The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Cobraroll 138]

But whether or not the soldiers would fire against civilians, would assault weapons really make a difference?

If they WERE willing to shoot at civilians, they would be able to annihilate all resistance anyway. An Armoured Personnel Carrier with a 30mm cannon would obliterate whatever puny stronghold a civilian could scrape together on his household budget, and even with a .50 cal returning the fire, the APC would only need a new paint job afterwards. The oppressed civilians would need a hefty amount of explosives - plus a means to deliver them - do do anything but scraping the armour of modern army vehicles. And this is assuming the government/whoever choose to oppress the people from a vehicle on the ground, within the effective range of the civilians' weapons. Modern weapons can in a pinch find and kill their targets from beyond the horizon. An assault rifle would help you about as much as a longbow would.

If they WEREN'T willing to shoot at civilians, problem solved. Then it wouldn't matter if you stood there with an M2 Browning or a bouquet of flowers. The latter would arguably be more efficient, seeing as the soldiers would be more likely to shoot you if they perceived you as a threat.

There is also a rather long list of stuff the government wouldn't want you to have, as a civilian. Various kinds of explosives, drugs and chemicals fill the list, but also things like biological or radioactive nastiness (and stuff like child pornography). Just because they don't want you to have it, doesn't mean you should. They don't ban items on the sole reason that you might use it against them in an eventual revolution. There might be other ideas behind the bans too.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the United States ever got into the situation that Syria is in, what do you suppose would happen?

I hope it is impossible because of the structure of the federation, but could the Commander-in-Chief (the President) do something like declare a state of insurrection, and actually use the military on home soil? I don't think this is in the psyche of anyone in America who would be anywhere near the White House, even as a visitor.

So, now we come to the 'minute men' attitude and idea. The thought that the people could 'rise up' and attack the various governments, all fifty-one of them at the same time is beyond laughable. So why all the guns? And as someone put it, why not have some real fireworks?

Oh, and don't say its against the Constitution. If there is a revolution on, the revolutionaries have already tossed out that document. Pieces of paper are no protection in this situation, but what makes anyone think having a gun around the house will?

[hym 358]

That is a logical fallacy. Armored Personal Carriers have also never been used in a crime, so everyone should be able to own an APC. First of all, no one needs an Assault Rifle. If you want to go hunting, get a hunting rifle, if you want a gun for self defense, get a pistol. Second, once someone does actually use an Assault Rifle, it gives him or her a very powerful weapon indeed, and greatly increases his or her capacity to kill or wound a great number of people. Assault Rifle bullets do more damage, their effective range is much longer, they can be outfitted with certain sights that increase accuracy all up to a point where the greatest hindrance is basically the amount of ammo someone can carry.

I never said that everyone should be able to own an assault weapon. I argued that crime statistics don't support the need for a ban. (Crime statistics don't support the need to ban APCs, but that argument is also heavily skewed by the fact that no one is using them.) However, the difference between the APC and the assault weapon is one of practical application. An APC has no practical application in everyday use. No one will let you go hunting with it, you can't take it out for a day on the range, you can't justify its use for self-defense, you can't really drive it on the road, etc. Private ownership of sawed off shotguns and mini guns is banned because of similar reasoning. The same is not true with assault weapons, which, as was mentioned earlier, are better called "modern sporting rifles" as they are not true assault weapons. These weapons can be shot on gun ranges for recreational purposes and used for hunting (and in some circumstances, are the weapon of choice for certain animals). In other words, even if a judge doesn't agree that an assault weapon has any practical application for self-defense (and some judges don't), the weapon type still has practical applications elsewhere, which makes it more difficult to justify an absolute ban.

If by chance there are any here in the United States who do actually own these assault weapons, I'd like to know... what do you actually use them for? Is it for protection, do you feel unsafe in your homes/ communities? Is it for sport, are you a member of a shooting club? Do you use them for hunting?

I don't own one personally, but I know people who do. For one of them, the reason he bought the gun is because he is a very mechanically inclined person with a particular interest in the mechanics of automatic weapons. He continues to own the gun because, in his words, "it's so much fun to shoot." When he doesn't have it out on the gun range, it is kept locked away. It's the only gun he owns and his only use for it is out on the gun range.

