The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

Skeptic Tank said:
I've just arrived and still need to read some of the other pages, any examples [of bigotry]?
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
I haven't seen any bigotry.
Click to expand...
I'm going by the Wiki definition ("Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."). I think it's pretty obvious and I'm currently loathe to quote specific posters, but it's definitely there; casual, arrogant denigration of American culture.
 
Australia's founding fathers were men of their time - misogynist, racist bigots. The vast majority of Australians know little of their opinions, and indeed, of our Constitution. Those who do know, have no regard for these colonials.

Why are the US founding fathers so omnipotent? Weren't a number of them slave owning racists? Why the adoration?
 
The Norseman said:
I'm going by the Wiki definition ("Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."). I think it's pretty obvious and I'm currently loathe to quote specific posters, but it's definitely there; casual, arrogant denigration of American culture.
Click to expand...

"Culture" doesn't appear in that definition, but never mind that. Have a wander around this forum and have a look at prejudice against people who hold political positions; people who express religious beliefs; prejudice against many cultures (often by Americans); intolerance of, for example, vegans. I could go on. Why is criticism (rather than bigotry, in my opinion) of the US gun culture out of bounds?
 
lionking said:
"Culture" doesn't appear in that definition, but never mind that. Have a wander around this forum and have a look at prejudice against people who hold political positions; people who express religious beliefs; prejudice against many cultures (often by Americans); intolerance of, for example, vegans. I could go on. Why is criticism (rather than bigotry, in my opinion) of the US gun culture out of bounds?
Click to expand...
Culture = "...or other characteristics"

Criticism isn't out of bounds and it's disingenuous of you to imply that I was talking about that when I am specifically talking about bigotry.
 
The Norseman said:
Culture = "...or other characteristics"

Criticism isn't out of bounds and it's disingenuous of you to imply that I was talking about that when I am specifically talking about bigotry.
Click to expand...

And I said that I don't consider it bigotry. One all.
 
The Norseman said:
I'm going by the Wiki definition ("Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."). I think it's pretty obvious and I'm currently loathe to quote specific posters, but it's definitely there; casual, arrogant denigration of American culture.
Click to expand...

Okay. I haven't seen any bigotry. Which is not to say that it isn't there, however.

As for me personally, I don't have a problem with the US having the gun culture that it does. Besides, as I said before, the right to bear arms is in fact an English innovation and one that was drawn on by the Founding Fathers of the US and those who drew up state consitutions such as the one in Pennsylvania. From what I can see the intent absolutely was to allow those who were considered citizens to have their private arms and it was not at all restricted to militias.

However, I have two caveats to my point.

One of those is that I don't see the right to bear arms as anywhere near on a par with the right to vote or freedom of speech. I certainly hope that people in the US do not see it that way as I would hate to see some drummed up military campaign to bomb the UK into freedom.

The second one is that it should of course be perfectly acceptable to deplore the US right to bear arms without it having to be branded as anti-American bigotry. After all, there are plenty of Americans who themselves are against the right to bear arms.
 
angrysoba said:
Okay. I haven't seen any bigotry. Which is not to say that it isn't there, however.

As for me personally, I don't have a problem with the US having the gun culture that it does. Besides, as I said before, the right to bear arms is in fact an English innovation and one that was drawn on by the Founding Fathers of the US and those who drew up state consitutions such as the one in Pennsylvania. From what I can see the intent absolutely was to allow those who were considered citizens to have their private arms and it was not at all restricted to militias.

However, I have two caveats to my point.

One of those is that I don't see the right to bear arms as anywhere near on a par with the right to vote or freedom of speech. I certainly hope that people in the US do not see it that way as I would hate to see some drummed up military campaign to bomb the UK into freedom.

The second one is that it should of course be perfectly acceptable to deplore the US right to bear arms without it having to be branded as anti-American bigotry. After all, there are plenty of Americans who themselves are against the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
To your two caveats:

First is that the Founders thought the 2nd amendment was vital to the survival of the country and from what I understand, it was at one point going to be the first amendment (due to their thoughts on the relative importance). However, I agree that the right to keep and bear arms has definitely lost that vital importance that it had more than two hundred years ago.

Second, I believe I'm being misunderstood regarding bigotry and criticism; I will not make this personal and call out certain posters, so I will accept that I will probably continue to be mistaken.

Specifically, I'm talking about anti-gun-owner bigotry, not necessarily anti-American bigotry. Some of my exasperation has been from other gun threads wherein the same posters in this thread are continuing their mocking and denigration of gun-owners. I admit there is some conflation on my part, but there is a definite anti-gun-owner bigotry in several posts in this thread which is what triggered my initial complaint.
 
I admit, I have been avoiding this thread that I started over the weekend, largely because it has gone pretty much exactly how I thought it probably would. I've caught up now. I'm aware that I've been asked a number of direct questions, particularly early on in the thread, and I apologise that I won't be answering them. Suffice to say that your arguments do not convince me, and I remain firmly opposed to the private ownership of guns except (reluctantly) in the case of sport and subsistence hunting.

The main argument that has been raised for the existence of the second amendment is historical - that it was required then for whatever reason (King, slaves, whatever) and therefore it still has validity now. I absolutely deny that argument. There is no reason whatsoever to maintain this status quo when the world has moved on. There is no king coming to try and tax you any more. You kicked him out with your guns. Good for you. That was two hundred years ago. Put your guns down and go play with the big kids.

