Should all countries adopt a 2nd Amendment (Right To Bear Arms)?

[Colt]

The problems were created by Republican policies, in support of corporate interests, and conveniently (and effectively) attributed to those opposing said policies.

They said the same thing about the civil rights movement, to promote increased suppression and segregation of black minorities.

"Democratic" and rights-based demos typically begin peacefully. If violence occurs it's usually induced by opposition attacks or overzealous policing.
The left tends to target symbols of oppression or grievances, not people. It's the right than more often resorts to violence, indiscriminate attacks, and violence against people.

Like I said, personal irresponsibility of the individual is further enabled by fellows who help them blame all their failings on others.

 

[Valjean]

Like I said, personal irresponsibility of the individual is further enabled by fellows who help them blame all their failings on others.

Huh?

 

[Copernicus]

Like I said, personal irresponsibility of the individual is further enabled by fellows who help them blame all their failings on others.

Huh?

He must be thinking of the effect that Donald Trump and the Republican Party have on one of their supporters.

 

[Ponder This]

Japan? Canada? New Zealand? England?
And don't forget some of those countries are more armed than people realize, like Canada.

I guess you agree with me?

The right to bear arms actually has historical roots in England. This occurred after the English Crown allowed Papists to carry arms but not Protestants. The Bill of Rights of 1689 guaranteed the right of Protestants to "have Arms for their Defence".

The Bill of Rights remains in statute for Canada and New Zealand.

 

[fantome profane]

I guess you agree with me?

The right to bear arms actually has historical roots in England. This occurred after the English Crown allowed Papists to carry arms but not Protestants. The Bill of Rights of 1689 guaranteed the right of Protestants to "have Arms for their Defence".

The Bill of Rights remains in statute for Canada and New Zealand.

Does that mean the U.S. could adopt the exact same gun regulations we have in Canada without violating the 2nd amendment?

 

[Copernicus]

I guess you agree with me?

The right to bear arms actually has historical roots in England. This occurred after the English Crown allowed Papists to carry arms but not Protestants. The Bill of Rights of 1689 guaranteed the right of Protestants to "have Arms for their Defence".

The Bill of Rights remains in statute for Canada and New Zealand.

Does that mean the U.S. could adopt the exact same gun regulations we have in Canada without violating the 2nd amendment?

Exactly. They get these talking points from pro-gun anti-regulation sources, but they don't want the evolution of those foreign policies to influence modern gun control policy in the US. Switzerland is another favorite foreign model, because they have a citizen militia that is close to the concept of militias that existed in the states at the end of the 18th century. However, gun manufacturers and their enablers don't want the US to have the same restrictions on gun ownership and possession that exist in modern Switzerland. The US does not represent a model of gun rights policies that other countries envy and want to emulate. Quite the opposite. The US stands as a cautionary tale of what can happen to a country that strives to remove regulations and restrictions on private gun ownership. An international embarrassment.

 

[Ponder This]

Does that mean the U.S. could adopt the exact same gun regulations we have in Canada without violating the 2nd amendment?

No, Canada benefits from a statute that protects the right of people to defend themselves as opposed to a constitutional amendment.

 

[Bthoth]

Should all countries adopt a 2nd Amendment (Right To Bear Arms)?

Absolutely. But likewise, stiff penalties for misuse.