Why don't Democrats just say it out loud: Repeal the Second Amendment?

[Strudelcutie4427]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

[Strudelcutie4427]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

The idea that "MUH AR-15" is an inalienable right is entirely an invention of the radical orginalists on the Roberts Court. It turns out that you can entirely reinterpret amendments hundreds of years after they were written, who'd have thunk it?

You know the first machine guns were invented in the 1700s right? So the founders knew that it wasn’t just muskets that people would be using 200 years in the future. Besides, Jefferson and Madison would’ve been almost Gary Johnson like if they were alive today, no way they’d think the govt should be going about rounding up property of people who did nothing wrong

[Strudelcutie4427]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

"We should keep the second amendment not because it has any benefit to society, but because getting rid of it is hard"

Well if there’s an armed burglar in my home and my family is at risk, the 2A benefits society. If a rapist attacks an armed woman and she’s able to shoot him it benefits society, if there’s anarchy after a disaster and you need to protect your stuff from looters, it benefits society. If someone is being beaten to within an inch of his life and you shoot the attacker it benefits society. Gun control laws won’t do anything to effect criminals. It’s not like they’re gonna be like “oh darn it. Looks like we need to turn our guns in.” If libs thought with their logic and common sense and not on feelings they’d notice that they’re better off with the 2A too. What if there’s a lynch mob of Klansmen going after a black activist? Wouldn’t it be better if he had a gun to defend himself from the klan?

[Strudelcutie4427]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

"We should keep the second amendment not because it has any benefit to society, but because getting rid of it is hard"

Well if there’s an armed burglar in my home and my family is at risk, the 2A benefits society. If a rapist attacks an armed woman and she’s able to shoot him it benefits society, if there’s anarchy after a disaster and you need to protect your stuff from looters, it benefits society. If someone is being beaten to within an inch of his life and you shoot the attacker it benefits society. Gun control laws won’t do anything to effect criminals. It’s not like they’re gonna be like “oh darn it. Looks like we need to turn our guns in.” If libs thought with their logic and common sense and not on feelings they’d notice that they’re better off with the 2A too. What if there’s a lynch mob of Klansmen going after a black activist? Wouldn’t it be better if he had a gun to defend himself from the klan?

Every single one of those examples can be turned on their heads and reframed such that the gun is a problem, e.g., a lynch mob of klansmen with several guns would overpower a black activist with a single gun. It's an issue that has a lot of gray, which is why an absolutist interpretation of the amendment is moronic.

Wouldn’t he have a better chance of surviving with a gun though? It’s not total protection but it gives you a fighting chance if you’re threatened. What about a 95 pound female college student who has to fight off a 275 pound rapist? Unlike the liberals rape survival guide of “pee on the attacker’s” (I’m not kidding that was an actual suggestion) a gun can help a 95 pound woman protect herself against a behemoth of an attacker

[Strudelcutie4427]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

"We should keep the second amendment not because it has any benefit to society, but because getting rid of it is hard"

Well if there’s an armed burglar in my home and my family is at risk, the 2A benefits society. If a rapist attacks an armed woman and she’s able to shoot him it benefits society, if there’s anarchy after a disaster and you need to protect your stuff from looters, it benefits society. If someone is being beaten to within an inch of his life and you shoot the attacker it benefits society. Gun control laws won’t do anything to effect criminals. It’s not like they’re gonna be like “oh darn it. Looks like we need to turn our guns in.” If libs thought with their logic and common sense and not on feelings they’d notice that they’re better off with the 2A too. What if there’s a lynch mob of Klansmen going after a black activist? Wouldn’t it be better if he had a gun to defend himself from the klan?

Every single one of those examples can be turned on their heads and reframed such that the gun is a problem, e.g., a lynch mob of klansmen with several guns would overpower a black activist with a single gun. It's an issue that has a lot of gray, which is why an absolutist interpretation of the amendment is moronic.

Wouldn’t he have a better chance of surviving with a gun though? It’s not total protection but it gives you a fighting chance if you’re threatened. What about a 95 pound female college student who has to fight off a 275 pound rapist? Unlike the liberals rape survival guide of “pee on the attacker’s” (I’m not kidding that was an actual suggestion) a gun can help a 95 pound woman protect herself against a behemoth of an attacker

We can play hypotheticals all you want. You can bring up some example of a person being helped by having a gun and I can tinker with those examples in ways where people are harmed by having the gun or the effect is negated. Your 275 pound rapist could be camping out in an alley carrying an AR15. If you are trying to frame guns as having a unequivocally positive effect for society, you will lose.

If he’s a rapist no way he would be carrying an AR 15. A hand gun maybe but he wouldn’t have an AR15 casually stuffed in his pants. But let me ask you this. How do you think the 1930s would’ve gone for the Ukrainian kulaks if they were armed against Stalin’s goons? Guns in the hands of the citizenry helps maintain fear among the government. I think we can all agree the government fearing the people is infinitely better than it being the other way around

[Strudelcutie4427]

Honestly gun confiscations is the only way that stopping mass killings and school shootings will ever happen but that's not realistic for obvious reasons.

The problem gun control advocates have is that firearms are so entrenched in American culture that you need radical methods to address the issue. Like no-one actually believes that background checks or an assault weapons ban will stop the next school shooter.

ISIS used trucks to kill people, I assume you want to ban trucks to prevent future mass casualty truck attacks as well

[Strudelcutie4427]

Honestly gun confiscations is the only way that stopping mass killings and school shootings will ever happen but that's not realistic for obvious reasons.

The problem gun control advocates have is that firearms are so entrenched in American culture that you need radical methods to address the issue. Like no-one actually believes that background checks or an assault weapons ban will stop the next school shooter.

ISIS used trucks to kill people, I assume you want to ban trucks to prevent future mass casualty truck attacks as well

I'm tired of this argument being put fourth so I'm finally going to say something--large trucks require a CDL license and a class that you have to pass in order to use one. Assault rifles require no such training, so if you're going to use that senseless argument, then you should at least advocate for the same requirements to own an assault rifle that exist for driving these sorts of vehicles.

They’ve also had mass knife attacks. Nobody’s calling for knife control. The Boston bombers used a pressure cooker but there’s no crockpot control