The Second Amendment.

Guns don't kill people, people do?

Well, cyanide doesn't kill people, people do. But cyanide isn't freely available. And there aren't cyanide stores like there are gun stores. Department stores would never sell cyanide the way they freely sell guns in the US. And people don't say they have the right to unlimited access to cyanide. Because they claim a 240 year old amendment they are probably misreading gives them that while most countries have banned it now.

 

Don't forget pick-up trucks, like the N.O. a couple of weeks ago. 240 years ago, people needed guns for food. Times have changed. The fact is evil people will find a way to kill. It's not a perfect world, and never will be. My opinion taking guns away from honest people will not stop killings.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

The second amendment is an incredibly pernicious relic of a time when we owned slaves, were a confederation of states, had no standing army, and the standard infantry weapon was a .72 caliber smoothbore musket with an effective range of 100 yards and a rate of fire of four rounds a minute.
Today we garrison a global empire and spend more on militarism that the next ten largest militaries combined. The sole raison d'etre of the second amendment; to maintain "a well regulated militia", has been a completely moot point for over 100 years.
Since 1968, more Americans have been killed by domestic gunfire than in all of America's wars combined. Any attempt to rationalize that level of carnage based upon reverence for a legislative fossil which should have gone out with buggy whips and high-buttoned shoes is nothing short of obscene.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention guns. That's the funny part. It says our right to keep and bear arms is protected. Arms is never defined and plenty of of rights around arms are infringed.

Try and get on an airplane with a bomb and tell me where your precious 2nd amendment is.

The way I see it, based on the wording, ALL arms--including chemical, nuclear, and biological--should be free and legal, and if not, then it's totally logical to introduce certain types of rifles, handguns, magazines, etc. into the discussion.

 

Pleae ban assault weapons.

 

Difficult to know whether you're joking. Lol

 

Ban all guns. And a while ago I thought, why not ban all weapons? Knives meant only as weapons. Nunchucks and brass knuckles too. Steak knives I don't know. Because you need them to cut food. But the other stuff for sure.

 

And to repeat what I just said above, some people say that a total ban on guns would never work. Because in the US there are too many guns on streets to begin with.

Okay. So then let's start getting them off the streets now.

 

All those second amendment folks who said they needed their guns to fight off a tyrannical government?

The fuck are they now???

 

Also I wanted to add. We really don't need the Second Amendment, or the Third. They both are just historical footnotes, nothing more. And they both have been the focus of judicial activism.

The very Chief Justice Warren Burger thought so. He believed gay sex should be punished with death. And he also thought we should just repeal the Second and Third Amendments. Soldiers were never quartered in private homes, like it says in the Third Amendment. That just never happened. But it has been used in other ways, like in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), which said that the civil authority should always be superior to the military. (Which is true. But not really what that amendment was about.)

And as Burger would point out, the Second Amendment was meant to protect the rights of militias. State militias, and private ones too. But just militias. And private militias are in case citizens of the US have to overthrow the US government because it has become too tyrannical. And last time I checked, that's illegal anyways. So as Burger pointed out, both amendments should really go.

 

Then gang bangers will be armed and law abiding citizens will not?