The US Second Amendment

bonkey

To anyone who has been reading some of the more active threads recently, some discussion on the American Second Amendment has crept in. I thought it might be interesting for this to have a thread of its own..

American has come out as a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. I have been predominately questioning the logic behind his arguments. I see no benefit in the average citizen being able to carry guns - not in a democratic nation with a capable military.

Here's the thing that made me start this up as a new thread :

It is why the U.S. almost went to civil war to resolve our 2000 Presidential election. Red Country and Blue Country are having a tremendous cultural war in the U.S., a war that has simply been postponed because we have turned toward a common external enemy.

There are two snetiments expressed here, which I personally find very disturbing :

1) America nearly came to civil war over the Presedential election
2) The political divide in the US is so strong, that only external crises are preventing a complete breakdown of society.

Now, I cant even see that the first of these is true. If it is, it is perhaps the most US-damning comment I have ever heard. During the "election crisis", both sides stuck to their legal rights. While tradition may have been flouted, and while there may be questions over the correctness of certain aspects of the election, the candidates abided by the law in questioning the outcome, and accepted the ultimate decisions when no further recourse was available.

For this to bring a nation to the brink of civil war is a terrible allegation to make. If anything, it shows how little faith the American people has in the legal and electoral systems. For this to be the nation preaching democracy to the world is unthinkable.

Additionally, the notion that the external crisis is all that is keeping American from self-destruction is a more terrifying prospect. What it tells us is that America must continue to move from crisis to crisis to save itself from self-destruction. Hardly a cheery thought.

But what has all of this to do with the Second Amendment?

American has stated that the right to bear arms allows Americans to protect the Constitution, and to ensure that it is kept by their leaders? Yet this cannot be reconciled with claims that a fully legal and constitutional process almost lead the US to the brink of civil war.

If American is correct, surely therefore it is an argument for the revocation of the Second Amendment, not an argument for its continued existence.

Alternately, if American is incorrect in his assertions, then surely the Second Amendment threatens the stability of American democracy by allowing those with his beliefs (or more extreme versions of same) to discard the constitution in favoru of violence simply because they refuse to accept the current implementation of the constitution?

I know of no democracy in Europe where civilians have the right to bear arms. Many of these democracies are older than that of the US, and continue to function successfully. Surely this is as clear indication that democracy itself is not dependant on the gun. Therefore, it begs the question....why should American democracy be dependant on the gun?

To me, a non-American, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It probably had value in its day, but that day has past. Its continued existence simply adds to the increasing cycle of violence we see in modern American society. Those who have guns will obviously fight to retain them, but this does not make them right.

jc

C B

Bonkey,

Sorry to go off topic so quickly but American is obviously a partisan Republican, and his views shouldn't be the starting point for a rationale discussion on the importance of the second ammendment.

In relation to the second ammendment I would personnally be in favour of removing it but then again I'm not a citizen of the US so it's not my choice. In favour of the ammendment it dates from a time when the US was forging its identity and experimenting with a very new form of government (in many cases experimenting with little or no government). Experience of previous forms of government (particularly British) left citizens with a deep feeling of mistrust and the very notion of republicanism is based on the primacy of civilian rights. It is entirely logical therefore to grant citizens the right to protect their personal interests from interference from government.

Thomas Paine envisaged government as being "nothing more than a national association acting on the principles of society" as oppossed to monarchial regimes which he viewed as artifical bodies acting against the interests of the people to the benefit of courtiers.

The irony is that it is plain to see that the greatness of the Republican Revolutions has been hijacked and in the words of Paine (refering to previous revolutions) "the parties were ... of the class of courtiers, and whatever was their rage for reformation, they carefully preserved the fraud of their profession"

It is ironic that Paine's words can be used to describe his beloved republic, but the truth is that America now, as Britian 200 years ago, is governed by an elite who act in their own interests and not to regulate the common interest.

While it is nice to feel that the Second Ammendment still grants US citizens the ability to overthrow this elite, it is equally saddening to realise that such an action would simply result in a new elite.

bonkey

Following an discussion wth CB, we have resolved our differences.
All off-topic posts which arose from said differences have been deleted.

Sorry to anyone who feel they lost a gem of wisdom through my actions

jc