Judge Richard Bork, a conservative in his judicial pronouncements, said the the second ammendment guaranteed the "right of states to form militias, not for individual to bear arms".
I want to share some statistics. Source: Time (international edition) Jan 24, 2011 p29.
In one year 31,224 people die of gun related violence.
12,632 die of homicide by the use of a gun.
100,000 are shot in the USA every year in murders, assaults, suiicides, and police action.
683 children kill themselves every year by guns.
3,067 children and teenagers are killed every year.
17,352 people kill themselves every year with a weapon.
351 are shot in police intervention.
With such statistics it is time for some serious thought.
The right of self defence which is usually cited as the reason for having the right to bear arms is hardly relevant as only 1% of gun related deaths happen in self defence. George Bush made a firm commitment to ban assault weapons. However in 2004 he let the issue just fade away. Even Denmocrats, who have traditionally been way of the gun culture, do not want to bait the NRA by coming out openly for gun control. After every outrage there is public anger, but soon it is back to normal. Even in the recent memorial speech at Tucson, President Barack Obama did not even mention gun control. In fact it was the Democrats who let the Brady Bill fall by the wayside.
Unfortunately even rational well intentioned changes in the law to regulate the sale of guns is presented as if tyranny is in the offing and only a guin stands between dictatorship and liberty. Unfortunately even the Representaive from Arizona did not advocate firm measures to control guns.
The background checks are ineffective as gun dealwers do not have the means to conduct a background check. At least. to begin with small weapons which can be carried on the person, concealed weapons, may be regulated to start with. Nobody is calling for draconial laws, but restrictions on the sale of guns is needed.
I heard President Obama and hence I am not placing my argument in any context that may suggest a partisan position.
No, we don't.
If it's not guns, it would be something else...there's a great line from a crappy movie, "Star Trek V"; (paraphrased) "we disallowed them guns, they made their own weapons".
That's the problem with liberals and violence, or anything, really; you think that every time you ban or regulate something, that'll be the end to it. Well, it never is, is it? Yet you refuse to see it....there's no perspective, no common sense. You guys only ever seem to see what right in front of you....
They banned guns in England; not even the street cops carry over there, as I understand. Well, juat a few years ago, they also banned ownership of any knives over 6 inches in length. Now, they've dropped it to pocketknives. What if someone gets bludgeoned with a cricket bat, will they ban them, too?
Anything can be used as a weapon, Bahu. Anything. Someone gets killed with a brick? Let's ban bricks...someone gets hit and killed with a folding chair? Ban folding chairs (think about that; what would professional wrestling do?)...or metal pipes.....or splinters of wood....a heavy rock, taken from the ground....a log of firewood, cut from a tree? Where does it end? It doesn't, because you can't ban or regulate everything....even though you'll try.
As to guns in America:
"I would never advise invading America; there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Invasion is not what we are talking about. I know USA will defend itself and Americans will fight to preserve their freedom. What I am saying is simple; Does lax implementaion of rule allow men or women with diminished mental abilities acquire weapons which they use in inflict damage on society. Can that kind of gun culture be controlled. You will agree with me when I say that guns should not fall in the wrong hands and that the state should ensure that.
It became an issue the moment you said "ban all assault rifles"
This is why we defend the 2nd amendment
Since when did criminal = mentally retarded?
This term is offensive and derogatory. You are using the term "gun culture" as an insult for American culture (there is nothing wrong with guns, but you using at as insult has unfortunate implications... kinda like when someone uses the term "gay" as an insult). Furthermore, you claim that american culture is promoting the arming of the mentally retarded, which is patently false.
No we wont.
Who defines what the wrong hands are? Forget for a moment the holocausts that occur at least once a decade elsewhere in the world (were you really so ignorant as to think that the nazi holocaust is the only one?). In the USA itself, in the past, the government defined the "wrong hands" as "African-American" "Japanese-American", "Native-American", and "Socialist Americans". Furthermore, the left (falsely) claims that if control ever falls into the hands of the right in the country, those will be brought back... along with jews, women, and non hetrosexuals (LBGTetc).
The state cannot be trusted with such grave a task. Furthermore, you assume that a violently insane person need only have their gun taken away for them to be rendered safe for society. If someone is violently insane they need to be committed, not merely prevented from owning a gun. If someone is not violently insane then the government has no business taking away their gun. If a criminal has not been rehabilitated then s/he must remain in prison, not be set loose on an unsuspecting society but forbidden from owning a gun.
Once again I must point out that mass murderers, serial killers, robbers, rapists, etc all exist even in the absence of guns.
[sarcasm]well, obviously we should ban cars/bikes/trucks (motor vehicle), home cleaning detergents (accidental poisoning), swimming, running, fireplaces, segway (other land transportation?), natural disasters, boats (other transport), and machinery of all kinds.
Bicycles (pedal cyclist on chart), sharp objects, and exercising cause much more non fatal hospitalizations, but since they do cause fewer deaths we should still allow those. (since guns are the obvious cutoff point)[/sarcasm]
The Second Ammedment also talks of a "well regulated militiaa" which will be the basis of the defence of the nation. Individuals armed without orgaization will not help.
No insult was intended by the use of the term. I avoid giving deliberate offence to anyone. I fyou found the term offensive let me say categorically that my intention was not to wound or offend.
We are not saying that only violently insane should be prevented from having guns. I think it is time for the judiciary to settle this rather contentious matter stemming from the expansive interpretation of the IInd Ammendment.
I do not agree with you when you say that there is nothing "wrong with guns". While there is the right of self defence, no one has the right to use guns for the purpose of assertion of an identity.
The state is the only framework withion which social defence can legitimately take palce. That is the conteract between society and the state.
Who says who's interpretation of the Second Amendment is 'expansive'?
We have a contract between the people and the state - it's called the Constitution. Who in hell is using guns 'for the purpose of assertion of an identity'?
You can't even get your premises right.
If you read what I have said, you will find that I ahve clearly distinguished between the the different propositions. The first sttament was in the context of the right of self defence, the second was in thencontesxt of "gun culture". So I have not mixed up the two.
There is the whole issue of a well regulated militia and the avoidance of the well regulated part of the ammendment is the "expansive" part.
Again - That may be what you INTENDED to say, but that is not what you said.
Your article was based on the premise, summarized with this statement, that people just are not grown up enough to make their own decisions. Which is totally liberal (progressive) and only accurate in a pre-school day care.
And your INTENDED statement is still wrong. You missed the boat, the barn and the ship! The problem is not capacity for background (your first erroneous argument), nor lax implementation. It is the inability, or wall of separation, that is part of the right to privacy, that keeps law enforcement from knowing about looney tunes.
And it is not lax enforcement of the prohibition on loonies owning guns, but on the incompetence of law enforcement professionals like Dupnik to do their job. If he had arrested him even ONCE and sent him for a loonie evaluation, the tragedy in Tucson would probably have been averted. Instead of doing his job, he spews blood libel on innocent people,. seeking to repeat the lie enough to get people to believe it.
Again, the talk about the militia is a "pre-amble" that you do not seem capable of grasping.
Well put!
And those people who are not violently insane that shouldn't own guns... those are? political dissidents? jews? gays? blacks? women? conservatives? liberals? christians? arabs? muslims? asians? latinos? law abiding citizens?
Also there has never been an "expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment"... The second amendment lets you own guns, period. In fact, it has been butchered, ignored, and circumvented all over the USA.
That isn't what the constitution says... nor what common sense says.
Individuals should be able to protect themselves from the state to prevent ethnic clensings.
Individuals should be able to protect themselves against a mugger or a rapist.
Would you honestly say that a woman doesn't deserve the right to protect herself from a rapist? That it would be too fair a fight if she had a gun, so she must be disarmed (the rapist, being a criminal, is still likely to be armed) so that she stands no chance at all of defending herself?
Individuals should be able to protect their country in the case of invasion.
Time and time and time again history has proven that individuals performing guerrilla warfare win wars. From the American Revolution, to Japan never invading US soil in WW2, to Germany never invading Switzerland... it is even more effective against weak willed democracies, as it got the USA to leave Vietnam and Iraq.
on what basis? guns save lives, promote freedom and equality, protect against tyranny.
What the heck does assertion of an identity even means?
Is shooting a rapist or a murderer that breaks into your home with ill intent an "assertion of an identity"? How about shooting a mountain lion that grabbed your kids and is going to eat them (I am referring to real occurrences)?
If I again may make myself heard.
Looking in from the outside, not being an American, the 2nd amendment looks to me, with its mention of the reason given as a militia, specifically to ALLOW all weapons typically required for a militia (i.e. sticks and hand guns) while not specifically stopping government from outlawing or severely controlling all other types of weapons (i.e. tanks and fighter aircraft).
To me it appears obvious that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own hand guns but does not guarantee a right to own tanks or nuclear missiles.
If some other law (for example one about radiation) prohibits a type of weapon, the 2nd amendment does not invalidate the law unless the law is about militia weapons (i.e. hand guns).
To me, that makes sense.
There was already a standing federal army at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. I think it was as much a measure to ensure the ability of the States to protect themselves from the Federal Government as anything. In that sense, it might cover owning tanks and nukes.
I think it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't. Government certainly has the legitimate power to outlaw dangerous items, except in as much as the Bill of Rights limits government's power to do so. Weapons needed for a militia are allowed. That's what the 2nd amendment says.
Not quite. It says that since a militia is needed, owing a gun is a right. It did not say that only guns used for militias are a right.
I didn't say "used for", I said "needed for".
Sorry for my mistake. However it does not change the meaning by swapping the terms (indeed, they are used interchangeably in the arguments here). The amendment states "is a right". It is clear. The clause about the militia is not a condition.
How many lives are saved by doctors? How many lives are saved by guns?
Is the number of lives saved by doctors - (deaths from malpractice - deaths from malpractice in cases where the patient would have died without medical care anyway) greater or smaller than the number of lives saved by guns - (the number of lives taken by guns - the number of lives taken by guns in self defence saving a life at the same time)?
I would guess maybe the doctors are more useful than the guns.
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS EVEN A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION!!!!!
WE ALL *EVERYONE* STAND HERE FREE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND THE USE OF FIREARMS TO THAT EFFECT. HOW MANY WOULD HITLER HAVE KILLED? HOW MANY MORE PLANES WOULD FLY THROUGH BUILDINGS. HOW MANY MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE WOULD BE MURDERED IF THEY HAD NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES? YOU CANNOT TAKE GUNS FROM CRIMINALS BECAUSE THEY ARE OBTAINED FROM OUTSIDE THE LAW!!! NO ONE KNOWS THEY HAVE THEM UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!!! WHAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN. WITH OR WITHOUT GUNS YOU WILL STILL HAVE PEOPLE KILLING EACH OTHER AS THEY HAVE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THIS BLOG EVER EXISTED. BE IT CLUBS, ROCKS, KNIVES, CARS, BOMBS MADE FROM HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS, OR SOMEONE'S BEAR HANDS,THIS WEB SERVER DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO LIST EVERYTHING THAT IS A POTENTIAL DEADLY WEAPON. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!! OR THEMSELVES!!! ACCIDENT OR INTENT!!! ALL GUN BANS WILL ACCOMPLISH IS LEAVING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS AND NONE IN THE HANDS OF THE INNOCENT LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. IF IT'S POPULATION CONTROL YOU'RE AFTER THIS WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE METHOD!
Including the Holocaust?
I didn't read the stuff you shouted later.
it's "bare hands" (exposed hands) not "bear hands" (hands of a large omnivorous animal of the family "Ursidae")
The problem is people don't really understand the Constitution. When reading things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence you must view things from the perspectives of the Founding Fathers to truly understand those documents. From the perspective at the time they were all admitted though reluctant traitors to the crown, not the patriots they are viewed to be by modern society.
The Founding Fathers were STRONGLY against a single person controlling an oppressive all powerful government. The majority of the Constitution as originally written is full of checks and balances to keep the federal government or any individual in it from becoming too big or too powerful. Several amendments to the Constitution have eroded many checks and balances allowing the government to do things it was never supposed to be able to do.
The right to bear arms was NOT included in the Constitution because the founders were worried about the personal safety of the citizenry or hunting rights. The second amendment was created because the men leading this NEW nation were concerned with 2 things.
1. Replacing one oppressive government with another oppressive government.
2. The very real threat of invasion from a foreign power seeking to challenge the newly formed union.
What is the best way to keep a powerful, corrupt government from using military might to subjugate and oppress its citizens? The answer of course is you arm the citizens nearly as well as the military and provide them at least the basic knowledge of how to use their arms.
The second portion of the problem is also solved by arming the citizenry. Instead of like most countries in the world any country that invades the United States must not only fight military and police forces on the battlefield, but door to door, house to house against every single American.
Many people don't understand the terminology or reasoning behind the second amendment. When militias are talked about they mean ORDINARY CITIZENS TRAINED AS SOLDIERS THAT ARE NOT PART OF ANY ARMY. When the word "arms" is used they mean WEAPONS not guns. When they say "to bear" they mean TO CARRY not to own.
The second 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.
In modern terms it would read more like:
Well trained citizens with military weapons being necessary to the security of a free country, the right of Americans to own and carry weapons will not be limited.
Our second amendment rights are already infringed upon, but people only care about owning guns. Sure when the second amendment was written things like tanks, fighter jets, ICBMs and nuclear submarines weren't even imagined, but swords, knives, brass knuckles and many other such things which are illegal to carry and in some cases even own existed for centuries before America was ever discovered.
Sacrificing freedoms in the name of safety or because you don't understand them is how you become oppressed. Your freedoms slowly erode until one day you realize you have no freedom.
For example it is unconstitutional to perform search and seizures or detain people without reasonable cause. Yet, every day DUI checkpoints are set up and thousands of people are harassed and detained just so a very small percentage of people can be arrested in the name of public safety.
Beautifully well written Onikazi
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
