|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2005 : 16:06:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Using the second amendment to motivate that private citizens should be allowed to own and or carry firearms is ridiculous.
Not so.
The US constitution in no place restricts the right of anyone to own guns. The only portion that even mentions it is the second ammendment, and it clearly is stating that private citizens shall keep and bear arms (even if the context is less than clear).
The US isn't supposed to be about restricting the freedoms of it's people.
I never fail to understand how any rational person can think that doing away with guns will somehow lessen or prevent crime of any type. It is a baseless claim, unfounded in anything except an emotional response.
People kill people. The tools are not to blame, and they don't make it easier. In fact, for somebody without training or experience, it is easier to kill with a baseball bat than a gun. It takes practice to make those little lead pellets actually hit anything.
Restricting the freedom of people, on the other hand, needs to be justified. Anyone who thinks that taking away guns will make them safer is foolish at best.
As has been said before, poverty and living conditions effect crime and violence far more than the right to own guns does.
quote:
Well allowing citizens to own firearms was the main intention of the 2nd amendment. We should remember historically what a militia meant. It wasn't just a small group of volunteers training on weekends under state or federal control. Also it wasn't a small group of "separatist" or anti federal government loons either. We must remember that for the federalist a small national army was considered desirable. One that could be defeated by its own citizenry in a united and armed effort. A militia was to be organized as needed from the entire citizenry as needed.
I was going to mention something about the fact that all US citizens are technically supposed to be "militia". But I thought it might drag the topic off into a discussion of the meaning/context of the 2nd ammendment.
Recall, in times past in European countries, that it was the exclusive right of nobility to bear arms. Your local farmer would have been executed for owning a sword. Same for the times when the first guns came about. Nobility and their military were the only ones who could legally own guns.
I don't think anyone looks at the second ammendment and actually says that it doesn't mean that people should keep arms. Nobody rational anyway. Times have changed, and the context is different. Nobody knew that war would be carried out with supersonic airplanes, tank brigades, and weapons that could decimate entire city blocks, when the constitution was written.
If you accept Madison's reasoning for a citizen militia, then you'd have to agree that the second ammendment's intent is for the citizens to posess more fighting power than the national army. Technology has made that more than impractacle, but that doesn't mean the citizenry should NOT have the right to arm themselves.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 16:16:58 [Permalink]
|
I think it's pretty well established that 2nd Amendment does mean for every citizen in the nation to be armed with firearms. The question should really be whether or not that directive is still necessary and relevant within the context of modern democracies.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 00:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The question should really be whether or not that directive is still necessary and relevant within the context of modern democracies.
You could make a fair argument for either side of that case.
And if you concluded that the 2dn ammendment doesn't have relevence in current context, then I would ask for a rational, evidenced, justification for restricting the freedom of citizens. What would your justification be for telling law abiding firearm owners that they can't own guns anymore? I think it is pretty clear that violence and crime are not related to gun ownership. That leaves the argument for a ban on guns in the same place bans on gay marriage are, based entirely on irrational arguments.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 01:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Using the second amendment to motivate that private citizens should be allowed to own and or carry firearms is ridiculous.
Not so.
The US constitution in no place restricts the right of anyone to own guns. The only portion that even mentions it is the second ammendment, and it clearly is stating that private citizens shall keep and bear arms (even if the context is less than clear).
First I want to apologize if I came of rude. (I was in a hurry.)
The reasons that I (a non-US citizen) find this argument weak, is that - The type of weaponry is not specified so this amendment is already restricted.
- If the amendment is to be applied in this age, the well regulated militia part should be applied in a modern sense.
- If any kind of law is bad, it could and should be changed, using normal legislative procedure.
(For us that could use some info: Wikipedia-Second Amendment)quote:
Restricting the freedom of people, on the other hand, needs to be justified. Anyone who thinks that taking away guns will make them safer is foolish at best.
The first I agree with completely. That we are safer without guns I believe is supported by data.quote:
But the argument that they (assault style weapons) are a greater threat to personal or public safety is just blatantly false. As demonstrated by their extremely low % of use in crimes commited.
