Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How far does the second ammendment go?
Sabiancym
Member UncommonPosts: 3,150
"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."
Right to bear arms, cool, but what arms? When this was written there weren't automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
So how far does this stretch? Should people be able to own and operate high explosives, tanks, etc. There are plenty of people who are able to afford some pretty high power weapons, and if you take the second ammendment literally, they should be able to own whatever weapon they want.
Just curious as to how people see this issue. I am all for private ownership of weapons as long as you register them. I won't be buying a gun anytime soon, but I don't care what people do in their own homes. However, I see only problems arising from the ownership of overkill weapons.
Comments
I checked your profile, which is something I only do in extremely rare situations. You live in Chicago. You have more gun-control restrictions that I am aware of than anywhere in the country. You are also the homicide capital in the United States, possibly even the world (someone should check on that).
Chicago is proof that aggressive gun bans do not work. The United States is a culture of firearms. It is a culture in many respects of hunting; self-defense; independence; and so forth. Simply put, Americans like their guns for protection, for sports, for hobbies, etc. It is a gun nation. It would take decades to change that culture.
I also think Chicago and Illinois have the highest taxes in the country and one of the highest in the industrialized world, without the health, education, transportation benefits, etc. I was reading in the WALL STREET JOURNAL recently an article on the most taxed "countries" and states like New Jersey (most corruption, perhaps second only to Illinois), Illinois, and NY were beating countries such as FRANCE, CANADA, and so forth. I think only Denmark beat Illinois, NY, and NJ. It must be crazy to live there with so much crime, taxes, and corruption?
Kind of moot, because high-grade weapons are already banned/illegal. You need a top-end license to purchase banned firearms or explosives.
It's nearly impossible to own explosives like grenades or rockets, but it's possible. There are some channels you can go through, but.. it's not like you sign a form and wam-bam here's a grenade. It's mostly for government owned or sponsored weapons facilities, stuff like that.
The way I take it, is literally, "The right to bear all arms, of all weapons." Though that doesn't mean I think anybody should be able to own these weapons. It just is what it is... we have many laws that say many things, and we take 1/2 literally and the other 1/2 is speculated on or laughed at.
More like, at least a century and then some. Sure, you could ban guns tomorrow, but the after-effects and consequences of all that comes with it, will span generations.
The majority of firearm assaults are from illegal unregistered weapons. So, they ban guns and start going door-to-door taking away all the legally owned, registered weapons. Then, guess what.. all the other unregistered firearms remain where they are, and guess what they do for that part... Nothing, because that's what they're doing now.. absolutely nothing. They can't keep control of unregistered firearms right now, so what makes you think they can handle it with a nation-wide ban? All the sane and legal owners are S.O.L. while the crime wave continues.
Drugs are banned... hmm, I wonder how that's working out? The massive majority of heroin is being supplied by Afghanistan, a country that is currently being occupied by the United States Armed Forces. They can't keep the fucking heroin locked down in a Militarily Occupied country, and they sure as fuck can't keep it Out of the states.
Anyway.. this is sort of off-topic, so.. I'll just leave it at this.
Some guy here in San Diego made his house out of a Battleship turret. I am sure if a foriegn invader attacks this country it will come in handy if he continued to maintain it. I don't think its practical for home defense so he wasn't allowed to keep 16" HE rounds, but I am sure the Navy will come a 'nocking if they ever need a shore defense.
I think there should be a limit on the type of weapon you can use. No automatic weapons, also a limit on its destructive capabilities. Limited to only harming a handful of people and would fail to take out a wall in 1 attack.
I don't think there should be a limit on the usability of the weapon. I think it you should be able to pull out your weapon and use it in less then 3 seconds depending on how quick you pull it out. I think the handgun locks are pretty stupid. I also think you should be able to publicly have a weapon on your person with a permit similiar to the conceled weapons permit in most south-western states.
The 2nd stops where national security is concerned and according to what is considered "Military use only".
