The 2nd amendment

[Eagle need both]

I never thought I would have believed it, but the 2nd amendment needs revamping.

America has, by far, the worst gun homicide problem in the modern, western world (Yes, I've seen Bowling for Columbine, but that's not what the point of this is). Something really should be done about it if we are honestly intent on making the country a better place.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

The framers put this in for 2 reasons originally --
1.) The local militias were a major component to American victory during the Revolution

2.) To give the citizens a warm fuzzy that they would be able to protect themselves from an aggressive, militaristic government should one ever make it to power.

Given America's position as the strongest military nation on earth, I don't think we're relying on Bob and Jane to defend main street from the invading forces. Also, I think America is secure enough in its history now to prevent #2 occuring.

So, what's the point of keeping the right to bear arms in such paramount importance? What's the argument of people so staunchly opposed to gun control measures, and eventually abolishment of privately owned firearms? Everyone should be able to easily kill? I know the big problem is not Bob and Jane, but the criminals. We've got to get the guns away from them first.

Living in England for two years gave me the feeling that it's REALLY nice to walk around in cities without worrying about guns, let alone assault weapons. The police there aren't even armed, and don't need to be. It CAN be done, and I really wonder about people who don't want to strive for this kind of society.

 

[Big D]

Thats because in England you have far less blacks and hispanics then we do:

According to an NAACP press release, African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by firearms than are white males in the same age group. "Firearm homicide has been the leading cause of death among young African-American males for nearly 30 years," it stated.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/print.html

 

[Bullypulpit]

...You're dismissed.

 

[eric]

So, what's the point of keeping the right to bear arms in such paramount importance?

The right to protect my family, if I so choose to do it in this manner. It is very nice that you live in your fairyland called London, but here in the reality of NY, crimminals do own guns and do rob and shoot people in their own homes. Sorry I don't want to rely on 9-11 and their response times to assure the safety of my family. Any adult proven responsible, should be allowed to own a registered firearm.

I know the big problem is not Bob and Jane, but the criminals. We've got to get the guns away from them first.

Take the guns away from Bob and Jane, and only the criminals will own guns. Hey, Heroin and Cocain are illegal, yet so easy to obtain, same for illegal guns.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, period !!!!

 

[Moi]

What's so important is that the right to defend one's self is the most fundamental right on earth. That's the entire reason for the American Revolution.

The mere fact that stupid people use guns for stupid reasons, like killing someone for a pair of shoes, is not enough reason for me to give up my basic right to life and protecting that life. The fact is that in order to get rid of violence and gun deaths, you have to make them consequential. They are not. Now, we let criminals live in perfect luxury...they are fed, clothed, educated, their families are taken care of...why the hell wouldn't they disobey the law?

The only answer is that criminals be forced to suffer real and immediate consequences. Not disarming perfectly law abiding citizens.

Move back to England if you don't want to think about it. That's a perfectly acceptable solution for you. For me, it's having as many guns as I can afford and not engaging in criminal activity.

 

[jon_forward]

Dont worry about the dog, Worry about the Owner!
compliments of Smith & Wesson....

 

[Bullypulpit]

...That folks fail to assume the responsibility that the freedom to keep and bear arms entails. When you carry a weapon capable of taking a human life, the responsibility is great indeed, and so should the penalties for the abdication of that responsibility be equally great.

But we don't teach our children about responsibility and consequences either at home or in school. At home, they are plopped down in front of the tv of game console. At school they are taught to memorize-regurgitate-forget. They are not taught to reason effectively...They are not taught that their actions have consequences. Is it any wonder, then, that we are raising a generation of amoral little sociopaths?

When people understand that their actions bear consequences, sometimes lethal, we will see a reduction not just in gun violence, but violence in general. But I hold no hope of such a paradigm shift occuring anytime in the near future. In the meantime, don't take these weapons away from those who are capable of assuming the responsibility they entail. For those who can't, or won't, assume the responsibility are the ones who must pay the price for their lack of responsibility.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Also eagle need both, many fair minded upstanding citizens who in a normal context would keep some arms to defend themselves and their community, have been browbeaten by liberals into laying down their arms. Consequently, the guns are in the hands of criminals and "right wing wackos", according to mainstream thought. And the libs are more interested in getting them out of the hands of the right wing wackos, WHO OBTAIN THEM LEGALLY. They don't care to enforce the laws which keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I think all citizens should be required by law to carry stopping power. Do you know how little crime we would have? It'd be a paradise on earth.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit


For those who can't, or won't, assume the responsibility are the ones who must pay the price for their lack of responsibility. [/B]

I take full credit for Bully's dramatic conversion to our side, whether I deserve it or not!:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I take full credit for Bully's dramatic conversion to our side, whether I deserve it or not!:

Nah, you don't. I've been hunting since I was big enough to keep both ends of a gun off the ground. I know how to use long and short guns. I treat them with the respect they demand.

