Should the 2A be repealed?

[MaryP]

Self-defense with a gun is a right and not a privilege.....

Shouldn't be, though.

 

[TurtleDude]

Shouldn't be, though.

we will put you down as one of those who think criminals' lives are more important than honest citizens'

 

[MaryP]

Hence, why I was surprised to see MaryP's, a self-described "independent's" name among them.

You learn something everyday... Hmm

That's why I call myself an Independent. I jump the fence at will.

 

[bomberfox]

I would disarm 3 percenters and the like completely. Being in the klan should automatically disbar someone from owning a firearm. Unaccountable militias really irk me.

 

[MaryP]

we will put you down as one of those who think criminals' lives are more important than honest citizens'

Why, thank you, Turt.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would disarm 3 percenters and the like completely. Being in the klan should automatically disbar someone from owning a firearm. Unaccountable militias really irk me.

fascist nonsense. violating constitutional rights based on how people think. Sounds like Joe McCarthy

 

[DiAnna]

I hate polls that force you to publicly vote before you can actually look at the damned totals.

/rant

 

[bomberfox]

Australia banned all firearms and made the citizens turn them in for destruction. Now, you see what that has done for Australia. Australia is now a dictatorship, where unvaccinated citizens are put in concentration camps and citizens out walking in the streets are detained and required to show their papers to Gestapo like cops. Can you see an analogy there to NAZI Germany? Dictatorships have always sought to confiscate weapons out of a feigned sense of security, but the real reason is so there will be no opposition to their control over the populace. Is that what you want to happen in America? Is that the kind of America you want to live in?

there is no mass extermination of the unvaccinated.

 

[bomberfox]

I don't write sarcasm. Look it up. It's the truth. Start watching Newsmax. Also watch Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

. ****er carlson is a wannabe Strasserist liar

 

[bomberfox]

I disagree. The Electoral College only determines the President. And the corruption of the EC occurs at the state level whereby the states award all of the EC delegates with a winner-take-all format. In 2020, Trump won Texas by barely 52% of the votes cast. That means nearly 48% of the voters rejected him. Electoral College delegates should not serve to disenfranchise that 48%, which is pretty dame close to an even, half & half split in Texas.

It's the Gerrymandering and the Senate imbalance that creates the corrupt representations and therefore "rule."

Gerrymandering doesnt quite effect the senate as much as the house.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gerrymandering doesnt quite effect the senate as much as the house.

gerrymandering has no impact on senate or state wide races

 

[Noodlegawd]

No, but it should be updated to make it clear that the government can't pass useless laws restricting your right to own firearms while doing little or nothing to keep violent people locked up.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, but it should be updated to make it clear that the government can't pass useless laws restricting your right to own firearms while doing little or nothing to keep violent people locked up.

there should be an amendment that civilian police departments should be limited to the firearms that the state allows private civilians

 

[trixare4kids]

we will put you down as one of those who think criminals' lives are more important than honest citizens'

Thanks for saving me the type.

 

[vesper]

Only 8 people voted yes to overturn the 2nd Amendment. When it comes to any Constitutional right there will always be a majority to fight like Hell to make sure that does not happen. There will always be a group trying to undermine them. They have from the beginning of this country. At times they have managed to chip away at them but will never be successful at overturning any of them.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

For years I would have said Yes! but I've become convinced it would only result in tens of millions of heavily armed criminals. So? No.

There's plenty of scope in the Amendment and rulings based on it, for states to require licensing, and possibly gun limits. Then the Feds would have a role preventing smugglers bringing guns into those states. A country that can't even guarantee the vote over objections of the states, has basically no chance banning guns.

 

[phoenix2020]

Probably one of the best opinions I have ever read.

Thank you.

