitive shooters or gun collectors. Let them collect stamps instead.

 

No. IEDs were more effective at killing us troops than rifles.

“
In the US case, data collected from ‘Honor the Fallen’, a database created by the Military Times, shows that, of the 5,413 US soldiers killed on operation, where the cause of death was known, some 2,640 were killed by IEDs..

2,591 of these were male, 48 were female. In total, 1,790 troops died from IEDs in Iraq and 828 Afghanistan.

This means that 48.7% of total military deaths between the 9th September, 2011 and the 9th October, 2020 were attributed to IEDs; in Iraq, 52% of forces killed died from IEDs, in Afghanistan it was 48.2%.” https://reliefweb.int/report/world/decade-global-ied-harm-reviewed

 

I understand your concern regarding the potential impact of a repeal of the Second Amendment on the criminal element, as clearly you are concerned, hence the question. However, obviously, a repeal of the Second Amendment would not magically eliminate all firearms from the hands of criminals. Instead, it would provide the government with the tools necessary to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms and use them to commit crimes.

It is also important to consider that any policy change, regardless of its nature, takes time to implement and see the benefits. This is true for a repeal of the Second Amendment as well. However, given the growing problem of gun violence in the United States, it is necessary to start considering long-range solutions to address this issue.

In addition, while the criminal element will always be a challenge to regulate, there are many other factors that contribute to the high levels of gun violence in the United States. For example, the easy availability of firearms, a lack of comprehensive background checks, and a patchwork of inconsistent gun laws all contribute to the problem. By repealing the Second Amendment and creating a unified system of regulation, we can take steps to address these contributing factors and make our communities safer for everyone.

In conclusion, while it may take time to see the benefits of a repeal of the Second Amendment, it is a necessary step towards addressing the growing problem of gun violence in the United States. By providing the government with the tools necessary to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, we can take steps to reduce the levels of gun violence and make America a safer place for all.

 

Me neither and I've asked in multiple threads. Let me repeat:
Let's also repeal the first amendment. Since it's been proven that over-hyping mass shootings creates more shootings, among other things, why wouldn't you limit the people that cause that harm?

 

I've given long range solutions. Long range solutions that address ALL crime. Not just "gun violence". Yet they're always ignored by those that wish to ultimately get guns banned. And you.

 

I understand your concerns about the purpose of the Second Amendment and the potential consequences of its repeal.

In regards to your first concern, while the original purpose of the Second Amendment was indeed to ensure the ability of citizens to resist tyranny and maintain a check on government power, it's important to note that the reality of the issue has changed since the amendment was ratified. Today, the primary threat posed by firearms is domestic in nature, not from foreign armies or government tyranny. While the original purpose of the amendment may still be relevant in certain contexts, it is important to consider the changing nature of the threat and the need for regulation to address the current reality of gun violence.

Regarding your question about the benefits of repeal, a repeal of the Second Amendment would not necessarily lead to a ban on personal ownership of firearms, but would instead allow for states to regulate firearms in a manner that they see fit. This could lead to a more unified, nationwide system of regulation and make it easier for law enforcement to track and regulate firearms. As for your question about the black market, while it is true that a repeal of the Second Amendment would not guarantee an end to the black market for firearms, it would give states the ability to regulate firearms and make it more difficult for firearms to enter the black market in the first place.

Finally, regarding your concern about the relationship between laws and gun violence, it's important to note that the issue is complex and cannot be attributed solely to cultural factors. While cultural attitudes towards firearms certainly play a role, there is also a significant body of evidence suggesting that more restrictive firearms laws are associated with lower levels of gun violence. By repealing the Second Amendment, states would be given the ability to regulate firearms and potentially reduce the levels of gun violence in the United States.

In conclusion, while the repeal of the Second Amendment is not a silver bullet solution to the problem of gun violence, it is important to consider the possibility as a means of addressing the growing problem and allowing states to regulate firearms in a manner that they see fit.

 

I understand your skepticism towards the idea of repealing the Second Amendment, but it is important to consider all possible solutions to address the issue of gun violence in the United States. While it may seem like a daunting task, it is important to have a broad and open discussion about all options, including the possibility of repeal.

In addition, the idea of repeal is not necessarily a solution in and of itself, but rather a means to open up the possibility for other solutions and regulations. A repeal could allow for the creation of a nationwide system of regulation, making it easier for law enforcement to track and regulate firearms, and reducing the number of guns in circulation.

It is also important to note that gun violence is a complex issue with multiple causes, including cultural and societal factors. While a repeal of the Second Amendment may not solve all of these issues, it could be one step towards reducing the level of gun violence and making America a safer place.

