The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[The Norseman]

Really? Do you have to provide your own weapons for that?

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

It's already been stated in this thread. Did you miss it?

 

[Mudcat]

1. The govt.(they've got the biggest, the most, and the most badass, state-of-the-art 'guns' in existence.

The government has armored tanks, flying gunships, naval warships that can launch missiles at you over half a continent away, aerial drones that can wipe you out before you even know that they're there, as well as all the high calibre weapons the infantry uses and you think if they ever attack you that you would stand a chance with your piddly little dear riffle? Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[GlennB]

It's good for my freezer. I don't buy steaks or hamburger. My daughter wanted part of hers made into breakfast sausage. We now have 50 pounds of it.


That article is from 2010 and inaccurate.

The first "30% down" quote is from 2012. Perhaps the general deer population picked up suddenly (in a single year??), or perhaps they're over-abundant in your area and could use some culling.

But I suppose what sparked my interest and reaction was the idea that hunting had anything to do with the 2A. It doesn't, as hunting is unrelated to the formation of a militia. The legal ownership of guns for hunting is common to most countries in the world. Your guns are (I presume) legal for that legal activity, end of, so why you're posting those photos is something of a mystery.

But it brings us back to the o/p - that the 'right to bear arms, shall not be infringed' might actually apply in the USA is a fallacy, but one that's deeply beloved:

(irrelevant bits snipped)
in·fringe

Verb

• .......
• Act so as to limit ..... (something); encroach on:

The so-called 'right to bear arms' in the USA is already infringed, left right and centre. It's infringed by limits on age, class of weapon, places where such weapons may be carried, classes of folk that may legally 'bear' arms at all, the requirement for licences and so on and so on.

Like many constitutional 'rights' it isn't an absolute. It's heavily modified by the law, and differently modified from place to place.

In a sense the question in the o/p doesn't even get off the ground, as there is no 'right' to bear arms in the USA. A literal interpretation of the 2A is in direct conflict with the law as it applies on the ground, here in 2013. Don't quote the 2A in opposition to theoretical changes to gun law unless you're also willing to allow infants, the insane and felons to carry guns, see guns freely carried onto planes, into workplaces and so on.

And that's why we shouldn't take the 2A literally, and why further modifications to US gun law aiming to restrict gun ownership cannot be waved aside with the parrot-cry of 'unconstitutional'.

You can have your cake or eat it.

 

[Giz]

The first "30% down" quote is from 2012. Perhaps the general deer population picked up suddenly (in a single year??), or perhaps they're over-abundant in your area and could use some culling.

But I suppose what sparked my interest and reaction was the idea that hunting had anything to do with the 2A. It doesn't, as hunting is unrelated to the formation of a militia. The legal ownership of guns for hunting is common to most countries in the world. Your guns are (I presume) legal for that legal activity, end of, so why you're posting those photos is something of a mystery.

But it brings us back to the o/p - that the 'right to bear arms, shall not be infringed' might actually apply in the USA is a fallacy, but one that's deeply beloved:

(irrelevant bits snipped)
in·fringe

Verb

• .......
• Act so as to limit ..... (something); encroach on:

The so-called 'right to bear arms' in the USA is already infringed, left right and centre. It's infringed by limits on age, class of weapon, places where such weapons may be carried, classes of folk that may legally 'bear' arms at all, the requirement for licences and so on and so on.

Like many constitutional 'rights' it isn't an absolute. It's heavily modified by the law, and differently modified from place to place.

In a sense the question in the o/p doesn't even get off the ground, as there is no 'right' to bear arms in the USA. A literal interpretation of the 2A is in direct conflict with the law as it applies on the ground, here in 2013. Don't quote the 2A in opposition to theoretical changes to gun law unless you're also willing to allow infants, the insane and felons to carry guns, see guns freely carried onto planes, into workplaces and so on.

