The 2nd Amendment.......

stainluss

I just read it! WTF?:eek:It states a "well regulated militia" are allowed to have guns to protect the "security of a free State".. How can the NRA gun nuts (that Charles Heston jackass in particular) quote this amendment as a reason for the public to buy guns?The public are NOT and should not be described as a well regulated militia, If they were well regulated there wouldnt be over 10,000 people in the US killed by guns per year (in contrast with Canada, which has less than 100) Could someone (pro or anti-gun) explain the logic in this?thanks
P.S. Even if this does hold true, is it not time to have the option to change a constitution that was written over 2 centuries ago??Since then, there have been world wars, people on the moon, cars, tv, etc. etc. etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

The public are NOT and should not be described as a well regulated militia

Federal law would disagree with you. All able bodied males who are citizens or who have declared an intention to become citizens of the US between the ages of 18 and 45, and are not members of the National Guard or Active Military are members of the Federal Militia. United States Code Title 10 Section 311.

Even if this does hold true, is it not time to have the option to change a constitution that was written over 2 centuries ago??

They've had the option to change it for about two centuries. Hasn't happened yet. And I very strongly doubt it ever will.

The best argument I've heard for private firearms ownership, however, comes not under the 2nd but the 9th. It's a very rarely used, but quite valid catch-all which basically says that if The People believe they have a right, then that right exists. Now, there is some dispute in the US as to whether or not artillery pieces, tanks, and machineguns should be legal to own (they are, with restrictions), but there is pretty universal agreement in the country that everyone should be able to have a gun of some sort if not disqualified by reasons of mental health or criminal record. SCOTUS was not asked to address the issue of the 9th in Heller, but Harvard Law Review had a special on it a couple of months ago.

NTM

Benedict XVI

stainluss wrote: »

.. How can the NRA gun nuts (that Charles Heston jackass in particular) quote this amendment as a reason for the public to buy guns?

Don't know who Charles Heston is but I know Charlton Heston is dead, so I figure he wont be quoting much any time soon.

Pocono Joe

Maybe they’re having problems prying his gun loose from his cold dead hands.

And before anybody sheds crocodile tears over my crass comments…
Charlton Heston capped a speech at the 129th NRA convention in 2000 by concluding:
'For the next six months, Al Gore is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on election day. As we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those words again for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!'

Manic Moran

I guess it should be added that nobody has as yet come up with a viable alternative. In the US, as in most other countries, the only person responsible for your safety is you. Try suing the Gardai if you get mugged or if your sister gets raped or your brother murdered. There is no duty of care from the Government to you, the individual. It is immoral to keep the responsibility upon the individual and at the same time remove from those individuals the tools required for the exercise of that responsibility, a fact which has been noted in prior cases. For example, Riss v. City of New York (NY Court of Appeals 1958), a judge wrote: "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

NTM

Overheal

I've always respected the ideals behind the 2nd ammendment but what part about this article sticks out at you first? Because for me its the Shotgun designed for a child.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Boy-Aged-11-Charged-With-Murdering-Pregnant-Woman-Kenzie-Marie-Houk-Jordan-Brown-In-Custody/Article/200902415227470?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15227470_Boy_Aged_11_Charged_With_Murdering_Pregnant_Woman_Kenzie_Marie_Houk%3A_Jordan_Brown_In_Custody

All able bodied males who are citizens or who have declared an intention to become citizens of the US between the ages of 18 and 45, and are not members of the National Guard or Active Military are members of the Federal Militia. United States Code Title 10 Section 311.

GuanYin

Hrmmmm.

There are two big problems with removing guns from American society (ie. changing the 2nd amendment).

1. The people who tend to use guns immorally, tend not to obey the laws to begin with, so any law telling them to relinquish their guns would be pointless. The honest, moral people who just have guns for protection, on the other hand, now have no weapons to protect themselves from the ones that do.

