Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Ponyboy]

Your fists? A baseball bat? A security system? Brass knuckles? A doberman?

By the way, I'm not against owning hand guns... I would never feel it my place to tell someone they can't have a gun... But for me, I don't want them in my home.

 

[dnno1]

What about to protect your home and family?

That's what the police are for. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. If you had a gun in your home, it would be stolen and more than likely used in a stick-up. You were better off not having one since most of the time you were robbed when no one was home. Criminals are not stupid. They will try to take the path of least resistance if they can.

 

[chaseter]

Guns don't kill people by themselves. If someone really wants a gun, they are going to get one. Bad people are always going to get weapons no matter what. If there were no guns, you would see more bomb attacks. Ban bombs? Ban knives? Ban piano wire?

It is everyone's right, those that are responsible citizens, to own a gun. I do agree with whoever said it is too easy to get a driver's license. 18,000 people die a year from drunk driving. Firearms are used 2-2.5 million times annually for self-defense. That means firearms are 80 times more likely to save a life than to take a life from the 30,000 that die a year from them.

 

[chaseter]

That's what the police are for. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. If you had a gun in your home, it would be stolen and more than likely used in a stick-up. You were better off not having one since most of the time you were robbed when no one was home. Criminals are not stupid. They will try to take the path of least resistance if they can.

So criminals in your area would break into your house to steal your gun so that they could then rob you

 

[Matt]

Wasn't the second amendment's primary purpose to arm civilian militias in case of another British invasion? Sorry to the "red dawn" fetishists, but it doesn't look like the conventional enemy-nation-invading-the-American-mainland scenario is in the cards.

While I have very little opinion on the matter as I do not own a gun, but also do not mind if someone wants one, I must point out that your historic perspective is a bit off. The framers did not intend for the second amendment to protect only against foreign threats but also from our own government should they become tyrannical. It is one of the many checks and balances of the Constitution.

 

[SentinelMind]

That's what the police are for. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. If you had a gun in your home, it would be stolen and more than likely used in a stick-up. You were better off not having one since most of the time you were robbed when no one was home. Criminals are not stupid. They will try to take the path of least resistance if they can.

Many communities are laying off police officers, up to 14% of their own force.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/01/jersey_city_police_union_warns.html
http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/147603-newark-sees-largest-police-layoff-in-decades
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-14/news/21982318_1_union-s-attorney-officer-layoffs-union-leaders

And if they break into your house and you are there? Then what? You should just be a victim as you desperately wait for some underfunded bureaucratic agency to come save you?

I've read many articles of home owners successfully protecting themselves from burglars, including a disabled man who fought off being tasered by a burglar.

Many criminals have commented that they were more afraid of an armed homeowner than being caught by the police. Homeowners should be allowed to use that fear to their advantage.


People should have the right to defend themselves from a home invasion.
You can't dictate that they must put their lives on the tracks

 

[SentinelMind]

Wasn't the second amendment's primary purpose to arm civilian militias in case of another British invasion? Sorry to the "red dawn" fetishists, but it doesn't look like the conventional enemy-nation-invading-the-American-mainland scenario is in the cards.

No, it is to allow Americans the right to defend themselves from a potential authoritarian government. The Bill of Rights are set of rights to protect citizens from abuse from federal and state government.

I think hunting for sport is a pretty malicious and crass past-time and justified by those who have zero empathy for the animals they snuff out, but okay I understand we all have different needs. A .22. rifle is all you need for that.

Is it safe to assume you're a vegetarian or vegan?

 

[bell110]

Your fists? A baseball bat? A security system? Brass knuckles? A doberman?

By the way, I'm not against owning hand guns... I would never feel it my place to tell someone they can't have a gun... But for me, I don't want them in my home.

None of that will make a lick of difference if the robber is armed. You're not against someone owning one, and that's cool. It may not be necessary, but as the saying goes, I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one.

That's what the police are for. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. If you had a gun in your home, it would be stolen and more than likely used in a stick-up. You were better off not having one since most of the time you were robbed when no one was home. Criminals are not stupid. They will try to take the path of least resistance if they can.

The police aren't going to do much good if they aren't there. And maybe it's the people who don't live in rough neighborhoods that need them.

 

[Ponyboy]

None of that will make a lick of difference if the robber is armed. You're not against someone owning one, and that's cool. It may not be necessary, but as the saying goes, I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one.

