News Interpreting the 2nd Amendment: Literalism and Intent in Gun Laws

[TubbaBlubba]

We've been through this discussion many times before.

It's not about feeling secure. It's about having the right to be armed. If we don't have the right to be armed and our government does we lose the ability to overthrow our government should it become what the people do not want. We recognized this when we left England originally. It's another check in our system of government. It's really that simple.

And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

 

[Char. Limit]

Tubba, regarding your second paragraph, many governments that were democratic lost this as they became progressively more statist. I hesitate to give an example, because the only one I can think of at the moment would violate Godwin's Law.

 

[drankin]

And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Tubba, regarding your second paragraph, many governments that were democratic lost this as they became progressively more statist. I hesitate to give an example, because the only one I can think of at the moment would violate Godwin's Law.

Uhm, yes, but most (or at least sufficiently many) Germans LIKED Hitler, they didn't have any real incentive to rise up against him.

The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

"The constitution says so" isn't a very strong arguments against a non-American; Most of us are used to constitution protecting the very basic things like free speech. I think a "right to bear arms" rings false in most non-American's ears; I at least don't see it as something that is so strong that it needs constitutional protection. There ARE negative aspects to guns as well - Children finding them and playing with them, suicide (trust me, shooting yourself is much easier than many other methods, and yes, it makes a difference), accidentally shooting someone thinking it's a criminal, shooting someone in a fit of rage... Guns are tremendously dangerous.

 

[mheslep]

). Can someone please explain why flag waving redneck types (if you'll allow this one stereotype) ...

I won't, no.

 

[mheslep]

The psychological and physical damage that normalising gun ownership causes far outweigh any perceived benefits. Just take gun related deaths (a solid indicator of societal damage).

Give the trolling a break, go attend to some knife crime, then get back to us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece"

 

[BobG]

And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you?

If we hide the guns when we're not using them, blend into the general population when we're not fighting, and learn to make IEDs, then it would be as hard for the military to maintain order in the US as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harder even - not only are there over 200 million guns in the US, but there's over 285 million cell phones.

Okay, actually, people that keep guns for just in case they have to overthrow the US government scare me a little, but still...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If we hide the guns when we're not using them, blend into the general population when we're not fighting, and learn to make IEDs, then it would be as hard for the military to maintain order in the US as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harder even - not only are there over 200 million guns in the US, but there's over 285 million cell phones.

Okay, actually, people that keep guns for just in case they have to overthrow the US government scare me a little, but still...

Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.

 

[drankin]

Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.

It's just one of the things Tubba. Most of us enjoy the right to bear arms in the US, you enjoy that they are completely illegal in the UK. We happily live in our respective countries. Cheers?

What was the point of this thread anyways?

I feel a lock coming on...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It's just one of the things Tubba. Most of us enjoy the right to bear arms in the US, you enjoy that they are completely illegal in the UK. We happily live in our respective countries. Cheers?

What was the point of this thread anyways?

I feel a lock coming on...

I'm from Sweden. And I live happily knowing my neighbour doesn't have a .44 revolver in his drawer. I wouldn't feel very happy knowing he probably did in the US.

 

[drankin]

I'm from Sweden. And I live happily knowing my neighbour doesn't have a .44 revolver in his drawer. I wouldn't feel very happy knowing he probably did in the US.

My bad on your homeland.

I live happily knowing my neighbor does have a sidearm should either one of us be the victim of a break-in or otherwise. If I weren't neighborly, then I'd probably feel as you do.

 

[vertices]

The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

The NRA (infact all lobbying in general) undermines democracy. They get the executive to 'influence' the judiciary, and I think that is a bad thing.

 

[turbo]

All of my neighbors on this stretch of back road own guns. No need to feel unsafe about it, since we all get along really well and we can call each other in the event of trouble. The most common rural crime is B+E, usually in the search of money or prescription drugs, and gun-ownership deters that.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

My bad on your homeland.

I live happily knowing my neighbor does have a sidearm should either one of us be the victim of a break-in or otherwise. If I weren't neighborly, then I'd probably feel as you do.

And the one breaking in wouldn't be carrying a gun... ? I mean, he'd need it to protect himself if the guy in the house has one.

 

[drankin]

The NRA (infact all lobbying in general) undermines democracy. They get the executive to 'influence' the judiciary, and I think that is a bad thing.

The point of lobbying is to influence law. The NRA is a non-profit organization funded mostly by private citizens who are concerned about their 2nd Amendment rights unlike corporate lobbys that typically have no regard for the rights of anyone.

I'm not promoting the NRA but they are more along the lines of what lobbying should be about.

 

[drankin]

And the one breaking in wouldn't be carrying a gun... ? I mean, he'd need it to protect himself if the guy in the house has one.

Here you go: http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/" . Thousands of true stories about just such scenerios. Knock yourself out.

 

[lisab]

And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

Not every mentally ill person is dangerous, and they are not more apt to commit violent crime than the general population...seems so obvious I can't believe I have to say it . But people who *do* harm strangers randomly, e.g. mass shooting that vertices mentioned? Yes, I feel confident in saying that people who do that have mental issues that have apparently overwhelmed them.

 

[Cyrus]

To be brutally honest, I'm troubled when you say that it's a cultural thing. No one should need guns to feel secure. As a proportion, I am sure the US has the same number of 'crazy people' as we do in the UK - I can assure you that it is extremely rare for mentally disturbed people to harm others.

