Are you sure you want to delete this post?
lonely bird Wrote:
Dutch Wrote:Dutch, calm down. Jefferson said ALL rights were subject to modification. That includes the second amendment. I fully support modifying it. Individuals do not need assault or assault-style weaponry. Nor do they need large capacity clips or “cop-killer” bullets.
lonely bird Wrote:Total B.S. Please read that "amendment" and place yourself in those times. It certainly does not say that "civilians" should have "assault" weapons and 100's of rounds of ammunition in huge clips which tears your guts to shreds. The writers like you posted are just like our rotten lawyers trying to interpret things of 1800 to fit 2018. That "amendment" applies solely to the situation in 1800 and not now. Stop the B.S.
The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.
You said: "ALL rights were subject to modification" . So please show me the "amendment" on the "second amendment". No one has until now "amended" such. Thus what I'm saying is 100% correct. Sorry, but that antique document only applied for the "guns" and "militia" at the time of writing. Our forefathers were too stupid to foresee developments etc, and should have stated that such law only was valid for that particular period and should have been revised every 3 years thereafter.
If they would have had "brains" then when the first "gatling gun" was produced they should have "amended" this piece of crap paper.
There hasn’t been any amendment. What there has been on other rights is modification by law. You do not have absolute freedom of speech. You do not have absolute freedom to assemble. You do not have absolute freedom of the press. You do not have absolute freedom of religion. What is lacking regarding the second amendment is the political will to do something about it. And of course we have a SCOTUS that misinterpreted the amendment.
As regards the founders being to short-sighted should we say that applies to social media and the internet?
I don’t like guns. I won’t likely ever own a gun. Imo guns have led, along with the failed war on drugs as well as racist law enforcement to the militarization of the police. That being said the gun problems did not really exist on this scale up until the advent of the Great Prevaricator. There were serious changes that went on thanks to the B-list actor. He made it possible for racism to be ok even if it was still covert. He fucked up virtually everything he touched with the exception of nuclear disarmament. His successors performed barely to somewhat better until Mr. Tangerine Man. He threw the lid off racism completely. This combined with a macho, simplistic mindset, changing demographics and a shitty economy has left us with immature, heavily armed assholes whose response to any emotional situation is to shoot first. Yet at the same time there are places where people can own guns and that don’t have the mess we have. So. Pass laws or amendments to modify the second amendment. Elect people who will. Because there are still people who hunt, still people who sport shoot. They simply don’t need military weapons. And they shouldn’t have them.