Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Anubis]

Don't forget the occasional Duel.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Don't forget the occasional Duel.

Honk if you demand satisfaction.

 

[SV Fan]

• Hunting was a way of life for many

For the sake of argument the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. it should also be pointed out that:

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Key word their being reasonable

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, but even that is rather dubious. The amendment was originally worded in a way that made it clear that it protected the individual right.

But apparently they found that wording awkward, and people were more concerned about militias (which the English had been quick to quash).

Again to me, this harkens back to the more widespread fear of government tyranny than anything else. Obviously a militia is going to have an easier job taking down a despotic government than an individual with a musket or sword.

I've always rolled my eyes at people who said it was designed solely for militia-related purposes.

 

[wiegeabo]

For the sake of argument the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. it should also be pointed out that:

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Key word their being reasonable

Well, if a militia is supposed to help defend the country from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny, and is supposed to be made up from civilians or 'regular people', then isn't it reasonable they have the same arms that the invaders and tyrants do in order to be efficient and effective?

Did the Court unintentionally rule that everyone has a right to full auto weapons, explosives, tanks, planes and the like?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well there is the Swiss model, where every male citizen has to have a military-grade weapon in their house ready for a German invasion.

To their credit, it works.

 

[wiegeabo]

They also get fully trained. And don't they have to spend some time in the military?

Or am I thinking of another country.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Oh yes. I should probably have added that. It's not like they just hand you an assault rifle when you go to get your driver's license.

 

[Joshua_B]

Why do gun nuts always act (or at least word how they feel) like the only reason we buy guns is to protect ones self? I am fairly certain their is some people who buy guns for the simple fact they enjoy skeet shooting.

True, but the primary function of any weapon is defense. For example, if an intruder breaks into your home at night, your main objective is to protect those dearest to you. Criminals pervert the original purpose of such objects, by using them to destroy human life instead of helping it.

 

[Joshua_B]

This does assume the sole right to own guns is for personal protection, and not fighting a potentially despotic government.

The purpose of such a battle is still protection against tyranny.

I am pretty sure foreign invasion not a huge issue now.

9/11 was barely over a decade ago, and they got in under our radar like crazy. Never underestimate the determination of those bent on evil.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The US is more likely to be beset by a zombie apocalypse than a foreign invasion.

 

[Kelly]

I could have sworn that it was influenced by the Enlightenment period. Anyway, the fact that there is no reference to God or any Christian beliefs in the Constitutions makes it very difficult to prove that is was inspired by the same, otherwise it would have established Sunday as a holy day, made referece to God within the body of the document.




However outlandish you might think my comparison may be, it definitely is a direct comparison. Had I designed my kitchen in the shape of a cross or with the bible as the centerpiece, they certainly one could say that my design had Christian influence or was inspired by God or the life of Jesus Christ, but in truth, I didn't do any of those things so (as I have indicated above) it is difficult to prove that there was any Christian influence (even implied) in its design. Now, to tie this back to the subject of this thread, had the Constitution truly been inspired by Christianity, there would have been no Second Amendment as we know it now, since Christ wanted people to love their enemies and would not have endorsed the arming of citizens.

I think it was a bit of both, I think the Reformation had a hand in their thinking as well.

 

[Joshua_B]

The US is more likely to be beset by a zombie apocalypse than a foreign invasion.

That's what we thought in 1941, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The moment we start believing that we'll never be defeated, laziness sets in...making invasion all too easy for anyone smart and/or resourceful enough to do so. No country is completely immune to attack or destruction, so we must always be prepared for it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well that's a safe bet. A lot of the founding fathers were vehemently anti-Catholic, though obviously they weren't die hard Anglicans either.

Fortunately, at least in this regard, most were pragmatists over anything else.

Hell, Washington was willing to work with anyone, he even name checked Muslims, Jews, and atheists. That's pretty damn inclusive by 21st century standards, downright radical for those days.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's what we thought in 1941, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The moment we start believing that we'll never be defeated, laziness sets in...making invasion all too easy for anyone smart and/or resourceful enough to do so. No country is completely immune to attack or destruction, so we must always be prepared for it.

Actually, Americans were very wary of war with Japan. It was just a question of where and when after the 1941 oil embargo.

But this isn't 1941. No one is in a position to invade America.