I don't get guns, don't like them, and don't ever plan to own one. However, I cannot think of them as anything other than an electrochemical device that accelerates mass. They are a contraption. A tool. I take a shooting class every two to three years because I get excited about playing with a fun "tool" and it's nothing more to me than a rollercoaster ride that I bought a ticket for and had some fun with--and was subsequently glad didn't kill me. Every week I use devices that can be far more deadly, and it's my desire to (a) not hurt myself and (b) not hurt my fellow people that keep me out of trouble.

I think if we deal with our culture of violence, our culture of racism, our culture of economic classicism, our culture of not dealing with mental health issues properly, and our culture of enabling dependencies on pharmacological solutions--all of which breed desperation--we'll address the VAST majority of gun violence issues. Now, were we to do that, might we still have issues e.g. person with malicious intent that we couldn't reasonably stop? Might we want to have a conversation about whether gun access safeguards could address such issues? Might such safeguards be effective? Yes, yes and yes--and those are all good conversations to have once we get to that point. Not before.

First we need to address the root causes, and not the symptoms.

That's my 2 cents on this topic, as a somewhat liberal leaning, Trump hating, brown skinned, pro-science and pro-choice person whom I'm pretty sure is stereotyped by most Americans as an Anti-2nd Amendment freak.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Thank you.

I don't get guns, don't like them, and don't ever plan to own one. However, I cannot think of them as anything other than an electrochemical device that accelerates mass. They are a contraption. A tool. I take a shooting class every two to three years because I get excited about playing with a fun "tool" and it's nothing more to me than a rollercoaster ride that I bought a ticket for and had some fun with--and was subsequently glad didn't kill me. Every week I use devices that can be far more deadly, and it's my desire to (a) not hurt myself and (b) not hurt my fellow people that keep me out of trouble.

I think if we deal with our culture of violence, our culture of racism, our culture of economic classicism, our culture of not dealing with mental health issues properly, and our culture of enabling dependencies on pharmacological solutions--all of which breed desperation--we'll address the VAST majority of gun violence issues. Now, were we to do that, might we still have issues e.g. person with malicious intent that we couldn't reasonably stop? Might we want to have a conversation about whether gun access safeguards could address such issues? Might such safeguards be effective? Yes, yes and yes--and those are all good conversations to have once we get to that point. Not before.

First we need to address the root causes, and not the symptoms.

That's my 2 cents on this topic, as a somewhat liberal leaning, Trump hating, brown skinned, pro-science and pro-choice person whom I'm pretty sure is stereotyped by most Americans as an Anti-2nd Amendment freak.

Pharmacological solutions are the future, and without them "dealing with mental health issues" would be vastly more expensive. There may be a tiny minority of people who require no drugs legal or otherwise, but we can't all be like that and we don't all want to be like that. Lives will be saved by legalizing of just one drug (marijuana) as it tends to displace alcohol. Yes a few hard-partying types take alcohol and marijuana at the same time, but they tend to get so wasted they're not a threat to anyone else. Next we need legal psychedelics, including party drugs. They pose a slight physical and more than slight psychiatric risk, but it's worth pursuing a "space cadet" system of taking very small doses at first, perhaps with a qualified person checking on them as they come down. It's worth it, because unlike alcohol or marijuana the psychedelics do not make people stupid. They can advance their own skills in music or art while under the influence. Amphetamines are useless in my opinion, but if someone is determined to push their limits physically or mentally using those, OK. Opioids are perfect painkillers, too perfect in that they remove pains of the conscience and preventable bodily suffering. Minimizing opioids should be the first mission of introducing new and better recreational drugs.

But I'm not done. The best recreational drugs have not been invented yet. Pharmaceutical companies are blocked by laws on all the other pleasurable drugs, so it's not worth spending money on something later banned, which people will later buy off the street. We could do better, by legalizing all the street drugs (excepting only knock-out drugs used for date rape, consent of the drug taker being essential.) Opioids will be far less of a problem if we let the pharmas create a laid-back pleasure drug without significant pain killing effect, and with much less addictive properties. With enough options to rotate between, addiction to any one drug would be far less of a worry.

