The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

Personally I find the notion that a citizen, particularly an adult citizen with no criminal record, should NOT be permitted to own firearms... to be amazingly silly.

We live in a time where firearms are a current technology and a very prolific one. There is a long tradition of hunting with shotguns and rifles, and a long tradition of keeping a pistol in your home in order to defend yourself and your family.

And while many feel that the whole "overthrow a tyrannical government which has gotten out of control" reason is silly, I actually don't dismiss that one entirely. It's dangerous to completely ignore that possibility, and to disarm your populace. An armed populace does keep the government more honest, I think.

There is nothing really all that dangerous, inherently, to having guns all over your country. You could even have them mandated in every home, and powerful ones at that, like Switzerland and still be just fine. You could even have basically no gun laws on the books, and still be just fine, like Vermont.

It's all about your demographics. Some people can be issued a tank and an a-bomb and the chance of them ever misusing it is zero. Others will end up committing crime and harming others with a spoon if it comes to it.

We don't need to get guns under control, we need to get violent criminally inclined people under control.
 
sadhatter said:
That is quite a unique view of history you have there. Care to be a little less vague though?
Click to expand...

You assumed Indians meant Native Americans, whereas he is talking about the actual country India.

Specifically the non-violent civill disobedience protest movement spearheaded by Gandhi that eventually led to independence from Britain.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Personally I find the notion that a citizen, particularly an adult citizen with no criminal record, should NOT be permitted to own firearms... to be amazingly silly.

We live in a time where firearms are a current technology and a very prolific one. There is a long tradition of hunting with shotguns and rifles, and a long tradition of keeping a pistol in your home in order to defend yourself and your family.

And while many feel that the whole "overthrow a tyrannical government which has gotten out of control" reason is silly, I actually don't dismiss that one entirely. It's dangerous to completely ignore that possibility, and to disarm your populace. An armed populace does keep the government more honest, I think.

There is nothing really all that dangerous, inherently, to having guns all over your country. You could even have them mandated in every home, and powerful ones at that, like Switzerland and still be just fine. You could even have basically no gun laws on the books, and still be just fine, like Vermont.

It's all about your demographics. Some people can be issued a tank and an a-bomb and the chance of them ever misusing it is zero. Others will end up committing crime and harming others with a spoon if it comes to it.

We don't need to get guns under control, we need to get violent criminally inclined people under control.
Click to expand...

Sure, sure, just acknowledge that rampant gun ownership makes the US a more deadly place than comparable countries (please don't cite Columbia as comparable), and that gun violence and deaths are a fair price to pay for your precious Second Amendment. That would display honesty (if not common sense and humanity).
 
lionking said:
Sure, sure, just acknowledge that rampant gun ownership makes the US a more deadly place than comparable countries (please don't cite Columbia as comparable), and that gun violence and deaths are a fair price to pay for your precious Second Amendment. That would display honesty (if not common sense and humanity).
Click to expand...

Oh I completely acknowledge that.

I consider the deaths to be an unfortunate, but expected and acceptable cost for the freedom.

Just like there is no number of car accident deaths which would ever make me feel cars should be made illegal, and no number of DUI deaths which would ever make me advocate prohibition's return. Even though I don't drink, myself.

I don't believe in the idea of small percentages of the population having their misfortune dictate the lives of the rest of society. Peanut allergies are not a justification for eliminating peanut butter from schools, and gun deaths are not a justification for eliminating guns.

It's an expected statistical outcome which any adult should be prepared for and not lose their mind over.

ETA: By the way, I don't now, and never have owned a firearm. I just strongly support the right of those who wish to, to do so. I may get a pistol or shotgun for home defense at some point.

The Norseman said:
The bigotry in this thread is sadly expected though still unwarranted.
Click to expand...

I've just arrived and still need to read some of the other pages, any examples?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
And while many feel that the whole "overthrow a tyrannical government which has gotten out of control" reason is silly, I actually don't dismiss that one entirely. It's dangerous to completely ignore that possibility, and to disarm your populace. An armed populace does keep the government more honest, I think.
Click to expand...

Well, we have had instances where armed militias have formed, and been subsequently quashed by the government, rather brutally (e.g. Ruby Ridge). So, no, I don't believe a ragtag band of feisty good-ol'-boys is not going to take on the best-armed military on Earth.

We don't need to get guns under control, we need to get violent criminally inclined people under control.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear a suggestion of how we do that, which doesn't include imposing a fascist state.

