Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[CitySquirrel]

Ok why don't we apply that thinking to the first amendment then. So no internet, no TV, no radio, no video games, no movies.

First of all, congratulations on being the second person to say to say this. Second of all, all I did was state a fact (the 2nd amendment was written when guns were significantly different than they are today) and follow up with a statement concerning my interest with what the framers of the constitution would have thought about today's weapons. Applying that thinking to the first amendment would only leave you with a statement of truth (many forms of communication that exist today did not exist then) and... a question as to what the founding fathers would have thought of the internet. Applying my thinking to the first amendment would not mean no internet, tv, etc.

That having been said, I disagree on a fundamental level. (Here, by the way, is where I am making my first argument about anything.) Speech is speech. Be it oral, written, or in the form of an image, it is what it is. This is not true with guns. A flame thrower and an AK-47 are not the same as my Dad's four-ten. My point is not "oh, the amendment is invalid because the founding fathers couldn't see the future or plan it this way." My point is that the founding fathers were not saying that everyone should be able to carry semi-automatic handguns into public places. That is what the modern courts have decided. Just like the modern courts have decided that money is speech.

And by the way, who the hell has a "well regulated militia?" No one, that is who. And the supreme court decided to just tell that part of the original constitution to eff off. So, when arguing why you should have enough firepower to wipe out a city, don't go back to the constitution because the original second amendment looked nothing like the one we have today.

 

[Orwellian37]

I legally own every last gun I have.

Unfortunately for me, I live in Texas, so I cannot carry them ANYWHERE outside of my house, car, or local shooting range. While that may sound absurd to several people, here's my logic. Several studies have been conducted with criminals to determine what they see as their largest threats. One of the biggest threats, to them at least, is an armed civilian. People will always get a gun illegally, but having many people with legal weapons is seen as a problem to most criminals.

Example: Virginia has almost no limitations on gun laws. Texas has very strict limits. Proportionally, Virginia's violent crime rate is much lower than that of Texas.

That being said, I think that the exact wording of the Constitution is outdated, but that was the point. The authors left room for states to make their own laws regarding issues yet to come, so no I see no problem with the 2nd Amendment. State laws should allow for residents to legally purchase and carry firearms easily, however there should be certain responsibilities gun owners must follow.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Why in Hell's Infinite Highway is this not in the politics section. And no, it is fine the way it is.

This. I haven't been on the eScapist too long, but it seems every day there's almost guaranteed to be a new "Mass Effect- hooplah" thread, a "What's your favorite blah" thread and a "I don't like guns, do you?" thread.

And no, I've no problem with the second amendment. People will abuse whatever power they have and violent people or people under sufficient stress will commit horrific acts, if they have guns, knives, or are just that much bigger than someone else.

 

[CyanideSandwich]

I don't like the second amendment because Australia doesn't have it.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Oh, I predict a storm of feces, incoming.

That having been said, the 2nd amendment was written when guns were significantly different than they are today. I question what the original writers would have thought if they could have seen future guns.

Very true, the weapons of their time were much less dangerous.

 

[MaVeN1337]

The reason it exist is to make sure that the government can never suppress the populus, like the case of the French revolution. It's a great idea, but the way it's being upheld is outdated.

Alas, A voice of reason!

 

[Chrishu]

Alright, yes, I think the 2nd amendment is outdated, however, there is a problem.

Can we trust those in power to stop there? If we allow the precedent of removing an article of the bill of rights, what else will the government take away?

Slippery slope and all that...

 

[Blue_vision]

Not entirely related to the thread, but I love how whenever discussion comes in the US about things like the second amendment, it's about "what exactly the founding fathers meant by "a well armed militia." Why can't we just say that the dudes made an oopsie/made a call that may have been good once, but is now outdated.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

My point is that the founding fathers were not saying that everyone should be able to carry semi-automatic handguns into public places.

That's actually illegal in most places. And in the few that it is legal, you have to go through an extremely lengthy process including a test for firearm proficiency and a psych eval. So no, not anyone can go around carrying a handgun, be it revolver or semi.

Very true, the weapons of their time were much less dangerous.

That's where you're wrong. Modern rounds will go through you and do a lot of damage to your internal organs, but there's the chance you will live. The firearms during the revolutionary war shot solid balls of lead that mushroomed inside your body. I believe the two most popular calibers were 75 and 69. To put it in perspective, a .50 caliber round will tear someone's arm off from a mile away. Just imagine what a .75 would do. It would probably tear a whole through about half your back. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure you can't just stitch that up.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

My point is that the founding fathers were not saying that everyone should be able to carry semi-automatic handguns into public places.

That's actually illegal in most places. And in the few that it is legal, you have to go through an extremely lengthy process including a test for firearm proficiency and a psych eval. So no, not anyone can go around carrying a handgun, be it revolver or semi.

Very true, the weapons of their time were much less dangerous.

That's where you're wrong. Modern rounds will go through you and do a lot of damage to your internal organs, but there's the chance you will live. The firearms during the revolutionary war shot solid balls of lead that mushroomed inside your body. I believe the two most popular calibers were 75 and 69. To put it in perspective, a .50 caliber round will tear someone's arm off from a mile away. Just imagine what a .75 would do. It would probably tear a whole through about half your back. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure you can't just stitch that up.

I'm thinking range and fire rate here more than anything.

 

[Tdc2182]

For the most part, its generally accidents that people are worried about.

Sure, the kind of crowd that may be attracted to it are idiots (I.E. Rednecks), but you'd be surprised how safe they are with guns.

