Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[out of whack]

Statistics don't lie

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

Something else ought to be at play. I suspect a culture of violence and desensitization to it in both Northern Ireland and the USA as the root of the problem more than the mere number of weapons. The Irish manage to kill each other very well with whatever weapons are available to them. Americans may have the constitutional advantage of more availability in trying to catch up to number 1, but the tool is not the motive. Violent individuals can harm others using whatever tools are available to them. It may be that violent societies become armed rather than armed societies become violent.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

I did not claim that there is a correlation, I showed that guns don't make you a winner or a loser. I rather live in a society where guns are prohibited and I'm glad that I do.

 

[Anttech]

The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart.

Does that surprise you? They have been in a 50 year war there. The IRA and UDF have been killing each other for years, which finaly has stopped. You can't comparing N.I. and the USA, it would be like comparing Iraq currently and the USA.

 

[Anttech]

I did not claim that there is a correlation, I showed that guns don't make you a winner or a loser. I rather live in a society where guns are prohibited and I'm glad that I do.

Me too

 

[Kurdt]

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

Something else ought to be at play. I suspect a culture of violence and desensitization to it in both Northern Ireland and the USA as the root of the problem more than the mere number of weapons. The Irish manage to kill each other very well with whatever weapons are available to them. Americans may have the constitutional advantage of more availability in trying to catch up to number 1, but the tool is not the motive. Violent individuals can harm others using whatever tools are available to them. It may be that violent societies become armed rather than armed societies become violent.

There are other factors. For example Northern Irelands statistic is anomalous due to the sectarian violence that occurred there. Also New Zealand and Switzerland have populations that are more isolated than the population of places like America. So there are many other things to take into account and that graph doesn't give the whole story.

 

[Bystander]

Oh well if you're getting into that then that's ridiculous. This isn't about institutionalised mass murder.

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.

If you are going to go that way, how about America's hit counter during both world wars, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Ramps up you conservative estimate of a few dozen.
(snip)

WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

_________________________________________________________________

"Incidents," hmm --- such as Europe's mass murder rate over the 20th century? That's what? Couple hundred thousand a year? And it's been accomplished with gun control --- here in the provinces without gun control we average a piddling couple dozen a decade.

There may be more to the "prevention" arguments defending the 2nd amendment than meets the eye.

(snip)The prevention is **ZIPP** all to do with your gun laws, and everything to do with your education system and of course your history.

Which, of course, includes our gun laws.

Why when we have to argue about gun's with Americans they become all illogical and come out with nonsense like this..

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

Why can't you just admit that your society is very masculine based, with the good and bad bits that come with that? Keep your guns, because *you want them* but please for the love of god stop the Bull**** arguments like:

More guns = more safe
Europeans live in a Violent society because of events that happened > 50 years ago

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

(snip)As I have said umpteen times, keep your guns, your society respects individual *freedoms* more than the health of society in general. What I can't understand is that people feel the need to *excuse* your constitution gun amendment by asserting society in general is better for the huge circulation of guns, when it would be easier to swallow if you just said: "We know they are bad for society, but we want em anyway"

Individual freedoms are the measure of the health of a society --- unless you're talking about termite hills, ant farms, and bee hives.

The second amendment bailed Europe out of deep trouble twice in the 20th century, three or four times counting the Cold War and Balkans. Don't kid yourself one minute who and what made it possible for you to b*tch about the way we live our lives.

 

[Anttech]

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.
<snip>
"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

Well, judging by what happened after ww2 it would have to seem that America didnt come to save our asses, but rather to ecconomically bog down and take everything it could, which it did. Most of your ecconomy was built on the back of WW2, so I would stop the we saved your asses rubbish, we saved yours just as much.
Seems I did actually read the history

Individual freedoms are the measure of the health of a society

I don't think that owning a gun is a freedom anyone needs to have.

 

[drankin]

Well said, Bystander.

 

[loseyourname]

Thats going to the extreme and its not about that. Ultimately you have to start questioning whether the constitution applies x many years on and keep doing it throughout history or you'll get trapped in a dogmatic cycle where nobody has any real freedom. No document is infallable, and even if it is at the time its made, it doesn't necessarily mean it is throughout time. Morality and ethics are completely changable concepts, and thus so are societal laws and rights. that's why we should be encouraged to debate whether things are applicable any more or whether new things should be added. Its how society progresses and how it has done for millenia.