The other individual uses his weapon for hog hunting. The reason he owns it is that it is particularly well suited for difficult to kill animals. If he misses the technical "kill zone," there is still a good chance he inflicted a lethal injury, and if he truly botched the shot, he can easily readjust and get another round into it, thereby putting the animal down quickly.

I can understand collectors wanting to have them just for the sake of collecting, but then again, as a collector, he wouldn't want to use it, rather just to have it on display. So it'd make sense to have it rendered unusable just from a safety perspective.

Modifying a weapon to render it completely unusable can reduce its value as a collector item. Plus some collectors prefer to shoot the weapons they own from time to time.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Collectors can always disable the firing mechanisms without, normally, destroying any part of the weapon. It might be as simple as removing a firing pin and storing it in a separate case with the weapon.

I don't know of any jurisdiction that licenses weapons to private citizens that does not also have a safe-keeping requirement. Generally, ammunition is kept in a separate locked depository perhaps not even in the same room.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I'm of the age where I can vividly recall the days when I could legally go into a hardware store and purchase dynamite. The scenario generally went along the lines of my telling the clerk what it was I needed to get rid of (size of tree stump for example) and they would recommend the appropriate amount (1/4, 1/2 stick etc.). The entire time I could do this there was not one instance that I can recall of someone using store-bought dynamite for nefarious purposes. And yet, we are now 'banned' from purchasing same. Why, if no one ever used it for an illegal use? Excellent question. And yet...

And don't be fooled folks...the pinheads in Congress will ban something for no other reason than they don't like it or if they think the general populace can't be trusted with it. They don't need to (and rarely do) have any substantial reason for banning something. As it is, almost all of the laws that are written, save for a very few, are designed to either limit the citizens in one way or another or take something away (think of Bloomberg and his 160z drinks or San Francisco and their plastic bag ban). With Congress it's all about control. Control = Power. And it's power that they want over all of us 'serfs'.

[Cobraroll 138]

I'm of the age where I can vividly recall the days when I could legally go into a hardware store and purchase dynamite. The scenario generally went along the lines of my telling the clerk what it was I needed to get rid of (size of tree stump for example) and they would recommend the appropriate amount (1/4, 1/2 stick etc.). The entire time I could do this there was not one instance that I can recall of someone using store-bought dynamite for nefarious purposes. And yet, we are now 'banned' from purchasing same. Why, if no one ever used it for an illegal use? Excellent question. And yet...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/18/bath_school_bombing_remembering_the_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html

The deadliest school massacre in American history was mainly commited with dynamite. 45 dead. There's also the relative ease with which you can disable infrastructure with dynamite, which should be reason enough not to make it that easy to acquire. Railroad tracks or power lines spring to mind.

And don't be fooled folks...the pinheads in Congress will ban something for no other reason than they don't like it or if they think the general populace can't be trusted with it. They don't need to (and rarely do) have any substantial reason for banning something. As it is, almost all of the laws that are written, save for a very few, are designed to either limit the citizens in one way or another or take something away (think of Bloomberg and his 160z drinks or San Francisco and their plastic bag ban). With Congress it's all about control. Control = Power. And it's power that they want over all of us 'serfs'.

As for this... From what I can understand, you're reducing the "Government" into a homogeneous, evil-spirited body with one mind and one agenda. One would think guns would be on top of the ban list of such an organization, yet they haven't succeeded with this for... how many years? Why would they go to the effort of banning everyday nuisances, if they feel threatened by the populace and their guns? The fact that you're allowed to discuss how "evil" the government is on a public forum, should be evidence enough that these people hardly make any coordinated effort to oppress the population.

There is a lot of paperwork and hundreds of people involved in creating a law, whether or not it bans anything. Loads upon loads of viewpoints, lobbyists wanting to have their say, feasability, economic and environmental studies, et cetera. It's not like a bored Congressman on his throne snaps his fingers and says "Minions! Ban yellow garbage bins from public parking lots!" It's a bureaucratic mess, which makes it really hard for any change to occur and really hard for a single person to get his will through unhindered. And everything has to be documented, and media demands insight or there will be public outcries. It is actually a quite open process, and fully possible to follow if you keep an eye on local or regional politics. When a ban is created, it's usually because various groups have put a lot of effort into it. Plastic bags are, to make a long story short, terrible for the environment and possibly the single biggest threat to marine species after over-fishing nowadays. You can choose to deny climate change, but pollution is as hard and factual as you can get, and easily illustrated by sea turtles choking to death on plastic or birds drowning because they get stuck in plastic bags. Few marine species can differentiate between an edible jellyfish or a floating plastic bag before it clogs their digestive tract. As for the New York ban on huge sugary drinks, there were several health studies behind the legislation. A few Internet searches should reveal the logic behind it, as well as the finer details of the ban (which are usually omitted from the news headlines because they don't make good stories).

