This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The 2nd Amendment

edited December 2008 in Politics
Mrs. Macross opened this can of worms:

Is this right of the people to keep and bear arms still important enough to be a constitutional right?

This right was created in a day when people could rise up against a tyrannical government. Given the current state of military technology, how feasible is that? Wouldn't the military decide who wins by giving their support? Or would the government (and therefore military) back down as some point because people can at least sustain chaos as long as they have their guns?

And do we really want the majority to have the option to violently overthrow the government? What if the Christians decide they want a Christian government? They are certainly the majority in this country. Or do we factor in that it's one thing to believe in something, but it's another thing to take a bullet in the chest. Would the fear of death limit uprisings to only those which are the kind envisioned by the founding fathers?

What about the right to protect your home? I suspect that this is more important than ever - although is the threat so great because the other guy is likely to have a gun?

Forget the "only the bad guys will have guns" stuff. By that logic, Europe would have descended into anarchy a long time ago.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment - but why do we hang onto this belief when things have changed so much from its inception? Is the 2nd Amendment meaningful at all given the amount of gun laws? The recent Washington, DC case suggests that it is still relevant. But is it as relevant?
«134

Comments

  • If people want really hairy arms, who am I to judge that?
  • If people want really hairy arms, who am I to judge that?
    Now do you know why I've decided to hang out here less? ;-)
  • Now do you know why I've decided to hang out here less? ;-)
    Need more time to shave your arms?
  • Protect your home? Yes. Protect yourself in case of an attempted mugging or rape? Yes. Recreational/target shooting? Yes. Hunting? Yes. Rising up against the government or defending against an invading army? Not bloody likely.

    There do need to be some sensible limits on these sorts of things. I'm really not in favor of letting just anyone have a Dillon minigun, for example. We also need more rigorous training for gun owners.

    I myself was brought up with firearms in the house. I was given a real working gun long before I was ever allowed to have a toy gun. As long as you are taught proper gun safety and responsibility, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to own reasonable firearms.

    Personally, I'd like to see non-lethal weapons become more prevalent. It's a little odd to me that batons and pepper spray are illegal to carry in many places, yet instruments designed to kill are perfectly OK.
  • As far as feasibility goes, one only has to look as far as Vietnam and Iraq to see that a disorganized but armed underground movement can - if not outright repel - then severely cripple an organized military's occupation.
  • "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
  • I'm painfully ambivalent on this issue, to the point that I have difficulty making even simple unqualified assertions regarding it.

    In general, I favor the legality of gun ownership coupled with strict, merit-based regulation and severe penalties for misuse. If my options are "everyone," "only criminals," or "demonstrably competent people and criminals," then I would have to go with the last one, due largely to the fact that criminals will likely always have access to them.

    I'm completely against the private ownership of deathwand-based devices, however.
  • edited December 2008
    Forget the "only the bad guys will have guns" stuff. By that logic, Europe would have descended into anarchy a long time ago.
    Big difference between the United States and other countries that have prohibitions on all guns is population density and current weapon addiction. There are a lot more city people in those countries than in the US, and there is a lot more country side where people can not rely on a competent police force to keep them safe.

    The other problem is America's love of firearms. We have enough weapons in this country that, even if they were banned, people would still be able to trade and utilize firearms. And we can't forget about America's military-industrial complex. I'm almost positive we're the biggest manufacturer of guns in the world, and you can bet a few would slip out of some factories. For every prohibition, there is an underground, and this one is a little more dangerous than weed.


    Also, I am questionable of your "Christian Nation" argument. For every stereotypical gun totin' (apparently) militaristic religious nut, there are at least nine apathetic religious followers who would never join such a movement. I feel like for anything even remotely guerrilla-like to start in this country, people would need to be convinced that their lives were in jeopardy. And even then, it's not like people care that much about global warming, civil rights issues, health concerns, etc.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • I'm painfully ambivalent on this issue, to the point that I have difficulty making even simple unqualified assertions regarding it.

    In general, I favor the legality of gun ownership coupled with strict, merit-based regulation and severe penalties for misuse. If my options are "everyone," "only criminals," or "demonstrably competent people and criminals," then I would have to go with the last one, due largely to the fact that criminals will likely always have access to them.

    I'm completely against the private ownership of deathwand-based devices, however.
    This is my opinion as well. I see no reason why gun ownership should not be the same as car ownership. Limiting certain types of "non-street legal "cars" but giving everyone the chance to qualify for street legal ones.
  • Very similarly to Rym I also have difficultly making simple unqualified assertions on this issue.

    One thing I can say is that I very much favor increase enforcement of existing gun laws. Without changing any laws or the constitution, if we were able to better enforce the existing laws, much of the problem would go away. I mean, imagine if we were able to take most of the illegal weapons off the street, think about the difference that would make! Now compare that to what would happen if we repealed the 2nd amendment.

    Before we go changing the laws, and especially before we change the constitution, let's just give the police more resources to enforce the laws we've got. Maybe if they concentrated on that instead of tasering protesting kids, confiscating cameras, and giving speeding tickets, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
  • Personally, I'd like to see non-lethal weapons become more prevalent. It's a little odd to me that batons and pepper spray are illegal to carry in many places, yet instruments designed to kill are perfectly OK.
    One issue I have with non-lethal weapons is that they still induce pain, and can still cause health problems when used ineffectively. Still, the people who wield them see "non-lethal" and think they can shock any punk kid who gives them lip. It's a difficult problem: a weapon that is much less dangerous than a gun, but will be used much more liberally.
  • Personally, I'd like to see non-lethal weapons become more prevalent. It's a little odd to me that batons and pepper spray are illegal to carry in many places, yet instruments designed to kill are perfectly OK.
    One issue I have with non-lethal weapons is that they still induce pain, and can still cause health problems when used ineffectively. Still, the people who wield them see "non-lethal" and think they can shock any punk kid who gives them lip. It's a difficult problem: a weapon that is much less dangerous than a gun, but will be used much more liberally.
    Well, I'm also in favor of educating people as to their proper usage. I wouldn't just give them away like candy; you should still need to demonstrate proficiency and competence to be able to carry a non-lethal weapon.
  • Personally, I'd like to see non-lethal weapons become more prevalent. It's a little odd to me that batons and pepper spray are illegal to carry in many places, yet instruments designed to kill are perfectly OK.
    One issue I have with non-lethal weapons is that they still induce pain, and can still cause health problems when used ineffectively. Still, the people who wield them see "non-lethal" and think they can shock any punk kid who gives them lip. It's a difficult problem: a weapon that is much less dangerous than a gun, but will be used much more liberally.
    Well, I'm also in favor of educating people as to their proper usage. I wouldn't just give them away like candy; you should still need to demonstrate proficiency and competence to be able to carry a non-lethal weapon.
    Isn't there a State in the US that requires Taser owners(or at least, the police who use them) to take a shock or two from them before they're allowed to buy/use them? I'm also pretty sure that at least one of those states requires you renew this every few years or so.
  • The main issue with all of the proficiency tests you guys want is that who decides what's proficient enough? If we let the government do it would could potentially give them to power to raise the standard so high as to take away guns. I'm a big fan of the armed populace style of government. I'm also with Scott on the "focus on the illegal weapons and leave the law-abiding citizens alone" plan.
  • Personally, I'd like to see non-lethal weapons become more prevalent. It's a little odd to me that batons and pepper spray are illegal to carry in many places, yet instruments designed to kill are perfectly OK.
    One issue I have with non-lethal weapons is that they still induce pain, and can still cause health problems when used ineffectively. Still, the people who wield them see "non-lethal" and think they can shock any punk kid who gives them lip. It's a difficult problem: a weapon that is much less dangerous than a gun, but will be used much more liberally.
    I've often considered getting some pepper spray and then spraying random people in the street. I always manage to stop myself, though.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    No one is making gun ownership mandatory. If you don't want the risk, don't own one.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    No one is making gun ownership mandatory. If you don't want the risk, don't own one.
    Yeah, except if my neighbor owns one and gets pissed at me... etc. If guns could only be used on their owners, then I do not care who owns guns.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    I would wager, readily, that most gun accidents are caused by a lack of proficiency and/or poor decision making. If everyone followed the basic rules of gun safety, most gun accidents would never happen.

    As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    No one is making gun ownership mandatory. If you don't want the risk, don't own one.
    Yeah, except if my neighbor owns one and gets pissed at me... etc. If guns could only be used on their owners, then I do not care who owns guns.
    Because if your neighbor owns a knife and gets pissed at you, he can't hurt you?
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    If you don't have guns you'll just use knives...