We can be encouraged to debate, but he's right that the constitution, as currently interpreted through relevant case law, precludes the banning of all firearms. I already included the link to the attempt by the city of San Francisco, which was struck down in court. In the absence of a constitutional amendment, there doesn't seem to be much in terms of legal recourse than can be done to keep guns out of homes and off the streets. The best we might do is to use market forces, by boycotting gun sellers and distributors and manufacturers. That obviously isn't going to happen because Americans love their guns, so what we get are restrictions. An outright ban just isn't an option, no matter the moral and social sense that citizens under different constitutions might think it makes.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing, though.

 

[Huckleberry]

Here is the oath I took upon entering into the military.

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Firstly I made an oath to the Constitution of the United States. That includes not only my right to bear arms, but every citizens right to bear arms. Secondly I made an oath to the president and the officers above me. That's the order I keep them in my mind in regards to importance.

Notice that this oath, last updated in 1962, still recognizes the importance to protect the constitution from domestic enemies. That could include, but is not restricted to, the United States government if it does not support or defend the constitution. My right to constitutional freedom takes prescedence over the government of the nation that I live.

How could a government that chooses this oath for it's military not recognize the importance of the second amendment. I don't own a firearm, but I will never accept the removal of an ammendment from the Constitution. I have already swore an oath that I was prepared to die for. That hasn't changed.

Fair gun legislation that keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens and out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

Hopefully this allows people to understand somewhat how ingrained this sentiment for freedom is in the American culture. I realize that firearms statistically do not make a safer nation. I suspect that banning firearms would not make a more safe nation. What I know is that the day firearms are banned in this nation is the day I pick up a gun and join the revolution. My oath still stands.

 

[Kurdt]

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.



WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

This is not debate. You clearly are reading something you don't like and are having to lash out rather than logically argue a case against.

What about the bombing of Japan? You are designing your definition of mass murder to be beneficial to yourself. I'll say again, the thread was not started to debate indiscriminate mass murder, it was started to see if changing the 2nd amendment could prevent events like virginia tech. Read the first post.

 

[Monique]

Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

 

[Kurdt]

Here is the oath I took upon entering into the military.

Firstly I made an oath to the Constitution of the United States. That includes not only my right to bear arms, but every citizens right to bear arms. Secondly I made an oath to the president and the officers above me. That's the order I keep them in my mind in regards to importance.

Notice that this oath, last updated in 1962, still recognizes the importance to protect the constitution from domestic enemies. That could include, but is not restricted to, the United States government if it does not support or defend the constitution. My right to constitutional freedom takes prescedence over the government of the nation that I live.

How could a government that chooses this oath for it's military not recognize the importance of the second amendment. I don't own a firearm, but I will never accept the removal of an ammendment from the Constitution. I have already swore an oath that I was prepared to die for. That hasn't changed.

Fair gun legislation that keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens and out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

Hopefully this allows people to understand somewhat how ingrained this sentiment for freedom is in the American culture. I realize that firearms statistically do not make a safer nation. I suspect that banning firearms would not make a more safe nation. What I know is that the day firearms are banned in this nation is the day I pick up a gun and join the revolution. My oath still stands.

Well as a European I guess this is why we get divisions over this and other matters. I cannot understand such unwavering devotion to something that is inflexible. I suspect many other Europeans are puzzled likewise. Seems far to close to clandestine religious indoctrination, and the belief that the constitution is right no matter what.

I couldn't live constrained like that.

 

[drankin]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

Nope. And I don't believe it has been disputed. But, if it were, and it was able to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it just might be considered unconstitutional. Our Constitution protects the people first, not the government. It allows for unconstitutional governments to be abolished should it ever be our situation.

 

[Huckleberry]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

I'm glad you asked. There are versions of some military weapons and vehicles that civilians are allowed to own, but not most explosives, fully automatic weapons or things like tanks.

Much like this whole debate, the weapons themselves are not really the point. The point is that the second amendment is our best defense. Every member of the military has swore an oath to protect it and would be treasonous to take arms away from law abiding citizens. If it came to this point then the government would lose much of it's ability to take the firearms that it banned because of disorder within the military.

 

[Anttech]

I suspect many other Europeans are puzzled likewise. Seems far to close to clandestine religious indoctrination, and the belief that the constitution is right no matter what.

I would tend to agree with that observation, it was something I was going to state a while back but didnt. There is also a paradox with the ideal of democracy and a constitution which is absolutely above encroachment. The will of the people must be above the constitution, but it doesn't seem to be, it seems the constitution is almost something that one must hold on to, and everything should be compared against it. Even in the light of facts, and for the want of a better society to live in, the constitution is more important.

