posted by Tenshinia
Never said or wrote such a thing.
2nd amendment does not say what you claim it does, and it does not say what US law currently says it does(by extension), either you need to disconnect the laws from the amendment(and as they effectively govern different matters that shouldn´t be hard ), or modify laws if you insist on following the amendment as originally written.
I´ve also stated that parts of the US constitution is obsolete and outdated, mostly in regards to form of government and elections, because they simply don´t work well due to change in technology.
Inability to change is nearly always a clear sign of impending collapse.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with your definition. It has come down repeatedly on the side that the 2nd Amendment is for the individual's right to have firearms. Not something cntrolled by the government. You seem to be looking at the first part of the 2nd and ignoring the last part in that you see it as being a government controlled/regulated militia, not something the people can do on their own. The government simply cannot legislate away the citizen's right to have firearms. You can claim linguistic skills all you want, but its simply the fact that your claim of what the 2nd means is not what the US Supreme Court says it is, and the Court's view is something upheld by decades of rulings.
If you want to change the US Constitution, there are ways to do it. You cannot just discard what you don't like in favor of what you do like and want to change it for the sake of change.
Only if you´re inept at English.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you. Your definition isn't relevant here, the definition the Justices of the SCOTUS is relevant. I trust them much more than I trust you in deciding US laws and the US Constitution.
Are you having trouble with basic comprehension?
1. I couldn´t care less how you do it in USA as long as you´re not complete idiots about it.
2. PERSONALLY, i´m somewhat against any restrictions not based on safety.
But of course, it´s easier for you to reject reality if you claim i´m opposed to guns no matter what. Which is a lie and i have repeatedly noted such. So maybe you should just stop repeating the lie?
Or does that leave you too much without arguments?
No, I read just fine, but you've been pretty vocal about your dislike of the US 2nd Amendment and your wish to remove it/alter it to something -you- are comfortable with. Despite the fact gun ownership and use in the US doesn't affect you in the least, you remain vocal about restricting our rights to firearms based on your personal preference. You've made it abundantly clear you don't want us to have firearms unless they are regulated by the government.
The term safety is extremely vague and could be stretched to cover anything. Restricting firearms because of safety reasons is viewed suspiciously by many in the US and for good reason, because it's a restriction on a right. Those in the US who call for restrictions on firearms usually do it so its viewed as providing safety for the public; 'think of the children' 'its for the children' are common refrains. Tighter gun laws (ignoring that many good gun laws now aren't being enforced), much higher restrictions on who can own them, limits on how fast they can shoot (revolvers suddenly become an assault weapon because one pull, one shot), limitations on magazine size (10 is too much, it must be five and no more, and again revolvers fall under that because many revolvers had 6 shots), where they must be kept (kept locked away in two pieces with each piece in a different place, with the ammunition in an entirely different place as well) and more. And all of this being said to be done in the name of safety. Which ignores that automobile accidents kill and injure -far- more people than accidental gun accidents, or even intentional gun violence in the US (short of a civil war or invasion). The number of people killed or wounded with guns, accidental or otherwise in the US is way below that of automobiles, yet there isn't anything near the level of hatred or restrictions of automobiles that there is called for, for firearms.
There are a good number of people in the US that would love to impose all sorts of government restrictions on the populace in the name of safety, to help protect us because we clearly need it (as they see it). They'd rather impose more and more government controls on the people (with them in charge) than trust the people. Because they see the people as being too stupid to know what's good for them so they will do their best to force them to be good.
One thing of note Ten, I am not calling for the nations of Europe or the rest of the world to force our 2nd Amendment on their citizens. I am not calling for them to rewrite their constitution (assuming they have something like it) to have US rights in them. You can do whatever you want in your nation as long as its legal there (barring slavery and genocide). If the people want something like that, all well and good, if not, no skin off my nose, but I am not for forcing them to change. Unlike you who is insisting that we do change our laws and Constitution because you disagree with parts of it. So why are you so insisting we change our laws to fit your desires?
