What would it take to ban guns in the United States?

Since at least 28 people were needlessly slaughtered in two shootings, more than 2,000 miles apart, in the U.S. yesterday, there's been a lot of talk about banning guns in America. So I decided to show exactly how hard that would be.

It all comes back to the constitution, the top law of the United States. No law passed anywhere within the United States is allowed to contradict the constitution, so in order to ban guns, the United States would have to change its constitution.

In the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the phrase " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the U.S. government has no right to ban private gun ownership. So that amendment would have to be revoked, at least in part, and replaced by a new amendment.

This new amendment would first have to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives, and by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. (This has only happened 33 times in the United States' 229-year history, despite the fact that hundreds of proposed amendments are submitted in Congress every year.)

Then comes the next massive hurdle -- the amendment, once approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, would be submitted to the governors of the 50 states for ratification. The governors would then propose the amendments to their own state law-making bodies, or legislatures, for approval.

The amendment would only come into effect if it was approved by three-fourths of the states, meaning 38
of the 50 states. (This has only happened 27 times in U.S. history, and only eight times in the past century.)

This fact is why people who want to see less gun violence in America never try to ban guns. This is why nobody can blame any president for not banning guns (the president plays no role in the process of amending the constitution), or even Congress.

Banning guns in the United States is an unrealistic goal.

What could be done, and what gun-control advocates like myself support, would be a gun law passed by Congress that would ban assault weapons, require a criminal background check for all gun purchases, would require all gun owners to be licensed, and would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

Trumps assassination at the hands of a gunman would hasten the banning of firearms.

Andy wrote:Trumps assassination at the hands of a gunman would hasten the banning of firearms.

For reasons Ben just stated, it wouldn't. That's why guns were not outlawed under Obama and Clinton too.

Of course, the most realistic option is a brain transplant for half the population - which just goes to show how unrealistic it is.

But yeah, agree with you Ben on ammunition. Should be a limit on the amount that can be possessed. A no gun but a light ammunition hand gun (shotguns only for farmers). I know next to nothing about guns so no idea how feasible that sounds. But it won't happen in America anyway.

I used to belong to an American run forum (Dallas Digest) trying to reason with them about gun ownership and the right to bare arms or not was a total waste of time.....and it provoked more arguments than anything else on that forum.
I dont believe any amount of mass shootings would ever change their opinions, they probably argue that more guns are needed to counteract the ones that are already out there.

First of all, you would need to ban all corporate lobbyists from Washington...

Then you would need to replace around 60% of the politicians  --  those who are pro-free-gun-ownership, those 'owned' by the gun lobby, and those who call themselves "pragmatists" while not having the backbone to stand up for what's right..


And, it's not a question of "banning" guns, anyways  --  as these days there are too many good reasons for some people, other than police and military, to legitimately have them (e.g. farmers, hunters, animal control, security guards, sporting target shooters..) --  but rather to have proper responsible licensing, ownership and useage regulations in place..

If Britain, Australia, Germany and Japan can do so, then why can't places like the USA, Brazil and Mexico follow suite ?

Ben Reilly wrote:Since at least 28 people were needlessly slaughtered in two shootings, more than 2,000 miles apart, in the U.S. yesterday, there's been a lot of talk about banning guns in America. So I decided to show exactly how hard that would be.

It all comes back to the constitution, the top law of the United States. No law passed anywhere within the United States is allowed to contradict the constitution, so in order to ban guns, the United States would have to change its constitution.

In the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the phrase " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the U.S. government has no right to ban private gun ownership. So that amendment would have to be revoked, at least in part, and replaced by a new amendment.

This new amendment would first have to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives, and by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. (This has only happened 33 times in the United States' 229-year history, despite the fact that hundreds of proposed amendments are submitted in Congress every year.)

Then comes the next massive hurdle -- the amendment, once approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, would be submitted to the governors of the 50 states for ratification. The governors would then propose the amendments to their own state law-making bodies, or legislatures, for approval.

The amendment would only come into effect if it was approved by three-fourths of the states, meaning 38
of the 50 states. (This has only happened 27 times in U.S. history, and only eight times in the past century.)

This fact is why people who want to see less gun violence in America never try to ban guns. This is why nobody can blame any president for not banning guns (the president plays no role in the process of amending the constitution), or even Congress.

Banning guns in the United States is an unrealistic goal.