 

[drankin]

Even in the light of facts, and for the want of a better society to live in, the constitution is more important.

You will be hard pressed to convince an American that without our Constitution we would have a better society. We exist as a society and enjoy our lives the way they are because of the Constitution.

 

[Anttech]

You will be hard pressed to convince an American that without our Constitution we would have a better society. We exist as a society and enjoy our lives the way they are because of the Constitution.

I am not trying to say that, I think your constitution on the whole is actually a good thing. However its not above encroachment, and should be debated and looked at. The UK doesn't even have a constitution, were you aware of that?

 

[Huckleberry]

The Constitution is not what governs Americans. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights was created to protect the American people from a government that would take away our freedoms. It specifies what authority a government and a state has over the people. The Constitution is not limiting Americans. It prevents the government from limiting us.

check it out
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

 

[drankin]

I am not trying to say that, I think your constitution on the whole is actually a good thing. However its not above encroachment, and should be debated and looked at. The UK doesn't even have a constitution, were you aware of that?

To be honest, no, I didn't. I'm not familiar with the foundations of your government. I'm pretty much a layman considering my own. Being brought up American, the freedoms we enjoy are simply the way it is and even taken for granted to some degree. Until we are confronted with ideas that are an obvious violation.

 

[Bystander]

Well, judging by what happened after ww2 it would have to seem that America didnt come to save our asses, but rather to ecconomically bog down and take everything it could, which it did. Most of your ecconomy was built on the back of WW2, so I would stop the we saved your asses rubbish, we saved yours just as much. (snip)

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.
_________________________________________________________________

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.



WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

(snip)What about the bombing of Japan? You are designing your definition of mass murder to be beneficial to yourself.

Nerp --- mass murder is the gratuitous slaughter of people who are no threat to the murderer: Soviet murder of Polish PoWs in the Katyn; loading Poles, Slavs, Jews, gypsies, and who all else into boxcars and shipping them to gas chambers; shipwreck survivors such as from the Laconia, assorted sinkings by submarines of merchant shipping in both Atlantic and Pacific theatres; engineered famine (peacetime) in the Ukraine; executions of PoWs by Allied forces in all theatres (some of which probably fall into the same gray class as Malmedy --- they surrendered, you don't have the manpower resources to guard and control them, and there's a war still on in the other direction --- ugly situation); Lidice (again, reprisals were jus in bellum at the time, but that was a bit over the top); Dresden, Guernica, Coventry were all deliberate attacks on civilians, the cities themselves having no strategic or tactical value, and known to have no value as targets at the time.

"Japan?" You do understand that there was a war on at the time? You also understand that there were very few precision munitions available to the USAAF for bombardment purposes? And, that the USAAF was charged with destroying war industries and military targets? And that war industries and military targets tended to be co-located with urban centers? The efficacy of the strategic bombing campaign in WW II is still the subject of debate, but it's more along the lines of "picking a single class of key target (oil, ball bearings, transportation, aircraft, munitions), and concentrating solely on that target until something collapses" vs. "trying to hit everything a little bit and hoping one target is more fragile than another," or, the "daylight precision raid" vs. "nighttime area raid," rather than the "collateral damage" and "civilian morale" question.

I'll say again, the thread was not started to debate indiscriminate mass murder, it was started to see if changing the 2nd amendment could prevent events like virginia tech. Read the first post.

A 23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech --- the thread IS discussing indiscriminate mass murder --- the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

 

[EL]

There seems to be some kind of almost divine shimmer over the US constitution. We changed a part of ours some decades ago (when making it possible for a woman to inherit the kings throne), and we still live happily in peace despite that.
However, what it takes to make a change in the constitution is such a decision in two consecutively elected Parliaments, which means that no changes can be made unless the people have clearly given their permission.

Arguing that guns should be allowed since the american people wants it that way is completely fine to me.
But basing the arguments on the fact that long time ago a few guys wrote it down on a paper is a bit like...religious fanaticism.

 

[drankin]

There seems to be some kind of almost divine shimmer over the US constitution. We changed a part of ours some decades ago (when making it possible for a woman to inherit the kings throne), and we still live happily in peace despite that.
However, what it takes to make a change in the constitution is such a decision in two consecutively elected Parliaments, which means that no changes can be made unless the people have clearly given their permission.

Arguing that guns should be allowed since the american people wants it that way is completely fine to me.
But basing the arguments on the fact that long time ago a few guys wrote it down on a paper is a bit like...religious fanaticism.