I think perhaps we don't have to worry about armed robbery as much as say, Americans might... So my mindset is different. Again, if you think you need a gun to protect your family... by all means go and get one...

 

[bell110]

I think perhaps we don't have to worry about armed robbery as much as say, Americans might... So my mindset is different. Again, if you think you need a gun to protect your family... by all means go and get one...

I didn't notice you weren't American. But yeah, if someone is going to break in your house, they are probably not just carrying a knife. And if they are or are not, I'd rather not find out the hard way.

 

[Ponyboy]

I see your point... I'm of the mind that you run the risk of shooting someone else and/or the "robber" overpowering you and getting the gun from you. I guess therein lies the dilemma.

 

[chaseter]

But then you pull out your second gun.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

No, it is to allow Americans the right to defend themselves from a potential authoritarian government. The Bill of Rights are set of rights to protect citizens from abuse from federal and state government.

Voting in elections seem to have worked fine for the past 200 years.

Is it safe to assume you're a vegetarian or vegan?

What does that have to do with.... anything? Are you about to give me a ridiculous straw-man argument? Would it make my points any less valid if I were a vegetarian?

I'm going to assume (which is probably a bad idea) that you're not just trying to get in a petty and childish dig in, but that you're about to make some belabored point about eating the animals you shoot. Do you kill your own meat or buy it at a supermarket? In fact, no one really shoots cattle with guns anymore. They're led through slaughterhouses after they're stunned. Sure, maybe there's some independent organic farms that shoot their own livestock, but they would be the exception. In any event, I criticized "hunting for sport" which I still conceded should be legal, disagree with the necessity of it as I may. Hunting for sustenance is a different thing altogether and always understandable. It's pretty obscene to shoot sixty ducks and not eat a single one.


And no, I'm not a vegetarian.

Are you color-blind, by the way...? Because your answer to that question is about as relevant as your question to me.


On another note... For the person above who said that we need guns in our house in order to protect us from burglars... let me tell you a story about my Aunt (should make it clear not by blood, but my Uncle's wife). She comes from a family of five, but her older brother died when he was a 12 year old child. He was shot by her younger brother (only 9 at the time) by accident. The younger brother had, of course, found his father's gun. The whole family was shattered. One brother dead, and another brother and a father who are both consumed by guilt. Still think it's worth keeping a gun in the house? This is not a unique situation and you may think that gun in your closet is well-hidden, but a curious kid will always find what they're looking for.

 

[Ponyboy]

But then you pull out your second gun.

This is why we love taking the piss out of you guys...

 

[TheVileOne]

What's wrong if people want to hunt and kill their own food? Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

 

[SentinelMind]

Voting in elections seem to have worked fine for the past 200 years.

Have you heard of the argument an "an ounce of prevention is more than a pound of cure"? Aggressors, including criminals, are less likely to attack someone they know is armed. You can't just revision and conclude you didn't need the right of protection in the first place.

So I guess we should throw out the Bill of Rights, according to you. Which other Constitutional rights do you think we no longer need?

What does that have to do with.... anything? Are you about to give me a ridiculous straw-man argument? Would it make my points any less valid if I were a vegetarian?

I'm going to assume (which is probably a bad idea) that you're not just trying to get in a petty and childish dig in, but that you're about to make some belabored point about eating the animals you shoot. Do you kill your own meat or buy it at a supermarket? In fact, no one really shoots cattle with guns anymore. They're led through slaughterhouses after they're stunned. Sure, maybe there's some independent organic farms that shoot their own livestock, but they would be the exception. In any event, I criticized "hunting for sport" which I still conceded should be legal, disagree with the necessity of it as I may. Hunting for sustenance is a different thing altogether and always understandable. It's pretty obscene to shoot sixty ducks and not eat a single one.

Yeah, I get you. You like eating meat and have no problem villifying the guy that hunted the cow that made the burger you just ate

Are you color-blind, by the way...? Because your answer to that question is about as relevant as your question to me.

Then why did you write a paragraph answer to an irrelevant question? Doth protest too much.

On another note... For the person above who said that we need guns in our house in order to protect us from burglars... let me tell you a story about my Aunt (should make it clear not by blood, but my Uncle's wife). She comes from a family of five, but her older brother died when he was a 12 year old child. He was shot by her younger brother (only 9 at the time) by accident. The younger brother had, of course, found his father's gun. The whole family was shattered. One brother dead, and another brother and a father who are both consumed by guilt. Still think it's worth keeping a gun in the house? This is not a unique situation and you may think that gun in your closet is well-hidden, but a curious kid will always find what they're looking for.