What could be done, and what gun-control advocates like myself support, would be a gun law passed by Congress that would ban assault weapons, require a criminal background check for all gun purchases, would require all gun owners to be licensed, and would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

Still going to have to change the second amendment to enact your last paragraph.

You are confusing a right with a privilege

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Since at least 28 people were needlessly slaughtered in two shootings, more than 2,000 miles apart, in the U.S. yesterday, there's been a lot of talk about banning guns in America. So I decided to show exactly how hard that would be.

It all comes back to the constitution, the top law of the United States. No law passed anywhere within the United States is allowed to contradict the constitution, so in order to ban guns, the United States would have to change its constitution.

In the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the phrase " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the U.S. government has no right to ban private gun ownership. So that amendment would have to be revoked, at least in part, and replaced by a new amendment.

This new amendment would first have to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives, and by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. (This has only happened 33 times in the United States' 229-year history, despite the fact that hundreds of proposed amendments are submitted in Congress every year.)

Then comes the next massive hurdle -- the amendment, once approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, would be submitted to the governors of the 50 states for ratification. The governors would then propose the amendments to their own state law-making bodies, or legislatures, for approval.

The amendment would only come into effect if it was approved by three-fourths of the states, meaning 38
of the 50 states. (This has only happened 27 times in U.S. history, and only eight times in the past century.)

This fact is why people who want to see less gun violence in America never try to ban guns. This is why nobody can blame any president for not banning guns (the president plays no role in the process of amending the constitution), or even Congress.

Banning guns in the United States is an unrealistic goal.

What could be done, and what gun-control advocates like myself support, would be a gun law passed by Congress that would ban assault weapons, require a criminal background check for all gun purchases, would require all gun owners to be licensed, and would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

Still going to have to change the second amendment to enact your last paragraph.

You are confusing a right with a privilege

I don't think so. While that's the cursory view, in fact Justice Scalia wrote in City of Washington v. Heller (2008), the seminal case: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited".

He goes on to say: "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating [gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns."

Clearly, rights are not absolute.

Andy wrote:Trumps assassination at the hands of a gunman would hasten the banning of firearms.

That, Andy - and bearing in mind the fact that both Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy were assassinated by gunmen - is fucking obscene.

And no, I didn't "red" your post; a silly red stripe is an insufficient condemnation.

America is gun-crazy.

What if everyone just handed in their guns and made a massive gesture with that? A massive protest is what’s needed.

Trouble is, the average man likes the fact he can own a gun, like it makes his cock bigger or some shit.

eddie wrote:America is gun-crazy.

What if everyone just handed in their guns and made a massive gesture with that? A massive protest is what’s needed.  

Trouble is, the average man likes the fact he can own a gun, like it makes his cock bigger or some shit.

The problem is the gun-nut culture, underscored by the fact that there's one gun for every American, and yet fewer than a third of Americans own guns. That shows you that that hardcore one-third of the population is made up of people who own at least three guns.

A lot of those people are the ones who would never hand over their guns, and would actually think it a heroic death if they died in a standoff with police over their right to own guns.

It's absolute sick-ass bullshit insanity, driven by right-wing paranoia of an oppressive government that would have to be fought with guns.

eddie wrote:America is gun-crazy.

What if everyone just handed in their guns and made a massive gesture with that? A massive protest is what’s needed.  

Trouble is, the average man likes the fact he can own a gun, like it makes his cock bigger or some shit.

What if people just stopped shooting innocent people?

I'm OK with the shooting of guilty people.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:America is gun-crazy.

What if everyone just handed in their guns and made a massive gesture with that? A massive protest is what’s needed.  

Trouble is, the average man likes the fact he can own a gun, like it makes his cock bigger or some shit.

The problem is the gun-nut culture, underscored by the fact that there's one gun for every American, and yet fewer than a third of Americans own guns. That shows you that that hardcore one-third of the population is made up of people who own at least three guns.

A lot of those people are the ones who would never hand over their guns, and would actually think it a heroic death if they died in a standoff with police over their right to own guns.

It's absolute sick-ass bullshit insanity, driven by right-wing paranoia of an oppressive government that would have to be fought with guns.

How many guns do the El Paso and Dayton shooters own?