That's insulting.

 

[Anttech]

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.

Filthy for sure, the UK was a wreak after the war, in which America was able to inject life back into its economy, and collapse all the trade routes the UK owned. The UK and many European countries were debted to the US for the next upteen years.
The UK just payed back its final installments, a nice thank you don't you think, for taking the brunt of Nazism, filthy, yeah Id agree with that.
Belgium is still paying back its debts, this is actually a big reason why the taxes are so high here, its a myth that its due to social security etc, most of the money gets pumped into paying the interest, filthy you say, for sure.

As for base payrolls etc, pennys, you can keep them.

 

[out of whack]

That's insulting.

Huh? Why?

Some people really seem to revere this paper like bible thumpers revere theirs. But unlike the latter, "the rules" can be changed, no matter where they are written. What goes for the eighteenth amendment can go for the second.

 

[drankin]

Huh? Why?

Some people really seem to revere this paper like bible thumpers revere theirs. But unlike the latter, "the rules" can be changed, no matter where they are written. What goes for the eighteenth amendment can go for the second.

Sure, it can be amended. But we don't want it to be. Calling us religious fanatics for agreeing with the document that is the foundation of our nation is insulting.

 

[Anttech]

the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

Our preference? Let me guess, in "bystanderland" the tactic of taking a healthy debate down to toilet level is normal practice right?

Perhaps I missed all the posts of Europeans here stating they were all for mega-scale mass-murdering, if so I apologise.

I guess that arming the public with side-arms is going to stop that paranoid delusion you seem to have involving the Dictator President. Although first you should really make your mind up, either what happened was a "micro-scale event" or "indiscriminate mass murder." I suppose if you are going to choose your definition per what fits your current argument best, continue to use both opposite descriptions for the same event.

<snip>23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech ---</snip>

 

[EL]

That's insulting.

Insulting?

Sure, it can be amended. But we don't want it to be. Calling us religious fanatics for agreeing with the document that is the foundation of our nation is insulting.

No no, I'm not saying agreeing with the document is like religous fanatism. I'm saying basing once agreement with what is written in the document on the fact that "it is written in the document" is like saying "the bible is true because the bible is true".

 

[BobG]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

Technically, yes. We'd just finished a successful rebellion against one government we found oppressive and the states weren't very trusting of being ruled by some outside central government - somewhat similar to how a lot of Europeans might feel about their countries being ruled by a central European Union.

At the time of the Constitution, the only advantage a central military might have over locals was cannons. While individual citizens might not own cannons, state militias did, so none of the states were overmatched by a pretty weak national force.

In fact, threatening to secede from the United States and form their own nation was a pretty effective way for blocks of states to get the national government to do what a minority of states might want. The threat of secession of states bordering the Mississippi influenced Jefferson's decision to make the Louisiana Purchase in spite of coastal states thinking it was a waste of money.

Based on past history, the South had pretty good reason to believe it would work for tariffs on imports and slavery, too. Turned out it didn't. They hadn't paid close enough attention to how much stronger the national government was allowed to become after the British burned down our capitol in the War of 1812.

There always has to be some kind of balance between safety and freedom from government and we've changed our assessment of what that balance should be based on changing circumstances. Our assessment of a lot of issues have changed. That's why the Constitution has been changed 27 times. To ban guns, it would have to be changed again (technically, one could argue that the Supreme Court has taken an over-restrictive view of the 2nd Amendment to ban military weapons - it's taken some creativity to avoid confronting the 2nd Amendment directly).

 

[ukmicky]

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

You like to use the word European as in the above text and in the rest of the post the above was from . As an English man I'm also a European, so i take it your including me and the rest of the UK citizens when you call the Europeans gutless.Didnt the UK send troops to the balkans

I wouldn't under any circumstances class the UK as gutless but are in fact one of the few countries which can legitimately say they have a proud record in regards to standing up for those unable to protect themselves.

I take it the word European was used in error.

 

[Huckleberry]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not exactly happy with everything in the Constitution. It's my belief that it should only refer to limitations of the government. Our Constitution has been altered several times with things like
Prohibition

Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.


Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Repealing Prohibition

Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.


Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Income Tax

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If the government wanted to ban alcohol we could vote on it to be law. There is no need to put it in the Bill of Rights as something we can't ever do. Then 24 years later they repeal the amendment and replace it with another one with different restrictions. That's foolishness.
Amendment XVI (Income Tax) basically says the government can tax us without our representation, which is the reason we rebelled against England in the first place. How silly is that?

