Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Maybe...just maybe because an amendment that was adopted in 1791...227 years ago...doesn't really have much of a reflection to today's culture & events?
If you were correct, then tens of millions of American liberals would be opposed to the point and purpose of the "right to bear arms" clause in the Second Amendment.
And you'd be correct if the intended purpose of that same clause was no longer relevant, but it still is.
Maybe, just maybe, if you actually understood the amendment and the History, you'd understand why asking if it is still relevant is rather silly.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Hmmm...maybe you should re-read the title of this thread again?
False equivocation. The Right to Bear Arms does not cause mass shootings, nor is it responsible for mass shootings in the US, nor is it an indirect cause.
You will not be able to spin this into "all guns are evil." While you did not directly do that, you're certainly implying it. Since you hold Australia's strict gun laws in high regard, then you can explain why your gun laws had no effect on your homicide rates and why Australia still has among the highest guns per capita in the world of any country (1 gun for ever 3 people).
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
So once again...how many times have you personally taken up arms against a tyrannical government?
This is a Begging the Question fallacy. We are first to assume that your premise, which results in your question, is true when it is not. The premise is that the Second Amendment exists solely to provide a means for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. This is only one of the intended purposes. Alternative purposes are:
1. Also to prevent the government from taking up arms against the people (deterrence from creating the tyrannical government to begin with),
2. As a means and compromise between The Federalists and Anti-Federalists (because the right of arms was debated between the two-parties and this as seen as a compromise).
3. Provide a security framework for Militias to defend the nation and states.
4. Common uses such as hunting, defending against criminals (bad guys with ill-intentions in many places and especially frontier locations that had state enemies in addition to just simple bad guys...this was no longer Great Britain - This is the U.S.A. with a frontier and wilderness front that greatly eclipsed the British Isles). And before a proper british geographer calls me out on the British Isles having a massive perimeter length due to how many islands there are (meaning, my implied point is wrong, here), I'm clearly referring to a general outline and being land-locked on the frontier).
5. As a marked "Eff You!" to their British Oppressors who sought to disarm the people as a means of control.
The Supreme Court upheld the notion that it is a private right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Original Intent was upheld in our highest court. So using the logical fallacy that Begs the question - "Are you overthrowing your Tyrannical Government, Lately?" - is just not an honest path of discussion. At the risk of committing a logical fallacy myself (False Dichotomy), your question implies that you're either ignorant of the context and History of the Second Amendment or you're being very dishonest in your intentions (my money is on the latter - you're hoping these yahoos are too stupid or lazy to really engage in a well-formed conversation).