2nd Ammendment Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Being a hunter I agree there is no reason someone would need an AK-47 or Uzi. Weapons like that are for the sole purpose of taking down humans in large numbers.[/quote]

Is that right? That’s interesting because I used to own one of each of the aforementioned weapons (I’ve since sold them), and of the countless times I shot them, not once did I “take down humans” in any numbers, let alone large ones. Therefore you must concede the falsity of that statement. I imagine, then, that my AR-15 (OK, Bushmaster) with the 30-rounders serves the same purpose? Again, I have never found myself mowing down anything other than paper. I further offer my assurance that I am quite in my right mind, whoever implied that one such as myself is not.

I strongly take issue with people, especially fellow gun owners who should know better, who somehow have the idea that they “know” the limits within which rights are to be allowed. To wit, you are a “hunter.” Well isn’t that fine? As a “hunter” you have apparently decided, based on your statement, that there is no reason to own anything other than a “hunting” rifle, and that axiom extrapolates to all firearm owners. Do you perhaps fail to recognize the rights of the “collector,” for example? Or does his fancy of those black, scary guns place him outside the realm of “reason,” or “common sense,” if you will, in the parlance of the gun controllers? One might conceivably turn your argument around and say that since you, the “hunter,” favor weapons of such power, accuracy and range as to take down sizeable mammals at great distances, you present your own specific and unique danger. After all, the sole purpose of those ‘sniper’ weapons is to enable killing from a great distance while remaining undetected, no?

Rights are rights. As soon as they are “infringed” in any way, they become “privileges” granted by government. Privileges can be taken away. The Second Amendment grants the unfettered right to bear arms. Period. The historical record of this country tells no other story. That includes the guns we like and the ones we don’t like, or use and don’t use. We should be on the same team, and I am disturbed that someone with whom I share a vested interest in a specific portion of the US constitution would fail to take into account interests other than his own.

Agreed. Enforce the damn laws and throw the thugs in jail. Unfortunately, there is a price to living in a free society. I submit that the price of tyranny is far higher.

22

Great post, bandgeek.

23

Bandgeek, by the same token, your argument would seem to indicate that you should be allowed to own tanks, aircraft, missles, nuclear weapons and whatever else you damned well please.

To repeat what has been posted above…

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.

However, laws are always “interpreted” and there are often different interpretations. Do you presume that the founding fathers were only thinking in current terms? Do you presume they meant nuclear weapons and other WMD were to be on the list as well? Is there no line at all?

Pretty soon some terrorist with a dirty bomb on his back will claim 2nd amendment rights to carry any size or type bomb he or she wishes.

I’m being silly, and I’m not against the right to bear arms, but I have news for you. Lines have already been drawn. You can’t own any weapon you might like to with impunity.

One interpretation that could be offered is that “the people” does not mean every citizen. It could mean qualified or trained people. It could mean people above or below a certain age. It could mean people with good eyesight. It could mean people are allowed to have them but not use them. It could mean only those who are part of an organized militia.

Anyway, nobody freak, I’m not against the ownership of guns. I’m not against reasonable controls. I’m just thinking out loud.

24

Bandgeek,

We probably agree on more than we disagree on, but few thoughts:

“The Second Amendment grants the unfettered right to bear arms. Period.”

Not exactly. There are all kinds of restrictions firearms and there always have been - from gun presentation in city limits to gun possession in a government building.

Though I fervently support the 2nd Amendment, there are few absolute ‘rights’ that aren’t moderated for public consideration - just like the old principle that the First Amendment doesn’t permit you to yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre.

“Privileges can be taken away.”

So can rights, and many smart antigun proponents are trying to get support for a Constitutional Amendment to counter the Second Amendment, realizing the right has to be taken away formally since the law is so directly stated.

“I strongly take issue with people, especially fellow gun owners who should know better, who somehow have the idea that they ?know? the limits within which rights are to be allowed.”

Btw, the Amendment does not say ‘guns’ it says ‘arms’. That term encompasses a great many weapons nowadays. The argument you make could consider rocket launchers, which you could innocently fire at pieces of paper on your property.

But few people would see the sense in allowing a free market of rocket launchers in general society.

As I said before, I support gun rights, but there will always be commonsense limitations.

25

Actually, if you think about, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow us to protect ourselves from the government then I SHOULD be allowed to own anything the government owns. Using it is another matter altogether.

You do need to remember that being “allowed” to own it doesn’t guarantee I CAN own it. I could probably afford an Uzi, but not many people can afford an Apache with Hellfire missiles and a 30mm cannon, let alone keep it maintained. Even fewer people could afford their own nuke.

