The debate "Should State law be allowed to ban guns when the 2end Amendment says no" was started by
May 5, 2017, 6:07 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, makson, thereal, MrLuke, anu1302 and 2 visitors agree.
MrShine, Nemiroff, SirIntegra and 6 visitors disagree.
Lost my first argument, truncated a bit to keep it shorter
Not an obvious flaw, as it is the wording and acceptable use at the time period. My focus was to prove it was the individual covered, the actual provided quote and definitions use doesn't stray from that. At the time, the bikers would be the militia. Have their rights changed since then if the army is a national one? Shouldn't a person who has followed the rules and legally gotten a gun have that right, if the right helps them decide to protect themselves?
I argue the redundancy. If there was a necessity for a militia but not the 2nd, why include it if the 10th would cover it? It would have to be a decided right to protect people against the government's control (No fight necessarily, but the bill of rights was created for that)
America has a different climate and situation than say Australia. How often does an illegal immigrant get into Australia by crossing the border?
They keyword in your situation is passing into illegal hands. If it is an issue on buying and distributing, that can be argued, but a blanket statement on the general population would try to suggest at first a law abiding citizen suddenly becomes a criminal with a gun, rather than a criminal gets a gun through a criminal act.
Let's break your rebuttal down point by point. You equate knowledge of how to use a firearm with a militia. This has one obvious flaw. Under your classification, biker gangs are militias and should be protected from prosecution. Militias were important because the standing military was not strong enough to defend the nation without them. If invaded, they needed people to take up arms. Do you honestly believe this is still the case?
Your argument regarding the quote about safety and freedom is also rather misguided. The only way you could feel it supported your position is if you were choosing the bastarsized version of the quote without knowing anything about the context. Research what they actually said about freedom and security, and you will see that since we are looking for permanent security without sacrificing essential liberty, it is not applicable. It is also worth noting that the original quote was about taxation, not personal freedoms, so the borrowed authority doesn't hold.
I'm not sure what your argument was with regards to the 10th amendments rendering the 2nd moot. How does that strengthen your position?
Finally, the places with the best gun controls do NOT have terrible gun crime statistics. The places with the best gun control are not in the US. Controlling guns doesn't work if a 1/2 hour drive let's you buy one without a problem. Local gun control fails because there is nothing stopping guns from moving between areas within a nation.
Your question about criminals again shows a lack of understanding on the subject. Where do criminals get guns? The vast majority are purchased legally before making their way into criminal hands. By restricting guns, you limit how many are on the streets.
Of particular interest is the part starting with
"While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer"
If you restrict guns going onto the streets, criminals will lose access too. It will take time, but it will happen if supply dries up.
the closest thing we have to a militia would be the national guard.
I think it's turned into more of an entertainment and protection kind of thing. now for protection we need a fast and effective way to get people through it that isn't too pricey. for entertainment, if it's ur own guns that u just want to shoot in the country or firing range have at it. (if u don't have any then they could be provided by the range for a small fee?), for hunting there are plenty of safety measures and then some that it isn't even a problem. if anything it's overly protective.
The definition of "Regulation" at that time does not match with the strict management of a cadre. Rather, it referred to the working order of and knowledgeable use. In many cases for a license, the individual must show their knowledge to obtain a license, which means classes. It is no argument that the people would become the militia, and distinguishing a militia as a separate force would be different. So they do not arm the citizens, they are the citizens, which are already armed.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Also, the 10 amendments emphasised individual rights, because the bill of rights was passed against infringement by the government as it was previously observed. The 10th is the only one that seems to break this pattern, except it gave each colony the ability to self govern in places where the federal government did not. This autonomy would allow militias to be set as pleased, which means a 2nd amendment would be unnecessary.
Whether or not the technology could be determined, the frequency was similarly high. (Maybe check out what they've said about compromising freedom and safety? They're a bit dangerous) And argument against an amendment by change could just as easily be applied to the first amendment by the internet.
Why do the places with the best gun control laws have terrible crime statistics? Furthermore, what criminal follows the law? The only people affected are law abiding citizens.
I'm not so sure the second amendment actually gives people the right to own personal firearms.
what it does allow is for a well regulated militia which will arm the citizens if such a need arises.
not even the wild west had as loose gun laws as we do today. none of the founders or anyone of any foresight would recommend random people walk around constantly armed in public.
Certain guns, yes. The 2nd amendment is largely obsolete since a civilian force could not beat a corrupt government without the support of the military. And if they have the support of the military, the armed civilians are not really beneficial. Unless we allow civilians to have all forms of military weapons and equipment, they are simply technologically incapable of matching the military.
I would in no way support banning all guns, but guns that serve no purpose but controlling guns would help reduce the number of accidental and intentional firearm deaths.