2nd Amendment: the poll!

[Kleves]

Assuming that the Supreme Court is right that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, would you be in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

[Admiral Yi]

Much better alternative than pretending it doesn't exist.

[merithyn]

I don't like your premise for the answers given.

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

[derspiess]

I don't like your premise for the answers given.

Pretty sure they weren't serious.  It's just how we do polls here.

[11B4V]

I don't like your premise for the answers given.

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

Pretty much +1

[Admiral Yi]

I don't like your premise for the answers given.

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

You know, repealing the 2nd would not automatically lead to a total ban on private firearms.  At least not in most states.

[derspiess]

I don't like your premise for the answers given.

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

You know, repealing the 2nd would not automatically lead to a total ban on private firearms.  At least not in most states.

It would be easier for things to creep in that general direction, though.

[Admiral Yi]

It would be easier for things to creep in that general direction, though.

Of course it would.  It would throw gun regulation into the political arena.

[Berkut]

I would certainly be in favor of repealing it - I don't think the right to own a weapon is in any way fundamental for human freedom, and would much rather be able to discuss and make decisions about appropriate private gun ownership without the basic concept having some special protection placed around it.

[Razgovory]

Nah, I'm uncomfortable fucking with the constitution.  We need a better reason then bothering some rednecks.

[Zanza]

I don't really care for America's gun laws, but I would outlaw handguns here and require the population to hand them in. And all rifles unless you are a hunter in which case you may own rifles that are meant for hunting (shotguns or bolt-action rifles I guess).

[DGuller]

Ideally, I would outlaw handguns and military-grade stuff.  Long rifles and shotguns can stay, since they are less likely to be used in common gun crimes due to lack of ability to conceal them.  I also think that citizens being able to defend themselves in their home is important for the sake of dignity, if nothing else, and in this day and age that requires a firearm.

[Viking]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything. I think the US should look at western societies which have similar levels of gun ownership (like norway, finland and switzerland) and/or have similar social and cultural issues (uk and canada) and learn from them.

You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

[11B4V]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

[Phillip V]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything. I think the US should look at western societies which have similar levels of gun ownership (like norway, finland and switzerland) and/or have similar social and cultural issues (uk and canada) and learn from them.

You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

No.