Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Imperializt Russia]

Strictly speaking, if 117mn households have firearms, then each firearm has on average three firearms. However, that figure is from 2010, when ownership was lower and murders were higher.

Well now you done broke the universe and earth is an infinitely massive black hole.

I hope you're happy.

You know what, I giggled so much I'm not even going to edit that.

[Ifreann]

You retain the right to bear arms. What you to not retain is the right to bear arms without restriction.

The words "shall not be infringed upon" however, would imply that the right is unrestricted.

If you want to play the literalist game, the amendment refers only to keeping and bearing arms. Not owning them, buying them, selling them, nor even using them.

[The New Lowlands]

In the US, I'd say it's easier today than at any other point in history.

Apparently not, since the deadliest school attack was and still is an eighty-six years-since bombing.

That has to do with scale, not with ease.

[Enadail]

You retain the right to bear arms. What you to not retain is the right to bear arms without restriction.

The words "shall not be infringed upon" however, would imply that the right is unrestricted.

If we're being literal, the right to do so isn't being infringed, because it also says its for maintaining a militia...

[Enadail]

The words "shall not be infringed upon" however, would imply that the right is unrestricted.

If you want to play the literalist game, the amendment refers only to keeping and bearing arms. Not owning them, buying them, selling them, nor even using them.

Unless my history is well off, wasn't it quite common at the time to have a central munitions shed for a town/village, where weapons, ammunition, etc, would be kept, for easy access when the militia was called? Not baring personal weapons.

[Ifreann]

If you want to play the literalist game, the amendment refers only to keeping and bearing arms. Not owning them, buying them, selling them, nor even using them.

Unless my history is well off, wasn't it quite common at the time to have a central munitions shed for a town/village, where weapons, ammunition, etc, would be kept, for easy access when the militia was called? Not baring personal weapons.

I wouldn't know.

[Imperializt Russia]

The words "shall not be infringed upon" however, would imply that the right is unrestricted.

If we're being literal, the right to do so isn't being infringed, because it also says its for maintaining a militia...

"Well-regulated militia" doesn't necessarily mean what it did in the 1700s.
After all, people like to lol at religion by quoting Marx saying how it is the "opiate of the masses", when it could have meant other contexts. It's only because we have such a negative public opinion of drug use, especially opiates, that we think what we do now.

[Enadail]

If we're being literal, the right to do so isn't being infringed, because it also says its for maintaining a militia...

"Well-regulated militia" doesn't necessarily mean what it did in the 1700s.
After all, people like to lol at religion by quoting Marx saying how it is the "opiate of the masses", when it could have meant other contexts. It's only because we have such a negative public opinion of drug use, especially opiates, that we think what we do now.

To the best of my knowledge, a militia in the 18th century was a group of people designated to the defense of the town/village. Can you clarify how it was different? And well regulated seems to clearly imply well provisioned and possibly trained. Again, how is this different?

Also, people "lol at religion" via that Marx quote because opiates have always been known to calm people down, reduce their thinking capability. It has nothing to do with the negative aspects of opiates, but rather the affect it has. Which again, was the point of the quote.

[The Serbian Empire]

Apparently not, since the deadliest school attack was and still is an eighty-six years-since bombing.

That has to do with scale, not with ease.

There is a possibility that such a bombing as what happened in Bath, Michigan wouldn't have been as effective today due to modern medicine.

[Greater Ilanar]

Reasons why we should not be embracing gun control as some do.

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.
2. Criminals will continue to have guns, as we can see in Chicago, but the people will now be defenseless against them as the police are at least a minute away in large cities and many minutes away elsewhere. That assumes the victim of the crime even has time to call the police.
3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.
4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.
5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

[Australian Antarctica]

That has to do with scale, not with ease.

There is a possibility that such a bombing as what happened in Bath, Michigan wouldn't have been as effective today due to modern medicine.

What are you arguing about?

[Australian Antarctica]

Reasons why we should not be embracing gun control as some do.

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.
2. Criminals will continue to have guns, as we can see in Chicago, but the people will now be defenseless against them as the police are at least a minute away in large cities and many minutes away elsewhere. That assumes the victim of the crime even has time to call the police.
3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.
4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.
5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

[Ifreann]

Reasons why we should not be embracing gun control as some do.

