Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

[Thaluikhain]

One thing I'm a bit confused about. Two of the main arguments in favour of allowing privately armed weapons is that it allows people to protect themselves from their government, and that restrictions do not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

If criminals are able to obtain weapons despite restrictions by a just government, are not innocent civilians likewise able to obtain weapons despite restrictions by an unjust government?

 

[Esotera]

You seem to forget that Britain doesn't need to deal with what the US deals with. America is not Europe, and it never will be.

I was assuming that the countries were not that different from each other, and using the UK as an example of what America might look like without as many guns. What does the US need to deal with that Britain doesn't? And why does that make it necessary for the majority of its citizens to be armed?

For one: Cartels run amok in Mexico, giving weapons and drugs to gangs in America. Cartels are no longer gangs, but now fully mobile organizations that makes mafias look like a street gang of 7 year old street rats. Gangs in America, specifically California, have weaponry that would put Al Queda to shame. The Cartels however have weaponry that rivals the US Special forces. Their arsenal includes RPGs and C4 charges, and some cartels are composed of Ex military soldiers or special ops. These are not simple street gangs by any stretch of the imagination.

Two: The Second Amendment was written in order to protect the people, the country, and rights. America was created by armed rebellion from Tyranny, which disarms its people so they wont fight back. Guns were needed so tyranny could be fought on American soil if necessary. Its also to protect the people from outside invasion. Fun Fact: Russia didn't invade America during the cold war because every household held a gun during the cold war. The Russian military couldn't afford killing a whole country.

The second amendment had reason behind it. Don't assume every place is like Europe culturally, politically, or geograqphically.

Surely not all gangs in America get their weapons from Mexico? My understanding is that weapons can be purchased very easily, so the only reason to import would be to bypass restrictions/get more advanced gear? If gangs are forming with American weapons, then this cannot be a supporting argument for the second amendment.

As for your second point, I appreciate the history & heritage of America...but it's history. America doesn't really have a significant threat of invasion in the foreseeable future. And as deterrents go, several thousand nukes would scare anyone sane away - does America really need an armed populace with military superiority like it has? I doubt Russia's primary concern during the cold war was civilians with guns, although it would definitely be a factor.

I wasn't assuming that everywhere is like Europe; just that America is quite similar in a lot of respects. That said, I admit I wasn't fully aware of the problem of gangs.

 

[Feriluce]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Thats a silly notion. Owning a pistol does not somehow magically make you as well armed and trained as a soldier.

 

[Dags90]

And in regards to your later paragraph. Would it be as scary if it were way harder to get guns? Just think about the ease of which you can obtain a firearm in the US compared to over here in Aus. That has a flow on effect to criminals obtaining guns.

Think of it this way, committing a crime with a firearm I assume leads to harsher penalties correct? If this is the case why do criminals use these weapons? Simple answer, because their "targets", if you will, might be carrying them too.

The places I was referring to wasn't actually Detroit (that was a joke), I was referring to the large amount of "bear country" in the U.S. And those places would be scarier without a gun for many. I also think it's a mistake to conflate the ease of getting a firearm and the ease of getting a firearm through legal channels. Making it harder to get a firearm legally might make it a bit harder to get one illegally, but the effect will be reduced. Heck, our own regulating agency allowed illegal straw purchasing to go on for weeks to catch some extra baddies, never recovering the dozens of semi-automatic rifles.

And guns are usually treated as any other "deadly weapon" as far as I know, though I can't say I know the laws of each jurisdiction. You might get extra penalties for using an illegal gun.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Actually civilians with firearms would still be non-combatants and if they engage combatants they can be shot or hanged or whatever else the invading force thinks is apropriate for dealing with partisans.

While me and a few million other people believe in something bigger than themselves. Like my country. Even if I were a non-combatant I would fight against an invading force regardless of the fate they had in store for me if I were captured.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Thats a silly notion. Owning a pistol does not somehow magically make you as well armed and trained as a soldier.

Actually, pistols are the least commonly owned firearm in the US. Its rifles, then shotguns, then pistols. And even if you aren't trained in military tactics, if you outnumber the enemy 3 or 4 times, that doesn't matter too much.

 

[jackdaniel0001]

Ideally the 2nd Amendment symbolizes freedom, as only a government not afraid of its own people will allow them to keep arms. Practically however it creates problems, as you will have a bunch of people running around with deadly weapons.

Balance should be that you should let gun-laws be developed by states and locals, with a federal mandate regarding the movement of weapons between states and between countries. There are vast stretches of the country where law enforcement can't respond promptly or wild lives actually pose threats, and there owning guns will be a good ideas. In urban areas however, it makes sense to have very tight gun regulations. The country is big enough that you can't have an one size fit all approach.

 

[thechaostheory]

There is a very long list of innocent people, children included, who have been killed by people who legally owned guns...

 

[Jegsimmons]

.....how many people here are from the USA?

cause that would put better perspective on this poll.

and yes, im a gun owner, and im all for it. i could put up stats about how they do WAY more good than harm, but it would have been like the 8th time on this website and its getting old.

and actually, you can own artillery, automatics, ect if you build it, its called improvised weaponry. but since most people are good at building shit so complicated and its made from any household material, they dont bother outlaw it.....THAT DOESNT MEAN TO TRY IT!!

 

[Jegsimmons]

There is a very long list of innocent people, children included, who have been killed by people who legally owned guns...

and a longer list by people ILLEGALLY owned guns and those who have been saved by guns.