2. Who are you going to send to the Southern states to ask the people to hand over their guns? Personally, I'd sooner go to Iraq, armed only with a butter knife, wearing a t-shirt with a picture of the prophet Mohammed , than go down south and demand their guns. I imagine the chances of survival or similar, but at least I'd get to see another country.

Overheal

I dont care about the Second Amendment in general, as in I dont have many concerns with it. The militia business, and the ability to protect ones self, makes absolute sense to me. This underage business though is just getting way out of hand.

Illegal, malicious gun violence and what seems to have been happening recently are two very different things. Remember that kid who shot himself when a vendor handed him a loaded Uzi? Then we have this kid-shotgun thing. Why are people blurring the lines, and deliberately putting children into the middle of the Second Ammendment? They have no place using firearms. Most Especially under the Age of 13: You want to take your teenager on a Hunting trip fine, but when you start having to design shotguns for children, where the hell are your morals?

GuanYin

The shotgun was designed for olympic clay-pigeon shooting afaik

Overheal

GuanYin wrote: »

The shotgun was designed for olympic clay-pigeon shooting afaik

Isnt there a minimum age for competition in the olympics?

Rented Mule

Overheal wrote: »

Isnt there a minimum age for competition in the olympics?

Not if you're Chinese.

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

Isnt there a minimum age for competition in the olympics?

Maybe, but I doubt you just pick up the sport when you reach adulthood.

To compete in the Olympics you kinda need a few years experience in the sport....

Manic Moran

20-gauges are very popular with women as well due to the lesser kick.

They also make great training aids, as they have less shot, you need to be more accurate with it than with a 12-gauge.

This guy started playing with shotguns before the age of ten. I can't do this, for the record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofcnDLA3pFE

As for kids...



Note the age of the instructor. Curse the Americans and their gun culture... Oh, wait...

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html

Nothing wrong with kids and guns, as long as you train 'em right.

The greatest shooting festival in the world for youngsters takes place every year in Zurich, Switzerland. Imagine thousands of boys and girls shooting military service rifle over three days amid an enormous fair with ferris wheels and wild rides of all kinds.

Thirty years ago it was unremarkable for a secondary-school kid to take a shotgun or small rifle to school in the US with the intent of going plinking or varminting afterwards. Rifle racks in the back of a pickup in a university were not warning signs worthy of calling the police. There are major cultural problems which have developed, but that's not the fault of the firearms.

There have been a few instances as well (Not usually well advertised outside of gun enthusiast circles) of minors down to the age of about 8 using firearms to defend themselves or others. Just like any other tool ever developed, they can be used, and misused.

NTM

Rented Mule

Manic Moran wrote: »

As for kids...



Note the age of the instructor. Curse the Americans and their gun culture... Oh, wait...

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html

Nothing wrong with kids and guns, as long as you train 'em right.

NTM

While staying at the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1991, there was a team of teens training for some International Shooting Competition (which I believe was beingg hosted at the US Air Force Academy down the road). There was a 15 year old girl who just missedbreaking/matching a world record in practice.

Talk about trainin' 'em right .

In regards to the 2nd Amendment, many people will interpret the term 'militia' as the common people. This is supposed to be a safeguard (in their minds) to protect themsleves from the government (Britain - remember when this was written) du jour.

The gun culture in the USA is fueled mostly by fear and paranoia, but after eight years of Bush in the White House, it has moments where you could understand where the original writing makes sense.

I am not a gun freak, nor do I own any guns. I do have a gun card though (that was applied for after I was robbed at gun point while driving through an ATM with my family in the car).

The waiting period (two weeks) in place in order to purchase firearms probably saved one young gang member's life that day.

Manic Moran

The gun culture in the USA is fueled mostly by fear and paranoia,

Or a sense of personal responsibility. Who is ultimately responsible for your safety and the safety of your family? Instances like the LA Riots or Katrina also showed the value of having a group of neighbours or business owners who happen to be well armed coming together in a spirit of mutual kinship for the common good.

In the meantime, a very couragous statement from the Obama campaign today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

Despite the whole 'Cop killer bullets' stupidity, have they forgotten what happened the last time they passed such legislation?