And that's why we shouldn't take the 2A literally, and why further modifications to US gun law aiming to restrict gun ownership cannot be waved aside with the parrot-cry of 'unconstitutional'.

You can have your cake or eat it.

Wow. You should email this gem to the Supreme Court, those fools could do with your guidance on constitutional law!

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The so-called 'right to bear arms' in the USA is already infringed, left right and centre. It's infringed by limits on age, class of weapon, places where such weapons may be carried, classes of folk that may legally 'bear' arms at all, the requirement for licences and so on and so on.


Like many constitutional 'rights' it isn't an absolute. It's heavily modified by the law, and differently modified from place to place.

In a sense the question in the o/p doesn't even get off the ground, as there is no 'right' to bear arms in the USA. A literal interpretation of the 2A is in direct conflict with the law as it applies on the ground, here in 2013. Don't quote the 2A in opposition to theoretical changes to gun law unless you're also willing to allow infants, the insane and felons to carry guns, see guns freely carried onto planes, into workplaces and so on.

And that's why we shouldn't take the 2A literally, and why further modifications to US gun law aiming to restrict gun ownership cannot be waved aside with the parrot-cry of 'unconstitutional'.

You can have your cake or eat it.

So since the right to free speech is also already infringed we should just do away with that too. The right to privacy seems to be on shaky ground so we might as well scrap that while we're at it. Next you'll be telling me that since I have to register to vote I might as well not be allowed to. Golly, this brave new world looks like fun!

 

[Mudcat]

Appealing to emotion? It seems that you don't have a good arguement against using firearms to hunt. Do your children think meat just appears in the store already wrapped in plastic? Maybe they think dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets grow on trees. I pity you "civilized" people.

There is absolutely no need to go hunting to put food on the table, although it doesn't come to as a surprise to me that a Gunloverstanian can't seem to wrap their head around that concept. In point of fact, of all the millions of tons of food produced in the United States hunting doesn't even produce a fraction of it.

But if you were to argue that hunting is more humane, I would agree with you without hesitation.

 

[Sabretooth]

The government has armored tanks, flying gunships, naval warships that can launch missiles at you over half a continent away, aerial drones that can wipe you out before you even know that they're there, as well as all the high calibre weapons the infantry uses and you think if they ever attack you that you would stand a chance with your piddly little dear riffle? Yeah, good luck with that.

And yet, they lost Vietnam and are still having trouble with guerrilla tactics in Iraq...

 

[Mudcat]

And yet, they lost Vietnam and are still having trouble with guerrilla tactics in Iraq...

They lost in Vietnam because they didn't adjust their tactics accordingly, and have had problems in Iraq because they didn't learn from Vietnam. Last I check, though, they seem to have the Iraq situation figured out. So if they ever come at you with your little dear riffle, I wouldn't count on guerrilla tactics to win.

 

[Sabretooth]

There is absolutely no need to go hunting to put food on the table

Maybe not today...what about tomorrow?

Also, hunting deer, squirrel, rabbit, and turkey saves me quite a bit of money. Where else can I get 50-60lbs of meat for the $2 sabot slug I spent?

...although it doesn't come to as a surprise to me that a Gunloverstanian can't seem to wrap their head around that concept.

You're flawed opinion is noted.

In point of fact, of all the millions of tons of food produced in the United States hunting doesn't even produce a fraction of it.

No one said it did. But you go ahead and eat your hormone injected beef and waterlogged chicken and pay a small fortune for it. More deer for me.

But if you were to argue that hunting is more humane, I would agree with you without hesitation.

Thank you.

 

[Mudcat]

Also, hunting deer, squirrel, rabbit, and turkey saves me quite a bit of money. Where else can I get 50-60lbs of meat for the $2 sabot slug I spent?

The biggest flaw in hunting should be abundantly obvious. You can spend all day out in the field and still come back empty handed.

No one said it did. But you go ahead and eat your hormone injected beef and waterlogged chicken and pay a small fortune for it.

Actually I've given up meat to help show support and encouragement for my mom, who has had to give up meat because of medical reasons.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Xulld]

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.

Slow Clap!!!!!!!!

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).

So what specifically is NOT happening in Vermont? They have guns and low murder rates . . . .

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.

Right and if you cut the average murder rate in the US in half it is very close to every other industrial nation @ 2.5/100K

You can also attempt to falsify the theory that more arms means more crime by explaining states such as Vermont, or Virginia, or New Hampshire. Each of these states has very easy going laws and rates of murder similar to Europe. (Ever wonder why Anti-gun "scientists" seem to ignore falsification methods?)


Edit: I love how all of the people in this thread speak to needs as if they are objective and universal. Needs are relative to a given situation, they are discrete values that live in time and place. Without context all such statements are trivial and meaningless.


-Back in the day I did not know I needed the 25 pounds of venison in the freezer until I lost my job spent 2 months searching for one, even then it was only a need from the context of saving my nest egg. Pretending you can account for needs given your limited understanding of the context is about as bad as uncritical thinking can get.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe not today...what about tomorrow?

Also, hunting deer, squirrel, rabbit, and turkey saves me quite a bit of money. Where else can I get 50-60lbs of meat for the $2 sabot slug I spent?

All that with one slug? WOW! Hellova shot!

 

[Sabretooth]

The biggest flaw in hunting should be abundantly obvious. You can spend all day out in the field and still come back empty handed.

Sure...it's possible. But the reward/return is high for the minor gamble. I've gotten 1 or 2 deer every single year for the last 8 years. Kind of hard to call that a bust.

I won't get into the other positives of hunting...that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[Sabretooth]

All that with one slug? WOW! Hellova shot!

Are you being sarcastic?


ETA: Nevermind...I got the joke....I'm slow today....

 

[Polaris]

The government has armored tanks, flying gunships, naval warships that can launch missiles at you over half a continent away, aerial drones that can wipe you out before you even know that they're there, as well as all the high calibre weapons the infantry uses and you think if they ever attack you that you would stand a chance with your piddly little dear riffle? Yeah, good luck with that.

I'll ask again, since I haven't received a real answer to this question (other than one suggesting that posts claiming what the one I quoted claims don't exist), why do you assume that armed resistance would take the form of a pitched battle with the US army?

 

[WildCat]

You'd think so. However the very fact we're having this discussion over and over on this forum seems to indicate that it's not.

That we're discussing guns on this forum has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made. You may well have cited the price of apples.

 

[WildCat]

high calibre weapons

What the hell is that? The opposite of "low caliber"?

 

[Mudcat]

I'll ask again, since I haven't received a real answer to this question (other than one suggesting that posts claiming what the one I quoted claims don't exist), why do you assume that armed resistance would take the form of a pitched battle with the US army?

I don't assume that. People who masturbate over the idea of fighting it out with the evil empire government are the ones who probably have this grand idea of pitched battle with a decidedly superior foe and emerging victorious but are probably in the minority of gun owners. The majority probably see that for the death wish that it is and would more likely to choose guerrilla tactics instead.

However I don't see guerrilla tactics as being successful for any length of time these days, what with lessons that the military hopefully learned in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

[Mudcat]

What the hell is that? The opposite of "low caliber"?

Hope this helps.

 

[Polaris]

What the hell is that? The opposite of "low caliber"?

I missed that bit. The armed forces infantry generally uses smaller caliber weapons than the average deer rifle.

I don't assume that. People who masturbate over the idea of fighting it out with the evil empire government are the ones who probably have this grand idea of pitched battle with a decidedly superior foe and emerging victorious but are probably in the minority of gun owners. The majority probably see that for the death wish that it is and would more likely to choose guerrilla tactics instead.

However I don't see guerrilla tactics as being successful for any length of time these days, what with lessons that the military hopefully learned in Vietnam and Iraq.

You could have fooled me.