There’s No Second Amendment Right to Large-Capacity Magazines

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opinion/dayton-gun-laws-shooting.html

phildidge wrote:There’s No Second Amendment Right to Large-Capacity Magazines

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opinion/dayton-gun-laws-shooting.html

How many rounds can a magazine hold? Is ten the perfect number? What about handguns? Most of the 9mms hold more than that.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:There’s No Second Amendment Right to Large-Capacity Magazines

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opinion/dayton-gun-laws-shooting.html

How many rounds can a magazine hold? Is ten the perfect number? What about handguns? Most of the 9mms hold more than that.

You do realise the Dayton killer was able to kill 9 and wound over 20 in less than a minute, before being shot by the Police?

Then restrict them and also create tougher laws for ownership of guns

Why do you need a gun to hold more than one bullet if you hunt?

Now i suggest you read the article

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How many rounds can a magazine hold? Is ten the perfect number? What about handguns? Most of the 9mms hold more than that.

You do realise the Dayton killer was able to kill 9 and wound over 20 in less than a minute, before being shot by the Police?

Then restrict them and also create tougher laws for ownership of guns

Why do you need a gun to hold more than one bullet if you hunt?

Now i suggest you read the article

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

I read the article.

And the Dayton shooter also had a handgun.

It was just 32 seconds from the first shot to the last shot. In that time, a 24-year-old gunman with an AR-15-style assault rifle and a 100-round drum magazine was able to kill nine people and wound 27 others on a crowded street in Dayton, Ohio early Sunday.

https://time.com/5643405/what-to-know-shooting-dayton-ohio/

My mistake it was within 32 seconds

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:America is gun-crazy.

What if everyone just handed in their guns and made a massive gesture with that? A massive protest is what’s needed.  

Trouble is, the average man likes the fact he can own a gun, like it makes his cock bigger or some shit.

What if people just stopped shooting innocent people?

I'm OK with the shooting of guilty people.

But....and yet....because....

phildidge wrote:It was just 32 seconds from the first shot to the last shot. In that time, a 24-year-old gunman with an AR-15-style assault rifle and a 100-round drum magazine was able to kill nine people and wound 27 others on a crowded street in Dayton, Ohio early Sunday.

https://time.com/5643405/what-to-know-shooting-dayton-ohio/

My mistake it was within 32 seconds

And he could have gotten off 30-40 rounds with 3 or 4, 10 round magazines. How many people he hit would depend on the crowd. In a very crowded area, one bullet could have easily hit two people.

Obviously, reloading decreases the rate of fire somewhat, but it's negligible. What really matters is how fast can some one return some fire and take him down or pin him down and give people more time to run.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:It was just 32 seconds from the first shot to the last shot. In that time, a 24-year-old gunman with an AR-15-style assault rifle and a 100-round drum magazine was able to kill nine people and wound 27 others on a crowded street in Dayton, Ohio early Sunday.

https://time.com/5643405/what-to-know-shooting-dayton-ohio/

My mistake it was within 32 seconds

And he could have gotten off 30-40 rounds with 3 or 4, 10 round magazines. How many people he hit would depend on the crowd. In a very crowded area, one bullet could have easily hit two people.

Obviously, reloading decreases the rate of fire somewhat, but it's negligible. What really matters is how fast can some one return some fire and take him down or pin him down and give people more time to run.

With reloading in 32 seconds and still manage to shoot the same amount of people?

There is a video of the shooting on the link, well he can hear the shots fired

The point is there is no need for such gun capacity and i cannot even believe you are arguing in defense of them

Its absurd to have such capacities on guns. Where this proves and as does the article most mass shootings are carried out with such high capacity weapons and there is a reason for that. They have a much higher rate of fire and you can spray the bullets in many directions.

Blimey mate its not rocket science

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And he could have gotten off 30-40 rounds with 3 or 4, 10 round magazines. How many people he hit would depend on the crowd. In a very crowded area, one bullet could have easily hit two people.

Obviously, reloading decreases the rate of fire somewhat, but it's negligible. What really matters is how fast can some one return some fire and take him down or pin him down and give people more time to run.

With reloading in 32 seconds and still manage to shoot the same amount of people?

There is a video of the shooting on the link, well he can hear the shots fired

The point is there is no need for such gun capacity and i cannot even believe you are arguing in defense of them

Its absurd to have such capacities on guns. Where this proves and as does the article most mass shootings are carried out with such high capacity weapons and there is a reason for that. They have a much higher rate of fire and you can spray the bullets in many directions.

Blimey mate its not rocket science

Most mass shootings are carried out by handguns.

In some cases, there might be a few more rounds fired, and maybe a few more hit people. But what often happens is there is indiscriminate shooting and very little aiming. The number of people hit isn't that different.

And you keep using that word need. People don't need lots of things. I don't care how many rounds you have in your magazine. That 100 rounder will likely jamb half way through anyway. There are sort of a gimmick, which is why they are not used by law enforcement or the military.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

With reloading in 32 seconds and still manage to shoot the same amount of people?

There is a video of the shooting on the link, well he can hear the shots fired

The point is there is no need for such gun capacity and i cannot even believe you are arguing in defense of them

Its absurd to have such capacities on guns. Where this proves and as does the article most mass shootings are carried out with such high capacity weapons and there is a reason for that. They have a much higher rate of fire and you can spray the bullets in many directions.

Blimey mate its not rocket science

Most mass shootings are carried out by handguns.

In some cases, there might be a few more rounds fired, and maybe a few more hit people. But what often happens is there is indiscriminate shooting and very little aiming. The number of people hit isn't that different.

And you keep using that word need. People don't need lots of things. I don't care how many rounds you have in your magazine. That 100 rounder will likely jamb half way through anyway. There are sort of a gimmick, which is why they are not used by law enforcement or the military.

But time is the essence in taking down a shooter with response time. Where that person with such weapons is going to be able to kill and wound more people in such a short space of time.

To me its simple insane the culture of guns in the Us and I have shown you studies that now show where there is more guns, then there is vastly more shootings. Whether that be murders, accidents whatever. Nobody should be carrying arms

If people want to hunt, then that is really the only reason to own guns and that should be with a special licence

Guns make it that much mor easier for people to kill as many people as possible

Like i said to you before. That the knife intifada would have been a vastly much higher death toll. If the terrorists had of used guns instead of knives

What needs to happen in the US is a culture change on guns. When people place the value of owning a gun over the value of human life. Something is drastically wrong

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Most mass shootings are carried out by handguns.

In some cases, there might be a few more rounds fired, and maybe a few more hit people. But what often happens is there is indiscriminate shooting and very little aiming. The number of people hit isn't that different.

And you keep using that word need. People don't need lots of things. I don't care how many rounds you have in your magazine. That 100 rounder will likely jamb half way through anyway. There are sort of a gimmick, which is why they are not used by law enforcement or the military.

But time is the essence in taking down a shooter with response time. Where that person with such weapons is going to be able to kill and wound more people in such a short space of time.

To me its simple insane the culture of guns in the Us and I have shown you studies that now show where there is more guns, then there is vastly more shootings. Whether that be murders, accidents whatever. Nobody should be carrying arms

If people want to hunt, then that is really the only reason to own guns and that should be with a special licence

Guns make it that much mor easier for people to kill as many people as possible

Like i said to you before. That the knife intifada would have been a vastly much higher death toll. If the terrorists had of used guns instead of knives

What needs to happen in the US is a culture change on guns. When people place the value of owning a gun over the value of human life. Something is drastically wrong

I just checked.

14 people were struck by gunfire in 32 seconds. Many of the wounded were not wounded by gunfire.

I could do the same with a handgun and an extra magazine or two.

And why do you keep bringing up hunting. Most gun owners don't hunt.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But time is the essence in taking down a shooter with response time. Where that person with such weapons is going to be able to kill and wound more people in such a short space of time.

To me its simple insane the culture of guns in the Us and I have shown you studies that now show where there is more guns, then there is vastly more shootings. Whether that be murders, accidents whatever. Nobody should be carrying arms

If people want to hunt, then that is really the only reason to own guns and that should be with a special licence

Guns make it that much mor easier for people to kill as many people as possible

Like i said to you before. That the knife intifada would have been a vastly much higher death toll. If the terrorists had of used guns instead of knives

What needs to happen in the US is a culture change on guns. When people place the value of owning a gun over the value of human life. Something is drastically wrong

I just checked.

14 people were struck by gunfire in 32 seconds. Many of the wounded were not wounded by gunfire.  

I could do the same with a handgun and an extra magazine or two.

Not what the link says and still missing the point

Maddog wrote:And why do you keep bringing up hunting. Most gun owners don't hunt.  

Those who do hunt have a valid reason to own a gun. All overs have no valid reason

It would take a couple of generations to get a culture where gun ownership is regarded as unnecessary and people are willing to lay down their arms.  With guns being such a big part of American culture. Their national identity is wrapped up in it. It's etched into their DNA. 

