Your opinion of what the Second Amendment means?

[nobody]

In the fall-out from the recent presidential election, many people are saying that the Gun Control whackos "enthusiasts" are going to try to "gut" the Second Amendment. This is why gun sales are up a reported 80-300%.

Granted the amendment reads A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But at the time ALL citizens were considered as being part of the militia, and still to date, 75% OF Americans believe that the amendment refers to individual rights to own firearms.

Additionally, the only major historical figures that have encouraged disarming the populace are tyrants, dictators, and despots. (Such as Machiavelli, Mussolini and Hitler.)

For years I have tried to get avid "gun-control advocates" to explain why all the areas with strict gun-control/right-to-carry laws have the worst violent crime rates in the country (ie Washington DC, New York City, even St Louis) while the states (and/or cities) with "relaxed gun laws" have universally LOW crime rates ... none have been able to explain that sensibly. If anyone has a question on this subject, please Google Kennesaw,Ga or read this article : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

I'm sure that it will come as no surprise to anyone, that President-Elect Obama is in favor of increased gun control ... http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Any thoughts on this?

[Stax]

The 2nd amendment grants an individual right to bear arms as the modern court has ruled. It also, however, expects a measure of control and regulation as the right to bear arms is only granted because of the lead-in statement that a "Well-regulated militia" is necessary. This is also coupled with more common-sense reading of the Constitution that, as the cliche goes, the rights of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin, so at least some measure of gun regulation is warranted to protect the security of others.

[vasili denisov]

Additionally, the only major historical figures that have encouraged disarming the populace are tyrants, dictators, and despots. (Such as Machiavelli, Mussolini and Hitler.)
Machiavelli was never a ruler, he was simply a scholar and adviser.

For years I have tried to get avid "gun-control advocates" to explain why all the areas with strict gun-control/right-to-carry laws have the worst violent crime rates in the country (ie Washington DC, New York City, even St Louis) while the states (and/or cities) with "relaxed gun laws" have universally LOW crime rates ... none have been able to explain that sensibly. If anyone has a question on this subject, please Google Kennesaw,Ga or read this article : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

Even if this were true, that states with lax firearms laws had overall lower crimes rates, that wouldn't demonstrate causality.

However, as far as I can tell, there's nothing like a correlation between the two. New York State has very strict gun laws, while Texas and Arizona have relatively lax ones.

In 2004, New York City had a homicide rate of 6.6 per 100 000. Phoenix had a rate of 14.1, and Dallas had a rate of 20.2.

Statewide, New York had a 4.6 homicide rate per 100 000 in 2004, with states that had more lax gun laws, such as Mississippi, had a rate of 7.8, or Arizona with 7.2, or Georgia with 6.9

2004 Crime rates state by state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

[Mustard]

I always try to get to what the heart of the law's intent is/was. To protect the US from invasion, it was necessary (rightly so) for our founding fathers to make this the 2nd amendment in the constitution, because it was arguably the second most important law they wanted to have in place. Well... at least as I see it, this can be disputed. I digress, the point is the heart of the intent of the law, and that is what is important. The 2nd amendment still allows for us to own guns (bear arms) because I think it was the intent of the founding fathers to always have a well armed citizenry to make sure every nation on the planet know that if they had real intent to invade, they wouldn't be dealing with just our military, but easily half of the entire population armed with guns. As a potential invading force, this fact had to weigh heavily on the minds of the leadership as a deterrent to invade. I'd say so far in our history, its worked pretty well to keep would be invaders at a distance.

Personally, I like all sorts of guns, and own three. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not going to give up my right to own guns without having a large say-so about it. I say keep the 2nd amendment just as it has been, and don't touch a thing. I know gun related deaths are high in the US compared to the rest of the world's other more civilized nations, but I suppose that is just the price we as a nation pay, a cost of doing business if you will. I dunno, call me a crazy now.

