US 2nd amendment, keep & bear arms good or bad?

Here it is:
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.

Is this about hunting? Target practice? Personal defense? Was it a big mistake? Are guns just for paranoid, anti-govt survivalist types? What guns are ok for people to own? Why just those? Who should be forbidden from owning or possessing firearms? Should cities outlaw any or all guns? Do guns make a community safer or bring more crime?

Is this 'right' in the us only for warmongering americans, & is a symptom of their problems?

Here are a few quotes to spark some thought..

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists.
Patrick Henry

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.
L. Neil Smith

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

Beautiful.

<--- Pro second amendment, in case you didn't know already.

Very good in my book. It was established by the FOUNDERS of this country, and as far as I'm concerned if you disagree with it GET OUT.

I had a thought today, somewhat relevant I think; there's Americans, and then there's people that are just born here.

DITTO on all the above!

It's pretty clear to me that the 2nd ammendment states the right of people to own, carry, shoot, etc.

It's also pretty clear to me that the REASON for this, was to ensure the freedom of the people, presumably from being conquered by their own army or police.

The 2nd amendment doesn't say that bearing arms is necessary to protect yourself from crimminals, or to go hunting (although I'll bet the founders assumed that people would always have hunting weapons).


Should the 2nd ammendment be changed today? I submit that the REASON for the second ammendment (to protect the people from tyranny) is no longer valid. Modern armies and even poilce forces have weapons, armour, and tactics that render citizens' firearms virtually useless. So there is no logical reason why the ammendment couldn't be changed.

I'm sure plenty of people would like to keep bearing arms, but the reason for doing so (given in the 2nd ammendment) is obsolete.


I actually would prefer that both weapons and ammunition were tightly regulated. This would improve safety overall in the long run. But I don't feel strongly about it, and it seems unlikely to ever happen in the USA.

There are many many people who should definitely NOT have any "rights" to own firearms and/or weapons of any kind.

I think just about any blanket statement along those kinds of things is potentially dangerous and should not be taken for granted.

It truly amazing to me to hear people get completely bent out of shape about a "right" to own a fully automatic weapon, yet scream that universal health care for all is not only not a "right" but also something that will eventually destroy our country.

Universal health Care is destructive and dangerous, but access to any and all forms of weapons is some kind of "god given right"????

How fucked up are we?

I do own a few guns. I have a couple of pistols, two shotguns, and a lever action rifle. I also have a nice compound bow and some hunting arrows.

I am not "anti-gun" nor am I "anti-second amendment". (regardless of how my words get twisted by a few of the regulars here)

I also fully understand and support many of the laws that are intended to filter out at least some of the people that should not have access to guns.
Waiting periods, background checks, and limits to numbers of weapons that can be bought at one time are fine with me.
Registration of weapons is fine with me too.

I tend to think maybe it's time the idea of guns being a "right" should become "you have the right to earn the privilege to own a gun".
Sort of like getting a drivers license. Take a class, pass a test, pass some background checks and get a license to purchase a weapon.
Why is it tougher to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to buy a AR-15?

That to me is fucked up.

So now I'll sit back and watch multiple people call me a socialist/communist/anti-american libtard/anti-second amendment lefty blah bah blahh blah......

Enjoy your Saturday.....

motokid wrote:

[...]

So now I'll sit back and watch multiple people call me a socialist/communist/anti-american libtard/anti-second amendment lefty blah bah blahh blah......

Or a closet Canuckistani

I guess I also wonder what would happen to Canada if we adopted such rights?
Would it it start a race among the public to arm themselves?
Would our canadian "traits" of today, become something, unrecognizable, for better?..for worse?
Would republicans be less annoyed with us?...heh j/k...I know we annoy everyone equally...

dhally wrote:

I submit that the REASON for the second ammendment (to protect the people from tyranny) is no longer valid. Modern armies and even poilce forces have weapons, armour, and tactics that render citizens' firearms virtually useless.

I couldn't DISAGREE more with that statement. It is myopic and ahistorical.

