Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Wintermute_]

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Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.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

 

[Popadoo]

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.

 

[GeorgW]

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.

 

[Berserker119]

I don't get it. Having a gun would be cool, but only if it was an old one, or a model, and with no ammo. Shooting people doesn't solve all your problems.

 

[CitySquirrel]

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.

 

[Radeonx]

It is a very flawed system that needs to be fixed.
With that said, most criminals that end up getting their hands on some type of gun don't do it legally, so it is hard to judge just how better things would get when people can't carried a concealed weapon on them.

 

[xDHxD148L0]

Some revision? yes, just my opinion.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

You might be able to tell, but I think it's silly. Why any country thinks it's sensible to allow it's citizens to have effortlessly lethal weapons is beyond me.

 

[TeeBs]

I think at this point, owning a gun to stand up and rise against the government would be pretty irrelevant. Unless we have the right to bear tanks.

 

[Hader]

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.

It should apply more now too right? I mean, back then they didn't have the bears in the western area of the continent to get arms from.



OT: Personally, I would prefer a knife on me over a gun. But that of course has nothing to do with this...though I will say, hype over the 2nd amendment caused by things like the shootings in Arizona is just utter bullshit. It's the wrong attention for the wrong reasons.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

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

 

[The Man With the Soap]

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?

The U.S. military is not nearly as large as people seem to think. This is part of why we have had so much trouble in Iraq. But, I still want to have my guns for in case something catastrophic were to happen. Mostly, though, I want my guns because I won't kill as many ducks with my bare hands. Now, if I had BEAR hands, that might be something.

 

[Biosophilogical]

The second ammendment is horribly outdated, but the fact of the matter is (and no, this may sound like it, but I'm not supporting loose gun laws), the culture of America (or what I've heard of it) means that if you suddenly insituted strict gun laws and started confiscating/buying out people's guns who don't pass the new, strict gun control laws, then shit would hit the fan. Big changes like this need to be added(/removed?) progressively, to allow the society to adapt with the transition, rather than being left high-and-dry with the anti-violence population giving up any weapons they might have while the people who pose the risk (criminals and gun-nuts) hold onto their guns with everything they have (and get aggravated because people are trying to 'steal their metallic babies!'). So yeah, a progressive tightening of gun laws would be a far better (and in the long run, safer) method of getting guns out of the hands of every cowboy-citizen and their dog.

EDIT: Also, for the poll, I don't think being able to purchase a gun is a right, more of a priviledge granted to you by the seller (and the priviledge of being able to sell their merchandise is regulated by a citizen-controlled government, and then the rights of the government only extends to benefitting the populace in ways they agree to that doesn't violate their rights).

 

[tomtom94]

The problem is that America desperately needs gun control but guns are so widespread it is no utterly impossible for such laws to be introduced without resistance.

 

[Berethond]

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Do you ever think that maybe the people who wrote that were, you know, smarter than you?
And knew what they were doing?

 

[Scolar Visari]

I always love this "LOL, da military will crush you guize" shit. Someone go fetch Tarrou so he we can get it from the horse's mouth. The military swears an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America, not the government. And are obligated to defend against a tyrannical government.

And the idea of an American militia force isn't outdated. Dudes with less gear, and funnier clothes have been ruining government's shit for a long time.

 

[Dr_Komeil]

Heh, I wrote an essay on this not that long ago. My reasoning is basically this: As it is written the Second Amendment guarantees the right of only militia members to own firearms, however, there is no reason to implement nationwide bans on all firearms.

So basically, as it's phrased, the fact it mentions Militias before clarifying that the right to bear arms, leads me to believe that the intention was only to allow members of state militias to own firearms without government intervention. That said, I think people should be allowed to own firearms so long as they know how to use them, know how to store them safely, are of clean mental health, and aren't going overboard in what they buy (Nothing fully automatic. I have so much trouble believing that a fully automatic weapon is necessary in someone's day to day life. Even for home protection, the collateral damage to your house would be much higher than the cost of anything stolen.)

Anywho, that's just my opinion, and I agree that the current government backed interpretation of the amendment is flawed.

 

[Woodsey]

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..

"Civil and mature" to me means that you don't need the guns, nor have an obsession with having the right to own them.

And no one's going to invade you because your citizens aren't armed - if the fucking military attacked then civilians wouldn't stand a chance anyway.

 

[WanderingFool]

I like my right to own a firearm, and bear arms (cause lets face it, up in the Northeast, they are warm.) That said, I think there needs to be controls in ownership of ANY automatic gun, or guns that could be made automatic. 1 guy will kill less people with a non automatic weapon like a bolt-action rifle, than he would with a M16 (or the civilian equivilant).

Though I think people forget one main problem with gun laws, they prevent citizens from buying guns, not criminals with an agenda. Even if the whole of America had a law that prevent the buy and selling of ALL firearms, the street thugs and gangs would still have uzis and AK47. Why? Because they dont buy they're guns from Bobs gun shack, they buy them from some Black Market sleazebag. Hell, strict gun laws like what I just said, would probaly have Gangbanger Steve standing in line behind PTA parent Chuck. Until the illegal gun flow is controlled, strict gun laws wont do shit.

 

[Infinatex]

Yeah it's a massive problem. I think revision is definitely in order. We do pretty well here in Australia without everyone packing a couple of firearms.