It's my opinion that the Constitution should set up the guidelines of how the government should be arranged and operated. It should give unalienable rights to the citizens (not the government.) Any law the government wishes to pass should be voted on by the citizens. That's the spirit of the document as created by its original authors. A lot of this other stuff should not be in the Constitution. Our sacred cow has been sullied a bit, but it's the spirit of the thing I love.

 

[Anttech]

Technically, yes. We'd just finished a successful rebellion against one government we found oppressive and the states weren't very trusting of being ruled by some outside central government - somewhat similar to how a lot of Europeans might feel about their countries being ruled by a central European Union.

At the time of the Constitution, the only advantage a central military might have over locals was cannons. While individual citizens might not own cannons, state militias did, so none of the states were overmatched by a pretty weak national force.

In fact, threatening to secede from the United States and form their own nation was a pretty effective way for blocks of states to get the national government to do what a minority of states might want. The threat of secession of states bordering the Mississippi influenced Jefferson's decision to make the Louisiana Purchase in spite of coastal states thinking it was a waste of money.

Based on past history, the South had pretty good reason to believe it would work for tariffs on imports and slavery, too. Turned out it didn't. They hadn't paid close enough attention to how much stronger the national government was allowed to become after the British burned down our capitol in the War of 1812.

There always has to be some kind of balance between safety and freedom from government and we've changed our assessment of what that balance should be based on changing circumstances. Our assessment of a lot of issues have changed. That's why the Constitution has been changed 27 times. To ban guns, it would have to be changed again (technically, one could argue that the Supreme Court has taken an over-restrictive view of the 2nd Amendment to ban military weapons - it's taken some creativity to avoid confronting the 2nd Amendment directly).

Good post, and good point. But judging by what you are saying can we not conclude that the 2nd Amendment is now completely out of date? (I know I can't say this without getting abuse thrown at me, but I don't care about that)

 

[loseyourname]

I would tend to agree with that observation, it was something I was going to state a while back but didnt. There is also a paradox with the ideal of democracy and a constitution which is absolutely above encroachment. The will of the people must be above the constitution, but it doesn't seem to be, it seems the constitution is almost something that one must hold on to, and everything should be compared against it. Even in the light of facts, and for the want of a better society to live in, the constitution is more important.

European nations were originally linguistic or ethnic in nature, giving the people and government some way to create a sense of community across an entire country of people that would likely never meet or cooperate toward any real common goal. In the US, this was never the case. The people have, from the beginning, been of different ethnicities and national backgrounds, have spoken different languages, practiced different religions, and so on and so forth. It was the pursuit of common ideals that bonded early Americans together and that has been our legacy. It is what makes one American. It doesn't matter where you come from, what you look like, what language you speak, what religion you practice, just so long as you believe in the principles of republican government as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Historically speaking, this was the only way to bind people of disparate beliefs and backgrounds together to form one nation, a nation much different from the ones in Europe that developed from previous monarchical dynasties. The Constitution is important to Americans for the same reason that language is important to the Armenians and Quebecois; it is the fundamental constituent of American cultural identity.

There seems to be some kind of almost divine shimmer over the US constitution. We changed a part of ours some decades ago (when making it possible for a woman to inherit the kings throne), and we still live happily in peace despite that.
However, what it takes to make a change in the constitution is such a decision in two consecutively elected Parliaments, which means that no changes can be made unless the people have clearly given their permission.

This just goes back to what I said above. You're Swedish, right? What makes you a Swede is the fact that you're Swedish, and that's the case for the vast majority of Swedish citizens, I would imagine. Their parents were Swedes, their grandparents were Swedes, and so on and so forth going back a thousand years. The cultural/linguistic identity goes back to way before you ever had a constitution and remains the most important part of what makes on Swedish. That just isn't the case in the United States.

We can and have changed our constitution, too. Seventeen amendments have been added since the original ten. Slavery and prohibition have come and gone. Women and adults under the age of 21 can now vote. Presidential elections are conducted in a manner radically different from the way they were originally conducted, and senatorial elections are direct, whereas they were not before. The rights originally afforded to white males are now extended to every citizen.

The original ten amendments, however, have never changed. They constitute our "Bill of Rights" and they have always been there, defining the limits of what American government can and cannot do. Their shape our conception of justice and of freedom and are probably the dearest of all American sentiments. Millions of American men and women have died over the years, not to protect their families, not to protect their language, not to serve their king, not to keep alive a monastic/ethnic legacy, but to defend those most basic of rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Huh? Why?