The reason the Nazis skipped Switzerland while they were trampling Europe was that the Swiss were all trained to use firearms (and the government prepared to distribute them) despite having a small army (true today in fact). The Nazis COULD have taken Switzerland but it wasn't worth the hassle. It was easier to trample an army and sit on an unarmed populace. Not unlike the US fighting unwinnable asymmetrical wars today. The US would have more success meeting a conventional army in uniforms on a battlefield that hunting down savages dressed as civilians with fertilizer and string.

[Sic] "Won't happen in this day and age" ...... Kind of like WWI - "the war to end all wars". Do you think anyone in 1939 foresaw the madness of the next 5 years? Do you think they foresaw people in Europe being loaded onto trains to be placed in ovens? Europe was a very sophisticated place in 1935. Technology, culture, social systems. It can break down very, very quickly.

Don't confuse the pace of our technological progress with evolution of human nature.

We may not need the guns. Our children may not need the guns. But our grandchildren might. Or their grandchildren. Once you give up this right you're never getting it back.

History is not "over".

motokid wrote:

Why is it tougher to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to buy a AR-15?

That to me is fucked up.

Moto, you make many fair points but that part is simply not true.

Gatorfan hit the nail on the head. Probably the most important reason for law abiding citizens to bear arms.

gatorfan wrote:

motokid wrote:

Why is it tougher to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to buy a AR-15?

That to me is fucked up.

Moto, you make many fair points but that part is simply not true.

What does one have to do these days to buy an AR-15?

What stops me from buying this online: click me

Could someone fill this canuck in on exactly what restrictions, if any, do exist in the U.S.
Are all miitary munitions fair game?...huge stockpiles, explosives, etc...

Would appreciate a lil education if ya don't mind.

dhally wrote:

Should the 2nd ammendment be changed today? I submit that the REASON for the second ammendment (to protect the people from tyranny) is no longer valid. Modern armies and even poilce forces have weapons, armour, and tactics that render citizens' firearms virtually useless. So there is no logical reason why the ammendment couldn't be changed.

I'm sure plenty of people would like to keep bearing arms, but the reason for doing so (given in the 2nd ammendment) is obsolete.

I actually would prefer that both weapons and ammunition were tightly regulated. This would improve safety overall in the long run. But I don't feel strongly about it, and it seems unlikely to ever happen in the USA.

I think it is still valid. Freedom is never free, & it is always hanging by a thread. It does not take much to bring it down. I agree that modern warfare, with jets, tanks, bombs, etc, are tough for an indigenous people to fight against. But an armed populace makes it tough also on the occupying army. Just like in ww2 when the japanese decided against an invasion of the us.. they had airpower.. ships & tanks, too. But to occupy a country with citizens armed even with hunting rifles was too much of a risk, & they knew they couldn't do it. Modern warfare could beat the us in conventional ways, but to occupy & rule here would still be a tough job. They would almost have to kill everyone to do it.

Warfare has changed, but i don't think the 2nd amendment is obsolete. An enemy army would still have a tough time ruling the american populace. Simple rifles and handguns are no match for tanks & jets, but they even the field a little bit.

I don't have a problem with fair regulations to make it harder for criminals or black marketeers to get weapons. That can be done without infringing on the rights of the people. I also don't see very restrictive rules limiting arms being any deterrent to criminals. They still have to get them underground.. either stolen or smuggled. Honest citizens should not be 'tightly regulated' from purchasing firearms or ammo, imo.. all that does is make it easier for the criminals.

motokid wrote:

There are many many people who should definitely NOT have any "rights" to own firearms and/or weapons of any kind.

This is already true. Felons, mentally unstable people cannot legally buy firearms.

Quote :

I think just about any blanket statement along those kinds of things is potentially dangerous and should not be taken for granted.

It truly amazing to me to hear people get completely bent out of shape about a "right" to own a fully automatic weapon, yet scream that universal health care for all is not only not a "right" but also something that will eventually destroy our country.

Universal health Care is destructive and dangerous, but access to any and all forms of weapons is some kind of "god given right"????

