The second amendment

[Estro Felino]

What can I say?
Both sides make good points.

My perspective?
I grew up in a small town. I have never seen a firearm in my entire life. Our school was open to anyone all day and there was not even a custodian, because children were safe. And felt safe.
Because we knew nobody in town owned a gun ...there was not even a weapons shop.

So it is scary that in the US there are check points with metal detectors.
And despite that, tragic things still happen.

I think weapons should not be available to non-professionals. That is, people who are not law enforcement.
It is a vicious circle. The fact that nobody but LE can have access to weapons makes you feel safe.

But this is just my personal opinion. I don't intend to say it is 100% valid, because pro-guns people do have very good arguments too.

 

[stvdv]

So the right of bearing arms is connected to partake in the defence of the people against the power of the government

If you mean what I think you mean, I really like it

 

[stvdv]

What can I say?
Both sides make good points.

My perspective?
I grew up in a small town. I have never seen a firearm in my entire life. Our school was open to anyone all day and there was not even a custodian, because children were safe. And felt safe.
Because we knew nobody in town owned a gun ...there was not even a weapons shop.

So it is scary that in the US there are check points with metal detectors.
And despite that, tragic things still happen.

I think weapons should not be available to non-professionals. That is, law enforcement.
It is a vicious circle. The fact that nobody but LE can have access to weapons makes you feel safe.

But this is just my personal opinion. I dont intend to say it is 100% valid, because pro-guns people do have very good arguments.

Wonderful you felt safe

Esp. knowing about Italian Maffia

Maybe the movies give not the right picture

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you mean what I think you mean, I really like it

Guns are both a right and a duty in short.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wonderful you felt safe

Esp. knowing about Italian Maffia

Maybe the movies give not the right picture

Movies are about stereotypes. And myths.

 

[metis]

It's a legitimate protection. Especially from the possibility of a rouge government or foreign power that threatens people's constitutional freedoms and rights.

Unfortunately, as with everything, there are exterior curcumstances like mass shootings that threatens the second amendment itself aside from the valid reasons people are encouraged to keep and bear arms for.

So it becomes a struggle between security and safety vs ones freedoms against tyranny.

Without the second amendment people would be ill equipped to handle things that could make mass shooting miniscule in comparison.

The second amendment needs to stay intact but with some revisions to address modern issues that didn't exist during the time when the amendment was drafted and ratified.

This is nothing short of sheer nonsense since study after study has shown that the proliferation of guns in industrial societies directly relates to the number of innocent people getting killed. States that have the least restrictive gun laws have a higher homicide rate than those who do have them, and industrialized countries that have more restrictive gun laws have times lower homicide rates.

 

[Stevicus]

This thread is for discussing the second amendment civilly and cordially.



Feel free to express why you endorse it, and why you think it should not be changed.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about it myself.

On the one hand, I don't see that the government would need to have a special amendment to raise and arm a military force. Even governments without constitutions or the right to bear arms can do that. So, when people argue that it only refers to a government-controlled army or militia, that doesn't really make any sense.

It's also an issue related to equality. Theoretically, we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Among other things, this means that no one is above the law, and no one is below the law. The people rule over this country - not politicians, not bureaucrats, not judges, not police officers, not military personnel.

Theoretically, this means all the people are equal, with an equal amount of authority as any judge, police officer, or military general. Of course, many people would reasonably argue that it wouldn't be practical to run a society that way, which is why propaganda about "freedom" and "equality" in America is really just that - propaganda. Just because the government has guns and atomic bombs doesn't mean that the average Joe should have those items - or so the argument usually goes. And it makes sense. How long would we last if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to own nuclear weapons?

On the other hand, this is the path we have chosen, and a free society is cherished by many. We just can't seem to agree on how much freedom is too much or not enough.

Then there's the matter of weapons technology itself. Back when the Second Amendment was written, all they had were muskets and pistols - nowhere near the kind of firepower which exists nowadays.

It's also a class issue, since the government turns the blind eye to organized crime and other such capitalist malfeasance which allows wealthy moguls to have their own private armies from which the government refuses to protect the ordinary citizen.

Even more common criminals and street gangs seem to run roughshod over America's cities, with a mostly helpless public and an impotent government which can only go through the motions.

The reason gangs exist at all is because people are thrown into desperate situations while the government does next to nothing to protect them. If the government can't or won't protect people, then people will feel compelled to protect themselves - and it's all in the spirit of a laissez-faire society where people are expected to do for themselves and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. If you have a problem, you handle it yourself. You don't go running to The Man.

This is a fundamental element of Americana and has thoroughly pervaded all aspects of our culture, including our political perceptions. The image of the lone gunfighter standing up to the evil villains. Or the lone vigilante on a quest for revenge. The public eats up stories like that.

