Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Hydralis]

Outlaw guns, and only outlaws have guns. That seems real nice.

No you go after the outlaws until they don't have guns too (common sense?).

There will always be crime as long as human nature makes us dislike someone enough to kill them. Crime is one thing that humanity will have to evolve to get over, and if guns are outlawed, the illegal market on them rises. So what happens when a gunman goes into your house, and you have nothing to protect yourself with, and he/she shoots you? If you had a firearm that was for self-defense, you'd be the one alive.

[Lessnt]

No you go after the outlaws until they don't have guns too (common sense?).

There will always be crime as long as human nature makes us dislike someone enough to kill them. Crime is one thing that humanity will have to evolve to get over, and if guns are outlawed, the illegal market on them rises. So what happens when a gunman goes into your house, and you have nothing to protect yourself with, and he/she shoots you? If you had a firearm that was for self-defense, you'd be the one alive.

Fire can kill.
Lets get rid of everything that might catch on fire.
Including clothes.

[Jassysworth 1]

It's very simple... change the Constitution. It's clear outdated (written in the 1700s in a time before women could vote, slavery, and imperialism).

It's not cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone for carrying an illegal gun anymore than it is cruel and unusual punishment t execute someone for drug possession/trafficking (real life countries do this). Right?

If people know they will get executed for owning a gun or smoking... they'll stop. It will work trust me... a total ban...

No one in the USA are executed unless they are in a state that has the death penalty and they kill someone.Then it is up for a court to decide.
Were not barbarians you know?

It's not barbaric to execute criminals because... they are criminals.

If someone owns a gun then he has the potential to shoot up the whole neighborhood... so he has to go... before anything bad happens. It's for the greater good.

You can get a gun-free America, just need a very tough anti-crime policy like Singapore.

[Rupture Farms co]

It's very simple... change the Constitution. It's clear outdated (written in the 1700s in a time before women could vote, slavery, and imperialism).

It's not cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone for carrying an illegal gun anymore than it is cruel and unusual punishment t execute someone for drug possession/trafficking (real life countries do this). Right?

If people know they will get executed for owning a gun or smoking... they'll stop. It will work trust me... a total ban...

No one in the USA are executed unless they are in a state that has the death penalty and they kill someone.Then it is up for a court to decide.
Were not barbarians you know?

You know, we should reapply the rack and fagot. That would kill crime. Also we would do it in public in order to persuade others not to commit crime.

[Hydralis]

There will always be crime as long as human nature makes us dislike someone enough to kill them. Crime is one thing that humanity will have to evolve to get over, and if guns are outlawed, the illegal market on them rises. So what happens when a gunman goes into your house, and you have nothing to protect yourself with, and he/she shoots you? If you had a firearm that was for self-defense, you'd be the one alive.

Fire can kill.
Lets get rid of everything that might catch on fire.
Including clothes.

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

[Lessnt]

Fire can kill.
Lets get rid of everything that might catch on fire.
Including clothes.

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

WE should all live in a vacuum.

[Jassysworth 1]

No you go after the outlaws until they don't have guns too (common sense?).

There will always be crime as long as human nature makes us dislike someone enough to kill them. Crime is one thing that humanity will have to evolve to get over, and if guns are outlawed, the illegal market on them rises. So what happens when a gunman goes into your house, and you have nothing to protect yourself with, and he/she shoots you? If you had a firearm that was for self-defense, you'd be the one alive.

There are no gunman going into people's houses in Singapore or Japan go figure.

Sure at first that might happen, but give it a few decades and we can have a gun-free paradise. Plus anyone who does that kind of stuff would just get put to death after... that'll deter them.

[Hydralis]

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

WE should all live in a vacuum.

We should live in giant hamster balls. Nothing gets in those!

[Jassysworth 1]

Fire can kill.
Lets get rid of everything that might catch on fire.
Including clothes.

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

No... just guns. Because guns have too much range and firepower... and its designed to be a weapon. That's the criteria here... I don't see rocks fitting that.

[Lessnt]

No one in the USA are executed unless they are in a state that has the death penalty and they kill someone.Then it is up for a court to decide.
Were not barbarians you know?

It's not barbaric to execute criminals because... they are criminals.

If someone owns a gun then he has the potential to shoot up the whole neighborhood... so he has to go... before anything bad happens. It's for the greater good.

You can get a gun-free America, just need a very tough anti-crime policy like Singapore.

