2nd Amendment: The Right To Kill People?, Is it time to amend the US Constitution? Options

[hardbodyactiv]

Considering that USA have more deaths by the deliberate use of firearms than all 21 affiliated countries in Europe, Canada and Australia...approximately 500,000,000 (five hundred million) people, do you not think that it is about time that the US Constitution was amended to outlaw the purchase and use of firearms and restrict their sale to private individuals only for the purpose of hunting and only allowing these to be of the shotgun or rifle variety?

Long question I know and perhaps a bit deep...but most of you will at some time or other encounter a firearm incident if you live in the Continental US and it is even more likely if you live in certain urban areas or states such as Texas, Florida, California or New York. Perhaps this is due to State in addtion to Federal legislation and also perhaps an explosive mix of different social & ethnic backgrounds.

Please don't just post yes or no as you must have a reason to give an answer


Peace Out

[ComradeRed]

More guns = less crime. The reason the US has more crime than other countries is because we have more DIVERSITY (not just racial, but in all ways). Diversity trades social conformity in exchange for individual freedom, so a little crime is a necessary side effect. The highest crime rates in the US are in the South, and really the South is the most diverse part of the country, whereas crime is nearly nonexistent in northern New England, where everyone is about the same.

Although I do support repealing the second amendment, on the grounds of States' Rights. States should be allowed to determine their own gun control policy, because the States that have loose gun control laws are doing just fine, whereas, if a state wants to commit suicide by having tough gun laws, that's their issue. The evidence clearly supports that higher gun ownership creates less crime in similar areas (Chicago vs. New York, Maine/Vermont/New Hampshire vs. Wisconsin/Minnesota, Texas vs. Louisiana, etc.) A criminal isn't going to attack a victim he thinks might be armed. That's simple incentives--just like a criminal isn't going to commit a crime where there's a lot of police becaue he has a higher chance of being punished, it's the same for committing a crime where there's a high rate of gun ownership.

Once again, to take the example of Philadelphia and nearby Wilmington. It is easier to get a gun in Pennsylvania than Delaware, so many Philadelphia drug dealers found it hard to operate in PA, and had to relocate their bases to Delaware, while going into Philadelphia by day. This caused Philadelphia's crime problem to spill over into Delaware which basically made Wilmington the most dangerous mid-sized city in the country--but you don't hear about Boston's crime problem spilling over into New Hampshire, do you? A Boston drug dealer who wants to run his operation in Nashua would be driven out by the locals.

It's a TERRIBLE idea to amend the Constitution to repeal private ownership of guns. Vermont has almost NO crime yet allows anyone above the age of 15 to buy a gun without background checks (even felons) and carry it concealed, so it's silly to force the same gun laws there that you would have in New York City. Only something like one in five hundred guns are being used irresponsibly; most guns are used for self-defense or lawful entertainment--so a ban on guns is like saying, "one in five hundred Muslims is a terrorist... so let's nuke the Middle East and kill all of them."

Also, as for the militia wording, the United States Code and the Militia Act define the "unorganized militia" as all adult male individuals, so the right to gun ownership in the Constitution now does extend to all of them.