26

Bandgeek
Don’t get your panties in a twist! Thats just my opinion. I actually wouldn’t mind owning an AK-47, but taking away the fun of shooting at paper targets what was the primary purpose weapons like that were designed for? To kill muthafuckas lots of em! Did you ever see the video from the bank robbery in L.A. a few years ago? The one where the two guys with AK-47’s and body armor held of what seemed to be the whole L.A. police dept. I bet theres more then one L.A.P.D. member who would say your full of shit!

27

[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, nobody freak…[/quote]

Not to worry, I prefer gentlemen’s discourse.

I would ask you what is your idea of a “reasonable” control, and how does it compare with, say, Dianne Feinstein’s?

vroom, thunder…good points all, but I have to go now! Looking forward to picking up tomorrow!

28

I’m not entirely sure what reasonable controls are at this point. However, I know I am not against safe storage laws, perhaps tempered by language that states when a weapon is left unattended.

I understand that for protection purposes you might not want to have to find a key and unlock your weapon when a burgler is in the house. However, before you leave your gun “unattended”, especially if you have children, what harm in having to lock it?

Alternately, consider something incredibly deadly that most of us do every day. We drive tons of metal around at high speed and can run over or into people and kill them at whim. Generally, we don’t object to having to reach a certain age of maturity, pass a written test, and demonstrate our skills before we get a license to drive.

Would it really be such a hassle to demonstrate that you know how to use the safety, how to lock it, how to load and unload your weapon, how to handle or store munitions and so on? So, would this lead to CUI/CWI (carrying under the influence/carrying while intoxicated) laws?

Of course crooks won’t go through all that shit, but they don’t have to go through that shit to drive cars either. I’m not talking about things that are aimed at stopping the bad guys, I’m only talking about things that are aimed at increased awareness and safety.

Hell, you could even make people be able to hit a target at 50 paces or something so at least there is a chance they’ll hit the right thing when they decide to shoot at someone.

Anyway, I do understand the concern that it could be a slippery slope and that more and more rules could be piled on until it was almost impossible to own a gun. However, if you consider it equivalent to driving, which is a natural and expected activity, then common sense controls don’t feel so bad.

However, you will always have those who want to eliminate guns, eliminate supplements, eliminate anything which anybody could misuse in any way and generally protect you from your own stupidity.

On a different tack, it seems a good idea to make it a serious offense to commit a violent crime with a weapon. This at least targets the bad guys only. Some type of self-defence clause or Good Samaritan clause should be written in so you don’t easily get this penalty for trying to help though.

29

I own a gun. Actually, I own lots of guns. I own shot guns, rifles, and handguns. I own an AR-15. I have 1000’s of rounds of ammo. All of which are kept locked up nice and tight in very large, robust, fireproof safe about the size of your refrigerator.

I have a concealed weapons permit. Most of the time, I have a Beretta .32 or a Glock 9mm strapped around my ankle or in my pants (the perfect holster is a big deal). I’m not an ex-con, criminal, or redneck. I’m just a hard working professional and a family man.

It’s very simple. I refuse to be food. I believe it’s foolish to think a violent crime will never happen to you. It’s my right to bear arms, so I’m bearing. You would never guess that I was packing if you saw me in a crowd. I don’t live in fear. I don’t think it makes me a bad ass. I literally pray to God that I am NEVER in a situation where I would feel the need to pull a gun on another human being. If push came to shove and my life, or someone elses, was about to end, I’m going out in a blaze of glory.

As for owning a collection, I find guns to be a beautiful piece of machined craftsmanship. Also, I’ve found guns to be a great investment. A nice gun will increase in value. I’ve done a lot of buying and selling over the years and I’ve made good money.

My advice, go out to a gun store and buy yourself a nice Glock or Beretta semi-auto and take it to the range every once in a while a practice. As far as self defense, owning a gun is 10% and knowing how to use it is 90%. Be responsible and be safe.

30

I think the whole 2nd Amendment debate is largely about fear.

First the background: The 2nd Amendment was created in a time when people had an inherent distrust of gov’t, and needed guns to protect themselevs against men and beasts alike, not to mention using them as tools to gather (hunt) food sources.

Little has changed, except the food issue. That’s not to say we have to fear a gov’t that abuses its powers to the point that we need to rebel against it with an Uzi or AK-47, but the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment is still there…guns equal people power, and as long as that’s there, the gov’t has to think long and hard about rolling over American citizens. The amendment was enshrined for precisely this reason…NOT to just say that states can create their own military (National Guard/militia).

With that said:

  1. It is entirely within the gov’t’s power to limit and regulate the gun industry. The Supreme Court has confirmed this gov’t power.

