Discuss the second amendment here.

[Fhqwghads]

Punctuation is important here, because there's two versions. The one passed by the house and senate 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.

This is easily interpreted as the people of the United States, aka all citizens. Note the capitalization of "People." In other words, the House and Senate (you know, the people who vote things into law) had every intention for the people of the United States to own and defend themselves with firearms.

[zoobernut]

That interpretation assumes that the first part of the sentence and the second part are completely separate. If you assume that then yes you are right, however if you assume since it is one scentence instead of two that the first part and the second are connected then it is not a large leap to interpret as the People referring to the people in the militia.

[Lauzian]

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.

Do you realize just how many gun laws there are on the books and how completely ineffective 99% of them are. They have made "just a few minor changes to the law" and it didn't do anything. Guns/Drugs/Sex cannot be regulated by making yet another "Here is a new law so everyone can give themselves a pat on the back" solution. It has been stated many times before in this thread, you cannot stop people from getting the things they want.

I believe in the right of the citizen to own a gun because, yes you have a right to defend yourself. I say that as someone who has never owned a gun of his own as well. I don't believe in the right to the far extreme guns of sub-machine guns and large automatics but I do feel a person has the right to arm themselves.

If you want to see a good argument over the 2nd amendment find a copy of the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about it. It was done very well.

[Xavier]

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.

If we only had swiss-army knives maybe we would've verified that half the intelligence wasn't full of shit before we decided to invade.

Doesn't sound so bad to me.

[BRP]

This amendment is dead to me until it allows me to walk around in a Gundam Battlesuit.

[Gregorio]

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

Good point, except you're wrong.

Even recently, in Parker v. Columbia, you're proven wrong.

[zoobernut]

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

Good point, except you're wrong.

Even recently, in Parker v. Columbia, you're proven wrong.

Could you elaborate why he is wrong? And quote the portion of Parker v. Columbia that proves he is wrong? Please.

[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

Good point, except you're wrong.

Even recently, in Parker v. Columbia, you're proven wrong.

Could you elaborate why he is wrong? And quote the portion of Parker v. Columbia that proves he is wrong? Please.

actually, yes he's right, and i stand corrected

even as i wrote it there was something in the back of my mind trying to remind me there was something recent that changed all that

i was citing what i learned in school, and that ruling was pretty recent and escaped me for a bit

although to provide more details to this issue, the district of columbia filed an appeal that might overturn this interpretation to follow what has always been the interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the supreme court, because if the ruling stands it will create a huge conflict between federal and local laws

[zoobernut]

which part of your previous statement is wrong? the underlined part or the whole thing?

[GRT]

that i said "gun related cases in all levels of courts in the u.s. ruled that 2nd amendment does not give individual the right to bear arms"

[MF Perm]

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's a good point that I hadn't thought of. I appreciate that type of perspective. It sure beats FUKKING FAGOT HIPPY U HAT GUNZ GTFO HERE.

But, I'm under the belief of non-violent protest. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi made it happen, we can as well. Fortunately we don't live in a completely fascist society where the military would be willing tp kill its own citizens, only the police are on this level.


We could do just as much if not more damage and send quite a clear message by not paying taxes and shutting down commerce as a society than by revolting in arms.

That's my opinion of course, to which I'm sure someone will have a plethora of counterpoints.

[Rammses]

It's more than an issue of legal vs illegal weapon statistics. Both groups affect the attitude and view people have on guns. And that's the big problem in USA. There are simply fewer people in Europe who would come up with the idea to get a gun and shoot everyone. Guns are not socially acceptable here and there are extremely few individuals who would even think of getting a one.

[Beckwin]

@ whoever commented about a shotgun not being a good home defense weapon: If you're an intruder sneaking down a hall and hear a shotgun being cocked, do you a) get the fuck out or b) proceed as planned? Not to mention that in poor lighting and without a lot of shooting practice, you most likely stand a better chance of hitting an attacker with a shotgun than a pistol.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough in my "guns are for pussies" statement. If you aren't a hunter, sport shooter, or a soldier on duty, why do you need/want to have one, especially a handgun? Seems just for the badass factor most of the time, which is stupid. Unless you live in a really rough neighborhood, the self-defense thing kinda falls through, imo.

