How would you change the Second Amendment ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

In Australia gun control laws were implemented after several deadly mass shootings in the 80s ans 90s. After almost twenty years there hasn't been any compared to once a year before. And people still own guns, albeit with restrictions.

Australia as a former British colony with an history of settling a frontier, "dealing" with natives and mass immigration, seems to have a similar profile as the US.

Why wouldn't similar laws work there? Are Americans somehow less able than Australians to draft laws regulating guns?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Some questions, mostly for conservatives-

1) Why do the American people have to have the right to defend the nation? We have a standing army, a National Guard, and many states have militias outside the National Guard system specifically to keep a state-level military inside state borders that can not be nationalized under the National Guard. Oh, and the NY city police force alone is larger and more sophisticated than most of the world's military. Can they not do a good enough job, are you SERIOUSLY insulting our men and women in the military? Shame on you! You'll get in the way and no you're not as good as the FICTIONAL boys in Red Dawn.

2) Why do you think you have the right to "defend" yourself from the very same government you live under? That's called that treason and is un-American. Unless you live in New Hampshire you don't have the right to overthrow the government if you think it's bad (their state constitution says you have that right). You have the right to move to Canada or vote for someone else.

3)Police exist. What do you think you can do against crime? Are you Batman? Even he doesn't use guns. Stop insulting our police officers, please. That's disrespectful.

4)Most important- If making guns illegal won't solve the problem of criminals having guns because they are criminals so we need to keep guns legal... ok, then having laws against drugs should be overturned for the same logic. Weed, heroin, meth and whatever are going to be used by criminals anyways so why have it illegal?! Responsible weed smokers shouldn't be punished, heck there's even responsible people holding jobs that use cocaine, meth, or heroin and noone really notices because they are "responsible" (until they overdose or become irresponsible). Heck, let's legalize murder and rape because law abiding citizens aren't committing those crimes, only criminals are and criminals will commit them whether it is illegal or not!

5) How is your life going to change if you are only limited to 3 or 4 guns, and you can only have rifles, handguns, and cannot have bazookas, uzi, or cop-killer bullets?! Will it really inconvenience your life?

To echo earlier statements: this discussion belongs in chat.

But to your point about the police: When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Define "arms" more precisely - as in, what counts and what does not - and institute membership of at least some organized group as a requirement.


For example...

Arms meaning:

For individual ownership
Any weapon which fires one bullet at most per pull of the trigger, and which fires a solid bullet (or buckshot) and not a shell, and which the user is able to carry.
(i.e. a Garand is fine, a semiautomatic pistol is fine, an AK-74 is not fine unless the automatic fire option is disabled and nor is a Nock volley gun.)

For collective ownership (i.e. a registered militia)
Any weapon which is served by a team of men, and which fires a projectile. They may fire more than one projectile per trigger pull, and it is not required to fire a solid bullet.

All such weapons must be registered.

It is the responsibility of the owners of a collectively owned weapon that it be used correctly and legally. Failure to prevent a weapon being stolen or used by someone who employs it in an illegal fashion is a misdemeanour. Intentionally allowing a weapon to be used in this way is a felony, and may carry charges of accessory to the actual crime.




Worth a try... this is intentionally written to allow a level of firearms proliferation which terrifies me. I'm interested to see if it's considered to be too restrictive by USians.
 
Last edited:

TinyTartar

Banned
Some questions, mostly for conservatives-

1) Why do the American people have to have the right to defend the nation? We have a standing army, a National Guard, and many states have militias outside the National Guard system specifically to keep a state-level military inside state borders that can not be nationalized under the National Guard. Oh, and the NY city police force alone is larger and more sophisticated than most of the world's military. Can they not do a good enough job, are you SERIOUSLY insulting our men and women in the military? Shame on you! You'll get in the way and no you're not as good as the FICTIONAL boys in Red Dawn.

2) Why do you think you have the right to "defend" yourself from the very same government you live under? That's called that treason and is un-American. Unless you live in New Hampshire you don't have the right to overthrow the government if you think it's bad (their state constitution says you have that right). You have the right to move to Canada or vote for someone else.

3)Police exist. What do you think you can do against crime? Are you Batman? Even he doesn't use guns. Stop insulting our police officers, please. That's disrespectful.

4)Most important- If making guns illegal won't solve the problem of criminals having guns because they are criminals so we need to keep guns legal... ok, then having laws against drugs should be overturned for the same logic. Weed, heroin, meth and whatever are going to be used by criminals anyways so why have it illegal?! Responsible weed smokers shouldn't be punished, heck there's even responsible people holding jobs that use cocaine, meth, or heroin and noone really notices because they are "responsible" (until they overdose or become irresponsible). Heck, let's legalize murder and rape because law abiding citizens aren't committing those crimes, only criminals are and criminals will commit them whether it is illegal or not!

5) How is your life going to change if you are only limited to 3 or 4 guns, and you can only have rifles, handguns, and cannot have bazookas, uzi, or cop-killer bullets?! Will it really inconvenience your life?

