DescentBB

Almost as we speak, the supreme court is hearing a case where the 2nd amendment is the core issue.

My thoughts…

1. If the federal government were to decide that individuals do not have the right to own a gun, and tried to remove weapons from people with some sort of confiscation laws, I truly believe we would have a second revolution.

2. The way I personally interpret the 2nd amendment is as follows: An individual has a right to own at least one gun for self defense, and the state has a right to have a military.

3. The government has a right to regulate gun ownership.

I think that you should need a license & registration for every gun you own, and you should have to learn how to use it. As far as owning more than one gun, I think you should have to justify each one after the first.

If you wish, please state your opinions…but no need to start a debate here.

I read about that today in the paper. Even though I'm not American this is how I interpret the 2nd amendment.

Everyone has the right to bear arms as part of a militia in times of War.

Remember, this was made back in the days when Britain could of attacked the US again and your Gov't wanted to make sure everyone would be able to have a gun to fend off attackers. I really believe they didn't mean it as everyone had the right to own a gun for self defense.

Read the Bill of Rights Here

any quick google will do.

It would seem that it's a State power where guns are concerned as the article is addressing a free state's safety.

While you're there, read the first article too.

Awe heck, read them all!

I have always interpreted the 2nd amendment as a personal right not a collective right. I base this primarily on the following: 1) Under English law at the time, there was a personal right to gun ownership; 2)The US was almost exclusively an agrarian society at the time and to not have a gun in the house was just about unthinkable.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS will rule on this case.

From what I understand (via NPR) is that even President Bush and Vice President Cheney are split on this issue.

The intent was clearly to have an armed militia of the people to protect the state. I without a doubt believe in the right to bare arms, But I also believe any gun owner should go through real training in proper use of weapons, and proper training in the knowledge surrounding \"justifiable use of deadly force\" before a permit can be issued. It needs to be more than just a general back round check.

Just out of curiosity, as something that I think is often overlooked. The second amendment also applies to things other than just firearms, such as edged weapons does it not?

Sorry... have to do it!

Krom wrote:Just out of curiosity, as something that I think is often overlooked. The second amendment also applies to things other than just firearms, such as edged weapons does it not?

That’s a good question, gonna have to think about that one.

Spidey wrote:If the federal government were to decide that individuals do not have the right to own a gun, and tried to remove weapons from people with some sort of confiscation laws, I truly believe we would have a second revolution.

Heh. Why is it that detractors of gun laws always seem to bring up this image of scary government thugs forcibly removing guns from innocent law-abiding citizens, as if that's the scenario being discussed?

"There's a waiting period for that gun."
"What?! How dare you try to take my guns away! You'll never get them, until you pry them from my cold dead fingers...!"

(Sorry, that's just the way it often sounds to me.)

Did you read my entire post? I’m not a detractor of gun laws, I clearly stated that the government has a right to regulate gun ownership.

Do you think “gun laws” should be the removal of guns from law abiding people?

Now, also do you have an opinion of the court case, or the 2nd amendment?

Krom wrote:Just out of curiosity, as something that I think is often overlooked. The second amendment also applies to things other than just firearms, such as edged weapons does it not?

Nope, It deals only with firearms and the need for a Militia. But it does say Arms which could, I suppose have a bearing.

wikipedia

Don't worry folks. One of these days we'll have a debate here that isn't a repeat of a previous debate.

TIGERassault wrote:Don't worry folks. One of these days we'll have a debate here that isn't a repeat of a previous debate.

It's current events also. This is before the Supreme Court right now.

TIGERassault wrote:Don't worry folks. One of these days we'll have a debate here that isn't a repeat of a previous debate.

I see what you're saying. However, the current debate in this thread is not "do we have the right to own guns or not" it's "is the right to own guns a personal right or a collective right". I believe that this thread assumes the right to gun ownership.

I think this will put to bed the militia only argument:

\"A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.\"

The bigger question will be how far can a local govt. be allowed to go to regulate ownership.

I hate these morons that say guns kill, I cant get mine to do anything. I take the lock off, lay it down and it just sits there. I feed it good ammo, keep it warm and dry but still wont kill anyone, even gave it a scope and target, still nothing.