I never said it was a cultural thing. Again, for the second time, go back and read my post and turbos. It is spelled out very clearly.

The psychological and physical damage that normalising gun ownership causes far outweigh any perceived benefits. Just take gun related deaths (a solid indicator of societal damage).

This is nonsense, you're talking out of your rear. And, it's irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. This 'normaliziation' process has not been a problem in the last 234 years. Stretching the imagination, are we?

 

[Cyrus]

And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

It doesn't matter what you think the odds are about a popular uprising agaisnt the government, that is not mentioned anywhere in th 2nd amendment.

 

[Cyrus]

Uhm, yes, but most (or at least sufficiently many) Germans LIKED Hitler, they didn't have any real incentive to rise up against him.



"The constitution says so" isn't a very strong arguments against a non-American; Most of us are used to constitution protecting the very basic things like free speech. I think a "right to bear arms" rings false in most non-American's ears; I at least don't see it as something that is so strong that it needs constitutional protection. There ARE negative aspects to guns as well - Children finding them and playing with them, suicide (trust me, shooting yourself is much easier than many other methods, and yes, it makes a difference), accidentally shooting someone thinking it's a criminal, shooting someone in a fit of rage... Guns are tremendously dangerous.

Please note, comparisons to Hitler are pathetically weak here . We americans don't care what nonamericans think about our constitutional rights. Don't like it? Simple. Stay out of our country.

I think this is something you'll understand as you get older.

 

[Cyrus]

The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

I really need to stop being lazy and fill out my NRA membership form.

 

[BobG]

Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.

In that case, the American Revolutionary War was fought by terrorists.

There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists. Insurgents generally avoid blatant violations of the laws of warfare, even if the violations wind up being much more common than the number of violations a more disciplined army would commit. Terrorists generally include violations of the laws of warfare as part of their conscious strategy.

Even in Iraq, there's a distinction - one that actually fractured the Sunni opposition to US troops to the point that many Sunni groups used US assistance to drive out many of the foreign Al-Qaeda in the Sunni regions. The drawback to using terrorism in your own backyard is that the local population starts to hate you worse than the enemy.

I guess you could say many otherwise insurgent groups routinely violate the laws of warfare by not identifying themselves as combatants in the war, therefore turning themselves into unlawful combatants, but that usually doesn't earn quite the same venom as attacks on civilians that have no other purpose than to enflame emotions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

In that case, the American Revolutionary War was fought by terrorists.

There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists. Insurgents generally avoid blatant violations of the laws of warfare, even if the violations wind up being much more common than the number of violations a more disciplined army would commit. Terrorists generally include violations of the laws of warfare as part of their conscious strategy.

The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub

 

[Cyrus]

The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub

An army made up of citizens gathered together with their arms. They would hide in the woods and snipe off British soldiers, i.e. unconventional warfare.

 

[BobG]

The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub

The American federal army consisted of about 20,000 men once it became organized (which it wasn't at the beginning of the war). Local militias accounted for about 250,000 men, except they usually wouldn't fight for long or very far from home, so the total size of the American army never exceeded about 90,000 at any given time.

And the reason they didn't assassinate British soldiers at the pub is that the British soldiers had a hard time reaching the pub. Local militia would shoot at them all along the road from behind rocks and trees as the troops marched to a town to search out the militiamen and then conduct urban sniper warfare as the British marched through the town.

At least at the beginning. Once there actually was a federal army, even if small, and once the Revolutionary War became absorbed into what was essentially a world war between the French, Spanish, and Dutch against the British and Germans, the battles started to become more traditional, but that insurgent flavor never left the war completely.

 

[vertices]

I never said it was a cultural thing. Again, for the second time, go back and read my post and turbos. It is spelled out very clearly.

Ofcourse there is a remote possibility that a tyrannical dictatorship may take control in America - and for sure, everyone should rise up against them.

However, any rational government must assess policies (or lack thereof) in terms of their likely consequences - ideals are all well and good, but if adhering to them causes the (largely avoidable) death of a hundred people each day, they should, quite frankly, be dispensed with.

This is nonsense, you're talking out of your rear. And, it's irrelevant to the 2nd amendment.

No but it is relevant. The tendency to romanticise about the circumstances that lead to enshrinement the 2nd Amendment distracts people from real consequences of weak gun laws.

This 'normaliziation' process has not been a problem in the last 234 years. Stretching the imagination, are we?

Sure, if you think that having the 4th highest homocide rate in the world isn't a problem?

Someone on this thread talked about UK being the knife 'capital' of the world - just imagine if the perpetrators of such violence had access to guns - we'd have massacres in London on a daily basis.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure, if you think that having the 4th highest homocide rate in the world isn't a problem?

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

When you're done making up numbers let us know

 

[drankin]

Someone on this thread talked about UK being the knife 'capital' of the world - just imagine if the perpetrators of such violence had access to guns - we'd have massacres in London on a daily basis.

Are you saying that the UK citizens more violent than the US citizens? Because we here in the US have great access to guns and we don't have massacres on a daily basis. I don't get your logic.

 

[drankin]

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

When you're done making up numbers let us know

Thanks for the link. Wow, with all the guns we have and all...

 

[vertices]

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

When you're done making up numbers let us know

Well thanks for pointing this out. Ofcourse I meant the "Total firearm-related death rate" rather than the "homocide death rate":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_note-Kaiser_2004-1

In anycase, how does that take away from the point I was making?