Some people really seem to revere this paper like bible thumpers revere theirs. But unlike the latter, "the rules" can be changed, no matter where they are written. What goes for the eighteenth amendment can go for the second.

Legally, sure, but you'll find a great deal more resistance. As I've said, the Bill of Rights has never changed. Changing it would in many ways amount to changing what it means to be American, and a great deal of Americans are not going to stand for that.

 

[Yowhatsupt]

Statistics don't lie, I've but the 1994 firearm homocide rates into a chart:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3629/statisticsic8.png

I normalized both data series so that the highest value in the groups is 100.

* Hmm, the US owns the most guns and the amount of firearm homocides is second highest. So guns prevent violence? Don't think so.
* Also look at the Netherlands, it has to lowest amount of guns per household, it also has about the lowest amount of firearm homocides. So not owning a gun makes you a victim? Don't think so.

that study is concerned with TOTAL deaths and TOTAL homocides. The US has a much larger population that any of the other countries listed. Did you take this into account in your graph?

 

[Astronuc]

Good post, and good point. But judging by what you are saying can we not conclude that the 2nd Amendment is now completely out of date?

Actually there are strong feelings on both sides for/against concerning the ownership of guns - privately, as opposed to militarily - as well a spectrum in between. If enough (a majority) Americans (citizens) felt that way, then the Constitution could be amended, as has always been the case - and there is a process by which to do that.

The world (and the US) is certainly a different place today than it was 230 years ago, and the authors of the constitution could not forsee the future of society or technology. That perhaps should be a consideration in the debate.

As for mass murder, all nations/regions on the planet have experienced mass murder (whether or not we call it war or whatever). Even in recent history, probably every nation has seen individuals preying upon innocents.

It would be worthwhile to realize/recognize/confirm that every society has similar problems - I have seen it personally in every country I have visited - and many more indirectly through the press or friends. The only differences are the culture and language.

Now how do we temper the anger or aggression. Certainly not by insulting one another.

Please let us try to maintain civility in the discourse and/or disputation.

 

[EL]

The original ten amendments, however, have never changed. They constitute our "Bill of Rights" and they have always been there, defining the limits of what American government can and cannot do. Their shape our conception of justice and of freedom and are probably the dearest of all American sentiments. Millions of American men and women have died over the years, not to protect their families, not to protect their language, not to serve their king, not to keep alive a monastic/ethnic legacy, but to defend those most basic of rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

I understand the importantness of the constitution for the national identity, and I see nothing wrong in keeping them as long as the people wants them the way they are (as the majority of US citizens seem to). What I'm objecting to is the dabate climate of "don't even think of questioning what's in the constitution" (partly found in this thread).
The "Bill of Rights" should be defended with valid arguments, and not with circular reasoning.

 

[Yowhatsupt]

I'm going to weigh in a little bit even though I haven't previously on this thread.

First off don't blame guns for killings. This is entirely illogical. It's like saying pencils cause mispellings. Blame the people responsible.

Second off as BobG has been explaining a huge and central part of the US government system is that the people ultimitely rule. The people have the right to overthrow their government hence the reason for the 2nd ammendment. Our founders were paranoid about their rights, this has become a characteristic of Americans. The fastest way to get an American angry is to make them feel like your stomping on their rights.

The argument Europeans make is that society is a lot safer without guns. Heres the key word safety. Europeans want their government to protect them. American's want their government to enforce contracts. Including the contract that is the Constitution. It's a contract with the people saying, here are your rights, and this is what we are authorizing you to do in order to govern us. There is a responsibility for taking care of yourself in the US. Thats why the Bill of Rights doesn't provide for the public safety. It provides for helping the citizen protect himself FROM the government and society(which will naturally seek to prosecute any perceived offece) even if he is guilty of a crime. These are things our Supreme court has argued in famous cases like Miranda Vs Arizona.

Yes you can get automatic weapons(not the same thing as an assault weapon, as people frequently refer to any gun that is black and plastic as an assault weapon here is an explanation video ) in the US, however you have to have (I believe a special federally issued weapons license) or be police or military.

ukmicky no offence is intended here but the British Empire does not have a proud history of protecting human rights or other people. It instead has acted in its own interests. As has the US and most European powers.

In regards to the number of gun related deaths in the US. The number is like 14,000. We have something like 50 or 60,000 deaths from cars. The population of the US is 300,000,000. So based on this the vast majority of people in the US are not involved in violent crimes involving guns. And there are a huge number of guns in circulation within the US both automatic and semi-auto.

