second amendment

[jverne]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


lets focus this debate solely on the right to bear arms for maintaining your freedoms.

i did a quick read of the amendment and i don't pretend to have extensive knowledge about it. i was hoping you could fill up the details.

so let's say the state starts becoming more and more totalitarian (like it already does ).
to what extent (name them specifically) would you tolerate the canceling of personal freedoms? (e.g. neutral/free internet, right to free speech, right vote,...)

and describe how exactly would you use your weapons to reclaim them...depict a possible scenario.




my take: my semi educated guess is that the second amendment is just sand in the eyes for making you feel empowered, where's in reality the government and private corporations are slowly screwing you so you don't get upset too quickly and actually use your guns against them, instead of just shooting at tin cans and neighbors.

if a revolt would actually happen then i doubt the few "brave" persons with AR15 would actually come even close to Washington's city border...before being annihilated by a precision bomb.


i think the first scenario is the most plausible one...it can be even witnessed to some extent.


discuss

 

[Eejit]

Screw you hippy!


In before flam- oshitwait.



Honestly if second amendment fetishists didn't do anything about the Patriot Act they can't really claim that they're using this right in the first place. It seems to be exactly the type of law the 2nd was intended to prevent yet nobody seems to have stirred a (trigger) finger.

 

[jverne]

Honestly if second amendment fetishists didn't do anything about the Patriot Act they can't really claim that they're using this right in the first place. It seems to be exactly the type of law the 2nd was intended to prevent yet nobody seems to have stirred a (trigger) finger.

precisely that

 

[No Limit]

The second amendment has nothing to do with our right to bear arms at this point or protecting our freedoms. The reason guns are legal is because americans like guns.

 

[Tagaziel]

The second amendment is outdated and needs to be repealed.

 

[jverne]

The second amendment has nothing to do with our right to bear arms at this point or protecting our freedoms. The reason guns are legal is because americans like guns.

oh...well that changes things a bit. but we could argue that you can use those weapons for this purpose, even if the amendment doesn't state that.

so a better title would be...the right to arms and your personal freedoms. the issue in discussion can still be valid.

 

[CptStern]

the second amendment:according to gun [strike]nuts[/strike]owners


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.

 

[The Monkey]

Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's something good.

 

[nurizeko]

The second amendment is outdated and needs to be repealed.

This.

Militia in the sense the founding fathers considered have long since ceased to exist.

No point keeping a law for a situation that no longer applies, as history proves time and time again the legal ownership of weapons is hardly required to overthrow a regime.

Protecting your freedom is better served through the courts, political and activist action, and when it comes to it, civil unrest and guerilla warfare.

Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's something good.

This also.

The times change and so do the responsibilities and demands on government and the law.

What was considered necessary then can be causing problems now.


But its a futile discussion, a constitution should be open to change but it shouldn't be very easy either, and since there would never be enough support from the public to back a referendum to amend the constitution's gun-nut law, its probably there to stay for the foreseeable future.

At least the gun crazy god humpin' hicks aren't over here, which, if I may risk sounding a tad selfish, is good enough for me.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, we established most of you think guns should be outlawed. I don't know that statistics but I would assume at least half of the homes in this country have at least 1 gun. How do you reclaim all those guns?

 

[Eejit]

Let's not move the debate on just yet, let's give our resident gun nuts a decent chance to reply too

 

[CptStern]

Ok, we established most of you think guns should be outlawed. I don't know that statistics but I would assume at least half of the homes in this country have at least 1 gun. How do you reclaim all those guns?

you go door to door and pry the guns out of their cold dead hands

 

[Tyguy]

there's no way they're taking my pellet gun...

 

[No Limit]

you go door to door and pry the guns out of their cold dead hands

I'm being serious. Than again you probably are too, most of the red necks here would rather die than give up their gun which is a part of the family.

 

[CptStern]

yes I was being semi-serious for the reason you stated


the thing is that you couldnt ban guns overnight, you'd start by banning the sale of guns and work down from there. It's basically what they do in the rest of the developed world

 

[No Limit]

yes I was being semi-serious for the reason you stated


the thing is that you couldnt ban guns overnight, you'd start by banning the sale of guns and work down from there. It's basically what they do in the rest of the developed world

Does that mean I get to keep my gun? I'm all for it then.

