Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Second Amendment Good or Bad?

a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?
The truth will set you free
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:06:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?

Your friend is correct. The 2nd amendment has been rendered obsolete by modern weaponry.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:07:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?

It's sad and unfortunate how that defeatist mentality still persists.

Are you completely unaware of how ineffective our military might has been against a bunch of 3rd world religious zealots (as a whole) in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:40:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?

I have heard of the claims (one study by Harvard, for example) which claims gun deaths decreased twice as sharply after guns were restricted. However, a study in 2009--probably the most comprehensive on Australia's gun laws, published in Economic Inquiry, found no effect from Australia's new gun laws.

Further, when you look at homicides as a fraction of violent crime, the largest decreases occurred in the 70s. The data, sadly, is not continuous. However, the year 1997 saw a spike in homicides in relation to violent crime--indicated a possible increase in crime. And the rate of decrease seems to be slower than the 1995-1996 period (again, sadly the data isn't continuous, there is a 3 year gap, which makes the period before the law hard to analyze). But, overall, I see no crime reduction which can logically be attributed to the buyback program.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

When looking at armed robberies, there is a very steep increase after the gun control was enacted.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

Joyce Lee Malcom has an interesting book, "Guns and Violence: the English Experience" where she looks at crime records in relation to weapon ownership since the musket was introduced to England! Overall, she finds periods with higher weapon ownership decrease crime, and periods where weapon ownership was low generally had higher crime. Her analysis of the mid century restrictions report an increase in crime due to fewer firearms, and her preliminary findings (the book was shortly after the 1997 ban, I say preliminary due to the fact she didn't have a longer term look) finds an increase in murder due to bans on handguns.

Lott 2010, MGLC 3rd ed. finds increased crime due to the DC handgun ban and UK, as well as even Jamaica. Although crime in the UK has began to decrease again, that is due to factors unrelated to the gun ban (partially, at least, the significant increase in the amount of police officers).

Overall, the evidence points to a more guns, less crime hypothesis. Although many scholars (e.g. Kleck 1997) claim that the best evidence shows no effect (though I believe he reversed that opinion in Kovandzic, Schaffer, and Kleck 2013, where he finds "gun bans reduced gun levels more among noncriminals than criminals . . . gun possession has predominantly negative effects on homicide").
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 2:45:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 1:07:54 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?

It's sad and unfortunate how that defeatist mentality still persists.

Are you completely unaware of how ineffective our military might has been against a bunch of 3rd world religious zealots (as a whole) in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Because our military might is being directed by diplomatic policy. Logic dictates, from a military perspective that armed insurgents running into a mosque would mean to level the mosque. Diplomatic policy, on the other hand, prevents that. Logic dictates, from a military perspective, that if a country we don't want to have the bomb is developing the bomb, we bomb the snark out of their research facilities. Diplomatic policy, on the other hand, prevents that.

If you compare casualities from the entire Mid-Eastern campaign from Operation Desert Shield to current, you might find that opposition casualties outnumber the allied by many many many MANY times. The only saving grace that an armed rebellion across the US of citizens against the organized forces of the military would be that the defection rate of enlisted troops would be staggering, and the military would still be driven by diplomatic policy.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 4:10:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 2:45:52 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/12/2014 1:07:54 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
The main reason that the second amendment was put in place was so that the citizens could protect their rights against the potentially tyrannical government. I'm am a strong support of the second amendment and gun rights, but I have recently heard a good objection from one of my friends. He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government. Also, I've heard that gun crimes in Australia have significantly decreased since the ban on most guns in 1996. How do any advocates of gun rights here on DDO deal with these objections?

It's sad and unfortunate how that defeatist mentality still persists.

Are you completely unaware of how ineffective our military might has been against a bunch of 3rd world religious zealots (as a whole) in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Because our military might is being directed by diplomatic policy. Logic dictates, from a military perspective that armed insurgents running into a mosque would mean to level the mosque. Diplomatic policy, on the other hand, prevents that. Logic dictates, from a military perspective, that if a country we don't want to have the bomb is developing the bomb, we bomb the snark out of their research facilities. Diplomatic policy, on the other hand, prevents that.

If you compare casualities from the entire Mid-Eastern campaign from Operation Desert Shield to current, you might find that opposition casualties outnumber the allied by many many many MANY times. The only saving grace that an armed rebellion across the US of citizens against the organized forces of the military would be that the defection rate of enlisted troops would be staggering, and the military would still be driven by diplomatic policy.

