The 2nd Amendment

[dawny0826]

I would rather not vote, since I'm not American, but no, I don't think the 2nd Ammendment makes any sense or has any relevancy now, or for the last few decades at the very least. It was meant as a safety measure for a newly founded country, at a time when a militia could effectively defend itself from its own government.

That isn't really possible, since the 1960s at the very least. The one relevant consequence of the survival of the Ammendment to this day is that Americans think of it as a political statement or a justification for their love of weapons.

Even then, it is way too vague and way too outdated a statement to be the best conceivable. It really ought to be put away and substituted with clearer staments about gun ownership and use, perhaps at the State level.

Per www.wikipedia.org...

Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Act of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[54]

[55]

The individual right to bear arms was retained and should not be infringed upon.

America is a nation established for the people, by the people. We're questioning the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in the thread.

I don't understand how the ability to protect your own family can ever lose its relevance. I don't understand how the ability to protect American citizens if the government were to fall or to be unavailable to respond to catastrophy or emergency could ever be irrelevant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can people just get this notion that "there is nothing the American people can do against its own military" out of their heads? As someone who is in the US military, it is not true.

Maybe you are right. Although I'm not sure that is a good thing, either.

 

[LuisDantas]

Per www.wikipedia.org...

[55]

The individual right to bear arms was retained and should not be infringed upon.

America is a nation established for the people, by the people. We're questioning the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in the thread.

I don't understand how the ability to protect your own family can ever lose its relevance. I don't understand how the ability to protect American citizens if the government were to fall or to be unavailable to respond to catastrophy or emergency could ever be irrelevant.

"Should not be infringed upon" is a terribly vague statement. Something that should not be done can usually be done, and the reasons why that shouldn't be done must be specified.

Nor do I see how the Amendment has any relationship to the ability to protect oneself or one's own family. There are some underlying assumptions at work here.

 

[dawny0826]

"Should not be infringed upon" is a terribly vague statement. Something that should not be done can usually be done, and the reasons why that shouldn't be done must be specified.

Nor do I see how the Amendment has any relationship to the ability to protect oneself or one's own family. There are some underlying assumptions at work here.

Also from the same source...

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3]

The framers did believe in the people's rights to bear arms for self protection. It was government entities later who challenged the intent of the framers.

It really doesn't matter as the 2nd amendment has an official interpretation, per above and does in fact protect the indivdual's right to possess a firearm. This includes self-defense.

I'm making no assumptions. The framers did not mean for this right to be "infringed upon", stripped away. The framers intended for the American people to retain the right to bear arms. The people should always retain the ability to protect themselves from each other and the government if they need to. That's no less relevant today.

Though it would be an extreme circumstance for the people to need to protect themselves from the government - it's not at all uncommon for the American citizen to need to protect him or herself from fellow citizens - in their own home.

 

[BBTimeless]

I don't understand how the ability to protect your own family can ever lose its relevance. I don't understand how the ability to protect American citizens if the government were to fall or to be unavailable to respond to catastrophy or emergency could ever be irrelevant.

In a perfect world we would just say the word and "poof' all guns would be out of private ownership. It is proven that countries with this type of control in place suffer less gun-oriented violence. If they were able to disappear like that it would beg the question "protect your family from what?". Of course, this is all fantasy.

 

[dawny0826]

In a perfect world we would just say the word and "poof' all guns would be out of private ownership. It is proven that countries with this type of control in place suffer less gun-oriented violence. If they were able to disappear like that it would beg the question "protect your family from what?". Of course, this is all fantasy.

People still commit crime in these countries. Men still have penises and can still rape. People still have hands and can strangle. There are still objects to use.

People pull the trigger, you know. People are the problem.

 

[BBTimeless]

People still commit crime in these countries. Men still have penises and can still rape. People still have hands and can strangle. There are still objects to use.

People pull the trigger, you know. People are the problem.

True. People are the problem, all the more reason I don't want those same people wielding weapons that can cause mortal harm.

 

[dawny0826]

True. People are the problem, all the more reason I don't want those same people wielding weapons that can cause mortal harm.

I'm sorry, but that's busted logic. A freaking writing pen can cause mortal harm if used to kill, dude.

Criminals and whack jobs will continue to find weapons (and guns! illegally, as they're doing now) and will continue to do moronic and horrific things. Unstable people will continue to do things that shock the hell out of us.