/Sarcasm only - keep ya knickers on

Cuda68 wrote:I hate these morons that say guns kill, I cant get mine to do anything. I take the lock off, lay it down and it just sits there. I feed it good ammo, keep it warm and dry but still wont kill anyone, even gave it a scope and target, still nothing.

/Sarcasm only - keep ya knickers on

Mine have that same defect

Cuda68 wrote:I hate these morons that say guns kill, I cant get mine to do anything. I take the lock off, lay it down and it just sits there. I feed it good ammo, keep it warm and dry but still wont kill anyone, even gave it a scope and target, still nothing.

/Sarcasm only - keep ya knickers on

Most of us understand that guns don't kill people but the more peolpe with guns, the higher percentage of gun related injuries.

EDIT: Stop being ANAL. You fully understand what people mean when they say "guns kill people".

Pencils kill people.

So does smoking. Let's ban cigarets instead of guns.

I vote we ban cars and food, do you know how many people die due to obesity and car accidents?!?!?!

Spidey wrote:Did you read my entire post? I’m not a detractor of gun laws, I clearly stated that the government has a right to regulate gun ownership.

Do you think “gun laws” should be the removal of guns from law abiding people?

Yes, I read your entire post. No, I don't believe laws should remove guns from law-abiding people.

I was simply responding to your scenario where the government takes guns away:

Spidey wrote:If the federal government were to decide that individuals do not have the right to own a gun, and tried to remove weapons from people with some sort of confiscation laws, I truly believe we would have a second revolution.

Like I said, that quote reminds me of the stereotypical paranoid gun-owner:
"...How dare you try to take my guns away! You'll never get them, until you pry them from my cold dead fingers...!"

Meh, just to add my two cents for anyone who cares, normally I'd be fine with civilians having guns, but the USA has a reputation as a particularly violent country when guns are involved, so I'd go with 'yes to gun control'.
Also, I really don't like the way people keep treating the Amendments like the word of God. Regardless of whatever way you put it, they were written by regular human beings, and they aren't infallable and shouldn't be treated so. I don't like it when religious people do it, I don't like it when politicial people do it.

Testiculese wrote:Pencils kill people.

Dakatsu wrote:I vote we ban cars and food, do you know how many people die due to obesity and car accidents?!?!?!

Aaaaand here we have more people 'being anal', as Merlin would put it. How nice.

Nah I wasn't being anal. Guns kill, pencils kill, sticks and stones kill. I was highlighting the absurdity of the argument in the first place. Getting rid of something (except the government needs them!) because people can kill with them is retarded.

If we didn't have guns or they get taken away, knifings will go up. The only thing that will be reduced is the number of accidental deaths which isn't a huge stat.

And you're wrong Test. HOLES kill people. maybe the pencil made it.. i dunno.

I understand that argument (take away guns, criminals will use knives), it works when you look at it in terms of \"acts of violence\". But it breaks down a bit when you look at the spectrum of harm done per violent act.

Replace guns with knives, and the number of murders would probably be pretty much the same. However, the number of deaths from accidents, deaths of innocent bystanders, etc. would probably go down.

Or similarly, replace guns with bombs, and murder would still be the same. But deaths from accidents or of innocent bystanders would probably go up.

Those kind of deaths might be relatively insignificant compared to murders, but they're worth mentioning.

No, if you take away guns, then criminals will still have guns. And we will have more criminals, as people who own guns would then be criminals. We've already 'taken away' guns from convicted felons... but do you think that deters them?

And on the second amendment, remember the militia was a volunteer, civilian thing. Generally the members of the militia were expected to have their own firearms and know how to use them.

State meant 'people organized into a governmental body'. Our government is of the people, by the people, for the people. So state does not mean, 'the government of NH, or Florida, or Texas, it really meant whatever organizational unit the people who needed the militia were members of.

While researching this issue to make a post on the “School Violence” thread I came across a statistic that claimed that accidental gun deaths are less that of children that drowned in buckets.