As to the Virginia Tech shooting, it is absolutely upsetting. But again its not the gun's fault. Read some of the guy's play's and then tell me that the fact that he "could" get a "gun" "made" him shoot those kids. Having a gun doesn't make you kill anyone. It doesn't encourage you to killing someone. There are millions of people in the US who are living proof of that.

Peace

I'm not trying to come across strongly btw. I am just stating my opinion and providing some thoughts.

 

[Yowhatsupt]

I understand the importantness of the constitution for the national identity, and I see nothing wrong in keeping them as long as the people wants them the way they are (as the majority of US citizens seem to). What I'm objecting to is the dabate climate of "don't even think of questioning what's in the constitution" (partly found in this thread).
The "Bill of Rights" should be defended with valid arguments, and not with circular reasoning.

What circular reasoning? Where are do you feel misled without valid argument?

 

[EL]

What circular reasoning?

Well "circular" wasn't a good word. I mean to reason like "what is written in the constitution is right because it is written in the constitution".

Where are do you feel misled without valid argument?

I think most people in this thread are using valid arguments (on both sides).

 

[Art]

The second amendment bailed Europe out of deep trouble twice in the 20th century, three or four times counting the Cold War and Balkans. Don't kid yourself one minute who and what made it possible for you to b*tch about the way we live our lives.

This only happened in the Hollywood makeovers.

In the real world the US joined in WW1 for a few reasons. A major one was the interception of a telegram from Germany to Mexico offering to support Mexico in a war against the US and a second reason was Britain agreed to give the US it's bases in the Carribean a third and lesser reason was Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

In the end Britain was less than happy with the outcome of the deal as the US took so long to mobilise the war was nearly over before a reasonable sized US force arrived in Europe. Because of this delay the US only contributed in one campaign using French made weaponry as the US at that time didn't have a lot of their own (At the armistice 2/3 of the AEF's aircraft were French, all of it's field guns, all of it's tanks and nearly all of it's shells). During this the final campaign the AEF were tasked with an attack in the Meuse-Argonne sector to coincide with attacks on other fronts from the British, Belgians and the French. In the event the US were the only army which failed to take their objective but did take heavy casualties as they tried to demonstrate to the Europeans the benefits of open warfare as opposed to trench warfare and were beaten back by a German force 1/8 their size. So how exactly did the US second amendment save the day?

People seem to forget in the early 20th century it was the European nations which were the world's superpowers.

In WW2 the US remained neutral until Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and even then the US did not declare war on Germany. It was Germany declared war on the US. And if we are all to be honest then we should acknowledge it was Russia mainly who beat Germany.

So it is hard to see how you can claim the US saved Europe twice in the 20th century especially as despite vehement protests from Churchill, Roosevelt gave all of eastern europe to Stalin which led directly to the cold war which you also claim to have saved Europe from??

Dresden, Guernica, Coventry were all deliberate attacks on civilians, the cities themselves having no strategic or tactical value, and known to have no value as targets at the time.

Coventry I can speak of from first hand knowledge and I can tell you Coventry was THE engineering capital of England. It was home to most of the UK's bomber aircraft production and just about all of it's transport manufacturing along with numerous munitions factories including companies such as Dunlop, Daimler, GEC, Humber and Armstrong Whitworth so where on Earth did you get the idea it had no strategic or tactical value? BTW there were ~1200 in total killed in the Coventry blitz throughout all of WW2, the 14th Nov 1940 being the major attack by 500 German Bombers which resulted in ~500 dead and ~850 injured with 7 vital war factories destroyed which halted production for months.


Sorry to digress but you've made several statements I wouldn't like to see go unchallenged.

 

[ShawnD]

What circular reasoning? Where are do you feel misled without valid argument?

I think what he means is how the argument turns into
"you can't just change the constitution"
"yes you can!"

There is fear of a slippery slope when it comes to the constitution. If you can remove X part of the constitution, why not remove Y and Z? The people who defend the constitution don't necessarily resist change, but they feel the root document that all laws are based on should never be changed. The constitution says Americans can have guns, but it doesn't specify what kind of guns, so laws that restrict specific guns are not unconstitutional. If you go as far as completely removing the second amendment, what is to stop you from removing freedom of speech as well? That's why every part of the constitution is heavily defended.

Unfortunately everything I said above is not that important. At one time it was thought to be unconstitutional to ban drugs. Solution? Require a license to grow Marijuana. How do you get this license? You bring marijuana to the government and they'll give you a license. The problem is that you had to illegal grow the marijuana before you could legally grow the marijuana. Do you see the paradox? BS laws like this are created all the time, and it's usually to do things that are unconstitutional. If you think Bush is the one who slaughtered the constitution, you're only half right. Law makers have been doing this for years.

