A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment. Should be read by pro and anti gun people alike

[blumpkin415]

This thread prompted me to post an article I had saved giving a breakdown of the 2nd Amendment and its wording. All gun owners/2A supporters should read this and share the link far and wide, especially to anti-gun types to drop some logic on them.

A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment


Discuss

[98eclipseRS]

Good read repped

[Seldini]

Yessir, I've had to deal with Con Law classes full of anti-gun loons arguing against this, then when their constitutional argument falls apart they either try to cite other nonsense... ugh...

[WilliamCosby]

We should modify the constitution to remove that stupid ass 2nd amendment and replace it with a NEW 2nd amendment (yes, we'll number it this way, too) that makes it unconstitutional to NOT own at least one firearm. Mother f*ckers should be walking around strapped 24/7. Life would be better.

[YesWayNoWeigh]

[adamsteve14]

We should modify the constitution to remove that stupid ass 2nd amendment and replace it with a NEW 2nd amendment (yes, we'll number it this way, too) that makes it unconstitutional to NOT own at least one firearm. Mother f*ckers should be walking around strapped 24/7. Life would be better.

This isn't good bc there are plenty of idiots out there, but an armed society is a polite society.

[DiseasedScrotum]

I actually really support gun rights but the initial paragraph and arguments such as those make me laugh. All rights come from the collective will of society. Nothing is inherent. Right only exist insofar as society decides these are rights. Even the God argument does not really apply because it just says, “these rights came from God!”. Really? Based on what text or document? The bible or the quran certainly do not guarantee these rights.

Guns are a product sold in the market place. So you do not have the same rights to these as you do to say free speech because speech is an inherent part of your existence (even then there is really no inherent right to free speech unless society decides there is). To ban that is banning who you are as a human being and your ability to communicate. Guns are not the same. All rights exist because we have decided that they are good for the society and the individual. But these rights are restricted in many many ways when we think this benefit becomes a cost. Just look at all the laws that do not allow full enjoyment of rights. Same with guns…its all about cost-benefit analysis. Many aspect of gun ownership can be dangerous and therefore they are regulated as they should be.

Only reason I support gun rights is because it allows you to protect yourself and it is a product that does not necessarily harm others. It’s the same reason I support drug legalization. It allows people to pleasure themselves in any way they want without necessarily harming others.

[RodSwollenpole]

Outstanding, this should be required reading for every American.

[KRNEKIM]

Good read repped

rep power:124
status: beta rep begger

[DriftParty]

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

[98eclipseRS]

rep power:124
status: beta rep begger

get ****ed *******, I could give a **** if he reps me. Unlike the majority of the idiots on the misc I appreciate good posters and posts and don't make a bunch of ****ty trolls way green so they can make BBC and zyzz threads.

Edit: go ahead neg me you peice of ****.

[WilliamCosby]

I actually really support gun rights but the initial paragraph and arguments such as those make me laugh. All rights come from the collective will of society. Nothing is inherent. Right only exist insofar as society decides these are rights. Even the God argument does not really apply because it just says, “these rights came from God!”. Really? Based on what text or document? The bible or the quran certainly do not guarantee these rights.

I agree that what we think of when we talk about "basic human rights" are just rules that our society has come up with that are effective at supporting a large, technologically advanced, internally peaceful society and that there is no natural source for rights (ignoring the God question of course) i.e. "basic human rights" don't exist in the jungle, and if we are strict with our use of language, there is simply no such thing as a "basic human right", only "society-derived human rights".

[blumpkin415]

I actually really support gun rights but the initial paragraph and arguments such as those make me laugh. All rights come from the collective will of society. Nothing is inherent. Right only exist insofar as society decides these are rights. Even the God argument does not really apply because it just says, “these rights came from God!”. Really? Based on what text or document? The bible or the quran certainly do not guarantee these rights.

Guns are a product sold in the market place. So you do not have the same rights to these as you do to say free speech because speech is an inherent part of your existence (even then there is really no inherent right to free speech unless society decides there is). To ban that is banning who you are as a human being and your ability to communicate. Guns are not the same. All rights exist because we have decided that they are good for the society and the individual. But these rights are restricted in many many ways when we think this benefit becomes a cost. Just look at all the laws that do not allow full enjoyment of rights. Same with guns…its all about cost-benefit analysis. Many aspect of gun ownership can be dangerous and therefore they are regulated as they should be.

Only reason I support gun rights is because it allows you to protect yourself and it is a product that does not necessarily harm others. It’s the same reason I support drug legalization. It allows people to pleasure themselves in any way they want without necessarily harming others.

I agree that what we think of when we talk about "basic human rights" are just rules that our society has come up with that are effective at supporting a large, technologically advanced, internally peaceful society and that there is no natural source for rights (ignoring the God question of course) i.e. "basic human rights" don't exist in the jungle, and if we are strict with our use of language, there is simply no such thing as a "basic human right", only "society-derived human rights".

Gun Rights are Civil Rights

[lightweight99]

hoorah master chief!

[blumpkin415]

hoorah master chief!

I work for a living, i'm not in the Navy

[98eclipseRS]

I agree that what we think of when we talk about "basic human rights" are just rules that our society has come up with that are effective at supporting a large, technologically advanced, internally peaceful society and that there is no natural source for rights (ignoring the God question of course) i.e. "basic human rights" don't exist in the jungle, and if we are strict with our use of language, there is simply no such thing as a "basic human right", only "society-derived human rights".

I know this argument isn't accepted by antis but if only one side had guns how many society-derived human rights would we have? I know you agree with the second amendment just a question for the sake of discussion.

[canuckathlete]

I don't really have a problem with the right to bear arms ( I come from a family of hunters and farmers) but...



the amendment angle doesn't fly with me. At one point it was a civil right to own slaves, as times changed we realized how silly that was.

If we followed ancient Grecian or Roman rights still, we would be in a far different place right now

[98eclipseRS]

I don't really have a problem with the right to bear arms ( I come from a family of hunters and farmers) but...



the amendment angle doesn't fly with me. At one point it was a civil right to own slaves, as times changed we realized how silly that was.

If we followed ancient Grecian or Roman rights still, we would be in a far different place right now

Correct, however owning a slave was intentionally harming someone for your own benefit. Owning a gun does not automatically equal going out and killing strangers.

[blumpkin415]

I don't really have a problem with the right to bear arms ( I come from a family of hunters and farmers) but...



the amendment angle doesn't fly with me. At one point it was a civil right to own slaves, as times changed we realized how silly that was.

If we followed ancient Grecian or Roman rights still, we would be in a far different place right now

Funny how you bring up slaves. Gun Control came about in this country due to racism. Racists started enacting laws and regulations controlling guns to prevent newly freed slaves from being able to defend themselves.

Food for thought.

[fraserj32]

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[DiseasedScrotum]

Gun Rights are Civil Rights

Same with civil rights. I like gun rights because they can benefit individuals within society...ie law abiding people who want to protect themselves, especially in an instance when the police cannot.

[blumpkin415]

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

That's because you are using logic

[98eclipseRS]

Funny how you bring up slaves. Gun Control came about in this country due to racism. Racists started enacting laws and regulations controlling guns to prevent newly freed slaves from being able to defend themselves.

Food for thought.

Same reason loaded open carry was banned in california(the most progressive state in the usa!). Once the black panthers strolled into the capitol during the civil rights movement with loaded guns in plain view the CA congress banned loaded open carry. Open carry period is now banned in this ****hole but I digress.

[blumpkin415]

Same reason loaded open carry was banned in california(the most progressive state in the usa!), once the black panthers strolled into the capitol during the civil right movement with loaded guns in plain view. The CA congress banned loaded open carry. Open carry period is now banned in this ****hole but I digress.

You Nor Cal or So Cal brah?

[98eclipseRS]

You Nor Cal or So Cal brah?

Nor cal just south of san francisco.

[cobhc]

Second amendment says what it says and is there to maintain power between people vs government.

Anyone that believes otherwise or needs additional documentation to believe this is an urchin and isn't worth a steamy pile of buffalo ****.

[blumpkin415]

Nor cal just south of san francisco.

If you need guns or training, PM me

[blumpkin415]

Bump for discussion

[MoonTheLoon]

wouldn't an "anti gun" guy be against the second amendment regardless of its grammar, wording, or inclusion in the constitution in the first place?

so justifying it that way seems kind of pointless, imo

but then again i'm English, so i don't really know anything about your gun culture.

[98eclipseRS]

wouldn't an "anti gun" guy be against the second amendment regardless of its grammar, wording, or inclusion in the constitution in the first place?

so justifying it that way seems kind of pointless, imo

but then again i'm English, so i don't really know anything about your gun culture.

Yes, many people are so blinded by their emotions that they cannot even accept the other sides argument. There are, however, many people open to discussion on subjects like these and could be swayed to at least be comfortable with the fact that others would want to own guns. Even if they wouldn't own them themselves.