People who would own and utilize weapons responsibly wouldn't be able to defend themselves against these ********.

Do you not see a problem with this, particularly when it's a violation of constitutional rights?

 

[LuisDantas]

True. People are the problem, all the more reason I don't want those same people wielding weapons that can cause mortal harm.

Pretty much this.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry, but that's busted logic. A freaking writing pen can cause mortal harm if used to kill, dude.

Yes, it can. But with which rate of fire and maximum effective range?

How many people (other than politicians and lawyers) will be actually dangerous because they carry pens, and how difficult will it be for authorities to keep them under watch and contain them if need be?

Criminals and whack jobs will continue to find weapons (and guns! illegally, as they're doing now) and will continue to do moronic and horrific things. Unstable people will continue to do things that shock the hell out of us.

And they will continue to have that much easier a time and require little determination or provocation because it is so unremarkable and unchallenging to find, borrow or steal legal firearms from pretty much anyone. Adam Lanza used his own mother's. The Columbine kids had theirs bought by a 18 years old friend.

People who would own and utilize weapons responsibly wouldn't be able to defend themselves against these ********.

And in most cases they wouldn't even have a reason to try.

Do you not see a problem with this, particularly when it's a violation of constitutional rights?

I sure don't. Constitutional rights are ultimately just a kind of interpretation of law, after all. And this one is a particularly exotic and questionable specimen.

 

[BBTimeless]

I'm sorry, but that's busted logic. A freaking writing pen can cause mortal harm if used to kill, dude.

You are foolishly comparing the potential lethality of a writing utensil and a firearm...

Criminals and whack jobs will continue to find weapons (and guns! illegally, as they're doing now) and will continue to do moronic and horrific things. Unstable people will continue to do things that shock the hell out of us.

Yes, yes they will. As of right now they are assisted by the ease of which they are able to obtain firearms.

People who would own and utilize weapons responsibly wouldn't be able to defend themselves against these ********.

It would be a bit easier if they didn't have firearms, yes?

Do you not see a problem with this, particularly when it's a violation of constitutional rights?

Not when we are proposing and discussing the theoretical scenario of altering/abolishing the 2nd Amendment, no.

 

[Thief]

I was surprised at the close % in this poll.

Our founding fathers came to this land searching for liberty.
The British followed.

Having secured some sense of liberty....and the gun was an essential item in that action....
They installed that one catch phrase with intention that it not be INFRINGED!

Take a look at government having guns and the population does not.

And of course equal fire power is essential.

Heaven forbid our land should yield to martial law.
May we never see the day.

 

[BBTimeless]

I was surprised at the close % in this poll.

Our founding fathers came to this land searching for liberty.
The British followed.

Having secured some sense of liberty....and the gun was an essential item in that action....
They installed that one catch phrase with intention that it not be INFRINGED!

Take a look at government having guns and the population does not.

And of course equal fire power is essential.

Heaven forbid our land should yield to martial law.
May we never see the day.

If our government really, I mean really, wanted to screw you, they could. Trying to physically take your life would be a complete afterthought. Your credit, gone. All loans, defaulted. Cyber identity, shattered. All income could be ceased and seized. Assets frozen. Car impounded. All services stopped. No fly list. Passport blacklisted; etc etc etc.

Then, you expect me to believe that a mob of farmers with AR-15's is going to stand against a military that declares martial law? The same military capable of reaching any one point on this earth. Tell me, how many aircraft carriers are you the admiral of? How about long range artillery? How many squadrons of f-16's do you possess? Drones, do you have them and how would you deal with them? Do you have tens of thousands of specially trained operatives to fight back with? How about a specialized network of intelligence? Frankly, anyone suggesting that their precious AR-15 would be enough to stand against a rogue government is delusional. Period.

 

[Thief]

If our government really, I mean really, wanted to screw you, they could. Trying to physically take your life would be a complete afterthought. Your credit, gone. All loans, defaulted. Cyber identity, shattered. All income could be ceased and seized. Assets frozen. Car impounded. All services stopped. No fly list. Passport blacklisted; etc etc etc.

Then, you expect me to believe that a mob of farmers with AR-15's is going to stand against a military that declares martial law? The same military capable of reaching any one point on this earth. Tell me, how many aircraft carriers are you the admiral of? How about long range artillery? How many squadrons of f-16's do you possess? Drones, do you have them and how would you deal with them? Do you have tens of thousands of specially trained operatives to fight back with? How about a specialized network of intelligence? Frankly, anyone suggesting that their precious AR-15 would be enough to stand against a rogue government is delusional. Period.