And on a side note. http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

I come at it from a standpoint of drug legalisation. i want drugs legalised - but i don't want people driving around on LSD.

It's not that Guns kill People. Who cares if you purposefully shoot yourself.
The issue is that Guns kill OTHER People.

The government regulates car safety, so that you don't kill yourself AND OTHERS. Things that kill others around you are considered more dangerous and worthy of control.

i dunno either way. I think America's problem is that everyone is insane and stupid - if it wasn't for that i think guns would be ok.
But it's like keeping sharp objects away from little johnny retard. you ARE going to do something stupid coz your country is full of a psychology of ★■◆●ing stupid rednecks and gangsters - amirite?
hold my beer.

It's like drunk driving.
Driving amongst other cars is kinda dangerous. Adding alcohol makes it even more dangerous.
If you had a cannon ontop of your car, on some occasion some angry idiot is going to fire it at the car infront instead of tailgating (relatively harmless).
Gun Control is a way of keeping society safe from Idiots - you know how you keep your guns locked up to keep them from your kids? Well there's idiots out there who are stupider than your kids, and it's not like there is someone around to lock their guns away from them.
I agree - gun control is probably a bad idea, and likely won't work.

But i'd rather the idiots tailgating me didn't have access to a gun thx. Maybe they'd choose to use it instead of tailgating me? And i'd be shot. do not want

Here in the Socialist Hell we call Canada. Handguns used to be quite rare. I'm talking about the 60s and 70s. There were knifing incidents quite regularly in the bad parts of town but it is much harder to kill someone with a knife and so there were fewer fatalities. We didn't then and still don't have a lot of accidental shootings.
In the last decade the flood of hand guns from the U.S. has made them fairly common and now there are the occasional shooting deaths of innocents from drunken idiots with hand guns.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... atasi.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... -bail.html
However since ownership of a non-registered hand gun is a criminal offence mostly only criminals own them and they tend to use them on each other. Here in Vancouver it seems barely a month goes by without a shooting death in some suburb or other and the victim is almost always \"known to police\" and it is described as a \"targeted killing\".
The number of incidents where unarmed innocent civilians are threatened by criminals with guns is trivial. Even Mr. Matasi was not squeaky clean in the incident quoted. Though there have been totally innocent people in Toronto caught in crossfires.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ ... orontoHome

Should guns be taken away from law abiding people? I don't see why or what that would cure.

I do think that where guns are allowed should be controlled and what type of guns are permitted should be controlled closely; as should the type of person purchasing them and that training of said persons should be mandatory.

Registering long guns has proven to be a complete waste of tax money as was generally predicted.

Ford Prefect wrote:Should guns be taken away from law abiding people? I don't see why or what that would cure.

I do think that where guns are allowed should be controlled and what type of guns are permitted should be controlled closely; as should the type of person purchasing them and that training of said persons should be mandatory.

I'll "x2" that.

Ford Prefect wrote:There were knifing incidents quite regularly in the bad parts of town but it is much harder to kill someone with a knife and so there were fewer fatalities. We didn't then and still don't have a lot of accidental shootings.

i have a crazy prediction:

Knife/Sword injuries will increase as Virtual Reality gets more mainstream. Some appropriately realistic games for the Wii may make people more comfortable and confident with knife weapons.

I think swords and knives are awesome, but i don't know howto use one.
Thx to computer games i can aim a gun though, and know to aim for centermass or head .

(Reasons it'd be bad are obvious and reactionary, but i can also think of reasons it'd be good. So i'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it may happen.)

As I read it, we (not the militia) have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed upon by government, because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

It's not something I've thought about in any great detail, but my opinion right now is that a person's right to keep and bear arms should only be restricted if that person has committed a violent (gun) crime. Not for lack of official training, or for any other reason. It does seem reasonable to me to allow local carry restrictions (though I think sometimes it's a bad idea--only criminals having guns, and all that).

Testiculese wrote:Nah I wasn't being anal. Guns kill, pencils kill, sticks and stones kill. I was highlighting the absurdity of the argument in the first place. Getting rid of something (except the government needs them!) because people can kill with them is retarded.