 

[EL]

Btw, does the constitution say anything about who can get a gun license and who cannot?

 

[drankin]

Btw, does the constitution say anything about who can get a gun license and who cannot?

No it doesn't. The individual states have the authority to further regulate. But, I'm sure someone else here could go into more detail.

 

[EL]

So could a state in principle impose extreme requirements for getting a gun licence, without being unconstitutional?

 

[Yowhatsupt]

So could a state in principle impose extreme requirements for getting a gun licence, without being unconstitutional?

No, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If a state were to pass a law making it next to impossible but still possible to get a weapon it would be challenged in the courts and overturned.

 

[drankin]

The truth is, some states are extremely restrictive with further restrictions at the city level. Carrying a handgun is completely illegal in many cities. Is it Constitutional? No, but it hasn't been adequately challenged yet. Washington DC (which isn't in a state) was challenged and higher courts struck down their law that was on the books for 31 years. It was illegal to even own a rifle in your home there... for example.

 

[turbo]

So could a state in principle impose extreme requirements for getting a gun licence, without being unconstitutional?

You do not need a license to own a gun in the US. As long as you are mentally competent, not a felon, and not a drug-user (they have conveniently excluded alcohol) and are a US citizen, you have the right to possesses a firearm. States can severely restrict the right of citizens to carry firearms (and they do) and some have placed severe restrictions on the rights of their citizens to posses classes of firearms, like handguns. Where I live, you might be considered a bit "different" if you don't own a deer-rifle, and it's considered pretty normal to own handguns for plinking, target practice, and home defense.

Last year, I gave my neighbor's young sons (with his permission) each a 100-round box of .22 Long Rifle ammunition at Halloween instead of candy. They were thrilled. They have .22 pistols and rifles that they can use (with permission) including a wonderful competition-grade pistol that is a joy to shoot. These are well-adjusted wonderful kids that have to be prompted to call me by my first name, and say "please" and "thank you" automatically. I was brought up in a similar fashion ~50 years ago, saying "Yes, sir" and "Yes, ma'am" to people who were not members of my family or at least VERY close friends.

 

[Cyrus]

This pole is biased with a bunch of "Yes's" from people that are not american and thus should not vote.

I thought we had a thread about this already. If you don't like guns that's fine, then don't buy one. You can cry all you want about it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your views. If you don't like it, to damm bad. You can either (a), not buy a gun, or (b) not live in America. If the time comes that AMERICANS feel we should not have guns, we will amend the constitution.

You have two walls in this thread, the anti-gun people, and the pro-gun people (myself included). Complain all you want about the media and rap music and every other excuse you want to make, and keep overlooking the fact of responsibility. The guy who shot the students at VT was the one responsible, not guns, nor the media, nor male sexuality or whatever stupid nonsense was brought up in that thread before it got locked.

This thread is pointless.

 

[Integral]

What many Euorpeans and city fail to realize is the the vast majority of the US land mass is rural in nature. So for many a gun is not a toy, but a tool. It is necessray for protection of crops and herds. While most of the population is urban, that which is not has very different needs.

A few years back, in Oregon, the women folk of Portland and Eugene decided that hunting Cougar with dogs was cruel and should be halted. The fact that it is the ONLY effective way of hunting cougar failed to impress them.

It is no longer safe for women and kids to walk in the woods

 

[ShawnD]

So could a state in principle impose extreme requirements for getting a gun licence, without being unconstitutional?

In theory, yes they could. As long as it is still possible to get a gun, laws can be made to make it harder to get guns. For example, some states have a waiting time for guns. Some states require background checks, and you can be denied if you fail that check. In theory a state could require gun registration in order to buy new guns and ammunition, much like the federal law Canada currently has. People like to say that guns are illegal or uncommon in Canada, but really the only difference is how hard it is to buy a gun. In Canada you can only buy a gun if you really really want to buy a gun. In the US you can buy a gun if you flipped a coin and it landed tails (and you passed the background check).

As Yowhatsupt said, it's left up to the courts to see which of these laws are unconstitutional. In many ways, countries like US and Canada have an oligarchy that runs things; they are called the Supreme Court. The law makers in a certain state or province can try to pass any zany laws they want, but they can be struck down at any time by the supreme court overlords, which is probably a good thing since not all politicians are overly educated (whereas judges are very well educated).