New Zealand sorted the problem out very quickly after the Christchurch massacre. But NZ is a tiny state, it was easy.

America is a huge collection of many states, a different scene altogether.

Jules wrote:Their national identity is wrapped up in it.

I would say that's true for the south, where people are still bearing the grudge of the civil war.  Southerners moved west and became the gunslingers of the 1880's.  They harbored a lot of pain.

America was born on guns, true, but at some point there was a split in the road between those who hunt and need guns for survival, and those who need to feed their ego.  Most who possess military style long guns are of the latter sort.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:And why do you keep bringing up hunting. Most gun owners don't hunt.  

Those who do  hunt have a valid reason to own a gun. All overs have no valid reason

What is the reason for the second amendment?

Jules wrote:It would take a couple of generations to get a culture where gun ownership is regarded as unnecessary and people are willing to lay down their arms.  With guns being such a big part of American culture. Their national identity is wrapped up in it. It's etched into their DNA. 

New Zealand sorted the problem out very quickly after the Christchurch massacre. But NZ is a tiny state, it was easy.

America is a huge collection of many states, a different scene altogether.

How many of those banned guns have been turned in?

We had Hand Guns banned in the UK, now only criminals have them !

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Those who do  hunt have a valid reason to own a gun. All overs have no valid reason

What is the reason for the second amendment?

How did slavery end?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:And why do you keep bringing up hunting. Most gun owners don't hunt.  

Those who do  hunt have a valid reason to own a gun. All overs have no valid reason

What is the reason for the second amendment?

The reason is that America had no standing army when that amendment was written. That and frequent Indian raids made guns a necessity back then.

I've seen no evidence that any of the framers were actually passionate about the right to own guns.

I do wish they'd made it a bit easier to amend the constitution, which, spoiler alert, this thread was actually supposed to be about.

the issue of large capacity magazines is not as clear cut as folks may think.

there is a shotgun clay shooting challenge called a flurry, where up to 100 clays are released in succession over a short period of time and a team of two guns tries to get em all.....requires good loading skills and coordination

HOWEVER the interesting thing is.....I took on (solo) a bloke with an 8 shot repeater, bear in mind there is NO pause in the clays to allow for reloading........ we both hit our first 8.......ten he missed the next 10 while he was reloading his "auto" me i missed a couple but got 8 of that ...and thus the saga continued

I ended up with 80% he ended up with 60% ....because of the time he took to reload....#

with my double barreled over and under I have a greater rate of fire over time than someone with an 8 shot.......

also time to fire 8 shells....

aimed 8 shots in 10 seconds for the auto
aimed 8 shots in 14 seconds for the over and under....

its all about the skill of loading and making sure your gun is matched to you

Victorismyhero wrote:the issue of large capacity magazines is not as clear cut as folks may think.

there is a shotgun clay shooting challenge called a flurry, where up to 100 clays are released in succession over a short period of time and a team of two guns tries to get em all.....requires good loading skills and coordination

HOWEVER the interesting thing is.....I took on (solo) a bloke with an 8 shot repeater, bear in mind there is NO pause in the clays to allow for reloading........  we both hit our first 8.......ten he missed the next 10 while he was reloading his "auto"   me i missed a couple but got 8 of that ...and thus the saga continued

I ended up with 80%   he ended up with 60%  ....because of the time he took to reload....#

with my double barreled over and under I have a greater rate of fire over time than someone with an 8 shot.......

also time to fire 8 shells....

aimed 8 shots in 10 seconds for the auto
aimed  8 shots in 14 seconds for the over and under....

its all about the skill of loading and making sure your gun is matched to you

Okay, but you're obviously a skilled, experienced shooter. The point of banning large-capacity clips is that it makes it harder for someone who's taken their gun to the range a few times to be able to spray bullets around continuously and kill a lot of people.

Also, we need to ban those AR-style weapons that fire bullets that were designed to destroy people's internal organs. Only place for that is a battlefield.

There are no good reasons to fire a gun. Sorry. There just isn’t.

there are no good reasons to do a lot of things that we do.....

just because potentially someone may use or do something with an item that results in harm to others is NOT a reason to ban it.

