>46 votes for the second
I guess it's still good to see the majority of this place has their mind in the right place and considers the first more important than the second.
On topic though, bearing arms should not be considered a right in the first place and the second amendment deserves to be repealed.
English
-
"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" -Ben Franklin.
-
Edited by Flee: 4/12/2016 9:19:35 PMThat would only be relevant and hold any weight if the "right" to bear arms would actually receive large scale recognition as a fundamental human right. Seeing how that isn't the case and there's then nothing really to give up, your quote is pretty irrelevant and meaningless here. Oh and you should give this a read. It explains how the quote you're using is actually entirely butchered, incorrect and does not mean what you think it means. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
-
Firstly, the author in that link is an idiot, he clearly doesn't know how to interpret liberty, in his view he stated that Franklin was talking about taxation and that it had nothing to do with liberty in the context of how people use the quote. If you tax a people without consent, it is theft, in effect, loss of liberty, I don't see how he missed that. But I stand by my point, which is, you can't expect to keep one set of rights and repeal the only one that safeguards the rest, in the event of a tyrannical government the people would need a lot more than some banners and an air horn to keep their liberty, they would need weapons and would need to feel that they have a right to use them. Sure people can pack guns, but there's a big difference between legally owning a gun and legally owning a gun with a right to own it, it has more of a meaning to it, a duty as an American if you like. But, to each his own.
-
What makes you say that?
-
Near unanymous agreement of legal scholars, academics, jurists and renowned human rights organizations, really.
-
Edited by Autolycus: 4/12/2016 9:28:19 PMSurely you can think for yourself...
-
Of course. It's not just their conclusion and agreement I side with, it's also their reasoning behind it. I see no reason for there to be a specific right to bear arms, which is essentially an extension to the natural right of self defense. Not only is it entirely possible to have private gun ownership in a society without considering it a constitutional right, but a gun is an entirely man made and simple, mechanical tool. Such a thing being a fundamental, inalienable human right is a very strange thing that is unsupported by many.