I'm sorry to hear about your family tragedy. It's a tragedy when a child gets a hold of a gun in the house. It's important for gun owners to practice gun safety and place their gun out of harms way. It's not fair nor constitutional to start prohibiting other responsible gun owners to protect themselve . It's like banning medicine or household chemical because a child overdoses on the chemicals.

Some people have successfully fended off burglars because of their gun. Just because some people have a tragedy involving a product doesn't mean you ban others from being allowed to use it. We don't ban cars due to drunk driving.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Have you heard of the argument an "an ounce of prevention is more than a pound of cure"? Aggressors, including criminals, are less likely to attack someone they know is armed. You can't just revision and conclude you didn't need the right of protection in the first place.

So I guess we should throw out the Bill of Rights, according to you. Which other Constitutional rights do you think we no longer need?

The founders were incredibly brilliant men, but they were not Gods. They also said while everyone is equal, somehow a negro is only worth three fifths of a white man.

With Democracy such a bedrock of this nation, the internet and a 24 hour cable media that screams foul at the slightest whiff of abuse of power, real or imagined, I don't think there will ever be a situation in America where we have a dictator for life who can only be disposed of with guns. I think people embracing the premise that they have to protect themselves from "domestic enemies" are the kind of nut-jobs who bring guns to political rallies and therein lies the real threat.

Anyway, I think we should preserve the Bill of Rights, but we should also look at from a mature 21st century perspective. We're not still defending ourselves from the British and raids from Native American tribes.

Yeah, I get you. You like eating meat and have no problem villifying the guy that hunted the cow that made the burger you just ate

From my post you quoted: "Hunting for sustenance is a different thing altogether and always understandable." How much clearer can that be?

Then why did you write a paragraph answer to an irrelevant question? Doth protest too much.

Just trying to pre-emptively shut down any point you were about to make. t:

I'm sorry to hear about your family tragedy.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Some people have successfully fended off burglars because of their gun. Just because some people have a tragedy involving a product doesn't mean you ban others from being allowed to use it. We don't ban cars due to drunk driving.

I just wonder if the good outweighs the bad. Like I said, I don't think all guns should be outlawed, but I don't know what serious justification there is for automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.

 

[StorminNorman]

Wasn't the second amendment's primary purpose to arm civilian militias in case of another British invasion? Sorry to the "red dawn" fetishists, but it doesn't look like the conventional enemy-nation-invading-the-American-mainland scenario is in the cards.

No, the Second Amendment's primary purpose was to arm civilian militias against their governments. Domestic governments - not just foreign invaders.

Why shouldn't semi-automatic and automatic weapons or extra-capacity magazines be outlawed? What rights do they protect? The right to shoot something multiple times? Please.

I know a lot of people who love to shoot automatic weapons. They don't shoot people, they just enjoy the experience of shooting target with high powered weaponry.

Why should that be illegal?

 

[Kelly]

People who want a gun have every right to buy them (though I understand desired limits for hand guns and semi automatic weapons).

They just need to pass certain backround checks first. That is what needs to be improved.

The mental illness aspect of these background checks needs to improve, but the laws for the most part are fine as is, they just need to be ENFORCED....

Same with Immigration Law....I always laugh when people call the Arizona Immigration law, racist and bigotted, apparently they haven't looked at the Federal Law because it is actually stronger....the law doesn't need to change, we simply need to ENFORCE what is already there....

 

[Paroxysm]

No, the Second Amendment's primary purpose was to arm civilian militias against their governments. Domestic governments - not just foreign invaders.

All this stuff about guns being used by people to defend themselves against tyranny of government would be more persuasive if there were examples of guns being used to stop someone's house being repossessed because of mortgage arrears or to stop someone being sacked by their employer.

 

[Kelly]

No, actually a better example of that would be if they were protecting their house or business from the government taking it over "eminent domain" issues.....

If you don't pay your mortgage you don't get to keep your house, you should have paid the mortgage, if you get sacked by your employer, you probably weren't doing your job.....

If your property is taken over for no other reason than for expansion of a city, business, etc......THAT IS A PROBLEM, that you did not create.

 

[Paroxysm]

So I guess it's safe to say that the basis of the 2nd amendment was fear. Fear of government which i guess was legitimate in the 18th century, but hasn’t been applicable since then. A lot of Americans may have missed the news, but King George is dead.

