Turn on thread page Beta

Who thinks america should have a referendum on the right to bear arms? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think this would be good... let everyone have a say :d It would be interesting to see what the result would be
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst the result of such a referendum might be interesting... America a population of 323 million and over 300 million guns. Any attempt to mess with gun ownership simply wouldn't work. The gun/weapons industry is also a fair amount of the USA's internal economy.

    Gun crime statistics in the USA are also heavily skewed by inner city gang shootings.

    I don't own a gun, and I only really have an interest in antique weapons, so I don't really have a corner to back in this debate.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyking)
    I personally think this would be good... let everyone have a say :d It would be interesting to see what the result would be
    It’s a right guaranteed in the American constitution. You can’t have a referendum on whether to keep a constitutional right or not because the US is a republic (it means that it guarantees certain rights to its citizens which are non negotiable and are not subject to the majority rule- one of these rights is the right to bear arms). Whether you or I believe that this is correct or not is irrelevant.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andreasz)
    It’s a right guaranteed in the American constitution. You can’t have a referendum on whether to keep a constitutional right or not because the US is a republic (it means that it guarantees certain rights to its citizens which are non negotiable and are not subject to the majority rule- one of these rights is the right to bear arms). Whether you or I believe that this is correct or not is irrelevant.
    wrong, amendments are a thing.

    Also anything can be interpreted to justify anything or particular policy.

    Right to bear arms could be interpreted to mean own weapons made pre 1776 etc
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's unethical

    I know there is a demand for them in Asia but think about the exploitation of animals here.

    and bears are an endangered species. plus demand in the black market would just increase

    Source:
    https://www.rt.com/news/354046-bear-...-russia-china/
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannah00)
    wrong, amendments are a thing.

    Also anything can be interpreted to justify anything or particular policy.

    Right to bear arms could be interpreted to mean own weapons made pre 1776 etc
    Yes but ammendments can only be made by Congress (and I think there needs to be a 75% concencus), not referenda.
    You can't really say that the 2nd Ammendment only applies to the weapons of that era. The same argument could be used to limit free speech on the internet (It could be argued that the 1st Ammendment only applies to printed press).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I support the right to arm bears.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andreasz)
    Yes but ammendments can only be made by Congress (and I think there needs to be a 75% concencus), not referenda.
    You can't really say that the 2nd Ammendment only applies to the weapons of that era. The same argument could be used to limit free speech on the internet (It could be argued that the 1st Ammendment only applies to printed press).
    I wish they would look into this and see that enough is enough, looking at other countries and then back at themselves and see that they have an out of control problem. So gad that it's not as bad over here.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If the whole notion of the second amendment is to fight tyranny, what good did it do them owning that gun, when their wealth was taken, to bail out the banks?

    [Resulting in a poorer, if any, quality of life, lowering their life expectancies, pushing them below the poverty line, and generally creating massive misery and poverty, without anyone being held responsible or accountable?]

    If thats not 'cruel and oppressive government rule' [one definition of tyranny] then what is?!?!

    Having said that, if you read the Gulag Archipelago, and what happened in the USSR, soldiers turning up in the middle of the night, killing millions of innocents, then yes, it would have been better if they had all had guns.

    Would the Capitalists, go as far as the Communists? Probably, yes.....

    Its a difficult one to answer. But more regulation is needed in the USA. I agree. They are paying a hefty price in blood, for that amendment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I like arms.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OldishStudent)
    If the whole notion of the second amendment is to fight tyranny, what good did it do them owning that gun, when their wealth was taken, to bail out the banks?

    [Resulting in a poorer, if any, quality of life, lowering their life expectancies, pushing them below the poverty line, and generally creating massive misery and poverty, without anyone being held responsible or accountable?]

    If thats not 'cruel and oppressive government rule' [one definition of tyranny] then what is?!?!

    Having said that, if you read the Gulag Archipelago, and what happened in the USSR, soldiers turning up in the middle of the night, killing millions of innocents, then yes, it would have been better if they had all had guns.

    Would the Capitalists, go as far as the Communists? Probably, yes.....

    Its a difficult one to answer. But more regulation is needed in the USA. I agree. They are paying a hefty price in blood, for that amendment.
    I believe that there is a case to be made that, had the people of various nations throughout history been allowed to bear arms freely, oppressive regimes who took the lives of millions would not have risen to power so easily, or would have been overthrown quicker.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Me too. Fun to shoot. At targets. Everyone who eats meat should be made to shoot an animal. [And then eat it of course]
    I think you'd see a lot more vegetarians.
    Anyone who shoots animals for 'sport' is an Ar5ehole.
    All IMO of course.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i'm not American, so i don't care.

    Also, the gun lobby would win. The debate will never go away, since gun ownership is culturally ingrained.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    America is too far gone, there is no saving them now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure. Referendum don't seem to work very well. The Neanderthals turn out better than the sane. Plus if something hasn't been done after all the years of carnage and Obama attempt then I doubt anything good would come of it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To do what you’re proposing is to attack the foundation of what America is. Once an amendment to the constitution is made it becomes part of the constitution. The ramifications of repealing the 5th amendment are worse than the consequences of keeping it.

    To remove it means undermining the foundation of America’s government, it’s legal system, everything. To repel it means also giving leave to repel other parts of the bill of rights. The right to free speech? Gone
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andreasz)
    I believe that there is a case to be made that, had the people of various nations throughout history been allowed to bear arms freely, oppressive regimes who took the lives of millions would not have risen to power so easily, or would have been overthrown quicker.
    I'm undecided on my position on guns, but to back your point up, I have an interesting fact you may enjoy.

    In the 20th century many countries banned guns. Some of the countries include Nazi Germany, the USSR, Ottoman Turkey, Cambodia, China, Guetemala and Uganda.

    ...After guns were banned from each country, genocides in each one subsequently followed.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I'm undecided on my position on guns, but to back your point up, I have an interesting fact you may enjoy.

    In the 20th century many countries banned guns. Some of the countries include Nazi Germany, the USSR, Ottoman Turkey, Cambodia, China, Guetemala and Uganda.

    ...After guns were banned from each country, genocides in each one subsequently followed.
    Yes, exactly. It makes sense that if you want to carry out mass genocide in your country, the first thing you have to do is to take away any means that the people have to stop it and defend themselves.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why do British people care so much?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yourgyalsmcm)
    Why do British people care so much?
    Because they're people?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,613

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.