Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Bravo 21]

When it says the Right to Bear Arms, it means you have the right to own a pair of arms from a bear. I don't see why people think this gives them the right to have guns.

This makes me smile, although i interperet that law a the right to wear a short sleeved shirt
OP, you make some interesting points

The US consists of about 312 million people, and about 200 million guns, name one military in the world that could take those odds.

and I just have to say, the first army that no longer fears MAD, though that is unlikely to happen, so I guess they are quite secure

 

[FoAmY99]

If I may paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "People who give up their freedoms for security, deserve neither."

The right to bear arms was given to us the people as a safeguard against government tyranny and a variety of other things. Now while things have changed a lot in the last 200 years and the chances of the federal government turning oppressive (more than it already is but thats another discussion for another time)is slim. I believe this quote still has a lot of meaning. If we give up our right to keep a firearm because we're all scared somebody else will shoot us, then we don't deserve to have rights or safety because we're illogical fools.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

For the millionth time. BAD GUYS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW! If you take away the legal right to bare arms you are only taking guns away from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! Robbers, sociopaths, and pyschopaths will still get weapons, still attack people, and people will still die.

And okay, call the police, I know. Well you know what? A cop isn't always around to protect you. It's a fucked up world we live in where select few will break into your house and kill your family just cause you were home.

EDIT: I live in New York, the only things I'm allowed to defend myself with is a Walking Cane and Pepper Spray. Gee the bad guys here still have GUNS!

 

[McNinja]

I think you've missed the last year or so of gun-related thread on the Escapist.

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Why? because it exists?

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.

Hate to tell, you but no, it isn't.

It reads
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.

This is true. This is the only reason it was included.

But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo.

That's true. But we would also have the NRA. The NRA would probably be the backbone of any resistance against an oppressive government. We would have millions of hunters across the nation who like to hunt, but then couldn't because they can't have their firearms. There would be more pissed off people than you might think, especially if they get rallied behind a strong leader.

We reasonably can't give those to citizens.

Well, tanks, jets, etc, no, but ammo? Sure.

Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

And here is where your post goes from factually based straight into generalization and ignorance. Since when do all guns usually end up in crimes? Last time I checked, none of the ten or so guns my dad owned (sold'em to keep our house) were ever used in a crime in the 20+ years he owned them.

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops/ officers of the law have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless you're a collector, and even then,

It doesn't matter if we are fighting insurgent. People like doing things because they have the freedom to. Are you saying that everyone who owns an automatic weapon will commit a crime with it? We aren't retarded gibbons, we're people, and the vast majority of us obey the law.

collecting tools of death is questionable.

I collect knives. What's wrong with that? Am I going to go on a stabbing spree because I got a Gerber LHR for Christmas?

Spoiler: Gerber LHR

What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes.

This is true. There are also millions people who use guns to save lives everyday as well.

Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible.

Why? What makes a person who carries a concealed gun so much more likely to pull it out and unload into the nearest shopping center? Going back to my father, who also carried a concealed weapon, and never shot anybody, or even used it.

Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

So it will cost more money to regulate? So the government can keep tabs on the people who own guns?

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

This is absolutely retarded in every way. "yeah sure go ahead and just rip that constitutional right right outta there." The heck? Just because you think a person doesn't need an AK-47 doesn't mean everyone should be forced into it. And for the billionth time, criminals have other avenues to get weapons, not just gun stores. After guns were banned in the UK you know what rose up? Knife crime. In Washington, D.C. after guns were banned there, what happened? Crime rose. A lot.

Let me ask you this: If you were a robber, who was planning on robbing a convenience store, would you be more likely to pull out your gun and threaten people with it if you knew that any of the people in the store at the time could also have guns? I think not. If everyone knows that everyone else has a gun, people are less likely to pull their out for fear of getting shot.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

Justified? Sure. But at the same time, you just don't get it. A gun can be used to kill, sure, but so can fists. And feet. And knives. So can iron skillets, and hot water. Sure, you can shoot at something far away and kill it, but when was the last time some one committed armed robbery by sniping from a building across the street? Guns are deadly, yes. But if we increase awareness, teach people to understand them, and how to use them, and how to be safe with them, then maybe we would see less crime.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

You do know this is the third of this topic posted within the week right?

