Discuss the second amendment here.

[Keno]

A question I have, this is a question because I do not know the statistics of it, Of all the guns obtained illegally by the criminal themselves how many of those were originally legally owned guns?

for instance guy buys handgun legally, criminal breaks into his house and steals said gun.

or guy buys gun legally then illegally sells it on the black market to a criminal or trades it for something.

I don't know for sure but I bet there is a lot of "illegal guns" being used by criminals that were initially put out there legally.

Also I heard one time that for the average person who owns a gun for the purpose of self defense in their home (not for hunting) that gun is statistically more likely to hurt a friend or family member than help fend off a criminal. I heard that quite a long time ago so I do not remember where I heard it, that statement just stuck in my mind for some reason.

The statistic I mentioned means that they were not obtained legally in the first place. i.e. an arms dealer gets a crate of 9MMs and sells them on the black market. The arms here were never obtained legally by anyone, except maybe by the exporter. The problem with obtaining a gun illegally either through stealing it or having someone else buy it for you is that it's just not worth the hastle. If you're a criminal it's easier and cheaper to buy a gun on the black market than it is to go to the Gun Shop in your town and buy a gun (or have someone do it for you).

[Beckwin]

Guns are for pussies. The chance for a person to go batshit insane and the chance for a person to have the opportunity to use a gun to defend themselves from a deadly attacker probably aren't all that far apart.

Hunting and sport shooting? That's fine, and most participants are very safe (except for Dick Cheney).

Handguns are stupid. They exist solely for one purpose: shooting people. You don't hunt with a 9mm, and a shotgun is better suited for home defense. Handguns are easily concealed as well.

I'm actually interested to hear what right-wingers have to say about stricter gun control, especially after that drunk driver thread.

[Norelco]

Guns are for pussies. The chance for a person to go batshit insane and the chance for a person to have the opportunity to use a gun to defend themselves from a deadly attacker probably aren't all that far apart.

Hunting and sport shooting? That's fine, and most participants are very safe (except for Dick Cheney).

Handguns are stupid. They exist solely for one purpose: shooting people. You don't hunt with a 9mm, and a shotgun is better suited for home defense. Handguns are easily concealed as well.

I'm actually interested to hear what right-wingers have to say about stricter gun control, especially after that drunk driver thread.

If I ever hunted I decided I would use a bow. Seems to level the playing field.

[chesh]

Well, aside from the "then only criminals will own guns" argument, I guess the side effect is that less guns are produced. If, for example, they outlaw the manufacture of any new firearms other than sport hunting rifles (military excluded), but allow people to keep their current legally owned firearms, then it won't do much now but in the future, firearms will become increasingly rare even for criminals since no new guns are being produced unless they come from abroad.

And that's how a market economy works. If there is a demand, there will supply. You think the Israelis won't be happy to supply Uzis to all who can afford them?

[zoobernut]

well yeah i know that the direct connection between the criminal and the gun is from the black market but how many of those guns begin their life legally?

if a gun is 100% illegal and uncontrollable then it has to be illegally shipped into the country by an arms dealer like you said.

i am not necessarily advocating more gun control i am just trying to examine how biased gun statistics can be in both directions.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

the only thing i will say with respect to the second amendment directly is i think that the idea that the second amendment outright guarantees people the right to own guns is a misinterpretation, the way i have always read it was that it gives civilians the right to form militia groups in times when they need to protect their freedom. for example if the government gets out of control kinda like how people fought against the british.

that is just what i see when i read the second amendment.

found this interesting website on the debate over the second amendment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

[Fhqwghads]

Guns are for pussies.

Guns are for people who know how to handle them. Guns are for pussies only if said pussy is some idiot who thinks they have something to prove. Usually those types wind up in a penitentiary.

a shotgun is better suited for home defense

No it's not. See how fast you can spin around in a narrow hall and aim your shotgun. Make sure you have a couple of drywall repair kits handy.

[Tricen]

Mass shooting @ VA Tech. Wut?

[Raineer]

Guns are for pussies

Yeah seriously, I mean if our military is so good they should be in Iraq with only swiss army knives.

Pussies.

[Raineer]

Mass shooting @ VA Tech. Wut?

That's the reason for the damn thread, hi.

Link that event to the 2nd amendment and you can have a cookie, unfortunately you can't.

[MF Perm]

God bless the 2nd amendment.

1st amendment sucks too, so you should shut the fuck up.

You realize that without the second ammendment the crime rate would skyrocket, right? 90%+ of weapons used in crimes resulting in a death are not weapons that are purchased or obtained legally. So even if we outlaw carrying or owning weapons, the criminals are still going to be able to obtain their guns illegally. Couple that with all law-abiding citizens not being able to own weapons and you have yourself a spike in the crime rate.

That's a sad vision of what would happen. Without the demand or ability to legally purchase guns in the US, US gun manufacturers wouldn't afford to make or distribute domestically pistols and semi-automatic weapons.

This is why they spend so much money on the Gun lobby, so they can continue to sell guns to the public.


And spare me on the "oh but drugs get in the country, if we make guns illegal so will they." Despite the fact that any large shipment of guns will be beyond retarded easy to spot being smuggled in, considering you can't swallow a gun to sneak it in, and they aren't a malleable organic substance that can be blended in with another product to fly under the radar as drugs are; YOU ALSO NEED AMMUNITION. You can buy a gun illegally, and legally buy bullets at Wal-Mart.

Any criminal organization that would try to smuggles guns and ammunition into this country if they were illegal would be busted and shut down within an instant. This wouldn't be the terribly managed completely unnecessary war on drugs, this would be on the same level as anti-terrorism as far as approach.

I agree that there would be a sudden spike immediately after the fact, but then it would drop to very, very low levels.

There is no reason anyone in this country should own a gun, to quote several comedians before me - The British aren't invading, you will not be drafted into a militia. The constitution was written to be changed with the times. That law is completely outdated, no American should be able to have a firearm for any reason with the exception of hunting rifles.

[finale23]

greatest amendment ever

i thought it was the FiF?

[Gregorio]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

the only thing i will say with respect to the second amendment directly is i think that the idea that the second amendment outright guarantees people the right to own guns is a misinterpretation, the way i have always read it was that it gives civilians the right to form militia groups in times when they need to protect their freedom. for example if the government gets out of control kinda like how people fought against the british.

that is just what i see when i read the second amendment.

And what exactly are the militia groups supposed to use to protect their freedoms? Karate, like the earlier poster suggested who's clearly watched The Matrix too many times?

The framers carefully thought of every word in every amendment before they put out the Bill of Rights. "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". It says the right of "the people", not the right of "the militia".

[Tricen]

Mass shooting @ VA Tech. Wut?

That's the reason for the damn thread, hi.

Link that event to the 2nd amendment and you can have a cookie, unfortunately you can't.

I didn't see anything mentioing it <.<

[zoobernut]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

the only thing i will say with respect to the second amendment directly is i think that the idea that the second amendment outright guarantees people the right to own guns is a misinterpretation, the way i have always read it was that it gives civilians the right to form militia groups in times when they need to protect their freedom. for example if the government gets out of control kinda like how people fought against the british.

that is just what i see when i read the second amendment.

And what exactly are the militia groups supposed to use to protect their freedoms? Karate, like the earlier poster suggested who's clearly watched The Matrix too many times?

The framers carefully thought of every word in every amendment before they put out the Bill of Rights. "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". It says the right of "the people", not the right of "the militia".

I don't think you quite understand what I meant. The bolded part is correct it does say the people and not the militia but I think it refers to people IN the militia. These days where the necessity of a militia can be argued I believe the wording of the second amendment is outdated and because of this it can be interpreted as that it does not guarantee the right to own a gun to the general public for any old reason they want. I think that the second amendment guarantees this right in specific situations, however some people tend to read this as "I am american there fore I can own a gun if I want for any reason I want"

A militia has a very specific purpose, and once this purpose is over the need for guns is no longer there.

[GRT]

that's the whole reason why we have something called the "judicial review," because legistative text or any kind of text can be interpreted in different ways no matter what words or phrases are used... and according to all gun related cases in all levels of courts in the u.s., the 2nd amendment does NOT give individual the right to own guns, instead it gives states the right to form a militia

the gun control policies in the u.s. is not a result of the 2nd amendment, but a result of governmental regulation of interstate and intrastate commerce

[Gregorio]

I don't think you quite understand what I meant. The bolded part is correct it does say the people and not the militia but I think it refers to people IN the militia. These days where the necessity of a militia can be argued I believe the wording of the second amendment is outdated and because of this it can be interpreted as that it does not guarantee the right to own a gun to the general public for any old reason they want. I think that the second amendment guarantees this right in specific situations, however some people tend to read this as "I am american there fore I can own a gun if I want for any reason I want"

A militia has a very specific purpose, and once this purpose is over the need for guns is no longer there.

I get what you meant...Here's what I meant. Keep in mind the founding fathers just escaped from the grasp of an oppressive government. Don't you think it's possible that some day the American government could become oppressive to the point where the citizens would need to revolt? I sure do, especially since we're losing more and more rights every day. My point is that the need for a militia could possibly arise at any moment. We may need to fight off our own government, or even another country in the odd chance that our military is completely wiped (working pretty well for pissed off Iraquis)

If the founding fathers had only meant that the people in the militia were to be the ones with guns, they would have specified that.

[crazyrabbit]

sigh... idiots
Yes i said you should learn self-defense or what the fuck ever crosses your mind instead of defending guns, those weapons that put your family in danger in the first place.

Just fucking think about other ways to defend yourself. That was my point.
All you ever do is wanting a gun, wanting to kill the killer. Why should you think about a problem if you can just shoot it down.

iI their wouldnt be ANY weapons then it would be fucking hard to get guns illegal too. Like it is alrdy in many other countrys and some ppl here mentioned the same.

That fucking law was made 200 years ago, dammit the world moves on you know? Those american were scared about their freedom, because it was a completly different time. They just got their independance and wantet to save that in every posible way, which in that time was mostly guns and wars. But we live in year 2007, grow up and try to solve problems.

How did the killer get the guns? Why do they kill other ppl? What do parents wrong with their kids?
Those are the problems you need to discuss and not the shit about "That little sentenced says i can own a gun so i want to own a gun to kill everyone who scares me." If you didnt know, this kind of attitude (It says that so i can do it) is like little idiotic kids argue.

It is fucking hard to teach every single idiot to not shoot other ppl down, but it would need only a few little changes in the law to pretend those idiots from getting guns.
Am i realy the only person here who can understand this shit?

There are only two absolut ways to solve such a problem.
The first, give everyone a gun and wait some years. The idiots will kill themself and we can have a kind of peace in the future. This is what america does atm, but it doesnt realy work like you see. Innocent ppl get killed while more and more idiots get those cool weapons.

The second being to just ban every single fucking gun (exception being police/army only). Then nobody can kill anyone else with a gun. People would need to learn how to solve problems and maybe in the future it could be peace.

You cant just say "those idiots need to change, guns are good for ppl who know how to use it" because you cant keep the guns out of reach for the idiots if you dont ban them all. Maybe let everyone who wants a gun take a mental test to check if he is able to use the gun for defense (even tho he wouldnt need it if nobody had one, thats the biggest point), but then you have again the problem with the illegal bought weapons.

Scared about their family enough to buy deadly weapons but dont want to make laws to keep criminals from weapons... sigh... idiots.

[Fusional]

that's the whole reason why we have something called the "judicial review," because legistative text or any kind of text can be interpreted in different ways no matter what words or phrases are used... and according to all gun related cases in all levels of courts in the u.s., the 2nd amendment does NOT give individual the right to own guns, instead it gives states the right to form a militia

the gun control policies in the u.s. is not a result of the 2nd amendment, but a result of governmental regulation of interstate and intrastate commerce

+1

[Slapper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE
GUN CONTROL

[zoobernut]

I don't think you quite understand what I meant. The bolded part is correct it does say the people and not the militia but I think it refers to people IN the militia. These days where the necessity of a militia can be argued I believe the wording of the second amendment is outdated and because of this it can be interpreted as that it does not guarantee the right to own a gun to the general public for any old reason they want. I think that the second amendment guarantees this right in specific situations, however some people tend to read this as "I am american there fore I can own a gun if I want for any reason I want"

A militia has a very specific purpose, and once this purpose is over the need for guns is no longer there.

I get what you meant...Here's what I meant. Keep in mind the founding fathers just escaped from the grasp of an oppressive government. Don't you think it's possible that some day the American government could become oppressive to the point where the citizens would need to revolt? I sure do, especially since we're losing more and more rights every day. My point is that the need for a militia could possibly arise at any moment. We may need to fight off our own government, or even another country in the odd chance that our military is completely wiped (working pretty well for pissed off Iraquis)

If the founding fathers had only meant that the people in the militia were to be the ones with guns, they would have specified that.

That in my opinion is where you run into issues. I believe that people should have a right to form a militia to fight against oppressive governments however given how our military is structured these days even the best of the best legal guns for regular citizens to own are going to do nothing when fighting against an oppresive military with tanks and machine guns and missles and stuff. In the end people just use the amendment as an excuse to own guns they do not need and these guns often end up hurting or killing other people.

I feel people should have the right to own guns for various reasons however certain types of guns are not necessary and I think anyone who wants to own a gun should have to prove some sort of competency before being allowed to do so. I mean you have to pass a test and prove you can drive a car before you get your license, why not have something like that for guns, it might not eliminate accidents and gun violence but it might help reduce it.