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

Tell it to the Supreme Court.

2. Criminals will continue to have guns...

Assumption.

3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.

No nation wants to invade the US anyway.

4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.

If the government is that tyrannical then I can't imagine rednecks with small arms will get much done.

5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

Which is no reason not to have gun-control laws, only a reason to have better ones.

[Enadail]

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

2. Criminals will continue to have guns, as we can see in Chicago, but the people will now be defenseless against them as the police are at least a minute away in large cities and many minutes away elsewhere. That assumes the victim of the crime even has time to call the police.

And show me again laws that completely revoke the right of a citizen to own a gun?

3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.

No nation is currently in a position to be able to invade the US. They'd have to first have a fleet of planes/boats coming at us, which would have to survive our Air Force and a variety of missiles, and then have to face off against one of the best equipped armies in the world. They're not scared of civilians if they manage to get through that.

4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.

If the government become oppressive and somehow got the Army to side with it (an impossibility), no number of civilians with guns would help, unless you're also proposing civilians should have access to jet fighters and UAVs.

5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

Yes, crime happens because of gun control, not because of social issues, not because of economic issues, etc. And again, when was the law passed making all guns illegal?

[Greater Ilanar]

The argument that "guns don't kill people" and references to "spoons make people fat" is not accurate because guns offer the possibility to kill.

Lots of things offer the possibility to kill. If I was crazy, I could kill with quite a few things. There's the knives in the kitchen, chainsaws in the garage, my car, pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, the fire place, etc., etc. Hell, I'm sure you could even electrically kill a person if you wanted. And then there's all the things you could find outside of your home. You know, the average American could give somebody lethal burns with just a can of hair spray and a lighter from the convenience store. Should we outlaw those as well? I know for a fact though, that spoons could be deadly. I saw somebody turn a spoon into a shank once because they were bored.

[Galloism]

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

2. Criminals will continue to have guns, as we can see in Chicago, but the people will now be defenseless against them as the police are at least a minute away in large cities and many minutes away elsewhere. That assumes the victim of the crime even has time to call the police.

And show me again laws that completely revoke the right of a citizen to own a gun?

3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.

No nation is currently in a position to be able to invade the US. They'd have to first have a fleet of planes/boats coming at us, which would have to survive our Air Force and a variety of missiles, and then have to face off against one of the best equipped armies in the world. They're not scared of civilians if they manage to get through that.

4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.

If the government become oppressive and somehow got the Army to side with it (an impossibility), no number of civilians with guns would help, unless you're also proposing civilians should have access to jet fighters and UAVs.

5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

Yes, crime happens because of gun control, not because of social issues, not because of economic issues, etc. And again, when was the law passed making all guns illegal?

1975 in DC. Overturned 2008.

Only infringed on constitutional rights for 31 years before being struck.

[Ermarian]

I still don't get why Americans are so obsessed with guns.

The first argument everybody trots out is the Second Amendment, which rather strikes me as "the Bible Says So". Do they realize that "amendment" means a subsequent change, of which there have been twenty-seven, and of which this very clause is one? Clearly, we're capable of changing the Constitution when appropriate. Thus "the Constitution Says So" cannot by definition be an argument why the Constitution Should Say So. As far as I'm concerned, it's a vague and poorly thought-out amendment written by people who didn't even have it in them to get rid of slavery. It's the single stupidest rule in there, and should be struck out. Next.

Then we have some clamoring about defending yourself from a government that doesn't have its people's interests at heart. I don't even know where to start, but here are three things:
1) Look at your government for like the past couple decades. Did it work?
2) The US military has a larger budget than the next twenty countries in the world combined. They have nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers, drones, missiles, and drones that launch missiles. Do people really think a few handguns would have any influence on another civil war?
3) There are dozens of functioning democracies throughout the world. How well their politicians govern is up for debate, but they're not doing much worse than the US governments. And their populations are, by and large, unarmed.

