Do you support repealing the 2nd amendment?

[Benjamin Frank]

It's not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing pros to cons.  

Of course crime statistics are not perfect, but advanced Western Nations don't seem to have a problem with self defense even though they have much more restrictive gun laws (and generally much less guns.)  

Some of the world's lowest crime rates are seen in Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, and New Zealand. Each of these countries has very effective law enforcement, and Denmark, Norway, and Japan have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Countries such as Austria do see more petty crimes such as purse snatching or pickpocketing.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

As the original article I linked to said, using guns for self defense is likely more offer counter-productive than useful.

     Other countries where culture and policy differ in important ways that go well beyond just guns. If I had more free time on my hands, I would try to correlate the crime rate with gun ownership by country to see what the correlation coefficient is there. I imagine it would be fairly low, given how many countries in the third world have low gun ownership and high crime rates.

     Incidentally, some of the countries you cite are actually quite heavily armed; gunpolicy.org, a project of the University of Sidney, tracks 29% of households in Norway and Switzerland as owning guns. This puts them near the top of European countries and not a far cry from the 42% of the United States, though their gun death rates per 100,000 people are a mere fraction of America's. It is true that Norway and Switzerland have stricter gun laws than the United States, but the fact that they have such low gun death rates and such high gun ownership rates is a problem for the narrative that any gun owner is a threat, as the overwhelming majority have no problem following the laws and using their weapons safely.

Arguing that people claim 'any gun owner is a threat' is a strawman.

     From the NPR article you linked:

"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

     Seems to be the implication of his statement about them having the chance to use the gun inappropriately everyday. Sure it is true in the literal sense, but given that most don't do this it is somewhat misleading to put it as such.

There is a difference between a theoretical threat and a likely threat.  A theoretical threat would be a percentage of a likely threat.

[mileslunn]

Not an American, but if I were, absolutely 100%.  Repealing 2nd amendment doesn't mean all guns get banned, simply means legislators have freedom to decide how permissive or how restrictive they are.  Only 3 countries on earth have gun rights in constitution, yet very few countries completely ban civilian ownership of firearms.  In Canada where I live, we have no equivalent of the 2nd amendment, yet over 2 million Canadians own firearms.  Difference is it is a privilege not a right and government has ability to strengthen or loosen gun laws as wish and voters can hold them accountable if they disagree. 

Lets remember when 2nd amendment was introduced, US lacked a standing army and you only had muskets.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern weaponry and a proper standing army it makes absolutely zero sense.

As for protection argument, there is no evidence more people owning guns save lives.  In fact most evidence suggests just the opposite.  A good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy is more a Hollywood thing and happens very rarely in real life.  Yes it does happen occasionally, but for every such case, there are many were a gun owner kills someone in rage unnecessarily or in a shoot out hits an innocent bystander.

[S019]

It says a lot that the international posters here understand more about gun issues than 70% of people who voted in the poll (most of whom are Americans who have drank the ""gun rights"" Kool-Aid)

[Benjamin Frank]

Not an American, but if I were, absolutely 100%.  Repealing 2nd amendment doesn't mean all guns get banned, simply means legislators have freedom to decide how permissive or how restrictive they are.  Only 3 countries on earth have gun rights in constitution, yet very few countries completely ban civilian ownership of firearms.  In Canada where I live, we have no equivalent of the 2nd amendment, yet over 2 million Canadians own firearms.  Difference is it is a privilege not a right and government has ability to strengthen or loosen gun laws as wish and voters can hold them accountable if they disagree. 

Lets remember when 2nd amendment was introduced, US lacked a standing army and you only had muskets.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern weaponry and a proper standing army it makes absolutely zero sense.

As for protection argument, there is no evidence more people owning guns save lives.  In fact most evidence suggests just the opposite.  A good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy is more a Hollywood thing and happens very rarely in real life.  Yes it does happen occasionally, but for every such case, there are many were a gun owner kills someone in rage unnecessarily or in a shoot out hits an innocent bystander.

Muskets and flintlocks.  Shortly after the writing of the U.S Constitution in 1787, the manufacturing of guns would play a significant role in the development of the modern economy.

[Former President tack50]

There is a categorical human right to defend yourself which means being able to at least keep something like a revolver or shotgun in your home. You want to talk about bans on assault weapons, concealed carry, and so on, that's a separate thing. But a 100% ban on gun ownership is drifting into very authoritarian territory. The state has a monopoly on the use of proactive force, but not on all violence and I don't know how anyone on the left can oppose that position with all the "OMG defund the police" bellyaching they've been doing lately.

Somehow though, every country outside the US manages to have people defend themselves without having to own guns

(Indeed, owning guns for self-defence is nearly impossible here; the very few people who do own guns do so under hunting or recreational shooting licenses, not self-defence ones)

[dead0man]

Lets remember when 2nd amendment was introduced, US lacked a standing army and you only had muskets.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern weaponry and a proper standing army it makes absolutely zero sense.

Lets remember when the 1st Amendment was introduced, you only had the printing press.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern technology and the ability to reach millions instantly, it makes absolutely zero sense.


