U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[seireikhaan]

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.

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

Awesome.

[Strike For The South]

Awesome.

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[seireikhaan]

Don't be such a drama queen.

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

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

Why?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Awesome.

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.

[PowerWizard]

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?

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?

[Strike For The South]

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


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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

[Hooahguy]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

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

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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.

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

Defend yourself against what?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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."

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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...

[Strike For The South]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[rvg]

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

[Samurai Waki]

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)

[Xiahou]

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

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.

[Furunculus]

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.