Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Jayhawker Soule]

And what if we go to war and are invaded by another nation that will rape and pillage our land? Do you really want our citizens left without a way to defend themselves?

Think that through a bit and then, if you still insist on asking such a silly question, pose it again.

 

[RedDragon94]

Think that through a bit and then, if you still insist on asking such a silly question, pose it again.

I guess you think that's what America deserves?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess you think that's what America deserves?

What's better in your scenario? Stand, fight, and make things worse for you and your family, or focus on staying alive and if at all possible fleeing? We don't train people to use their guns, we don't teach them how to use them for defensive purposes, thus it is laughable to think most gun totting Americans would be able to effectively defend themselves. Guns do not guarantee safety and salvation, and even if you are trained for gun usage and self defense, you still have to have the opportunity to defend yourself, which is something that may never present itself. If you can defend yourself and repel an invading force, great. But it can't be assumed that an untrained populace will be able to effectively do this.

 

[RedDragon94]

What's better in your scenario? Stand, fight, and make things worse for you and your family, or focus on staying alive and if at all possible fleeing? We don't train people to use their guns, we don't teach them how to use them for defensive purposes, thus it is laughable to think most gun totting Americans would be able to effectively defend themselves. Guns do not guarantee safety and salvation, and even if you are trained for gun usage and self defense, you still have to have the opportunity to defend yourself, which is something that may never present itself. If you can defend yourself and repel an invading force, great. But it can't be assumed that an untrained populace will be able to effectively do this.

The armies of other countries don't have any authority over here. That's why we declared independence. Therefore I wouldn't be making anything worse by defending myself. The way I see it, if they have guns and I don't I'm a sitting duck and I have much less of a chance of escaping.

And another thing, who is we?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Therefore I wouldn't be making anything worse by defending myself.

That can be a grave tactical mistake. You have to know when to fight and when not to fight, and fighting when it's not a good time to fight can not only make things worse for yourself, under such a hypothetical invasion it can make things worse for others around you. This initial defense may only achieve nothing more than throwing your life away, and needlessly reduce the numbers for a counter attack before attack can even be launched. Really, the only suitable answer and course of action can only ever be discovered after you have accessed your current situation. Sometimes the bullet is better used on yourself than the enemy.

The way I see it, if they have guns and I don't I'm a sitting duck and I have much less of a chance of escaping.

You can have guns and still be a sitting duck. They do not guarantee safety, they cannot promise survival, and they will not ensure you even have a chance to use them.

And another thing, who is we?

Americans in general, where we don't even make sure somebody even knows how to properly load a gun before we let them buy one.

 

[RedDragon94]

Americans in general, where we don't even make sure somebody even knows how to properly load a gun before we let them buy one.

We assume that they're going to get the training, yeah that is a loophole.

You can have guns and still be a sitting duck. They do not guarantee safety, they cannot promise survival, and they will not ensure you even have a chance to use them.

I think if we require training then people will be better suited to use them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think if we require training then people will be better suited to use them.

They will be, but we still have to ditch the mentality that having guns will promise our safety and salvation in case of something like an invasion. It's just a simple fact that self defense is entirely contingent upon the opportunity to defend yourself presenting itself, and being able to effectively defend yourself without making the situation worse. Sometimes you can fight, sometimes you can run, and sometimes you will die regardless.

 

[RedDragon94]

sometimes you will die regardless

I don't believe that. If you have been trained effectively you will survive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't believe that. If you have been trained effectively you will survive.

That simple means you have not considered all possible situations and outcomes. Things like ambushes and sneak attacks can render even the best training useless, and entire wars have hung on the balance and the tides turned completely because of one side utilizing such tactics (such as Vlad III's near defeat of Mehmed II or the Japanese forcing the Mongolians to withdraw from their first invasion of Japan - both attacks occurred at night and when the attacks were not expected, the Japanese attack especially which happened just after a typhoon and involved samurai boarding Mongolian ships).

 

[Thanda]

You are debating the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land in the United States of America.

Your protestations that this is not a matter of law are illogical.

I know. I'm not quite sure how that addresses my post though.

 

[Thanda]

It does not state nor even imply "that a right already exists for the people (not the military or militias) to keep and bear arms...", and we know this not only from the wording but also how that decision was largely rationalized by the FF. It's been only the Heller Decision that has gone more in your direction, but that's not been the standard throughout our history, and even Heller does not fully open the door for an absolutist position of anyone and everyone having a weapon of their choice.

