Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Twilight_guy]

The second amendment needs to exist because dispute the unlikelihood there is always the chance the people might need to, and will even be required to by the constitution, take it upon themselves to overthrow the government. To do so the people must have the power, in this case the weapons, to overcome the old government (which has a military) and this is the reason we have a second amendment. How we choose to control weapons is really another matter and up for debate on a number of fronts, but the necessity of the core amendment is obvious.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Oh really? A knife user can move 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, and cops are allowed to shoot a knife user within 30 feet.

So they shoot him as soon as he comes in the allotted range?

I don't quite see your point with this. How does this in any way rebutt my assertion?
Were you just bring random asserts to the table because i mentioned knife wileders?

Are you somehow thinking cops wouldn't have guns anymore just cause every man and his dog is no longer allowed to hold a fire arm?

Or are you saying a gun user, who can aim and fire a fatal shot in less that 0.2 seconds, is less threatening than a knife user who can move 6 meters in 1.5 seconds (at full run) for an attack which has less chance of being fatal than a gun shot?

More over, a gun wielder doesn't even need to be visible to their victims, while a knife wielder needs to get 'up close and personal'. Finally theres the ease of murder, with a gun its so simple, just twitching a finger. Alot less involved than running up to someone and consciously slinking a knife into them.

But as i said, i'm confused as to the relevance of your reply.

 

[Devil's Due]

Dear OP: Get over yourself. Just because you live in an affluent part of town where crime is nonexistent and complacency runs rampant doesn't mean that the world is a wonderful place full of trustworthy people that would never harm you if it meant bettering their odds of survival in an emergency situation, let alone the people that are fully willing to harm you from the get-go. A cursory glance at statistics for firearm-related crime will show that the assault weapons that you've got a personal vendetta against are almost never used to commit crimes [http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html], and are, for the most part, only aesthetically different from hunting weapons.

Frankly, anti-firearm vitriol is almost always borne of ignorance and lack of respect for the subject at hand, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone rallying against it when they understand both the pros and cons to the situation.

I like you, and this post. I approve.

As for the thread... well, honestly, SOD pretty much summed it right up. Personally, I believe that the Second Amendment should be left alone, but I do believe that anyone who has a criminal record with a felony involved, or is mentally disabled, should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Also, that people should be able to pass some sort of smaller tests before being allowed to buy it, maybe like a gun course, on how to properly maintain the weapon, when's the appropriate time to use it, and whatnot. Sure, it probably won't effect much, but I'm sure it might help someone out there who doesn't truly know when to use it or not, and such.

 

[Cmwissy]

After reading these threads you really realise how different the American mentality is to the European one.

Is crime really that rampant in the US that you all need guns? Do you really mistrust eachother THAT much?

 

[neoontime]

It could use some revisions, it's too easy for scary people to get them.

 

[DanielDeFig]

This part of USA's constitution is outdated, and frankly, dangerous. If you want an idea of how dramatically gun related deaths will decrease if this law was abolished (Duh!), then just look at any developed country where no such law exists.

Fortunately, i don't live in the USA, so this is not a problem for me. Unfortunately, i'm not a US citizen, so i have no ability to try and change this. It's up to people like the OP, to demand change.

Oh, and there are some basic human rights. These include a right to life, water, food, healthcare, education, etc. They do NOT include the right to have the power to kill other people, NO ONE has that right.

Some people on the forums, regarding the gun issue, have admitted that non-lethal solutions to self defense are a much better alternative. Including someone who insisted on the ease of use of handguns, but admitted that non-lethal bullets should be developed as the only option for civilians.

 

[superbatranger]

Just because someone owns more than 1 gun does not mean they're going to pull a Virginia Tech or anything along those lines. Yes, guns are dangerous, but only if you don't respect them.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

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..

hahah no one's going to invade you..............this isn't 1939. The whole thing about "outlawing guns means only outlaws have guns" is such a crap argument, maybe if you decided to regulate guns more or dare i say it do away with that outdated law you wouldn't hear on the news so often of a lunatic gunman whose mind has finally snapped ending in the deaths of ten people.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

No, it's fine. The second amendment exists for a reason, and that's part of being in a free, democratic country. At any point, should the need arise, we have the right to protect ourselves, from enemies foreign or domestic. As we exercise that particular right, there will be those who abuse it, and purposefully use their right to own and bear weapons for unlawful reasons, not to protect, but to harm. And for these people, the punishment is applied.