How fucked up are we?

One is mandating participation.. less freedom. The other is allowing freedom. One is constitutional, the other is not. It is quite simple. If something in the constitution is outdated, make the arguments & change the constitution. If we want our govt to be more involved, & make decisions for us regarding our health, wealth, & lifestyles, we can put that in the constitution & vote on it. If access to weapons is shown to be a blight on society, change the constitution.

But this is not how the leftist/statists do things. They want to make executive orders that violate the constitution, and do them slowly & regularly in hopes no one will notice our freedoms are slowly fading.

Quote :

I do own a few guns. I have a couple of pistols, two shotguns, and a lever action rifle. I also have a nice compound bow and some hunting arrows.

I am not "anti-gun" nor am I "anti-second amendment". (regardless of how my words get twisted by a few of the regulars here)

I also fully understand and support many of the laws that are intended to filter out at least some of the people that should not have access to guns.
Waiting periods, background checks, and limits to numbers of weapons that can be bought at one time are fine with me.
Registration of weapons is fine with me too.

I tend to think maybe it's time the idea of guns being a "right" should become "you have the right to earn the privilege to own a gun".
Sort of like getting a drivers license. Take a class, pass a test, pass some background checks and get a license to purchase a weapon.
Why is it tougher to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to buy a AR-15?

That to me is fucked up.

So now I'll sit back and watch multiple people call me a socialist/communist/anti-american libtard/anti-second amendment lefty blah bah blahh blah......

Enjoy your Saturday.....

Who's calling names? This is just a discussion about the merits of the 2nd amendment.. i don't expect everyone to agree. But you pick whatever label you feel is justified. Background checks are already in place. You can't just go into walmart & come out with a 45 pistol like it is a squirtgun. Gun shops are already alert to the mass buyers & smugglers.. they don't allow it unless the govt makes them do it.

mucker wrote:

I guess I also wonder what would happen to Canada if we adopted such rights?
Would it it start a race among the public to arm themselves?
Would our canadian "traits" of today, become something, unrecognizable, for better?..for worse?
Would republicans be less annoyed with us?...heh j/k...I know we annoy everyone equally...

I doubt if you'd see much difference.. at least right away. I think you then see a slowing of violent crime, especially in the cities. That has been the case here where restrictive measures have been lightened up. Honest citizens are able to carry a weapon & defend themselves from the criminal element. In a practical sense, that is the main day to day benefit of the 2nd amendment.. it is an equalizer. Criminals who know their victims are unarmed attack with less worry than if they think they can shoot back. The 'repel the invading army' argument, while interesting theoretically, has not been tested. But the deterrence to crime has, & armed citizens have less crime.

I'm actually a little surprised that canadian citizens aren't more demanding of 2nd amendment style rights. But perhaps most canadians do not see the need.. most us liberals do not either.. until they are mugged. Then they arm themselves & become champions of law & order.

I don't know that many republicans.. but i don't think they are annoyed with canadians. They probably have more gripes with mexicans than canadians. Down here in Az we love canadians! They bring lots of money & spread it around. They don't cause much trouble.. hardly ever do we have gangs of canadians shooting up the streets, robbing convenience stores, or getting in a drug bust.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."
Aristotle

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
Jack Handey

gatorfan wrote:

Don't confuse the pace of our technological progress with evolution of human nature.

We may not need the guns. Our children may not need the guns. But our grandchildren might. Or their grandchildren. Once you give up this right you're never getting it back.

History is not "over".

Well said. Once rights are given to the state, we never get them back.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke

Background checks huh?

Quote :

HAMBURG, N.Y. (WIVB) - An undercover investigation is taking aim at gun shows in New York State. Now some vendors in western New York are coming under fire.

Anyone with a felony record, a mental defect or drug addiction cannot legally by a gun, but apparently not everyone at some local gun shows were checking for that.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the arrest of 10 men accused of selling guns at gun shows without doing a background check on Wednesday. One of the shows was last May at the Hamburg Fairgrounds, and in each case, investigators went in undercover and indicated they could not pass a background check but were still sold a rifle or shotgun.

