I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment wil...
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment will not even discuss the topic or entertain the ideas of some kind of restrictions. Why isn't the concealed carry course required for all gun purchases? Why don't you go get a gun licenses? Some federal building that issues licences, does background checks, and maybe even mental health records (that's been an issue in the past handful of shootings). It certainly wouldn't be perfect, no system is... but I believe it'd be a massive improvement over what we have for both parties.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment wil...
Read FullAs Jeffries said: "It's called an amendment, if you argue you can't change an amendment then you need to go buy a dictionary"