Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
18 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • a year ago

    I don’t think it’s obsolete as much as it needs to be revised a little.

  • a year ago

    How can self-defense be obsolete?

    • a year ago

      @meta_self Not everyone uses guns for self-defense, and that's the problem.

    • a year ago

      @meta_self Self Defense has gotten way out of hand then. At the point a person has 20-40 or pistols and machine guns, it is no longer for self-defense.

    • a year ago

      @the_peoples_champ Who are you to decide that? As long as they follow the law, what do you care?

    • a year ago

      @rastergrafx So what? Is this minority report?

    • a year ago

      @meta_self : I hate conversations with people who think like you. Laws change, New Laws are created, Obsolete Laws Repealed, my morals, ethics, principles don’t. The legality of something doesn’t guide my feelings on any given issue.

      I am an American. As an American I can look at what troubles our country suffer and state my opinion out loud. You can listen or not listen. So if you buy a gun I have a right to tell you my opinion about buying a gun.

      As a free willed American I can say it is not necessary for any other American to own 40 guns, C-4, Hand Grenades, Missile Launchers,

      Of the things I just stated owning 40 guns is not illegal nor is keeping maintaining a fallout shelter buried in your front yard. Or a living your life “off the grid” in case the government tries to enslave us all. All of which I put in the same category of things people waste their money on.

    • a year ago

      @the_peoples_champ Explosives and rockets aren't legal.

      The reason why they buy those guns is none of your business. Also, all morals shouldn't be legislated- such as greed or rudeness.

      A person can only use one gun at a time.

    • a year ago

      @meta_self do you consider yourself to be a stable minded individual?

    • a year ago

      @vermontrevolutionary I have no history of violence or abuse.

    • a year ago

      @meta_self that wasn't my question.

  • a year ago

    I disagree in the sense that it is very much alive in the hearts of many Americans and it is still very much the law. That said, I can see some argument for it being Archaic in that it was created in a different time for a rather different reason than it is used now.

    I argue its main purpose was to keep the federal government from being able to prevent states from maintaining independent militias and thus curbing the power of a federal army from dominating the states. It failed completely at that task.

    In modern times it is viewed as a means for personal self-defense (relevant) or as a means to stop tyrany through your private gun collection (absurd).

    • a year ago

      @sigfried " for a rather different reason than it is used now"

      No, the threat of a tyrannical government was no greater then than it is now.

    • a year ago

      @bronsonkaahui My point is that while it once might have served that purpose, it no longer does.

      --When it was written--
      The federal army was non-existent and it was assumed it would only maintain a standing army in times of war.

      The strongest weapon the federal army could have was a cannon.

      Every state maintained a state militia

      The state militia drilled regularly

      The state militia were involved in military conflicts

      The state militia had an organized command structure

      --Today--
      The federal army is the largest fighting force on the planet by far

      Their strongest weapon can turn an entire city into rubble in a matter of minutes

      Only a few states maintain any kind of state militia

      They do not drill regularly

      They have not fought an engagement in more than a century

      They have no organized command structure

      ---Conclusion---
      The second amendment no longer has any hope of allowing states to resist federal power. Their only practical hope would be desertion by the military.

    • a year ago

      @sigfried

      1) . The Second Amendment is the thing that would cause those desertions.

      2) . Armed citizens can, in fact, resist the US military.

    • a year ago

      @sigfried Would you like to debate #2?

  • a year ago

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Nothing about this is obsolete. It addresses what it needs to. If you really want to go to the root of the problem start helping people with issues. The Las Vegas shooter was a faithless, godless man. Like many shooters are. Help people find a reason to live and you will see that shootings will be less common.