I have no issues with limiting the capacity size of magazines and clips…that’s a reasonable limitation. So is banning fully-automatic weapons, as well as certain weapons based on size/loads. Besides, any technically proficient gun owner can change their magazine quickly, and the gov’t can’t stop us from buying 100 magazines for our semi-automatic rifle or handgun if we feel the need! Revolvers can easily be reloaded with speed loaders, too! And on the topic of special loads (like the Star Fire and Talon), I see no problem with that, even if I personally think it’s just an over-reaction. I can get by with traditional loads. Their more dangerous to bystanders in a shootout, but that doesn’t compute in the brains of politicians. So be it.

2)Gun registration. It’s a legitimate control for law abiding folks. It does reduce the number of idiots from purchasing weapons on a whim. That’s a good thing in my book. Waiting periods don’t effect the hard-core believer in gun ownership either, because Real gun owners will go through the paperwork, and even wait 2 weeks, because they genuinely want to own the weapons, usually because they actually shoot for sport. Only the panicky, untrained types (who buy guns on a whim)would “suffer” from these useful limitations. Tough cookies!

  1. Gun training. It should be mandatory, even if is simply gauged by a written test prior to releasing the (first) weapon purchased. Basic saftey & responsibilites (like locking up the unattended weapon, seperating ammo from the weapon when stored, etc…) should be emphasized, as well as relevant laws that pertain to gun ownership and use. Gun owners should realize that their own guns are more likely to harm themselves or loved ones (if not safeguarded properly) than an intruder or evil gov’t agent. That should be on the test, too! It helps to emphasize the responsibility gun owners have to themselves and their family/community.

  2. Guns should never be banned. Legislation that seeks to chip away at gun ownership (towards the ultimate goal of banning all weapons) should be resisted. Meaningful regulations should be encouraged and welcomed, which they are.

  3. In the ideal world of anti-gun types, people would not have legal access to guns, but that doesn’t mean that people would not have them. Nor does it mean that people won’t hurt/kill one another by other means. Duh! Reasonable gun laws will not address the failure of society to confront the actual causes of violence, stupidity and suicide. All it will do is remove guns from these debates, so I support genuine gun law reform in the hope that if we make certain concessions, then we have a better chance at resolving the underlying cause of societal ills.

31

Hey, this has shaped up to be a largely productive little conversation! Finally!

[quote]yorik wrote:
I would prefer everybody own a gun. If nobody owned a gun, then any despot could come in and enslave everybody.

To paraphrase an old saying, a person with a gun is a citizen, a person denied a gun is a slave.

[/quote]

Can you explain the first statement? I’m not sure what you mean.
As to the second statement, I’m not talking about people being DENIED guns, I’m talking about not a single person in the world having one – i.e., they don’t exist.

I’m not getting at anything, really, I just asked a question. When I make my points, I’ll declare my opinions.

I’m not sure I understand why anyone would prefer that everyone have a gun over the possibility that no one have a gun. I mean these terms definitively - everyone means every single living person and no one means, well, aboslutely no one. Can those who prefer that everyone be armed explain why they think this way?

32

Like what NewDamage said, banning guns will not remove them from Criminals.

They’ll still have weapons.

Remember when they banned alchol years ago. Were they successful?

33

RSU you asked: Can those who prefer that everyone be armed explain why they think this way?

I don’t believe that question can be answered realistically. Mainly the part about everyone having a gun or no one!

Lets say no one had a gun. Then I think evolution would come back into play due to the fact that there is always going to be altercation someone fighting over something.

First the guy or gal with the mightiest right hook is going to win then the other guys is going to look for something to even the odds a club or such. Then a spear, then a bow, then finally we are going to have guns again.

In order not to have weapons we would have to live in a utopian world where everyone got along. Highly unlikely on our planet!

34

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I’m talking about not a single person in the world having one – i.e., they don’t exist.[/quote]

At the risk of making you repeat yourself, do you include governments?

BTW, I want to rejoin the fray, but I’m having a busy day at work. I’ll pick up later…

35

Would crime be reduced if guns were banished?

That’s an easy one to answer. Look at Washington, D.C. They implemented sever gun control limits a few years back and since that point they’re crime rates have skyrocketed to one of the highest in the nation.

36

[quote]I don’t believe that question can be answered realistically. Mainly the part about everyone having a gun or no one!

Lets say no one had a gun. Then I think evolution would come back into play due to the fact that there is always going to be altercation someone fighting over something.

First the guy or gal with the mightiest right hook is going to win then the other guys is going to look for something to even the odds a club or such. Then a spear, then a bow, then finally we are going to have guns again.