After all, an armed society is a polite society and one can get further with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone.

 

[eric]

Al Capone !

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
an armed society is a polite society

Robert Heinlein?

 

[Bullypulpit]

...to both.

 

[Big D]

Guns don't kill people,
blacks and hispanics WITH guns kill people.

 

[Quad]

Arguments about needing to protect your family with a gun are irrelevant in an argument about increasing gun control.

Good gun control legislation is designed to prevent proliferation of illegal firearms. And as a whole, even further regulation on obtaining legal firearms trickles down to "da meen streetz" and makes everybody safer. Real gun control should be designed to target arms manufacturers and regulate the arms market - but - our government has been engaging in a free market experiment for the last 80 years and a result of that is gun lobbies have financial power that prevents real regulation of the arms industry (one of the biggest contributors to political campaigns on a large scale are arms companies).

Our laws about firearms right now are a self perpetuating cycle of violence. The average american's feeling of need to own one for protection is part of that. One of the reasons other western countries are "fairy lands" is because they don't have laws that perpetuate violence in regards to firearms. Of course they have violent crime but control of proliferation of illegal firearms is much better, and their rates of violent crime are much lower. Now, the reasons for that are laws and law enforcement in those countries - not some mystical force that we don't have here in "the real world of crime."

Also, elsewhere in the western world people value property less - is that a value judgement on any culture? No - but, you will find in other western countries that people in general do not feel they have the right to murder someone simply for breaking and entering. In this country you will find most people will see that as a threat to their lives and an invasion of property and that the property owner has a right to murder the offender. Now, that being said and that being true for the most part - why is it criminals making property violations are usually armed? Because he has a legitimate concern for his life given our cultural norms. This is one example of a the self-perpetuating cycle and failure of our gun laws and attitudes about firearms. If our laws don't work we must change them, regulate the market, or institute social programs that will change people - democracy allows for elastic and fluid change - that is why we have a democracy.

The original poster makes a very good point, the main reason we don't have the same kind of control over violent crime and illegal firearm proliferation is because of the second amendment and the divisiveness of it as a political issue.

Now, to the original post the reason we do not change or amend the constitution is because doing it sets precedents. It allows for more change. The constitution is like the bill of rights, it is almost a sacred document. Neither party or power wants to allow for even tiny change in it because it means other parties and powers can potentially change it later in any area. Also - like you said, the formation of militias were essential to the birth of this country - you answered your own question. The importance of militias to the existance of our nation is a reason why the second amendment has not been changed. In a democracy the people are the final judge, they are the safety net, they are the boss, and all governmental institutions should be and in general are (except in the case of businesses) designed to serve people. The allowance for armed insurrection is the final safety net to insure that institutions serve people and not vice-versa in a democracy when law, beaurocracy, and ballots fail.

To say almost that "america has made it" is untrue. We have barely started to realize the goals and ideals set fourth by the founders of this country. They designed our intial laws, bill of rights, and constitution to insure we'd have all the tools necessary to make this a truely free and equal society - to create a true democracy. The fluidity and elasticity of democracy allows for growth but it also potentially allows for great destruction in terms of the goals of becoming a free society. That means in a relatively short amount of time a country such as the United States can plunge deeply into turmoil. Which is why as a strong liberal, green party sympathizer, and opponent of an unregulated market I oppose reform of the law in terms of disallowing militias. Which is why I support actions to make sure that there is documentation that allows us to know where every gun is made goes, increasing penalties on unregulated firearms, and making the use of a gun in a violent crime as much like leaving a fingerprint as possible. Which is why I believe gun manufacturers should be penalized monitarily or otherwise for illegal proliferation of their firearms, to insure business has a direct interest in the general wellbeing of our society and not just in a profit. Increasing the seriousness of owning a gun either illegaly or legally and severity/certainty of punishment for violent use is the right direction.