NTM

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, a very couragous statement from the Obama campaign today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1



Despite the whole 'Cop killer bullets' stupidity, have they forgotten what happened the last time they passed such legislation?

NTM

Not 100% sure from that Moran if you agree with Obama on assault guns or not. Do you mean "couragous" in a "Yes, Prime Minister" manner?

What happened the last time by the way?

Pocono Joe

I read some of the items listed in the article classifying assault weapons. I think this is a watered down version told to the press by the administration in order for a ban to be considered without a major fight by the public. But I also think their real goals are much more stringent then they are letting on, and wish to go much farther in what they would ultimately have the classification be.

So, I’m curious as to what would be the definition of an "assault weapon" if a ban were to be introduced under an Obama administration.

Would it be:
A hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.

Or would it be:
A semi-automatic weapon that accepts a detachable magazine.

Or even as far as:
A semi-automatic weapon that fires one round with each pull of the trigger.

Or would it be as restrictive as:
A weapon that has a pistol grip.

As far as I’m aware, all definitions above (including others) have been bandied about in recent years.

Manic Moran

Ludo wrote: »

Not 100% sure from that Moran if you agree with Obama on assault guns or not. Do you mean "couragous" in a "Yes, Prime Minister" manner?

Yes.* Good catch! (There is culture on Boards after all!)

What happened the last time by the way?

A larger shift in Congress than happened in 2006. (Except the other way) You can't go about banning the most popular rifles in a gun-appreciating country without pissing a lot of people off.

Would it be:
A hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.

Already restricted or banned by both Federal and State laws. Defined as a machinegun and thus subject to 1934 National Firearms Act. (And worse, the 1986 import/manufacture ban, which raised prices to stupidly unaffordable levels)

[Edit]
As I was typing this, the guy in the next cubicle over came over to talk to me about a revolver he was looking at which was being sold for more than purchase price. Prices are very high, and firearms, ammunition, and associated paraphanelia are flying off the shelves. Manufacturers can't keep up. We are wondering if these threats of bans are part of a convoluted plan to stimulate the economy, given that Obama has done more to spur firearm sales than anyone in 15 years and it's one of the few industries which is growing.

*Although the YM/YPM usage was exactly what I had in mind, in an example of life imitating that great series, 'courageous' was exactly the word used by the DNC to describe all those Democrats who sacrificed their seats in Congress for taking a stand against those Evil Black Rifles for the better good.

NTM

Overheal

In a way thats kind of disturbing. I don't believe in a ban it just worries me to see so many people racing for the gun rack, as if some of them might have ulterior motives.

As for Assault Weapons I would presume anything that isnt for Sport or Defense? Lucky for us a lot of really likeable firearms are classified as Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Defense_Weapon

...Im still not getting my hands on any of those, am I I would love a P90.

Manic Moran

As for Assault Weapons I would presume anything that isnt for Sport or Defense?

Try to define that in legislation. It hasn't been managed yet, past attempts have been based on cosmetic appearance, not functionality.

I would love a P90

Legal in most every State in some form or another (usually semi-auto only). Not a particularly practical firearm, but it's cheap to feed and fun to shoot. I'd like one myself, but there are too many others higher on my priority list.

NTM

Pocono Joe

Now rumor has it that there are plan in many states (and proposed federally) to recall and destroy all ammunition and then reproduce new ammo with ID numbers (can you say huge increases in prices). I guess they (Obama/Liberals) figure that with the "right to bear arms" laid out in the Constitution, they can't go after our guns, so they might as well control us by the ammunition. I’m also hearing that if these new regulations are put in to effect, if you possess "unregistered" ammo, you would be committing a crime.

Big O-Brother is watching.

Manic Moran

They've tried restricting ammo before, when they realised they couldn't ban the guns. Hasn't worked so far, the courts have viewed a corrollary right that if you have the right to guns, you also have the right to have the ammo to shoot them (And the right to buy the guns, in addition to the right to own them).