I respect all of your post, I just had a bit to say about pharmacological solutions. They are real solutions. And without them, there's no way the public health system can afford all the psychiatric treatment that is needed. There aren't enough psychiatrists even.

 

[phoenix2020]

Pharmacological solutions are the future, and without them "dealing with mental health issues" would be vastly more expensive. There may be a tiny minority of people who require no drugs legal or otherwise, but we can't all be like that and we don't all want to be like that. Lives will be saved by legalizing of just one drug (marijuana) as it tends to displace alcohol. Yes a few hard-partying types take alcohol and marijuana at the same time, but they tend to get so wasted they're not a threat to anyone else. Next we need legal psychedelics, including party drugs. They pose a slight physical and more than slight psychiatric risk, but it's worth pursuing a "space cadet" system of taking very small doses at first, perhaps with a qualified person checking on them as they come down. It's worth it, because unlike alcohol or marijuana the psychedelics do not make people stupid. They can advance their own skills in music or art while under the influence. Amphetamines are useless in my opinion, but if someone is determined to push their limits physically or mentally using those, OK. Opioids are perfect painkillers, too perfect in that they remove pains of the conscience and preventable bodily suffering. Minimizing opioids should be the first mission of introducing new and better recreational drugs.

But I'm not done. The best recreational drugs have not been invented yet. Pharmaceutical companies are blocked by laws on all the other pleasurable drugs, so it's not worth spending money on something later banned, which people will later buy off the street. We could do better, by legalizing all the street drugs (excepting only knock-out drugs used for date rape, consent of the drug taker being essential.) Opioids will be far less of a problem if we let the pharmas create a laid-back pleasure drug without significant pain killing effect, and with much less addictive properties. With enough options to rotate between, addiction to any one drug would be far less of a worry.

I respect all of your post, I just had a bit to say about pharmacological solutions. They are real solutions. And without them, there's no way the public health system can afford all the psychiatric treatment that is needed.

Fair enough, I was using ‘pharmacological solutions’ as short-hand for heavily addictive drugs that drive people into situations of violence and dependency e.g. opoid addition, cocaine, meth, etc. I should have been clearer. I was not intending to advocate for a ban on pot, LSD or Tylenol.

As for possible visions of your pharmacological utopia, well, you do you.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Fair enough, I was using ‘pharmacological solutions’ as short-hand for heavily addictive drugs that drive people into situations of violence and dependency e.g. opoid addition, cocaine, meth, etc. I should have been clearer. I was not intending to advocate for a ban on pot, LSD or Tylenol.

As for possible visions of your pharmacological utopia, well, you do you.

Thankyou. Prescribed pharmaceuticals have been a big part of my life. In fact, probably why I still have a life. Pharmas have done well with gradual and long-term "happy pills" ie antidepressants, and I'd trust them to make shorter-acting "party pills" if only there was a government mandate for same.

Still I'd like an answer on how the US could afford more psychiatric care while also employing the far more time-consuming "talking cure" instead of pills? Would the US import psychiatrists? Maybe certify a lower rank below psychologist, eg clinical counsellor?

 

[jpevans]

it sounds like a social problem. the 2a has been in the constitution for over 2 centuries now. IT didn't change, we did.

The SCOTUS changed it.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The SCOTUS changed it.

preserving a right is changing it?

did you know you could buy machine guns up until 1981?

 

[bicycleman]

there is no mass extermination of the unvaccinated.

No one has said anything about mass extermination, except you.

 

[jonny5]

like ordnance and artillery. stuff that is designed to destroy an area rather than individual attackers

Sure, and Im sure there are some smaller arms now and in the future we may want to control. I think we need to strengthen the 2nd amendment, not repeal it.

 

[bicycleman]

Sure, and Im sure there are some smaller arms now and in the future we may want to control. I think we need to strengthen the 2nd amendment, not repeal it.

My neighbor across the street from me is a member of the Sons of the Confederacy and builds his own Civil War cannons for re-enactments. He is my go to guy for when a SHTF scenario ever occurs.