There is such a thing as going too far in terms of punishment.
balancing out punishment is very important.

Maybe if we kill rapists people will stop raping?
Probably not.

[Lessnt]

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

No... just guns. Because guns have too much range and firepower... and its designed to be a weapon. That's the criteria here... I don't see rocks fitting that.

Let get rid of longbows.
Too much range and firepower.
As well as anything that can go boom.
So ban most chemicals.

[Hydralis]

Rocks were probably the first things used to kill. We should ban rocks, too.

No... just guns. Because guns have too much range and firepower... and its designed to be a weapon. That's the criteria here... I don't see rocks fitting that.

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It's not dangerous, it's an inanimate object, meaning it won't do anything unless I interact with it (chamber a round, take it off safe, and pull the trigger).

Or someone else interacts with it? A psycho breaks into your house, takes your gun, and sets loose with it?

No, I won't be tempted to shoot up the neighborhood.

Trust me, don't overestimate your own capabilities to resist temptation. A gun is a temptation... get rid of it.

I don't see how they'd get their hands on any of my firearms, since they're locked up in my gun safe (and I'm the only one with the combination).

You know it is pretty easy to break through a safe right?

I don't exactly advertise on the door to my apartment that I have firearms, so how would a psycho know I had them. And since most of my neighbors are Navy personnel, most of them (including all of the neighbors in my building) haven't been here as long as me (so they wouldn't have seen the safe being hauled up the stairs).

Trust me, you don't know anything about me. When you say I'm overestimating my ability to resist the temptation to go on a shooting spree, you're making shit up.

Maybe a cheap sheetmetal gun safe. But to get into my gun safe without the combination, you're going to need power tools, a lot of time, and it would make one hell of a racket. It's the kind of racket that my neighbors aren't going to miss.

[Jassysworth 1]

No one in the USA are executed unless they are in a state that has the death penalty and they kill someone.Then it is up for a court to decide.
Were not barbarians you know?

You know, we should reapply the rack and fagot. That would kill crime. Also we would do it in public in order to persuade others not to commit crime.

We should only use torture when we catch one of these gun smugglers to get him to tell us where all of his accomplices are. Then we can use execution... it will get on the news and everyone else will know we mean BUSINESS. Then gun smuggling will fall way down...

The rack is a terribly outdated method of torture. We've got better stuff now that requires less craftsmanship...

Also, we can't have PUBLIC executions. Children can't be allowed to watch that slime. However... make sure the names of those executed ALWAYS get on the news... and we've got to have footages too. Should scare the hell out of the other criminals...

[Lessnt]

No... just guns. Because guns have too much range and firepower... and its designed to be a weapon. That's the criteria here... I don't see rocks fitting that.

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

Ban martial arts and healthy bodies.
They can be used in combination to make bodies a lethal weapon.

[Natapoc]

Another good one:



Why is it okay to regulate every aspect of our lives EXCEPT bullets and guns?

It's not OK to regulate any aspect of our lives.

Then why are the pro gun people standing around paranoid that their guns are going to be regulated while all their rights that don't have to do with shooting people are taken away?

A tyrant who can control speech and assembly does not need to control guns.

[Jassysworth 1]

No... just guns. Because guns have too much range and firepower... and its designed to be a weapon. That's the criteria here... I don't see rocks fitting that.

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

yes some of those should be banned... not certain types of knives though because some of those were designed primarily as kitchen utensils.

The criteria here is...

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

The main thing that fits under this is guns... hence they are the greatest threat to society.

[Jassysworth 1]

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

Ban martial arts and healthy bodies.
They can be used in combination to make bodies a lethal weapon.

Remember the criteria?

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

Martial arts? No range and no firepower (not comparable to a gun's).

Chemicals that can blow stuff up don't necessarily fit because few of them were designed primarily as a weapon and none of them have much range (can't hit target X from several miles away with ease).

Only guns fit (though some of you brought up crossbows...)...

[Hydralis]

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

yes some of those should be banned... not certain types of knives though because some of those were designed primarily as kitchen utensils.

The criteria here is...

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

The main thing that fits under this is guns... hence they are the greatest threat to society.

No, the greatest threat to society are the sociopaths or psychopaths who think they should go on a murder rampage. I think a psychological test should be performed every once in a while on people who own guns, just as a safety measure, and those who don't plan on shooting up a neighborhood would all pass with flying numbers. Insanity, not weapons, is the greatest threat.

[Lessnt]

You don't detect sarcasm, do you? Swords were designed to kill, should we ban them? Crossbows, slingshots, standard bows, and knives were all designed with a violent purpose. As long as there are still people out there who would threaten us or our families with violence, we should have something to defend ourselves with as a last case scenario.

yes some of those should be banned... not certain types of knives though because some of those were designed primarily as kitchen utensils.

The criteria here is...

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

The main thing that fits under this is guns... hence they are the greatest threat to society.

long bows
spears
slings
sharp things
throwing sticks
clubs

ALL DESIGNED TO BE WEAPONS.
except for sharp things and sticks people purposefully find materials and design them for the purpose of wounding or killing.

[Jassysworth 1]

yes some of those should be banned... not certain types of knives though because some of those were designed primarily as kitchen utensils.

The criteria here is...

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

The main thing that fits under this is guns... hence they are the greatest threat to society.

long bows
spears
slings
sharp things
throwing sticks
clubs

ALL DESIGNED TO BE WEAPONS.
except for sharp things and sticks people purposefully find materials and design them for the purpose of wounding or killing.

Out of the list that you listed... whatever fits criteria 1 (range + firepower comparable to that of a gun's) should be banned. Again, I don't see how that's an inconsistent philosophy I'm putting out here. It's as simple and effective as ABC.

Ban the guns... put the policemen out there, severely punish anyone who disobeys the laws. Then you can have a gun-free utopia... what's wrong?

[Jassysworth 1]

yes some of those should be banned... not certain types of knives though because some of those were designed primarily as kitchen utensils.

The criteria here is...

1. Long range + firepower
2. Designed primarily as a weapon

The main thing that fits under this is guns... hence they are the greatest threat to society.

No, the greatest threat to society are the sociopaths or psychopaths who think they should go on a murder rampage. I think a psychological test should be performed every once in a while on people who own guns, just as a safety measure, and those who don't plan on shooting up a neighborhood would all pass with flying numbers. Insanity, not weapons, is the greatest threat.

But weapons are still a threat... and ESPECIALLY guns.

[Hydralis]

long bows
spears
slings
sharp things
throwing sticks
clubs

ALL DESIGNED TO BE WEAPONS.
except for sharp things and sticks people purposefully find materials and design them for the purpose of wounding or killing.

Out of the list that you listed... whatever fits criteria 1 (range + firepower comparable to that of a gun's) should be banned. Again, I don't see how that's an inconsistent philosophy I'm putting out here. It's as simple and effective as ABC.

Ban the guns... put the policemen out there, severely punish anyone who disobeys the laws. Then you can have a gun-free utopia... what's wrong?

Utopia's don't have to be gun free. Most gun owners are perfectly sane people. How many massacres like the Colorado one happen daily in the US? Barely, otherwise this wouldn't be a big deal. Guns don't need to be banned, but gun owners should have an occasional sanity test.

[Hydralis]

No, the greatest threat to society are the sociopaths or psychopaths who think they should go on a murder rampage. I think a psychological test should be performed every once in a while on people who own guns, just as a safety measure, and those who don't plan on shooting up a neighborhood would all pass with flying numbers. Insanity, not weapons, is the greatest threat.

But weapons are still a threat... and ESPECIALLY guns.

Guns aren't a threat unless wielded by a madman.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Enough Americans don't want firearms banned, that an Amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment will be next to impossible.

And stop bringing up Singapore and execution for gun ownership. It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

It's very simple... change the Constitution. It's clear outdated (written in the 1700s in a time before women could vote, slavery, and imperialism).

It's not cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone for carrying an illegal gun anymore than it is cruel and unusual punishment t execute someone for drug possession/trafficking (real life countries do this). Right?

If people know they will get executed for owning a gun or smoking... they'll stop. It will work trust me... a total ban...

To change the US Constitution, it would take either a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, or a Constitutional Convention called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures could propose an amendment (to date, this method has produced 0 amendments to the Constitution). It would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (currently 38 states would be needed). There's not going to be enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment any time soon, especially since many states have a similar section in their state constitutions.

It's cruel and unusual punishment. In Furman v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court determined that a punishment fell under the definition of cruel and unusual if:

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

The death penalty for ownership of a legally obtained inanimate object would fit under those criteria. IMO, even giving someone the death penalty for drug possession/trafficking is cruel and unusual punishment.