Now whether should people own whatever they want I believe yes as long as it is not for military use and imo they should also take gun lessons the same way someone takes driving lessons before applying for a license.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I hear that all the time. "Oh chicago is just a liberal disaster zone with high taxes and murders" yet somehow we are the third most populous city in the country, the corporate HQ for many successful businesses, have a bid for the Olympics soon, and home to many awesome people. So something must be going right. It's not the hippie wasteland I'm sure people in the south want it to be.
So ignoring the attack on me. You didn't answer the question. This isn't a "Lets ban guns" thread. I am asking how far the second ammendment should stretch. If I have billions of dollars, should I be able to buy a private nuclear device?
The Official God FAQ
I hear that all the time. "Oh chicago is just a liberal disaster zone with high taxes and murders" yet somehow we are the third most populous city in the country, the corporate HQ for many successful businesses, have a bid for the Olympics soon, and home to many awesome people. So something must be going right. It's not the hippie wasteland I'm sure people in the south want it to be.
So ignoring the attack on me. You didn't answer the question. This isn't a "Lets ban guns" thread. I am asking how far the second ammendment should stretch. If I have billions of dollars, should I be able to buy a private nuclear device?
No, obviously not.
But if you have billions of dollars you can simply say fuck the laws and bypass them. Go to a different country and build your own.
Which people have tried.. and, more than likely still try and possibly succeed. It's called, other nations, for starters.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't stretch.. It is what it is. The way you're putting it, as out of context as you are, is like saying.. The constitution says we may vote and then taking it to say as, "We can vote anyway we please and we don't need any rules, we could just tally 10 votes and overtake the country because we have the right to vote."
The Kentucky/Hawkens rifle was the state of the art rifle at that time for hand held weapons so it was the equivalent of todays assault weapons and typical settlers had them.Gun bans really do not work.Guns are a tool,its just their misuse that causes a problem
We have plenty of gun laws, they just need to enforce them better.Criminals are the problem not the law biding sportsman/gunowner who has no criminal record and mentally stable.
First, I never even said anything approaching the gross misinterpretation of my comments ("chicago is a liberal disaster zone"). Even more, or even worse, I read that the reason why Chicago's population is increasing is because people cannot sell their homes; i.e., people are stuck. I just wanted to throw out a few facts because of the unusually high taxes and unusually high rate of murder and unusually stringent gun control in Chicago.
Second, you said, "ignoring the attack on me." You are extremely, and I mean extremely, sensitive if you interpret anything I said as an "attack" on you. I was talking about Chicago, not YOU. I do not know who you are other than what your profile told me, which is Chicago. You mentioned gun control, and Chicago is an extreme case of extreme gun control and extreme gun violence and extreme rates of murder. It would be for ME ignoring a huge elephant in the room if someone from Chicago says, "hey, let's talk about gun control." More to the point, not an attack on you or Chicago.
How far should the second Amendment stretch? It is hard to answer that question intelligently because of examples being used ("should I be able to buy a private nuclear device"). My research on this matter is clear: there is no doubt, or question, whether the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is not a collective right exclusively. Moreover, whether it is incorporated to the states through 14th Amendment is not relevant to this discussion necessarily. In MY view, it is incorporated.
Just a quick search on google shows me that the hawkins rifle was created in 1823. The bill of rights was created in 1789.
Again, I'm not talking about regular gun bans. I'm talking about regular gun bansl. What does "arms" mean and how far does it stretch?
The Official God FAQ
I can strectch any amendment of the constitution if thats the game we want to play here. The 2nd amendment is hardly the most vague.
Gun bans have had a history in the United States of causing an increase in Violent Crimes. Just think about where the crime capitals of the US have been, then look at their gun bans. Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Chicago. I think it clearly shows that gun bans and the similiar legislation just don't work.
Just a quick search on google shows me that the hawkins rifle was created in 1823. The bill of rights was created in 1789.
