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

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

[Doimper]

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"

It's not even that hard, though. We just need to wait for the radical orginalists to keel over, replace them with better judges, and then the Second Amendment can be interpreted the way it was before 2008. That might cause Cletus from Alabama to lose his mind and fire a few shots at the nearest authority figure, but oh well.

[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

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

[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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Honestly, Bronz is a terrible poster and he makes some of the most ignorant and pointless posts I've ever seen. that said, almost no one wants to actually repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

2. Presser is a weird case to cite, given that it essentially legitimized a form of mass gun control and held that state governments weren't bound by the Bill of Rights (which is obviously archaic, since most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated by now)

The Bill of Rights limits federal government, the 14th Amendment limits state governments. Presser was argued under a 1st and 2nd Amendment analysis, not a 14th Amendment. The relevant portion of Presser is where SCOTUS clearly understands the 2nd Amendment as an individual right 150 years before Heller. So to pretend that Heller was some kind of new, radical reinterpretation of the constitution is untrue.

Besides, a common law system dependent upon precedent from past decisions is inherently archaic in that they look to the past. That's the point. So that judicial opinions are consistent and we don't have unfairly divergent decisions.

[libertpaulian]

Gun control is the primary reason I haven't registered Dem yet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

The problem with your abstract hypotheticals is that they totally ignore what happens in reality.  People in households with guns are likelier to be injured or killed than people in households without guns.  In households without guns you don't have accidental shootings; you don't have gun suicides; and you don't have guns used in domestic violence.  It is far far likelier an abuser will shoot their victim(s) than be deterred by their victims getting access to a gun.

Similarly, armed peasants lose to armed troops unless some outside force helps them as happened during the American Revolution.  It wasn't the Minutemen that won the Revolution, it was the French. Even with weapons, those Ukrainian kulaks you mentioned in another post would have still lost unless some outside power had been willing to intervene.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

It never ceases to amaze me that people can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that you have a strong Second Amendment and strong gun control laws at the very same time.

I would not get rid of the Second Amendment because it provides the people with the right to defend themselves against a potential oppressive and tyrannical government, which is what I believe is why it was written, so that American citizens could fight a war against their own government (which was exactly what they had just done.)

Gun control laws are designed to take the precautions that are necessary to protect and defend the people.  Conservatives should support gun control - its a way to enforce strict law and order.  We can't be a country where evil people (they're not mentally ill - they're just plain evil) terrorize the very places we send our children.

Both supporting the Second Amendment and supporting gun control are about law and order and protecting ourselves and our kids, which is the first civil right.

[AtorBoltox]

How does every other society similar to the United States manage to function without mass gun ownership? According to conservatives they all should be overrun by home invasions. In the real world though the USA has a far higher crime rate than other western societies

[dead0man]

How does every other society similar to the United States manage to function without mass gun ownership?

America functions just fine, what an odd comment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no we don't.  Our "crime" rates don't stand out. (other than being slightly lower than your average "good" country)  Murder, sure, but not generic crime.  cite
The US has half the crime per capita that Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium has.  The UK, New Zealand and Sweden are worse still.

[AtorBoltox]

How does every other society similar to the United States manage to function without mass gun ownership?

America functions just fine, what an odd comment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no we don't.  Our "crime" rates don't stand out. (other than being slightly lower than your average "good" country)  Murder, sure, but not generic crime.  cite
The US has half the crime per capita that Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium has.  The UK, New Zealand and Sweden are worse still.

That site you just linked reckons South Africa has a lower crime rate than Norway and Sweden. Try again. Also, I love how you just gloss over the fact that the murder rate is higher as if it's of little interest

[dead0man]

you said crime, not murder.  If you have a better cite, I'd be happy to look at it.  You don't really come across the as the kind of guy that would do that though.  You know what's right, no one should question you.

[AtorBoltox]

you said crime, not murder.  If you have a better cite, I'd be happy to look at it.  You don't really come across the as the kind of guy that would do that though.  You know what's right, no one should question you.

Maybe you could just employ some critical thinking and realise statistics which suggest that South Africa has a lower crime rate than Sweden are likely to be flawed in some way?
Anyway, address the original point- why do societies with less guns have less murders if guns keep people safe?

[libertpaulian]

It never ceases to amaze me that people can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that you have a strong Second Amendment and strong gun control laws at the very same time.

I would not get rid of the Second Amendment because it provides the people with the right to defend themselves against a potential oppressive and tyrannical government, which is what I believe is why it was written, so that American citizens could fight a war against their own government (which was exactly what they had just done.)

Gun control laws are designed to take the precautions that are necessary to protect and defend the people.  Conservatives should support gun control - its a way to enforce strict law and order.  We can't be a country where evil people (they're not mentally ill - they're just plain evil) terrorize the very places we send our children.

Both supporting the Second Amendment and supporting gun control are about law and order and protecting ourselves and our kids, which is the first civil right.

What is "strong" gun control to you?  Background checks?  Waiting periods?

[Helsinkian]

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.

Are you referring to the Puckle gun, the hand-cranked weapon that fired 9 shots per minute and only existed as a prototype? The fact that the word "machine gun" was used in the 1700s does not mean that it had the same definition as it has nowadays.

[dead0man]

you said crime, not murder.  If you have a better cite, I'd be happy to look at it.  You don't really come across the as the kind of guy that would do that though.  You know what's right, no one should question you.

Maybe you could just employ some critical thinking and realise statistics which suggest that South Africa has a lower crime rate than Sweden are likely to be flawed in some way?
Anyway, address the original point- why do societies with less guns have less murders if guns keep people safe?

do they?

(I wish it was a little cleaner too)
do you see an obvious pattern here, 'cause I don't.  Maybe if you have a lot of guns, your murder rate can only be so high?  Not strong though (Panama, funking sh**t up again!)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think the percentage of Democrats who would actually support a complete civilian gun ban would be incredibly low.

[MarkD]

I think the percentage of Democrats who would actually support a complete civilian gun ban would be incredibly low.

I think so too.

[Hammy]

Has Bronz been spreeing NRA propaganda videos today or something? Two threads in one day on the same strawman topic.

[nclib]

While I support significant gun control, I don't think campaigning on repealing the Second Amendment would be a good electoral strategy, and highly doubt repealing 2A would ever become close to being voted on.

If hypothetically there was a chance to repeal 2A, my main concern would be the precedent it would set on potentially weakening the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

[AtorBoltox]

While I support significant gun control, I don't think campaigning on repealing the Second Amendment would be a good electoral strategy, and highly doubt repealing 2A would ever become close to being voted on.

If hypothetically there was a chance to repeal 2A, my main concern would be the precedent it would set on potentially weakening the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Already happened. The 4th amendment has been all but eroded by courts

[Statilius the Epicurean]

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.

[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