[gillkonam]

Gun ownership is not the issue that lurking around many 2nd Amendment arguments; its a misplacement of social identity visa vi some archaic concept of self-defense against the authorities. I own two guns, go shooting regularly. For personal self-defense and for hunting they are great, but I just think so many individuals see guns and all these "false shocks" that never come down as acts of those in leadership to strip us all of our ability to defend ourselves against the surging black helicopters. It won't happen. Furthermore, if the damn big boys were to come, anything anyone of us could have handy wouldn't last 10 minutes if they really wanted to "talk with us." Leviathans don't fear tadpoles. Still, I love talking with the guys in the gun shop. Who knew netting ruled so hard!

[IdiotBrain]

I plan on working up an arsenal large and diverse enough to start the revolution, should the day come it were necessary.

Until then I just like to shoot shit.

On the topic though, the constitution clearly states that an individual has the right to posses, and if necessary bear arms. It's clear cut.

As far as self protection goes... if every person over the age of 18 were -required- to keep a gun in their home for protection purposes, I guarantee burglaries and home invasions would sharply decline. Put yourself in the miscreants shoes, would you rather break into a home where the person isn't legally allowed to have a working firearm, or a home where the people inside are guaranteed to own at least one working firearm?


http://letterstoadyingdream.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/gun_control_works2.jpg

[Skybase]

In my mind, it's quite simple. As with any freedom/right it correlates with responsibility and not infringing upon the rights of others.

So one should have the right to have and bear arms responsibly, without affecting the rights of others' pursuit of happiness, etc. If responsibilities are not held, rights are no longer "rights" for that individual. Perhaps for as long as theyr'e deemed irresponsible.

But to take rights away from all responsible citizens, that in my opinion is just wrong. Whatever the right.

[nobody]

Machiavelli was never a ruler, he was simply a scholar and adviser.

Even if this were true, that states with lax firearms laws had overall lower crimes rates, that wouldn't demonstrate causality.

However, as far as I can tell, there's nothing like a correlation between the two. New York State has very strict gun laws, while Texas and Arizona have relatively lax ones.

In 2004, New York City had a homicide rate of 6.6 per 100 000. Phoenix had a rate of 14.1, and Dallas had a rate of 20.2.

Statewide, New York had a 4.6 homicide rate per 100 000 in 2004, with states that had more lax gun laws, such as Mississippi, had a rate of 7.8, or Arizona with 7.2, or Georgia with 6.9

2004 Crime rates state by state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

Interesting synopsis. My research, however, shows different results:





Right-to-Carry Influence?
Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) states. Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.
Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.[8] (http://newsbusters.org/node/9140#_edn8)



http://newsbusters.org/node/9140 (http://newsbusters.org/node/9140)

So it seems, that the causation (of decreased crime rates), has more to do with higher percentages of people actually carrying, "not just owning" guns. So, logically, it would appear, that perhaps more states should relax their "Right to carry laws" ... Or, maybe we should just do away with cities and not guns?


Oh and as for Machiavelli? In essence you are correct, but I must wonder if it's just sophistry? According to Wikipedia :Whatever Machiavelli's own intentions (and they remain a matter of heated debate), his name became synonymous with ruthless politics, deceit and the pursuit of power by any means.

[Morfin]

I grew up around guns, was a hunter, and learned how to respect and use guns. I understand both sides of the 2nd Amendment argument. From a legal perspective, I believe the Supreme Court's recent 2nd Amendment ruling was correct; emotionally, I wish there was more gun control.

I have no problem with hunting or even with having guns for protection (although I have no guns in my house). The problem I have is with all these idiots who own guns because it is cool, makes them feel manly, or for self-protection with no training (Hey, Plaxico, I'm talkin' to you, fool).

I believe that their ownership should be controlled just like Society controls driving -- through education and testing (and re-testing).

As to the statement about areas where there are gun control laws corrolating with higher crime rates, I am not going to get into a battle of statistics. Here is my opinion:

First, if you equalled the playing field (either all areas are free to have guns, or no one has guns), I believe that the crime rates will still be much higher in urban centers than in non-urban settings. There are too many other factors besides guns. To be flippant for a second, you could just as easily say that the crime rate has to do with the percentage of people wearing cowboy hats: Few in D.C. -- high crime rate; more in Dallas -- low crime rate. My point is that there are many factors besides gun control laws -- the argument and the statistics are just not as simple as you profess.

