Discussion: The Second Amendment

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, I don't even have any huge allegiance to the idea of letting people own guns.
I'm just saying, the constitution clearly says that it's a right of the people to own them (Why? because an armed militia is necessary), so people shouldn't waste their time about arguing whether or not the Constitution grants us that right, but rather, should be arguing about whether that AMENDMENT should be updated or removed.

The idea of amending or removing any of the ten Bills of Rights is such a scary idea I would hope no one would really consider doing it.

 

[Matt]

The idea of amending or removing any of the ten Bills of Rights is such a scary idea I would hope no one would really consider doing it.

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

*yawn* Are you done yet? Again Wilhelm, the sentence is at best questionable. The argument can be made. I do not see why you have so much trouble accepting that someone might read something differently than you do (okay, actually I can see why YOU would have so much trouble with that notion...but I digress).

So are you saying that if you are not an official member of a militia, you do not qualify as "PEOPLE" ?!?

That's outrageous, and also, the only way that the militia argument works.

I'm the one who should be yawning. What do you not understand about this SENTENCE (which, unlike the the clause at the beginning, stands alone in clear meaning),
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ???


Please, if I'm so wrong, can you explain to me how non-militia members do not count as "THE people".

Is my grandmother not a PERSON?
Are a group of nuns not PEOPLE?

 

[jaguarr]

I'd agree with that entirely. It is sad that most Americans probably believe that the government gives them their rights, not the other way around. But that is what our country has become.

It doesn't change the fact that technologies and times have changed. When the Framers lived there was not a drug dealer armed with an uzi on every corner of a major city. There was not guns that could fire 18 bullets a second accessible to 15 year old children in gangs. Times have changed, the Constitution should be able to change with them. I'm not saying to ban guns. I am simply saying some level of control is not a bad thing.

I'm against changing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Why? Because I believe the people who could/would like to do something of that nature would NOT do it with the best interests of everyone in America at heart nor do I think they would preserve the spirit of the originally intended documents and the rules they outline. In this day and age of partisanship, corporate greed and influence in government, corruption and the added complexity that our system has in comparison to what it was at it's inception due to sheer size, I believe it impossible to modify those documents in any fashion even remotely resembling objective.

The 15 year old gang-bangers might have automatic weapons, but the National Guard and Army have grenades, rocket launchers, microwave weapons, satellite tracking, wire tapping and a whole lot more at their disposal that 15 year old does not.

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

Barring any criminal activity in his past, I would have a hard time arguing the case that anyone who wants an M-16 shouldn't be able to access it.

 

[Tron5000]

Barring any criminal activity in his past, I would have a hard time arguing the case that anyone who wants an M-16 shouldn't be able to access it.

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.

 

[jaguarr]

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.

Meh. Sniper rifles with a long-range scope and a silencer are where it's at.

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.

I could easily kill someone with a 42-inch flatscreen TV. Come down on their temple with the corner while they're sleeping?...They're deadly mothers.

 

[Tron5000]

Meh. Sniper rifles with a long-range scope and a silencer are where it's at.

jag

I'll take one of those too, thanks. My roommate actually just ordered a Russian sniper rifle circa WWI. That should be lots of fun.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

I have a friend who wants to become an avid gun collector and wants to have an M-16 someday, I see no reason for him to be denied one when he really isn't going to be using it all that much asides from having it a part of his collection and shooting it on occasion in his backyard.

 

[SuBe]

I have a friend who wants to become an avid gun collector and wants to have an M-16 someday, I see no reason for him to be denied one when he really isn't going to be using it all that much asides from having it a part of his collection and shooting it on occasion in his backyard.

Plus, M-16s pretty much have the stopping power of a Pencil. I can understand a ban on SAW's or something. But not an M-16a2. It doesn't make much sense.

Anyway, I heard a story a few years ago about how they decided which firearms to ban in the Assult weapons ban. Probably Tron can elaberate. But when they were going through which assault weopons to ban, Senators and Congressman had a catalog with just pictures in it of the weapon, and if it "looked" like an assualt weapon, it was banned. Apparently, the people that wrote the laws didn't know much about firearms in general, just what looked like what belonged in a Rambo Movie.

Like I said, M-16s are nothing more than a fancy looking rifle, but there are rifles you can buy at walmart with more stopping power.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.

 

[Marx]

I thought I'd bump the gun thread considering what's going on in the Obama one.

As I said there, I think we can all agree that the process in which to legally obtain a firearm needs to be tightened. There are so many loopholes it's ridiculous!

 

[StorminNorman]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.

Common sense dictates that as soon as the Government is allowed to remove one of the bills of rights, it is not unforseeable that that same government could eventually be moved to remove others. This is my largest complain with such a ludicrous idea.

 

[zenile]

The government already does this by forbiding felons from possessing firearms. The constitution makes no mention of convicted felons being prohibited from possessing firearms in the 2nd amendment.