Again, I'm not talking about regular gun bans. I'm talking about regular gun bansl. What does "arms" mean and how far does it stretch?
It means exactly that.. just literally all Arms. So you could technically say nuclear weapons, but that wasn't fathomed in that time, but that doesn't matter anyway.
Fact of the matter is, the Constitution was designed as basic foundation, and to be articulated with other laws. The laws build from that foundation and do not extend too far from the existing founded rules; lest the structure of law collapses.
That is what is in effect right now..
So theoretically speaking, yes.. it just means everything, but it is not realistic.
Just a quick search on google shows me that the hawkins rifle was created in 1823. The bill of rights was created in 1789.
Again, I'm not talking about regular gun bans. I'm talking about regular gun bansl. What does "arms" mean and how far does it stretch?
It means exactly that.. just literally all Arms. So you could technically say nuclear weapons, but that wasn't fathomed in that time, but that doesn't matter anyway.
Fact of the matter is, the Constitution was designed as basic foundation, and to be articulated with other laws. The laws build from that foundation and do not extend too far from the existing founded rules; lest the structure of law collapses.
That is what is in effect right now..
So theoretically speaking, yes.. it just means everything, but it is not realistic.
Ok, so why when laws are put in place banning certain weapons do people quote the second ammendment? If laws are meant to expand on and further refine the ammendment, why do some people say their rights are being taken away when assault rifles are banned? Isn't that law just defining "arms" and therefore not conflicting with the ammendment?
Again, I am not against private gun ownership. I just don't see how you can base an argument based solely on a very vague law likes the second ammendment.
The Official God FAQ
Well, most people that argue that, are not really concerned with the "assault weapons" ban itself. They are more concerned with the resulting domino effect. It doesn't take much to see that the more you ban, the more you restrict, it's only a matter of time before the basic right is gone.
See the Fourth Amendment, which exists in a shell of it's former self. Protection from searches, arrest, search and seizure.. etc. Yeah, that doesn't exist anymore. It was swiss-holed for years, until they finally gave it one big push, and that last domino in the domino-effect fell over, flat.
See this doesn't really fly that well. You can't expect a gun ban to work when you can just go for a hour drive and get one from somewhere else.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
See this doesn't really fly that well. You can't expect a gun ban to work when you can just go for a hour drive and get one from somewhere else.
This is not exclusive to guns.
Exactly what you say.. "You can't expect a gun ban to work if you can go somewhere else to get it." This is a cause and effect from laws that are in place and completely unenforced or not enforced properly.
Same thing goes for drugs. When a district fights a "drug war" and they go all high and mighty and crack down on their district, cracking skulls and enforcing warrants, just causing a ruckus. All they are doing is driving the drugs somewhere else. Nothing short of a total Police/Military State with Orwellian models of enforcement would ban drugs, or guns for that matter.
Then people say other countries do it, so whats the problem. Well, first off.. look at the size of the United States. Second, people tend to use the UK as an example, yet I fail to see the example being shown, considering that the UK is nearly completely Orwellian at this point. The US is worse off with crazy Orwellian measures, but it's in other areas.
The 2007 statistics listed in 2008 ranks Chicago at number 16 in the country for homicide. Detroit was number one.
I don't really feel that a law created over 2 centuries ago in a very different circumstance still has a lot of bearing on modern life.
I come from a different culture so for me, although I am gun nut, the idea that people still imagine a circumstance in which they will change the poltical outlook of their country by armed revolt seems pretty cranky. I don't think the actions of David Koresh are in keeping with modern America. It might be true to the second ammendment, but that just shows how far things have changed in 200 years.
Where I come from armed terrorists use their guns and bombs to affect political change. They do so because it gives them more power than the regular political process, in this way an armed minority can sway the people in way that a peaceable person using the democratic process cannot. They do the same in Iraq and they do the same in Afghanistan and when they do, we root them out and destroy them because of it.
