9 4

QUESTION Second Amendment myths everyone should stop believing | TheHill

For our kids and grandkids ...for our future...Please read... I have teenagers grandkids in high school, my fear has no name...

CeciRosane60 7 Feb 17

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


your fear needs no name wadr, and all of your rules up there are not going to help your fear, either imo; plenty of other cultures swimming in guns, and no school shootings, right


So I’ve seen a lot on this argument and to preface this post I’ll say that I’m from southwest Missouri and I went to a school with 500 kids. I’m from the woods lol that being said I wanted to go down the list of things I do and don’t agree with from the pictured list.
1.) 14 day waiting period: no. Why? A 14 day waiting period does nothing but inconvenience the person buying it. If you implement what you want farther down the list, then this isn’t necessary.
2.) No sales by private owners: no. The only reason many people don’t want this is because the weapon can’t be traced. The reason I still say no is because the FBI has known about the weapons from the most recent school shootings. “The FBI admitted agents received a tip in January from someone who was close to Nikolas Cruz, giving information on his ‘gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts...” [] This does nothing to protect anyone.
3.) No sales at gun shows: I’m not familiar with gun shows or why people are against them so I don’t have an answer for this one.
4.) 10rd magazines: no. But first thank you for calling it a magazine and not a clip. At least you’ve done research lol. I say no because if I owned an AR-15 I’d want more than 10rds to defend my home with. Same with a pistol. “Since 1990 there have been 22 shootings at elementary or secondary schools in which two or more people were killed.” []
It seems that even though the shooters have many rounds at it is at their disposal, their ability to use those rounds successfully aren’t that great.
5.) No bump stocks: can agree 10/10
6.) No cranks: don’t know what this is
7.) license for all arms: eh I’m on the fence. It sounds nice but at the same time, motor vehicles kill roughly as many as guns do and we have licenses for those. []
8.) Child lock requirements: I’m not totally sure to what degree this is other than a safety or a gun locker. There’s really not much you can do besides watch the kid.
9.) Minimum age of 21: no. So the handgun age is 21 already. And yet, people under 21 still get them. Age requirements don’t really do much. Look at alcohol, tobacco and most things in general that have an age limit.
10.) Assault rifle ban: no. Okay so one of the crazy facts I don’t hear anyone bring up in the assault rifle debate is the cartridge size. The AR-15 shoots the 5.56mm round. Also known as, the . 223. I’ve hunted squirrels with a . 22. The only difference between these cartridges is the amount of gunpowder and . 003 inches of diameter. The style of rifle has nothing to do with the potency of the rifle. Does it look mean? Yes. Does it change how the gun fires? No.
11.) Universal Background Checks: if you mean crossing government databases for all the information on someone, then go ahead. I’m down but reference the point I made in section 2.
12.) Domestic Violence Ban: I would say yes but the evidence would have to pretty damning to qualify for the ban. I only say that because there are people who have cried wolf before and framed others for domestic violence. Again, I’m down but it would have to be irrefutable evidence. Wow, I hope you made it to the end of this lol. If you did, brownie points for you. Thanks for reading!


My problem is the complete hypocrasy on the part of the NRA and their supporters (not that the other side is completely without fault)

My very livelyhood is contigent on a vigourous defence of the First Amendment. So, the NRA lost me when they threw 1A under the bus under Columbine. If you biggest argument is that we need ALL guns to defend the Constitution, your arguments lose their impact when you start picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you are willing to defend.

But it goes even beyond this. Americans are so divided on this, that it is impossible (as can be seen above) to have a sensible, reasoned debate on this. Only the leftmost fringe is talking about a total ban on all guns. But the same people who wanted voter ID laws, and made comparisions to all of the other (non-Constitutional) reasons you have to show ID, are totally and vocally against showing ID for purchasing weapons, possibly the closest thing, rights-wise, to voting.

Ozman Level 7 Apr 13, 2018

The problem with all these debates is that many people read statute law and when it agrees with their own prejudices or it seems to allow them to do something they want to do they seize on it and repeat it ad-nauseum. The fact is that laws are supposed to adapt through time to suit changing circumstances and public opinion. Case law and Supreme Courts exist to show how the laws should be interpreted in the real world.