All points that have been made before. I was going to make the point that a large percentage of gun owners are prior service military themselves and that many (if not most) soldiers would desert and fight with the people - should an order ever be given to wage an all out war against their own. Our military are loyal to the Constitution and to the people of the U.S. and not to the government itself.

Bottom line is that it would take an all out military action to completely disarm the people and before that can ever have a chance to succeed, the military will turn against the Government itself. AND! At the end of it all, there will be nothing to prevent the U.S. citizens from taking up arms (as is their right) to fight for their own rights and freedoms again.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
corpse
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:37:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government.

That makes sense, but people often forget the sheer number of armed citizens, not to mention those who've had the good sense not to register them. The American citizenry outnumbers the federal governments millions to one. They may have toys that can fly and shoot from the air, but I sincerely doubt they'd have the chance to deploy them by the time every armed citizen in this nation rampaged through the White House, guns cocked and loaded.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:10:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 11:37:09 PM, corpse wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:56:09 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
He basically said that because the government is so powerful, they have drones and nukes etc., the first purpose of the second amendment has become obsolete. Guns and assault rifles that citizens own are insignificant to overcome the government.

That makes sense, but people often forget the sheer number of armed citizens, not to mention those who've had the good sense not to register them. The American citizenry outnumbers the federal governments millions to one. They may have toys that can fly and shoot from the air, but I sincerely doubt they'd have the chance to deploy them by the time every armed citizen in this nation rampaged through the White House, guns cocked and loaded.

Also remember any rebellion would be American's versus American's. And if the government uses their weapons too hastily, they will likely anger people and fuel whatever anti-government movement is occurring. So chances are, they won't deploy a lot of what they are using in the Middle East right now in the continental US. Also, similar to how many local militias joined the CSA in the civil war, I wouldn't be surprised of the National Guard would defect in droves to the insurgency.

I dunno, I think the citizens would probably win--or get their point across--if (hopefully not) it ever got that far.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Edwar3je
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:07:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know most gun activists will disagree with me on this, but I do think the 2nd Amendment should have its limits. The main reason I say this is because I think the founding fathers had much different intentions when it came to the ownership of fire arms. Personally, I believe that they legalized for the purpose of self-defense (whether it be criminal or government) but at some point, we have to draw the line at what is and isn't self defense. Around the time the founding fathers made this amendment, every gun required a significant amount of time to reload, and had really bad accuracy. These weapons relied on the fact that the shooter was facing one opponent out of self defense, so these types of weapons wouldn't be used for large scale massacres by a single person. However, our founding fathers most likely didn't foresee that our weapons would improve tremendously in both fire rate and accuracy.

Assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are a cause for great concern since these weapons have the potential for committing massacres. Don't believe me, look no further then the Aurora theater shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Arizona shooting in 2011. In each of these cases, a significant amount of people were either killed or injured because of weapons that had high-capacity magazines, that weren't meant for self-defense but for the expressed purpose of killing many people.

On a final note, I would like to argue that I'm not against handguns, shotguns or any other low-capacity magazine firearm, because those weapons can achieve the purpose of self defense. In contrast, I'm against assault rifles and other high-capacity magazine firearms because the size and potential of the magazines indicate that they were made for war and were meant to kill as many people as possible. Gun activists could object to this by saying that regardless of the consequences that this is an issue of freedom, but in my defense, I would state that at certain points, freedom does have to be taken away in order to ensure the safety of others, especially if such weapons have been shown to lead to massacres. On a closing note, I would like to ask gun activists, " based on all of the shootings that have happened as a result of high-capacity firearms, at what point do you consider it to be okay to restrict certain liberties?"
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:30:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:07:39 AM, Edwar3je wrote:
I know most gun activists will disagree with me on this, but I do think the 2nd Amendment should have its limits. The main reason I say this is because I think the founding fathers had much different intentions when it came to the ownership of fire arms. Personally, I believe that they legalized for the purpose of self-defense (whether it be criminal or government) but at some point, we have to draw the line at what is and isn't self defense. Around the time the founding fathers made this amendment, every gun required a significant amount of time to reload, and had really bad accuracy. These weapons relied on the fact that the shooter was facing one opponent out of self defense, so these types of weapons wouldn't be used for large scale massacres by a single person. However, our founding fathers most likely didn't foresee that our weapons would improve tremendously in both fire rate and accuracy.

Assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are a cause for great concern since these weapons have the potential for committing massacres. Don't believe me, look no further then the Aurora theater shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Arizona shooting in 2011. In each of these cases, a significant amount of people were either killed or injured because of weapons that had high-capacity magazines, that weren't meant for self-defense but for the expressed purpose of killing many people.