There is also the matter of crimes of passion. How many people fly into a rage and shoot their spouse? How many contemplate suicide, and are able to carry it out because the gun they own happens to be nearby? Where I live, 75% of gun deaths are suicides, and homes with guns have a 500% greater chance of a suicide occurring there.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
It isn't about the citizens over throwing the modern state. It's about the modern state being unable to implement tyranny on and armed citizenry. Every firearm, regardless of caliber, owned by a private citizen is a vote against tyranny.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I've been saying: no, they're not. You still have to contend with the US army and their tanks.

Besides, US tyranny would come in the form of legislation. Can you gun down laws ?
 
newyorkguy said:
I'll take a crack at it.

According to Justice Scalia, the second amendment right to bear arms means physically carry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's an attempt to limit the use of insane arms by yet another literal reading of the amendment ("bear".) It doesn't solve the problem of the amendment itself.

I say again: The second is the only poorly-written one of the Bill of Rights. It feels like someone slipped a note into a bill while the house was passing it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I believe in the right of self defense and that right extends to not being restricted in your ability to acquire the best individual arm for the job. Right now, I believe the limit is at squad support weapons. But if the M240 or M249 became standard issue infantry rifles, no organized group should be allowed to restrict private ownership of it.

That is why I HATE the second amendment. Its too restrictive. I believe the decision to carry a firearm on an airplane should be the decision of the plane's owner.
Click to expand...

Im guessing this post is a joke.

Either way it Is quite funny
 
Axiom_Blade said:
There is also the matter of crimes of passion. How many people fly into a rage and shoot their spouse? How many contemplate suicide, and are able to carry it out because the gun they own happens to be nearby? Where I live, 75% of gun deaths are suicides, and homes with guns have a 500% greater chance of a suicide occurring there.
Click to expand...


According to the Department of Justice, about half of all homicides occur during an argument. Not during criminal activity, not gang violence, not psychotics rampaging through shopping malls. Just plain, every-day arguments.

For many people - many ordinary, reasonable people - when they're in the midst of a heated argument the temptation of "push a button and you win" is just too great.
 
gumboot said:
According to the Department of Justice, about half of all homicides occur during an argument. Not during criminal activity, not gang violence, not psychotics rampaging through shopping malls. Just plain, every-day arguments.

For many people - many ordinary, reasonable people - when they're in the midst of a heated argument the temptation of "push a button and you win" is just too great.
Click to expand...
Do you have cite for that?
 
Graham2001 said:
If they'd passed the first two amendments (I. Congressional Apportionment Amendment) and (II. Congressional Pay Amendment (Passed 1992 as Amendment XXVII)) back in the 1700's then the 'Right' to have guns would have been (IV. Right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of an organized militia (This is what I think they meant.)) somehow I don't think it would have had as much emotional force if this had happened, but...
Click to expand...
It takes a special kind of tortured logic to conclude that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment are different from "the people" mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution, and really means just the members of the militia. Do you also think that "the people" in the 1st Amendment who have the right to free use of a printing press are only professional journalists? Only people who are government-approved professional speakers have the right to free speech?
 
Last edited:
GraculusTheGreenBird said:
You assumed Indians meant Native Americans, whereas he is talking about the actual country India.

Specifically the non-violent civill disobedience protest movement spearheaded by Gandhi that eventually led to independence from Britain.
Click to expand...
I wonder what happened to similar people who peacefully resisted Genghis Khan and Joseph Stalin?

Point being that it's one thing to challenge 20th century Britain, quite another when it's an actual despot.
 
gumboot said:
According to the Department of Justice, about half of all homicides occur during an argument. Not during criminal activity, not gang violence, not psychotics rampaging through shopping malls. Just plain, every-day arguments.

For many people - many ordinary, reasonable people - when they're in the midst of a heated argument the temptation of "push a button and you win" is just too great.
Click to expand...
Not around here. Unless you consider gang disputes "plain, everyday arguments".
 
GraculusTheGreenBird said:
You assumed Indians meant Native Americans, whereas he is talking about the actual country India.

Specifically the non-violent civill disobedience protest movement spearheaded by Gandhi that eventually led to independence from Britain.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
I wonder what happened to similar people who peacefully resisted Genghis Khan and Joseph Stalin?

Point being that it's one thing to challenge 20th century Britain, quite another when it's an actual despot.
Click to expand...

In the context of the discussions in this thread, are you suggesting that if resistance against the government of the United States was deemed necessary by an organized militia, it would be because the government would be acting in a manner more similar to Gengis Khan or Joseph Stalin than to the British occupational government of 20th Century India?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom