Your opinion of what the Second Amendment means?

[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]

Originally Posted by Stax

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]

Originally Posted by taters

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by nobody

...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!