Bureaucracy was implemented largely to avoid the situations you're describing. It's hard to go mad with power if you have to rely on the support of dozens of other politicians, have to adhere to hundreds of guidelines and are watched by the hawks of the media all the time. To bypass this system, you'd have to get clearance from somebody way high up, and even then there would have to be votings. It's not to say that this system can't lead ot stupid decisions being made, but it's very rarely down to a single person to affect the lives of the general population. The system also allows for anybody to be a politician. If you're not content with the system, it's possible for you to change it. But you won't be able to change it alone.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Politics consists of getting through to Friday. Diplomacy is the art of staying alive for this year." An analogy I ran across somewhere this week.

Right now, Canada has a "majority" government which makes the Prime Minister the monarch of all he surveys until the next election. The opposition can rant and roar, but the government can ram anything through they like subject only the the Governor General's rubber stamp. The GG will veto a bill is he thinks it is not in the public interest, but this is very rare indeed.

The United States seems to have a deadlock in their "advise and consent" principle. There's lots of advice, but the only drums people seem to be hearing is the party line.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This takes in the assumption that the soldiers in the military would willingly fire on civilians. One needs to remember that soldiers are in place to defend the Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic, but not to protect the Government. The Constitution states that the military cannot be used against it's citizens. It is called the Posse Comitatus Act.

http://www.law.corne...de/text/18/1385

This is assuming 'tyranny' happens. Its a safe bet that a tyrannical government doesnt really care about such things as the Posse Comitatus. Furthermore, dictators get their armies to shoot at civilians, because dictators and tyrannical governments always make sure that they got the support of the army. So if for whatever reason the US government becomes tyrannical in nature, it is also a safe bet that it will have the support of the army.

Though of course, any smart tyrant sets up a secret police structure and divides the opposition to such a degree that it wont even come to a rebellion.

I never said that everyone should be able to own an assault weapon. I argued that crime statistics don't support the need for a ban. (Crime statistics don't support the need to ban APCs, but that argument is also heavily skewed by the fact that no one is using them.) However, the difference between the APC and the assault weapon is one of practical application. An APC has no practical application in everyday use. No one will let you go hunting with it, you can't take it out for a day on the range, you can't justify its use for self-defense, you can't really drive it on the road, etc. Private ownership of sawed off shotguns and mini guns is banned because of similar reasoning. The same is not true with assault weapons, which, as was mentioned earlier, are better called "modern sporting rifles" as they are not true assault weapons. These weapons can be shot on gun ranges for recreational purposes and used for hunting (and in some circumstances, are the weapon of choice for certain animals). In other words, even if a judge doesn't agree that an assault weapon has any practical application for self-defense (and some judges don't), the weapon type still has practical applications elsewhere, which makes it more difficult to justify an absolute ban.

The argument is skewed because an APC is seen as having no practical purpose. However, I could definitely use it to drive to work (especially the wheeled Striker APC's), and I could go hunting with it, its just that the existing regulations around hunting dont really account for someone using an APC to shoot deer or something. And it wouldnt be that difficult to create a shooting range for APC's. The army has them, so all it takes is one nifty individual to build a shooting range for civilian APC's. And well, if I drive in a Striker, that by itself is enough deterrence for any would be car jacker so the kind of self defense is a pre-emptive psychological strike. Doesnt kill anyone and is far less risky for me, so its an even better self defense method than firing a gun at a person when he attacks me. Also, in order to properly defend myself from tyranny in this modern age of high tech armies, I need access to the same high tech stuff, or else I wont stand a chance.

Sure, there is no need for it, but as other people have argued here, they dont really have a need for a gun, they just want one because they can. If I have the money for an APC, I want one, and I should be able to get one (assuming that Im an American citizen, etc) because thats freedom.