The second argument has been raised is that of self-defence. I absolutely deny that a gun is a necessary tool for self-defence, particularly in a civilised society where there isn't rampant gun ownership. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and thus, alas, most likely unbreakable. That's a real shame, and I am very sorry that Americans are forced to live like that.

I can see no rational reason for citizens of a civilised country to consider ownership of deadly weapons a "right".
 
lionking said:
Why are the US founding fathers so omnipotent? Weren't a number of them slave owning racists? Why the adoration?
Click to expand...

Many societies like a creation myth. Here in the UK we've got Arthur, Alfred and so on. Throw in a bit of "good Queen Bess" and you've got a fine tale. unfortunately for the U.S. their founding fathers are sufficiently recent for their human flaws to have been reliably recorded.

In the U.K. there is an irrational love for the Royal family, IMO in the U.S. that irrational love has been applied to the founding fathers (who did a fine job but who were in no way infallible), the constitution and the flag.

That said, IMO the U.S. has more to be happy about in that regard.
 
arthwollipot said:
I admit, I have been avoiding this thread that I started over the weekend, largely because it has gone pretty much exactly how I thought it probably would. I've caught up now. I'm aware that I've been asked a number of direct questions, particularly early on in the thread, and I apologise that I won't be answering them. Suffice to say that your arguments do not convince me, and I remain firmly opposed to the private ownership of guns except (reluctantly) in the case of sport and subsistence hunting.

The main argument that has been raised for the existence of the second amendment is historical - that it was required then for whatever reason (King, slaves, whatever) and therefore it still has validity now. I absolutely deny that argument. There is no reason whatsoever to maintain this status quo when the world has moved on. There is no king coming to try and tax you any more. You kicked him out with your guns. Good for you. That was two hundred years ago. Put your guns down and go play with the big kids.

The second argument has been raised is that of self-defence. I absolutely deny that a gun is a necessary tool for self-defence, particularly in a civilised society where there isn't rampant gun ownership. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and thus, alas, most likely unbreakable. That's a real shame, and I am very sorry that Americans are forced to live like that.

I can see no rational reason for citizens of a civilised country to consider ownership of deadly weapons a "right".
Click to expand...

Very well said, Arth! I totally agree.
 
arthwollipot said:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?
Click to expand...



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.

National Militia Standards, Article.1:
It is the duty of the citizen’s militia to protect and defend the unalienable Rights of all members of the community. Under no circumstances will the militia tolerate those who advocate acts of criminal violence, terrorism, racism or a change away from our republican form of government; nor will it support any specific political party or candidate, nor espouse any particular religious denomination or doctrine. All members must understand the duties and obligation of both citizens and government under the Constitution.

I do think we should have the right to bear arms. There are three general groups that have guns in this country;

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

2. The bad guys they have access to many military grade semi and full auto rifles.

3. The peoplewe probably have more guns than criminals, but many are shotguns, .22 rifles, small handguns, semi-auto,etc..

It is imperative that the people have guns to defend against threats to this country, both domestic and foreign threats and criminals.
 
jakesteele said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since you don't have such a well regulated Militia any more, it clearly is not necessary to the security of a free state, and the dependent clause no longer applies.
 
arthwollipot said:
The second argument has been raised is that of self-defence. I absolutely deny that a gun is a necessary tool for self-defence, particularly in a civilised society where there isn't rampant gun ownership. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and thus, alas, most likely unbreakable. That's a real shame, and I am very sorry that Americans are forced to live like that.
Click to expand...

At present it is a lovely Spring evening in beautiful downtown Lara. My front door is wide open. I do have a wire door, also unlocked, to keep mini beasties out as flies seem to be coming back for the coming summer, but they are not carrying magnums. I have absolutely no concern or fear that anybody will see my open door, and the light in my lounge, and me, and try to rob, or shoot me.

But, then, this is Australia. Maybe people are just different here.

Norm
 
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 really must remember that when speaking to some citizens of the USA about countries not on their continent, I must be very specific.
 
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...


Ah, so you're saying that a tactic that has been proven to work when applied against an entrenched and unwanted leadership doesn't actually work?

Just to check?

Or are we back to the, startlingly common argument, that the 'USA is unique and it doesn't work like that here'?
 
jakesteele said:
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.

National Militia Standards, Article.1:
It is the duty of the citizen’s militia to protect and defend the unalienable Rights of all members of the community. Under no circumstances will the militia tolerate those who advocate acts of criminal violence, terrorism, racism or a change away from our republican form of government; nor will it support any specific political party or candidate, nor espouse any particular religious denomination or doctrine. All members must understand the duties and obligation of both citizens and government under the Constitution.

I do think we should have the right to bear arms. There are three general groups that have guns in this country;

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

2. The bad guys they have access to many military grade semi and full auto rifles.

3. The peoplewe probably have more guns than criminals, but many are shotguns, .22 rifles, small handguns, semi-auto,etc..

It is imperative that the people have guns to defend against threats to this country, both domestic and foreign threats and criminals.
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between groups two and three?
 
icebear said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL! Seriously?! I would assume that most of the 80,000 Indians who get fatally bitten by snakes didn't know they were there until they had, in which case no firearm would have saved them. And if you can see the snake in order to shoot it, most times one could simply avoid it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom