The second amendment should be abolished or changed as the original purpose is no longer relevant

February 22, 2018, 9:12 am

Agree3 Disagree18

14%
86%

The debate "The second amendment should be abolished or changed as the original purpose is no longer relevant" was started by historybuff on February 22, 2018, 9:12 am. 3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

historybuff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.


historybuff, MayaC17 and 1 visitor agree.
liberty4all1776, jivanl, Yiyi, sabrina, chasediedrich1, NPW, criscap, chemikilsm0ke, neveralone and 9 visitors disagree.

Nemiroff
replied to...

I think everyone should have access to therapy. it can help put things into perspective and context. it could also help prevent a person from even going down such a path.

once you have a firearm pointed at you, the size of the gun only adds an incremental amount of fear. and the guy with the small gun may shoot you before even looking at what your trying to point at him if your moving like some sort of a draw. guns are point, click, kill, no matter the size.

1 year, 5 months ago

1) agreed. that would be a problem.
2) I can see how if you don't do some quick thinking. but I agree we can put this on hold.
3) true people do snap... and a monthly therapist would help but wouldn't work in reality. though I don't hear about this often it does happen enough that it needs to be addressed. this will require a more thought out plan for certain.

4) I agree. a pistol works just fine. but a bigger gun is usually more intimadating.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

a) I agree. it is good for a certain portion of the population (not talking about on duty police) to be armed. But not average joe.

but even with proper instructions reality is a pain. even pro shooters aren't perfect marksmen like in the movies. when some civilians in BLM suggested cops should aim for guns and hands or feet, a police commissioner replied police are not ninjas. there is a limit to human ability, and even if Olympian marksmen can ace every shot, that's a fraction of the population, and even they may get flustered in a life or death situation where it's not just glory on the line and no plenty of slow breathing undisturbed aiming.

MAYBE military or some agents have a handful of John wicks that can ace everything under stress, but we are talking the broad population.

back to home invasions. let's assume you are Hawkeye. bullets don't always stop. You get an entry wound, but you also can get an exit wound. and walls aren't usually really strong, some are downright paper thin, so it very much can get going. and if you factor in multiple bullets, multiple instances, across the nation... it will happen.

b) is a statistic that showed having a gun makes you less safe in a confrontation. You do surrender, but you don't die. (always exceptions everywhere of course). I would have to dig up the statistic and we examine it. I see the logic, and the counter logic, but reality is the ultimate judge, we just have to see how good the study(s) are. let's put this on hold.

c) kids find things. often regardless of how well you hide them. never underestimate curiosity combined with determination.
people snap. even the most composed. we are not robots. road rage, alcohol rage, gambling rage, anyone without "the perfect" relationship, the list could go on and everyone will eventually be excluded.

d) people don't always back down. You can have a machine gun, if I shoot my pistol first, your dead. and remember scale, things don't always work out the logical way.

1 year, 5 months ago

You will need to fire a shot unless you want the dogs a robber has with him to bite you, they'll take your rifle or handgun.

1 year, 5 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

d) most of the time you shouldn't need to fire a shot. it should just be used to scare them. most people, i don't know why it can still kill you, are not scared of pistols as much as a shotgun as an example. most of the time the desired outcome should be where no one gets hurt.

1 year, 5 months ago

a) proper knowledge on how to operate weapons would dramatically lower that. I don't want just anyone to have a weapon

b) that's if a) their looking at you b) by the time they/he/she knows you have a gun it should already be pointed at them

c) for the child you should have it near but locked up where they can not get to it. and if there is someone you don't recognize coming to your house you get one out and be ready just in case but not trigger happy. and for emotional disputes and such I would require classes and training and probably a therapist visit just to make sure you are someone that should handle a weapon.

1 year, 5 months ago

men with dogs
men with infected needles containing deadly substance

1 year, 5 months ago

1) and in that idea why are the militia wanting guns? to protect themselves from harm.
2) I'm willing to protect myself and the people around me so no one has to die. I would increase police funds and education to the hopeful point that there is no need to have a gun for protection.

1 year, 5 months ago

also, the studies show the guns are a horrible form of self defense.

a) collateral damage. especially in apartment buildings where most walls aren't bullet proof, you can even have tragedies where a man in a private house accidentally shoots his child or spouse in an adjacent room.

b) pulling out a gun turns a robbery into a shootout, and you are at a massive disadvantage since they are out and loaded while you are fiddling with your child safe gun case. (and we have seen what happens when someone doesn't use a child safe gun case.

c) Chances are good that even if you prepare for a home invasion, the guns end up being used in an emotional dispute or found by a child (even from the child proof cases) and shoots a friend or family member.

and d) home defense does not require carry of any kind. I do support ownership of limited guns, but very VERY limited carry. especially in towns and cities.

1 year, 5 months ago

go away najam. no one here is talking to you.

1 year, 5 months ago

No guns is only a paradise for cowardly homosexual sodomite rapists.
Why else do you think they only beat and rape men in the prisons where there are no guns amongst the victims?

1 year, 5 months ago

1) that isn't the purpose of the amendment. it wasn't interpreted that way until recently. it was written specifically in reference to a militia because the founding fathers were afraid of a large standing army. but since you now have a massive military complex it's purpose is irrelevant.

2) are you willing to let thousands of people die every year to make yourself feel better? stats show that violent crime rates increase with more guns. so you are actually more likely to suffer from violent crime in a county in which you are armed than in one where guns are uncommon.

1 year, 5 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

if you dig deeper than skin value you can see that it's more than that. the 2nd is protection on a smaller scale. sure we probably couldn't take on an army but we aren't trying to. we are trying to stop someone robbing us or from killing our family or helping someone else and hopefully all without firing a bullet. it also gives us a sense of safety.

1 year, 5 months ago
Najam1
replied to...

Just a fake shooting to help cowards who hate guns being invented. Keep protecting cowards who refuse a one on one gunfight. They are the scum of the Earth, and many of them hide in prisons, where they are allowed to beat and rape unarmed nonmuslims men only.
May Allah curse and destroy the cowards who hide from a fair fight behind prison walls.

1 year, 5 months ago

when the second amendment was written the fastest someone could fire a rifle was 2-3 shots per minute. the men who wrote it didn't intend for a private citizen to be able to mow down a room full of people.

they also clearly said that the reason people should be allowed to own guns was for the purpose of having a state militia.

since 1) militias are entirely irrelevant in a military conflict where you can level a city with the push of a button and drone can kill you while it's operator is on the other side of the planet.

2) the vast majority of private gun owners will never have anything to do with a Militia

there is no reason for the second amendment, as it is currently written, to continue to exist.

1 year, 5 months ago
Discuss "The second amendment should be abolished or changed as the original purpose is no longer relevant" politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.