Schneiderman said, "This is a serious matter of public safety. You know I have an order of protection because of domestic violence and the gun seller laughs and says, 'Go to gun shows and pick them up.'"

Quote :

Gunshow Undercover revealed today that investigators who went to a Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix on January 23rd did not have to pass any checks to purchase the same weapon used by Jared Loughner.

Two weeks after the tragic shootings in Tucson, undercover investigators went to a gun show in Phoenix, Arizona and purchased guns – no background check, no questions asked. [...] An undercover investigator purchased two 9 millimeter pistols from two different sellers, even after the investigator told the sellers that "I probably couldn't pass a background check."

And what about private sales between private owners using ebay or craigslist......

For my state: click me

Quote :

Gun bans: None.
Waiting period for gun purchases: None.
License or permit required to purchase guns? No.
Registration of guns required? No.

See....that's some bullshit right there.

motokid wrote:

Background checks huh?

Quote :

HAMBURG, N.Y. (WIVB) - An undercover investigation is taking aim at gun shows in New York State. Now some vendors in western New York are coming under fire.

Anyone with a felony record, a mental defect or drug addiction cannot legally by a gun, but apparently not everyone at some local gun shows were checking for that.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the arrest of 10 men accused of selling guns at gun shows without doing a background check on Wednesday. One of the shows was last May at the Hamburg Fairgrounds, and in each case, investigators went in undercover and indicated they could not pass a background check but were still sold a rifle or shotgun.

Schneiderman said, "This is a serious matter of public safety. You know I have an order of protection because of domestic violence and the gun seller laughs and says, 'Go to gun shows and pick them up.'"

Quote :

Gunshow Undercover revealed today that investigators who went to a Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix on January 23rd did not have to pass any checks to purchase the same weapon used by Jared Loughner.

Two weeks after the tragic shootings in Tucson, undercover investigators went to a gun show in Phoenix, Arizona and purchased guns – no background check, no questions asked. [...] An undercover investigator purchased two 9 millimeter pistols from two different sellers, even after the investigator told the sellers that "I probably couldn't pass a background check."

And what about private sales between private owners using ebay or craigslist......

So in complaint of bad enforcement you want to ban legal gun purchases? Didn't the 'bad guys' get busted? The law is in place. It is up to law enforcement to enforce it. But this is mostly used by anti gun folks as a reason to ban all guns.. throwing out the baby with the bathwater kind of thing.

How would you suggest restrictions be placed? What would you do to prevent unauthorized purchases of firearms? Can it be done? Or do you need to repeal the 2nd amendment first?

No where did I say guns should be banned. Don't twist words.

Yes some got caught. How many gun shows are there around our country in any given year?

motokid wrote:

For my state: click me

Quote :

Gun bans: None.
Waiting period for gun purchases: None.
License or permit required to purchase guns? No.
Registration of guns required? No.

See....that's some bullshit right there.

Why? Which of these are you offended by? You want to ban certain guns.. ok, which ones & why? You want a waiting period, a license, & registration? Why, & how does that fit with 'not be infringed' in the 2nd amendment? You make an emotional response but give no reason.

It goes back to my assertion about the absurdity of the idea that buying a gun (I used AR-15, as the example) is easier than getting a license to ride a motorcycle.

It's all there. Not difficult to understand.

I see no need to get too involved here.

I'll agree to disagree with much of what you'll say.

gatorfan wrote:

dhally wrote:

I submit that the REASON for the second ammendment (to protect the people from tyranny) is no longer valid. Modern armies and even poilce forces have weapons, armour, and tactics that render citizens' firearms virtually useless.

I couldn't DISAGREE more with that statement. It is myopic and ahistorical.

The reason the Nazis skipped Switzerland while they were trampling Europe was that the Swiss were all trained to use firearms ...

...

Interesting reference to Switzerland. I read up on Swiss gun politics and can sum up what I learned as "a WELL REGULATED MILITIA." It appears that gun ownership is high in Switzerland but the handling and use of them is well regulated. It also appears that the people themselves are quite disciplined in the handling and use of firearms (low gun violence).

