Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed or changed based on reasoning/logic used by other countries that prohibit or restrict the personal ownership of firearms?

Quote from trancepire : Are you addressing a vampire?

or a doctor... or is that just when I get a physical?

Quote from JimOfTroy :

What does 9/11 have to do with gun ownership?

Quote from bridgeburner : What does 9/11 have to do with gun ownership?

I didn't write the comic, I just saw that pic once, the pertinent part is the lesson, DISARMING INNOCENT PEOPLE DOES NOT PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE.

I've noticed lately that there seems to be this big push to homogenize the world as if that will make it a better place. I for one don't get it. What ever happened to celebrating diversity? Why should we have to have the same laws as everyone else? Why should we have to give up our guns just because other countries don't have the same freedoms? Why does our President talk about what Europe is doing when trying to sell us his agenda? What works for one country (or even several countries) doesn't necessarily work for all. To me this push just makes the world a more boring and less prosperous place.

Why is anyone even engaging this guy with his 2nd law logic?
It's farking pointless. He doesn't want to discuss pros vs cons, he only wants to invoke his 2nd law nonsense.
He even said in the other thread that he doesn't care either way, and hasn't really formed his own opinion on the subject.

Quote from Ryu-bom : Funny.... cause if I watch the news and current events, guns aren't being kept to protect us from any BIG BAD gov't Except that guns are used MAINLY for crimes, to kill spouses, kids shooting kids, people going postal at their workplace, and the likes of the George Zimmermans' in the world...

At least ryu is open about his completely false and irrational reasons for being against the 2nd amendment.

Others here aren't as honest.

Quote from TomJames : No - Use case: Prohibition. When people really enjoy something, no one is giong to stop them. It only stops the lawful citizen that I don't have any concerns with having guns. Prisons are already to full. I'm pretty much anti-jailing until we modify how we pay for and sentence prisoners.

Excellent comparison. Prohibition, like the "war on drugs", was an abject failure, resulted in increased violence, and had little impact on the availability of the prohibited product. Gun prohibition would have similar results, when even normally law abiding citizens would seek to obtain illegal firearms. Firearms are low tech products, easily made in a small, modest machine shop, (fully functional firearms, including a machine gun, have been made in prison machine shops, that are presumably under close scrutiny of authorities). Though their importation through our porous borders would negate the need for domestic production. The large amounts of untraceable firearms that come into Mexico from China and South America, would be increased, and could easily be smuggled in to the US, much easier than drugs are now. Unlike drugs, the customers would largely only have to make one purchase.

Negative effects of alcohol, have been greatly impacted by education, and enforcement of laws targeting those who misuse the product criminally. The NRA has spent millions of dollars on educational safety programs, which have resulted in less firearm accidents today than 75 years ago, despite exponentially more firearms being owned. If the government did it's part, and actually prosecuted those who misuse firearms, instead of ignoring the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, similar results could be obtained.

Many of the rabid anti 2nd amendment, anti gun posters here, like the politicians they support, are also large proponents of a nanny state, totalitarian government.

That isn't a coincidence......

Quote from andyfico : I've noticed lately that there seems to be this big push to homogenize the world as if that will make it a better place. I for one don't get it. What ever happened to celebrating diversity? Why should we have to have the same laws as everyone else? Why should we have to give up our guns just because other countries don't have the same freedoms? Why does our President talk about what Europe is doing when trying to sell us his agenda? What works for one country (or even several countries) doesn't necessarily work for all. To me this push just makes the world a more boring and less prosperous place.

Oppressive government works best, when you have the support of other equally oppressive governments....

Many of the citizens in countries that have banned guns, are asking why, when their crime rates, etc., haven't been reduced.

In some cases, (Canada, Russia, etc.), those laws have been eased, allowing easier access to firearms.

Quote from kharvel : Answer: Yes and no. Yes- why should we allow private gun ownership that is virtually impossible anywhere else? As per the Second Law, we should be able to gain private gun ownership in other countries or we should stop letting people own guns here in the U.S.. Reciprocity or end of private gun ownership.[

This doesn't even make sense. The 14A specifically addresses how we treat foreigners, i.e. the citizens of other countries. The 2A only has to do with our own citizens. The application of the reciprocity is meaningless here.

Quote : No- We don't need to model or emulate other countries, we are sovereign and have differing needs and values than other countries. We don't need to look to other countries for guidance. However, there are still good reasons to consider altering the Second Amendment in this country independent of what they decide to do.

This is the thread where you are free to discuss what it is about the 2A that you think should be changed and why. Since you do not actually seem interested in that, I guess I will MA this thread to be closed as it was only used for trolling.

Quote from Elmer : More importantly, the 2nd amendment was adopted specifically for protection of the citizenry from an oppressive government. That protection is just as relevant today as ever.

Maybe that was true at the time the 2nd was adopted. But with the huge arsenal of advanced weapons our military has the citizens don't have a chance.

As an example, from what I have read it seems that gun ownership was common in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion (someone correct me if I am wrong on this point). It didn't prevent their country from being taken over by our military.

Quote from TheObserver84 : Maybe that was true at the time the 2nd was adopted. But with the huge arsenal of advanced weapons our military has the citizens don't have a chance. As an example, from what I have read it seems that gun ownership was common in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion (someone correct me if I am wrong on this point). It didn't prevent their country from being taken over by our military.

Military personnel have sworn an oath to protect this country from threat both foreign and domestic. Most soldiers I know take their oath very seriously and also understand the principles of liberty they fight for. A coup attempt would undoubtedly have some military support, but it would not be able to gain support of all of our soldiers. Guns in the hands of citizens, including many current and ex-military make any potential despot reconsider any action that would put citizens on guard against them. The mere fact of gun ownership preempts many potential overthrows. Remove our guns and you open the door to all sorts of attacks from within. Without guns, we are not sovereign.

Quote from darkfrog : This is the thread where you are free to discuss what it is about the 2A that you think should be changed and why. Since you do not actually seem interested in that, I guess I will MA this thread to be closed as it was only used for trolling.

I'd hate to see that. This is an important subject, and one likely to become even more important in the coming year.

9 years ago, most of the anti gun posters here argued that gun availability led to increased crime. Some said during the next recession our crime and murder rates would skyrocket due to gun proliferation. Increased concealed carry was going to cause rampant violence. The end of the federal "assault weapon" law would lead to Armageddon....

Instead, during the worst recession since the Great Depression, crime and homicide rates have fallen to levels not seen in 50 years, despite during the same time gun sales and ownership rose exponentially, more "assault weapons" were sold in the last few years than had been in the previous 100 years, and the majority of states enacted right to carry laws.

I'm curious what new justifications for restricting firearms, (to deflect from the true agendas), are being floated now.....

Quote from TheObserver84 : Maybe that was true at the time the 2nd was adopted. But with the huge arsenal of advanced weapons our military has the citizens don't have a chance. As an example, from what I have read it seems that gun ownership was common in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion (someone correct me if I am wrong on this point). It didn't prevent their country from being taken over by our military.

And even with our advanced weaponry, insurgents with ordinary assault rifles were able to hold off our military for years. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to actually "beat" your oppressive government. You just have to convince them to change their course of action.

Quote from Elmer : I'm curious what new justifications for restricting firearms, (to deflect from the true agendas), are being floated now.....

you are giving them too much credit. most arguements made for gun control are flat out lies.