The low % in crime use probably reflects the lower amount of such weapons available to criminals. Do you see what this points to? quote:
People kill people. The tools are not to blame, and they don't make it easier. In fact, for somebody without training or experience, it is easier to kill with a baseball bat than a gun. It takes practice to make those little lead pellets actually hit anything.
This might be true if all slayings where planned murders. They are not so this is false.
If you increase the ability for people to kill each others, more people will die. It takes much more devotion to swing a bat at some ones head than to squeeze a trigger.
quote:
As has been said before, poverty and living conditions effect crime and violence far more than the right to own guns does.
Yes, but that is not the issue here.
Removing guns will not remove crime, violence and murders.
Reducing the number of guns, will make reduce the number of people killed by violence.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 02:11:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And if you concluded that the 2dn ammendment doesn't have relevence in current context, then I would ask for a rational, evidenced, justification for restricting the freedom of citizens. What would your justification be for telling law abiding firearm owners that they can't own guns anymore? I think it is pretty clear that violence and crime are not related to gun ownership. That leaves the argument for a ban on guns in the same place bans on gay marriage are, based entirely on irrational arguments.
Well, that's the thing. Like I stated earlier, I have no desire to ban guns. I just don't think that the 2nd amendment is a particularly good argument in favor of them.
If the idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizenry of this nation should be able to "out gun" the military, then we should have all have unrestricted access to nuclear, chemical, and biological material. But as you said earlier, that's just stupid. So whatever case there is to be made in favor of private gun ownership, it really isn't to be found by hiding behind the 2nd amendment.
I think that initially the idea behind 2nd amendment was a solid reason to own guns, but that over time that reason faded. Now the 2nd amendment really has no place in our constitution except that it protects the freedom of people who all ready own guns for other reasons.
Why can't gun owners make their case based on those reasons rather than trumpet 2nd amendment protection every time the issue is brought up?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/28/2005 02:19:33 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 04:40:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If the idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizenry of this nation should be able to "out gun" the military, then we should have all have unrestricted access to nuclear, chemical, and biological material. But as you said earlier, that's just stupid. So whatever case there is to be made in favor of private gun ownership, it really isn't to be found by hiding behind the 2nd amendment.
Indeed, HH. I've seen before the argument that a militia is supposed to be this thing that citizens belong to in order to keep the military in check. (Mostly, from the paranoid citizenry residing in the mountain west.) But obviously, that is irrelevant, now. My Ruger 9mm doesn't stand a chance against the weapons and armor of the US Army!
Moreover, the Second Amendment says nothing (as near as I can tell) about protecting the citizens from, say, the thugs breaking into your house, or mugging you if you venture into East Baltimore, or whatever.
Is it easier to kill someone with a bat versus a gun? I find that highly unlikely.
Would removing guns from American society make it safer? Only if you could remove all guns and the entire gun infrastructure. But that will never happen-- even if tomorrow you made it illegal to have a gun, everyone who illegally owns one (crooks, thugs, etc.) still would and crime would only get worse.
So it seems that we're stuck with guns regardless of the Constitution or anything else... |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 05:06:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Would removing guns from American society make it safer? Only if you could remove all guns and the entire gun infrastructure. But that will never happen-- even if tomorrow you made it illegal to have a gun, everyone who illegally owns one (crooks, thugs, etc.) still would and crime would only get worse.
So it seems that we're stuck with guns regardless of the Constitution or anything else...
Reduce the number of guns and you will in time reduce the number of illegal guns available.
They will of course not disappear entirely even if there was a total ban(illegal import and home manufacture).
Would the situation get worse? There is a risk of that, but it should be possible to avoid. |
| Edited by - Starman on 04/28/2005 05:07:32 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 05:29:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And if you concluded that the 2dn ammendment doesn't have relevence in current context, then I would ask for a rational, evidenced, justification for restricting the freedom of citizens.
If there is evidence that a reduction of the number of guns would lead to a substantial reduction of the number of fatalities in crimes and accidents, this is a clear benefit.
This benefit then has to be weighted against the drawback of reducing the rights of law abiding citizens and the benefit of letting civilians own guns.
