• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Constitutions (2nd Amendment/Gun control debate)

319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
I'm a fan of Final Fantasy and anime comedy.

That said, I'm VERY used to frying pans being used as weapons. And other kinds of pans. Bathing pans, gold pans, etc...

So as Blah said, dual-use-thus-equivalent is way too overdone.
 

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
Ha, koff~

You ever see someone lose it when you rack a shotgun? The racking or a rifle or a shotgun is enough to grab someone's attention and hold it at the barrel. Cops will tell you that the shotgun is the stop-what-your-doing-right-now-or-your're-going-to-die tool. If the shotgun doesn't stop them. . .

Didn't we have another thread like this? Aren't this a bit overdone? I've gone over this. If a man can build a functioning, working rifle (that works fairly well I might add) out of a shovel in his garage. . . there is no stopping the flow of arms sales and illegal manufacturing around the world. Whether you like it or not the arms business is the largest (if not close to it) in the world. Lockheed Martin? Trillion dollar plane deal. Absorb that knowledge for a minute or two. Trillion. Larger than billion. Guns and tanks are larger than you. They are never going to disappear. Always present, always close to the heart and hands of millions of people around the globe. I think I'm done talking about this. Weapons are like lethal viruses. They're always going to be around, koffi~
 
Last edited:
6,318
Posts
17
Years
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)

As someone has previously said in this thread, criminals break laws. The way I see it outlawing guns will stop nothing in the U.S. because they'll still be in circulation on the black market. It also frankly just wouldn't happen given the legislative procedure to pass a new amendment.

-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?

As far as I'm aware the U.S. constitution was written concisely and only comprises of about 4000 words, there shouldn't be anything too silly in there I imagine and the only issue in the constitution usually contested seems to be gun control.

Personally I don't think guns should be given to members of the public for any usual reason, but America is past the point of being able to stop people from possessing them and their Congress would never approve of it regardless. It's an issue defeated before it even starts and it surprises me that is so often brought up despite the futility of the argument for gun control.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
What's the point of having a set of unalienable rights if they're alienable? Perhaps the context was a bit different three hundred years ago, but the essence is the same: people should have the right to protect themselves and others by whatever means necessary. Almost all legally carrying gun owners are very responsible and would only use their weapon in defense of human (or potentially animal, depending on context) life.

My dad is licensed to carry, and does. He is 71 years old and I don't think he has ever needed to draw his weapon in defense, but the option is there should he need it. He also carries pepper spray because almost all gun owners understand the concept of "necessary force." Most situations, you could defend yourself from with a can of pepper spray. However, there are some situations where, unfortunately, the best solution involves the use of a firearm on a human being. This is sad, but it is nevertheless true. Taking guns away from responsible gun owners would leave us helpless to stop a situation where someone has the intent to kill.

I am regularly upset that people continue to use the line "guns are only used to kill, therefore they are bad." This is largely untrue and very misleading in the case where it is accurate. It is misleading because firearms are almost universally used in the defense of human life (and no, not just against others carrying firearms; there are other weapons that can cause death on a large scale). It is untrue because sometimes the mere presence of a firearm is enough to subdue a criminal or defuse a potentially lethal situation. Additionally, even if this wasn't the case, most gun owners are taught to use only necessary force (as I mentioned earlier): we're not going to shoot to kill unless the situation requires it. Most situations requiring a firearm can be resolved without lethal force and often are.

The media doesn't help matters. Reports about gun misuse (a small fraction of a small fraction of gun owners, many of whom are not carrying legally) often receive front page coverage, even if these reports are blatantly untrue or highly misleading. Retractions are often overlooked or delegated to some forgotten part of a later broadcast or issue. And situations where lethal situations are defused by responsible gun owners are almost never covered by any media (and they do happen, possibly as often or more than the reverse; many 2nd amendment rights groups and sites have coverage of these situations).

