2nd Amendment in the United States

[Smoker1]

I don't get americans and their love of guns. I see them as unnecessary, as something that regular folks shouldn't have access to, but then people start with whatabotisms like owning a car or other things. It really seems that americans fear their guns being taken away, like having a gun is some sort of "necessary human right"
My question is: How many times have people used their guns in order to defend themselves? in a stresful situation one can grab his gun and just kill an inocent person

These are my thoughts exactly. Unlike a car, gun has no alternate usage other than maybe hunting (which you still don't need an assault rifle to do)

CDC did a Study on Firearm Related Incidents. 2.3Million+ Related Incidents were in Self-Defense. Oh, but then some Gun Control head demanded they keep the 2.3Million+ amount, but wanted the Self-Defense part Removed. So you would rather thoae 2.3Million+ Incidents result in Victims being Killed, unable to Protect or Defend themselves???? It is better to have something, and not ever need it, than need it, and not have it when you have to.

 

[concept8192]

CDC did a Study on Firearm Related Incidents. 2.3Million+ Related Incidents were in Self-Defense. Oh, but then some Gun Control head demanded they keep the 2.3Million+ amount, but wanted the Self-Defense part Removed. So you would rather thoae 2.3Million+ Incidents result in Victims being Killed, unable to Protect or Defend themselves???? It is better to have something, and not ever need it, than need it, and not have it when you have to.

But, assuming your uncited statistics are true, couldn't everyone agree to defend themselves with anything except for a gun that could and is used to kill many, many people outside of self-defense cases?

 

[Smoker1]

But, assuming your uncited statistics are true, couldn't everyone agree to defend themselves with anything except for a gun that could and is used to kill many, many people outside of self-defense cases?

Not everyone can Fight back. What about those who are Elderly, Disabled???

 

[concept8192]

Not everyone can Fight back. What about those who are Elderly, Disabled???

Those are a minority and shouldn't be considered when thinking of passing gun laws that would affect every citizen of the United States.
Also, it makes it very difficult to read what you're saying when you type like that. Frankly, it leaves a very poor impression, especially while trying to hold a discussion about a topic with massive ramifications.

 

[Xzi]

But, assuming your uncited statistics are true, couldn't everyone agree to defend themselves with anything except for a gun that could and is used to kill many, many people outside of self-defense cases?

At this point it's a sunk cost fallacy kicking in, the snake has already eaten half of itself. We gotta pretend that no amount of regulation or common sense gun control can possibly do anything to curb mass shootings and school shootings, that way we don't have to feel bad about doing nothing.

 

[concept8192]

At this point it's a sunk cost fallacy kicking in, the snake has already eaten half of itself. We gotta pretend that no amount of regulation or common sense gun control can possibly do anything to curb mass shootings and school shootings, that way we don't have to feel bad about doing nothing.

Well, it's not that I feel bad about doing nothing. I feel bad because I can't do anything. Voting helps sometimes but there are still far, far too many instances of the government doing something horrible and it gets through every check without being stopped. Roe V. Wade being overturned comes to mind.
Democracy is essentially fictional at this point and I'm struggling to come to terms with the probability that nothing's gonna change for the better no matter how much I fight for it.

 

[Xzi]

Yeah...I wanna say something hopeful, but as a millennial I've watched so much shit hit the fan in real-time that it's hard to be optimistic. I never even considered the possibility that I'd be in my mid-thirties with boomers still clinging to power as desperately as Gollum clinging to the one ring. Best we can do is hope that when the revolution comes, it'll be quick and not slow.

 

[concept8192]

Yeah...I wanna say something hopeful, but as a millennial I've watched so much shit hit the fan in real-time that it's hard to be optimistic. I never even considered the possibility that I'd be in my mid-thirties with boomers still clinging to power as desperately as Gollum clinging to the one ring. Best we can do is hope that when the revolution comes, it'll be quick and not slow.

I'm Gen Z, and obviously that could lower people's opinion of me. But just because I wasn't there to see the fan-shit hitting in real time doesn't mean I'm not cynical about it.
I don't think my expectations are too high for believing neither Trump nor Biden were/are really good presidents. Nor a lot of past ones, to be honest. I feel like the 2020 election was 100% fair but that going from an old, white Republican man to an old, white Democrat man wasn't that much of an improvement. Or, it was an improvement from Trump but in my opinion anyone would be with how many flaws he clearly has.
It's concerning seeing such old people get put in office because it seems like they always have (at least partially) a "stuck in the past" mindset.

 

[Smoker1]

@concept8192 - Well then understand this......
Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
2nd Amendment
14th Amendment
Title 18 US Code, Section 241

Seems pretty clear cut. You want to be a good little helpless, defenseless Victim, go ahead. But you do not have the "Right" or "Authority" to take away someone else's Right to Protect or Defend themselves.

 

[Xzi]

I'm Gen Z, and obviously that could lower people's opinion of me.

Nah you guys got stuck with an even shorter straw, as it's unlikely you'll get to experience a decade of American history half as peaceful and prosperous as the 90s. It was a whole different world before GWB allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, hard to describe really.

 

[concept8192]

@concept8192 - Well then understand this......
Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
2nd Amendment
14th Amendment
Title 18 US Code, Section 241

Seems pretty clear cut. You want to be a good little helpless, defenseless Victim, go ahead. But you do not have the "Right" or "Authority" to take away someone else's Right to Protect or Defend themselves.

I'm confused at your attitude. You seem to be holding some hostility towards me, but I'll pay that no mind. That section doesn't even seem to be that relevant to what I'm saying anyway.
Also, I hold the opinion (one that surely will never have any action taken for it) that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence should really stop being the basis for our criminal justice system. The Constitution has been in operation since 1789. It's been over 200 years since then and the justice system time and time again has had to write around it to make progress in the modern era.
Even if the founding fathers had some good ideas (which I don't believe is the case. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison all owned slaves) I can't believe we still trust them as the backbone of our entire system today.

 

[Smoker1]

They took the time to create a Listing of Rights we all have, regardless of how some might feel about it. For a VERY good reason.
Example: Love how Trump, and his Trumpets did not like People saying things against him. Without the 1st Amendment, if you said anything against him, you could get Silenced, Jailed, or "Disappeared". Also People would be able to Force Religion on you. Should we get rid of the 1st Amendment, because some might have their Feelings Hurt, or get Offended?

2nd Example: The 4th Amendment. Should we get rid of that??? Would you be perfectly fine with Law Enforcement always Searching you without reason, taking your Property, for no reason???

Need to look at the Amendments, and think of the reasons for WHY they chose to put them there. That is what Clarence Thomas meant for the 2nd Amendment ruling Statement he made.

 

[concept8192]

They took the time to create a Listing of Rights we all have, regardless of how some might feel about it. For a VERY good reason.
Example: Love how Trump, and his Trumpets did not like People saying things against him. Without the 1st Amendment, if you said anything against him, you could get Silenced, Jailed, or "Disappeared". Also People would be able to Force Religion on you. Should we get rid of the 1st Amendment, because some might have their Feelings Hurt, or get Offended?

2nd Example: The 4th Amendment. Should we get rid of that??? Would you be perfectly fine with Law Enforcement always Searching you without reason, taking your Property, for no reason???

Need to look at the Amendments, and think of the reasons for WHY they chose to put them there. That is what Clarence Thomas meant for the 2nd Amendment ruling Statement he made.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is some of those things shouldn't have been amended. They should've been there from the start. The base rights were very, very flawed (what I meant by "writing around it")

 

[Smoker1]

Actually watch this.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not everyone can Fight back. What about those who are Elderly, Disabled???

Those are a minority and shouldn't be considered when thinking of passing gun laws that would affect every citizen of the United States.

Soooo, fuck the elderly and disabled? Is that what you're saying, @concept8192 ??? Yes, that's what you're saying. Don't even try walking it back.

You also said on the previous page that a knife would be enough for a person banned from possessing guns to protect themselves from another person also banned from possessing guns. You're ignoring 1) the other person might not give a shit what the law says, and has a gun anyway, 2) the other person might also have a knife, and 3) the other person maybe be much younger, physically fit, stronger person ... and going back to the point from above, 4) the person in need of defending themselves may be elderly, weak, disabled/handicapped, and unable to use a knife in any meaningful effort at defense.

 

[tabzer]

Soooo, fuck the elderly and disabled? Is that what you're saying, @concept8192 ??? Yes, that's what you're saying. Don't even try walking it back.

You also said on the previous page that a knife would be enough for a person banned from possessing guns to protect themselves from another person also banned from possessing guns. You're ignoring 1) the other person might not give a shit what the law says, and has a gun anyway, 2) the other person might also have a knife, and 3) the other person maybe be much younger, physically fit, stronger person ... and going back to the point from above, 4) the person in need of defending themselves may be elderly, weak, disabled/handicapped, and unable to use a knife in any meaningful effort at defense.

Nah, they said fuck minorities.

 

[Xzi]

Soooo, fuck the elderly and disabled? Is that what you're saying, @concept8192 ??? Yes, that's what you're saying. Don't even try walking it back.

You also said on the previous page that a knife would be enough for a person banned from possessing guns to protect themselves from another person also banned from possessing guns. You're ignoring 1) the other person might not give a shit what the law says, and has a gun anyway, 2) the other person might also have a knife, and 3) the other person maybe be much younger, physically fit, stronger person ... and going back to the point from above, 4) the person in need of defending themselves may be elderly, weak, disabled/handicapped, and unable to use a knife in any meaningful effort at defense.

Why is it that every conservative argument in favor of doing nothing about mass gun violence relies on pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist and pretending that we don't have concrete data on how the ease of obtaining firearms has affected our society at large? It's either that or reducing the conversation to an all-or-nothing proposal, instead of the common sense gun control reforms supported by 70% of Americans.

The elderly and disabled live in retirement homes, with younger relatives, or with caretakers. The whole argument is a red herring unless you're in favor of arming the homeless.

 

[lolcatzuru]

I am not reading all that.
There needs to be something done in the US because quite honestly, it’s a shitshow. There needs to be better screening and regulations on guns because clearly what the US has now has completely failed

i agree, most armed security.

 

[concept8192]

Nah, they said fuck minorities.

Woah, what the hell happened while I was gone? Is it really that hard to read something and interpret it correctly?
I'm saying gun legislation changes meant for everyone shouldn't be backed by what ifs that apply to a specific (small) group of people.
From now on, no one can eat peanuts because some people are allergic. But people who aren't allergic can use a semi-auto peanut to kill 50 people in 5 minutes. Okay, that analogy isn't very good.

I also didn't even say fuck anyone. I'm just sad because I'm sure you're much older than me and reading a perfectly formatted and concise statement and then replying with my statement but with half of it bold and you ignored the rest is just offensive to me, honestly. I put effort and thought into how I say things.

I wonder if you'll reply like

I'm saying gun legislation changes meant for everyone shouldn't be backed by what ifs that apply to a specific (small) group of people.

"But they're not meant for everyone, some people can't shoot a gun because they're disabled!"
Which is true! I'm not saying that's false. But I also want you to read the rest of the sentence first.

 

[RandomUser]

Soooo, fuck the elderly and disabled? Is that what you're saying, @concept8192 ??? Yes, that's what you're saying. Don't even try walking it back.

Nah, they said fuck minorities.

They are considered as an "Orphan Minority", so that isn't surprising at all. They are often overlooked and underrepresented by society.

@Xzi
Can the disabled and some elderly, afford to live in retirement homes? Medicaid may cover for some benefit but certainly not all of it. The cost of retirement homes are probably $4K+ per month and their incomes are a fraction of that. I guess medicare would kick in for the elderly, however the coverage is not available for every disabled. If their younger relatives helps pay for the expenses, then I guess it would be possible.