 

[cerealkiller182]

LOL together you both make a convincing argument. And i feel the same way I belief we cant get rid of the ammendment but i do believe in strict regulation

 

[SuBe]

LOL together you both make a convincing argument. And i feel the same way I belief we cant get rid of the ammendment but i do believe in strict regulation

I know this has been posted but this can't be posted enough;

Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." He also once stated, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

[marcofthebeast]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.

And as to a response to what Arkady wrote.

Just because the threat of empirical rule has waned. Doesn't mean the threat does not exist. Once we get rid of the 2nd amendment we are more likely to be mistreated especially by our own government.

 

[SuBe]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.

That is the Truth, I read it at www.snopes.com/jefferson/is/such/a/badass/he/could/beat/jbss/and/bm

 

[The Senator]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.

And as to a response to what Arkady wrote.

Just because the threat of empirical rule has waned. Doesn't mean the threat does not exist. Once we get rid of the 2nd amendment we are more likely to be mistreated especially by our own government.

I always wonder why people consider Jefferson the founder of the modern day Democratic Party. He favored an extremely limited government, adamantly opposed Alexander Hamilton's call for a national bank, and opposed neutrality in foreign affairs. Today's Democratic Party favors big government, apparent neutrality in global affairs, and is just as guilty of regulating and spending taxpayers' money as it pleases. Not to mention Jefferson was the founder of the early Republican Party.

The modern day Democratic Party began with the influence of FDR. You can't go all the way back and claim that a figure such as Jefferson founded this party when 1) he didn't and 2) his political views did not line up with the Democratic Party.

 

[Kelly]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.

Yes, because crime is soooo much less in countries with very strict gun control laws......yeah....(insert sarcasm at any time)

 

[marcofthebeast]

I always wonder why people consider Jefferson the founder of the modern day Democratic Party. He favored an extremely limited government, adamantly opposed Alexander Hamilton's call for a national bank, and opposed neutrality in foreign affairs. Today's Democratic Party favors big government, apparent neutrality in global affairs, and is just as guilty of regulating and spending taxpayers' money as it pleases. Not to mention Jefferson was the founder of the early Republican Party.

The modern day Democratic Party began with the influence of FDR. You can't go all the way back and claim that a figure such as Jefferson founded this party when 1) he didn't and 2) his political views did not line up with the Democratic Party.

I don't know were I mention Jefferson being a Democrat, but I'll throw my chips in none the less.
Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party the parties eventually split with Andrew Jackson pushing the Democrat party to were it currently is. The Democrat-Republican party was created because Jefferson opposed having a strong national government (Federalist) and having a national bank (Whigs).

Jefferson was a liberal in the classic sense, and definitely has more in common with modern republicans then democrats and even more in common with Libertarians. If old Jeff were alive now he would probably be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-Capitalist.

 

[The Senator]

I don't know were I mention Jefferson being a Democrat, but I'll throw my chips in none the less.
Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party the parties eventually split with Andrew Jackson pushing the Democrat party to were it currently is. The Democrat-Republican party was created because Jefferson opposed having a strong national government (Federalist) and having a national bank (Whigs).

Jefferson was a liberal in the classic sense, and definitely has more in common with modern republicans then democrats and even more in common with Libertarians. If old Jeff were alive now he would probably be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-Capitalist.

You didn't mention Jefferson being a Democrat; I wanted to add my two cents on Jefferson.

 

[marcofthebeast]

You didn't mention Jefferson being a Democrat; I wanted to add my two cents on Jefferson.

That's cool, I didn't know much people considered Jefferson a Democrat. The meaning of liberal then is completely different for what is used for now. I think that is what confuses people.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Story in The Tennessean (Nashville Newspaper) about a concealed-carry citizen foiling two armed robbers (and killing one of them):

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS03/80427025

A would-be robber at an East Nashville liquor store was shot and killed Saturday night after a customer opened fire, Metro police said.

Two men entered Sinkers Wine & Spirits on Gallatin Road around 10 p.m. and attempted to rob the store with handguns, Capt. David Imhof said. During the robbery, a customer in his early 20s took out a handgun of his own and began a shootout among the three men, Imhof said.

One of the robbery suspects ran off, but the other collapsed outside the store due to his injuries, Imhof said. He was taken to Skyline Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

The killed suspect, whose name has not been released, was described as a black 20-year-old from Memphis. The remaining suspect, described as a 5-foot, 7-inch black man, was still on the loose Sunday night, Imhof said.

The customer who fired on the robbery suspects had a lawful carry permit, Imhof said.

“A citizen, like a police officer, has the right to utilize deadly force if there is a threat of serious bodily injury or harm,” Imhof said.

The customer, described as in his early 20s, was interviewed and released by police. He has not been charged.

The case is still under investigation, Imhof said.