Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Robby Foxfur]

Oh i really like it when people say that the second amendment is out of date because that really means that the whole constitution could be considered out of date. I realize the idea of everyone having a gun is unsettling to some people. However that amendment is there for the defense of people against the government. The government is also not allowed to use the US army on US soil.

The second amendment needs to be there in my opinion because of the right of self defense. If we didn't have guns people would be whining about knives, if knives where outlawed then sharp sticks would be in everyone's hands. Anything can be a weapon I personally use my gun to shoot paper.

Freedom isn't really free if you take away things one by one.

 

[Hatchet90]

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.

Yes, and I'd rather allow criminals to continue carrying illegal fire arms and have citizens not being able to defend themselves.

I don't even really know what your getting at with your response, but it made me chuckle nonetheless.

 

[GreyKnight3445]

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?

The constitution was made to be altered as time went on.

Dude, no it wasnt

Let me reword what I said, I think I may have misspoke. What I am trying to say is that we can alter the constitution by adding amendments, though it is a long process, which ties into my point as a whole. What i said about guns and gun control is just my idea about it. in order to enact this it would take a lot of time in order to make the idea possible without fringing on the constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[Mcface]

you act like criminals go into wal mart and buy tech 9s.

criminals buy their guns on the streets. guns that are not legal, and probably never were legal.
banning selling of firearms would not reduce crime at all, at least not in the next 20 + years

 

[Zeetchmen]

Uh not this again.

"Herp derp! Dat fellow dun shot a whole bunch of people so we should take guns away from everyone cause dat one person is retarted!"

Spare me.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Sort of the unspoken thing about the second amendment is that the people have the right to take up arms against the government should we ever decide that we didn't like the way things are run. The right to bear arms does have a lot to do with what you said about Indian attacks and such, but it goes beyond that. The whole "militia" thing still applies. ever heard of neighborhood watch? Sure, you don't exactly see them toting guns around, but the idea is exactly the same, only instead of them carrying the guns, they report to the cops, who can also play the role of the militia should shit ever hit the fan.

The whole point of it is that we fought off the British, who were our government at the time, by the way, and won our independence. We own guns because of that. We also own guns because we're allowed to go hunting. Defending our homes too. As for the AKs and all that, you do realize that the AK-47 shoots more or less the same round as an M1A and pretty much anything that shoots a 308. They are also mostly semi-auto, and most AKs that you can get in the US, along with other weapons that are typically full-auto, are chambered in a smaller round than the originals. Most AKs I've seen were chambered in .22LR or .223/5.56. Things aren't as bad with gun violence as you think. Look up the stats for other forms of violence, you'd be surprised.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

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

I have not expressed an opinion at all. I have not come out saying that everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, that everyone should have any weapon larger than a cheese knife taken away from them, or anything in between. The second Amendment, once the wording is understood, simply is. Whether or not it should be changed is in the realm of public and personal opinion, but the actual meaning of the rule as it stands is not. It would not be the first time that a portion of the constitution or it's amendments have been changed to correct a mistake of the past. Alcohol prohibition lasted only 13 years before being shot back down, women were originally prohibited from political expression, and African-Americans were only counted as 3/5ths of a person as well as not being allowed to vote.

 

[x434343]

The amendment is there for a reason: Should, at any point, Democracy fail to change and adapt to meet the needs of the people, then the people will have the method to overthrow the government.

Therefore, by banning firearm ownership, you take away another right and are stepping away from Democracy.

So, why did that crazy have a gun?

There are flaws. I can attest to knowing some. I live in California, where its just fucking nuts. On the border, Nevada, where you can walk into Wal-Mart and walk out with a gun. Also fucking nuts.

How about a one week screening for felony status and mental status. If no mental status exists, require a psychological analysis. If fail, then no firearm allowed.
ALSO, revise concealed carry laws. In California, it takes a shorter amount of time to get a pilots liscense than a concealed carry liscense. Basically, 89 hours to get a piloting liscense. In California, the CLAIM is 36 hours. However, my father has a friend who is a CCW-certified pilot. He can attest that it took more than double the time to get a CCW permit than a piloting liscense. So, I'd be far more willing to allow a 36 hour course for CCW if it was actually being delivered as such.

 

[CJ1145]

I have the right to defend myself. Criminals tend not to give a shit about laws, and thus use guns. Therefore, to properly defend myself I should be allowed access to a gun of some sort. I'm not asking for an assault rifle, but a weapon to defend oneself is a pretty basic necessity in my mind.

The shootings in Tuscon were horrible, and I have a very in-depth analysis of it I share amongst my friends, but really the 2nd amendment SHOULD be a boon. If a citizen has the right to carry a gun, he might be able to intervene in a situation where the police could not make it in time. If a few people in the crowd at Tuscon had had guns they might have mowed the guy down before he could have finished his killing spree. But that's all merely speculation.