On a final note, I would like to argue that I'm not against handguns, shotguns or any other low-capacity magazine firearm, because those weapons can achieve the purpose of self defense. In contrast, I'm against assault rifles and other high-capacity magazine firearms because the size and potential of the magazines indicate that they were made for war and were meant to kill as many people as possible. Gun activists could object to this by saying that regardless of the consequences that this is an issue of freedom, but in my defense, I would state that at certain points, freedom does have to be taken away in order to ensure the safety of others, especially if such weapons have been shown to lead to massacres. On a closing note, I would like to ask gun activists, " based on all of the shootings that have happened as a result of high-capacity firearms, at what point do you consider it to be okay to restrict certain liberties?"

Actually, repeating arms weren't a new concept back then, and the founding fathers held the belief that the people should at least be as well armed as the military. The military had muskets and flintlocks, so did the people. People back then could buy cannons too. Nowadays, even if they were legal, most people wouldn't own tanks and drones because of the sheer cost to buy them and keep them running.

And really, high capacity magazines don't make it any easier to kill bunch of people in a room when you're standing in front of the door way. 10- 10 round magazines will have the same effect as a 100 round drum. Albeit, the 10 magazines will be maybe 10 seconds slower. Again, if I were committed to killing a bunch of people, not a big deal.

If you would read up on the shootings that've happened in the past 5-10 years, you'ld realize that you don't need an AR15 or an AK47 to kill a bunch of people. A few handguns and a shotgun will take you just as far.
Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the begining of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?
Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the beginning of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?

When the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights, it was meant so that citizens could protect themselves from a possible British invasion. Now, with our supreme military, we aren't worried about an invasion by a hostile nation
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:16:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:09:09 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the beginning of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?

When the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights, it was meant so that citizens could protect themselves from a possible British invasion. Now, with our supreme military, we aren't worried about an invasion by a hostile nation

False. It was not about a possible invasion.

It was based on the idea of a natural right to self defense stemming from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. This emerged from a time or turmoil and political instability and it was recognized that people have a right to defend themselves when times get unstable.

Just because the US is currently a stable political environment does not mean I do not have the right to provide for my own defense. Besides, if I misuse this right I will be severely punished so I don't know what the fuss is about. Rights do not come and go like the tide, they are inalienable.
Benjamin_Manus
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:16:28 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:09:09 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the beginning of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?

When the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights, it was meant so that citizens could protect themselves from a possible British invasion. Now, with our supreme military, we aren't worried about an invasion by a hostile nation

False. It was not about a possible invasion.

It was based on the idea of a natural right to self defense stemming from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. This emerged from a time or turmoil and political instability and it was recognized that people have a right to defend themselves when times get unstable.

Just because the US is currently a stable political environment does not mean I do not have the right to provide for my own defense. Besides, if I misuse this right I will be severely punished so I don't know what the fuss is about. Rights do not come and go like the tide, they are inalienable.

"From a time or turmoil and political instability". Exactly what I'm saying. It was enacted so that the newly-formed United States citizens could protect themselves against possible invasion. In my first comment, I noted that it has become part of society and I do not believe that it should be removed. I merely stated that it was outdated.
Regards,
Benjamin Manus
---
Secretary General,
Westfield Academy Model United Nations
---
Assistant Coach,
Westfield Academy of Debate and Public Speaking
---
Systems Administrator,
VanceCloud VPS Hosting
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:19:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:07:39 AM, Edwar3je wrote:
I know most gun activists will disagree with me on this, but I do think the 2nd Amendment should have its limits. The main reason I say this is because I think the founding fathers had much different intentions when it came to the ownership of fire arms. Personally, I believe that they legalized for the purpose of self-defense (whether it be criminal or government) but at some point, we have to draw the line at what is and isn't self defense. Around the time the founding fathers made this amendment, every gun required a significant amount of time to reload, and had really bad accuracy. These weapons relied on the fact that the shooter was facing one opponent out of self defense, so these types of weapons wouldn't be used for large scale massacres by a single person. However, our founding fathers most likely didn't foresee that our weapons would improve tremendously in both fire rate and accuracy.

Assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are a cause for great concern since these weapons have the potential for committing massacres. Don't believe me, look no further then the Aurora theater shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Arizona shooting in 2011. In each of these cases, a significant amount of people were either killed or injured because of weapons that had high-capacity magazines, that weren't meant for self-defense but for the expressed purpose of killing many people.