Despite the original reasons for the passage of the Second Amendment, it seems this element of our political culture allows support for it to persist. A laissez-faire, predatory, dog-eat-dog, me first society like ours is bound to have some issues.

 

[metis]

BTW, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the most dangerous gun was a single-shot muzzle-loader, and the importance of that is that if a person shot a civilian in a store, let's say, there would be roughly 30 seconds for someone to grab him/her. I think the founding fathers today would likely tell us "What the hell are you thinking with all these multi-round guns in civilian hands!!!".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Also, to 'bear arms' originally meant to join such a militia.

There also the word keep. Ownership was a standard until the government supplied arms that military personnel wasn't allowed to keep anymore. Therin the shift into modernization of weaponry.

 

[sun rise]

It's a legitimate protection.

Tell that to Ukraine which is in a life and death struggle with Russia and has a chance only because the rest of the world is pouring advanced weaponry into that country.

But it's moot for now since the third political legislature, the right wing activist star chamber, aka, Supreme Court, voted that it's an individual not collective right. Some day the left will reverse that decision among many others.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is for discussing the second amendment civilly and cordially.



Feel free to express why you endorse it, and why you think it should not be changed.

I suspect the intent was to limit the federal governments ability to regulate firearms in the individual states.
We are talking about the freedom of the states vs federal control.

Individual states may have need of state militia to protect themselves from whatever threats they faced. We were not a the whole nation then that we are now. The federal government didn't have the military that they have now. Even now the federal military can't police within states borders.

So really, regulation of firearms is done at the state level. This clause protect the rights of the states. Doesn't protect individual rights. Certainly if a state chose to ban firearms they could. However the federal government does not have the power to do so.

The constitution would need to be changed to give the federal government this power. This would take the approval of 38 states to give this power to the federal government.

 

[F1fan]

Notice. It starts with 'well regulated'. Many Americans ignore that part in favor of the last part 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Should give outsiders a glimpse of the issues we are having.

Exactly. Court rulings have parsed out phrases as being independent from the rest of the context of the full sentence. And then many of these judges call themselves originalists, and this means they supposedly interpret the constitution from the perspective of the writers and their time, not modern times. My interpretation would be if there were no militias, there is no need for security of the state via militias, thus no longer a relevant or applicable right.

Obviously more modern guns has put the security of the state (the average citizen, including children in their classrooms) under more threat. These liberal gun rights are at odds and contradiction to the right to life and liberty. So if the right to life less valuable than the right to own a gun for pleasure?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread is for discussing the second amendment civilly and cordially.



Feel free to express why you endorse it, and why you think it should not be changed.

I think it should stay exactly as is. It's proved to be a pretty useful formula for controlling frightened sheep:

• Convince them that they need to have guns just to be ready for normal life and they'll freak out like an addict at the idea that they might lose them.
• Get them to think of their neighbours as either targets or deadly threats and you stop them from organizing against you.
• Convince them that they're "free" as long as they have their precious guns and they won't say a peep while you erode their actual freedoms.

 

[Nakosis]

What can I say?
Both sides make good points.

My perspective?
I grew up in a small town. I have never seen a firearm in my entire life. Our school was open to anyone all day and there was not even a custodian, because children were safe. And felt safe.
Because we knew nobody in town owned a gun ...there was not even a weapons shop.

So it is scary that in the US there are check points with metal detectors.
And despite that, tragic things still happen.

I think weapons should not be available to non-professionals. That is, people who are not law enforcement.
It is a vicious circle. The fact that nobody but LE can have access to weapons makes you feel safe.

But this is just my personal opinion. I dont intend to say it is 100% valid, because pro-guns people do have very good arguments.

I suspect it is a matter of feeling safe versus a matter of freedom. Both, imo, a matter of perspective. Feeling safer doesn't actually mean you are safer. Feeling freer doesn't actually mean you are freer.

Some are more drawn to feeling safe. Some are more drawn to feeling free.

Feelings don't care about your rational arguments.

It the fear is great enough, sure, people will give up their freedom. I don't know what the tipping point is for a majority of people to trade their freedom for safety.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have somewhat mixed feelings about it myself.

On the one hand, I don't see that the government would need to have a special amendment to raise and arm a military force. Even governments without constitutions or the right to bear arms can do that. So, when people argue that it only refers to a government-controlled army or militia, that doesn't really make any sense.

It's also an issue related to equality. Theoretically, we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Among other things, this means that no one is above the law, and no one is below the law. The people rule over this country - not politicians, not bureaucrats, not judges, not police officers, not military personnel.

Theoretically, this means all the people are equal, with an equal amount of authority as any judge, police officer, or military general. Of course, many people would reasonably argue that it wouldn't be practical to run a society that way, which is why propaganda about "freedom" and "equality" in America is really just that - propaganda. Just because the government has guns and atomic bombs doesn't mean that the average Joe should have those items - or so the argument usually goes. And it makes sense. How long would we last if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to own nuclear weapons?

On the other hand, this is the path we have chosen, and a free society is cherished by many. We just can't seem to agree on how much freedom is too much or not enough.

Then there's the matter of weapons technology itself. Back when the Second Amendment was written, all they had were muskets and pistols - nowhere near the kind of firepower which exists nowadays.

It's also a class issue, since the government turns the blind eye to organized crime and other such capitalist malfeasance which allows wealthy moguls to have their own private armies from which the government refuses to protect the ordinary citizen.

Even more common criminals and street gangs seem to run roughshod over America's cities, with a mostly helpless public and an impotent government which can only go through the motions.

The reason gangs exist at all is because people are thrown into desperate situations while the government does next to nothing to protect them. If the government can't or won't protect people, then people will feel compelled to protect themselves - and it's all in the spirit of a laissez-faire society where people are expected to do for themselves and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. If you have a problem, you handle it yourself. You don't go running to The Man.

This is a fundamental element of Americana and has thoroughly pervaded all aspects of our culture, including our political perceptions. The image of the lone gunfighter standing up to the evil villains. Or the lone vigilante on a quest for revenge. The public eats up stories like that.

Despite the original reasons for the passage of the Second Amendment, it seems this element of our political culture allows support for it to persist. A laissez-faire, predatory, dog-eat-dog, me first society like ours is bound to have some issues.

This is an intelligent, compelling and thorough analysis. I do agree.
I would like to add that maybe (it is just a supposition) law enforcement do not trust the average American citizen because they know that the average American citizen can own a gun.
They see them as an equal, maybe?

Maybe in Europe law enforcement sees random citizens as fragile and defenceless, because they have no weapons.

 

[Estro Felino]

I suspect it is a matter of feeling safe versus a matter of freedom. Both, imo, a matter of perspective. Feeling safer doesn't actually mean you are safer. Feeling freer doesn't actually mean you are freer.

Some are more drawn to feeling safe. Some are more drawn to feeling free.

Feelings don't care about your rational arguments.

It the fear is great enough, sure, people will give up their freedom. I don't know what the tipping point is for a majority of people to trade their freedom for safety.

Exactly. Freedom is essential.
Also the right to self-defense is a sacred right.
There should be a compromise between the two stances.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is an intelligent, compelling and thorough analysis. I do agree.
I would like to add that maybe (it is just a supposition) law enforcement do not trust the average American citizen because they know that the average American citizen can own a gun.
They see them as an equal, maybe?

...

Some places they see it as a war. They don't see citizens, they see the enemy as everybody is potential criminal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. Freedom is essential.
Also the right to self-defense is a sacred right.
There should be a compromise between the two stances.

Freedom as free to or free from?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This thread is for discussing the second amendment civilly and cordially.



Feel free to express why you endorse it, and why you think it should not be changed.

I think we need to look at what the supreme court has decided. They ruled that the right to own a gun is an individual right and need not be associated with a militia.

Key Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases - U.S. LawShield

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Problem
Special Policeman Dick Heller and several other residents of the District of Columbia all wanted a gun for self-defense. At the time, D.C. prohibited the carrying of any unregistered firearms yet barred all handgun registration. D.C. also required all lawfully owned guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, including in a person’s own home, with few exceptions. Heller felt this ban prevented someone from properly defending themselves at home and violated the Second Amendment.

The Ruling
In this Second Amendment Supreme Court case, the Court made several rulings upholding our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It found that:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense, unrelated to militia or military activity. And because handguns are today’s primary defensive weapon of choice, they’re also protected.
2. The phrase “bear arms” meant: “to wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
3. A “well regulated Militia” is not the state’s military forces.
4. The D.C. regulation effectively banning handgun possession and the law requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable at all times, both violated Second Amendment protections.
5. The Second Amendment is not unlimited or absolute. Reasonable restrictions may be upheld (such as limits on firearm possession, carrying in schools and government buildings, and “dangerous and unusual” weapons).

Unfortunately, the District of Columbia is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and the federal government, not a state. So, while SCOTUS made several key decisions on what the Second Amendment means and protects, the case shed no light on whether states could regulate and/or ban firearms.

 

[Estro Felino]

Some places they see it as a war. They don't see citizens, they see the enemy as everybody is potential criminal.

Which is sad. Considering that most citizens are excellent and flawless members of the society.