So, whats the difference between an APC and an Assault rifle (oh sorry, 'modern sporting rifle') and why cant I own the former?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The operating cost for an APC would be staggering. You don't move all that armour without a lot of fuel, even if it is diesel. The nearest thing you'll ever get to such a thing is an Army Surplus Humvee. Gas guzzler, par excellence.

The only thing I can think of, off hand, that uses more fuel to operate on the surface is a deep draft power boat. The bigger ones tend to have six hundred to one thousand gallon fuel tanks. Fill'er up? And people wonder why sailors have more fun.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I guess you could say that, yes, I perceive Government as '...a homogeneous, evil-spirited body with one mind and one agenda' because, in the case of Congress, majority rules and I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with the 'majority' of either party. The Democrats, as a whole, do perceive guns as 'evil' and unnecessary. But, after the debacle in the 1994 elections they realized that attacking the 2nd Amendment did nothing but help them to lose offices. Better to quietly go about trying to find ways to restrict/outlaw firearm ownership in the background than to do so out in public. Biding their time until this latest tragedy may well pay off for them.

As an interesting note, the official FBI 'Crime in the United States 2011' report says that 'hands, fists, feet, etc.' were used more than twice as many times as 'rifles' or 'shotguns' individually and more than those two firearm types collectively. Why point this out? Ask yourself, 'What weapon is everyone so fixated on these days as being 'evil''?

http://www.fbi.gov/a...tables/table-20

So...a quick quiz. Which of the weapons below do you perceive as more lethal?

It's a trick question. Both of these are the exact same Ruger Mini-14 in .223 caliber. They take the exact same magazines (10, 20, 30 or 40 rounds).

To the members of the United States Congress 'A' is just some hunting/sport rifle while 'B' is an 'Assault Rifle'. Same gun...different clothes. (yes, I know that I could have found an image of the 'base' model with a scope on it but this was done to illustrate a point ~ the gun, by and of itself, is not 'evil'. The person behind said gun...well, that's a different matter).

Is anyone beginning to see the fallacy of those in Congress yet? They are hyping this tragedy out of proportions for their own agenda. Sadly, one of my Senators is Dianne Feinstein, who wasted no time in coming out in favor of another AWB (her name was oh so proudly attached to the 1st one) before they had even finished burying the dead in Newtown. She should be ashamed of herself.

[DCMetro34 576]

.....

As an interesting note, the official FBI 'Crime in the United States 2011' report says that 'hands, fists, feet, etc.' were used more than twice as many times as 'rifles' or 'shotguns' individually and more than those two firearm types collectively. Why point this out? Ask yourself, 'What weapon is everyone so fixated on these days as being 'evil''?

http://www.fbi.gov/a...tables/table-20

Well, considering 100% of the population has "hands, fists, feet, etc.", and only 1 in 3 have guns, doesn't that make the ratio of gun owners to gun crimes greater than the ratio of "hands, fists, feet, etc." to citizens?

.....

Is anyone beginning to see the fallacy of those in Congress yet? They are hyping this tragedy out of proportions for their own agenda. Sadly, one of my Senators is Dianne Feinstein, who wasted no time in coming out in favor of another AWB (her name was oh so proudly attached to the 1st one) before they had even finished burying the dead in Newtown. She should be ashamed of herself.

Well, I think the issue is still very partisan, and we aren't going to see an assault rifle ban this time around, although in hindsight, this may very well be a turning point for some people. Even if a bill got through the Senate, it could never get through the House without overwhelming bi-partisan support, which there has not been for such legislation.

That's not to say there isn't bi-partisan support to create "committees" to examine said issues, because there is. There's just no bi-partisan support to pass legislation enacting something as drastic as the Brady gun ban.

Edit: This was my 2000th post?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There are no evil things, period. There are only evil people and as society becomes more decadent there will be more and more. Most human beings cannot really handle the freedoms that go with living in the United States of America. This kind of thing is beyond many person's understanding.

Some misuse the freedom and take license from it to do things that we all deplore: Example, Westboro Baptist Church. However, in the US there is nothing to stop them.

An American philosopher once said something like "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it." This is all very well, academically, but freedom is not free. It must be guarded zealously from deniers as well as abusers. Some 'guardians' are just a little too zealous for my taste, but you never know who will try to infringe on freedom, and everyone must watch.