 

[CptStern]

umm no, see the point is to get rid of guns ..if you get to keep it then pretty soon every tom dick and crazy larry will want to keep theirs and we cant have that :E

 

[No Limit]

Then we are back to:

How do you reclaim all those guns?

Maybe it's because you live in Canada so you don't fully grasp how much Americans love their guns .

And actually on the point of Canada aren't guns legal up there too? Just harder to get?

 

[No Limit]

And since no gun nuts are showing up I'll take that role.

I think the argument is that guns should be illegal because it is a danger to our soceity, correct? Shouldn't that same argument be made against alcohol? Far more people die from DWIs than they do from guns.

 

[CptStern]

you could choke on a peanut and die, you could step on a Furby fall down a flight of stairs and break your neck. However none of these items were made for the explicit reason of killing someone. guns are made for one reason. I'd have no problem people owning guns that shoot roses or hershey kisses

 

[No Limit]

I looked up gun laws in Canada on wikipedia:

By law, a potential customer must be 18 years of age or older to purchase a firearm or legally maintain possession of one. Citizens of Canada under the age of 18 but over the age of 12 may procure a Minor?s Licence which does not allow them to purchase a firearm but allows them to borrow a firearm unsupervised and purchase ammunition.

Holy shit! The candians are crazier than we are.

 

[No Limit]

you could choke on a peanut and die, you could step on a Furby fall down a flight of stairs and break your neck. However none of these items were made for the explicit reason of killing someone. guns are made for one reason. I'd have no problem people owning guns that shoot roses or hershey kisses

There are other reasons. Hunting, target practice, and punishing cheating wives (wait, scratch that last one out).

Should hunting knives also be outlawed? they are made for the sole reason of killing.

Do I sound like the typical gun nut? I'm trying really hard here. I just don't really feel that strongly about this issue.

 

[CptStern]

There are other reasons. Hunting, target practice, and punishing cheating wives (wait, scratch that last one out).

Should hunting knives also be outlawed? they are made for the sole reason of killing.

when was the last time a hunter took down a moose with a hunting knife? ..knives are made to cut/skin the body or to dispatch a wounded animal (which means you failed as you're supposed to shoot a killing shot every time). You dont actually hunt with hunting knives ..although I wish hunters would ...gives the animal a fair chance to walk out alive ..especially bears, sharks, wooly mammoths etc

Do I sound like the typical gun nut? I'm trying really hard here. I just don't really feel that strongly about this issue.

not enough outrage and or entitlement, but I give you A for Effort

 

[No Limit]

when was the last time a hunter took down a moose with a hunting knife? ..knives are made to cut/skin the body or to dispatch a wounded animal (which means you failed as you're supposed to shoot a killing shot every time). You dont actually hunt with hunting knives ..although I wish hunters would ...gives the animal a fair chance to walk out alive ..especially bears, sharks, wooly mammoths etc

But once all the guns are gone that's all we'll have left. So then the hunting knife's only real purpose will be to kill.

On the issue of Canada it seems like you guys have just as much guns as we do. Why are you people not killing eachother on a daily basis? I think Moore brought this up in bowling for columbine.

 

[Eejit]

Nah, hunter could still use snares, let em bleed to death, then skin em with the knife.


Their wives that is.

 

[Escaep]

Meh, banning guns to me would turn out the same way as Prohibition. In the end Prohibition actually led to a rise in the consumption of alcohol and the emergence of big criminal organizations. So if you take away the guns the black market will flourish.

