Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
The 2nd Amendment
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?
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?
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for determining who's proficient, I would say we have police give gun training courses. Seems reasonable to me.
"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...
Seriously, if everyone had a gun on their hip, people would probably be a lot nicer to one another.