Ultimately, the goal is to find effective solutions to the problem of gun violence, and the repeal of the Second Amendment should be considered as part of that larger conversation.

 

I love that attitude since it proves I am right. People like you have a cultural hatred of gun owners and push gun bans to punish us. The bullshit that crime control motivates people like you is quickly disproven by these comments. The good thing is you cannot do a damn thing about us owning guns.

 

you plan on collecting all those guns if the second amendment is repealed?

 

Thank you for your perspective. I understand that the idea of repealing the Second Amendment may be met with skepticism and sarcasm, but I believe it's important to have a serious and respectful conversation about all solutions, even those that may seem unpopular or unrealistic. The issue of gun violence is a complex and deeply ingrained problem that requires all solutions to be considered, no matter how difficult they may seem. I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue and I hope that we can continue to have productive and respectful discussions on this important issue.

 

gun violence has almost no relevance behind the motivations of those who want to ban lawful gun ownership.

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the importance of the Constitution and the oath you took to defend it. I appreciate your passion and commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

However, it is important to recognize that the Constitution is not a static document and has undergone significant changes throughout its history, including the addition of the Bill of Rights and later amendments. The purpose of considering a repeal of the Second Amendment is not to "tinker with" the Constitution, but rather to engage in a critical examination of its provisions in light of changing societal norms and current challenges.

The issue of gun violence is a complex and pressing problem that affects many Americans, and it is important to consider all possible solutions in an effort to find a way to reduce the harm caused by firearms. Repealing the Second Amendment would not guarantee an immediate end to gun violence, but it could lead to stricter regulation of firearms and provide a framework for addressing this important issue.

Ultimately, I believe that it is our duty as citizens to engage in a thoughtful and respectful dialogue about the issues facing our country, even when we have differing opinions. Only through a robust exchange of ideas can we hope to arrive at the best possible solutions to the challenges we face.

 

What other rights do you advocate stripping everyone of because of the actions of a very small number of individuals?

 

Well it's certainly worth exploring many ideas are but I think the second amendment has more support now than ever in modern history.

I'd argue that first there's no such thing as gun violence. And that violence isn't related to gun ownership. You'd have to prove that causation in order to get anywhere with it.

Not sure the point in the government tracking people seems a bit big brother esque. It's always under the pretense of protecting us but doubt that's ever the purpose. The federal government decided they needed this by our communications to protect us from terrorism. They also decided dropouts need to fondle kids in the air port to protect us from terrorism.

Beware of what government wants you scared of.

I don't think the bill of rights needs to be updated because agents of the government can find ways to violate your rights. The fourth amendment apples to file on your computer even though they didn't have computers in 1787. And the right to free speech and freedom of the press applies to the Internet even though they didn't have that in 1787.

I think the idea of technological advances being exploited violates the bill of rights.

Certainly agree it's something with discussing. Even if we don't change each other's minds.

 

Thank you for your response and for quoting Benjamin Franklin. It's important to consider the balance between liberty and safety in any discussion of gun control. However, it's also important to recognize that guns do play a role in gun violence, and that addressing gun availability and regulation can be a part of reducing overall crime and violence.

As for your suggestion to address the root causes of violence, I completely agree. Improving education, addressing poverty, and improving access to mental health resources, as well as promoting rehabilitation over punishment, are all important issues that should be addressed. However, I would argue that reducing access to firearms should also be a part of the solution, as it has been shown that countries with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun violence. It's not a matter of giving up essential liberty, but rather of finding a balance that promotes both safety and liberty.

 

If that were true there would be absolutely no point in banning guns. Banning or regulating guns doesn't have any impact on crime.

Well it says it's necessary for the security of a free state. In the founding of the country the idea wasn't that we were all Americans. It was that people from Virginia are Virginians, and people from Florida were Floridians and the nation was just a loose federation. That's actually what the civil war was about.

But I still think the second amendment is important today.

There isn't a gun problem other places have gun ownership and don't have the crime issue. It's a crime problem.

 

Thank you for the reply but you didn't address anything that I wrote. If you want to address gun violence, then you need to look at all of the facts. Not just the things that trigger you. It has been shown in academic, peer reviewed, journals that the media hype causes more mass shootings. Do you want to ignore that or do you want to look at it? I think you want to ignore it.

 

No it's not. Every single country in the world that regulates gun ownership has fewer rights than Americans.

I'm betting you can only convince people who already agree with you. And this idea couldn't be less popular in the nation than it is right now

 

It has also been shown that countries with stricter gun control laws have much higher rates of gun violence. I would suggest that you limit your data to cultures and geography that are similar. As far as I know, there are none so looking at the price of rice in China does nothing to put food on my table.