What It's Like To Own Guns...

Information Analyst said:
Yes, your country's insistence that something thought up 200 years ago was an irrevocably perfect idea allows for that sort of circular thinking trap.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is not irrevocably perfect. The interpretation of the Second Amendment changes from time to time, with Supreme Court rulings, and the Amendment is subject to revocation via a later amendment.

I can understand that, from the perspective of most of the world, the Second Amendment is bizarre, perhaps even nuts, but it's silly to pretend that the U.S. regards it as an irrevocably perfect idea.
 
Information Analyst said:
Yes, your country's insistence that something thought up 200 years ago was an irrevocably perfect idea allows for that sort of circular thinking trap.
Click to expand...
If you think it's no longer perfect then feel free to repeal it, there is a process to do just that. Good luck!
 
phiwum said:
Of course, it is not irrevocably perfect. The interpretation of the Second Amendment changes from time to time, with Supreme Court rulings, and the Amendment is subject to revocation via a later amendment.

I can understand that, from the perspective of most of the world, the Second Amendment is bizarre, perhaps even nuts, but it's silly to pretend that the U.S. regards it as an irrevocably perfect idea.
Click to expand...

The "ardent" gunners hold it as sacred and irrevocable. Or they have in the past few years anyway. It's their excuse to have all the toys they want regardless of the cost to society as a whole.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
The "ardent" gunners hold it as sacred and irrevocable. Or they have in the past few years anyway. It's their excuse to have all the toys they want regardless of the cost to society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Damn that Constitution, protecting the rights of the individual!

Perhaps you should work to enact a Constitution that favors the rights of society over that of the individual, it work so well in such progressive utopias as China and North Korea.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
The "ardent" gunners hold it as sacred and irrevocable. Or they have in the past few years anyway. It's their excuse to have all the toys they want regardless of the cost to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

I suppose what you mean is that they regard this amendment as a very good amendment, that the right it guarantees is important and should not be repealed. Obviously, that's not the same as "irrevocable", since anyone with a passing familiarity with the Constitution knows that this right could be revoked, regardless of whether one regards it as a good right or not.
 
WildCat said:
Damn that Constitution, protecting the rights of the individual!

Perhaps you should work to enact a Constitution that favors the rights of society over that of the individual, it work so well in such progressive utopias as China and North Korea.
Click to expand...

It shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your position that you have to leap to those extreme examples.
 
phiwum said:
I suppose what you mean is that they regard this amendment as a very good amendment, that the right it guarantees is important and should not be repealed. Obviously, that's not the same as "irrevocable", since anyone with a passing familiarity with the Constitution knows that this right could be revoked, regardless of whether one regards it as a good right or not.
Click to expand...

Many "ardent" gunners I know consider it irrevocable and would be willing to go to war with the government if a change was even considered. Some are blustering, others, including those on the FBI watch lists, are deadly serious. They would be happy to destroy the US in a civil war if they thought the alternative was losing their guns.

This is why Sciwoman swears I'm adopted.
 
phiwum said:
Of course, it is not irrevocably perfect. The interpretation of the Second Amendment changes from time to time, with Supreme Court rulings, and the Amendment is subject to revocation via a later amendment.

I can understand that, from the perspective of most of the world, the Second Amendment is bizarre, perhaps even nuts, but it's silly to pretend that the U.S. regards it as an irrevocably perfect idea.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was implying that "the U.S.", as a singular entity, views the Second Amendment as immutable. Rather, I think it's a reference to the fact that numerous people (on this forum and elsewhere) view the Second Amendment as unassailable (i.e. "It's a right; get over it.").
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I don't think he was implying that "the U.S.", as a singular entity, views the Second Amendment as immutable. Rather, I think it's a reference to the fact that numerous people (on this forum and elsewhere) view the Second Amendment as unassailable (i.e. "It's a right; get over it.").
Click to expand...

There's a few ways to look at it. For example:

I think that self defense is an inalienable human right, and that it includes the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose. I think this right should be recognized and protected by the laws of any democratic society. That's generally speaking, in the context of human rights, how I look at it.

In the context of the Second Amendment, I see it as being clearly codified as a right. In US law and governance, this means certain requirements must be met, in order for the government to infringe upon it. The existence of the Second Amendment can't simply be ignored by those who wish to impose stricter firearms ownership regulations on Americans. Regardless of my position on gun ownership as a human right, it clearly has some protection in US law. "It's a right, get over it," so to speak.

In the context of the US Constitution as a whole: The document codifies the boundaries of government intrusion into the lives of its citizens. It is the basis for all other laws, and the standard by which government authority is judged, in America. This is why its clauses and amendments cannot simply be ignored by those who wish to make improvements. Any such improvements must be made within the constraints of the law of the land, or else those constraints must be altered first. In the US, this means either...

.... Regulating within the boundaries of the Constitution as written, and as interpreted by the high court, or...

... Amending the Constitution to permit the desired regulation.

Again, "it's a right, get over it".

I think that all three of these views are reasonable views. I can understand some disagreement over the first view: The right to bear arms as part of the right to self defense. I can't really understand any disagreement over the second two views: That the regulations imposed by the government of any nation should acknowledge and abide by the laws of that nation, according to the rule of law practiced by that nation.

In the US, I think that obviously means that any regulation that does not pass constitutional muster has to fail for that reason. Any regulation based on the premise that gun ownership is not a right must first remove the codification of that right from the foundational document of US law.

Am I missing something? Are gun control advocates seriously frustrated by the fact that they have to deal with the Constitution as it stands today, rather than simply ignoring the bits that interfere with their idea of a Better Tomorrow?
 
jimbob said:
I have seen the argument on these forums that the UK is more violent than the US and that the lack of guns is a reason.

I don't entirely follow that logic.
Click to expand...

I recall the argument that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the US but that much fewer of those crimes result in death - maybe that's what you're remembering?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Too many restrictions on gun ownership? Can you expand?
Click to expand...

I have said this part repeatedly. Any military standard issue personal weapon (and inferior weapons) should be allowed to be bought and sold without restriction. Right now, that excludes the squad automatic weapons such as the m240 and m249. But if an army did issue it as a battle rifle, it would be legal.

That is my current interpretation of what is ethical. But I'm open to changing my opinion in either direction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom