@niels0827 Not to jump in here, but I get the feeling that you miss the point of the second amendment.
SeanR has repeatedly stated that, yes, he does hold the second amendment equal to the rest of them. This isn't just because it was written in the paper with the others. I'm sure you've heard the quote about how an armed populace is the final defense against a corrupt government, right? So here's an example:
Let's assume Hillary Clinton won the presidency, and all the right's misgivings about her have no basis in reality. She's actually a woman who wants nothing more than the best for her country, and one of the ways she thinks she can make her people safer is by increasing gun control. She obviously can't repeal the second amendment, but she certainly can make it harder to buy guns. One of the ways she does so is legislate into existence a no-fly list, and require that gun dealers adhere to said no-fly list. If you have any of a list of mental disorders (depression and psychopathy come to mind as possible examples), you are immediately placed on said no-fly list because you are too mentally unstable to own a gun. This is done without any semblance of due process, any guns you own when diagnosed are confiscated, and you aren't allowed to buy any new guns or appeal to recover your old ones until a certified psychologist pronounces you mentally stable. Since, in this scenario, Hillary Clinton is a genuinely well-meaning woman, she doesn't abuse the powers she has handed herself, and four to eight years later leaves it at that.
A few election cycles later, the law has still not been repealed, and someone sketchier comes along. This person promises and promises, and some people have a sinking feeling about him. But it's not enough. There's no substantial evidence he's bad news, and he promises a lot of things people want. So he gets elected. And it's not his first move, or even his tenth, but eventually he expands the list of mental disorders that can prevent you from owning a gun to include more things. And every time there's a tragedy with a gun involved, he makes the list just a little bit bigger. But maybe people are wrong about him, too. Maybe he means well. But it doesn't have to be him, does it?
Over time, the noose draws tighter and tighter. Eventually, someone quietly adds a 'mental disorder' to the list, where one of the defining symptoms is simply the desire to own a gun. Weapons have no use outside of violence, after all. Why would a sane person want or need one? And so every one of America's gun owners are disarmed, not overnight, but over the many, many years in-between. And, now that the population is properly helpless, someone in a future election cycle turns their attention to other rights. Whittling away at the freedom of speech, for example, or the freedom of religion. There are plenty of millennials who would be happy to see them go. Remove the protections for those Christian supremacists, or make political correctness something required by law. No more people spreading anti-LGBT+ hate, or trampling over some poor nonbinary person's feelings by making assumptions about their gender. Wouldn't that be such a wonderful world?
Some people see what this soon to be dictator is doing, of course. And they aren't surprised when the new restrictions grow and grow until they have no rights at all. They want to do something about it. But they have no weapons. They were all taken away. They are helpless beneath the foot of a tyrant, and all because someone added in a law and didn't wonder what would happen when - not if, but when - someone came along who wanted to take advantage of it.
19
@niels0827 Not to jump in here, but I get the feeling that you miss the point of the second amendment.
SeanR has repeatedly stated that, yes, he does hold the second amendment equal to the rest of them. This isn't just because it was written in the paper with the others. I'm sure you've heard the quote about how an armed populace is the final defense against a corrupt government, right? So here's an example:
Let's assume Hillary Clinton won the presidency, and all the right's misgivings about her have no basis in reality. She's actually a woman who wants nothing more than the best for her country, and one of the ways she thinks she can make her people safer is by increasing gun control. She obviously can't repeal the second amendment, but she certainly can make it harder to buy guns. One of the ways she does so is legislate into existence a no-fly list, and require that gun dealers adhere to said no-fly list. If you have any of a list of mental disorders (depression and psychopathy come to mind as possible examples), you are immediately placed on said no-fly list because you are too mentally unstable to own a gun. This is done without any semblance of due process, any guns you own when diagnosed are confiscated, and you aren't allowed to buy any new guns or appeal to recover your old ones until a certified psychologist pronounces you mentally stable. Since, in this scenario, Hillary Clinton is a genuinely well-meaning woman, she doesn't abuse the powers she has handed herself, and four to eight years later leaves it at that.
A few election cycles later, the law has still not been repealed, and someone sketchier comes along. This person promises and promises, and some people have a sinking feeling about him. But it's not enough. There's no substantial evidence he's bad news, and he promises a lot of things people want. So he gets elected. And it's not his first move, or even his tenth, but eventually he expands the list of mental disorders that can prevent you from owning a gun to include more things. And every time there's a tragedy with a gun involved, he makes the list just a little bit bigger. But maybe people are wrong about him, too. Maybe he means well. But it doesn't have to be him, does it?
Over time, the noose draws tighter and tighter. Eventually, someone quietly adds a 'mental disorder' to the list, where one of the defining symptoms is simply the desire to own a gun. Weapons have no use outside of violence, after all. Why would a sane person want or need one? And so every one of America's gun owners are disarmed, not overnight, but over the many, many years in-between. And, now that the population is properly helpless, someone in a future election cycle turns their attention to other rights. Whittling away at the freedom of speech, for example, or the freedom of religion. There are plenty of millennials who would be happy to see them go. Remove the protections for those Christian supremacists, or make political correctness something required by law. No more people spreading anti-LGBT+ hate, or trampling over some poor nonbinary person's feelings by making assumptions about their gender. Wouldn't that be such a wonderful world?
Some people see what this soon to be dictator is doing, of course. And they aren't surprised when the new restrictions grow and grow until they have no rights at all. They want to do something about it. But they have no weapons. They were all taken away. They are helpless beneath the foot of a tyrant, and all because someone added in a law and didn't wonder what would happen when - not if, but when - someone came along who wanted to take advantage of it.