Do you have evidence that if we restrict or out right ban firearms that homicides will decrease? When Australia had it's buy back, the homicide either stayed the same, increased, or was on the same declination rate as before the buy back depending on how you look at the stats.
Nope. No statistics on that. Sorry. Just that two thirds of homicides involve firearms, and that just over half involve a handgun.
How is this even still a conversation? 124 pages in, are there any arguments that havent been made yet? Have any minds been changed?
You don't. GET OUT!!! Seriously though, you can always start from scratch with whatever pops into your mind. I'm the main contender for gun rights, Balbus and MeAgain are the main contenders for gun control.
Okay. My dad was a cop. He always felt uncomfortable buying me dolls. But I had a BB gun at 8, a pellet gun at 10, and a .22 at 14. I've fired handguns, shotguns and rifles over the years. And I've never killed a living thing.
You can convincingly argue that the US government is for gun control, however the only regulation the constitution is for is preventing people from harming each other unprovoked.
But the Constitution needs to be interpreted and the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution as allowing for the regulation of firearms. That's the reason firearms can be and are regulated. The part you are leaving out is that the government is governed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also interpreted the constitution to allow slavery. Not only that, but the same court that ruled for stricter gun regulation were the same ones to reverse there ruling on the very same law.
Exactly. The Constitution can be interpreted differently depending on the current social norms. It isn't iron clad, that would be a dogmatic government. The United States was never meant to be dogmatic, that's why there are provisions for amendments and a supreme court. So the 2nd only guarantees the right to bear arms, what that means can be interpreted differently at different times. And even the 2nd can be changed.
This isn't the 18th or 21st. The government is supposed to be by the people for the people. The biggest problem is that neither politicians nor the people voting for them seem to realize that.
The second amendment really is a bit of a clunky run on sentence with questionable comma placement. Just goes to show why being able to communicate effectively through written word is so important
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The point is that the 2nd Amendment is no different than any other amendment and it can be changed or eliminated. Some people believe that the right to own guns can't be taken away. They seem to think that it's a right guaranteed in perpetuity. The original constitution didn't grant the right to bear arms, that was added later. The original constitution didn't prohibit the sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages, that was added later....and then it was repealed. The same thing can happen to the 2nd. The time may come when it becomes necessary to alter or eliminate. That would be done by the government working for the people. The people could decide it wasn't needed, same as the 18th, then the government, working for the people, would repeal it.