I have not expressed an opinion at all. I have not come out saying that everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, that everyone should have any weapon larger than a cheese knife taken away from them, or anything in between. The second Amendment, once the wording is understood, simply is. Whether or not it should be changed is in the realm of public and personal opinion, but the actual meaning of the rule as it stands is not. It would not be the first time that a portion of the constitution or it's amendments have been changed to correct a mistake of the past. Alcohol prohibition lasted only 13 years before being shot back down, women were originally prohibited from political expression, and African-Americans were only counted as 3/5ths of a person as well as not being allowed to vote.Wereduck said:
Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The amendment is there for a reason: Should, at any point, Democracy fail to change and adapt to meet the needs of the people, then the people will have the method to overthrow the government.
Therefore, by banning firearm ownership, you take away another right and are stepping away from Democracy.
So, why did that crazy have a gun?
There are flaws. I can attest to knowing some. I live in California, where its just fucking nuts. On the border, Nevada, where you can walk into Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun. Also fucking nuts.
How about a one week screening for felony status and mental status. If no mental status exists, require a psychological analysis. If fail, then no firearm allowed.
ALSO, revise concealed carry laws. In California, it takes a shorter amount of time to get a pilots liscense than a concealed carry liscense. Basically, 89 hours to get a piloting liscense. In California, the CLAIM is 36 hours. However, my father has a friend who is a CCW-certified pilot. He can attest that it took more than double the time to get a CCW permit than a piloting liscense. So, I'd be far more willing to allow a 36 hour course for CCW if it was actually being delivered as such.
Therefore, by banning firearm ownership, you take away another right and are stepping away from Democracy.
So, why did that crazy have a gun?
There are flaws. I can attest to knowing some. I live in California, where its just fucking nuts. On the border, Nevada, where you can walk into Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun. Also fucking nuts.
How about a one week screening for felony status and mental status. If no mental status exists, require a psychological analysis. If fail, then no firearm allowed.
ALSO, revise concealed carry laws. In California, it takes a shorter amount of time to get a pilots liscense than a concealed carry liscense. Basically, 89 hours to get a piloting liscense. In California, the CLAIM is 36 hours. However, my father has a friend who is a CCW-certified pilot. He can attest that it took more than double the time to get a CCW permit than a piloting liscense. So, I'd be far more willing to allow a 36 hour course for CCW if it was actually being delivered as such.
I have the right to defend myself. Criminals tend not to give a shit about laws, and thus use guns. Therefore, to properly defend myself I should be allowed access to a gun of some sort. I'm not asking for an assault rifle, but a weapon to defend oneself is a pretty basic necessity in my mind.
The shootings in Tuscon were horrible, and I have a very in-depth analysis of it I share amongst my friends, but really the 2nd amendment SHOULD be a boon. If a citizen has the right to carry a gun, he might be able to intervene in a situation where the police could not make it in time. If a few people in the crowd at Tuscon had had guns they might have mowed the guy down before he could have finished his killing spree. But that's all merely speculation.
The shootings in Tuscon were horrible, and I have a very in-depth analysis of it I share amongst my friends, but really the 2nd amendment SHOULD be a boon. If a citizen has the right to carry a gun, he might be able to intervene in a situation where the police could not make it in time. If a few people in the crowd at Tuscon had had guns they might have mowed the guy down before he could have finished his killing spree. But that's all merely speculation.
As you are not the original author of the document, you cannot claim definitive knowledge of its intent.Lord_Beric said:
While you do offer a reasonable interpretation, yours is by no means the only interpretation nor is it the best one by sheer virtue of your argument alone. If anything, your complete refusal to even consider any other interpretation lends less credit to yours.
Finally, the meaning of the amendment is most certainly in question by the fact that these sorts of discussions keep occuring and like any other law they need to be weighed of their merit and applicability to situations that arise in modern legal proceedings. As language and society change, laws must adapt to the world that is not the one that was.
It says the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear ammo ^.^ .
But seriously, i think we need to leave the second amendment as it is, more people are still killed by cars, tobacco, alcohol and trans fat then guns.
And besides most of the gun-related deaths are suicides.
Say you do revise the second amendment, what then? Guns then become like marijuana and all the other drugs, and more violence will come out.
But seriously, i think we need to leave the second amendment as it is, more people are still killed by cars, tobacco, alcohol and trans fat then guns.