[redsox39]

How about the Swiss? Do they have high gun crime rates? Isn't it almost required by the government to own a gun in that country? I really don't know, just heard that in passing before...

[Morfin]

Swiss cheese holes = bullet holes?

[Phil Theehor]

I've been thinking about this issue since catching a few minutes of the corpulent communist's "Bowling for Columbine". I didn't catch the whole film, so I can't speak to the film's entire message.

What I did catch, though, suprised me (not the content, rather the inclusion). Moore was speaking to the statistical disconnects between crime and gun ownership. He pointed to the very high gun ownership rates in Canada and the lower violent crime rates. He filmed in Detroit and the Canadian city across the river and pointed out similar gun ownership rates, yet a great disparity in violent crime rates between the two.

Morfin, this is all your back yard (if I remember correctly). I am curious to your thoughts on this. For a civilized country, we're a pretty violent lot. How much of this is cultural?

[merlin13]

It's an old and very tired cliche but, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I can't help but get on my soapbox over this. In my opinion, whether you agree or disagree, it all boils down to how you are raised and the respect or lack thereof, of what your parents have taught you.

[Morfin]

The issue is one of definition between Canada and the U.S. and Detroit and Windsor (the Canadian city just across the river).

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about Canadian gun ownership:

n a study of gun ownership in selected western nations, Canada's level of gun ownership (21.8%) was similar to France's (23.8%) and Sweden's (16.6%). Of the eight countries compared, firearm ownership was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (2%)Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada)

Canada's level of gun ownership is half that of the U.S., but still substantial.

The issue of definition is gun vs. handgun. Handguns are prohibited in Canada and freely-available in the U.S. and Detroit. Handgun-related crime in Canada is a fraction of that in the U.S., with my understanding (I have not looked this up) being that they are smuggled in from the U.S. (because they are so easy to get here). For this reason, handguns are a problem in Toronto, both due to the smuggling and due to the increased tensions between nationalities and organized crime (of all nationalities).

The disconnect that you reference, I believe, is due to the difference between hunting guns vs. handguns. If someone was inclined to look up the statistics (I'm too lazy), I bet that the percentage of crime/homicides/injuries due to hunting guns (rifles, shotguns) is a tiny fraction compared to handguns. Thus, while Moore may have spoken of a cultural thing, implying or stating that it was U.S. vs. Canada, I believe it is hunting guns vs. handguns.

[Pox]

Constitutional issues aside, its the framing of this argument that always annoys me. There is absolutely no chance that guns will ever be banned in this country. Anyone who equates waiting periods and assault rifle bans with tyranny cannot be taken seriously.

[nobody]

Constitutional issues aside, its the framing of this argument that always annoys me. There is absolutely no chance that guns will ever be banned in this country. Anyone who equates waiting periods and assault rifle bans with tyranny cannot be taken seriously.

Before WWII no one thought there would ever be something like a federal income tax, 25 years ago, no one would have believed there would ever be issues with Nativiry scenes on public property, 20 years ago, the fact that you could enlist in the armed servvices - but not go to a bar and buy a beer would have been unheard of, 10 years ago we wouldn't have been willing to believe that we would be required by law to wear seatbelts in our vehicles. Once the first step down that "slippery-slope" is taken ... who knows where it ends? So is there ANY wonder, why EVERY change in gun laws are fought "tooth and nail"?

[Stax]

Before WWII no one thought there would ever be something like a federal income tax,

The 16th amendment was ratified before WWI (at least US involvement in it), forget WWII.

25 years ago, no one would have believed there would ever be issues with Nativiry scenes on public property

I'm sure plenty of people had a problem with it. That the court's didn't listen is a different matter.

Once the first step down that "slippery-slope" is taken ... who knows where it ends? So is there ANY wonder, why EVERY change in gun laws are fought "tooth and nail"?

Yes, because this isn't a slippery slope. No one is seriously suggesting a complete gun ban and the occasional attempts at it (the ban at issue in the Heller case, for example) are pretty quickly struck down. Banning full-auto clips and grenade launchers and the like doesn't limit personal freedom in any unreasonable way but provides massive protection for everyone else.