So no, I think the constitutional rights granted to us in the second amendment are both necessary and sufficient for the purposes of protection, which was, in fact, the original purpose of the second amendment (though the protection was against a different group of people). And I think if you are going to make a list of rules that can't be violated, you should not be able to violate those rules later on because "times have changed." I support almost all of the rest of the bill of rights; I question the unlimited freedom of the press granted in the first amendment (especially in the case of ongoing criminal proceedings) and think that perhaps the seventh amendment should have accounted for inflation. That said, though I disagree with these rights, I do not think it is right to grant them, to say they are inviolable, and then to revoke them at some later time.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Question time! :)
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)


After watching this video, I should say we should allow people to keep their guns in preparations of a possible zombie invasion, because they're the most efficient weapons to kill them. As a matter of fact, I highly recommend that every country should be give its citizens a gun to prepare for said invasion, even if it means more shooting massacres when an invasion hasn't happened yet. Just look at ZombiU for example. It takes place in a country which has strict gun laws, making its citizens vulnerable to zombies.

-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
Only the first amendment, because it allows flawed/offensive opinions to run amuck and ruin everyone's day *coughpetacough*. There needs to be a limit regarding freedom of speech and expression.

-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)
I never payed much attention to this issue, but I do have my suspicions about it, though it's usually from corrupted politics I may not know about.
 
319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
As far as mass media goes, the problem we have is an overwhelming amount of negative media. Reporters dig up "the dirt" instead of showing positive outcomes affiliated with various subjects.

Let's have mass media that shows gun owners using their guns to protect their lives and the lives of those they love and THEN see what happens.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
What's the point of having a set of unalienable rights if they're alienable?
Very few rights 100% are inalienable. War and the death penalty take away the right to life, the press are generally forbidden from mentioning the names of minors in court cases, and so on. Everything is a balance. I think it's fine to have a right that states people can defend themselves, but to specify the means is a little weird. For the second amendment to be about guns specifically and about self-defense implicitly is a little backwards.

Let's have mass media that shows gun owners using their guns to protect their lives and the lives of those they love and THEN see what happens.
While I agree that the media has a problem ("if it bleeds, it leads") I think the statistics of gun violence in the US are enough to say there is a gun violence problem.

Plus, you can't really show something stopping something else from happening. Like if you have somebody who prays to keep their town safe from storms and then no storm comes you can't really prove the prayer did anything because there simply could have been no storms. You can have a person who has a gun and never gets robbed, but you can't show that they've never been robbed because they have a gun.
 
211
Posts
10
Years
"-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)"

Regulating the 2nd Amendment would be a good idea. These days any idiot can get a gun while many people want to get rid of affordable health care. Tell me, what could possibly go wrong?

Hand guns have their uses if you needed to defend yourself. Hunting rifles are self-explanatory. But what's the purpose of an assault rifle? Yeah, I understand people like to collect them (and I'm sure some of us like to collect Pokemon, even if we won't use them). But guns can still become tools for murder. They don't kill people but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. Why make it easy for a potential criminal?

I say start with background checks for anyone wishing to get a gun permit. After all, many pro-gun activists complain that criminals don't follow the law (obviously) and will get guns by any means, but that shouldn't be an excuse for easier gun access. Make it harder for them, at least. It could prevent some deaths. Besides, if you are a "law-abiding citizen" then there's nothing to be afraid of, right? :)
 

Water Gym Leader

Arlyn Aquos
325
Posts
10
Years
"If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed."

If you had a gun, the robber might have pulled out a weapon as well - what then? You've just escalated the problem to one where someone has to die. I would much rather leave them too it and call the police.

FYI - Off duty police officer is off duty. No radio for backup and no legal cover.

Most if not all off duty officers carry their fire arms on them at all times.
2) I happen to have a fast trigger finger and according to US law, if I feel threatened I have the right to shoot.
3) If someone takes my property by force I DO have the right to protect myself by any means necessary.
And last but not least I am signing up to be a member of the NRA.
 

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!
1,639
Posts
11
Years
Most if not all off duty officers carry their fire arms on them at all times.
2) I happen to have a fast trigger finger and according to US law, if I feel threatened I have the right to shoot.
3) If someone takes my property by force I DO have the right to protect myself by any means necessary.
And last but not least I am signing up to be a member of the NRA.

Fast trigger finger won't save you when the bandit has the control of the situation...
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
3) If someone takes my property by force I DO have the right to protect myself by any means necessary.
How does protecting yourself extend to protecting your property?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I want to know how property is potentially worth someone's life, what examples or justifications make it not seem so over the top.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Most if not all off duty officers carry their fire arms on them at all times.
2) I happen to have a fast trigger finger and according to US law, if I feel threatened I have the right to shoot.
3) If someone takes my property by force I DO have the right to protect myself by any means necessary.
And last but not least I am signing up to be a member of the NRA.

