2nd Amendment- Archaic or Based In Timeless Rights?

Its a stalemate. We "refuse" YOUR truth, but you refuse ours.
We both are right, and both wrong.

 

The spirit of the 2nd Amendment makes all the sense in the world. People who are against that idea will pick it apart. If we are going to change an amendment then where do we stop? Should we remove all gender specific pronouns from all governing legislation? Let's be honest, it's really about the spirit of what the founders wanted, and not that we should all walk around with black powder rifles today.

 

Gender has nothing to do with the 2nd.
The "spirit" of what the Founders wanted is not a nation with gun related crimes every week. If the Founders saw what USA has become, they kinda would be ashamed by how the 2nd is used and justified.

 

That's the most disingenuous response of all time. The spirit of the 2nd Amendment is that a Government will not attack a people who can fight back. My point was to trivialize the attack on amendments to meet current social norms. Of course gender has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment....but where does the hypocrisy stop? You can't have everything your way and not give concessions. Either you fix everything to meet current social norms or you don't fix any.

BTW "gun crime" is a misnomer. Guns are just a tool. Just like my hammer doesn't commit crimes. People commit crimes, not tools.

 

Oh yeah, I'm so wrong, yeah.
But that's the thing. The 2nd was passed in a moment that government could be shitty (it was mostly against the British Monarchy and the possible excess from monarchies). And now? USA has laws that protect them from the government. They do not need the guns.
Yet, GUNS GUNS GUNS oh PRETTY GUNS

USA is almost a warzone because of that, and the gun fanatics still believe "its for defense against the government"
Yeah, truly? Then why are guns used by CIVILIANS against CIVILIANS?

Also, a HAMMER is designed to build. A GUN is designed to KILL.
STop with the shitty, stupid comparaisons

 

And for a second there I thought this was going to be a thoughtful discussion. Clearly you are too emotional about the subject to have a rational discussion. You know, the kind of discussion where you hear someone else's take on things and weigh them against your own values. So since you're not that type of person I will thank you for your contribution and move on.

In the event that you are willing to backtrack on your solidly ingrained beliefs I would recommend you research the levels of freedom by each state, and then compare that to the firearms restrictions by state. I won't hold your hand through this exercise, but if you decide to go down that road you might learn something other than what you think you know.

 

I am the one doing that? You use bad comparaisons, to justify a biased opinion.
I am open to discussion, when discussion is made in good faith

Oh, and by the way, "restrictions" doesnt necessarily mean less freedom. Yoi oay for Drivers license, right? Its not killing you. Well, there should be guns license too.

 

I think that some type of licensing makes sense. But the devil is in the details. I don't think many people should be allowed to own a firearm. But that's not how it's written, so how to fight that battle? Maybe this is the middle ground where we could have civil discourse.

I strongly disagree that restrictions don't mean less freedoms. Please provide an example.

 

Good point, but telling me that my ideas are "shitty" and "stupid" is a surefire way to make me defensive. I am actually very open minded about everything, and understanding that nobody here really knows me, I get how I can come off that way at times. BTW I can't stand holier than thou types of people. Every person and their ideas hold some degree of value, and I am not one to judge.

 

To be fair, I am quick to be on the defensive too 'cause many here always say "you are young, you are a girl, you are not from here, so you don't know"

 

I would bet good money on @Lian being right.

 

Not quite sure I follow your logic here, sport.

 

Pretty sure what the founders wanted was an ARMY.

Back then the U.S. had neither the budget nor the organisation for a standing Army and Militias were the organisation de jour. Now the military is one of the biggest budget items of the national government.

As long as EVERYONE is given the right to join the Army, the second amendment is fulfilled.

That, however, has not been the case... So the whole idea has got corrupted.

 

Once again there, Sport, your logic is truly flawed...other than the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps.

I don't think you understand the definition of hypocrisy, or if you do, how to use it properly.

That is neither here nor there, because your subsequent logic falls apart.

A) it is possible to "have everything your way and not give concessions." I have many contracts that prove your premise is not a tautology.

More often than not, however, it is not a good long-term strategy to push so hard on even small issues just to not have to give up a concession if you end up blowing the deal because of it.

B) "Either you fix everything to meet current social norms or you don't fix any" is a false choice. Not only is it a false choice, it is also a horrible premise.

Let's use the recent example of the devastating earthquake in Turkey. They pulled out a survivor nine days after the main earthquake hit!!! If the rescue teams had been turned away right after the buildings had been pummeled, because, you know, if you don't save them all then you can't save any of them.

Now, let's take a look at your "gun crime" is a misnomer. Yes, it is a misnomer, just like the term "morning sickness" is technically a misnomer.

However, as the point of language is to convey information, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc., the term "gun crime" is the commonly used term to convey "crimes in which firearms were used by the perpetrator." Being that is a commonly used term is today's vernacular and rarely, if ever, taken to mean crimes committed by the inanimate gun itself, it is my humble opinion that the point for bringing it up is...rather pointless.

Nonetheless, am glad you are here and participating in the discussion.

 

Ok, you're right, that was really funny.

 

That last part was in a very small font and rarely mentioned.

 

My point is that while times have changed and tools have changed the original intent is still valuable. The problem lies in the interpretation of what was written. Every amendment could be updated with modern language, but my focus is more on intent than wording.