Anonymous #2 3w

The constitution didn’t give us the right to nuclear arms so this is a stupid example

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

I think we can consider the practicality and ethics of weapons possession outside of whether it’s in a constitution or not. A constitution is not divine mandate or guidance nor is it interpreted objectively. Something people laid out in the constitution can be misguided or no longer practical for the modern day.

8

Anonymous #2 3w

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of lies out there about guns. Guns do not make our nation safer, the statistics show that. Gun possession does not make individual people safer, the statistics show that. A country with guns will have more capacity for mass murder than a country with only knives, and less availability of guns does in fact mean fewer criminals will have them.

3

Anonymous #2 3w

People lie about all these things which are borne out from statistics. Because these statistical reality throw the ethics of widespread firearm possession into question. Regardless of the philosophical justifications for the second amendment, they show that guns are hurting people in this county.

5

Anonymous OP 3w

So you agree. There are limitations to the arms guaranteed by the 2A.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I disagree

0

Anonymous OP 3w

So I should be allowed nuclear arms, then?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Stop acting so dense lol

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Either you are accepting there are obvious limitations, or you think I should be able to have personal nuclear arms.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

No because nuclear arms cannot just target only the bad guy/assilant like a gun would. Innocent people would get hurt if someone used nuclear arms and there would be left over radiation. If you could single out just the threat then it would be okay

0

Anonymous OP 3w

What you don’t seem to get is that the capacity to commit mass murder is a problem here. Even if we had magic nukes that would only kill who you want to kill, we shouldn’t let everyone have them because then someone would use it to kill a large number of innocents. Giving everyone the capacity to commit mass murder means you are going to have more mass murders.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Respectfully, stop responding

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You think that giving people efficient murder machines doesn’t impact how many murders happen. I don’t think you know what you are talking about either.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Again, so you agree that we do not need the right to personal nuclear arms, despite the right to bear arms. Correct?

1