This seems misguided. Nobody has the right to do anything by any means necessary. The name of the game is reasonable force, it has always been and it will always be. A statement like "if I feel threatened I have the right to shoot" means if somebody brushes me the wrong way, then I can off him - after all, I feel "threatened", don't I? Even with the defense of property, the court will decide whether the use of force was reasonable or not. The right to carry arms does not amount to an effective carte blanche on the use of force. If US law worked the way you say it did, then it seems awfully lawless to me.
 
319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
How does protecting yourself extend to protecting your property?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I want to know how property is potentially worth someone's life, what examples or justifications make it not seem so over the top.

In the U.S., the idea of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness used to be Life, Liberty, and Property. Americans are VERY territorial and materialistic. If you take their ****, they have every right to put a bullet in your brain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!
1,639
Posts
11
Years
In the U.S., the idea of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness used to be Life, Liberty, and Property. Americans are VERY territorial and materialistic. If you take their sh*t, they have every right to put a bullet in your brain.

Americans weren't the ones who invented capitalism but they were certainly the ones who perfected it. No wonder it's such a materialistic nation.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Americans weren't the ones who invented capitalism but they were certainly the ones who perfected it. No wonder it's such a materialistic nation.

If wanting to own things and wanting a right to voluntary exchange makes me a bad person, then I guess I'll just have to be fine living as a bad person.

Stop trying to guilt trip people who support a system that emphasizes having as free of a market as possible. It's patronizing and low.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Ehh there's nuances to "voluntary exchange". I'd describe it more like "voluntary exchange within a power differential". Those with power determine the terms of the exchange, for example if someone's bigger than you, it's easier for them to say no to you, so they control the exchange. This is why competition is supported, and sometimes enforced - which if you think about it, is going against voluntary exchange. Social redistribution can be very good. In the case of Norway, the government gets around 70-80% of every dollar's worth of petroleum they sell, and it goes to a public fund that is reinvested into government services and funds, i.e., having money for the future. Can we even dream of American oil companies redistributing profits to the rest of us?

Anyways justifying my shooting a person trying to make off with my television on the basis they're making off with my television seems ridiculous to me, but I guess I'm a foreigner. Sure, I'd be emotional as it happens, but when I'm not thinking with my balls I'd leave justice and the law to those who have the authority to manage it. I don't think the average person should be able to wield that kind of power.
 

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!
1,639
Posts
11
Years
If wanting to own things and wanting a right to voluntary exchange makes me a bad person, then I guess I'll just have to be fine living as a bad person.

Stop trying to guilt trip people who support a system that emphasizes having as free of a market as possible. It's patronizing and low.

I'm surprised that after 1929 people still haven't learned that a market "as free as possible" will only have disastrous consequences. I believe this possibility should be as low as possible (but not zero like in communism).

Adam Smith's ideas are beautiful on paper. On paper.
 
319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
Does anyone remember what I said about using a standard and only THEN allowing capitalism on top of it? Anyone?

I don't believe there should be a maximum limit to what people can obtain but there SHOULD be a minimum limit. I don't want to keep seeing wise old men (that are also military veterans) and their grandchildren on the street just because someone thinks it cool for the minimum limit of money everyone gets to be $0.
 

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!
1,639
Posts
11
Years
Does anyone remember what I said about using a standard and only THEN allowing capitalism on top of it? Anyone?

I don't believe there should be a maximum limit to what people can obtain but there SHOULD be a minimum limit. I don't want to keep seeing wise old men (that are also military veterans) and their grandchildren on the street just because someone thinks it cool for the minimum limit of money everyone gets to be $0.

Minimum wage in Brazil, barely enough to afford basic needs for a standard family of four. The recommended wage our governmental statistics institute stipulates is triple what most people earn. But the politicians don't give a ****.
 
319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
Yeah, what I'm saying is - Minimum Wage being so low wouldn't be a bad thing if every single citizen automatically received a "standard check" - whether jobless or with a job - which had enough money to pay for housing, food, and other necessities, while the prices of said necessities were low enough to allow the standard check to actually be enough to pay for things.

^ That's communism, which allows people to still earn more if they wanted to - thus, capitalism. Both at once. Awesome, right?

--

... Main topic is guns?

Uhm...

I don't like guns. But guns aren't bad people are, etc etc.

I'm out of juice for this topic lol
 
Back
Top