For instance in the UK the most up to date statute law on knife carry states that I am allowed (without any good reason) to carry a "folding pocketknife" with a blade of 3-inches or less. However, these are vague terms and courts have interpreted this to mean that cut-throat razors are not a "pocketknife" and that the knife must be readily foldable by pressure on the blade and without the need to remove any locking device, so no lock-knives. There's nothing I can do to claim that locking knives aren't mentioned in the law so I can carry them because they are sub 3-inch and a folding pocketknife ... doesn't matter, I'd still be locked up.

@Atheistman I don't get your point ... how could I "whine" about it when I had no idea that it happened? Sounds fairly unjust to me but I don't know all the facts. Over here you're still far less likely to be shot by a police officer because hardly any of them carry guns, because they don't have to, because guns are pretty rarely used in crimes.

@Atheistman Yup ... we have an army for that 😉 Seriously though, we have such low gun crime because guns are very hard for crims to get hold of and the punishments are high. Sure some criminals have guns but they are usually shotguns or hand guns, not assault rifles, so we have an unarmed police force and we have tactical response armed police who can handle a single shooter if they find one.

@Atheistman Problem is, how does that square with a State that can literally wipe you all out? I mean, even in terms of conventional weapons you've seen armed US cults being utterly destroyed - and that was when the State was trying not to kill anyone. That's not to mention the fact that they have armoured vehicles, tanks and jet airplanes that can destroy a well-trained army. That might have been the intention back in the days of the Founders but times move on ... and in the same way you have arms that they could never have envisaged (automatics etc). I'm totally in support of the right of you guys to own arms ...but I think ownership needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right, and with gun ownership you need to have responsibility. Bring in tight licensing (with regular renewals), mandatory gun safes, safety training and insurance. Take gun ownership more seriously and I think you'll see people treating guns with more respect.

@Atheistman Thing is, they often were armed (there were resistance groups) and then there was the Polish uprising where they had support from the West ... and they were still eventually captured. Just like most American gun owners, they were not a well organised militia (and were scattered across Europe as a minority group) and there's no point giving a gun to an untrained person who never shot or to children - a well-trained army with tanks and heavy artillery will always win. Sure you can go down fighting (and many would agree this is better) but it doesn't stop the State crushing any amateur militiamen.

I'm also very very nervous about Trump's narcissism and his love of the hard-right and of the powerful corporations and the military. I doubt he'd ever have the support or media control to turn on his people though - the USA now isn't 1930s Germany. That said, I am guessing Trump supporters would tend to be gun supporters and so in a dystopian future perhaps the alt-right would be the Trump's SS and you'd find armed Trump militia turning on the other citizens. It doesn't always have to be free citizens against the State - it could be a new civil war.


Amen to that, sister.


I totally agree!!


The Hill is a liberal publication and it publishes a lot of liberal propaganda. The link above is liberal left wing propaganda. The Supreme Court has no right to negate the 2nd amendment but 4 of them do.

The Hill is not liberal. It's rather center, but I have noticed right leaning bias there before.



@Piece2YourPuzzle It’s owned by a democrat so it’s liberal. Anybody that would publish something like the link above is definitely liberal.

@Trajan61 You do know that there are conservative Democrats, right?

@Piece2YourPuzzle There used to be quite a few conservative Democrats but most of those have ceased to exist since the election of Obama and the turn to the left by the party. Democrats used to outnumber Republicans here in my Home county but since Obama was elected Republicans have surpassed them by quite a lot. Hell in my home county people were so disgusted with the democrats after 8 years of Obama Trump carried 75% of the vote and in my home town 87% of the vote.

@Trajan61 We definitely have a difference of opinion there. I actually think the Democratic and Republican parties have moved further right since the 90s.


The content of thiws article should be spread in ALL media.


Liberal propaganda. It's listed under opinion. Arms doesn't need to be defined in the bill of rights, it is defined in dictionaries. The supreme court has no right to negate the second amendment, it is bound by it. The rest is just so absurd it doesn't warrant response as the first two points I made here negate the rest of the opinions in this op-ed.

So you saying is fake news?

@CeciRosane60 I'm saying it's a liberal bias that hasn't considered all of the available data. It's listed as an opinion, not a scientific paper.

The Hill is a conservative paper. Also, all liberals don't want guns banned like you probably think they do. I support the 2nd amendment, but having no regulation is idiotic. Evolving with the times is something reasonable people do. It's why the power to amend the Constitution was put into place. Muskets are not AR-15s. Bazookas are also "arms". The author of that opinion is a lawyer, constitutional expert, a university professor, and has argued before the Supreme Court. Her resume is pretty damn impressive. Nothing shows her to be either a conservative or a liberal. Did you notice where the author wrote this, "The question for us all is not whether to draw the line — the Supreme Court has already answered that many times over — but where."? If not, you just might be biased beyond belief.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I know liberals who are total gun nuts. I'm actually pretty liberal in many ways. When it comes to defense and logic it seems like governments are the problem. No one trusts a politician, they control the military. Their weapons advance which means yours need to as well. The way you advance is in your conduct given such responsibility. Some people can't handle that, but with proper education most can.