And besides most of the gun-related deaths are suicides.
Say you do revise the second amendment, what then? Guns then become like marijuana and all the other drugs, and more violence will come out.
All right, I'm sick of defending this. America has guns. If you don't like this, Europe may be what you're after. Between my roommate and I, we own four guns, including one of the aforementioned AK-47's. No one will be taking these.Wintermute_ said:
In fact, want a good reason I need them? Alright, some of the places I live, many people get shot for being white. Or wearing the wrong color shirt. Know what they get shot with? Unregistered, imported, automatic firearms. In seven months, I will be moving to the number one place in the United States for kidnappings.
Seriously though, if you like socialized health care, restricted gun ownership, and other laws like that, go to Europe. It's a nice place, there are great people there. Cool sights to see, neat languages to learn, great food to try. But I'll stay here with my guns and cheeseburgers.
I agree, it's outdated, but I really hope a revision doesn't include chucking the amendment completely.
Why are guns legal: To defend yourself
Why guns should not be made illegal: Then criminals will be the only ones who have guns, because regardless of the law they WILL get one and the only people who would suffer from this are the civilians whom the law robs them of a means to defend themself.
Do people need automatic weapons? No. Do people need a car that does over 150MPH? No and I'm pretty sure that's just as deadly as a gun if not more.
Here's a thought, stop blaming the weapon and start blaming those behind it. It's the same song as it is with video games. The game/gun isn't responsible, it's the person who plays/uses it.
Why guns should not be made illegal: Then criminals will be the only ones who have guns, because regardless of the law they WILL get one and the only people who would suffer from this are the civilians whom the law robs them of a means to defend themself.
Do people need automatic weapons? No. Do people need a car that does over 150MPH? No and I'm pretty sure that's just as deadly as a gun if not more.
Here's a thought, stop blaming the weapon and start blaming those behind it. It's the same song as it is with video games. The game/gun isn't responsible, it's the person who plays/uses it.
This is a very interesting point. May I add this to my repertoire, my tea-drinking friend?beniki said:Someone's been watching Bowling for ColumbineWintermute_ said:
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?
Thanks for the clarification.Berethond said:
Anyway back on subject.
I looked over my post and saw that it was flawed, so let me rewrite myself. What i`m trying to say is that when the Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment) was created guns were single shot and took 10 minutes to reload, which is very unimpressive compared to today, where we have handguns, hunting rifles, automatic rifles, machine guns, miniguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, and even guns made to take out tanks that aren't RPGs. The average, gun buying American Joe doesn't need a fully automatic assault weapon, especially if he had an inclination to end human life that is not threatening him in any way, shape, or form. I`m not saying we take away all guns, but we are in an age where anybody can just walk into a store and buy a handgun and enough ammunition to take out several dozen people without any form of making sure the purchaser inst completely bat shite crazy. Now this doesn't apply to all areas of the US, but there are still some that do allow this to happen.
but this is just my opinion, the opinion of a young man who has very little life or political experience. If this were to be taken with serious thought by the politicians at be, it would require a few months worth of time making sure the law/amendment can carry out its mission without compromising the 2nd amendment.
P.S. I meant to say psychological, my bad on that part.
*sigh*
every time some nutjob decides to shoot someone in a very public place, people cry out against guns like getting rid of them will solve something.
Its just like every time when a new, popular, and violent video game is released then the media is abuzz with all the stupid controversy over how "video games are bad".
every time some nutjob decides to shoot someone in a very public place, people cry out against guns like getting rid of them will solve something.
Its just like every time when a new, popular, and violent video game is released then the media is abuzz with all the stupid controversy over how "video games are bad".
don't get me wrong, i'm not a gun nut, or one of those NRA types who thinks every law restricting gun sales is a bad thing. however, the 2nd Amendment is fundamental to this nation. and as far as a militia goes, AK-47s and such would be a necessity. hunting rifles and handguns wouldn't cut it in the event of defending ourselves from a tyrannical government (as hypothetical as that may be).
American culture is so entrenched in the idea of "If he hurts me/tries to hurt me, I can hurt him more" that any attempt to change the 'right' to own a weapon would provoke a shitstorm not seen since hurricane Katrina. American culture (from an outsiders pov) seems to revolve around fear. In my study of history, America has always acted with force when it felt scared, usually for unnecessary reasons (AGHH! COMMUNISM!!! IT IS EVIL!!! etc etc)
I realise this will quickly turn into an anti-America statement (easily done), so I'll stop now by saying that it should be changed, but it wont be changed. The political system in America is so fucked that anyone who tries to change anything drastically will be hated by the populace for reasons they dont even understand.