If you're going to make an argument for the Second Amendment's relevance today, this is probably the worst one you can make.

 

[Joshua_B]

Actually, Americans were very wary of war with Japan. It was just a question of where and when after the 1941 oil embargo.

But this isn't 1941. No one is in a position to invade America.

If you're going to make an argument for the Second Amendment's relevance today, this is probably the worst one you can make.

The Amendment stays relevant so long as evil people are bent on tearing us down, and that hasn't changed one bit since 1776. George Carlin once said we average a major war every 20 years, so its very important to never let our guard down. Just because it doesn't seem likely right now, that no reason to assume we'll always be safe. Waiting until the last moment is always a bad thing, particularly where violence is concerned.

Look at it this way: would you advise someone to never practice firing their gun at a shooting range, and just wait until someone tries to hurt them? Of course not, because such advice is foolish. Safety in mortal situations should never be treated lightly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to have a Second Amendment, a foreign invasion just isn't one of them. America has the world's biggest military for that.

I think you've watched Red Dawn one too many times, if you think you're going to fend off a conventional invasion with small arms.

 

[Joshua_B]

Its just as likely that the U.S. government could turn tyrannical one day; every citizen in their right mind should be prepared for that. The Second Amendment is all about reinforcing the rights of all citizens to arm themselves however they see fit, instead of having Uncle Sam dictate it to them. Handguns are used for tons more murders every year than assault rifles, but the Feds know they can't outright come after those first, so they're starting with the bigger ones.

 

[SV Fan]

I think 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are bad examples why we need guns. In both cases a regular everyday citizen having a gun handy on them didn't save the day or even play a part in either event, it should also be pointed out Hawaii wasn't even part of America in 1941(although you could argue it was sort of like Puerto Rico)

As Thundercrack pointed out a foreign invasion would be more like Red Dawn, which has a very slim chance of happening. I would argue foreign invasion was the #1 reason for the second amendment, and given 1812 they had good foresight(grant you given the civil war maybe not so much. lol)

 

[Joshua_B]

The Amendment was not written exclusively with the military in mind, but also private citizens. So long as you're capable, its not anyone else's inherent responsibility to defend your loved ones. People need to take the initiative, so if something happens where others aren't around to help, they can fend off attackers themselves. Martial arts is good for close combat, but firearms were designed for keeping a safe distance as well.

The mass media loves to paint anyone in favor of personal responsibility as stupid or reckless, when most just want to take their safety into their own hands. If someone tried to kill me or those I love, I'd definitely shoot them, federal rules be damned.

 

[SV Fan]

If someone tried to kill me or those I love, I'd definitely shoot them, federal rules be damned.

Your odds of getting killed increase if you own a gun. Chances are somebody breaks into your house they just want to steal something, now the second they see the gun they will get scared and it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment. Add to that accidental deaths due to misfiring a gun, you are safer without one.

 

[The Question]

And there's the fact that, what with domestic abuse being what it is, statistically speaking a woman's chances of dying violently increase by around 35% if she lives in a house with a firearm. And there's the fact that easy access to a firearm doubles a person's chances of successfully completing a suicide.

 

[Joshua_B]

Your odds of getting killed increase if you own a gun. Chances are somebody breaks into your house they just want to steal something, now the second they see the gun they will get scared and it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment. Add to that accidental deaths due to misfiring a gun, you are safer without one.

Someone I don't know breaks down my door for any reason, they're getting shot. I'm not calling some dispatcher for permission; its my job to protect those I care about, first and foremost.

 

[SV Fan]

Someone I don't know breaks down my door for any reason, they're getting shot. I'm not calling some dispatcher for permission; its my job to protect those I care about, first and foremost.

As I said when it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment, your odds of getting killed are increased. That being said your odds of getting something stolen from you decrease but I would say life is more valuable then any physical property(But hey that is just me).

 

[Joshua_B]

As I said when it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment, your odds of getting killed are increased. That being said your odds of getting something stolen from you decrease but I would say life is more valuable then any physical property(But hey that is just me).

Assuming anyone who breaks into your home is only there to steal is a mistake, because you don't know them. Better to shoot first as they walk through the door, than risk anything else happening.

Unless you invite them, no one has the inherent right to invade your home for any reason...period.