[nobody]

Oops! MY bust! Dad always told me that, obviously he was wrong ...

The first Federal income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States)) during the Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion) was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html) (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/11.html) (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

[Morfin]

Don't forget that it was Reagan that imposed the 21 year old drinking age.

And the Nativity scene issue is actually a protection of a First Amendment right, not an infringement of one.

[Genius]

My favorite argument?

If we ban guns, criminals will still get them!!!

Somehow, however, this line of thinking doesn't crossover into other areas, such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, underage drinking...

[Genius]

My thinking on this subject goes back and forth. I don't like any kind of ban, and I don't like any type of infringement of rights. However, I do believe that if we were able to eliminate the easiest way to kill someone, murders would decrease drastically. It takes an amateur to kill with a gun; it takes an expert or someone very dedicated to kill with a knife. I don't think that it's unreasonable to require the same levels of restrictions of the purchase of a firearm that we have on prescription drugs. You should have to be able to demonstrate a valid reason for purchase and general competency. None of this Wal-Mart shit. To carry the drug comparison a step further, we have a ban on the most dangerous narcotics, such as heroin, which the public accepts. Is it unreasonable to place a ban on the most dangerous of guns, like anything fully automatic? I don't think so.

[Stax]

My thinking on this subject goes back and forth. I don't like any kind of ban, and I don't like any type of infringement of rights. However, I do believe that if we were able to eliminate the easiest way to kill someone, murders would decrease drastically. It takes an amateur to kill with a gun; it takes an expert or someone very dedicated to kill with a knife. I don't think that it's unreasonable to require the same levels of restrictions of the purchase of a firearm that we have on prescription drugs. You should have to be able to demonstrate a valid reason for purchase and general competency. None of this Wal-Mart shit. To carry the drug comparison a step further, we have a ban on the most dangerous narcotics, such as heroin, which the public accepts. Is it unreasonable to place a ban on the most dangerous of guns, like anything fully automatic? I don't think so.

Precisely.

[Stax]

And the Nativity scene issue is actually a protection of a First Amendment right, not an infringement of one.

Well, the anti-Nativity scene people see it as a protection of their rights, the pro-Nativity scene people see it as an infringement of theirs (or just say it's plain stupid).

[Morfin]

Stax, this is a different subject for a different thread, but you are confusing the issue of the establishment clause of the First Amendment with somehow infringing on a First Amendment right of free speech.

[Stax]

Stax, this is a different subject for a different thread, but you are confusing the issue of the establishment clause of the First Amendment with somehow infringing on a First Amendment right of free speech.

No. I understand perfectly how the Court approaches it. But I'm saying anti-religious display people claim it infringes upon the establishment clause where pro-religious display people make the claim that it infringes on speech and perhaps even goes so far as to tip into the other aspect of religious protections of the exercise clause.

[wonderllama]

As a non-American, feel free to treat my comments as you wish.

I read the 2nd Amendment and put it in the era in which it was written.
I can see how it may have been completely appropriate for the times.

I also see that having such an amendment from times gone by has contributed enormously to US society still needing such an amendment.

Australia has neved had an option for arming the populace (we're about the same age in white man years as the US) and as such, we don't feel we need one today.

So as much as I roll my eyes when I hear yet ANOTHER American saying it is their right to own a gun etc, I can see how a seed planted 100+ years ago has turned into a ruddy great tree today with no hope of being uprooted and perhaps nor should it be.

[Morfin]

No. I understand perfectly how the Court approaches it. But I'm saying anti-religious display people claim it infringes upon the establishment clause where pro-religious display people make the claim that it infringes on speech and perhaps even goes so far as to tip into the other aspect of religious protections of the exercise clause.

The infringement on free speech argument fails because there is no infringement on any person's right to put up whatever display he wants on his own private land. The issue is the use of public land, which is not a free speech issue, but an establishment issue. [/thread digression]

[taters]

I myself am actually pro-gun. Circumstances often put me in dangerous places traveling or living. I always assume others will likely be armed if one night a couple of drunk rednecks want to start shit while Im walking home (where I used to live), or some drug addict (meth, crack, heroine, whatever) will want to break into my house while Im sleeping. Im not a gun nut, but I keep a 'relic' beginner old piece, a ccw quality semi auto (though I dont carry it as such), a shotty for home defense, and a rifle I bought cheap just to have back in college (a stupid decision, but looking back Ill prolly be able to sell it now for more than I bought it for).


