News Should the 2nd Amendment be reinterpreted for modern times?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the interpretation of the Second Amendment and its applicability to residents of Washington D.C., particularly in light of a judge's ruling that it does not apply because D.C. is not a state. Participants debate the historical context of the amendment, with some arguing it was intended to ensure citizens could bear arms as a check against government tyranny, while others suggest it primarily pertains to state militias. The conversation touches on the complexities of gun rights today, questioning whether an armed citizenry is necessary in a modern context, especially given the existence of a professional military. Concerns about safety and the potential for violence in a society where everyone is armed are also raised, alongside comparisons to countries like Switzerland, which have different cultural and legal frameworks regarding firearms. The dialogue reflects a broader tension between individual rights and public safety, as well as differing views on the role of firearms in maintaining freedom and security.
  • #91
I would like to add that I would not feel like I needed to carry my firearm on the streets of any town in the UK. I'm pretty confident that most of the thugs over there are not armed with a firearm. But from what I've heard, knives are a common weapon of choice for the criminal type in the UK.

And I do want to go over there someday and get in touch with where my ancestors came from.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
victory in DC! In the US, cops are not required to protect us. http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
I agree with BobG's views expressed in Post #57. I believe that guns should be treated like cars - that one needs to demonstrate responsibility and competence as part of owning and using guns.

The second amendment was written in a different time, when guns were necessary for hunting and defense. I suppose guns or 'arms' should be limited to single shot flintlock muskets or pistols, which were the arms in the context of the 1789. Or perhaps 'munitions' should be regulated and licensed, which would be like owning a car, but needing a license to put gasoline in it. :biggrin:

I have used pistols, rifles and shotguns in the past, mostly for target practice. I was pretty good at hitting small targets at long distances. However, I have no desire to own a gun nor have one in the house.

As for security, if one gets to the point of owning a gun in order to defend one's home, then one should consider additional security measures like a motion sensor which activates lights and extra locks on the doors and windows. Hopefully this would disuade on intruder or at least give one time to prepare.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 211 ·
8
Replies
211
Views
26K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
9K
  • · Replies 259 ·
9
Replies
259
Views
29K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
14K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K