I mean
there is NO good reason to knit
there is NO good reason to read fiction books
there is NO good reason (and a lot reasons NOT to take drugs)
there is no good reason to kick a ball around a field
there is No good reason to hit a small hard ball with a bent stick thus ruining a good walk
there is No good reason to put a hook with a worm on it into water....

why not just ban "hobbys" full stop and ordain everyone must work 16 hr days and then go home sleep and return to work like good little robots

75% of my shooting is "clay shooting" done as an exercise in skill and for a good day out and about

20% is pest control, without which YOUR food bill would rise by 10-25%

the remaining 5% is game shooting ...when I take a few pheasants etc for the pot.
all 3 get me out and about, in the fresh air,

I suppose that like most veggies...having seen shooting banned you will next be after the angler.....


because of course.....you need a bogey man

Victorismyhero wrote:there are no good reasons to do a lot of things that we do.....

just because potentially someone may use or do something with an item that results in harm to others is NOT a reason to ban it.

I mean
there is NO good reason to knit
there is NO good reason to read fiction books
there is NO good reason (and a lot reasons NOT to take drugs)
there is no good reason to kick a ball around a field
there is No good reason to hit a small hard ball with a bent stick thus ruining a good walk
there is No good reason to put a hook with a worm on it into water....

why not just ban "hobbys" full stop and ordain everyone must work 16 hr days and then go home sleep and return to work like good little robots

75% of my shooting is "clay shooting" done as an exercise in skill and for a good day out and about

20% is pest control, without which YOUR food bill would rise by 10-25%

the remaining 5% is game shooting ...when I take a few pheasants etc for the pot.
all 3 get me out and about, in the fresh air,

I suppose that like most veggies...having seen shooting banned you will next be after the angler.....


because of course.....you need a bogey man

I have no issue with for hunting or sport

But we are talking about a society that is basically armed to the teeth that can kill people en mass within seconds

Its simple insane and we certainly do not have such an issue here as do other countries. As they have strict gun laws

and that didge...is the crux of the matter isnt it...regulation and screening of gun owners.

Victorismyhero wrote:and that didge...is the crux of the matter isnt it...regulation and screening of gun owners.

Indeed mate

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is the reason for the second amendment?

How did slavery end?

It sure didn't end by the slaves shooting their masters. Guess that's because the masters knew what would happen if the slaves were armed.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is the reason for the second amendment?

The reason is that America had no standing army when that amendment was written. That and frequent Indian raids made guns a necessity back then.

I've seen no evidence that any of the framers were actually passionate about the right to own guns.

I do wish they'd made it a bit easier to amend the constitution, which, spoiler alert, this thread was actually supposed to be about.

That's not correct. Read the Federalist Papers. They were not worried about Indian raids.

eddie wrote:There are no good reasons to fire a gun. Sorry. There just isn’t.

What if Ben was being raped by 4 drunken Welshmen who mistook him for a sheep?

You wouldn't shoot someone in his defense?

Victorismyhero wrote:and that didge...is the crux of the matter isnt it...regulation and screening of gun owners.

But the Second Amendment was set up to be able to work around the screeners if need be.

The whole idea is that the screeners have a very limited ability to regulate and screen as long as you have done nothing wrong.

That's the crux of the matter.

We couldn't have shot British soldiers in 1775, if they had taken all of our military grade weapons in 1774. (Which was attempted numerous times and helped set up the rational for the Second Amendment).

eddie wrote:

Do women need parental permission for an abortion?

Do you think a woman should be able to buy an abortion from her neighbor?

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Do women need parental permission for an abortion?

Do you think a woman should be able to buy an abortion from her neighbor?

Pointing out two minor differences doesn't demolish the basic argument. Besides, plenty of girls under 18 need parental permission to get an abortion, anyway. The thing about getting an abortion from a neighbor doesn't really make sense.

Let me put it back to you this way -- do you think a disturbed young man should be able to buy a weapon capable of killing dozens of people from his neighbor?

Women under 16 do.
If her neighbour is an abortion doctor, yes, she should be able to buy one.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:There are no good reasons to fire a gun. Sorry. There just isn’t.

What if Ben was being raped by 4 drunken Welshmen who mistook him for a sheep?

You wouldn't shoot someone in his defense?  

No, she would not. Not even fire a fucking warning shot! Don't ask me how I know.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:There are no good reasons to fire a gun. Sorry. There just isn’t.

What if Ben was being raped by 4 drunken Welshmen who mistook him for a sheep?

You wouldn't shoot someone in his defense?  

No, she would not. Not even fire a fucking warning shot! Don't ask me how I know.

No I would not. Firstly because I’m not into guns so wouldn’t own one and secondly I think I may get rather turned on by it.