|
05-26-2018
|
84
|
|
PigParty🐷
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PigPen
Posts: 2,913
|
|
That quote there - “America was founded on principles...” - is something I don’t agree with too much. When the principles we are founded on are challenged we should reevaluate them, not just refuse to back down from them. Theoretically we could say the same about other principles regarding oppressive laws in other countries... they were founded with those principles, so they shouldn’t back down from them when public opinion begins to change? We should be willing to look at any of our laws and look at their validity for today’s society.
Comparing the first and second amendments is like comparing apples and oranges. One of these is not just a pillar of our country, but a pillar of most modern societies (there are some exceptions, but we tend to view these countries with disdain... as we should, I think). Free speech is seen as important by most societies, so it’s importance is well displayed. However, the latter does not have nearly the same presence outside of the United States (in this case the freedom to own guns, of course interpretations and wordings differ), which makes me much less confident in it. I think one of the reasons you and I don’t really see eye to eye is that I am unconvinced of the value of the second amendment. You say it’s meant to protect the country... which is plausible, but I believe it to be a rationalization. I don’t think the citizens could actually win a war against the government, regardless of the rifles they could have, and I believe it’s pretty unrealistic to imagine a coup of millions of people storming against the government. Besides this, even if 5 million people decide to rally against the government, they likely wouldn’t represent the people. If the only defense for leaving the 2nd amendment untouched is rising up against the government, then I feel pretty good about saying we should change it to save lives, because that ideal doesn’t seem valuable in comparison to people’s lives. Of course, we may be able to change other things such as mental health to improve things, but I don’t see the value in people having rifles/dangerous firearms regardless, so I’m still in favor of changing the 2nd amendment, loss of life factored in or not.
|
If you look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says, it kind of proves that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society from government. People argue that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted all these years because of if saying the 2nd Amendment applies to well regulated militias. It was so that the population can have their own citizen militia that is capable of fighting the government if need be.
Even if we were able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, guns are so integrated in American society that it will be the prohibition era all over again. There is legitimacy to the claim that banning guns won't get rid of guns. Ban alcohol, it just goes underground. The government loses any ability to regulate or tax it, meanwhile everyone (including cops back then lol) were consuming alcohol.
America isn't the type of society that says a few ruined something for the rest of society. People are individuals. We could easily compare this to murder in general. Way too many people die each year from street violence. We don't simply say all of America loses their right to privacy because the need to catch offenders is so great that it outweighs the right to privacy. The same goes with guns. Just because a select few use guns to commit murder doesn't mean that we outright ban guns. Honestly it all comes down to whether or not a supermajority of America opposes guns. Until that happens, the 2nd Amendment will remain unchanged.
|
As I said in an earlier part of my post; we can’t defend ideals and rights just by saying they are ideals and rights. We have to show they’re value, and continue to show they’re value for as long as they are exist. As I said earlier, comparing the 1st and 2nd amendments is not a valid comparison. I understand creating precedent is dangerous, but this could also be setting the precedent that people’s lives are of the upmost importance and we, as a country, are willing to make changes to that end.
|
That's where we differ the most. I view the Constituion in a broad way. I look at how these rights and laws affect the big picture. Sometimes there's a price to pay with that way of looking at things, and sometimes it costs people their lives. We would all agree that if the government could see and hear us 24/7 that crime would be drastically reduced, but we choose to accept higher crime rates for privacy. There's always a cost and people are emotional when it comes to guns (rightfully so) but I don't think many people view it in the big-picture.
|
[Okay, yeah, I won’t deny that a lot of societies problems are cultural. But what can we really do about that? We can try to provide people with help, but we can’t force people to get help. Providing help is only as good as people being willing to use what’s provided, and I don’t really think a lot of killers would seek out psychiatric help. Besides this, what sorts of ways would we limit Facebook and twitter (whomever) to improve mental health? Do we want to regulate those people when we may not even understand how they’re exactly impacting mental health? I’m all for working on social media and it’s bad impacts on the human psyche, but I think that it’s simply not enough. I just haven’t really been convinced that firearms carry much value at all to the average person, and until that changes I (personally) won’t understand not restricting access.
|
I won't claim to know the solution. I believe the issue and society is so complex that dozens of things must be done in many aspects of society to adequately tackle this problem. I'm also not even sure that government can solve this problem. I think mass killings are a human problem rather than a societal problem. Humans are always fighting other humans. The reason the human race is so unsuccessful compared to the creatures we share the planet with is because we are corrupted and get in our own way.
|
|
|
|