Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[RuralGamer]

The second amendment seems far too vague;
Who in "the people" is entitled to bear arms?
I noticed the first part specifically says "A well regulated Militia"; how many gun-owners are actually in a militia? Do they have to be in a militia to be allowed arms?

What constitutes arms?
Guns are arms, but arms are not necessarily guns; arms are purpose-built weapons, and can be more than just firearms. Does that mean citizens should be allowed to own battleaxes, katanas, missile launchers or grenades; technically they are all "arms".
Providing that US citizens have access to some form of arms, the government should be within its rights to ban firearms. Would criminals seriously consider trying to use an 8ft pike to rob a bank?

The constitution was created for a different America where life was considerably more uncertain and there was still a genuine threat on their doorsteps. Besides, don't Americans have a rather large, well-equipped and trained army, not to mention an airforce and navy also ready to defend the country?

 

[Caliostro]

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.

Here's the part you're forgetting: It's not the gun fanatic down in Texas with an AK-47 and a bunch of other shit in his locker, all registered, under a legal permit, that leads to "criminals and deaths". Those guns sit comfortably in their shelves, or will harmlessly waste away at targets, beer cans, or whatever else they're using for a target that day.

The guns you gotta worry about are the ones without serial numbers, owned by people that have no permit, generally carried by people whose smallest concern is carrying an illegal weapon. Those are already illegal...

You wanna stop crime? Stop hate. Stop inequality. Stop the creation of ghettos and discrimination. Making guns illegal won't stop crime. Crime is already illegal.

 

[WakeTheDead1]

there are tough laws against guns in britain, but to most of us it still seems a bit barbaric you still have the death penalty, i guess its just what you are used to

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

You said that knives are less dangerous, when the opposite is true. Knives can be very dangerous and even with a gun they still pose a significant threat.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.257862-Things-You-Might-Incorrectly-Believe-About-Guns

Take a look here if you want a source.

I starting making a reply but then decided:

I'm not going to bother continuing to argue this with you, cause you're not about to agree with me no matter what, being of the pro-gun mindset you're not about to change that opinion. I've already been in debates such as these before, i've long since been able to express my argument in these matters at other times, and honestly have neither the patience nor the will to do so again here, being the fruitless endevour that it is. You already know of the proof against guns being a good idea, but ignore it in favour of arguments supporting gun ownership.
So i'm happy to leave it as we can agree to disagree.

Who knows, maybe you're right and it isn't the guns causing the problem its just your country being full of horrible people, violent criminals absolutely everywhere and a police force to incompetent to do the one job it exists to do. A society would continue with such violence and murder rates just the same with or without guns so easily at their disposal.

I generally prefer to think its not that at all, but am not naive enough to think that, with American society as it currently is, a gun ban would actually work there.

 

[HotFezz8]

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.

whats not clear about that?

 

[Griff]

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.

I love the idea that you could tear people apart with your bear hands.

 

[Emperor Inferno]

OP: An intelligent person must concede that these are all very good arguments. However, there are a couple things you've overlooked:

One - The right to bear arms is actually just as much about the right to have the ability to defend one's self against a hostile opponent that cannot be reasonably defended against otherwise. Like, for example, someone who has an illegal weapon, or (and, yes, I am going out on a limb here, but it does happen) a large aggressive animal of some kind.

Two (and this may be the biggest point of all, depending on who you talk to) - It's all about rights. Simple rights. A lot of the time, seems like rights are more about simply having rights and freedoms than what the particular right or freedom is. There are laws in place that are meant to limit and regulate the use and practise of rights, like for example, the use of the arms that people own, and that's a good thing. Rights without regulation is anarchy. The flipside is, regulation without rights is tyranny. And that is why rights are preserved. Revise, or perhaps more strictly regulate? Absolutely. But take it away? Fuck that. There's an awful lot wrong with this country, sure, but America remains one of the best places in the world to live because we have rights and freedoms. And that's awesome.

Just awesome.

 

[LandoCristo]

I just want to say... do you trust a government that doesn't trust you with guns?

A quote my English teacher has on his wall, I thought it was fitting. And yeah, even if you were to try to get rid of guns, then people start using knifes, and then when you try to get rid of knifes, people start using clubs, etc, etc, etc. Gun registration is (IMO) the most important aspect of gun laws, simply because knowing that a gun will be traced back to you is a huge impediment to using it wrongly.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Just remember that banning guns doesn't stop a criminal/cop from shooting you <.<

Makes no difference either way, keep it or abolish it, its just fine.

 

[ShakyFiend]

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?

I doubt they could of predicted the massive surge in sale and production of light hand guns etc. And the huge rise and desire for gun ownership among the more masochistic and compensatory areas of US society, the most powerful hand held gun in their day took a minute to reload so in a sense of historical retrospective they really had no idea what they were giving ordinary citizens license to do.

Also the second amendment has been denounced by people way smarter than you, so by your own argument you are inherently wrong...

 

[WarpGhost]

The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect certain fundemental freedoms from even the will of the majority. Besides which it isn't just a case of what's written on the Constitution, there is legal precedents and origins of ideas and rights to be taken into account. Saying you're against an amendment as written ignores the majority of what actually makes a law or right; what's on the Bill of Rights is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Also the technology of weapons bears no relevance to the question of fundemental freedom; after all, there's no amendment that stops the government from pumping people full of mind-control drugs, a technology they didn't concieve of at the time (and which is still not a practicable reality 200+ years later). But you shouldn't need an amendment to stop them doing it, the framework of law and freedom is already all there; it'd only be through efforts much like the ones to dramatically change gun control law that a more explicit protection of freedom of thought would be required. The Bill of Rights is only the beginning of freedom. Change that and you change everything.

 

[macfluffers]

Something hasn't been mentioned in a while that I'd like to bring up. America isn't a violent place because of guns; it's a violent place because it is culturally violent. Removing guns won't help that. In response to high levels of crime, certain places in America have a lot of gun control. Crime didn't really go down that much. Examples: NYC, DC.

America's history is a casserole slathered in violence sauce. For better or for worse, Americans have needed guns for ages, and it wasn't until the prohibition that civilian ownership of firearms was considered dangerous. By then, it was too late, and now we should realize that gun ownership will be prevalent in the US for a long time. Maybe in 100 years or so, we can talk about disarming our populace, but for now, it's not going to happen.

 

[roger moores eyebrow]

Even if America did decide to abolish the second amendment there are so many guns around that it would be almost impossible. Who would want to give up their gun if they know that the criminals and gangs are still going to be carrying theirs whether they are legal or not. Just glad I live in Britain where I can go for a late evening jog without packing.

 

[dex-dex]

your opinion about the second amendment is valid.
The only problem with it that you would be pissing a lot of gun totters in the US.
It takes a long time for a section of the amendments to get issued in imagine how long it would take to get rid of one.
It would also cut down on the guns smuggled into my country!

 

[Kroxile]

I'm not in favor of banning guns altogether, but there definitely needs to be stricter laws on them.

 

[LazyAza]

If America didn't have that insanely outdated law the country would have far less crime and far less death by shootings. Its god damn madness.

 

[Latinidiot]

I don't like guns. They should be illegal, but It's not possible in America. It's too engrained into their subconscious that having a gun is essential to live in freedom.