How do you feel about speed limits for law abiding responsible drivers? quote:
I think it is pretty clear that violence and crime are not related to gun ownership.
No, but the outcome of the violence and crime is related to the availability of illegal guns, which is related to the number of legal guns.quote:
That leaves the argument for a ban on guns in the same place bans on gay marriage are, based entirely on irrational arguments.
Yawn.... |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 05:52:47 [Permalink]
|
H.H.
quote:
If the idea behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizenry of this nation should be able to "out gun" the military, then we should have all have unrestricted access to nuclear, chemical, and biological material. But as you said earlier, that's just stupid.
I would argue that our military should not own NBC weapons either as they are considered illegal under International law. Additionally I would argue that our military size should be reduced.
As seen in Iraq a smaller group of citizens armed with small explosives and small arms can wreck quite a bit of havok on a larger far superior military. An army of citizens numbering in the millions would pose a far greater threat to such a military.
Technology has created a serious problem in the distribution of power in today's time. The military has reached a level of power that the authors of the Constitution would shudder at the thought of. The question is, then do we just give up? Do we just say the military has so much power we cannot resist it and we must trust it to never abuse that power? Are we really immune to despotism and military coups?
Beyond that I agree with Dude. While an individual should lose the right to bare arms if they commit illegal activities, there is no reason to restrict ownership to lawful citizens under the premise some people will misbehave with them. Any right we give up should have sound justifications based on it limiting the rights of others. The argument that it would make things "safer" is illogical and not even consistently applied. After all I don't know of anyone who argues we should give up driving automobiles despite a much higher death rate than firearms and some people drive badly with them. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 06:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Starman
quote:
If there is evidence that a reduction of the number of guns would lead to a substantial reduction of the number of fatalities in crimes and accidents, this is a clear benefit.
This benefit then has to be weighted against the drawback of reducing the rights of law abiding citizens and the benefit of letting civilians own guns.
How do you feel about speed limits for law abiding responsible drivers?
Your analogy is entirely false. You equate a safety limitation on one right (speed limits as it applies to owning a vehicle) with the complete removal of the right (no guns). To make your analogy correct you should ask how do you feel about removing automobile ownership rights from all citizens because some citizens may break various driving laws.
I have no problem with safety limitations on gun ownership. Keep them secured when not in use. Don't fire in crowded residential areas. You're responsible if you shoot and hurt someone. Registration so we can prevent criminals from purchasing guns and not allowing convicted felons to own guns. Heck I like the idea of required safety courses and a gun license even just like we have with vehicles. However the idea of restricting the rights of law abiding citizens because some misbehave turns my stomach. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 06:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
After all I don't know of anyone who argues we should give up driving automobiles despite a much higher death rate than firearms and some people drive badly with them.
I see that you have not been in contact with the same environmentalists as I have.
Automobiles have a benefit. In my opinion one that is larger than that of the handgun.
It is the same as with guns. If the benefits exceeds the drawbacks it should be legal. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 06:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
After all I don't know of anyone who argues we should give up driving automobiles despite a much higher death rate than firearms and some people drive badly with them.
I see that you have not been in contact with the same environmentalists as I have.
Automobiles have a benefit. In my opinion one that is larger than that of the handgun.
It is the same as with guns. If the benefits exceeds the drawbacks it should be legal.
Yes vehicles do have a larger benefit than handguns, but they also have a far greater drawback. Unlike guns vehicles are continuously harming my rights to clean air and a clean environment. They are also creating our disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East. Noise pollution is also an issue and of course the death rate due to vehicles is far higher than that of guns. I think that the benefits of private vehicle ownership actually are far less than the drawbacks of private ownership. Yes it would limit our means of transportations, but there are clear alternatives, public transit systems, train systems, bicycles, walking, etc.
Compare that with the small number of drawbacks for guns. You can accidentally kill someone with them, but if trained the chances are much smaller than your chances of accidentally killing someone with your vehicle. Criminals can use them kill people or commit crimes, but they can use vehicles as well. Oh yeah and noise pollution and a very small amount of air pollution when fired . |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