You know well that it's a reasonable point, you're not fooling anyone.
And you seriously do think that, in which case you'd have to think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with nuclear bombs, considering that there isn't anything wrong with them aside from that can kill with them.

Duper wrote:If we didn't have guns or they get taken away, knifings will go up. The only thing that will be reduced is the number of accidental deaths which isn't a huge stat.

And what about mass murderers? It's a lot harder to kill a group of people when you can only kill one at a time, and have to be directly beside your victim, than when you can kill numerous people in one minute regardless of how far away they are.

militia

noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; \"their troops were untrained militia\"; \"Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia\"--United States Constitution

What part of MILITIA do you people not understand? You have the right to bear arms in times of war when you are called upon to form a militia. It has nothing to do with protecting yourself at home and the right to have a gun.

Remember, this ammendment was written hundreds of years ago with the thought of being attacked by another country. So they wanted to make sure that they could call upon normal citizens to become militia and help the regular army.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

militia

noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

What part of MILITIA do you people not understand? You have the right to bear arms in times of war when you are called upon to form a militia. It has nothing to do with protecting yourself at home and the right to have a gun.

Remember, this ammendment was written hundreds of years ago with the thought of being attacked by another country. So they wanted to make sure that they could call upon normal citizens to become militia and help the regular army.

Without a doubt thats one reading of it. The other being that the people have the right in case a militia needs to be formed. That question is what the Supreme Court is deciding on right now. They hopefully will provide an interpretation of it for all to understand.

The second amendment states:

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.

I also disagree about why the Bill of Rights was written, or why the second amendment was put in.

There are those who would say, "The Second Amendment's not needed anymore. There's no threat of tyranny in our government." While it's fortunate that we've grown comfortable with our government, we need to remain aware that the only reason we have been able to grow comfortable with it is because the Second Amendment has prevented the government from posing a threat to us for all these years. History is littered with stories of unarmed citizens being taken over by dictators (Germany is one such example). Could that happen here? Not if we maintain the right to keep and bear arms. No other country has the freedoms that we have here in the United States. This is truly the most awesome place in the world to live, and I would like to keep it that way. When politicians take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their motives.

Each and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is important, but the the Second Amendment is the most important because it guarantees that the others will not be taken away. Think about it. Once the right to own firearms is eliminated, eliminating all other rights (such as the Freedom of Speech) will be a piece of cake. If that happens, what are you going to do? Protest? You certainly can't resist. All you can do is watch it happen. The Second Amendment is our insurance policy against this. It's been working quite effectively for over 200 years, and as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

If you gun control advocates still dream of a day when the private ownership of guns is banned and the police are the only ones who are armed, feel free to relocate to the People's Republic of China, where your dream is a reality.

The second amendment states:

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 not mentioning that you need to protect yourself from your Gov't. It's talking about protecting yourself from being attacked by another nation.

If you are scared of the Gov't taking away your rights as americans, then you need to stop voting for the morons in power.

Fack it, it's not my country and you will never see anything but what you want to see.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

militia

noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

What part of MILITIA do you people not understand? You have the right to bear arms in times of war when you are called upon to form a militia. It has nothing to do with protecting yourself at home and the right to have a gun.

Remember, this ammendment was written hundreds of years ago with the thought of being attacked by another country. So they wanted to make sure that they could call upon normal citizens to become militia and help the regular army.

Evidently you did not read my post:


"A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense."

Two hundred years ago the muggers were bears, wolves and indians. Today they are car jackers, druggies busting into homes and homey gangsta's. Dangers today are no less real than they were 200 years ago

I read your post. They will decide weather the 2nd amendment declares personal rights to own guns or only for militia. This is only because so many americans think the 2nd amendment means their right to bear arms in the homes for self defense of muggers etc like you stated.

You still fail to understand what it was originally made for. Which was in times of war and not fighting off bears n chit. Fighting indians was part of war. This was part of being a militia.

Fighting bears was not part of the army's job. Back in 1700, I'm sure the army wasn't as big as it is today so if another country attacked you, and you didn't have enought troops, they wanted to make sure they could call upon you to fight.