EDIT: Apart from the lack of inclination to try and change anything, politicians would have a hard time doing anything about it anyway. There are so many guns in America that getting hold of them illegal would be easy enough, so anyone who actually obeyed the law would be at a disadvantage to those who didn't.
I realise this will quickly turn into an anti-America statement (easily done), so I'll stop now by saying that it should be changed, but it wont be changed. The political system in America is so fucked that anyone who tries to change anything drastically will be hated by the populace for reasons they dont even understand.
EDIT: Apart from the lack of inclination to try and change anything, politicians would have a hard time doing anything about it anyway. There are so many guns in America that getting hold of them illegal would be easy enough, so anyone who actually obeyed the law would be at a disadvantage to those who didn't.
Wintermute_ said:
I think you haven't thought some of this through. The right to keep and bear arms is one of a system of safeguards. It very much does exist to balance govermental power and to ensure that the people are not totally at the mercy of the goverment. The police can deal with an aberrant person, a small group of criminals, or even a riot, but they aren't going to be able to handle a popular revolt. What's more even on a small scale the danger posed by armed civilians means that the police are not going to just callously follow whatever laws they are handed to enforce. If there was some kind of draconian free speech issue and the police were sent to arrest people with say "M" rated video games after a certain date (note, this is a lot more extreme that what we're currently seeing so far), chances are there wouldn't be widespread enforcement of the law (and it would probably be repealed or buried until it became blue law) because your generally not going to see the police wanting to risk getting their heads blown off over someone owning a game like "Silent Hill" or whatever. Compare this to say how the police have operated in Chile and other countries, no real fear of civilians means that the police are willing to do pretty much whatever the goverment tells them to (path of least resistance). I am very pro-police in most matters, but I think personal armament and not being entirely on their mercy is a good thing.
The above is a very "practical" example in how the balance helps things today. Truthfully the goverment is more careful than they might be otherwise due to someone having to go out and enforce those laws in this enviroment. Nothing so dramatic as an overall popular rebellion.
On the other hand though, consider that one of the reasons why our goverment is unlikely to go massively off the deep end on a large scale is because of that right. The problem with your logic that civilians with small arms wouldn't be effective against the military misses the point that if the goverment needed to use those kinds of forces it would destroy it's own country. The small arms mean they wouldnt be able to do it any other way, and if they DID carpet bomb the major cities and have tanks driven through everything, the entire nation would be decimated. The people calling the shots presumably want an empire, not a mountain of rubble.
On top of this we have a lot of safeguards in our military, among them it being a military primarily made of volunteers. There are limits to how much of a role the goverment can play in actual military administration (it has it's own justice system and everything), despite gradual attempts to work around this. The reason for this is to prevent the goverment from effectively creating a "military caste" or a specific govermental group from being able to determine who is filling out the majority of the military positions based on loyalty to their ideals. The result being that it's very unlikely that the US military would participate in a coup on the orders of the goverment. It's doubtful that the military would engage US civilians if say Obama decided he should be president for life (like has happened in other countries).
In the US we also have relatively free access to explosives, Plastique, Dynamite, etc... are controlled, but a lot more loosely than in a lot of other countries which fueled a lot of terrorism concerns. It's used by private companies who use it for demolitions and construction, and while liscenced there is tons of this stuff in circulation out there and it's relatively easy to get your hands on compared to other places in the world. If there was an all out conflict of some sort, you also have to consider this. Not to mention other things that American citizens have access to. To put things into perspective remember the Killdozer incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA
You can find more on this, but while it's a bit off subject the combined freedoms in the US pretty much mean things like this can happen. This guy lost because he was a lone wolf (I have mixed opinions on the incident itself, which I won't go into) but consider this guy used a modified and armed bulldozer to pretty much demolish part of the town where he lived and the nation guard and police couldn't stop him, even with their own vehicles. His downfall was while demolishing a building one of the treads fell partway into the basement and... well, you can see it.
At any rate, my basic point here is that I don't think the right to bear arms is even remotely oudated. Indeed with some of the free speech issues coming up it's becoming increasingly relevent. Like a lot of people I've been putting more serious thought into armed insurrection against the goverment than I ever have before. I doubt any of these laws will ever pass, but if they start to, and if things start snowballing, then yes I would consider going after goverment officials with weapons, and I'll also say that this is EXACTLY what the right exists for. Let's say we DO start losing the rights to free speech, and people then start showing up and shooting the politicians responsible and their supporters to try and force the goverment to change the policy. A few people are no big deal, but if enough people start doing it, the goverment is pretty much going to have to comply or deal with anarchy. What are they going to do? Carpet bomb? ... and yeah, the goverment deciding to mess with fundemental constitutional rights is why we have that right.
Do not mis-understand what I'm saying here. I make no pretensions of being entirely sane (heh), but I have no real desire to go on anti-goverment shooting rampages, or see it happen (despite some rhetoric here and there). I'd vastly prefer for threats to things like our freedom of speech to be overcome within the system by groups like The Supreme Court. In the end though there are reasons why I would pick up a gun and go after my own "leaders", just not many of them. I think there are enough people like me where as long as we maintain the second amendment our leaders are going to keep this at the back of their mind and it prevents the goverment from getting too excessive in it's behaviors.
I think you don't realize how much freedom we have in the US, and what role our armament plays in that. Just because you don't have politicians going "noes, please don't shoot me" on public TV doesn't mean they aren't aware of the possibility. In a lot of countries the politicians do whatever the frakk they want, with the entire country against them, because the people don't present any threat whatsoever.
Remember that, when the Constitution was written, its writers still had the taste of a tyrannical government in their mouths. They were justifiably worried that this new government could go the same way if there were no means to prevent it. It wasn't just about Indians.Wintermute_ said:
If only the government has guns, the government has no reason to believe its people can stand up against dictatorial action. The government controls the police and the military. If things start to go all "police state," a disarmed populace would simply have to lie down and take it. Do you think the folks who fought the American Revolution bought guns when the war started? No. They had them already.
The government can step in and tell someone what they can and cannot do with those weapons... but ownership? No. The 2nd Amendment acts as "tyranny insurance" in that regard. And I know, I know, "What tyranny? This isn't the 1700's." That just means we've gotten so far away from the event that we've forgotten how fast things can go down that road, and we've forgotten how real the threat is.
Of course, all of this assumes only the government would have guns. That wouldn't be true. The government and criminals would have them. So even under a good, democratic government, the people are powerless against criminals who now know beyond doubt that their prey is unarmed. The police can't prevent crime, only react to it, so that means a lot of people powerless against criminal guns.
Regulating guns is fine. Banning them is not.
A gun has never gained sentience and killed someone. It is the responsibility of the gun owner on how they use it. You can be killed by a person with a sharpened pencil or candy cane, do they need to be banned?
Let's say for a minute we outlaw guns. Now, let's say that the people that follow the rules, use them for only protection or hunting and have them licensed in their names give them up. What does that leave us with? The same people who buy the guns illegally already. Yes, the shootings in Arizona were perpetrated by someone who went the legal route to get it, I'm not denying that. However, that is the exception to the rule. How many gun crimes are committed that are never solved or found to be done with an illegally obtained gun? Oh wait, we never hear about that because it doesn't fit into the anti-gun crowds agenda.
I own a few guns. I have a conceal carry permit. I obtained these legally and with background checks. I have never committed a crime, save for one bogus ticket where they said I didn't stop at a stop sign for long enough with no other cars around, so why should I endanger my family and myself by giving my guns up because a few whackos that were known to be whackos were allowed to own a gun and killed someone.
Before anyone says "You don't know what it's like to be a victim of gun crimes", not with personal experience, but my cousin was shot point blank in the head and killed by her brother who had a list of targets including my immediate family. I just wish he would've come here first and he would've never gotten the chance to kill his sister. He'd be burning in hell right now instead of being in a low security mental hospital.
I'm of the belief that instead of making guns illegal or harder to get, we have tougher punishments for gun crimes. I believe in the death penalty and a murder should be paid back with the offenders life, male or female.
If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns.
As an aside, it's so funny that so many anti-gun celebrities have armed security guards for themselves (made famous by Rosie O'Donnel), don't you find it a bit ironic and self serving?