As for the Second Amendment, think about it in the context of the authors, and think about what has happened since. Is it more free to have more and deadlier arms advancing with the abilities of man to kill other men, or should there be some limit?

---

An invasion of armies can be resisted,

but not an idea whose time has come.

-- Victor Hugo

[LexusInfernus 908]

As an interesting note, the official FBI 'Crime in the United States 2011' report says that 'hands, fists, feet, etc.' were used more than twice as many times as 'rifles' or 'shotguns' individually and more than those two firearm types collectively. Why point this out? Ask yourself, 'What weapon is everyone so fixated on these days as being 'evil''?

http://www.fbi.gov/a...tables/table-20

Fallacy, the lethality of both is of completely different orders. If I hit your face with my fist, at the worst youd end up with a black eye. If I shoot a gun in your face, the best thing you could hope for is severe brain damage and years of rehabilitation. It is however, much more likely that you die. So yes, which one is the most 'evil'? The one that causes a black eye and some nasty bruises, or the thing that will most certainly ruin your life for good.

But fair enough, I see why Americans want to keep their guns. Its a freedom, and its a freedom a lot of Americans feel strongly enough about to fight for it. But, freedom has its price, and this freedom is paid with the lives and blood of innocent people, including innocent children.

@A Nonny Moose sure APC's in general are expensive. But Im sure that the guy that owns a private yet also has enough money to own and operate an APC. If you have the money and youre willing to spend it on having an APC, why should it be any more illegal than assault rifles or pistols?

[AcmeSigns 97]

Click the link before you slam it. These are the FBI statistics for murder. Those were people killed with 'hands, fists, feet, etc.'

[astronelson 339]

I had a look at your link - it says completely the opposite of what you're saying. Firearms are by far the most used in murders in almost every state (Hawaii only had 1 firearm murder compared with 3 unarmed, but it only had 7 murders total).

EDIT: re-reading your argument... you are discounting handguns. Surely you would agree handguns are a sort of gun.

Also, what are the comparative statistics for assault? More broadly, what percentage of crimes committed with a gun result in a fatality, and what percentage of the same classes of crimes not committed with a gun resulted in a fatality?

If the statistics are available, what are the fatality rates for crimes committed when both parties had a gun?

While still potentially lethal, if someone attacks you with hands, fists, feet, etc., you are much less likely to die than if someone attacks you with a gun.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Click the link before you slam it. These are the FBI statistics for murder. Those were people killed with 'hands, fists, feet, etc.'

And compared to the amounts of people killed by guns, these people are a small minority. Okay, the amount of people killed by shotguns and rifles is less than with handguns and slightly less than people murdered with fists. Though really, the difference between the latter is well....minimal, and if I eyeball it I'd say that its even statistically irrelevant. I suppose its because the number of shotguns and rifles in circulation is less than the amount of handguns. If anything it shows you what murder statistics could look like when there is an effective restriction on the amount of fire arms in circulation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Statistics show only an instantaneous snapshot in a universe of discourse and are dependent on the size and quality of the sampling technique. Given that they are FBI stats, there is certainly likely to be a bias there. These numbers are no more sacred than the poop that comes out of a computer simply because it has been massaged by a machine. Garbage in -- garbage out.

Now facts, on the other hand, notwithstanding Tricky Dick, never become inoperative. Those children are factually dead.

Let us now return to the Second Amendment, as there is another thread for discussing the school shooting.

I realize it is exceptionally difficult to pass any kind of amendment to the American state papers. Does it require unanimous consent of all the member States, or only a large majority? In Canada, any such thing requires a 100% agreement by the Provinces.

Does anyone have a proposed Amendment?

[Duke87 1,070]

I realize it is exceptionally difficult to pass any kind of amendment to the American state papers. Does it require unanimous consent of all the member States, or only a large majority?

It requires a 3/4 majority. So, 38 states have to agree to it.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I was not discounting handguns. The point I was attempting to make, and clearly not very well, is that the weapon du jour that is being 'blamed' for everything is the so-called 'assault weapon/rifle', and those where used in less murders than 'hands, fists, feet, etc.' A new 'Assault Weapons Ban' will do very little, if anything, to address handguns. It's all about the evil black gun.