There is absolutely no evidence that a ban on high capacity magazines or assault rifles would decrease crime. Further, a high capacity magazine is meant for multiple targets. There are many documented cases of people being attacked by large groups of people. A high capacity magazine would me necessary in order to defeat a large group of attackers.

You don't need a high capacity magazine. But you also don't need a seatbelt. But we want a seatbelt in the event of encountering a horrific car crash. We want high capacity magazines for the situations where we are fighting multiple opponents.

Further, even when fighting one opponent, if the attacker is high on drugs (e.g. Heroin) or your shot placement is poor, one person can survive multiple shot wounds.

The question is whether or not firearms have a net effect of saving lives or taking lives away. The research indicates that guns either have no effect on crime/suicide rates (e.g. Kleck 1991, 1997, 1979) or even decrease crime (Lott 2010, Lott and Mustard 1997, Lott 2003, Kovandzic, Schaffer, Kleck 2013, Gius 2013, Mustard 2001, Southwick 1997, Kleck 1991, 1988, and the list goes on).

On a final note, I would like to argue that I'm not against handguns, shotguns or any other low-capacity magazine firearm, because those weapons can achieve the purpose of self defense. In contrast, I'm against assault rifles and other high-capacity magazine firearms because the size and potential of the magazines indicate that they were made for war and were meant to kill as many people as possible. Gun activists could object to this by saying that regardless of the consequences that this is an issue of freedom, but in my defense, I would state that at certain points, freedom does have to be taken away in order to ensure the safety of others, especially if such weapons have been shown to lead to massacres. On a closing note, I would like to ask gun activists, " based on all of the shootings that have happened as a result of high-capacity firearms, at what point do you consider it to be okay to restrict certain liberties?"
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:18:46 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:16:28 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:09:09 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the beginning of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?

When the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights, it was meant so that citizens could protect themselves from a possible British invasion. Now, with our supreme military, we aren't worried about an invasion by a hostile nation

False. It was not about a possible invasion.

It was based on the idea of a natural right to self defense stemming from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. This emerged from a time or turmoil and political instability and it was recognized that people have a right to defend themselves when times get unstable.

Just because the US is currently a stable political environment does not mean I do not have the right to provide for my own defense. Besides, if I misuse this right I will be severely punished so I don't know what the fuss is about. Rights do not come and go like the tide, they are inalienable.

"From a time or turmoil and political instability". Exactly what I'm saying. It was enacted so that the newly-formed United States citizens could protect themselves against possible invasion. In my first comment, I noted that it has become part of society and I do not believe that it should be removed. I merely stated that it was outdated.

I don't think it is. Instability crops up very quickly. Things can go from good to bad with a snap. Why can we not be prepared for that at all times instead of saying "well everything is sun-shiney time to strip away your rights until it gets bad again"?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 3:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:18:46 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:16:28 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:09:09 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:06:15 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:03:33 PM, Benjamin_Manus wrote:
The Second Amendment may be outdated, but it has become a part of our society to have the right to own weapons. Removing it now would be unfeasible.

I don't understand why it's outdated? Has the moral right to protect yourself become outdated? People have been allowed to carry/own weapons since the beginning of civilization. How has it suddenly become outdated in the past ~200 years?

When the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights, it was meant so that citizens could protect themselves from a possible British invasion. Now, with our supreme military, we aren't worried about an invasion by a hostile nation

False. It was not about a possible invasion.

It was based on the idea of a natural right to self defense stemming from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. This emerged from a time or turmoil and political instability and it was recognized that people have a right to defend themselves when times get unstable.

Just because the US is currently a stable political environment does not mean I do not have the right to provide for my own defense. Besides, if I misuse this right I will be severely punished so I don't know what the fuss is about. Rights do not come and go like the tide, they are inalienable.

"From a time or turmoil and political instability". Exactly what I'm saying. It was enacted so that the newly-formed United States citizens could protect themselves against possible invasion. In my first comment, I noted that it has become part of society and I do not believe that it should be removed. I merely stated that it was outdated.

Ben is partially correct. An armed populace was seen as a tool to halt an invasion through local militias. However, the second amendment was created for more than the formation of militias.

The founding fathers supported the idea of a revolution against an oppressive government. Which means they supported personal armament as well, in order to defeat an over zealous government who was infringing on people's rights. Which is not an 'outdated' concept.

I mostly support the second amendment because I believe gun ownership can reduce crime rates. The second amendment was not made to only prevent an invasion. This is a good review as to what the second amendment means (http://www.uclalawreview.org...). Note: It argues some gun controls are constitutional, though the right to own a firearm exists clearly in the constitution.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross