Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

Don't forget the Brazen Bull, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc.

[Awesome Break-Away of 250land]

Yeah. So do knives. And toasters dropped in your bathtub.

Your fists are dangerous weapons! We must outlaw them! Quickly, we must sever everybody's hands! But what's this? A head-butt can kill a person too! We should outlaw that as well...

Designed to kill? no. hunting rifles have the purpose of supplying food.

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 It's clear outdated (written in the 1700s in a time before women could vote, slavery, and imperialism).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

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.

You know I've always thought the Parliamentary system would have been a much better choice. The US system has so many gridlocks it's almost impossible to do anything (to reinforce this theory of protection from tyranny). It's all very unfortunate but there's a separate thread for that I'm sure...

I am not saying there will ever be enough support to ban guns... I just think that normatively we SHOULD. And definitely, the first step to get that to happen (however hard) is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Honestly, cruel and unusual punishment is such a politicized phrase... I mean if you look at the court's definition it's pretty much saying the court gets to call whatever it wants here and in the future ''cruel and unusual punishment.''

For example...

"that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity"

Dude that is SOOO general and such a blanket phrase that leaves so many open doors. What if I said getting 3 months in a cage is degrading to my human dignity?

I stand by what I said. Executing criminals in a relatively humane manner (ex injection) for possessing VERY dangerous things illegally (like guns or drugs) is perfectly justifiable. Other societies have done it and it's been extremely effective as a deterrent. Just look at Singapore...

[Williamson]

Your fists are dangerous weapons! We must outlaw them! Quickly, we must sever everybody's hands! But what's this? A head-butt can kill a person too! We should outlaw that as well...

Designed to kill? no. hunting rifles have the purpose of supplying food.

people can choke on food better ban that.

[Lessnt]

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.

You know I've always thought the Parliamentary system would have been a much better choice. The US system has so many gridlocks it's almost impossible to do anything (to reinforce this theory of protection from tyranny). It's all very unfortunate but there's a separate thread for that I'm sure...

I am not saying there will ever be enough support to ban guns... I just think that normatively we SHOULD. And definitely, the first step to get that to happen (however hard) is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Honestly, cruel and unusual punishment is such a politicized phrase... I mean if you look at the court's definition it's pretty much saying the court gets to call whatever it wants here and in the future ''cruel and unusual punishment.''

For example...

"that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity"

Dude that is SOOO general and such a blanket phrase that leaves so many open doors. What if I said getting 3 months in a cage is degrading to my human dignity?

I stand by what I said. Executing criminals in a relatively humane manner (ex injection) for possessing VERY dangerous things illegally (like guns or drugs) is perfectly justifiable. Other societies have done it and it's been extremely effective as a deterrent. Just look at Singapore...

Theres more money in the USA.
California alone if it were its own country would rank in the top 10 economies in the world.

[Jassysworth 1]

Designed to kill? no. hunting rifles have the purpose of supplying food.

people can choke on food better ban that.

Nope, food was not designed to be a weapon. And it has no range or firepower in the military sense.

Read my criteria before making satire that doesn't even apply. Equating banning food with banning guns? Wow...

[Lessnt]

people can choke on food better ban that.

Nope, food was not designed to be a weapon. And it has no range or firepower in the military sense.

Read my criteria before making satire that doesn't even apply. Equating banning food with banning guns? Wow...

Food was a lion.
Lions designed to kill.
ban lions.

[Jassysworth 1]

Nope, food was not designed to be a weapon. And it has no range or firepower in the military sense.

Read my criteria before making satire that doesn't even apply. Equating banning food with banning guns? Wow...

Food was a lion.
Lions designed to kill.
ban lions.

Incorrect application + poor reasoning

How do you go from something should be banned if

1. It has range and firepower in the military sense
2. It is primarily or exclusively designed as a weapon

to...

whatever you just said above. Food was a lion (some food, all food)? A lion was DESIGNED to kill (who designed it... so God exists now? Oh and wait... a lion is a weapon? How strange...). And what happened to no. 1 (a lion clearly doesn't have range or firepower in the sense that we are talking about).

Need I say more?

[Lessnt]

Food was a lion.
Lions designed to kill.
ban lions.

Incorrect application + poor reasoning

How do you go from something should be banned if

1. It has range and firepower in the military sense
2. It is primarily or exclusively designed as a weapon

to...

whatever you just said above. Food was a lion (some food, all food)? A lion was DESIGNED to kill (who designed it... so God exists now? Oh and wait... a lion is a weapon? How strange...). And what happened to no. 1 (a lion clearly doesn't have range or firepower in the sense that we are talking about).

Need I say more?

Lions designed themselves.
How about that?

[The 44th Indp Legion]

Incorrect application + poor reasoning

How do you go from something should be banned if

1. It has range and firepower in the military sense
2. It is primarily or exclusively designed as a weapon

to...

whatever you just said above. Food was a lion (some food, all food)? A lion was DESIGNED to kill (who designed it... so God exists now? Oh and wait... a lion is a weapon? How strange...). And what happened to no. 1 (a lion clearly doesn't have range or firepower in the sense that we are talking about).

Need I say more?

Lions designed themselves.
How about that?

In fairness, possession of lions is generally banned.
./devil'sadvocate

[The UK in Exile]

duh. gun crime has increased since HAVING A GUN BECAME A CRIME.

this is the point!

Japan has fewer cars, people don't drive less. less people get driven on.
Japan has fewer guns. people don't shoot less. but less people get shot.

I suppose that the steady change should be shown, then.

"* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by40% in the two yearsafter it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.156"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34066535/Gun- ... of-America

The gun crime is constantly climbing in the UK. It means that the ban isn't working.

And Japan has denser cities and fewer people.

thats exactly the same statistic from an even moe biased source than the daily fail....

[Jassysworth 1]

Incorrect application + poor reasoning

How do you go from something should be banned if

1. It has range and firepower in the military sense
2. It is primarily or exclusively designed as a weapon

to...

whatever you just said above. Food was a lion (some food, all food)? A lion was DESIGNED to kill (who designed it... so God exists now? Oh and wait... a lion is a weapon? How strange...). And what happened to no. 1 (a lion clearly doesn't have range or firepower in the sense that we are talking about).

Need I say more?

Lions designed themselves.
How about that?

DUDE... not even THAT makes any sense!

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Your fists are dangerous weapons! We must outlaw them! Quickly, we must sever everybody's hands! But what's this? A head-butt can kill a person too! We should outlaw that as well...

Designed to kill? no. hunting rifles have the purpose of supplying food.

You eat your food while it's still alive? Kinky!

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

You know I've always thought the Parliamentary system would have been a much better choice. The US system has so many gridlocks it's almost impossible to do anything (to reinforce this theory of protection from tyranny). It's all very unfortunate but there's a separate thread for that I'm sure...

I am not saying there will ever be enough support to ban guns... I just think that normatively we SHOULD. And definitely, the first step to get that to happen (however hard) is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Honestly, cruel and unusual punishment is such a politicized phrase... I mean if you look at the court's definition it's pretty much saying the court gets to call whatever it wants here and in the future ''cruel and unusual punishment.''

For example...

"that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity"

Dude that is SOOO general and such a blanket phrase that leaves so many open doors. What if I said getting 3 months in a cage is degrading to my human dignity?

I stand by what I said. Executing criminals in a relatively humane manner (ex injection) for possessing VERY dangerous things illegally (like guns or drugs) is perfectly justifiable. Other societies have done it and it's been extremely effective as a deterrent. Just look at Singapore...

The system is designed so that the Constitution isn't changed on a whim, against the will of the people.

The only way to repeal the Second Amendment is to get enough support to do so. If there's not enough support, the rest of your idea is useless.

It's pretty much determined through precedent that going to jail/prison isn't cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself. But if someone gets a prison sentence they feel is cruel and unusual, they can try to take it to court. I'm saying that based on what I read, my opinion is that the death penalty for owning a firearm could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Singapore and the US are very different countries, with different views on punishing criminals. For example, we don't cane people here.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The AR15 is an accurate rifle, great for both the amateur and professional target shooter. It's why I have one.

You should get rid of it. It's too dangerous. You'll be tempted someday to shoot up the neighborhood... or someone else might grab it and go do it.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not as if Gun Manufacturers is a postal worker or something.

[Milks Empire]

Don't be ridiculous. It's not as if Gun Manufacturers is a postal worker or something.

HOLY LG SIGHTING, BATMAN!!!!

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Don't be ridiculous. It's not as if Gun Manufacturers is a postal worker or something.

HOLY LG SIGHTING, BATMAN!!!!

I'm like a rare white stag.

[Norstal]

HOLY LG SIGHTING, BATMAN!!!!

I'm like a rare white stag.

...

*Shoots LG with a hunting rifle.*

[Milks Empire]

I'm like a rare white stag.

...
*Shoots LG with a hunting rifle.*

*takes the bullet*

[Ceannairceach]

...
*Shoots LG with a hunting rifle.*

*takes the bullet*

Hey, that's stealing!

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm like a rare white stag.

...

*Shoots LG with a hunting rifle.*

OW!

[Milks Empire]

...
*Shoots LG with a hunting rifle.*

OW!

*cleans and dresses the wound*

[Lunatic Goofballs]

OW!

*cleans and dresses the wound*

[Milks Empire]

*cleans and dresses the wound*

*gives tacos and a mud bath*

[Communist Winnipeg]

I just heard that some of the uninsured victims already have medical bills exceeding $1M. America could use a few changes.