Since then the fear has turned into full blown paranoia.

Every person walking down the street towards you, may want to do you harm, so have a gun.

Someone may break into your home while you are sleeping, so have a gun.

The fear-based possibilities are endless, so have a gun.

 

[SentinelMind]

The founders were incredibly brilliant men, but they were not Gods. They also said while everyone is equal, somehow a negro is only worth three fifths of a white man.

That's right, and we have an amendment process to for updating the Constitution..and since we've added 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. The majority of this country finds value in preserving our Constitutional right to bear arms and until that changes we have an obligation to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

With Democracy such a bedrock of this nation, the internet and a 24 hour cable media that screams foul at the slightest whiff of abuse of power, real or imagined, I don't think there will ever be a situation in America where we have a dictator for life who can only be disposed of with guns. I think people embracing the premise that they have to protect themselves from "domestic enemies" are the kind of nut-jobs who bring guns to political rallies and therein lies the real threat.

The argument I hear, from folks like Bill Maher, is that if the government ever tries to abuse its power through military....the military is so strong and armed that there's no way our puny guns can ever match their might....so we might as well just disarm . I'm sorry, I don't have a lustful trust of big government like Bill Maher. There's no doubt in my mind there are people working in our federal government who would love to abuse their power in seizing property if they had the opportunity. The logical argument you're missing is that you're presuming we'd still have the same present time state today if we had retroactively passed more laws/regulation controlling gun ownership. You can't revision the past and just take things for granted. We also don't know what the future holds.

Even if fear of big government isn't your of cup of tea, there are numerous instances of criminals running for their lives at the mere sound of a home owner loading their rifle. We don't all live in the same area or have the same life paths, so I think it takes a great deal of presumption to assume
nobody needs to ever protect themselves with a weapon and we should rely on the red and blue to get their on time. We have gang members going to council meeting demanding jobs in Chicago and Chicago politicians demanding the government their city as red alert. I'm not going to tell some woman living by herself she needs to wait for the red and blue when she hears her window being broken.

From my post you quoted: "Hunting for sustenance is a different thing altogether and always understandable." How much clearer can that be?

Ok, so you're ok for allowing people to hunt animals. Are you suggesting the hunted animals must be consumed and not used as trophies? If that's your beef, you can pass ordinances or laws in your area making that requirement for hunters. That has nothing to do with outlawing or curtailing weapon ownership.

 

[SentinelMind]

So I guess it's safe to say that the basis of the 2nd amendment was fear. Fear of government which i guess was legitimate in the 18th century, but hasn’t been applicable since then. A lot of Americans may have missed the news, but King George is dead.

How do you know that it isn't applicable now? How can you say that in such an arrogant manner?

There's nothing wrong with taking precaution. We live in a sick, twisted, chaotic world and there's nothing wrong with having a healthy sense of fear that others will abuse their powers against you. Maybe you haven't been in a position where others will aggressively assault you, maybe you trust everything your government says to you....but there are people out there who have no problem taking aggression against you if you give them the opportunity.

Every person walking down the street towards you, may want to do you harm, so have a gun.

No, people should have a choice of whether they want to have a gun. People should assess their own comfort level and risk of danger....but they should be given the choice.

Someone may break into your home while you are sleeping, so have a gun.

Yeah....cause nobody's ever broken into a home...that's so 18th century. People should have a choice whether they want to protect themselves and not put their faith in a bloated central government.

 

[Paroxysm]

How do you know that it isn't applicable now? How can you say that in such an arrogant manner?

There's nothing wrong with taking precaution. We live in a sick, twisted, chaotic world and there's nothing wrong with having a healthy sense of fear that others will abuse their powers against you. Maybe you haven't been in a position where others will aggressively assault you, maybe you trust everything your government says to you....but there are people out there who have no problem taking aggression against you if you give them the opportunity.




No, people should have a choice of whether they want to have a gun. People should assess their own comfort level and risk of danger....but they should be given the choice.




Yeah....cause nobody's ever broken into a home...that's so 18th century. People should have a choice whether they want to protect themselves and not put their faith in a bloated central government.

You live in a sick and twisted world, not me.

I have no fear when I walk down the street or when I go to bed. I don't even lock my doors.

I feel safe in my own country. I don't like my current government but I also sure as hell don't fear them.

How can you live in a place like that?