(of course, with a lot of modern progressives, this line of argument isn't going to work because those clowns don't believe in freedom of speech either...because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother anyone)

[Former President tack50]

Somehow though, every country outside the US manages to have people defend themselves without having to own guns

I have a friend who grew up in Jamaica. He drove to work with a machete under his seat and had a uncle who died trying to stop a burglary. I don't know how difficult it is to buy a gun in Jamaica but I have trouble believe that his family was better off for not having any.

The US is exceptionally violent and has an unusual number of people living in areas where sheer distance limits emergency response times. Unfortunately, this is also a country in which law enforcement cannot always be relied on to protect and serve. I don't think it's much of a mystery why a right to self-defense remains popular.

Ok fair enough, every developed country then. But you would expect better from the numver 1 superpower than comparing itself in terms of safety and what not with countries like Jamaica!

The US are more violent than other developed countries sure, but that just means governments need to make crime go down. Even so I would not say it is exceptionally violent. The US homicide rate seems to be around 5 per 100k. That is high by developed country standards but not unreasonably so. Canada (which does not have a 2nd amendment) is at 1.75, and multiple parts of Eastern Europe tie the US in homicide rate.

For a comparison, Jamaica is at 44.

As for distance, it is not like people in rural areas in other countries have guns as often? (Plus I will note people in rural areas are more likely to have a legitimate reason to own a gun in the first place, most notably for hunting)

[Benjamin Frank]

Lets remember when 2nd amendment was introduced, US lacked a standing army and you only had muskets.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern weaponry and a proper standing army it makes absolutely zero sense.

Lets remember when the 1st Amendment was introduced, you only had the printing press.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern technology and the ability to reach millions instantly, it makes absolutely zero sense.


(of course, with a lot of modern progressives, this line of argument isn't going to work because those clowns don't believe in freedom of speech either...because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother anyone)

The 'modern left' does not hate liberty, it just recognizes that rights aren't absolutes and need to be balanced against other rights or rare situations (like a public health pandemic) with restrictions that are reasonable under the circumstances.  Unfortunately right wing libertarians and the modern right have no understanding of nuance or reality and can only handle extremes and simplistic binaries.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I support the death of American culture as an internal/organic process that generates grassroots support for properly interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an archaic right of no current relevance, as we have a volunteer, professional military with a National Guard that is semi-professional. Mexico also has a 2nd Amendment but it is of no importance there.

I understand why people own guns. I do not accept that America must exist in its current configuration or that we should accept obscene levels of violence. Societies can be changed through reform. This once slaver society had a Black President just 150 years later. In our lifetime, we could see the ultimate demise of gun culture if people wake up. I am hopeful that the process can start by the time I am 50.

Obviously, I do not see gun sportsmanship as a problem or have any issue with hunting etc. There can be a limited place for these activities in our society without contemporary gun culture perpetuating itself.

[Alcibiades]

Yes. The interpretation of the Second Amendment has become increasingly distorted in recent years, being used to strike down even the most minimal of gun regulations. More broadly, the ‘right’ to bear arms is an absurd concept, and a society which values such a right is bound to be immensely violent, dysfunctional, and authoritarian.

[Benjamin Frank]

Lets remember when 2nd amendment was introduced, US lacked a standing army and you only had muskets.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern weaponry and a proper standing army it makes absolutely zero sense.

Lets remember when the 1st Amendment was introduced, you only had the printing press.  So in 1776, it actually made a lot of sense.  But in 2021 with modern technology and the ability to reach millions instantly, it makes absolutely zero sense.


(of course, with a lot of modern progressives, this line of argument isn't going to work because those clowns don't believe in freedom of speech either...because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother anyone)

The 'modern left' does not hate liberty, it just recognizes that rights aren't absolutes and need to be balanced against other rights or rare situations (like a public health pandemic) with restrictions that are reasonable under the circumstances.  Unfortunately right wing libertarians and the modern right have no understanding of nuance or reality and can only handle extremes and simplistic binaries.

For instance:
One new bill in Pennsylvania not only prohibits universities from promoting such thoughts (on 'critical race theory',) it also bans them from hosting speakers or assigning readings that do.

The bill would effectively ban speakers who advocate policies as simple as affirmative action to correct systemic racism in our institutions.

The modern right has no consistent core principles. It just flips from one extreme to another with absolutist language. It can claim to be against 'cancel culture' one minute, and then demand it the next.

This isn't just believing that 2+2 = 5 if told. To be on the modern right, one has to be a complete idiot.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

In theory, absolutely. In reality, I don't know how challenging an individual's right to own a gun is possible when you consider the sheer quantity of firearms that are already among the public. The time to get out in front of this issue was several decades ago, but the presence of firearms is so vast and pervasive in American society today that I have a hard time seeing any major reform like this being remotely enforcable or successful.

[MarkD]

I would not support repealing the 2nd, but I think rewriting and replacing it -- like I want to do with the second sentence of the 14th Amendment -- would be a prudent thing to do.

If the SCOTUS were to render a lot of middle-of-the-road decisions about the meaning of the 2nd that do not please either the left or the right, that would probably increase the likelihood that the public would want to rewrite it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If I was designing the constitution from scratch it would not include the second amendment, but it seems like a waste of time and political capital to go through the fuss of repealing it.

[Ferguson97]

The idea that Americans would ever use their right to bear arms to stand up to tyranny is a myth anyway. Where were these so-called patriots during Japanese internment? During Jim Crow?

Given the nature of fascism, it's far more likely that gun nuts would be cheering on the government during such a scenario.

[Big Abraham]

The idea that Americans would ever use their right to bear arms to stand up to tyranny is a myth anyway. Where were these so-called patriots during Japanese internment? During Jim Crow?

Given the nature of fascism, it's far more likely that gun nuts would be cheering on the government during such a scenario.

This is a brainlet take.

If the working class had been permitted to be properly armed in their capacity as a vanguard for the organized union strikers, etc., then several of the already pretty widespread number of labor uprisings against capital or the United States government might have been successful. Take, for example, the Battle of Blair Mountain or Coxey's Army. The colored also exercised their right to bear arms to defend their suffrage in the face of Reconstruction being undone; (this right was of course later denied.)

Anyway, let the gun nuts cheer on the government if they want - although you won't find any of them taking up arms for Biden - but Labor would certainly find itself in a better position to negotiate, if fully armed.

[Ferguson97]

The idea that Americans would ever use their right to bear arms to stand up to tyranny is a myth anyway. Where were these so-called patriots during Japanese internment? During Jim Crow?

Given the nature of fascism, it's far more likely that gun nuts would be cheering on the government during such a scenario.

This is a brainlet take.

If the working class had been permitted to be properly armed in their capacity as a vanguard for the organized union strikers, etc., then several of the already pretty widespread number of labor uprisings against capital or the United States government might have been successful. Take, for example, the Battle of Blair Mountain or Coxey's Army. The colored also exercised their right to bear arms to defend their suffrage in the face of Reconstruction being undone; (this right was of course later denied.)

Anyway, let the gun nuts cheer on the government if they want - although you won't find any of them taking up arms for Biden - but Labor would certainly find itself in a better position to negotiate, if fully armed.

I reject your premise that we can unite “labor”.

[Former President tack50]

The idea that Americans would ever use their right to bear arms to stand up to tyranny is a myth anyway. Where were these so-called patriots during Japanese internment? During Jim Crow?

Given the nature of fascism, it's far more likely that gun nuts would be cheering on the government during such a scenario.

It is worth noting that even if the US did have a sensible gun policy, if an armed uprising was to be formed, it would be fairly easy for said uprising to get guns.

Groups like the IRA in Northern Ireland had no trouble getting guns, and I am sure the hypothetical "American Republican Army" would have even less trouble doing so.

[President Johnson]

As European, I wish it wouldn't exist. I think from this amendment developments arose that were not intended at the time it was written. The major problem here is of course that even if repeal was possible, you'd also have to confiscate almost all guns to improve safety.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe a revised version to clarify the scope of this ambiguously worded amendment, but not an outright repeal.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. It was written at a time without a standing army, where people were required to have guns to defend their country at the last minute if it suddenly went to war. Now, we have a massively bloated military. There's really no reason for anyone to have guns, even for recreational hunting (you shouldn't be allowed to kill animals solely for the 'pleasure' of it). The right constantly uses it as a scapegoat to prevent common sense gun control measures which would not hinder lawful users; repealing it would give them no scapegoat, and force them to come out into the open. Honestly, guns should be banned, or severely curtailed; there's no reason any more for their usage. Because with the GOP, even common sense measures are a no-no, because muh Second Amendment. It's 'all-or-nothing', so go all in. Several thousands of lives per year would be saved, and at the small expense of some gun-crazed rural population losing their deadly-weapons-used-by-some-to-kill-people-on-a-daily-basis. I personally think that saving thousands of lives a year is worth a few gun-obsessed people from losing their 'hobby' (and since when has collecting deadly weapons used by criminals and others to kill people been considered a hobby?!).

[patzer]

As someone who's British, I find the ubiquity of guns in America horrifying. They're murder weapons that should only be used by the military, special police units for dealing with situations like terrorist attacks, and (with heavy regulation) by those who have no alternative (e.g. a farmer in an area with a lot of wild predators that may attack at any time).

Aside from situations like that, people should have no more right to own a gun than they do to own bombs, chemical weapons, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother anyone)

marijuana?

[Diabolical Materialism]

Once the military and police are completely disarmed, sure take the guns. No use for them or the 2nd amendment at that point.

[dead0man]

because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother anyone)

marijuana?

ahhh, I see, the problem.  Let me rephrase....

"because the modern left hates liberty unless it doesn't bother someone in a group of people they don't want to have bothered.  If it bothers the ...ahem....right people, that's ok.  Encouraged even."  For example, making fun of Christians is fine...some of them are racists and homophobes after all.  Making fun of Muslims is something only horrible bigots do, and don't even try to point out that some of them are racists or homophobes.