In the Ukraine, revolution took place without any violence. In Yugoslavia it did not. I prefer the Ukrainian model and believe the state has a duty to protect it's people from those who choose violence as a potentail route to political power.
In short, I think America has changed. It has a stable and effective government that is able to broadly meet the requirements of it's people and adapt to them in a manner superior to armed revolution. That, as with David Koresh, any attempt at armed self-representation, for whatever poltical cause, in a country as orderly as America today is a menace to society. The cure is worse than the disease so to speak. That whatever injustices the state is able to foist on it's citizenry is far more palatable than civil war.
I believe that the U.S. government has long since reached a tipping point past which the right to bear arms as a political countermeasure to the states power is an anomaly.
Are assault weapons ok? I think they are fun toys. I used to own one when they were legal here. It's been no great loss to my life to lose my AK. Nothing has changed for me. The government still sucks. They still increase my taxes. My other guns still offer me a sense of confidence and security and serve the practical purposes I need them for.
I feel if you own an assault weapon it would be a sad thing to lose them. But not a major issue. Pretty much my only concern about guns is the people who believe they are a political tool. Not even gun crime compares to the scale of that menace, of what man is capable of doing to other man on a justification of that order.
So to conclude, I feel that the Second Ammendment is a historical and cultural anomaly. An anachronism. Rather like my Queen is. Something we like and identify with, a basis of our political cultures but not one anyone in their right mind anyone actually want to see enacted on or a return to.
Assault weapons? Really? Do you feel the need to go to war, to kill many people? Do you feel that is a potential your future holds for you, or that is the way you would like to see your society go?
That's David Koresh talk.
If countries like yours and mine are ever to see another revolution, let it be an orange one.
Studies show that having a gun inside your home actually increases the chance of homicide and suicide. The protection argument simply doesn't hold up.
So that leaves with hobbies and sports, which means either killing wildlife for fun (Very civicilized) or shooting cans. We wouldn't want us to get bored now would we?
I agree with Baff to some extend. The situation when the constitution was written is very different from the situation there is today.
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
The 2007 statistics listed in 2008 ranks Chicago at number 16 in the country for homicide. Detroit was number one.
I think you are looking at the per capita numbers.
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
There have been quite a few studies that show households with guns in them are more likely to be the victim of homicide. A gun is not causing the depression, but it is an easy tool for suicide. It makes the line between considering it and actually doing it much smaller.
In fact according to statistics from 1997, suicide is 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun.
The presence of a gun in a household triples the chance of homicide.
I posted the studies in a previous post, but a few minutes on google should give you the same result.
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
There have been quite a few studies that show households with guns in them are more likely to be the victim of homicide. A gun is not causing the depression, but it is an easy tool for suicide. It makes the line between considering it and actually doing it much smaller.
In fact according to statistics from 1997, suicide is 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun.
The presence of a gun in a household triples the chance of homicide.
"Quite a few." I would like just one. You do not have to tell me there are half a dozen studies, because I only want to see a single study that purportedly supports your theory that owning again will lead to suicide or death.
Frankly, I think it is . . . uncommonly silly.
But I keep an open mind.
EDIT: I am going to tell you straight-up - this sounds a lot to me like "give-up your guns to avoid homicide or suicide." But I am eager to review one of the "quite a few" studies.
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
There have been quite a few studies that show households with guns in them are more likely to be the victim of homicide. A gun is not causing the depression, but it is an easy tool for suicide. It makes the line between considering it and actually doing it much smaller.
In fact according to statistics from 1997, suicide is 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun.
The presence of a gun in a household triples the chance of homicide.
"Quite a few." I would like just one. You do not have to tell me there are half a dozen studies, because I only want to see a single study that purportedly supports your theory that owning again will lead to suicide or death.
Frankly, I think it is . . . uncommonly silly.
But I keep an open mind.
www.securityworld.com/ia-425-the-facts-about-gun-violence.aspx