I doubt that the FBI 'massaged' any numbers. For one thing, if they did, I would suspect that they would have been skewed to be more anti-gun if anything.

Go back to my #880 post...I reiterate...same gun, different clothes. I have serious doubts that a stock Mini-14 would be included in any new AWB. It just doesn't 'look' as dangerous/evil/lethal/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it. And that, my friends, is all these politicians are selling. Appearance. And they know it. However, this way it will appear as though they did 'something' while in reality it will have very little, if any, effect just as the last AWB did. The difference is, this one will be permanent and that is what they've wanted all along.

Remember the Democratic credo...'You never want to let a good crisis go to waste'.

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I was not discounting handguns. The point I was attempting to make, and clearly not very well, is that the weapon du jour that is being 'blamed' for everything is the so-called 'assault weapon/rifle', and those where used in less murders than 'hands, fists, feet, etc.' A new 'Assault Weapons Ban' will do very little, if anything, to address handguns. It's all about the evil black gun.

Since I usually disagree with most things you say, I think its nice to say that I agree with you for a change.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The best you can probably hope for is a law that requires permits to carry. Essentially, it is what we have. I had such a permit when I was a bank messenger, and I had a nice little .32 revolver to go with it. Both kept in a safe when I was not moving cash in public.

[hym 358]

The best you can probably hope for is a law that requires permits to carry. Essentially, it is what we have.

Arizona is the only state that allows an individual to carry a handgun without having first acquired a permit to do so. However, this only applies if you're carrying the handgun where everyone can see it. Otherwise, you need a permit. Texas is widely regarded as having some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and it has an extensive system of laws concerning concealed handgun use, along with the penalties for misuse of the privilege (and from what I have been told, those penalties are severe).

One of the comments that has been consistently made after shooting tragedies is that the US doesn't need new gun control laws. Rather, it needs better enforcement of the ones that it already has. There is quite a bit of truth to this, also. One of the discoveries in the aftermath of the shooting of Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords was that the gunman was actually supposed to be barred from purchasing a weapon based on previous mental health problems, but that his name had yet to make it into the appropriate federal database because of bureaucratic backlogs in Arizona. Consequently, no flags were tripped when the background check was run.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you want a database to be up to date, put it in private hands with penalties for not doing so. Bureaucratic bumbling is often the cause of calamities such as this. The bureaucrabs can get steamed or join the private outfit on condition of work.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Oregon also has an 'open carry' law. You only need a permit to carry concealed.

Up until earlier this year you could 'open carry' in California. Of course, it had to be unloaded, so, in typical California-think, a completely useless idea.

[Larks2242 251]

I read an article today, about how kids are increasingly asking santa for guns and automatics this year, seems that the news coverage has really made an impact.

Maybe less media attention can help curb violence?

We don't need to turn on the TV or newspaper and read/watch about every murder that happens, almost feels glorifyed by the news the amount they talk about it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I read a science-fiction story a few years ago where there was, in effect, a competition for mass murder in the arcologies of this new civilization. In the end, the psychologists who recommended not messing up junior's ego were moved into the arcologies as punishment.

[Larks2242 251]

Thought I'd add this, After British reporter Piers Morgan talked on his CNN show against guns, more then 31,000 Americans have petitioned to have him deported from America.

That alone should show how much of a hold guns have on politics and the reason that politicians can't and won't craft bills that would cause them to lose election.

Politicians that advocate any kind of gun control tend to be seen as the enemy outside of San Francisco and New York.

[astronelson 339]

I was not aware making use of your first amendment rights in saying the second amendment is stupid is in any way illegal. I'd say something, but I might need to visit the US again in the future, and I'd like that to be as hassle-free as possible.

On the topic of the petition, that's approximately 0.01% of the population of the United States, a clear show of the will of the majority of Americans (I checked the site, it's gone up to about 0.03% now). In comparison, 700,000 people signed petitions for various states to secede (an average of 14,000 per state - some were certainly much higher than others), and last I checked that hasn't happened.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Second Amendment is protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn't make it right for these times.

Suppose all gun legislation except the Second Amendment were to be removed. What then?

[Cobraroll 138]

^I think some would call that "Utopia", but we wouldn't be able to hear them over the sound of people shooting each other.