---

As for the crime and personal defense thing: The problem with profileration of handguns (I'm not talking about legalization or control, but about the actual pervasiveness of weapons) is that it is firstly self-perpetuating and secondly an implicit escalation of any potential conflict. Regardless of whether the other guy is armed. That means the "only outlaws have guns" argument doesn't apply - it's enough that the overall likelihood of people being armed decreases.

In any confrontation where I live (strict gun control) - whether I get mugged by an armed robber, or stopped by a suspicious policeman - the initial potential for violence is low, because the threat level is low. Odds are I'm not carrying a weapon. A sane robber isn't going to up his charges to murder just because, and a sane cop isn't going to freak out and shoot for no reason.

If the same thing happens in the US - robber's still armed, so is the policeman - then they have to assume that I'm also armed. They're nervous, they're twitchy, and depending on what kind of day they're having they may just go ahead and shoot. (It's not like the policeman would go to jail.) Even if I did have a gun, there is no way I can draw it without getting shot. My gun would only be an effective defense against a robber who doesn't have one.

[Australian Antarctica]

Reasons why we should not be embracing gun control as some do.

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

Tell it to the Supreme Court.
They have never read the constitution

2. Criminals will continue to have guns...

Assumption.
Fact. Look at New York, Chicago, and LA they still have gangs with guns

3. No nation will want to invade the United States if they have to handle our military and afterwards, 314 million armed Americans.

No nation wants to invade the US anyway.
Russia, North Korea, Iran just to name a few.

4. Even an elected government can go sour and for the good of the people, must be overthrown. In the event that the United States were to become and oppressive regime, the people would not be able to overcome this government without firearms. That is ultimately the best reason for the Second Amendment, a final insurance against the tyranny our forefathers fought to free the United States from.

If the government is that tyrannical then I can't imagine rednecks with small arms will get much done.
The First American Revolution. Witha good enough strategy we can take down anyone

5. It is not right for the cities to push their failed crime policies on the suburbs and country every time a shooting occurs because of urban gun-control laws.

Which is no reason not to have gun-control laws, only a reason to have better ones.
What do you have in mind?

[Mavorpen]

Reasons why we should not be embracing gun control as some do.

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

And yet the Supreme Court has not ruled so in centuries.

[Australian Antarctica]

The argument that "guns don't kill people" and references to "spoons make people fat" is not accurate because guns offer the possibility to kill.

Lots of things offer the possibility to kill. If I was crazy, I could kill with quite a few things. There's the knives in the kitchen, chainsaws in the garage, my car, pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, the fire place, etc., etc. Hell, I'm sure you could even electrically kill a person if you wanted. And then there's all the things you could find outside of your home. You know, the average American could give somebody lethal burns with just a can of hair spray and a lighter from the convenience store. Should we outlaw those as well? I know for a fact though, that spoons could be deadly. I saw somebody turn a spoon into a shank once because they were bored.

[Mavorpen]

Lots of things offer the possibility to kill. If I was crazy, I could kill with quite a few things. There's the knives in the kitchen, chainsaws in the garage, my car, pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, the fire place, etc., etc. Hell, I'm sure you could even electrically kill a person if you wanted. And then there's all the things you could find outside of your home. You know, the average American could give somebody lethal burns with just a can of hair spray and a lighter from the convenience store. Should we outlaw those as well? I know for a fact though, that spoons could be deadly. I saw somebody turn a spoon into a shank once because they were bored.

Stop with the fucking picspam.

[Kanery]

How have they over stepped their boundaries?

As to the right to bare arms? Well the INJUN problem, the British Empire, and the French are gone. Not sure if we need the militias anymore.

Terrorists, North Korea, Iran, Almost all of the middle east and part of Africa.

The common thread of all those groups except the "terrorists" being that they live a bit too far way for our guns to have real effect.

[The New Lowlands]

That has to do with scale, not with ease.

There is a possibility that such a bombing as what happened in Bath, Michigan wouldn't have been as effective today due to modern medicine.

And?

[Australian Antarctica]

Stop with the fucking picspam.

Lighten Up. I am still contributing.

[Mavorpen]

:clap:

Stop with the fucking picspam.

Lighten Up. I am still contributing.

Posting the same shitty picture everytime someone says something you like doesn't contribute anything.