In order not to have weapons we would have to live in a utopian world where everyone got along. Highly unlikely on our planet!
[/quote]

I suppose the purpose of my question is to uncover who is simply attached to their guns. That is, I suspect many people are simple infatuated with the thing itself, the idea of it, etc. I agree, the problem with my question is that if you wipe out guns all together, they can symbolically be replaced with the next best weapon - a knife, say. Still though, it is a valid question that can be answered with one of two answers - everyone or no one?

37

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Bandgeek
Don’t get your panties in a twist! [/quote]

Elk, I’d rather we leave my preference of undergarments and your perception of how they fit out of this discussion; I hardly know you! Now, my intent was not to offend or anger you, especially not at our first meeting. I’m merely making the point that a right is a right, and you, as one who chooses to exercise it in a specific way, should be aware that others exercise it in other ways. And if you think the Sarah Bradys of the world will stop at my “assault” weapons, you ought think again; once they get those, in the next breath they’ll be shrieking about your “sniper” rifles. Mark my words, friend. That’s how it works. Think anabolic steroids and prohormones.

By the way, if you wouldn’t mind owning an AK-47 why not get yourself one? They are available at any gun show for under $1000, at least in South Florida. With low maintenance, cheap and abundant ammo, and limited recoil, they are a joy to shoot. Maybe when I’m Colorado this summer we could go shooting!

Anyway, there are so many issues raised here that to speak to them all in detail would take all night, so I’ll generalize on a few.

  1. Rights, like privileges, can be taken away.

I disagree. Rights EXIST, and are either recognized or are not. Privileges are conditionally granted. Self defense, against whatever the threat may be, is a right. In this country, that right is recognized in Article II if our primary legislative reference; no permission from government required. Someone pointed out that various cities have had differing laws about carry and presentation, etc. over time. I’m not a lawyer, so I defer to the experts the question of whether the Constitution supersedes the laws of the states and municipalities. However I would refer to Article X to suggest that perhaps it does (or should).

  1. Laws, such as the Second Amendment, are “interpreted”

“Perverted” would probably be a more correct term, at least where Constitutional issues are at stake. The authors of the Constitution took great care to document their assertion that the ORIGINAL intent (which is also clearly documented) is the only way to ensure the integrity of its interpretation. That is why amending it is such a rigorous process. Of course no one cares too much about original intent nowadays (read again the first sentence of this paragraph); even a libertarian idealist such as myself can see that.

  1. But geek, aren’t you implying by your argument that we should all be able to freely own rocket launchers, warplanes, tanks, etc.?

Why, yes I am. I’m glad you asked. Someone alluded to me out in my backyard practicing double-taps with my hypothetical rocket launcher. Well, I admit this is not so very feasible in Miami. But when I lived in Idaho, on the other hand…

Well, this is getting long and yorik already beautifully answered point #3 above. No sense belaboring except to say that “since rocket launchers are outlawed, only outlaws own rocket launchers”!!

The people are free when the government fears them, and slaves when they fear the government.

38

“Still though, it is a valid question that can be answered with one of two answers - everyone or no one?”

RSU: In a word, everyone! Why? For the reasons outlined by Elk. We can wish for the world that should be, or live in the world that is. Even if the gun fairy came and took them all away… well… Elk already said it.

Think about it, the gun is the product of a sort of evolution, just as is the tank, the rocket launcher and the nuke. For the “gunless” world to exist, we’d have to work backwards and get rid of swords, catapults, and rocks, and get rid of hands and feet too. That’s just as impossible as changing human nature,which is what this is all about.

39

But I’m granting you the opportunity to wish, and you’re ignoring it.

I understand that the question I posit only pushes the crux of the issue back to another weapon - I get it and knew it before I posted the question.

I still can’t understand your reluctance to prefer everyone to be armed to no one being armed. If the playing level is even either way ( all armed or all not armed), why wouldn’t you prefer the less POTENTIALLY violent option?

Thanks all for a great thread, by the way.

40

RSU
Thank you for another thought provoking thread! I always make a point of looking for your posts, I like how you think Bro!

Bandgeek
Yes indeed, I apologize for making snide references towards your unmentionables! I did come off kinda defensive. As I stated though it was my opinion I am not rallying anyone to ban assault rifles. I agree there are responsible gun collectors out there who would never do anything negative with as assault weapon, but you also have to think of the David Koresh’s and criminal element out there that can use them in a devastatingly destructive manner! Oh, also I know where to purchase one if I decide to, but I would follow the law if they were banned. One last thing I do believe there need to be checks and balances on both sides too far to either one is to extreme for me.