 

[Flac00]

When it says the Right to Bear Arms, it means you have the right to own a pair of arms from a bear. I don't see why people think this gives them the right to have guns.

I know, it is stupid how people think otherwise. Family Guy FTW

 

[beniki]

-snip-

Someone's been watching Bowling for Columbine

Yes, the points you raise are all valid and true. Guns are dangerous, and as a former competitive shooter, I can tell you all about their capabilities. I'm Brtish, and owning a weapon for me comes with strict guidelines, and regular police checks.

It seems like a no-brainer to regulate them, doesn't it?

Well, here's the reasoned counter argument to any regulation. You are admitting that you, yourself, and your neighbours are not, and never will be, responsible enough to have free use of guns.

You are telling your government that you do not have the capability to think when using a weapon, and you are inviting them to think for you. that you are literally too stupid to own a weapon. Not only are you doing this, but you are dashing the hopes that the builders of your country had for making a gun responsible nation. They wanted people to be able to manage themselves.

It is, indeed, a tool meant for killing someone. But so is a knife, which you use three times a day, if not more often, to eat. Somewhere along the line we learnt not to stab it in people just because we happened to be holding it. Take the gun away from you, and you lose that chance to grow as a society.

That's a purely philosophical view though, and hardly practical. But it is an indication of a society which is starting to trade away choice and responsibility for security and regulation.

That's a little sad isn't it?

This is a very interesting point. May I add this to my repertoire, my tea-drinking friend?

Probably best you didn't... someone might come up with a counter to it, and it's one of the best defences we have against regulation of video games

But sure, be my guest!

 

[Baradiel]

To bad they didn't create a proper Amendment to protect the population from being suppressed. There are a vast amount of more simple, and much more effective, ways to suppress the citizens of a country. Force is the least effective form of suppression and to have laws protecting against force promotes the deception of safety and freedom and distracts the public from the real sources of control.

Well said. Probably the most effective form of suppression this day and age is the media. The media, especially politically aligned stations, can slowly but surely make the audience believe what they want to beleive. How many people would actually question a news programme if they didn't know anything to the contrary? Not many. If you trust the news to be correct, hell, if you trust the media to be honest then you will find yourself being manipulated and suppressed more effectively than any army could.

How can you resist oppression when you don't realise you're being oppressed?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Most violent gun crimes aren't done with legally owned weapons. And most gun owners aren't out killing people. A small percentage of the population are the problem, and more gun regulations don't mean that will change. People are violent and take away the guns, there'll be something else they can kill with.
Hands are lethal weapons too. So are minds.

 

[nunqual]

It needs revision, but that will never happen. If someone tries they will immediately be called a tyrant.

 

[Gavmando]

We should be Civil and mature to have Guns for self-protection. We wouldn't have issues if people just learned not to misuse Guns. For the matter, I feel taking away Guns is pointless because there will be people buying off Guns in Black Markets and when they threaten us, we'll have no way to protect ourselves then. Plus, it'd also cause other Nations to feel the urge to invade us if we don't have Guns, let alone only the Army does. It's all complicated really..

Oh my god! Really? I didnt know that other countries had the urge to attack Australia simply because we dont give our population guns. I mean, it's not like we have a shitload of valuable natural resources or anything.

Guns should not be in the hands of civilians. Simple as that. Guns are used to kill things, civilians do not need that power without a VERY good reason. Example: Farmers.

It's the attitude in America that causes these problems. Two examples come to mind:
1. Non universal healthcare. Which essentially means, "Fuck everyone else. I'm only going to take care of myself."
2. The right to bear arms. When you give the general population a weapon of death, you should expect thing to go very badly wrong. The whole argument that, "If i'm carrying a gun, it will stop people from attacking me" is childish and stupid.
When you combine these two attitudes, it breeds a culture of not caring about your fellow man and thinking that you can gain peace through war and violence. Both are an anathema to positiveness and sustainable growth.

You dont like what i'm saying? Come and live in Australia and see how good it is without guns.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Sorry but you are very ignorant. First of all the US is already oppressive, it just isn't obvious yet, unless you're a brown person. Second of all a revolution would be far easier than you assume, especially if the geurilla fighters destroy industrial infrastructure that supports the military, that and the fact that most of the military is spread thin across the empire. And all the US's military might sure isn't defeating the taliban. And who says people in the military wouldn't massively abdicate their positions? You are a collaborater.

 

[jpoon]

"God" given right in my account, I'll keep my right to bear arms, thanks! =D

 

[comet5002]

Sorry to burst your ignorant and naive bubble, but ever heard of a thing called "Prohibition"?

Take out alcohol and insert firearms, and you basically have what will happen if you restrict civilian gun usage.

In Japan, it is illegal for civilians to own or use firearms. Ever heard of the Yakuza? Yeah, it's really working over there.

If you make something illegal, it only makes it more worthwhile for black markets and criminals to gain a hold of, because the cost of contraband will go up, hence more money for underground markets.

So, yeah, "revising" or abolishing the 2nd amendment would be a lot worse than just keeping it as it is.

 

[crudus]

Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them.

If guns were outlawed then only criminals would have guns. Think about that tautological statement. The average citizen really doesn't have a way to defend against people we are willing to do those illegal things to get the guns in the first goddamn place. People who get a hold of a gun (illegally) really have a lot more power than they would if guns were legal. This also seems like a real slippery slope argument. You can say the same things for things like knives and other weapons.

 

[Actual]

99.9%* of all illegal guns were originally legal guns. The reasons the U.S. and Mexico and most countries in the Americas can't control the illegal gun trade is because of the proliferation of the legal gun trade.

*made up but reasonable figure.

 

[Terminate421]

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country. Therefore, I think it is a right to own a gun, even if it is a shitty one, it can make a much larger differance the one thinks.

Also, calling Gun Collectors ones "Who collect tools of death is questionable" is ironic, people collect many things, why is it questionable towards fire arms

As for the 2nd Amendment, I feel that it is fine the way it is. Gun Control is impossible, fixing something that isn't broken isn't the answer.

When America gets invaded? What? I'm sorry, but that's silly. Maybe you should pay less attention to crazy people who tell you we're on the brink of being invaded by foreign troops.

As for the collection: a) that's not irony and b) collecting weapons is very different than collecting stamps or coins. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't collect guns, mind you - you're completely free to do whatever you'd like with your money and I personally have no problem with it. But you should at least try to see why others feel differently.

And there's a difference between complete gun control (which yes, is impossible) and revision. Given the violence seen in big cities and the availability of certain excessive weaponry, I can see how limiting availability of certain guns and implementing things like paperwork and registration would be beneficial. There are parts of the states where if you go to a gun show and you've got cash it's extremely easy to walk out of there with a weapon no questions asked. I don't see how making it so that's not the case would hurt anyone.

The whole "When" Thing was for sarcasm. America's military is tough as hell.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Even if we're assuming that guns DO cause crime (which if you compare crime rates to other countries with guns, you'll see isn't really the case,) gun control wouldn't work in America. It works fine in England because England is on an island. America, on the other hand, is right in between Canada and Mexico, both of which have a surplus of guns and very easily crossed borders.

If the common citizen isn't allowed to have guns, then the only people that WOULD have them would be the people who got them illegally, which would probably be almost exclusively the people who intend on using them. Most of the time organized crime is done with illegal guns anyway, since registered firearms are easily tracked, and most (if not all) automatic weapons are illegal. I don't even think that those over-publicized school shooting/suicides like Columbine and virginia tech would be prevented by gun control. If you're going to mow down your classmates and then off yourself, buying an M4 on the black market isn't going to be much of an issue. The only thing gun control might prevent is the odd escalating domestic dispute scenario or things of that nature.

But I digress, really the main issue is people, not guns. Should we be a bit more selective on who we give guns to? Absolutely. But outright banning them is a lost cause.

 

[Logic 0]

Even if we did ban guns if wouldn't stop criminals who don't even bother with legal channels and just get them off the black market.

 

[Happy Sock Puppet]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone should be allowed to own a black powder musket, according to the law at the time.