The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[Belz...]

Guns would certainly help when your village is being attacked by a mob of men with machetes.

You mean, a mob of men with guns, right ?

 

[DavidJames]

Im guessing this post is a joke.

Either way it Is quite funny

As he replied he's not joking.

Libertarians care about themselves, no one else. They really need to find their own place to live where they can all selfishly go about their selfish little businesses and saying **** you to everyone else. They have no business being part of a civilized society.

They don't because no such place exists, ever existed and probably ever will.

 

[Sabretooth]

As he replied he's not joking.

Libertarians care about themselves, no one else. They really need to find their own place to live where they can all selfishly go about their selfish little businesses and saying **** you to everyone else. They have no business being part of a civilized society.

They don't because no such place exists, ever existed and probably ever will.

Wow.

Utilizing your 1A right to bash the 2A and party politics without a hint of sarcasm. Nice.

 

[Mudcat]

Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone. Speaking doesn't hurt anyone. Assembling doesn't hurt anyone.

The wrong person could shoot someone. Some threats and private information can be spoken. A riot can break out at an assembly.

The freedom of speech typically doesn't cost millions thousands of Americans their lives each and every year and is still subject to reasonable restriction. The freedom to assembly typically doesn't cost America 3.7 billion dollars annually and is still subject to reasonable restriction. Gun ownership has more cons than pros and has no place in modern society, and ought be severely restricted.

I am still awaiting any argument which makes clear why some human beings should be afforded the ability to arm themselves, and others should be stripped of that ability? ie the police, the military, and the government, but not the citizens?

All things being equal, what is the argument? Do government officials, police and military have some innate genetic capability to be trusted? Are citizens not confronted with deadly situations? What is the objective argument?

The military, police, security, and so forth are typically trained in the proper use of their weapons, and subject to intense scrutiny.

This proceeding weekend I went around town to various pawn shops, gun stores, and hunter supply shops to do some basic research on the matter. Previously I was under the belief that in order to purchase a firearm you need some kind of license or permit, which would be reasonable considering just how dangerous firearms are. Imagine my shock when I found out all you have to do is pass a background check.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

This proceeding weekend I went around town to various pawn shops, gun stores, and hunter supply shops to do some basic research on the matter. Previously I was under the belief that in order to purchase a firearm you need some kind of license or permit, which would be reasonable considering just how dangerous firearms are. Imagine my shock when I found out all you have to do is pass a background check.

 

[WildCat]

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?

It would be little different from the US Civil War. We're not talking about a broke war-weary nation trying to hang on to the last vestiges of an empire.

And just like the US civil war there would be various factions of the military with all their resources fighting on opposite sides. Of course this scenario is extremely unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, but the chances are not zero.

You mean, a mob of men with guns, right ?

That too. But in the case of Rwanda it was half a million hacked to death with machetes, I wonder if they would have been so bold if it was a gun fight?

 

[WildCat]

The freedom of speech typically doesn't cost millions of Americans their lives each and every year and is still subject to reasonable restriction.

Say what????

The freedom to assembly typically doesn't cost America 3.7 billion dollars annually and is still subject to reasonable restriction. Gun ownership has more cons than pros and has no place in modern society, and ought be severely restricted.

Please list the amount of money it costs to police protest marches and demonstrations, and also include the costs to businesses and such which lose revenue due to large demonstrations nearby.

The military, police, security, and so forth are typically trained in the proper use of their weapons, and subject to intense scrutiny.

How big of a problem do you think improper use of weapons is every year? Are the gang shootings in Chicago ever day a result of not being sufficiently trained in weapons use?

This proceeding weekend I went around town to various pawn shops, gun stores, and hunter supply shops to do some basic research on the matter. Previously I was under the belief that in order to purchase a firearm you need some kind of license or permit, which would be reasonable considering just how dangerous firearms are. Imagine my shock when I found out all you have to do is pass a background check.

Wow, it's almost like it's a right or something, and not a privilege doled out to a select few who the local pols decide should have them.

 

[Diazo]

Okay.

(One of) the biggest arguments I see for the right to bear arms is that it is necessary requirement to preserve your life and liberty by having the means to defend yourself.

I'm afraid I don't follow this.

A hand gun is designed to kill people, it has no other purpose. I want to preserve my life and liberty by not having a deadly weapon that has no other purpose anywhere near me and not carried by anyone.

Therefore I would be quite happy if all handguns were made illegal, full stop.

Why does maintaining my personal life and liberty require me to carry a deadly weapon at all times?

Pretty much the entire point of government (and its associated enforcement arms) is to allow my to live my life to do what I want safely and securely, while allowing my nieghbour to do the same.

Allowing (nearly) unrestricted access to guns is doing nothing but making the environment I live in less secure.

In response to the "I don't trust the goverment" responses this is going to draw, you fix what is wrong with the goverment, you don't arm yourself in preparation for when the government fails/falls.

(As this debate is about cultural morals as much as anything, note that I am Canadian.)

D.

 

[Belz...]

That too. But in the case of Rwanda it was half a million hacked to death with machetes, I wonder if they would have been so bold if it was a gun fight?