Let's say for a minute we outlaw guns. Now, let's say that the people that follow the rules, use them for only protection or hunting and have them licensed in their names give them up. What does that leave us with? The same people who buy the guns illegally already. Yes, the shootings in Arizona were perpetrated by someone who went the legal route to get it, I'm not denying that. However, that is the exception to the rule. How many gun crimes are committed that are never solved or found to be done with an illegally obtained gun? Oh wait, we never hear about that because it doesn't fit into the anti-gun crowds agenda.
I own a few guns. I have a conceal carry permit. I obtained these legally and with background checks. I have never committed a crime, save for one bogus ticket where they said I didn't stop at a stop sign for long enough with no other cars around, so why should I endanger my family and myself by giving my guns up because a few whackos that were known to be whackos were allowed to own a gun and killed someone.
Before anyone says "You don't know what it's like to be a victim of gun crimes", not with personal experience, but my cousin was shot point blank in the head and killed by her brother who had a list of targets including my immediate family. I just wish he would've come here first and he would've never gotten the chance to kill his sister. He'd be burning in hell right now instead of being in a low security mental hospital.
I'm of the belief that instead of making guns illegal or harder to get, we have tougher punishments for gun crimes. I believe in the death penalty and a murder should be paid back with the offenders life, male or female.
If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns.
As an aside, it's so funny that so many anti-gun celebrities have armed security guards for themselves (made famous by Rosie O'Donnel), don't you find it a bit ironic and self serving?
As a gun owner and someone who goes target shooting for recreation, I'm glad the second amendment exists.
...as an experienced firearms instructor who often sees rednecks do very unsafe things with their guns, I think the second amendment needs some serious revision. I don't think it should be too much harder to buy a gun (any more than a background check and registration with the local police would only encourage more black market activity), but I do think part of the background check should be verifying a license to own. Nothing more intrusive than a driver's license, acquired by passing a moderately stringent firearms safety/operation/law course... no more than a week long.
Another change I would make would be to require registration of antique firearms, just the same as anything else. All of my WWII guns have traceable serial numbers... hell, even my one black powder rifle is numbered... but the police told me flat out that the people who sold them to me weren't required to contact them for any of those, and they weren't interested in taking down any serial numbers.
As a final note... if you think someone with an AK47 or an AR15 is more capable of killing people than someone with a .270 Winchester (or 30-06, or .223, or .308, et cetera) hunting rifle, you're pretty badly misinformed. The only weapons that should be more closely tracked than any others are those that are easily concealable: handguns... and we already have a special system in place for those.
...as an experienced firearms instructor who often sees rednecks do very unsafe things with their guns, I think the second amendment needs some serious revision. I don't think it should be too much harder to buy a gun (any more than a background check and registration with the local police would only encourage more black market activity), but I do think part of the background check should be verifying a license to own. Nothing more intrusive than a driver's license, acquired by passing a moderately stringent firearms safety/operation/law course... no more than a week long.
Another change I would make would be to require registration of antique firearms, just the same as anything else. All of my WWII guns have traceable serial numbers... hell, even my one black powder rifle is numbered... but the police told me flat out that the people who sold them to me weren't required to contact them for any of those, and they weren't interested in taking down any serial numbers.
As a final note... if you think someone with an AK47 or an AR15 is more capable of killing people than someone with a .270 Winchester (or 30-06, or .223, or .308, et cetera) hunting rifle, you're pretty badly misinformed. The only weapons that should be more closely tracked than any others are those that are easily concealable: handguns... and we already have a special system in place for those.
I wish someone would set up a sort of permanent exchange program. Every American who hates their right to a gun and defend themself can swap themselves for one of us Brits (and other Europeans, I guess) who would love to be in their situation. They get a gun-free society and we get the right to defend ourselves, and net migration stays balanced!
If you don't want to live in a country full of guns, you have a lot of options. If you DO want to live in a country full of guns, it's either America or some rather unsavoury options. Don't take that away from the world, dammit!
If you don't want to live in a country full of guns, you have a lot of options. If you DO want to live in a country full of guns, it's either America or some rather unsavoury options. Don't take that away from the world, dammit!
Coming from someone who likes guns, yes the 2nd amenment needs a revistion. As I see it unless you live somewhere where a murderous horde of somekind could sweep through town at any moment, you really don't need anything beyond a hunting rifle (Unless it's for display purposes).