Do you really think that the bill of rights was established to empower the government that it was expressly created to limit?

I am an expert in the field of firearms. To operate legally in that field you must be able to demonstrate in your daily routine a complete and full understanding of the laws you are subject to. That makes me an expert on the subject and my arguments just as valid as hers if expertise is your metric. I'm pointing out that that article is liberal propaganda. I made no assumption about her personal politics.

@jayneonacobb If the U.S. government could just blow your house out of existence with a tank or a fighter jet, your AR-15 would look like a slingshot and have no use. Citizens will NEVER match weapons with the U.S. government. Do you propose every citizen owning a tank or a fighter jet? This isn't the argument though. Gun control does not mean gun ban. We just want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, there IS a quantifiable way to make that happen. Why do you think it's such a slippery slope?

There you go again. Who made the argument that the Bill of Rights was established to empower the government? If the government wanted to be tyrannical, it would be. Simply making laws to protect people is not tyrannical. Some of you guys take HUGE leaps to make this seem like it would be a gun ban and they would shackle you. We live in a representative Democracy. That's how it works. Politicians work on our behalf, or at least they should. I know there is a lot of corruption in politics, and I don't trust many many of them. When they cross the line then yes we should speak up. If you haven't noticed, gun violence is a big problem in the U.S. All these other countries that have gun CONTROL have very very little gun problems like we do. Japan has like 13 gun deaths a year. They have gun CONTROL. Citizens still have guns there. The U.S. has over 31,000 deaths a year related to guns. Mostly from accidents and suicides. Do you think those people are qualified to have guns? If we have implementations in place which require gun owners to learn more and actively participate then maybe there wouldn't be as many accidents. If we could recognize people who have mental issues a bit more through exams and tests and REASONABLE analysis then maybe it would be harder for these people to kill themselves and maybe we could even turn some of their thoughts around to make them NOT want to kill themselves. Same with people who become violent towards others with guns for no reason other than they "snap".

Or do you base your disdain for these reasonable hurdles strictly on your business having to do with guns?

Right away from reading your last comments I can see the bias oozing from you. The author of that article seems to be very objective on the issue. You have already shown that you are not. It's a conservative paper in which a constitutional and law expert points out facts, yet you see liberal propaganda. I don't doubt your expertise of firearms. I doubt your expertise on law and also on being objective.

@Piece2YourPuzzle you seriously don't get it, do you? Her interpritation isn't the end all argument. She appears to be interpreting the second amendment in the same manner as Obama did. Neither of them is qualified to redefine the words or purpose of that document. You can be a conservative and support crazy gun control.

I'm not saying a bazooka in every home is a good idea. Or that the government can't blow me to hell. I'm saying that the balance of power is too far their way. I'm saying that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I'm saying that you need to have an education about weapons and their safe handling and operations. People need to be more responsible and that means less government and more personal responsibility. Doubt all you want about my degree, but I have it, you can't change tgat, just like you can't change the second amendment.

@jayneonacobb The Hill is actually more center now apparently.

@Piece2YourPuzzle yup, it would appear so. It's happening more and more.

The Supreme Court does not have the right to negate the 2nd Amendment, but it most certainly DOES have the right to define it more closely and to place limits on it. If you say otherwise, either you don't know what in the hell you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.Get your head out of your ....

No one is talking about infringement except you. You make stupid, false arguments which only muddy the waters. I think hat is your intent -- to simply muddy the waters.

@wordywalt you have no clue what my intent is, even though I have clearly expressed it. My intention is to depose your idiotic and anti American beliefs. You Fascist.

@jayneonacobb I served my country with honor and will defend our democracy by all available means. Your lie and insult. Have you no shame?

@wordywalt first of all, thank you for your service. Second of all you never stated that you served. Third of all I know a ton of ex military folks who hate America. So while I appreciate your service and your commitment to this country it appears as though you don't support the right to bare arms.

@jayneonacobb You just don't get the message. I do support the right to bear arms -- just not any and all arms. I ask for the exercise of real judgment, not blind belief.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25486
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.