If you cannot show that the Second Amendment strikes down laws...
Not the 2A, but the Supreme Court.
A straw man argument is when someone is credited with having made an argument that they have not made
Not quite, it's when you take an argument that someone
has made, and them deliberately misrepresent it in order to more easily defeat it.
I do not say other people make this argument. I make this argument myself
But one others have used long before you
The point is wrong. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
As Benjamin Disraeli once observed:
"There are there kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"
Guns are the primary method in homicides. You make a straw-man assertion that if guns were removed, the number of homicides would remain fairly constant
And that is a false assumption - for pre-meditated murder, that might be correct, not so for spontaneous, "
hot blooded" homicide, that the figures show that most mass shootings are, and I suspect most individual shhotings are too.
There are a number of EU countries where gun ownership is widespread...
What is your criteria for "
widespread" ?
And which countries might these be ?
(NB: Switzerland is NOT an EU country).
The reason why the US has a problem is not because we have guns, but because we have a spate of copycat crimes.
Specifically, crimes committed with guns.
Crimes committed without guns, tend not to be so costly in lives.
I also wonder if perhaps the EU does more to help troubled kids. A number of American school shooters were bullied at school. Perhaps the EU does better at preventing kids from being bullied. Or perhaps not. Just speculating.
I think you mean countries in the EU as it's a confederation, rather than a federation
Sure, the USA could spend a lot more money on mental health care - but whenever left wing politicians do this, they're decried as "socialts", trying to built a "nanny state"
Right wing politicians rarely, if ever, promote increased public spending on healthcare generally.
That is incorrect. Free people have had the right to be armed for thousands of years now.
No they haven't
Perhaps knights and other nobles, but we're speaking of GUNS, in a DEMOCRACY. Democracies are a feature on modern history, not medieval.
English peasants legally required to practice archery on Sundays is far removed from the gun control debate. Just as the Swiss practice of allowing army reservists to take issued guns home with them.
All the other countries have turned their backs on freedom
LOL
USA!, USA!, USA!
We're right and the REST of the world is wrong
It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetically tragic.
That would amount to a right to take away everyone else's freedom
No, it gives freedom to people
Freedom to live their lives in a society without guns
Gun owners lose the freedom to shoot people.
But there should be
And if the 2A was repealed and replaced by an amendment giving you such a right, would you oppose it ?
If "significant gun control" means laws that will do nothing to reduce crime or save lives...
It means gun controls that significantly reduce the number of shootings, particularly mass shootings.
I'm not sure how gun control and the Second Amendment would have any bearing on whether the New Deal violated the Tenth Amendment.
Look at the fact that nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to carry out the New Deal.
The Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from having jurisdiction in any area that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution.
Many on here say the New Deal did so violate the 10A - I dispute this.
The New Deal was entirely authorized by the Constitution
Name any article in it, and I'll show you the authorization.