 

[Criquefreak]

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.

As you are not the original author of the document, you cannot claim definitive knowledge of its intent.

While you do offer a reasonable interpretation, yours is by no means the only interpretation nor is it the best one by sheer virtue of your argument alone. If anything, your complete refusal to even consider any other interpretation lends less credit to yours.

Finally, the meaning of the amendment is most certainly in question by the fact that these sorts of discussions keep occuring and like any other law they need to be weighed of their merit and applicability to situations that arise in modern legal proceedings. As language and society change, laws must adapt to the world that is not the one that was.

 

[Chris Sandford]

It says the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear ammo ^.^ .

But seriously, i think we need to leave the second amendment as it is, more people are still killed by cars, tobacco, alcohol and trans fat then guns.

And besides most of the gun-related deaths are suicides.

Say you do revise the second amendment, what then? Guns then become like marijuana and all the other drugs, and more violence will come out.

 

[Vryyk]

-snip-

All right, I'm sick of defending this. America has guns. If you don't like this, Europe may be what you're after. Between my roommate and I, we own four guns, including one of the aforementioned AK-47's. No one will be taking these.

In fact, want a good reason I need them? Alright, some of the places I live, many people get shot for being white. Or wearing the wrong color shirt. Know what they get shot with? Unregistered, imported, automatic firearms. In seven months, I will be moving to the number one place in the United States for kidnappings.

Seriously though, if you like socialized health care, restricted gun ownership, and other laws like that, go to Europe. It's a nice place, there are great people there. Cool sights to see, neat languages to learn, great food to try. But I'll stay here with my guns and cheeseburgers.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I agree, it's outdated, but I really hope a revision doesn't include chucking the amendment completely.

 

[Snotnarok]

Why are guns legal: To defend yourself

Why guns should not be made illegal: Then criminals will be the only ones who have guns, because regardless of the law they WILL get one and the only people who would suffer from this are the civilians whom the law robs them of a means to defend themself.

Do people need automatic weapons? No. Do people need a car that does over 150MPH? No and I'm pretty sure that's just as deadly as a gun if not more.

Here's a thought, stop blaming the weapon and start blaming those behind it. It's the same song as it is with video games. The game/gun isn't responsible, it's the person who plays/uses it.

 

[Braonan]

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?

It's for militias, because America did not have a standing army at the time.

 

[Vryyk]

-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?

This is a very interesting point. May I add this to my repertoire, my tea-drinking friend?

 

[GreyKnight3445]

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?

what part of "that amendment was written in a time where the pinnacle of weapon`s technology was a cannon that shot a lead ball the size of a man`s head and the only gun in existence was a musket that was required to you be in spitting distance of the other guy to get a hit" do you not understand.
The constitution was made to be altered as time went on. Besides its not like i`m talking about taking away people`s guns bur instead make it so that there are fewer killings like the Tucson shootings. Such as having current and potential gun owners take a physiological test to make sure they are of sound mind. But if this is subject is taken up by a current or future president, it will require a lot of time and consideration in order to both accomplish its goals and keep to the spirit of the constitution.

That's the most bullshit argument of all time. The government has continually shown that lethality is no bar to what it will ban. For example they banned bayonets despite the complete lack of criminal bayonetting.

And, how exactly would one fail a physiological test? Be dead?
Unless you mean psychological test, in which that is exactly what you have to do already.

EDIT: Also early rifle (which existed at that time) were accurate to about 200 yards. Just sayin'

Thanks for the clarification.
Anyway back on subject.
I looked over my post and saw that it was flawed, so let me rewrite myself. What i`m trying to say is that when the Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment) was created guns were single shot and took 10 minutes to reload, which is very unimpressive compared to today, where we have handguns, hunting rifles, automatic rifles, machine guns, miniguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, and even guns made to take out tanks that aren't RPGs. The average, gun buying American Joe doesn't need a fully automatic assault weapon, especially if he had an inclination to end human life that is not threatening him in any way, shape, or form. I`m not saying we take away all guns, but we are in an age where anybody can just walk into a store and buy a handgun and enough ammunition to take out several dozen people without any form of making sure the purchaser inst completely bat shite crazy. Now this doesn't apply to all areas of the US, but there are still some that do allow this to happen.
but this is just my opinion, the opinion of a young man who has very little life or political experience. If this were to be taken with serious thought by the politicians at be, it would require a few months worth of time making sure the law/amendment can carry out its mission without compromising the 2nd amendment.
P.S. I meant to say psychological, my bad on that part.

 

[health-bar]

*sigh*

every time some nutjob decides to shoot someone in a very public place, people cry out against guns like getting rid of them will solve something.

Its just like every time when a new, popular, and violent video game is released then the media is abuzz with all the stupid controversy over how "video games are bad".