"It" refers to the actual wording of the 2nd. The reference to the militia is clear, whereas the reference to the "people" is not that clear because it begs the question "Which people?", and the SCOTUS has never interpreted that is being all people.

The wording certainly implies it. If the wording meant to create a right I suspect it would have said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms". But of course it does not say that. Instead it say the right of the people (which right?, created when?) shall not be infringed. Certainly the wording is not the wording used when one wishes to create a right, like say the right to an education or to clean water.

Secondly it is a moot point that the Heller decision "does not fully open the door for an absolutist position of anyone and everyone having a weapon of their choice" as we have already agreed that no right (not even the right to life) is absolute. But that a right is not absolute does not change the fact that, until circumstances otherwise dictate, the right does apply to everyone.

And of course you cannot hold any weapon of your choosing since the second amendment does not specify what type of "arms" the people are permitted to hold (from the context it is clear that guns are included in the type of arms contemplated but it is unlikely that they expected people to keep canons in their own homes).

 

[Mister Emu]

Obviously “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals”

What other rights of the people are you willing to discard as individual rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

They will be, but we still have to ditch the mentality that having guns will promise our safety and salvation in case of something like an invasion. It's just a simple fact that self defense is entirely contingent upon the opportunity to defend yourself presenting itself, and being able to effectively defend yourself without making the situation worse. Sometimes you can fight, sometimes you can run, and sometimes you will die regardless.

The fallacy here is the word "promise".
Having guns is no guarantee....it's about the possibility that in some potential scenarios they could be useful in defense.
And whether armed or unarmed, good judgement is typically useful.

 

[Curious George]

Why do you say that?

The Second Amendment right is the right of the people to have an armed well-regulated militia in order to provide for the security of a free state. It is the right of the people as a whole to keep and bear arms for the purpose specified in the prefatory clause. In this sense, “the people” in the Second Amendment carries exactly the same meaning as “the people” in the Constitution’s preamble and elsewhere.

Obviously “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” because many individuals are lawfully forbidden to purchase and possess guns--due to having been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence; due to having been adjudicated as dangerous; due to being underage. Any individual can temporarily be lawfully forbidden to possess his/her guns when in “sensitive places” (e.g., a courtroom) or even when detained on suspicion of a committing a crime, without yet being charged.

The phrase “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” to keep and bear arms for personal-use purposes because such interpretation unavoidably raises the conundrum of “which arms” individuals may keep and bear, a conundrum that Scalia was unable to resolve coherently. To interpret the Amendment as securing a right to maintain armed well-regulated militias does not provoke such a confounding question--we know that we want a well-regulated militia that is providing for the common defense to have access to all available weapons that can possibly be effective in providing for the common defense. We know that we don’t want, and don’t allow, individuals to have any and all kinds of weapons for personal-use purposes--individuals cannot keep and bear machine-guns, anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades, etc., etc. Here is California’s lengthy list of weapon that are prohibited for individuals to keep and bear for personal-use purposes:

short-barreled shotgun
short-barreled rifle
camouflaging firearm container
cane gun
wallet gun
undetectable firearm
flechette dart
zip gun
unconventional pistol
multiburst trigger activator
bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent
dirk or dagger
nunchaku
metal knuckle
hard plastic knuckles
ballistic knife
shuriken
belt buckle knife
lipstick case knife
cane sword
shobi-zue
leaded cane
air gauge knife
writing pen knife
metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade
large capacity magazine
Machineguns
Assault Weapons
Armor-Piercing Bullets
Larger Caliber Weapons and Tracer Ammunition
Firearm Silencers
Sniperscopes
Boobytraps
Flamethrowers

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

Justice Breyer points out that Scalia’s attempt to answer the “which guns” question is the product of circular reasoning, and notes that there is no rational reason to believe that the Framers wrote a provision that relied on such a fallacious thought process. Indeed, except for reliance on such circular reasoning, there is no way to justify excluding handguns from the list of prohibited “dangerous weapons”. Handguns are currently the most lethal type of firearm to American civilians.

These are among the reasons that “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals”.

