U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.

Now looking at that (I'm not saying that is exactly how things pan out, just by news circulation in the media) the top two reasons could easily be avoided by taking away the right to own firearms, simply by making it more difficult to obtain firearms.

I'm not saying it won't ever happen again, but it's certainly food for thought.


Is it time Americans reliquinshed their right to own firearms?

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!

It must be upheld why?

If someone threatens to kill you, you have the right to protect yourself.

If you heard someone breaking into your house, would you like to have a gun to defend yourself?

I believe if you fully consider the situation you would say yes.

The arguments that overall crime rates would drop aren't well supported by data, and there are many other easier ways of reducing the crime rate. But that argument misses the point in the first place--the right to defend yourself is a personal right.

While I don't really think the right to bear arms is an unalienable human right, I don't think it is the source of the problem here.
A lot of countries widely allow their citizens to bear arms (Canada, Switzerland), without facing the violence issue that the US does.

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The arguments that overall crime rates would drop aren't well supported by data, and there are many other easier ways of reducing the crime rate. But that argument misses the point in the first place--the right to defend yourself is a personal right.

---

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

Now, I don't think US citizens should give up their right to do it. While I find the amendment to be stupid and outdated, it is apparently a cultural and historical "BIG DEAL" for many people. So well, as long as they find valuable ways to fight violence (sadly, they apparently don't),that's fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

---

Certainly, that is the approach many people take.

Quote:

---

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

---

Well, this is the whole question. Obviously you are allowed to defend yourself, and just as obviously there are things you can't rightly do in self defense. So how far do we take it? Guns are an equalizer like no other weapon. No other method of self defense can reliably give a weak person a chance and defending them self from a strong person, or give one person a chance against multiple people.

I would hazard a guess that if you found yourself under attack and had a moment for reflection, you would not care a fig about the deaths by violence caused by guns being legal, but would wish desperately that you had one yourself.

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

Here. I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Here. I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

---

That article was written in 2000.....

It's also so full of machismo it's untrue. "Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting. He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

That article was written in 2000.....

---

Which is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

It's also so full of machismo it's untrue.

---

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

"Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting.

---

"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.

Quote:

---

He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

---

The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

---

I would agree. It's ironic that the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment are the most outspoken supporters of the war on drugs and harsh prison sentences.

Quote:

---

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

---

The amendments are usually interpreted in part based on the known beliefs of the authors, and they strongly believed in self defense. The wording also makes it clear that it is an individual right, it uses the militia bit as an example.

Yes, but only if we get to have swordfights instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

---

Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Which is completely irrelevant.



:dizzy2:



"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.



The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.

---

Fair enough, more children died in bike accidents than gun accidents. I would be interested to see if gang warfare and murder (non gang related) were listed under gun "accident".

Sorry I have no idea what the CATO institute is, so please forgive my ignorance.

I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

Gosh, I don't know WHY the US doesn't follow the UK's example and ban guns. I mean, it was so terrible effective at reducing gun crime in the UK. Just like the knife ban! And no doubt the upcoming 'blunt object ban' will be just as successful.

I'm really sure that attempting to enforce the same legislature on a nation with 300,000,000 people, which is about 200 times the size of the UK, with about a billion more miles of border, and a strong firearms related tradition, with a massive base of firearms supporters, will be really effective!

Golly gee wilikers.

Seriously though. I hate the thought of 'relinquishing' any rights. Maybe in the UK you've got a different perspective, but over here I'd like to think that we can at least pretend the government doesn't run everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

---

I'd agree completely here. However...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

---

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

---

This last bit gets me quite a bit. If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government. I'm not saying that I'm ready to go out and start another grand Revolution, however I am thoroughly disgusted and quite jaded with quite a bit of legislation that's been passed in the last 10-8 years that impinges direction on our freedom (Patriot Act, DMCA). This is of course notwithstanding what the executive office deciding how it would operate, pissing all over the constitution in the process. The trend has been a constant erosion of our freedom as citizens, and more and more power taken in by the government who clearly has their constituent's best interests at heart. By constituents, I mean big business. The current economic crisis is a direct result of this corruption and greed. So much for tangents huh? At any rate, if the rubber ever does hit the road and the situation keeps getting worse and worse, then I would fight for what I believe is right with deadly force. Again, fighting someone who has a gun with a kitchen knife isn't exactly smart or productive.

The reasons behind the second amendment - as i see it - are twofold.
1./ a well regulated militia
2./ security of the state

The two may intertwine, but not necessarily. Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government? If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that.

"Security of the state" - while this may refer to the security of individuals, it is not a necessary implication. The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.

---

Data is not the plural of anecdote

Quote:

---

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

---

It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:

Quote:

---

the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

---

CR

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

---

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs. The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government?Yes because having the people speak out against corruption as brought so much progress.

If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. In other words, the crazy people who are in the vast minority, yeah big threat there.

The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that. Why do you think the government should be prepared at all times to crush its own people?

The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. I never understood why people think we should let other people take control of our lives for us. If you think people are truely idiots at living their own lives, why would you let other idiots elected by idiots rule your life for you?

Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. Wrong, criminals buy guns from the black market in order so that the guns can not traced back to them if it is recovered after a crime, the only people who buy from legit gun stores are the average citizen, not criminals.

The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution. It is still necessary if you wish for your governement to be respectful towards its own people. Also, great job slapping an incorrect generalization on Americans while alluding to the Bible when mentioning the Constitution.

---

at three characters need to be here for the post to go through. i think this is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

---

:inquisitive:

EDIT: OK, my comment was needlessly insulting. Regardless, I think your logic is flawed.

Quote:

---

Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

---

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

---

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously. Everyone knows that certain groups of people are dangerous behind the steering wheel and we can't let our children walking to school accidentally be hit. I want a complete switch to bicycles, not only will public safety increase and deaths decrease, but the transportation industry will create thousands of new jobs when we need 250 people on bikes to carry what one 18 wheeler could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

---

"No taxation without representation" was one of the reasons we rebelled against the British. The government doesn't have the right to tax you, it something the citizens agree to. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what EMFM meant or what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

---

Privacy is an individual freedom that endangers people's lives. If we had cameras on every corner and radio tags in our bodies there would be less murder because the police could keep tabs on people with ease. But in this case I think you'd prefer individual freedom over people's lives. Instead of having a police state, we give people the ability to protect themselves.

The only gun crimes that reach any notoriety are those that involve hostages or mass killings. Just wanted to say that.

I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty. While it may seem anachronistic with no pesky Natives running around, the 2nd Amendment hasn't lead to the extinction of the American population yet. Gun crimes occur just like knife crimes in the UK. The Media does enjoy a good "hostage" situation or would mourn a tragic gun crime, but that isn't a norm now is it? It's part cultural, it's socio-economic, there are alot of factors that lead to gun crime.

Quote:

---

But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.

---

It's the highest law of the land. I'd like to stick to that.

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:

---

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:

---

Fine, here you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

---

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.

---

That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:

---

Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

---

Don't be such a drama queen.

Every American should be allowed to own a firearm, the Fed should protect that. However thats states can provide stipulations.

people forget that gun laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns, not criminals. the criminals who want them will get them, leaving us good citizens with no defense. the police cant be everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Don't be such a drama queen.

---

You, sir, are the champion of devastatingly effective, yet simple taunts. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Every American should be allowed to own a firearm, the Fed should protect that. However thats states can provide stipulations.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

---

I don't understand your comment. I didn't make a generalization. I simply said leaving it up to the hands of state government is not better then having the Federal government deal with it. I did not call you a freedom hater or violence monger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

---

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person. But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there. So what shall we do now? :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty.

---

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

You, sir, are the champion of devastatingly effective, yet simple taunts. :laugh4:


Why?

---

Thank you.

The constitution clearly states we can bear arms. It doesn't say what an arm is. Back in the 1700s arms were pretty straight forward but now not so much. I mean a nuclear warhead is an arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't understand your comment. I didn't make a generalization. I simply said leaving it up to the hands of state government is not better then having the Federal government deal with it. I did not call you a freedom hater or violence monger.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

---

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

---

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Thank you.

The constitution clearly states we can bear arms. It doesn't say what an arm is. Back in the 1700s arms were pretty straight forward but now not so much. I mean a nuclear warhead is an arm.

---

Yes, I am aware of what the constitution states, and that is why I proposed to alter it, to give states complete control over the matter. The constitution is a "living document", as I'm sure you know, and as such, it can be changed if we should so desire. Of course, the 2nd amendment almost assuredly will not be removed/altered, and certainly not in the manner I stated, but I merely stated what I felt was the most practical solution based on my observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person.

---

Yes, it is. However, it fits nicely that the real greater good is also the advancement and liberty of the individual.

The Second Amendment is the greater good. That is precisely what it is designed for. The greater good - the liberty of the people - the ability to resist the totalitarian state.

Quote:

---

But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there.

---

I don't know where you want to go from there, as you just put words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around.

---

Defend yourself against what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

---

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

---

Interesting thing about that, the Brits tried to abolish the monarchy once, and guess what? They asked multiple monarchs back into the country when they realized they had no idea what they were doing. Wanna abolish the government? Be ready for two things- First anarchy, then military rule as a power hawk tries to quell said anarchy from destroying the country. Government exists for a very good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

---

You can not defend yourself against attack as well as if you had a gun. So, you are compromising one of your freedoms.

Quote:

---

That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.

---

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Yes, I am aware of what the constitution states, and that is why I proposed to alter it, to give states complete control over the matter. The constitution is a "living document", as I'm sure you know, and as such, it can be changed if we should so desire. Of course, the 2nd amendment almost assuredly will not be removed/altered, and certainly not in the manner I stated, but I merely stated what I felt was the most practical solution based on my observations.

---

Why must it be rewritten? The Fed provides basic ownership while the states wrestle with the nuances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

---

How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.

---

I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways. :wink:

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike for the South

Why must it be rewritten? The Fed provides basic ownership while the states wrestle with the nuances.

---

Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

---

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.

We are lucky to have the right to bear arms. People should respect that right by not running around shooting one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

---

If we abolish it then you open the door for no ownership which is explicitly stated. We are trying to decide how much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways. :wink:

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.


Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

---

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

---

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.

---

And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.

Quote:

---

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

---

First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive.

---

The Fed and gov are not supposed to check each other per se. The Constitution and the Tenth Amendment outline exactly what the Federal government and State governments have control over. In terms of who has influence over the Federal government, it was supposed to be in Congress a mix between the people (House) and the State Governments (Senate). So originally the States had a back up check against the Federal government in case it decided to just go against the Constitution, but now you see that the State governments have no say in the Federal government and the Fed is bigger then ever. It is hard for a state to assume the Fed responsibilities of providing an army to protect the nation and such but it is easy for the Fed to take over state responsibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.

But no change in government can be implemented without some sort of force behind it. Without guns prevalent among the people the only ones with weapons is the government. So you tell me how can we get rid of the ones in charge with guns and tanks and planes without anything better then a baseball bat and a knife?


First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

If we leave the decision up to the states, yes some will have guns and some will have banned it. But those can ban or put heavy restrictions will experience the same scenario I just stated to your first paragraph. How can the people remove their corrupt state government if they have knives and the state government has the national guard?

---

This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.

---

My basic point is this- let's say that there are no/very few restrictions on weapons. Go open an insurrection against the state/United States government, guns blazing. See how far you get.

Rebellion does not necessarily entail just armed conflict between combatants. Rebellions require a bit more cleverness and subtlety than that. And frankly, since rebellion are acts of defiance against the law in the first place, I seriously doubt that any gun laws would frankly work anyways.

And as for the second example- who do you think make up the National Guard? Robots? Of course not, its citizens, members of SOCIETY. Hence the term Civil War.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea if Americans should have the right to bear arms, since I have yet to actually meet a single person who is willing to rise up against the regime. As history shows, most people that do actually rise up against the regime either end up in one of two places: In a jail, or dead.

I understand the need to defend oneself is priority, however as most demographics will show you (do I really need to show?), the ability to be quick thinking enough to defend one's self in a home invasion type situation and be near to a gun are typically almost nil.

The sad fact of the matter is, is that there is something very wrong with our society, and I don't think guns are necessarily helping the situation.

(waits for the flame)

Why stop with the second amendment? Let's just shred the whole Bill of Rights and let it all up to the states. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

I understand the need to defend oneself is priority, however as most demographics will show you (do I really need to show?), the ability to be quick thinking enough to defend one's self in a home invasion type situation and be near to a gun are typically almost nil.

---

Yeah, you do- because that's nonsense. If you're going to just throw something like that out there, you need to back it up. I know people could easily provide you with hundreds of examples that counter your generalization.

i voted as a non US citizen for people in the US to keep their firearms.

however i have no objection to that right being limited to people of good character.

All Americans have the right to own a firearm debate.

Personally I'm against arms, but I do understand the "then only criminals have them" argument, which is a valid one.

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

The average joe is undisciplined, unfit, risk-averse and poorly trained. Verses highly motivated, extremely fit and well equipped forces they'd be slaughtered, those that didn't just run.

I would propose:

1. fingerprint / rung tagged guns
2. Guns licensed to a person and an address
3. Bullet proof vests also need to be registered to a person and an address
4. need to report it stolen ASAP
5. Restriction on types: hunting rifles need a concurrent hunting lisence
6. Restriction on bullet types
7. Ban on ceramic / plastic firearms
8. Encourage tazers as "less lethal" alternative
9. Ban on anti-fingerprint technology on weapons
10. Large penalties on breaking rules

Self defence does not need an assault rifle with Teflon coated, steel core bullets. Nor does hunting.
If you need a Magnum then you'd better show due care.

~:smoking:

Of course not. What method do you suggest should be used to collect all the currently owned legal firearms? There isn't a single viable, or cost effective way to.

Leave them be, just educate in proper and safe use, ownership and vendition.

Ask people to register them? Give a deadline a generous 6 months away? Hardly rocket science, is it? The law abiding majority will get them registered. Inform people that if there are any ones that require stronger checks or are now illegal of this fact. There are probably not many that fit into this category.

Education is one of those oft used puff terms that basically means "do nothing, and tut a bit when the next massacre happens".

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

---

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers

---

I'm willing to bet that the first thousand deaths would be enough to quell most uprisings for quite a bit after that.

well, did it stop the patriots of the American revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

---

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously.

Because cars are a rather useless killing implement. Sure loads of people accidently get killed by cars but have you ever purposefully tried to kill someone with your car... its just a little bit harder than killing someone with a gun...

Example 1) Im sat in my house... you want to kill me... you have a gun and a car...

Obviously you knock at my house and shoot me with the gun, with the car you would have to sit outside and hope i come out... then you would need me to be at a part of the street you can get to... and even if i do come out onto the street and try and cross the road, you need to make sure i don't notice you trying to run me over otherwise i can simply jump into someones garden...

Example 2) im am walking through the local high street... you ave a gun and a car...

Again the car is fairly useless here.... for one my local high street contains alot of railings and parked up cars on the side of the road.... makes it extremly hard to get a gap you can fit through to hit me with the car... secondly town is usually packed so your moving fairly slowly (thanks to speed bumps as well) so you would have to do a quick bit of acceleration and given the run up you would need to have a chance at killing me i could have time to run into a shop or behind a metal fence or something...

Whereas with the gun you couldsimply aim and shoot as you were driving past, or park up walk up behind me and shoot

and quite obviously apart from the cars uselessness as a weapon is the fact that cars are pretty much essential for developed economies... people use them all the time... apart from probably the biggest gun nuts and people who don't drive people spend far more time using thier cars than thier guns...

So if anything cars should have a far greater death rate than guns...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

6. Restriction on bullet types

---

Quite by accident, you've uncovered the latest scheme in D.C. to effect "quiet" gun control: don't fight the gun-control fight, you'll lose. Instead, regulate bullets and gunpowder.

"They" are working on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!

---

Very well....then if you are part of a well regulated militia you can have guns....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:

---

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. the Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:

---

as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. The Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

---

And having enough influence on the military that goverment cannot use the military against it's own population is only about 1000 times more important than the amount of small arms among the population the day the revolution comes...

On the issue at hand I would say that a nation obsessed with the idea of no gun restrictions aren't a nation that should have it. ~;p


Edit: BTW how did the Iraqi military fare vs the might of the US military? Are the average US citizen more armed than that?

And don't come with the insurgancy. A: You're supposed to be liberating the country. B: You can withdraw and aren't stuck in a death match scenario. C: The US losses are a fart in the wind compared to the amount of troops there.
FYI the amount of troops vs population would be higher in the second US civil war than what it is in Iraq.

Anybody find the poll results rather amusing?
Almost exactly in line with my prediction :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

---

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:

---

In what fraction of the possible scenarios where the citizenry has to fight the government would an armed populace be helpful? Even disregarding the self defense factor, is that fraction enough in your eyes to justify the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:

---

i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.

Voted "No" as a non US citizen.

Two reasons:
- a majority of US citizens seems to be in favor of having the right to own guns, not my business as a non US citizen to demand that they should give up their right.
- giving up the right to own guns now seems extremely impractical, considering that gun ownership is so embedded in US culture. Forcing people now to give up their guns will lead to a vast amount of illegal guns in circulation and will probably ultimately cause more bad than good.

OTOH I am quite happy with keeping gun ownership as strictly regulated as it is here in Germany.

There is no "one size fits all" solution that works for every country (and that is actually a thing I came to accept following the numerous gun discussions in the Backroom)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR

It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:

Quote:

---

the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

---

---

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

I have been mugged (sp?) a few times in my life. My city is, according to french standards, somewhat insecure (though not ghetto-like insecure). Yet I've never felt the need to bear a gun.
I mean, if some guy start to piss me off and threaten me if I don't give him 10€ or my cellphone, do I need to shoot him? To threaten him with an automatic weapon or a flamethrower?
Most of the time, I tried to talk my way out of it, give a few euros, and be done with it. Bearing a gun would probably only increase the chance of being badly injured and lead to a growth of violence.

The issue here is that the US is an apparently unsecure country that has to deal with extraordinary levels of violence, not that guns is the best way to defend yourself. I seriously don't think my right to defend myself is not respected because I can't shot people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.

---

Well, my observations are that I never needed and probably will never need a gun. Then we're talking about the US, so my opinion on that matter is worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government.

---

Aren't most of the pro-gun crowd deeply conservative and pro-Bush? My feeling (and I might very well be wrong) is that the people defending the right to bear firearms would also be the first one to support oppressive governments.
That's probably because the US political scene is completely screwed-up, with people assimilating healthcare with communism and tyrannical government :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

---

Wait, where did he mention the greater good?
The principle "One's freedom stops where another person's freedom begins" (or something like that, couldn't find a translation) is widely known in Europe.
The constant use of "freedom" as a catch-word shows the limits of liberal ideology.
And the greater good is indeed a valuable and honorable goal. I blame liberalism for the assimilation of state with fascism and what not. I blame liberalism for the failure of the republican ideology, which was IMO much more interesting and intelligent.

To conclude this rather long post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.-V

---

Well, if you're trying to show that we should bear guns to fight tyrannical governments, do not quote V for Vendetta as the book is mostly about overthrowing a totalitarian government without any violence (other than V's violence).
I'm not afraid of my government. I'm not afraid of cops. I go on strike, protest, I don't not respect certain symbols of state authority. I don't need a gun to feel free. And I'm fairly sure the french government is more afraid of mass strikes/protests than he would be of a few people bearing firearms.
If, at any point, a western government turns into a totalitarian regime, I'm fairly sure weapons won't be the way to fight it. Intelligence and enlightnment will.

Edit: to be honest, I can't think of any totalitarian/authoritarian regime that has been overthrown by mob violence. Nazi Germany? Check. Fascist Italy? Check. USSR? Check. Cambodia? Check. Romania? Check. Authoritarian Portugal/Spain/Greece? Check.