Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. — Thorongil
It seems I was right about the persecution complex. — Thorongil
Oh, well why didn't you say so sooner? I guess that makes it okay, then. I'll bear that in mind in the case that I'm shot by some idiot who was able to get his hands on a gun far too easily. It might be of some solace. — Sapientia
You are an odd one sometimes. Why would you presume something you can't even think of a reason for? But, fine. Your complaints about tactics ring a little hollow now though. — Baden
If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team. — Thorongil
It's about sufficiency rather than what's more or less effective. — Sapientia
especially if you factor in the effect that tighter gun controls would have on the weapon of choice that your attacker pulls on you. — Sapientia
It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment. — Thorongil
They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want. — Thorongil
There you go. Get rid of legal guns and there won't be gun crime. — Michael
You passed over my serious post about the NRA to bite the joke bait. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.