Does the fourth amendment not secure a right of the individual?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And what if we go to war and are invaded by another nation that will rape and pillage our land? Do you really want our citizens left without a way to defend themselves?

Think that through a bit and then, if you still insist on asking such a silly question, pose it again.

I guess you think that's what America deserves?

I'm sorry. It's just that I was having a hard time wondering why someone would pose such a stupid question.

But, if you insist on posing cheap comic book hypotheticals: any invasion capable of instantly bypassing the US military would be more than capable of dealing with you and your silly weapon. Conversely, any invasion that developed over any reasonably sufficient period of time would offer more than ample time for the US military, the National Guard, and the police to distribute arms as needed.

As for your final post: what I think America deserves is an intelligent and responsible citizenry.

 

[metis]

What is the difference, politically, between a gun and a loaded gun?

I wasn't referring to this "politically" with my post you're referring to.

 

[metis]

LOL, that is not what we were discussing. We were discussing whether people use guns in self defense "rarely." Chances are that these are the studies across which you have ran or at least the studies on which those studies relied. The author has a large body of work in this specific field and these conclusion are certainly noteworthy and deserve examination and consideration in there own right. But be careful with taking statistical data and trying to apply it to case specific situations. This is certainly an academic no-no.

Is it smart to engage in safe gun practices? yes. Is anyone disputing that? No. What we are discussing is the repeal of the second amendment and as an aside the different interpretations that amendment has.

But peoples misuse compared to self defense could fall under the reasons to repeal the second amendment. Intimidating someone with a gun is illegal. This activity crime should be reported. If some people are going to use guns to do this, then charge them with crimes and take away their right to use a gun. However, this should not impact Dick or Jane's ability to lawfully use a gun to protect their lives or the lives of their family. In essence you are suggesting that because a group of people are misusing guns that other people's right of self defense should be impacted. This would be like suggesting that because some people use speech to intimidate the right of everyone to free speech should disappear. We have rules to address speech that intimidates and we have rules to address uses of guns for intimidation.

You are taking this off in all different directions, so I'm not going to waste our time getting into a tit-for-tat discussion on all these points. Plus I find the "LOL" really to be quite offensive in your context above, indicating that you'd much rather try and score points in a pissing match than to engage in any serious discussion based on the research. On top of that, you misrepresent what I was saying near the end, taking it to the point of absurdity that I did not state nor imply.

Therefore, I'm really not interested in pursuing this with you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry. It's just that I was having a hard time wondering why someone would pose such a stupid question.

But, if you insist on posing cheap comic book hypotheticals: any invasion capable of instantly bypassing the US military would be more than capable of dealing with you and your silly weapon. Conversely, any invasion that developed over any reasonably sufficient period of time would offer more than ample time for the US military, the National Guard, and the police to distribute arms as needed.

As for your final post: what I think America deserves is an intelligent and responsible citizenry.

The scenario you posit is certainly one of many possible.
Yes, government could arm us if they had ample warning & time.
And the nature of warfare has changed in the last couple centuries,
with us now relying much more upon WMDs. And you ain't seen
nuthin yet. (This was my business....designing such novelties.)
But we've vulnerabilities which don't eliminate small arms.
Consider....
- Space warfare makes our CCC technology vulnerable.
- Nuclear warfare has problems, & might be used sparingly or not at all.
- Armies with small arms are still significant in war today.
- We lack the industrial depth to fight a prolonged war were it brought to our shores.
- Modern warfare can happen more quickly than in days of yore.

Don't put all my eggs in one basket.

 

[metis]

The wording certainly implies it. If the wording meant to create a right I suspect it would have said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms". But of course it does not say that. Instead it say the right of the people (which right?, created when?) shall not be infringed. Certainly the wording is not the wording used when one wishes to create a right, like say the right to an education or to clean water.

Except that interpretation doesn't reflect the introductory segment of the sentence, namely "A well-regulated militia...". One simply cannot ignore that and just focus on the rest of the sentence, and this is exactly what some people are doing here. Again, the SCOTUS never has viewed this as being a personal right that is unconditional, and even Heller didn't fully cross that bridge.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am open to hear ideas about how we could safely repeal the 2nd amendment, but I don't think that we could do it right now. I feel like it is too idealistic to hope that the world can be without weapons any time soon. How could that be possible?