 

[CptStern]

But once all the guns are gone that's all we'll have left. So then the hunting knife's only real purpose will be to kill.

supply and demand man, without a use they'll sit on shelves unsold ..especially since we already have kitchen knives, scissors etc

On the issue of Canada it seems like you guys have just as much guns as we do.

actually we dont, that's just some gun nut spinning stats to support his idea .there's almost as many guns in the US as there is people, we dont have a fraction of that, and what we do have is mostly in rural areas where they need a rifle for protection/hunting

Why are you people not killing eachother on a daily basis?

because there isnt a gun store on every street corner. because handguns are actually pretty hard to obtain

I think Moore brought this up in bowling for columbine.

ya but then he did the "canadians leave their doors open" which we dont..in fact no one I knows keeps their door unlocked ..ok maybe at the cottage but that's while we're there

the sheer amount of americans with guns, coupled with the loose laws coupled with the fact that everyone has a right to own one gives people incentive to buy even more guns. more guns = much more chances of using it to shoot someone. In fact the gun is the weapon of choice in the majority of homicides in the US whereas in canada it's below other weapons such as blunt objects knives etc

Meh, banning guns to me would turn out the same way as Prohibition. In the end Prohibition actually led to a rise in the consumption of alcohol and the emergence of big criminal organizations. So if you take away the guns the black market will flourish.

I'm glad you brought this point to the discussion. yes there was a rise in the consumption however most of it was home made, only a small portion of the booze during prohibition came from canada. Same would be true for guns, except you cant make a gun in your garage ...so simply taking this into account it stands to reason that over time the amount of guns in the US would drastically reduce

 

[No Limit]

supply and demand man, without a use they'll sit on shelves unsold ..especially since we already have kitchen knives, scissors etc

Again, you canadians are so addorable. This is america, you take people's guns away they will go for the next best thing. Someone here in my city already gets stabbed on what seems to be like a daily basis from bar/club fights. So let's be fair, if you go to ban guns ban any knife with a blade longer than 2" and make it illegal to carry knifes on your person.

actually we dont, that's just some gun nut spinning stats to support his idea .there's almost as many guns in the US as there is people, we dont have a fraction of that, and what we do have is mostly in rural areas where they need a rifle for protection/hunting

Fair enough, but you guys aren't very clean of this either. I hope this source is reliable, if you got a better one let me know:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

In the mid range estimate there are around 9 million guns. Google turned up around 200 milliono for the united states. So yes, we have quite a bit more but when you consider the population differences (300 million in US, 30 million in Canada) then you guys still have a gun for every 3 people that live there. Yet for some reason you guys aren't blowing eachothers brains out. Even as you say they are hard to obtain there are still plenty in circulation.

ya but then he did the "canadians leave their doors open" which we dont..in fact no one I knows keeps their door unlocked ..ok maybe at the cottage but that's while we're there

Shit, this isn't true? I was saving up for a trip to Canada after I heard that; was planning on coming back with a truck full of stolen goods and hopefully some killer prescrption drugs .

the sheer amount of americans with guns, coupled with the loose laws coupled with the fact that everyone has a right to own one gives people incentive to buy even more guns. more guns = much more chances of using it to shoot someone. In fact the gun is the weapon of choice in the majority of homicides in the US whereas in canada it's below other weapons such as blunt objects knives etc

This is the main thing I would support. I think our gun control laws need to be made a lot closer to how Canada does it. Everyone should have a right to a rifle or shotgun for home protection and hand guns should be much more difficult to get and fully automatic weapons virtually impossible to get.

I'm glad you brought this point to the discussion. yes there was a rise in the consumption however most of it was home made, only a small portion of the booze during prohibition came from canada. Same would be true for guns, except you cant make a gun in your garage ...so simply taking this into account it stands to reason that over time the amount of guns in the US would drastically reduce

Was most of the booze during prohibition really home made? Didn't the mob make a shit load of money during that time?

 

[Eejit]

In the mid range estimate there are around 9 million guns. Google turned up around 200 milliono for the united states. So yes, we have quite a bit more but when you consider the population differences (300 million in US, 30 million in Canada) then you guys still have a gun for every 3 people that live there. Yet for some reason you guys aren't blowing eachothers brains out. Even as you say they are hard to obtain there are still plenty in circulation.

You see they're all so spread out that they keep missing when they shoot at each other. Canadians aren't all skilled snipers you know!

 

[Escaep]

I'm glad you brought this point to the discussion. yes there was a rise in the consumption however most of it was home made, only a small portion of the booze during prohibition came from canada. Same would be true for guns, except you cant make a gun in your garage ...so simply taking this into account it stands to reason that over time the amount of guns in the US would drastically reduce

True you can't make a gun in your garage but the criminal organizations made boatloads of money during the prohibition. If you ban guns the same thing will happen--drug organizations and the black market will flourish. You can't outlaw guns, because people will then just turn to the outlaws to get them.

 

[Kinslayer]

Since nobody really seems to be taking the other side, I'll go ahead and do it.

A banning of guns would be detrimental to society's wellbeing. Let's take an example:

Situation 1

Guns have been banned.

There are 60 people in the room (classroom, office building, whatever).

Persons 1-59 are honest, law-abiding citizens who obeyed the ban on guns, and therefore have none.

Person 60 has a gun illegally and he intends to kill everyone in the room (for whatever reason, maybe he just got fired from a high position in his office and has mental problems). Due to the gun ban, he has nothing to fear from the other occupants in the room, and he knows this.

End result: A majority of the people in the room are killed or wounded.

Situation 2

Guns are not banned.

Same setting, 60 people.

Persons 1-59 are still honest and law abiding citizens.

Persons 3, 17, and 34 carry handguns and are trained in the use of them.

Person 60 has a gun (legally or illegally, doesn't matter), and intends to kill everyone in the room. However, he remembers that other people in the room may also have a gun, therefore, this gives him a moment of hesitation. If he does go ahead and decide to start shooting up the place, there are 3 other people in the room who can stop him.

End result: Either #60 does not commit the crime or there are much fewer casualties in the room.
___________________

Which one would you prefer? I'd also like to point out that the three people who had legally obtained guns did not intend to use them for criminal purposes.

 

[No Limit]

Yup kinslayer. Great point. We've never had any school, mall, hospital, or other public places shot up because gun are legal. Thank you for bringing some logic in to this thread, I was starting to sweat having to play devil's advocate.

 

[Kinslayer]

Yup kinslayer. Great point. We've never had any school, mall, hospital, or other public places shot up because gun are legal. Thank you for bringing some logic in to this thread, I was starting to sweat having to play devil's advocate.

Hey, guess what. Guns are illegal in many of those places you just listed. Gun-free zones, I believe they're called.

 

[Eejit]

What proportion of school shootings etc. have been committed with illegal versus legal firearms?
How many school shootings have occured in countries with strict gun control compared to the US?
If they were made illegal and black market only how many of the rampaging lunatics would have the contacts to get illegal guns versus just going to the local gun store?


Point is you're assuming banning guns won't affect homicidal maniacs.

 

[No Limit]

Hey, guess what. Guns are illegal in many of those places you just listed. Gun-free zones, I believe they're called.

And many of the places I mentioned guns are allowed. Didn't stop it then, did it? In the Omaha case it was a mall where there were thousands of people, a good percentage had to have been armed.

Yup, that's what we need, everyone to play rambo. It worked great in this case:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDF1738F935A15752C1A964958260 (im sure I can come up with more, thats the first link tha came up on google).

 

[Kinslayer]

What proportion of school shootings etc. have been committed with illegal versus legal firearms?
How many school shootings have occured in countries with strict gun control compared to the US?
If they were made illegal and black market only how many of the rampaging lunatics would have the contacts to get illegal guns versus just going to the local gun store?


Point is you're assuming banning guns won't affect homicidal maniacs.

For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

Country / Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
United States 2.97
Denmark 0.26
Germany 0.4672
Switzerland 0.56

As for illegal vs legal:

Many shootings where the shooter got the gun legally happened because the gun dealer did not do the proper checks, like a background check and a medical history. Take V-Tech; if the gun dealer had checked his medical history, he would have seen the history of a mental problem.

If psychological exams were required to possess a weapon, the amount of criminals with legal guns would decrease dramatically.
___________________

No Limit:

Yes; but both of those incidents happened very quickly (first one the guy killed himself before anyone could react), and the second one did not specify who shot the bullets that wounded the other customers. You don't know whether it was the citizen or the criminal which "went rambo", as you say.

And now that I read the article more closely, the weapon he had was gained illegally; fully automatic (Omaha mall shooting).

But hey, what happened is better than all of the lawful citizens dying, isn't it?

 

[CptStern]

Again, you canadians are so addorable. This is america, you take people's guns away they will go for the next best thing. Someone here in my city already gets stabbed on what seems to be like a daily basis from bar/club fights. So let's be fair, if you go to ban guns ban any knife with a blade longer than 2" and make it illegal to carry knifes on your person.

it's not currently? I think it's a fine here. it's a lot harder to stab someone to death than it is to shoot someone or else knives would be the weapon of choice, no?

Fair enough, but you guys aren't very clean of this either. I hope this source is reliable, if you got a better one let me know:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

In the mid range estimate there are around 9 million guns. Google turned up around 200 milliono for the united states. So yes, we have quite a bit more but when you consider the population differences (300 million in US, 30 million in Canada) then you guys still have a gun for every 3 people that live there. Yet for some reason you guys aren't blowing eachothers brains out. Even as you say they are hard to obtain there are still plenty in circulation.

only 6% of that is handguns compared to 40% in the US. mostly for hunting/protecting livestock/shooting evil little paper targets

Shit, this isn't true? I was saving up for a trip to Canada after I heard that; was planning on coming back with a truck full of stolen goods and hopefully some killer prescrption drugs .

well you'd have to cross back into the US and since 9/11 well. lets just say a rectal examination may be in order (especailly after being tipped off by an anonymous canadian on the internets). you can blame the terr'sts for your sore bum

This is the main thing I would support. I think our gun control laws need to be made a lot closer to how Canada does it. Everyone should have a right to a rifle or shotgun for home protection and hand guns should be much more difficult to get and fully automatic weapons virtually impossible to get.

it's all in the marketing, we dont think of guns as being necessary for home defense (unless you're routinely attacked by wild moose which isnt the case most of the time). In fact there's no advertising at all ever, unless you count hunting shows/fishing shows ..but that's aimed at the bob and doug mackenzie types, eh

Was most of the booze during prohibition really home made? Didn't the mob make a shit load of money during that time?

sure they did, but just think of the sheer volume ..plus making booze isnt rocket science. my dad made wine from crushing grapes (it's a jebus fishes and loaves MIRACLE)

 

[Eejit]

Hah, I wonder if you've compared those gun crime statistics with the general crime rates in those countries? Last time I checked up on someone's usage of Switzerland as an example it turned out the quoted figures were deliberately misleading and distorted.

 

[No Limit]

No Limit:

Yes; but both of those incidents happened very quickly (first one the guy killed himself before anyone could react), and the second one did not specify who shot the bullets that wounded the other customers. You don't know whether it was the citizen or the criminal which "went rambo", as you say.

Yeah, shootings are usually fairly quick. Bullets travel fast you know. And you only have so many bullets you can carry on you at a time. Come on, for someone that thinks they would save the day in that situation you don't seem to have a very good understanding of this.

And now that I read the article more closely, the weapon he had was gained illegally; fully automatic (Omaha mall shooting).

and...??? We are talking about guns saving the day, we are not talking about where he got that gun form. now, for your theory to hold water you need to explain why nobody in that mall stopped the shooter.

But hey, what happened is better than all of the lawful citizens dying, isn't it?

Which case are you talking about? If you are talking about the grocery store then one guy would have possibly been shot over some cheese, because of the shoot out 4 people got shot instead.

 

[Kinslayer]

Yeah, shootings are usually fairly quick. Bullets travel fast you know. And you only have so many bullets you can carry on you at a time. Come on, for someone that thinks they would save the day in that situation you don't seem to have a very good understanding of this.

and...??? We are talking about guns saving the day, we are not talking about where he got that gun form. now, for your theory to hold water you need to explain why nobody in that mall stopped the shooter.

He basically fired a burst or two then shot himself. No time for anyone to react. If he had instead kept shooting, I'm sure something would have happened.

And if he got the gun illegally now, he'd be able to get it illegally later. So a law banning guns would do absolutely jack shit.

Which case are you talking about? If you are talking about the grocery store then one guy would have possibly been shot over some cheese, because of the shoot out 4 people got shot instead.

One guy would have been shot and killed. Instead four were wounded.
____________

Eejit: I copied down the wrong stat, my bad. Fixing now. Stat is firearm violence rate per 100,000 population. I wasn't able to find anything on total crime, which is why I didn't include it.