Umm okay…
So do I…
1 Like
The unwillingness to even entertain, and/or answer a simple question is a main ingredient in the major social divide we see before us.
Questions, notions, ideas, opinions, all are being shut down and/or confronted with the greatest of resistance and/or criticism all too commonly. We’ve arrived at a place where consideration for others has become rare and/or intolerable.
If you are incapable of answering the simple question presented in this topic then i would kindly ask you to move along to a more suitable topic…Thanks guys, stay healthy.
1 Like
I am still trying to figure out the logic of your argument/question. Sorry if I am obtuse.
I don’t see how you can logically have a ‘right’ that predetermines the rest of the population’s actions.
4 Likes
Is there anything stopping people from having an adequate standard of living in this country other than their own level of motivation?
Wondering if there has been a specific answer that brought this on? From my perspective the previous answers have been in the spirit of your orginal post.
3 Likes
Absolutely…but that’s a whole other can of worms.
It is the lack of an answer
1 Like
@Ben_Blanc - Yes, I would fight to have the right to own
a firearm of some sort. Thank you for a thought provoking
question. Mike_T
3 Likes
@Ben_Blanc - Were our Founding Fathers pro-gun control, we would today still be British subjects.
Consequently, I can’t answer your question.
5 Likes
I think the big thing here is if the country was founded on gun control, we wouldn’t be fighting for gun rights because as a society we would be ingrained to believe that gun control was the norm. You can’t miss something you don’t know you don’t have. Now if someone were to live in another control that permitted guns for an extended period and then moved back, I can see how they would perhaps want to start a campaign to get gun rights. It would be like kids 100 years ago fighting for the rights to phones, they would have no experience with it so why would they fight for it? Over simplified, but you get what I am trying to say.
5 Likes
Just knowing of the existence of firearms, coupled with our natural instincts to protect ourselves and our loved ones by any means, should inspire one to fight for the right to possess and bear arms…Just because i’ve never owned a helicopter doesn’t mean i wouldn’t fight for the right to own one, (if private helicopter ownership were prohibited) as i should have the right to travel freely.
2 Likes
I think the public in 1776 would find the idea that a gun could acts of its own will preposterous, or possibly the work of Black Magic. Scaring folks like that was not the Founding Fathers plan.
They could say “safe, villain, thug and burglar free country”, and that would make the text of 2nd Amendment a piece of great comedy, but not appropriate in the context.
So, they wrote what they wrote.
4 Likes
To clarify, our Military would still be armed, I will edit this post so that it refers to civilian population.
1 Like
This needs to be put in to to some context. If we are talking about the United States following the Revolutionary War in the 1790s and that this “right” was applicable only to the federal government, as it was at the time, my response would likely be different than today. First, I would not want to include only guns, but all arms, and it would only disarm the federal government so they could not attack the “People”, like Great Britain did. The states would still be free legislate using the “police powers” presumed in the Constitution for the general welfare of their citizens. The “common defense” portion of the Constitution would need to fall on the states.
5 Likes
I believe that our FOUNDING FATHER’S believed in our G-d given right to defend ourselves by ANY MEANS THAT WE CHOOSE. And to use anything that we could in doing so. And if it meant using a FIREARM then so be it. And I’m tired of ANTI-GUN PEOPLE/GROUPS saying that NO ONES needs a firearm for self defense. Because I keep seeing reports and stories where the fact that a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN did stop crimes and saved not only their life but the lives of others because they DID HAVE A FIREARM AND WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CRIME.
6 Likes
To answer your question simply… Yes, I would seek to change the 2A. In the entire history of the world there has never been a 'safe gun free country". You have said the Police have guns, the Military have guns, and even the criminals have guns… those admissions of a need for firearms show that the “Safe gun free country” doesn’t exist even in your hypothetical Amerika.
3 Likes
The simplest answer to this thought experiment is: Utopian.
No fear of danger.
3 Likes
@Ben_Blanc The premise of your question while interesting has no base in reality and moving forward 230 years has no acceptable answer as you would be advocating social revolution of a commonly accepted paradigm. If the colonials advocated a gun free society they would have starved to death as firearms were the primary tool to get meat on the table. The colonials and Founding Fathers understood that speech was the most important tool against the tyranny of man followed by the tool that would allow their defense against a government suppression of the first.
Move forward to the end of WWII and the fall of Winston Churchill as the “Labor Party” took control the removal of personally owned weapons in England was lauded as the bridge to ensuring the safety of the nation and world following such a horrendous war which was curiously enough started with the restriction of personally owned weapons. Be that as it may the British subjects allowed themselves to be disarmed. That happened in 1946 if memory serves. If you were born, in lets say 1940, and lived, gun free is all you would know and would be ingrained into your world view. Would it be any different if you were born in 1965, 1975, 1985. 1995, 2005, 2015, what cause would you have to fight back against your “normal” other than a broad awakening of self reliance and preservation? Perhaps a BREXIT? A Corona Virus? The Wuhan Flu? Muslim Extremism? No guns: Knife attacks / Truck attacks?
One does not stand against societal norms without a catalyst for change that must be profound.
The founders were products of their experience and thank GOD they had the wisdom to see past pointless political or societal paltries and craft the most singularly amazing government in the history of man kind.
Cheers,
Craig6
10 Likes
People were eating way before firearms… 
Well (to use your own words) let’s start with "a broad awakening of self reliance and preservation, then there’s always the want and/or need to defend oneself, as well as defend ones family and/or friends.
2 Likes
Correct, and I wouldnt want to be in the skin of a home (cave?) invader who was met with a crossbow bolt or a Neanderthal thrusting spear. You can google those up, instant arrest for intimidation, if you brought it outside of a museum 
4 Likes
Just had a visual…thanks for the laugh 
3 Likes
The simple answer is if the Second amendment was as stated in the original question we would be British and have to support a Queen.
The founding fathers made the 2nd amendment specifically so the people could be protected from a oppressive government.
Even England is not free from guns and they sure aren’t free from Knife attacks. Rewrite the 2nd and you might as well rewrite the first, and the 5th.
The enemies of our country have been trying to rewrite the 2nd amendment for a long time. If they ever do it will cause a second civil war. Or we will suffer the same fate as Venezuela and Nicaragua.
5 Likes