I think the nuance here is that guns with the capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time are much more readily available in the USA than in many other developed countries — GRWelsh
(1)There are limits to the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to have a fact-based discussion about where those limits should be. (2)Being able to defend yourself is a reasonable expectation, — GRWelsh
One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias — Wayfarer
It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. Clearly there is something deeper at work than the mere existence of firearms. Not only that but even if you remove firearm homicides the US still has a higher homicide rate than most developed countries — Captain Homicide
That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. And the current political system where lobbies can have very much political power.IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership. — Relativist
I don't think my proposal violates the 2nd Amendment, although I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership.That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. — ssu
It would be a political struggle, and require framing the issues in ways that more people could accept it. I'd open with my earlier statement: gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem.you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about. — ssu
This is the unfortunate strategy that the gun lobby, or nearly every lobby, follows. Fight everything, every inch. Assume there never will be a consensus and that the other side will be demanding a total ban on every kind of firearm for any use or ownership, hence trying to compromise will be useless and counterproductive.I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership. — Relativist
That then creates an "arms race" where law-abiding people buy guns on the off-chance an armed person breaks into their house/apartment. That increases the number of guns, making it even easier for criminals to get one, etc. America reached that tipping long ago. — RogueAI
It was touch and go there for a while but Cletus made it home from the fast food restaurant alive. He’ll bring more weapons the next time. — Steven Leser · Apr 9, 2024
Well, the gun nuts are not angry about the existing limitations like this:But I have not found a single one who will even respond to any question as to anyone who should not have a gun. — tim wood
18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison.
Well, it's the typical modern day argument method: there is no room for any conversation. You simply repeat your line no matter what and simply ignore what the other one says. Any deviation from your line is like "giving your little finger to the devil". To say "This thing is this way, however..." is too complicated, too lax, as if you wouldn't have a firm opinion. Anyway, these people don't debate, they just are supporting their stance and making it clear to everybody.Of course it is not an absolute restraint, but no gun-nut I've engaged with in any way will allow the conversation to get anywhere near questioning just what "shall not be infringed" actually means. — tim wood
If you have a right answer, you are dealing with mathematics and logic.↪ssu Amen. But I like to think that in every debate there is either a right answer or at least the better answer. — tim wood
"What we think." I invite you to be the very first to build the bridge that connects the 2A with any modern interpretation of it. It's just one sentence, twenty-seven words. Have at it.The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished. — Mikie
Turns out that "law-abiding" citizens do most of the killing. — tim wood
— tim wood
Btw, you want to "counter the threat." What threat is that, exactly, and how, exactly, do you plan to "counter" it?
He's law-abiding right up to the exact moment he is no longer law-abiding. The point being that "law-abiding" seems not a very good indicator of who should/should not have a gun. — tim wood
So if you want to shoot an intruder, you shall have to consider what state to live in. — tim wood
And I'm sure too that you know perfectly well that by far the greater danger to the inhabitants of a house is the gun that is already in the house. So it would appear that justifications are more based in fantasy and wishful thinking than reality, and these fantasies get too many people killed that should not have been killed.
The 2A refers to "the people." You refer to "people." what do you mean? What do you imagine the founders meant?People without a criminal record should be able to buy a gun. I'm on the fence about mental health issues. — RogueAI
In a Massachusetts' court - or in any other court I know of - your opinion wouldn't matter. And, that is exactly the circumstance in which you're obliged to retreat if you can.I agree that you should retreat if you can, unless someone is breaking into your house. — RogueAI
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.