Vragon2.0
Say it with me (Vray-gun)
- 420
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- As if I'd be one to say
- Seen Feb 19, 2024
I can make up scenarios too you know. The one I made was merely to illustrate the next level guns were to like swords and how they were easier to wield and are the weapons of the era.What if a certain armed portion of the population decides they like an oppressive government when it's aimed at certain groups, and they are willing to enforce government tyranny with their gun rights.
Or what about armed people killing innocent people, while gun right's activists make sure they have access to every type of firearm where they can effectively become a one man army, capable of killing and injuring hundreds.
I can say some are like that. I'm not and not even a gun owner. I'm just trying to find the course of what I'm seeing as the "roots" of the issue, being the metal health of the United States.People never think too deeply when they are supporting an absolute cause. It just comes down to a "good guys vs bad guys" mentality, when things aren't so black and white in the real world.
the times then yes, what was deemed "citizen" wasn't as universal as now. Now citizen isn't restricted by stuff like that, and there are other rules for permits. I mean, I'm not sure how that makes saying "you can carry a gun for [X] places for citizens" matters.The fact is that individual rights were not part of the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Back at the founding, the 2nd amendment was mostly about State protection with militias, and much of gun ownership was tied to that. There were gun laws, and unspoken one, which dictated where you could carry, or who could own one, usually based on race and gender - depending on the state. In some respect, our founders were very oppressive against certain groups of people, which was mostly based on religion and race.
Today's interpretation of the 2nd amendment has little to do with tyrannically government and militias, and more to do with individual rights..... And while I fully support individual right, I fail to see why they should be unlimited, when they are often part of a political ideology that runs government and can be very authoritarian, and there are those who misuses those unlimited rights to cause great harm upon the people.
They aren't unlimited. Freedoms aren't the same as rights. I dunno, would you say "the press" shouldn't be able to say what it wants if it attacks others? I get what you mean, "if you can misuse the tool and it is often misused, don't have it in reach." The thing here though is, that the misuse of the tool isn't a majority thing, nor is it even done mostly by sane/mentally healthy people. Some peeps will break the law and use tools for bad purposes, and that's not enough of a reason to ban the tool. The only time you ban the tool is when your society is completely incapable of handling it and it requires it. And I'd argue only some areas of some states "maybe" are getting close to that. I think the mental health and responsibility factor is something better to aim for, since banning the tool doesn't fix the problem.
That's a generalizing thing you have there. I don't think many americans have complained about not having automatics or military weapons. I don't think all gun owners are opposed to the rules/regulations that is getting a firearm legally. If you don't trust people, fine that's your own choice, but not everybody is irresponsible with guns and I think you are over generalizing.I may not trust government, but I don't trust the people either. But the argument over guns has become very one sided by the right, where any talk of any type of gun control, no matter how small, is an affront to the 2nd amendment and a persons rights.
Not to mention rights are damn hard to get back after they're gone.
The 2nd amendment has been perverted for the last 40 years to suite the views if a certain group in the country, to promote an industry, a political ideology, and the hedonistic pleasures of these people, and to intimidate, rather than be about personnel defense and tyrannical government - or even hunting.
- EdyKel from Newgrounds
except that it's accessible to everyone, aka anyone can use a gun. So even if you argue "intimidation" I'd say it loses that when you can have access to the same cards too.
Hopefully this can provide some new perspective on things. And yes, I'm sure there can be a true 'American' culture without the need for firearms...
Probably, when firearms are no long the prime methods of defense in the US. *sigh* I grow tired of this circle so I'm just going to say this one last thing and dip out since I think I've made myself clear.
Cultural differences are a thing. They are sometimes hard to understand and process, and from what I'm seeing, you don't seem to know "why" someone would want a gun save from what you've heard over the "2nd amendment" and all that. I'd suggest that if you are going to research into this, that you look deep into both sides and the people it would affect. Don't follow the stereotypes you hear of and actually look to see who they are and what their idealism is. Also, each state is different, so that's another factor to consider. I hope this can at least help out in getting perspective and if you don't change your position that's fine. It's not my job or interest to sway you or whatnot.
But honestly I think the issue (as I've said a lot) is the mental health and that's an issue that won't be fixed by the policy you are favoring. People will still be at each other's throats and merely have to find other means to harm another.
Anyways, Imma take a break from debates heh, I wish you well.