That does not respond at all to the point you brought up (which was really the key point) that making privately owned firearms illegal in western countries has been extremely successful in A) increasing the power of democracy through the law and B) decreasing violent crimes and murder rates for all people. It's hard to debate with facts - despite the "warm and fuzzy" feeling me and many other americans on both sides of our very polarized political spectrum have when it comes to the legal right to own a gun, shoot a robber, start a revolution, or just go hunting. The truth is culturally we're not even close to a point where we could give up our gun rights. However, it is hard to make a logical argument that gun control and change in our laws in regards to regulating proliferation of firearms would be good for all people. The problem of proliferation of violent crime is more with our social institutions (companies, government, lobbies) and theri contribution to the social fabric with the people themselves.

We must change the social institutions first. At the end of the day the social institutions that govern and maintain the social fabric that we all operate from are as much a contributor to our ability to take responsibility as our parents. Sometimes we have to change the structure before the people and I think, theoretically and practically (when looking at success in other countries), this is one of those times. The self perpetuating nature of the problem that lies within the social fabric and more seriously the laws themselves make arguments of personal responsibility non-applicable in my opinion.


By the way. I've never seen bowling for columbine.

 

[eric]

The problem of violence crime is more with our social institutions (companies, government, lobbiers) then it is with the social fabric and people themselves - we must change the social institutions first.

Very telling ! I guess people are not responsible for their own actions in your view of this world.

Because he has a legitimate concern for his life given our cultural norms

And he should ! Damn right I feel I can protect my property and loved ones, which is why I do own Firearms, and would use one in a second if someone broke in.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Quad
Arguments about needing to protect your family with a gun are irrelevant in an argument about increasing gun control.

No they're not. They are relevant.

Good gun control legislation is designed to prevent proliferation of illegal firearms. And as a whole, even further regulation on obtaining legal firearms trickles down to "da meen streetz" and makes everybody safer.

The black market of guns just makes sure only criminals have them. Law abiding citizens stripped of their firearms by a meddlesome state, are victims. It's ONE form of income redistribution. Socialism by robbery. Nice.

Real gun control should be designed to target arms manufacturers and regulate the arms market - but - our government has been engaging in a free market experiment for the last 80 years and a result of that is gun lobbies have financial power that prevents real regulation of the arms industry (one of the biggest contributors to political campaigns on a large scale are arms companies).

The arms maket is fine. It's criminals and a government that hampers the ability of individuals to protect themselves that creates victims.

Oh and our experiment in free markets has made us the envy of the world.

Our laws about firearms right now are a self perpetuating cycle of violence.

Because liberals won't enforce the laws on the books. They want the situation to worsen to scare people into voting to illegalize guns. SO they have complete control over the society.

The average american's feeling of need to own one for protection is part of that.

Is there something wrong with protecting one's self. IS that selfish and greedy?

One of the reasons other western countries are "fairy lands" is because they don't have laws that perpetuate violence in regards to firearms. Of course they have violent crime but control of proliferation of illegal firearms is much better, and their rates of violent crime are much lower. Now, the reasons for that are laws and law enforcement in those countries - not some mystical force that we don't have here in "the real world of crime."

It's not the laws that perpetuate gun violence. It's the refusal to enforce them that is.

Also, elsewhere in the western world people value property less - is that a value judgement on any culture? No- but, you will find in other western countries that people in general do not feel they have the right to murder someone simply for breaking and entering.

But you do feel that is a superior value. Don't you.

In this country you will find most people will see that as a threat to their lives and an invasion of property and that the property owner has a right to murder the offender. Now, that being said and that being true for the most part - why is it criminals making property violations are usually armed? Because he has a legitimate concern for his life given our cultural norms. This is one example of a the self-perpetuating cycle and failure of our gun laws and attitudes about firearms.

Yeah. Criminals bring guns onto other people's property to defend to the death their right to steal. Regular citizens try to stop them. You're criticizing the regular citizens defense of himself instead of the criminal for a being a pariah on society. You're sick in the head.

If our laws don't work we must change them,

How about we just enforce the ones on the books.

regulate the market,

For tax revenue? To force safety locks? or do you mean regulate as in "eventually drive out of existence"?

or institute social programs that will change people - democracy allows for elastic and fluid change - that is why we have a democracy.

The original poster makes a very good point, the main reason we don't have the same kind of control over violent crime and illegal firearm proliferation is because of the second amendment and the divisiveness of it as a political issue.

It may be divisive, but it's meaning is not debatable. It's only divisive because libs are in denial about what it means.

Now, to the original post the reason we do not change or amend the constitution is because doing it sets precedents. It allows for more change. The constitution is like the bill of rights, it is almost a sacred document. Neither party or power wants to allow for even tiny change in it because it means other parties and powers can potentially change it later. Also - like you said, the formation of militias were essential to the birth of this country - you answered your own question. The importance of militias to the existance of our nation is a reason why the second amendment has not been changed. In a democracy the people are the final judge, they are the safety net, they are the boss, and all governmental institutions should be and general are designed to serve people. The allowance for armed insurrection is the final safety net to insure that institutions serve people and not vice-versa in a democracy when law, beaurocracy, and ballots fail. In other words,

To say almost that "america has made it" is untrue. We have barely started to realize the goals and ideals set fourth by the founders of this country. They designed our intial laws, bill of rights, and constitution to insure we'd have all the tools necessary to make this a truely free and equal society - to create a true democracy. The fluidity and elasticity of democracy allows for growth but it also potentially allows for great destruction in terms of the goals of becoming a free society. That means in a relatively short amount of time a country such as the United States can plunge deeply into turmoil. Which is why as a strong liberal, green party sympathizer, and opponent of an unregulated market I oppose reform of the law in terms of disallowing militias. Which is why I support actions to make sure that there is documentation that allows us to know where every gun is made goes, increasing penalties on unregulated firearms, and making the use of a gun in a violent crime as much like leaving a calling card as possible. Increasing the seriousness of owning a gun either illegal or legal and severity/certainty of punishment for violent use is the right direction.

What would be the penalty for owning a gun legally?

Which is why I believe gun manufacturers should be penalized monitarily or otherwise for illegal proliferation of their firearms, to insure business has a direct interest in the general wellbeing of our society and not just in a profit.

That does not respond at all to the point you brought up (which was really the key point) that making privately owned firearms illegal in western countries has been extremely successful in A) increasing the power of democracy through the law and B) decreasing violent crimes and murder rates for all people. It's hard to debate with facts - despite the "warm and fuzzy" feeling me and many other americans in both parties have when it comes to the legal right to own a gun, shoot a robber, start a revolution, or just go hunting. The reality is culturally we're not even close to a point where we could give up our gun rights - but arguing that gun control and change in our laws in regards to regulating proliferation of firearms would be good for all people. The problem of violence crime is more with our social institutions (companies, government, lobbiers) then it is with the social fabric and people themselves - we must change the social institutions first.


By the way. I've never seen bowling for columbine.

Don't wrap your bullshit in Americana, you communist.

 

[Quad]

I think if you read my last few paragraphs, which I have edited, you will see that I addressed issues of personal responsibility.

The kind of personal responsibility that our laws encourage are self perpetuating cycles of violence. The kind of personal responsibility that exists is "carry a gun cus anybody you encounter might be." The kind of choice that our social fabric limits people to is "the choice to not carry a gun and risk not being able to defend yourself." The problem with personal responsibility arguments when you apply them broadly in all areas without looking at the nature of problems is you ignore the ways in which peoples choices are limited, and the ways in which definitions of responsibility are formed. You operate on a utopian ideal of the natural human condition and ability to take responsibility without vocalizing it or taking action (by revising social institutions) to create that ideal.

 

[eric]

To break into someone's home is not a personal choice ?

To mug someone is not a personal choice ?

To rape someone is not a personal choice ?

Where am I confused about personal responsibility ?

Let's focus on the criminal for a moment, shall we !

 

[Quad]

Were thomas jefferson, FDR, or TR communists? Because they all believed in the regulation of markets and the democratic ideal that power (POWER, not WEALTH you very ignorant person) should be distributed equally - democracy is a system of equal distribution of power, how about you don't wrap your capitalism in my americana.
Our regulation of markets, our ability to resist the take over of laisze-faire capitalism has made us the envy of the world by protecting our people and their choices - I am not condemning capitalism but every time we slip into a less regulated, objectivist market system we are hurt and the market ceases to serve all but a very few.