Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Wereduck]

I actually covered that just before your own post. The amendment is meant to limit militia from removing your weapons, not to allow militias to have weapons. That interpretation, despite its growing acceptance, makes no logical or grammatical sense as a derivative of the second amendment.

Yes, I read it and it's an interesting context that I'll need some time to assimilate into my own thinking on the issue. You've obviously put a lot of thought into your position but since the militia is a civilian organization doesn't the statement also make sense if the citizens who must be permitted to bear arms are the militia?

 

[SilverUchiha]

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.

OH! That's what that meant! See, I was under the impression that it was the right to "BARE" arms, meaning I could wear a T-shirt. Silly me.

OT: Seriously, why are you upset about the 2nd amendment OP? If responsible people want to own a gun, I say let them. I do think the amendment should be revised to be more specific so people don't keep knives at each others throats about the issue (see what I did there?). Maybe revise it every other decade if techonology has advanced enough. This way, when lasers come around, we can add those to the "safe to own" list.

But back to what I was originally saying, if I can't live in a country that denies me the right to wear a T-shirt, then it is not a country I wish to be a part of. I HAVE RIGHTS!

 

[Imat]

Interesting fact: The Violent Crime (of which murder is a part) rate in 2006 was lowest in Maine. The gun-control laws are incredibly lax in Maine. Correlation.

Also consider that most people are less likely to commit said Violent Crimes when confronted with an armed opponent. With a concealed weapon clause, the potential criminals may not know whether or not their victim has a concealed firearm, making the crime even less likely overall. Not really proof of causation, but it is something to consider.

And criminals won't care about the same gun laws. They'll get the weapons anyways. If they're planning to commit murder, a potential fine for having an automatic weapon won't deter them.

 

[son_of_x51]

It seems all of the major talking points of both sides have already been made, so I won't bother going into a ten page explanation of my views (which I easily could do). I'll just give my quick answer.

To give an idea of where I'm coming from, I have strong Libertarian leanings. It is my opinion that people should be allowed to do as they please so long as they are not directly infringing upon the rights of another. It follows naturally from this that there should be few, if any, laws regulating firearms. If I want to own several fully automatic rifles, how does that harm you? So what if I don't "need" them (by your arbitrary standards)? It is my business and my business alone.

That said, things like murder should still obviously be illegal. But it is the act of murder that should be outlawed, not the owning of the gun used to commit it. Now I know people will want to get into the debate of accessibility of firearms to people with ill intent, but I don't buy that argument for a second (see previous paragraph).

 

[willsham45]

Look I said it before and I will say it again.

More Guns = Less Gun Crimes

look at countries with gun bans they have huge gun problems. This sort of situation could apply to many places but lets say a convenience store. If you knew they have a gun behind the counter I would not rob it, If There was a possibility they had a gun I would not rob it. If I knew 90% that they did not have a gun holding the store a gun point sounds like an easy picking.

If you are in the middle of town and a cyco gets out a gun and starts shooting people what do you do wait for the police to do it or get your gun out and put him down...or stop him from shooting at least...

 

[Comrade_Beric]

I actually covered that just before your own post. The amendment is meant to limit militia from removing your weapons, not to allow militias to have weapons. That interpretation, despite its growing acceptance, makes no logical or grammatical sense as a derivative of the second amendment.

Yes, I read it and it's an interesting context that I'll need some time to assimilate into my own thinking on the issue. You've obviously put a lot of thought into your position but since the militia is a civilian organization doesn't the statement also make sense if the citizens who must be permitted to bear arms are the militia?

No, because it doesn't say "the right of militias to have and bear arms shall not be infringed," it specifies that it is referring to "the people" in general. The early portion of the statement, where it mentions regulating militias, is only to say that law enforcement has to be restricted. I may or may not agree with the idea of people owning firearms, but the amendment itself is crystal clear on this once you understand what the words mean.

 

[meowchef]

I love guns. The number of people who own guns legally and don't do anything illegal with them is far far far larger than the criminals.

 

[Criquefreak]

"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."

Judging from the terminology, this suggests that the 'right to bear arms' is derived solely from a military readiness stand point. It's preparation for a what if scenario, allowing people to be ready to face a state of warfare with minimal need to seek out a weapon should the scenario present itself.

Nothing in this suggests a matter of personal safety or permission of use outside preparation for war. It doesn't specify classification of permitted weapons, nor does it suggest necessity of concealing them. Were one to adhere to this, citizens are legally allowed to carry any weapon at all times but not allowed use of it except in defense of the country's security.

If anything, this amendment should warrant mandatory firearms training of all citizens as the allowance of weapon ownership can endanger a person but does not magically teach them proper military application of the device.

Alteration or clarification of this amendment would be a greatly appreciated matter, especially due to the changes to common terminology over time.

As far as gun use in crime, ownership alone does not always precede criminal action. Use of such in crimes should be counted as treasonous action due to disobedience of long-established laws.

 

[Jedoro]

Outdated? Back then, everyone and their mum carried a military-grade firearm, and they seemed to get along with each other fine. It's my gorram right to own a weapon, and you bet your ass I'll buy one when I get the money. Same thing I post in all these threads: 40 Reasons For Gun Control [http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/200306172114.html]

Doesn't matter what the war is, if you want to do anything past destroy your target (i.e. conquer and rule) you must have infantry superiority. Infantry is the Queen of Battle because, like in chess, it's the most capable and mobile asset of the guys in charge. If even half of Americans pick up a weapon when invaded (which I'm sure we will, because we don't really enjoy being fucked with) that's a force of 150 million insurgents, rebels, and guerilla soldiers. Our military's having trouble with the Taliban, which it most likely outnumbers, so I'll wish luck on any invading soldier's buddies as I line up a shot on him through my scope.

And food for thought:

"The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not simply the right to arm the "militia". (19) In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously concluded the same. (20)"

19. Reynolds H, Kates D; "The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment"; William & Mary Law Review; Vol 36 #5,8/955
20. Senate Subcommittee of the Commission of the Judiciary on The Constitution, 97th Congress, 1992

http://www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_facts.html

 

[Hatchet90]

If you don't like it, then leave.

 

[duchaked]

hmm.......no, it's fine

 

[Blaster395]

What ya mean US citizens won't be able to overthrow their government. The government may have a big military but...
1. If all the citizens are fighting the military, where will the military get its weapons from?
2. The military is made up of citizens, therefore, the military may help overthrow the government.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

"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."

Judging from the terminology, this suggests that the 'right to bear arms' is derived solely from a military readiness stand point. It's preparation for a what if scenario, allowing people to be ready to face a state of warfare with minimal need to seek out a weapon should the scenario present itself.

In rebuttal, I offer you my post here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.257803.9695817] from just up the page from your own post. I addressed the Militia issue explicitly.

 

[Magicman10893]

Considering the reason to own a gun (any weapon) is mainly to protect yourself against someone with a gun, something is wrong here. And like the OP said, any armed revolution would be futile because all we can use are shitty in comparison to military grade hardware. Not to mention the military's tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. I smell redundancy in the air. But then again, if criminals try hard enough they will get guns anyway. Hell, they DO already get guns illegally (AK-47s and Uzis everywhere in the streets). So I guess it isn't entirely redundant, but I think a better approach would be to better guard against the import and sale of illegal weapons to keep gangsters from getting a hold of them instead just letting the citizens carry guns.

 

[Booze Zombie]

The entire point of the Second Amendment was to turn the endless flood of idiotic young-'uns into cannon fodder whilst the trained soldiers got into place, it's not a complicated thing.
But people held onto it as an excuse to carry a gun around like it's still 1877.

 

[Wereduck]

I actually covered that just before your own post. The amendment is meant to limit militia from removing your weapons, not to allow militias to have weapons. That interpretation, despite its growing acceptance, makes no logical or grammatical sense as a derivative of the second amendment.

Yes, I read it and it's an interesting context that I'll need some time to assimilate into my own thinking on the issue. You've obviously put a lot of thought into your position but since the militia is a civilian organization doesn't the statement also make sense if the citizens who must be permitted to bear arms are the militia?

No, because it doesn't say "the right of militias to have and bear arms shall not be infringed," it specifies that it is referring to "the people" in general. The early portion of the statement, where it mentions regulating militias, is only to say that law enforcement has to be restricted. I may or may not agree with the idea of people owning firearms, but the amendment itself is crystal clear on this once you understand what the words mean.

Wow - thanks for not calling me ignorant just because I don't instantly abandon my opinion for yours.
Anti-fascist indeed.

 

[dfcrackhead]

Snippity-doo-dah

I have no problems with this

But some people just shouldn't own guns.

 

[beniki]

-snip-

Someone's been watching Bowling for Columbine

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?

 

[Comrade_Beric]

If you don't like it, then leave.

Now if only the citizens in the British Colonies had taken that advice instead of shooting at the lawful representatives of their own government... "Obey or leave" is the worst advice ever given by anyone to anyone. There would be no such thing as justice anywhere if everyone followed such advice.