Similarly, restrictive markings requirements would massacre the ability to reload ammunition or otherwise manufacture your own, which may also fall afoul of the Constitutional protections.

NTM

wyk

If you send anyone into the South to disarm them, you will have another civil war instantly. Good thing we had the right to have guns before that happened, huh?

WYK
San Antonio, Texas - AKA the next state to Secede.

GuanYin wrote: »

Hrmmmm.

There are two big problems with removing guns from American society (ie. changing the 2nd amendment).

1. The people who tend to use guns immorally, tend not to obey the laws to begin with, so any law telling them to relinquish their guns would be pointless. The honest, moral people who just have guns for protection, on the other hand, now have no weapons to protect themselves from the ones that do.

2. Who are you going to send to the Southern states to ask the people to hand over their guns? Personally, I'd sooner go to Iraq, armed only with a butter knife, wearing a t-shirt with a picture of the prophet Mohammed , than go down south and demand their guns. I imagine the chances of survival or similar, but at least I'd get to see another country.

wyk

Did you read this part?:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe"

It does not say the right of the 'militia'. In EVERY other amendment and statement in The Constitution and The Declaration Of Independence, "The People" has meant an American Citizen. I do not know why anyone would think it would change meaning for one Amendment alone. Anyone having read any literature from the Founding Fathers would know they meant to arm Citizens. In any case, a Militia is a force of armed citizens. The Supreme court has stated it does mean that Citizens do have the right to keep arms.

Rights are rights. Age does not mean we shed them. The Constitution has provisions in it to grow and change. After all, it started with no Amendments. Jefferson, et al, added ten because they felt that without enumerating a few, there would be those that would assume the power did not ultimately land in the hands of free citizens. I suggest you take a look at the 9th and 10th amendments as well. And do not forget slavery was abolished due to a constitutional amendment(until then it was legal in many states). We still risk a tyrannical government, and we still risk criminals whom would try to divest us of our property and life.

If you are worried about people being killed by guns, do you think disarming law-abiding citizens will lessen the amount killed? I wonder how many law-abiding citizens kill each other...

If it weren't for the second amendment, the US would have had a more difficult time fighting off the British the second time they invaded - with the help of Canada, you hoser. eh?

According to the FBI, roughly 9,300 innocent people are killed by firearms each year(this includes government officers and illegal immigrants). According to various sources, every year in the US over 34,000 people are killed by cars, over 30,000 die from Influenza, 560,000 die from cancer, 17,000 die from Emphazema, 200,000 die from heart disease, another 52,000 from heart failure, 14,000 from brain hemorrhages, etc. We may have some people shot, but the overall death rate is nearly insignificant compared to other things that will more likely kill you here (including knives, sharp sticks, blunt sticks, etc, which make up for MORE deaths than guns in the US as, according to the FBI, firearms account for 60% of the murders in the USA). It also depends on where you live, as well. Some large inner cities have the highest rates of murder - St Louis, Detroit, Los Angeles rate high. Outside of those areas, your chances of being greased for your wallet drop drastically. America has nearly 10X the population Canada has; so, while the gun stats look to be 100X worse, the overall murder rate is 3X more. It's not great, but it puts things in perspective. However, one could argue that the fact you are 3X more likely to be murdered in the US is a good reason to carry a gun.


WYK

stainluss wrote: »

I just read it! WTF?:eek:It states a "well regulated militia" are allowed to have guns to protect the "security of a free State".. How can the NRA gun nuts (that Charles Heston jackass in particular) quote this amendment as a reason for the public to buy guns?The public are NOT and should not be described as a well regulated militia, If they were well regulated there wouldnt be over 10,000 people in the US killed by guns per year (in contrast with Canada, which has less than 100) Could someone (pro or anti-gun) explain the logic in this?thanks
P.S. Even if this does hold true, is it not time to have the option to change a constitution that was written over 2 centuries ago??Since then, there have been world wars, people on the moon, cars, tv, etc. etc. etc.