I suppose my comment is a bit myopic and it's definitely ahistorical. Myopic in that I was only using the 2nd ammendment as a basis. It is difficult to predict what might happen in the future or how society will change, but I don't believe that it's any more accurate to predict that what happened in the past will surely happen in the future.

In fact I believe that our society has changed and that the change is accelerating. Our population is becoming increasingly concentrated in urban or suburban areas, and popular culture (in the big cities) is moving away from farming, hunting, and most outdoor activities. Gun ownership and use by people protecting their homes, by robbers, gangs, drug cartels, and serial snipers has nothing to do with protecting our freedom or maintaining a well regulated militia. These are problems that weren't as bad when the 2nd ammendment was written, and in fact don't appear to be problems in Switzerland either. Maybe there should be a balancing of good and bad when considering our rights and laws.

gatorfan wrote:

... Once you give up this right you're never getting it back....

Now that statement seems myopic and ahistorical :)

Myopic in that I was only suggesting we could change the 2nd ammendment. We still have the rest of the constitution as well as state constitutions that have well defined mechinisms for changing not only our laws but ammending themselves. Maybe one's opinion is that it is unlikely to ever get the right to bear arms back. Based on majority rule, if opinions keep trending towards gun control, then we will lose the right. That is the basis of a democracy. It is myopic to think that a (minority) opinion must prevail.

As far as ahistorical, Just think about Prohibition. We enacted the 18th ammendment to Prohibit alchohol, then the 21st ammendment to repeal the prohibition. Right here in Washington State we used to be able to put plates on dirt bikes. For several years it has been impossible. Now this January a new law is in effect and we can once again plate dirt bikes. Even gun control goes back and forth. High capacity magazines and assault rifles were restricted but the restriction expired and was not renewed. It is ahistorical, both recently and further back, to state that laws and ammendemnts haven't been changed, or even that gun control has been only increased.

motokid wrote:

It goes back to my assertion about the absurdity of the idea that buying a gun (I used AR-15, as the example) is easier than getting a license to ride a motorcycle.

Then it's too hard to buy a motorcycle.

motokid wrote:

What does one have to do these days to buy an AR-15?

What stops me from buying this online: click me

First, you have to send them money. I think they will take credit cards, but will charge a fee. But there are no food stamp like allowances that will get you a gun.

Next you have to arrange to ship it to your licensed Federal Firearms dealer... FFL for short. They usually charge a fee as well.. but usually ~ $20-30.

Then you have to get approved with your background check, when you go to pick it up.. with photo id. If there is anything negative in the data base, you can't buy it. The FFL will send it back & you'll be refunded.

I don't know if that's easier than licensing a motorcycle or not. Perhaps riding a motorcycle should be a 'right' like the 2nd amendment?

motokid wrote:

No where did I say guns should be banned. Don't twist words.

Yes some got caught. How many gun shows are there around our country in any given year?

None twisted. I asked a question. "So in complaint of bad enforcement you want to ban legal gun purchases?" You seemed to imply dissatisfaction with the system, i wondered what your solution would be.

motokid wrote:

It goes back to my assertion about the absurdity of the idea that buying a gun (I used AR-15, as the example) is easier than getting a license to ride a motorcycle.

It's all there. Not difficult to understand.

I see no need to get too involved here.

I'll agree to disagree with much of what you'll say.

No problem. It is easier to find fault than to offer solutions.

mucker wrote:

Could someone fill this canuck in on exactly what restrictions, if any, do exist in the U.S.
Are all miitary munitions fair game?...huge stockpiles, explosives, etc...

Would appreciate a lil education if ya don't mind.

There are no restrictions. I've got an F-16 in my yard. My neighbor has 2 Tanks and an Apache helicopter. I've been eyeing a nice new amphibious assault vehicle but damn, those suckers are pricey. Just the other day some youngins' up the road had a hand grenade battle. Kids these days!

There are no restrictions whatsoever. None.