And your typical American is not savvy enough to reinvent his life?
Seen Doomsday Preppers?

Granted...some of the characters displayed seem worried over items of the most remote possibility....

But history displays serious events....that can reoccur.
Screw with the population enough.....

 

[BBTimeless]

And your typical American is not savvy enough to reinvent his life?
Seen Doomsday Preppers?

Granted...some of the characters displayed seem worried over items of the most remote possibility....

But history displays serious events....that can reoccur.
Screw with the population enough.....

No, you cannot convince me that a militia type force could fare well against a well organized machine that is our government/military. Might as well band together with the local high schoolers and call yourselves the "Wolverines".

 

[dawny0826]

You are foolishly comparing the potential lethality of a writing utensil and a firearm...

People determine the potential lethality of an object. An object on a counter is harmless unless someone utilizes it to cause harm. That was my freaking point.

I also pointed out that a person can utilize an unassuming object to cause harm to another. The entire premise that limiting guns will somehow reduce crime is asinine in my opinion.

Seriously, if you were attacked by a knife, it could prove as deadly as a gunshot wound, but, you don't see people belly aching over the legality of steak knives in American kitchens.

It would be a bit easier if they didn't have firearms, yes?

Okay. By your logic, let's eradicate motor vehicles, sharp and pointy objects, stairs, balconies, any type of poison, because it would be a hell of a lot easier to get rid of these things too, wouldn't it? By your logic and the logic of others...we need to ban objects and limit the rights of people to utilize objects.

Let's not focus on the fact that the mentally unstable do things that defy reason and that criminals defy that which lawful.

 

[Thief]

No, you cannot convince me that a militia type force could fare well against a well organized machine that is our government/military. Might as well band together with the local high schoolers and call yourselves the "Wolverines".

So let's just ignore all the guns and the American spirit.

Uncle Sam is unlikely to wave rifles at his own population.
Kent State noted.

 

[BBTimeless]

People determine the potential lethality of an object. An object on a counter is harmless unless someone utilizes it to cause harm. That was my freaking point.

And I "freaking" get your point, but comparing the lethality of an everyday house-hold pen to the lethality of a gun is a silly comparison.

I also pointed out that a person can utilize an unassuming object to cause harm to another. The entire premise that limiting guns will somehow reduce crime is asinine in my opinion.

It has been proven in other nations that have such legislation...

Seriously, if you were attacked by a knife, it could prove as deadly as a gunshot wound, but, you don't see people belly aching over the legality of steak knives in American kitchens.

You also can't knife someone 20 yards away. It would also be more difficult to carry out mass-murders with a knife. Again, a silly comparison.

Okay. By your logic, let's eradicate motor vehicles, sharp and pointy objects, stairs, balconies, any type of poison, because it would be a hell of a lot easier to get rid of these objects to, wouldn't it? By your logic and the logic of others...if we get ban these objects, people can't utilzie them to harm people with them anymore.

To own a motor vehicle you need to have a license. Also, to use a vehicle as a weapon would assume injury to the driver, making it less likely to be used as a weapon. Sharp and pointed objects, of course, should always be kept away from children. Stairs and balconies are essential to many home structures and offer vantage points that are visually appealing, that is, they are not specifically designed to cause damage. Poison is used in pest control and requires more knowledge/equipment to effectively be used in causing harm to others in large numbers. Also, poisons that are, in themselves, designed to kill people (usually to be used by the military) are not accessible. Next?

 

[BBTimeless]

So let's just ignore all the guns and the American spirit.

Uncle Sam is unlikely to wave rifles at his own population.
Kent State noted.

Don't have to ignore guns to realize that trying to fight a 21st century american army with your AK-47 is a stupid idea.

 

[Thief]

Don't have to ignore guns to realize that trying to fight a 21st century american army with your AK-47 is a stupid idea.

Review the history of Fance and Russia.
Weapons of choice...guillotines and pitchforks.

With current choice so much more effective.....

Our own country was secured against a government thought to be 'incontrol'.
Period weapon....rifles.

You mentioned economic and cyber controls.....
No free minded able Americans?

History repeats.
It's just a matter of time.