People seem even bolder when they have guns. The assailants would have had guns, and their purpose was ethnic cleansing fueled by hatred. I don't see how guns could've helped, so I'm still waiting for your clarification.

 

[Mudcat]

Say what????

Yeah I know, it is quite jaw dropping that gun owners defend their little hobby when it costs more lives in the United States in one year than in an active war zone in ten years. But I'm sure you won't let that stop you fantasizing playing the hero of the day, which accounts for less than a fraction of those lives lost.

Also, meant thousands, not millions.

Please list the amount of money it costs to police protest marches and demonstrations, and also include the costs to businesses and such which lose revenue due to large demonstrations nearby.

The closest I could get was the thirteen million Occupy Wall-street (the biggest recent demonstration) cost cities, which comes nowhere near the amount of damage done by gun violence. But don't let that stop you from fantasizing about shooting an intruder in your home, which is statistically less likely than you accidentally shooting your own son.

Are the gang shootings in Chicago ever day a result of not being sufficiently trained in weapons use?

This is more likely the fault of other social problems. Lack of adequate education and health care (both physical and mental) combined with the ill-advised war on drugs.

Wow, it's almost like it's a right or something, and not a privilege doled out to a select few who the local pols decide should have them.

I'm sorry, but your individual 'right' to keep and bear arms does not out weigh the right of the many to safety, security, and prosperity.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1116852498cc60f13e.jpg[/qimg]

I guess it could be considered humerus. If you consider 400 million uncontrolled firearms, thousands of deaths, and billions of dollars of damages in the country humerus that is.

 

[Belz...]

Say what????

I'm pretty sure he meant "thousands".

Wow, it's almost like it's a right or something

You know, just troting out that someone has a legal right to something doesn't mean it's not a problem, or that the fact that it's a right shouldn't be questioned. The law isn't a holy book.

 

[DavidJames]

Wow.

Utilizing your 1A right to bash the 2A and party politics without a hint of sarcasm. Nice.

Huh? Do you have a point? Is it I shouldn't have a negative opinion on the 2nd Amendment or party politics?

 

[Belz...]

Therefore I would be quite happy if all handguns were made illegal, full stop.

They could make pot legal so as to free up space in prisons.

 

[DavidJames]

You know, just troting out that someone has a legal right to something doesn't mean it's not a problem, or that the fact that it's a right shouldn't be questioned. The law isn't a holy book.

Thank you.

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate that for a while.

 

[Steve]

It would be little different from the US Civil War. We're not talking about a broke war-weary nation trying to hang on to the last vestiges of an empire.

And just like the US civil war there would be various factions of the military with all their resources fighting on opposite sides. Of course this scenario is extremely unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, but the chances are not zero.

QUOTE]

OK. That makes sense, and in the civil war scenario it would be a definite advantage to have your own gun(s). I just though that the Ghengis Khan/Josef Stalin comparison was a little over-the-top in this thread .

 

[cullennz]

I assure you, I am not joking.

Any particular reason you feel the need to carry a gun on a plane?

Is it a 9/11 paranoia thing or just a whim?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Whenever I read debates about the 2nd Amendment and what the Founding Fathers had in mind, my mind harkens back to the early 1980s short lived SNL knockoff 'Fridays' and their sketch "Behind the scenes of the Constitution:"



It's sorta long (6:35) and may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the bottom line was... "Hey, if the world get's crazy, and everyone shouldn't have guns, they'll change it!"

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Please list the amount of money it costs to police protest marches and demonstrations, and also include the costs to businesses and such which lose revenue due to large demonstrations nearby.

Don't forget to add money lost from all of the people who were late to work, because the march blocked the street! You could just keep artificially inflating that number all day.

Wow, it's almost like it's a right or something, and not a privilege doled out to a select few who the local pols decide should have them.

That's not what the Second Amendment says, though. It says it's a right...in order to maintain a well regulated militia. I have not seen a lot of miltias lately. In fact, I would not be surprised if the majority of gun owners didn't even belong to one!

 

[Pope130]

(snipped)
That's not what the Second Amendment says, though. It says it's a right...in order to maintain a well regulated militia. I have not seen a lot of miltias lately. In fact, I would not be surprised if the majority of gun owners didn't even belong to one!

USC Title 10, section E defines militia members.

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


By this definition a great many gun owners (and non gun owners) in the US are legaly members of the militia. I miss out on this definition by being too old, but qualify in another section by reason of drawing military retirement pay (as do a great many others).

 

[icebear]

Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

There are four basic reasons for the second ammendment in the United States.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major reason for it.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e. to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The problem with drug-dealers owning AKs is a drug problem and not a gun problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:

1. Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

2. Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

3. Clamp a permanent legal lid down on top of anybody peddling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.

4. Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself and your family from criminals and wild animals. In fact, the second amendment is basically an idea whose time has come all over the world. Why on Earth should people in India tolerate having 80,000 of their number killed every year by snakes? That could simply not happen in a nation whose people were armed.

And there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans (and others from more rural areas and places in which laws and customs had remained closer to those which the founding fathers envisioned) will tell you that while money was scarce, they always had 22 and 30 calibre ammunition, and that they always had something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit forming. In any sort of a down economic situation, that fourth rationale for the second amendment quickly becomes the most important.