[Beckwin]

Gregorio: I see what you're saying. Back in the era of the constitution, a bunch of guys with hunting rifles/muskets/whatever was a legit military force. Nowadays, personal firearms don't even compare. Even if every citizen had an ak-47, the military would have no problem handling a mass rebellion.

[evilbau]

A couple points:

1. Parker v. District of Columbia was rendered in a federal appellate court (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) and not in the supreme court so there is still room for it to be contested should it be appealed to the supreme court, or if a similar case (2nd amendment rights) should reach the supreme court. Legal precedent of lower courts are not binding on higher ones although they may follow the same legal reasoning (definitely probable with the current court)

2. The context of the 2nd amendment should be taken into consideration. It was codified in a time when there was a huge debate about the national army. The states wanted to protect themselves (in the form of militias) and the citizens wanted to protect themselves as well (no police forces) from potential abuses from the federal government.

I personally don't agree with the interpretation that this means the citizenry gets to use keep firearms. I also think we should have stricter gun control laws. Its a little late (too much supply) for a complete ban on weapons, and of course there are industry interests (NRA, gun lobby, etc.) which won't allow that to happen, but can't we change owning a firearm from a de-facto right to a privilege?

There will always be the insane and sociopathic who will kill people, whether with a gun or a club or a knife. However, it should not be this easy to get a gun. How many murders (i.e. crimes of passion) would have been avoided if it was simply more difficult to get a gun? Firearms are the easiest way to kill a person. Why not regulate it more strictly?

[Miji]

Why hasn't this been posted yet?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...allery-835.jpg

[Lynsy]

The United States Constitution has been in use longer than any other written constitution in world history. Virtually every amendment has had vast shifts in both judicial and popular interpretation over the last 220 years. When was the last American militia you heard of? What constitutes "well regulated"? A multi-billionaire can play in a space shuttle, so who is to say a multi-billionaire can not arm a "well regulated militia" to wage war on a nation who is unfairly interfering with his corporate endeavors? Can he buy nukes?

Pretty much everyone agrees that "criminals" (specifically, violent criminals...Who really cares if Joe Embezzlement has one) should not have guns, but those with a reason (Hunting, self defense, historical value) should be able to access them.

Honestly, though, I believe the biggest argument for legal guns has nothing to do with defense against criminals, but more of historical evidence. Your most famous majorly repressive and/or genocidal regime of the 20th (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc).

1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians were rounded up and exterminated.

1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.

The ability to acquire arms proves much more integral to ability to dissent against government than it does street safety.

(Propaganda, yes. True, yes.)

[Zhais]

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.

slight tangent on "only criminals own guns if you ban them":

There are laws in place THIS VERY DAY that say its illegal if you shoot someone with a gun while not in self-defense. That doesn't stop people. They know the law, they just choose to ignore it. If you make guns illegal, you'll maybe take the con venience factor out of trying to get one. That may reduce the # of gun-violence related cases, but will not in any shape stop the problem.

People are bashing you also because you, even in this last post, place so much emphasis on martial self-defense that you just don't realize that guns > martial weapons. Yes, martial arts is a very handy skill to have.... when you're against someone that only has martial weapons or a gun firmly planted against you in range. I'm finishing up a gun disarm course myself, and I can easily tell you all that training is useless if they're more than 2 feet away from you.

Mental tests doesn't always help either. You can be completely 'sane' in a sense, but still have the motivation and determination to want to kill someone. Without going into semantics about it, but premeditated murder is for the most part sane.

Outright banning guns is not a solution, as even in your perfect world people will still just resort to another form of violence. Are you going to outright ban all knives? All sharp martial weapons? All baseball bats?

Not to mention you'll be putting a lot of hunters out on a limb, depriving them of their sport, livelyhood, etc. etc.

[Rammses]

LOL

And global warming is an effect of the decreasing numbers of pirates.

[BarthelloSylph]

[quote=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.[/quote:419e3]

How's that war on drugs and that war on terror going?

I laughed out loud at your statement in bold. And while we should keep trying to reduce crime, drugs and terrorism, I wanted a fucking gun in my bedside table so I can stop the son of a bitch trying to rob me.