As to the ludicrous point about the army being able to take the citizenship--the US military has about 3-4 million people currently either serving or in some reserve or other. The population of the US is a little over 300 million, and about 60 million of those own roughly a collective 200 million firearms. For the simple reason that no government would ever authorize a tactical missile strike into one of it's own population centers and the simple concept that tanks don't fare well on asphalt or concrete, a war of the military versus the populous would be quite short.

But that's not the issue. The issue is, should it ever need to happen where you need to protect yourself and your loved ones from a hostile threat, you have the right to do so. And for that, we have the second amendment.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

As someone who lives in a country where it?s almost imposable for a citizen to acquire a gun legally. Just don?t do it because it won?t just stop at guns, it will move onto other forms of weaponry and then eventually ?weaponry?. I?m not much one for slippery slopes but at least with this one there exists a clear demonstration of it happening today. It?s just one of them things that?s chipped away at and every step of the way it?s people like you screaming for it because it?s in our best interests and for our own good.

Also from what I understand a lot gun killings are accidents, maybe instead of jumping to take them away a bit of wide spread gun safety education is in order.

 

[dubious_wolf]

Why don't you people ***** about how easy it is to own a God Damn motor vehicle? On average there are like 40,000 people killed in auto mobile accidents. People rant and rave against putting lethal weapons in the hands of citizens, yet are totally fine with putting 16 year olds behind the wheel of highly lethal cars...

 

[joebthegreat]

I think people should have the right to weapons in general.

Back when it was all armor and swords, damn straight I'd want a sword or some form of weapon to defend myself. I don't care what kind of "protection" any leader offers me, I'm going to prefer the ability to defend myself BY myself.

Back when it was all muskets, damn straight I'd want a musket! I'd want a knife too while I'm at it!

Today, give me a knife, give me a gun, give me anything I can use to protect myself no matter where I am. Let me own swords, because they're fascinating and have history to them. Let me own crossbows and longbows and compound bows. Let me own armor, from the ancient stuff to modern day Kevlar Vests and Helmets. And yes, let me own the broad range of weapons from pistols to rifles to shotguns.

And I don't say this because I feel I might need it against some government dictatorship, though it would be useful in such a situation. I don't say this because I feel I need to have a fortress to protect myself from robbers, because an alarm system would be more practical. I say this because I should have the RIGHT to take my own life into my own hands, and defend it at any time no matter where I may be. A cop isn't always there, and I shouldn't rely on them anyway.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

The legitimacy of the government and the legal system stems from the people they claim protect and which exist in the interests of said people.

Unfortunately, the people harm other people. But this second amendment comes from the idea that the government cannot be entirely trusted and that protection of self, family, property etc, is not entirely the matter of the state and its executive bodies. The fact that people, and criminals do harm others while law enforcement is in existence proves the above claim. It comes from an older time, but I don't agree the populace should have an extremely lowered capacity for defensive violence and that only those with firearms should be the state and its organs of power.

If the above dissenters lived through a time of wide-spread civil strife, civil-war, invasion or brigandage, you would come to wish that you had armaments when the need truly arose.

Or you could wait for the cavalry to arrive... but police and law courts punish crimes after the fact and after the breaking of the law.

Gun ownership works in other, less chaotic and crime-ridden countries. Like Switzerland.

 

[Bat Vader]

I could understand owning a pistol for self defense and/or a rifle for hunting but I don't believe we need to own automatic weapons.

 

[ReverendJ]

1. Raised with guns, never had a safe or lock around, never got shot/shot anybody.
2. I know many gun owners, and none of them have ever perpetrated a crime.
3. You can't prevent crazy.
4. Cops aren't always around.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The question is, do you assume your fellow citizen is a responsible individual, or a borderline sociopath? Because the sociopaths always seem to get their hands on guns, so you're only really discussing taking them from the law-abiding, sane folk (i.e. NOT Mr. Loughner).

 

[magicmonkeybars]

If you have criminal intentions you'll be able to buy a gun no matter the law, disarming honest citizens isn't the answer to stopping gun crime.