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

Let blue states confiscate guns.
TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!

 

Getting rid of the 2nd amendment will stop gun crimes just like making drugs illegal has prevented drug crimes. While it's often repeated to the point of almost being a cliche, it's also 100% true that repealing the right for regular citizens to own guns will just result in criminals with guns and a civilian population defenseless against them. Any conversation about repealing the 2nd must come with an ironclad method to get rid of ALL the guns. In fact, if you can figure out how to get the guns away from the bad guys, you pretty much have no need to take them from everybody else. Just do that instead, it will be more effective and doesn't trample on the rights of everybody.

 

Are you not paying attention? We were talking about constitutional rights.

The 2nd A applies to what it explicitly SAYS it applies to. Nothing more, nothing less. If you knew that, then I STILL have no idea what the relevance of your post to the one you quoted was.

 

The population, especially the elderly, in rural areas are out of reach for help from law enforcement. You are willing to put us at further risk by taking our guns away in the hope that the lawless will give theirs up. And that does not even take into consideration wild animals such as bear, wild cats and feral hogs all of which I have seen on my property.

I will make a deal with you. After the lawless give up their guns and the wild animals disappear, I will consider giving up my guns.

 

Does it work vs nerve gas?

 

Are you suggesting that the government would release nerve gas in a residential area?

I've inhaled CS numerous times on Fort Benning's NBC training course. Really opens up the airways.

 

Thank you for a very well written and compelling argument.
I especially agree that: "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." I feel that any topic is worthy of a "thoughtful and respectful dialogue".

It is precisely because of your well written, civil and respectful approach that I have given your proposal my most serious consideration.
As much as I would like to agree with you, I'm afraid that I cannot support such a radical evisceration of one of our most valuable and hard won Rights especially when doing so may even increase our homicide rate as determined killers simply turn to even deadlier, crude WMDs such as the device that required only one dollar's worth of gasoline to kill 87 people.

Briefly put, a determined killer in NYC couldn't find a gun to kill just one person, so, he made and used this crude WMD to kill 87 people including his one, single target. (1)

No firearm of any type has ever killed as many people as this crude WMD that only required one dollar's worth of easily obtained gasoline to kill 87 people.

Additionally, the deadliest school mass killing was also not committed with a firearm but with a home made bomb.
Here, too, more people died from a crude WMD than any firearm. (2)

While no one can predict the future it seems clear to me that a determined killer will kill regardless of laws and restrictions on firearms. Furthermore, when determined killers turn to WMDs they kill many more people with WMDs than with firearms. Therefore, I feel that if and when determined killers are unable to find a firearms, they will simply turn to deadlier crude WMDs that kill more people and our homicide rate will go up.

The only way to reduce America's homicide rate is to address America's violence problem and the only way to address America's violence problem is through more affordable and accessible Mental Health care.

As Prohibition and our failed war on drugs has shown, attempting to manipulate human behavior by trying to control inanimate objects simply won't reduce our homicide rate.

I thank you again for your thoughtfulness and civility but I simply don't feel that surrendering any of our Rights will make our streets any safer and may even cause our homicide rate to go up as determined mass killers turn to crude but deadlier WMDs.

Enjoy your day,





(1). "Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


(2). "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

And then good luck disarming the people without an extremely bloody fight that will end with the overthrow of the US government.

 

Hysterics does no good in the debate of gun control. Personally, I ask what went wrong with our society since around 1970. There were basically no gun control laws except the one where one had to have federal permit to own a machine gun from the founding of our country until 1970.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990


There were 28 mass shooting between 1900-1970 when gun control laws didn’t exist. Then we had a turn in our society where something went wrong. From 1970 onward there’s been hundreds. Why? Does anybody care why? We should be delving deep into our society to find the root causes and reasons for all these mass shooting or killings. Instead most want the band aid approach of gun control. They’re afraid, scared to death what one would find if we did dig deep into our society and find the causes and reason why so many mass killings occur after 1970. Those who don’t want to find the reasons and causes, I classify as scaredy-cats. I place them in the I don’t care category.


There will be no overthrow of the U.S. Government, that’s hyperbolic. But these mass killings will continue until we’re ready to delve deep within our society to find the causes and reasons for them. To correct the problem of mass killing, we first must find the causes and then correct them. We don’t have the guts to do that.

 

LOL.. liberal intellectual mastrubation at its most obscene.... Why are liberal folk so determined to make sure that no one could defend themselves from their BS?

 

Seems like you have identified the real agenda for democrats. Getting rid of all rights of the citizens so they can simply manage the citizens who have no right to stop or otherwise challenge them. Isn't that how the plantation is supposed to be run?

 

First, remove the false premise from the question and rephrase it in a sensible way without the partisanship, and I will be happy to answer it. This:

What other rights do you advocate stripping everyone of

If you have difficulty understanding why it is false, please review the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, the section on the 'Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy'.

Thank you.

 

Your rebuttal raises two main points: 1) that simply getting rid of the 2nd amendment will not prevent gun crimes and 2) that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will leave them defenseless against armed criminals.

In regards to the first point, you argue that just as making drugs illegal has not prevented drug crimes, getting rid of the 2nd amendment will not prevent gun crimes. This comparison is a slippery slope fallacy, as it assumes that two separate issues with different variables and complexities can be equated without further examination or explanation.

Regarding the second point, you suggest that a better solution would be to find a way to get guns away from criminals, rather than taking guns away from everyone. This argument assumes that it is possible to effectively disarm criminals, in a surgical fashion, which may not be the case in practice. Additionally, it neglects the fact that many gun crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms that have fallen into the wrong hands.