    "Stabbings are the most common form of murder in Britain, where firearms — except certain shotguns and sporting rifles — are outlawed.

    Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in 2005, 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain. The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.

    The US murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments.

    In London alone, there were 12,589 knife-related crimes in 2007. Police say the most likely people to carry knives are males ages 15 to 18."


    Gedavids, I would assume you would take it on the level as a driving test, basic proficiency. I don't hear people worrying about how the government is going to raise the difficulty of drivers tests...
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    I would wager, readily, that most gun accidents are caused by a lack of proficiency and/or poor decision making. If everyone followed the basic rules of gun safety, most gun accidents would never happen.

    As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
    No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    I would wager, readily, that most gun accidents are caused by a lack of proficiency and/or poor decision making. If everyone followed the basic rules of gun safety, most gun accidents would never happen.

    As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
    No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
    Which apply to all weapons, not just guns. If somebody is pissed off at you enough to want to kill you, they'll use anything within reach that could be a weapon.
  • No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
    Then maybe you shouldn't be doing things to your neighbor that cause them to got into a blind rage?

    Seriously, if everyone had a gun on their hip, people would probably be a lot nicer to one another.
  • No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    If you don't have guns you'll just use knives...

    "Stabbings are the most common form of murder in Britain, where firearms — except certain shotguns and sporting rifles — are outlawed.

    Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in 2005, 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain. The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.

    The US murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments.

    In London alone, there were 12,589 knife-related crimes in 2007. Police say the most likely people to carry knives are males ages 15 to 18."
    What is the murder rate to population ratio comparison, of the reported stabbings how many ended in death, and of reported shootings how many ended in death. The statistics you quoted are meaningless in this argument without the context and side-to-side comparison.
  • No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
    Then maybe you shouldn't be doing things to your neighbor that cause them to got into a blind rage?

    Seriously, if everyone had a gun on their hip, people would probably be a lot nicer to one another.
    Back that up with any evidence. Also, a person can get angry for any reason. Nice people get caught in the cross fire of shoot outs or are the victims of rage crimes. I should not HAVE to tiptoe around life in order to feel safe. If that were the case, Scott Rubin would have been killed years ago. Assholes and outspoken people deserve to live, and to live without fear.
  • Gedavids, I would assume you would take it on the level as a driving test, basic proficiency. I don't hear people worrying about how the government is going to raise the difficulty of drivers tests...
    I wish they would, they seem to have forgotten the driving is a privilege not a right. I see people everyday who have no business on the road. Our tests assess basic understanding of the law, and very little of ones actual driving ability. Do you want gun tests to be like driving tests? Because they would be equally meaningless.
  • edited December 2008
    No matter how proficient someone may be, accidents happen. Accidents with knives and tasers are far less deadly. Period.
    I would wager, readily, that most gun accidents are caused by a lack of proficiency and/or poor decision making. If everyone followed the basic rules of gun safety, most gun accidents would never happen.

    As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
    No matter how proficient a person is in particular training and testing scenarios, it doesn't account for human rage, fear, or adrenaline.
    Which apply toallweapons, not just guns. If somebody is pissed off at you enough to want to kill you, they'll useanythingwithin reach that could be a weapon.
    Yes, but they will be more effective with a gun. Thus the point. Also, if someone gets angry enough to hit someone with a frying pan or stab them with a knife, they then have the option of stopping and possibly keeping the person alive. With a gun, fatality is far more likely.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Then maybe you shouldn't be doing things to your neighbor that cause them to got into a blind rage?
    That's irrelevant. No matter how "angry" you get, unless you are directly defending someone's safety or property, no use of force is ever justified. The person throwing the punch, except in these cases, is always in the wrong.
    Seriously, if everyone had a gun on their hip, people would probably be a lot nicer to one another.
    Forcing "niceness" with threat of deadly force is laughable, and I cringe every time I see this argument. I'd rather people be honest jerks to one another than build a sense of false civility on the threat of vigilante violence.
  • edited December 2008
    [A] person can get angry for any reason. Nice people get caught in the cross fire of shoot outs or are the victims of rage crimes. I should not HAVE to tiptoe around life in order to feel safe. If that were the case, Scott Rubin would have been killed years ago. Assholes and outspoken people deserve to live, and to live without fear.
    Rule of Scott # 142: As rules regarding gun ownership become less restrictive, the chance that Scott Rubin will eventually be shot approaches unity.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.