Truthfully, I have multiple guns, and I use my Remington 700 for hunting, along with my Matthews Bow, and I have two handguns for target shooting.

None of this is done for reasons of national defense or home protection. Guns are actually quite fun if you know how to use them safely and properly. I find it insulting when every time some crazy guy or terrorist does something stupid with a gun, the notion that my right to own a gun is called into question.

As for the Police, I live in a suburb of reasonable size, almost 30,000 people live here, and while I am sure the Police are doing a fine job, as we have a low crime rate, I normally go about 4 weeks without seeing a cop anywhere near my hometown. If there ever was a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, the Police would likely not be any help whatsoever.

As for Bazookas, while it would be really cool to shoot one in a safe environment, I don't need them, or see a need for personally ownership of them. Same with M60s and the like.
 
Truthfully, I have multiple guns, and I use my Remington 700 for hunting, along with my Matthews Bow, and I have two handguns for target shooting.

None of this is done for reasons of national defense or home protection. Guns are actually quite fun if you know how to use them safely and properly. I find it insulting when every time some crazy guy or terrorist does something stupid with a gun, the notion that my right to own a gun is called into question.

As for the Police, I live in a suburb of reasonable size, almost 30,000 people live here, and while I am sure the Police are doing a fine job, as we have a low crime rate, I normally go about 4 weeks without seeing a cop anywhere near my hometown. If there ever was a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, the Police would likely not be any help whatsoever.

As for Bazookas, while it would be really cool to shoot one in a safe environment, I don't need them, or see a need for personally ownership of them. Same with M60s and the like.
I gather that having to get a license to own the same guns you have right now is too much to bear and would spoil your fun, even though this could reduce or even stop mass shootings, including in schools then?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I gather that having to get a license to own the same guns you have right now is too much to bear and would spoil your fun, even though this could reduce or even stop mass shootings, including in schools then?

I have a license to own them. I see no issue with background checks. This is common sense policy.

The only issue I have is with people who think we should institute European style laws on guns with them simply not being allowed.
 
The vast majority of the land in the United States lies outside the jurisdiction of municipal police departments. Sheriffs and state-police are stretched further due to larger jurisdiction(often times they also patrol the cities) and not much larger budgets and personnel. Response times are much higher than the municipal police.

And jurisdictions aren't larger and harder to patrol in places like Canada or Australia, places that end up with less crime per 1,000 persons and less gun ownership?

There was a reason old west towns had laws about no guns in city limits. They knew back then guns, alcohol, and arguments lead to people dead, and it wasn't that they were criminals. It's human nature.
 
But would it stop Mass Murders? Banning Guns in Australia did in fact not stop Mass Murders. It didn't even stop Mass Shootings, despite what people will try to tell you.

You may argue it would make them happen less, but in the US The Violent Crime Rate is decreasing and the Rate of Mass Shootings is either flat or also decreasing, despite Gun Ownership being on the Rise. As Cliché as it is to say, you just hear about them more because the media loves a good tragedy.

Whenever one of these discussions come up there are always 5 Countries that dominate the discussion. On the Pro-Gun side there are the US and sometimes Switzerland, and on the Anti-Gun side there's the UK, Australia, and orphan times Japan as well. The general argument from the Anti-Gun side is "These Countries managed to ban guns and effectively remove them from the civilian population, why can't the US get rid of guns?" There's actually a very simple answer to why the US can't when those other countries could.

I want you to open maps for those three countries. Do you notice any attribute that those three countries have in common that the US does not share?

They are Islands.
The US is not. The US has two very massive Land Borders which I would argue are not feasible or even desirable to close.

Also we have tried banning very popular items from civilian hands before and it Never Works.
With Guns it certainly won't work now that we have 3D Printing and The Internet.
 
On the Pro-Gun side there are the US and sometimes Switzerland,

Let's dispel the myth of Switzerland as "pro-gun" right here and right now and never hear of it again, ok? The myth- "everyone in Switzerland owns a gun!" Switzerland issues all citizens a gun and ammo, yes. That gun and ammo are not to be used AT ALL unless the GOVERNMENT declares that Switzerland is being invaded. The GOVERNMENT comes to your home and checks every year that the ammo and gun have not been tampered or used. I would say the pro-gun lobby in the USA would never mention Switzerland if the Democrats in Congress said "Ok, yes, let's pass a bill to make gun ownership in the USA exactly like that of Switzerland". Swiss gun ownership is actually quite rare, in fact 29% of Swiss homes have a firearm of some kind versus 43% in the US.
 
I would keep the part (in Madison's original proposal) saying "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
 
Some questions, mostly for conservatives-

3)Police exist. What do you think you can do against crime? Are you Batman? Even he doesn't use guns. Stop insulting our police officers, please. That's disrespectful.

Napoleonrules, Not sure were you reside but if it is in The United States of America the police do not have a duty to protect your life, liberty and/or property. In 1989 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989)). Police do not prevent crimes, they just outline the bodies and sometimes catch the person who did it. If you took the time and effort to do the research you would find that there are more than enough case where ordinary people with firearms have prevent and or stop crimes. I suggest you get a copy of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr.
 