They just need to be stricter gun laws than there are now. Anyone who knew Jared Laughtner for more than a minute knew he was batsht crazy.

 

[Negatempest]

Spoiler: Big quote

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.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
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.
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. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

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 your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. 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. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

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.

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?

I'll make my response short.

A majority of "civilians" are what caused the French Revolution who at the time the French had a world power army. You could say that it wasn't the best, because it wasn't, BUT today the US doesn't exactly have the most enthusiastic army either, we are still pretty damn sexist and homophobic in the military.

Wait, you believe that in modern times where there are gangs, psychopaths, muggers, etc. we have no need for a weapon to defend ourselves? We are already forbidden from carrying many forms of melee weapons and the reason guns haven't followed yet was because of the second amendment. I say we fix how easy it is for anyone not sane to get it before just banishing it all together. When are we going to blame the individual before the tool he uses?

 

[CitySquirrel]

I'm thinking range and fire rate here more than anything.

And clip size. Thank you for saying it for me.

 

[Foolishman1776]

First off, the Second Amendment was written after a narrowly successful rebellion against an authoritarian government. The whole Bill of Rights was written with this in mind. The reason EVERY amendment was written was to limit the power of the custodians of the Constitution. Every right written into those amendments was to insure that people were given the ability to live without fear of their government trampling their rights. Some of those amendments are inconvenient to tyrants; some demand something of those who exercise the rights contained therein.

To say that any of the amendments are 'outdated' is a lie. These words were not written for a specific time, they were written with a full realization of human nature. That those with power want more of it. It was written to avoid abuses of power. If you discard any part of it, you discard the whole of it, and with it, the protections it offers. When that happens, the power of the executors of our Constitution will become even greater, while the power of the governed will all but disappear. What then will restrain the hand of the government? What will stop them from wholesale abuse of power?

As for shootings. Guns can be dangerous, and people can abuse them. This is a given and no one will disagree with you. There are several problems with outlawing them, however. The first is, most power tools can be dangerous, and people can abuse them; granted, power tools have uses that aren't killing, but they are no less dangerous in some cases. Second, the vast majority of licensed gun owners do not commit crimes. People who commit crimes do not often employ firearms, and when they do, they use firearms that are illegally obtained. Outlawing firearms would have little to no effect on those who would commit crimes with them.

On the subject of the mentally ill individuals who committed these much publicized acts of violence. The fault was not the gun; the fault lay solely on the disturbed individuals who committed the act. You cannot stop crazy, angry people from doing what they will do before they actually do it. Unless you have big brother watching you twenty four hours a day, reading your private writings, listening to you in your home, you will never stop some things from happening.

 

[Arsen]

I think the problem with this lies within the fact that many don't understand the positive aspects of owning a handgun. We need to combat illegal gun usage, not the tool itself. Regulate who is and isn't allowed to have one yes (Criminals, illegal aliens, those with an excessive jail history, criminal misconduct, etc), but to the effect where it would put the American people in a disadvantage.

Not to mention that being allowed to gun gives you an advantage/opportunity of survival whereas it could be a knife, fist, or anything. It puts everyone at an equal advantage.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

American gun lobbyists are looneys who act as if even the most lenient attempts at gun control are the same as the government trying to make every person in the country register for 24 hour surveillance. They act offended at the idea that, for example, maybe it's a good idea that somebody keeps track of who does and who doesn't actually own a lethal weapon. Even the most resonable suggestions get pounced on by screaming rednecks- "NO! YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY GUN! IT'S MINE! I HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT, NO MATTER WHAT!" They are, in a word, complete and utter morons. They're also crazy. And who do we most of all NOT want to be lethally armed? Crazy people. The people who most strongly insist on being allowed to own a weapon are the ones who should least be allowed to do so.

Get this guys: YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN. I live in Australia. It is VERY hard to get a gun here. What does that mean? It means our shooting-related deaths, even when you take into account the difference in our population sizes, are a microscopic fraction of Americas. And none of us feel in any way like we're missing something for the lack of a gun. The evidence is completely indisputable, but the gun lobbyists hide behind nothing more than an outdated and irrelevant piece of legislation written hundreds of years ago which is totally meaningless in the modern age, to achieve absolutely NOTHING more than perpetuation of the endless cycle of needless deaths every year (or every DAY) in America. Your nation as a whole is so immature. You need to grow up and act your age.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm thinking range and fire rate here more than anything.

And clip size. Thank you for saying it for me.

No probs, I'm just fast like that.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

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.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
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.
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. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

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 your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. 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. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

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.

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?

There are so many of these threads that I've put my opinion into already that I won't do so again, but I will explain one major point to you. If an armed population goes into revolt and has enough support, no modern military in the world can push them back. The difference between now and back when the American revolution first took place is a massive change in population. If even 1% of the US stood up in resistance, that is over 3 million armed citizens. With most of our military employed overseas in stations that are difficult to retract, the government would have no choice but to negotiate and reach common ground. Besides, we're tasked to capacity fighting against guerrillas in Afghanistan, and they don't have modern equipment to combat US air superiority.

 

[Tanis]

Also, OP, would you like some cameras in your house?
It's not like you're doing anything illegal, so why not?

The government is just trying to protect you...right?

 

[asinann]

The first thing that Hitler did when he came into power was take guns away from the people because guns give the common man a way to end government oppression when needed. If all the populace has are a bunch of hand guns and hunting rifles they aren't going to be able to stand up when it becomes necessary.