In conclusion, you present flawed arguments that rely on false equivalences and oversimplifications of the issue at hand.

 

of course there won’t be an overthrow because we have a well armed populace. It’s in countries where people are not allowed to own weapons that overthrows occur in, because the government exists under the illusion that they have all the power, allowing them to go too far. So, gun ownership is working the way it is meant to. As far as craziness in society, I’d say it is a mix of social media dependency, deep divisions sewn by our 2 party system, and the growing divide between haves and have nots.

 

Note that the OP emphasized that the goal is not to take away people's guns, but rather to address the issue of gun violence in society. The OP argued that while the 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, it is possible to regulate firearms in a way that promotes public safety without infringing on individual rights. The essay emphasized the need for a balanced approach that takes into consideration both the rights of gun owners and the safety of the broader population and that a repeal of the second amendment would grant states more facility in regulating firearms, given that, over the centuries, the statistics show that the second amendment hasn't served America very well.

You suggest that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens in rural areas would put them at further risk, as they are far from the reach of law enforcement and would need to protect themselves from wild animals.

However, this argument ignores the fact that access to firearms has been linked to an increase in firearm-related deaths and injuries, including those in rural areas. Research shows that homes with firearms are at a higher risk of firearm accidents, suicide, and domestic violence. Additionally, the presence of firearms in the home has been found to increase the likelihood of violent conflict, even in the case of wild animal attacks.

Moreover, the argument that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not affect the availability of firearms for criminals is a false premise. Research has shown that stricter gun laws are associated with lower rates of firearm-related deaths and injuries, including in rural areas.

In conclusion, you rely on anecdotal evidence and oversimplified assumptions about the effects of firearm availability on public safety. The fact remains that access to firearms has been linked to an increase in firearm-related deaths and injuries, and stricter gun laws have been shown to be effective in reducing these rates.
.

 

Duh. It took research to figure that out? I bet research would find the same thing with knives, automobiles, chain saw, etc. The list is endless.

 

Call an Article 5 convention and repeal it, then. I predict catastrophic failure, but anti-gunners are well within their rights to try. It would be the first constitutional thing they've ever done.

 

You can deny it all you want but it's right there in your op. You want to strip every American citizen of their second amendment rights.

 

You argue that repeal of the Second Amendment would not decrease the homicide rate, as determined killers would simply turn to more deadly weapons such as homemade bombs and crude WMDs. You also assert that the only way to reduce the homicide rate is through improved mental health care and that trying to control inanimate objects won't work, citing the failures of Prohibition and the war on drugs. While I agree that improved mental health care is definitely to be a part of the solution, it's not comprehensive, on it's own, and a broader approach is need. So...

The counterargument would be that access to firearms, particularly high-powered and easily concealable ones, makes it easier for individuals to carry out mass killings and homicides, regardless of their mental state. While other weapons such as homemade bombs and crude WMDs have been used in some incidents, firearms are still the most common weapon used in mass shootings and homicides in the US. Additionally, comprehensive gun control measures, including background checks, restrictions on high-powered weapons and ammunition, and limits on who can purchase firearms, have been shown to be effective in reducing gun violence in other countries. Improving access to mental health care is also important, but it is not a complete solution to the problem of gun violence.

The two anecdotes in your links you provided do not necessarily support your argument and can be countered with other examples and evidence. The Happy Land fire was a tragic incident but it was a result of an individual's criminal behavior, not a reflection of the safety of social clubs in general. Similarly, the Bath School bombing was a horrific and extreme act of violence carried out by an individual who had a history of strange behavior. This does not reflect the safety of schools in general or the likelihood of a bombing happening in schools.

To make a stronger argument, one would need to provide broader data and evidence on the frequency and causes of such incidents, as well as consider factors such as increased safety measures and changes in society that may have contributed to a decrease in such incidents over time. Anecdotes, while powerful, should not be used as the sole basis for making an argument.

In conclusion, while the rebuttal raises valid points about the limitations of solely relying on firearms restrictions to reduce the homicide rate, it does not negate the evidence showing that access to firearms is a major factor in gun violence. A multi-faceted approach, including both improving access to mental health care and implementing effective firearms regulations, is necessary to address America's violence problem and reduce the homicide rate.

 

Thank you for your feedback. However, it appears that you have misunderstood the intent of the essay. The essay is not about political ideologies, but rather about addressing the growing problem of gun violence in the United States. The argument being made is not one of a liberal or conservative nature, but rather a practical one that is aimed at reducing the levels of gun violence and making America a safer place for all.

Additionally, the repeal of the Second Amendment does not mean that people would not be able to defend themselves. The OP argues that the repeal would allow for states to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, making it easier for law enforcement to track and regulate firearms. This would result in a unified, nationwide system of gun regulation, which would help to reduce the levels of gun violence in the country.

I would kindly request that you respect the fact that this is a serious issue and one that deserves a constructive and informed discussion. Personal attacks and assumptions are not productive in advancing this conversation.

Thank you.

 

Specious argument. Guns serve no other purpose than to kill, where as knives are tools for the kitchen, as well as other practical uses, not to mention one cannot outrun a bullet, but the OP isn't arguing for banning guns.

 

The purpose of mine is to serve as a deterrent and a defense, if necessary. The purpose of any tool is whatever purpose we intend to use them for.

 

If we just make guns illegal no one will get shot anymore that's how we stop people from doing drugs

 

when you post something so blatantly wrong as that claim, no one can take your arguments seriously

btw what is the purpose of that rifle the young lady is holding?