I would just get rid of it, its completely unnecessary in the 21st century

In the 18th century, in a largely rural nation, before any kind of police force, and one that had only just fought a civil war against "tyranny", I can get why there was a strong argument for bearing arms.
There is now really no need for a "right to bear arms", its just far too problematic. This doesn't mean people should be banned from owning firearms, just that they should be a hell of a lot harder to get.
 
Napoleonrules, Not sure were you reside but if it is in The United States of America the police have not duty to protect your life, liberty and property. In 1989 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989)). If you took the time and effort to do the research you would find that there are more than enough case where ordinary people with firearms have prevent and or stop crimes. I suggest you get a copy of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr.

Isn't John R. Lott, Jr. the researcher who created a bunch of sock puppets to promote his views and attack his opponents? Isn't he the same guy who has been repeatedly found to falsify and fabricate his research and whose findings are not reproducible.

Couldn't you find someone reputable with a bit of integrity to justify your position? As it is - John R. Lott, Jr. = tinfoil hats.
 
Isn't John R. Lott, Jr. the researcher who created a bunch of sock puppets to promote his views and attack his opponents? Isn't he the same guy who has been repeatedly found to falsify and fabricate his research and whose findings are not reproducible.

Couldn't you find someone reputable with a bit of integrity to justify your position? As it is - John R. Lott, Jr. = tinfoil hats.

Thank you. :D
 

So, you've decided not to reference original sources by academics.

Rather, you've decided to reference David Bell, who seems to be a person of no particular research qualifications. He's just a guy writing a column. Interestingly, as part of his discussion, he sources and references John R. Lott, who has been established as almost as credible as David Ickes. I should take this seriously... why?

The other is an anonymous article by someone claiming to be NRA-ILA, or operating with that pseudonym. Again, it's not actual research. It's commentary. Again, I should take this seriously... why?

Okay. So let's see. Your official academic source is a discredited, dishonest, tinfoil hat wearing lunatic with personality issues whose work is not considered junk. Your back ups are cherry picked advocacy articles with a soupcon of racism.

I'm out of here.
 
Last edited:
So, you've decided not to reference original sources by academics.

Rather, you've decided to reference David Bell, who seems to be a person of no particular research qualifications. He's just a guy writing a column. Interestingly, as part of his discussion, he sources and references John R. Lott, who has been established as almost as credible as David Ickes. I should take this seriously... why?

The other is an anonymous article by someone claiming to be NRA-ILA, or operating with that pseudonym. Again, it's not actual research. It's commentary. Again, I should take this seriously... why?

Okay. So let's see. Your official academic source is a discredited, dishonest, tinfoil hat wearing lunatic with personality issues whose work is not considered junk. Your back ups are cherry picked advocacy articles.

I'm out of here.

When we leave the discussion is the moment when the nuts win the discussion. :( Though I admit what's the point in debating a group that can't debate through the use of ordinary debating rules. Our legitimate scientific facts are just labeled as "opinions" by them and their opinions are put forth as "facts". According to them all of reality has a "liberal agenda" and can't be trusted.
 
When we leave the discussion is the moment when the nuts win the discussion. :( Though I admit what's the point in debating a group that can't debate through the use of ordinary debating rules. Our legitimate scientific facts are just labeled as "opinions" by them and their opinions are put forth as "facts". According to them all of reality has a "liberal agenda" and can't be trusted.

I'm sorry, but do I really need to sit around and read this moronic tripe?

Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular

That's from the Bell article. So apparently, his thesis is that guns aren't connected to violence, because violence is going down. Guns aren't the problem at all, John R. Lott says so.

But the real problem is that increasingly children are born out of wedlock? Because that's the real cause of violence increasing dramatically? Except that it's going down???

And children out of wedlock are directly responsible for criminals becoming role models because.... Who the fuck knows?

But it all comes back to the fact that 'promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlars and street gang leaders' are now role models? Can we possibly get a more racist, hackneyed, clichéd ignorant perception of black people?

Can we ignore the fact that James Cagney spent most of his career portraying charismatic criminals, a role dabbled in extensively by everyone from Sinatra up and down? That John Dillinger, Jessie James, Bonnie and Clyde were elevated to folk heroes? I'm sorry, weren't Elvis and the Rolling Stones trading in sex and sexuality, weren't rockers known for promiscuity? What do we think all those groupies were about? Weren't they all role models?

But no, Larry Bell can't be bothered with all that. The problem is black people and their insatiable promiscuity leading inexorably to criminality. And along the way, I think he's got a problem with those damned kids and they need to get the hell off his lawn.

So what do we get here? First, a genuine fraud and forgery artist with emotional problems is put forward as a credible source. Everyone knows about John R. Lott! There was a thread on John R. Lott a couple of days ago on this very board! But when that gets called, the ante gets upped by putting forward a racist fucktard as a credible source?

And you have the nerve to call me on walking away in disgust?

Forget it. If I stick around for this shit, I will end up saying something that gets me kicked or banned, and I would rather that didn't happen.
 
Top