U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:44 PM
 
Location: NC
7,216 posts, read 5,050,919 times
Reputation: 7964

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
Yeah you are wrong and they were right.
That's why we don't need to change the constitution on this issue.

My guns kill no one and I obey all laws.

Violent video games that dehumanize people are more of a problem. Ban them.
Even FBI Profilers will verify that stat.
So you would give up freedom of speech to protect your right to bear arms?

My point is not to call you out, but to put on display that the issue of 2nd amendment is not a simple one to solve. Both sides of the debate on this issue will, by nature, have holes in their argument. I'm not even taking sides. I'm just saying that "ban them all" and "no restrictions at all" are both non-starters for thinking Americans.

Both sides need to realize this before we can even THINK about solving the massive problem of gun-deaths in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2019, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,203 posts, read 14,389,356 times
Reputation: 16416
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffleiron1968 View Post
A2 was written in a different time and in a different context.
Not relevant. It's still applicable today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waffleiron1968 View Post
It needs to be abrogated.
Um, treaties are abrogated, not constitutional amendments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waffleiron1968 View Post
The senseless gun violence is making the US a failed state. If you can't assure safety, you are a failing state.
That is not the definition of "failed State."

A failed State is simply one that is unable to exert authority.

Afghanistan is a failed State.

The government controls only Kabul and the part of the surrounding province.

It is unable to exercise or exert authority over other areas of the country, and it cannot control its own borders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7 View Post
That's an interesting thought but I don't think it's realistic for millions to overpower the US military;...
That's because you have zero education, zero training and zero experience in the matter and are incapable of planning, organizing, training, executing or leading any operation or series of operations.

Someone needs only less than 120 people and very little money to bring a country like this to its knees in a matter of minutes and no one would know anything about it until it was all over.

Your life would be total chaos.

People like you with your one-dimensional thinking skills can only envision conflict in terms of the US Civil War, or perhaps WW I and its trench warfare where British and French officers sent men to certain death charging machine gun positions for the glory of war.

No one with a modicum of intelligence would ever go head-to-head with any military, even more so, since it is not necessary to win.

You wouldn't understand.

In a civil conflict, your Navy is useless.

Your Air Force is useless, too, except perhaps for surveillance platforms. If the Air Force intends to indiscriminately bomb urban areas and kill and maim people, that's good.

That will inflame the citizenry and turn them against the government.

Does that mean they will support the rebels? Who cares if they do or do not? All that mattes is that they're now against the government.

Again, you wouldn't understand.

Your Army doesn't have the manpower to operate check-points and patrol the 39,000+ municipalities in the US. Good luck with that.

But, if they tried, then that would be a godsend, because if the Army is tied up doing that, then that leaves the rebel commander free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Q: Why does the Constitution have a second amendment?

A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.
Good point.

Not only is it a good point, the possibility that the government may attempt to infringe on the 1st Amendment increases daily.

Actually, the possibility increases with each passing tweet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 02:50 PM
 
7,152 posts, read 2,594,782 times
Reputation: 3894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's because you have zero education, zero training and zero experience in the matter and are incapable of planning, organizing, training, executing or leading any operation or series of operations.

Someone needs only less than 120 people and very little money to bring a country like this to its knees in a matter of minutes and no one would know anything about it until it was all over.

Your life would be total chaos.
I think it could be done with less than half that number, and I'd be willing to bet we are thinking of the same general things.

The simple fact of the matter is that our entire system of government is immeasurably fragile, and totally depends on faith in that government to function as it does. Remove the faith and it crumbles, as you say, in minutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 03:54 PM
 
777 posts, read 520,124 times
Reputation: 1441
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
Stupid! There I said it.

What you posted is no different than saying your parents should have used a condom before having sex. They had no idea how UN american you would turn out.

They should have amended your mothers pregnancy and had an abortion.

You are advocating taking away everyones rights to freedom because a few people are crazy.

I said it before I'll say it again - if I can't have firearms to protect myself, neither should law enforcement or military.

After all, if no citizens can't have firearms, why would law enforcement possibly need them? Or Military?

You people want to turn our constitution into a flat tasteless soda.

Libs blame the gun, I blame the criminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 04:11 PM
 
355 posts, read 38,378 times
Reputation: 166
The founding fathers were not mistaken - they wrote the bill of rights over 200 years ago. But they added the power to amend the constitution in the constitution.

If you think the 2nd amendment is outdated, you need to own up and try to amend the constitution. 2/3s of state legislatures need to ratify it or 2/3s of the House/Senate need to ratify it. Good luck, I don't think an amendment is possible in my lifetime but it's the only honest way. Pretending the 2nd amendment doesn't exist or doesn't say what it says is not only dishonest and unconstitutional but weakens the power of all other amendments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,777 posts, read 7,627,279 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
The founding fathers were not mistaken - they wrote the bill of rights over 200 years ago. But they added the power to amend the constitution in the constitution.

If you think the 2nd amendment is outdated, you need to own up and try to amend the constitution. 2/3s of state legislatures need to ratify it or 2/3s of the House/Senate need to ratify it. Good luck, I don't think an amendment is possible in my lifetime but it's the only honest way. Pretending the 2nd amendment doesn't exist or doesn't say what it says is not only dishonest and unconstitutional but weakens the power of all other amendments.
The 2nd says what it says, it's just been interpreted wrong for far to long.


Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,224 posts, read 7,870,733 times
Reputation: 5833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
How many people were gunned down in mass shootings by a Puckle gun? How many ordinary citizens had access to one?

Do you think the founding fathers envisioned everyone owning such a weapon and routinely aiming it at their fellow citizens and committing mass slaughter with them?

And they shot nine rounds a minute. By comparison, an AK47 can shoot up to 600 rounds per minute.

But they're the same thing, right?
Hyperbole is a terrible form of debate. Inaccurate hyperbole is worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 05:50 PM
 
7,329 posts, read 2,599,043 times
Reputation: 3740
Here’s a couple of factoids:

1. The United States accounts for 4% of the world’s population, but 45% of the world’s firearms.

2. Private citizens in the United States own 5 million more assault rifles that the total belonging to the United States Armed Forces.

3. There’s a gun for every American citizen but only 1 out of 3 Americans are gun owners.

4. About 2/3rds of gun owners own more than one gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ica/index.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...united-states/

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017...gun-ownership/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 05:56 PM
 
Location: USA
18,806 posts, read 9,193,457 times
Reputation: 14135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Here’s a couple of factoids:

1. The United States accounts for 4% of the world’s population, but 45% of the world’s firearms.
Good. Citizens can keep us free while other countries pass laws against free speech and disarm the law abiding.

Quote:
2. Private citizens in the United States own 5 million more assault rifles that the total belonging to the United States Armed Forces..
Not true. Assault rifles are FULLY AUTOMATIC and banned since 1986.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 06:25 PM
Status: "Try my Sword-Flavored Beef, now with Extra Justice!" (set 16 days ago)
 
1,476 posts, read 841,980 times
Reputation: 2268
Again, there is no mistake with the 2nd Ammendment!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top