 

[Qitz]

No-one says it better than Eddie Izzard:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KsN0FCXw914
[Edit] How the hell do you embed a video in this forum?

[ youtube = *the numbers at the end* ]


Like so.

(If you quote you can see)

As for the 2nd amendment. I thinks it's perfectly fine if restricted to certain conditions. Not just the whole "Wait X days for a background check" but also training with it should be mandatory. Should also be restricted to Pistols and Revolvers as there's no real reason someone needs to own an AK47, well not an "active" one anyways, I'd be fine with having the firing mechanics removed for those who just like the look of an AK or a Tommy Gun.

I see no reason to restrict it since I would doubt most people commit crimes with guns they obtained legally so removing the 2nd amendment wouldn't really do anything to deter gun crimes.

 

[Jegsimmons]

I am against the idea that anyone can get a weapon that can kill so easily. I think it does more harm than good.

damn it...im going to have to put up statistics...and i didnt want to today...

on average about 10K americans are murdered, 60% are with firearms.
a reported 2 million people report useing a gun in self defense, and about another estimated 2 million (give or take) go unreported totaling up somewhere between 3-4 million people saved by a firearm, most without fireing a shot.

also, illegally acquired guns used by gangs, cartels, ect are responsible for most of the fire arm murders. so.....yeah, go second amendment.

 

[x-machina]

I think that any weapons you can easily conceal should be banned. I really don't see the legal purpose of a handgun.

 

[Terminate421]

I am quite surprised by the amount of people against the second amendment.

There are morons but I'd rather have a gun and not need one than need one and not have one.

Personally, If I had a gun, I'd prefer to have my current favorite gun. (The SCAR assault rifle). It may sound messed up to have an assault rifle, but hey, I like that gun (And not because of Modern Warfare.)

 

[NeonWraith]

The bit that bothers me about this is that hardly anyone ever seems to quote the full amendment. The part that seems exceedingly relevant to these arguements. Specifically:

As passed by the Congress:

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. (emphasis mine)

Now, while I don't claim to know the mindset of the people that wrote it, it would seem to imply that they're all for weapons, provided there's a structure for it, not just allowing any random passerby to own one.

Just my thoughts on the matter, mind.

 

[teqrevisited]

I agree with it and I wish the UK adopted it. Just because guns are illegal to own doesn't mean that a determined individual / organization wont get their hands on them, and if homeowners had guns to defend themselves with some smaller crimes might end up being prevented.

I'm no expert on this, I just like the idea of burglars getting shot.

 

[gbemery]

Seeing as the average response time for a police officer to get to my house after I have dialed 911 is approximately anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes I would have to say I support the right to have guns. If someone breaks into my house at night they most likely have the intentions of doing harm, or else they would try to break in at a time when they think no one would be home. If they want to do harm then 10 minutes is a long fucking time to be left with them even less than 5 minutes is enough time for them to find you and harm you. So yes I support my right to defend myself, my family and my property.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I don't really like guns but that doesn't mean that i would want to take that right away from the people of this country.

 

[Brent Baker]

In the U.S. (where I live) there are thorough background checks in place to prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. There are also several mandatory gun safety classes that must be attended to obtain firearms. The only thing a ban would do is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes because they know that they're the only people with guns. Most mass shootings take place in "gun-free" areas such as schools and parks. The more people that have guns the less likely criminals are to commit crimes because they don't know who is and who isn't armed. Those are the FACTS.

 

[Howard.Murdock]

in the U.K. you're on an island. Its pretty damn easy to patrol your borders, and ensure nobody brings in any guns to sell on the streets.

Here? Hey, look at that. We have Mexico right to the south of us, and Canada to the north of us...

Wow. Good to know we've got the U.S. terrified of the Great White North, the nation that's A: Had your back for just shy of two centuries, and B: Is made up of pacifists. Fear our great beaver legions.

Canada is actually probably the best example of how a gun-less U.S. would look. We still have long arms available for hunting and animal control in areas like Northern Ontario (without rifles, bears become a pretty serious issue). That said, we have no assault rifles up here. Do people smuggle them in from time to time? Yeah, mostly through the States. And when they do, we've got a way to throw people like the Hell's Angels in prision (they've already broken the law by possessing illegal weapons, we don't need to wait for them to kill someone now). More than once Hell's Angel's clubs in Montreal have been broken entirely by possession arrests.

As to the original question, the second ammendment actually reads as thus (going with the version ratified by the states): "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." Huh. I wasn't aware that a guy in the 7/11 with an AK-47 demanding the money behind the counter was a "...well regulated militia". Learn something new every day.

Arthur Kellermann, one of the leading experts on gun violence in the United States, released a pair of studies, one in the late eighties and one in 1993, both of which showed that guns in the home are significantly more likely to kill or injure a family member than they are to injure a criminal (owning a gun actually increases the likelihood of death within your own home by 2.7 times). These figures have been challenged, and then confirmed by more than one independant study since then.

In terms of keeping the Russians away, the Russians had no real desire to attack America directly. Europe was the real goal of Russia, had they been able to fulfil their territorial desires, and had been for centuries before the Communist Revolution ever occured. Does that mean that they would never have attacked America should they have managed to take Europe (somehow)? Probably not, but such a bloody war against the military power of the U.S., before even taking the nuclear option into account, made any war against the United States a lot less attractive than one against somewhere like Afghanist... Oh yeah, that didn't go so well for them either, and Afghanistan didn't really even HAVE a military. Huh. Yup. I'm sure it was the civilian population that left the Russians quaking in their boots.