That being said, I do feel the 2nd amendment is out dated and not exactly fundamental. Gun ownership is (or at least should be) a privilege, not a right.

[nobody]

That being said, I do feel the 2nd amendment is out dated and not exactly fundamental. Gun ownership is (or at least should be) a privilege, not a right.

You CAN say "should be" , because of the people who DID believe in arming the populace, that fought and died for your right to do so. "Gun ownership" is no more "just a privilege", than is "free speech" .

Personally, I don't feel thast the Constitution is a "fluid document", that is subject to "upgrading for the times".

[nobody]

As a non-American, feel free to treat my comments as you wish.

I read the 2nd Amendment and put it in the era in which it was written.
I can see how it may have been completely appropriate for the times.

I also see that having such an amendment from times gone by has contributed enormously to US society still needing such an amendment.

Australia has neved had an option for arming the populace (we're about the same age in white man years as the US) and as such, we don't feel we need one today.

So as much as I roll my eyes when I hear yet ANOTHER American saying it is their right to own a gun etc, I can see how a seed planted 100+ years ago has turned into a ruddy great tree today with no hope of being uprooted and perhaps nor should it be.

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
...ummm maybe you'd like to use a different country as an example?

[Pharon]

My thinking on this subject goes back and forth. I don't like any kind of ban, and I don't like any type of infringement of rights. However, I do believe that if we were able to eliminate the easiest way to kill someone, murders would decrease drastically. It takes an amateur to kill with a gun; it takes an expert or someone very dedicated to kill with a knife. I don't think that it's unreasonable to require the same levels of restrictions of the purchase of a firearm that we have on prescription drugs. You should have to be able to demonstrate a valid reason for purchase and general competency. None of this Wal-Mart shit. To carry the drug comparison a step further, we have a ban on the most dangerous narcotics, such as heroin, which the public accepts. Is it unreasonable to place a ban on the most dangerous of guns, like anything fully automatic? I don't think so.
It's pretty easy to kill someone by running them over with your car. Maybe we should ban those, too.

The simple fact is that you will never eliminate guns. All you can do is eliminate law-abiding people from owning them, which is a recipe for disaster on the crime front.

[Insomniac]

It's pretty easy to kill someone with a knife, really. The main difference is that you have to be physically powerful enough to do it, as opposed to pointing and shooting a gun.

A grandma has a tough time killing someone with a knife. A street thug doesn't.

[wonderllama]

...ummm maybe you'd like to use a different country as an example?

I can't believe I missed this response.
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=32
This refutes everything posted in your post.

What you have to realise is...when someone says
"Wow man, your homicide number have risen 300%!"
It's not the same here as it is in the USA.

If your homicide rates are low to begin with, a 300% rise may be one Underbelly related exchange by the crims.

A 300% rise from 1 is 4. Sounds big in a percentage, isn't big in reality.
I live in the state of Victoria which has this reported 300% rise in homicide rates.

Here's a little bit of info for you.

"Homicide statistics
The offence category of Homicide is not restricted to the offence of murder but includes offences such as manslaughter and culpable driving which also result in the death of a person. The offence category of homicide also includes attempts and other degrees of the offence."

So again, a nice attempt to make guns sound friendly, but the reality is, our society has been much safer since the gun buy back in 1996, homicide rates are DOWN and most gun related crime is one criminal offing another criminal.

Face it, we're safe, you're not.
The End. :)

[freegood]

Our culture doesn't respect the gun. You teach your kid to respect the gun and less crazy shit happens.

[Defamed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw

[kulashaker]

I think if we all had guns...after a short period of extreme violence we would all be much more courteous to each other!

[SirTaters]

2nd Amendment = Best to to kill off retards who clean their guns drunk...or their wives/children/friends over etc