Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Aliantha]

As I said, regardless of the reason, you have still violated the other persons right to live.

Either we all have that right or we don't. If the answer is yes, as you so vehemently state, then anyone infringing on that right to live is violating that right. I'm not even entering into the argument about what right you have to shoot someone else. I'm simply saying that if you do shoot someone, you're ending their life, therefore you have violated their right to live.

It's a pretty simple concept. One I'd have thought even you could manage to get your head around.

[Radar]

If I take part in a dangerous activity like Lion taming or hang gliding, I am agreeing to the dangers involved in that activity. If I die while taking part in that activity, I have nobody to blame but myself. If I'm killed by a lion (which does not have human sentience) the lion has not violated my right to life. If I crash my hang glider, the rock I hit is not violating my right to life. I have wasted my own life.

If I play baseball and get hit in the head with a pitch and die, nobody has violated my right to life. I consented to the dangers that are inherent in in that activity.

If I attempt to rape someone and they take a gun out of their purse and shoot me, they have not violated my right to life. I died as a result of taking part in a dangerous activity. Someone else defended their life and their person. The loss of my life is my own fault.

[classicman]

guess not

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, Aliantha, that is not accurate at all.

Civil "shootings to stop" are justified in both law and morals by whether the individual shot must immediately stop what he is doing or innocents suffer grave harm or death. You as the defensive shooter are not taking a right from him, but enforcing the very proper rights of others, securing these from his trespass. Properly understood morals place innocent life over not-so-innocent life. They value human goodness over continued respiration -- as a ramification of the whole idea of free will. Hard to argue against, isn't it? It is always possible to live a life so terribly badly as to destroy other lives around one, and we good folk have to have a means to pluck up such bad seeds.

[Urruke]

while they will probly never be able to abolish the right, they are trying to put a cap on it. Like handguns are already illegal to own in DC. And they are trying to get it for the whole state, and it'll probly go over to all states. But they won't be able to outlaw rifles. Lots of people hunt and the goverment makes quite abit of money off of issuing hunting permits, and the majority of people hunt with rifles (though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little) though you don't use a pistol to go hunting, so why need one period? "makes you feel save" well it only makes you feel save in use as a protection till you actually shoot someone... then it's a violation of the law. Since you Shot someone.. seems rather contradictory to me. Wanting it for protection if you can't use it.

[Ibby]

oh, this is going to be good.

[richlevy]

Whether discussing abortion or the second amendment, I am not fond of 'slippery slope' arguments. While everyone can point to something like Nazi Germany as an example of progressively restrictive laws reaching a terrible conclusion, the idea that any restriction can be rejected because it might lead to more and more restrictions is simply an excuse for no restrictions.

One argument holds that individuals need significant firepower to keep a possible rogue US government in check. If I remember correctly, aren't National Guard units under the authority of state governors? As for civilian ownership, if you look at Iraq, you will notice that every time the insurgency is limited to guns they lose. The only significant US losses are from IEDs VBIEDs. So using the 'government in check' theory would assume that the second amendment extends to rocket launchers, or at least a few hundred pounds of explosives.

The reality is that existing US law already denies citizens the right to sufficiently arm themselves for a revolution (or counter-revolution) against the US military. Get over it. If you want to prevent a rogue US government, then fucking vote.

The second argument is sports. Noone uses handguns to hunt deer (except for a funny scene in Hoffa), so the handgun argument is for target shooting. If 1 gun a month is insufficient for a target shooter, they should apply for an exemption.

The last argument is for personal defense. This is already in practice. In many cities, individuals selling drugs frequently end up shooting at each other. The second person to fire is practicing self defense. This usually reaches the headlines when a bullet ends up killing a 9-year-old girl (it appears that adult victims don't rate headlines) because she was outdoors or the bullet passed through the walls of a house. The argument becomes does the individual right to be safe from stray bullets outweigh the right of every citizen to be armed. Guns are not swords or knives, they are capable of killing indiscriminately.

[Cicero]

That was incredibly smart.

"get over it"....

I just stepped in here again for a minute and got doo-doo on my shoes.

Mmmm......I'm imagining Lincoln and founding fathers, and someone telling them to get over it. Let's do it! I like that for how crass and thoughtless it is...

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Cicero

That was incredibly smart.
Mmmm......I'm imagining Lincoln and founding fathers, and someone telling them to get over it. Let's do it! I like that for how crass and thoughtless it is...

Thank you. I try. Still, the original American revolution succeeded because the British were overextended and did not devote their full resources to the war. They also had a 2+ month voyage between England and the colonies.

Even then, the insurgents needed the support of French ships to win a decisive victory.

Our forefathers envisioned a technological edge where one side would have ships, cannon, and muskets, and the other side muskets. They did not consider armor, planes, etc.

The US military is supposed to 'support and defend' the Constitution. If they do not, then possibly a combination of states could secede, but it didn't work out so well the last time.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urruke

while they will probly never be able to abolish the right, they are trying to put a cap on it. Like handguns are already illegal to own in DC. And they are trying to get it for the whole state, and it'll probly go over to all states. But they won't be able to outlaw rifles. Lots of people hunt and the goverment makes quite abit of money off of issuing hunting permits, and the majority of people hunt with rifles (though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little) though you don't use a pistol to go hunting, so why need one period? "makes you feel save" well it only makes you feel save in use as a protection till you actually shoot someone... then it's a violation of the law. Since you Shot someone.. seems rather contradictory to me. Wanting it for protection if you can't use it.

The law in DC is unconstitutional and will be overturned. No government at any level has any authority to "cap" our ownership. It doesn't matter if I want a gun to hunt, to go for target practice, to keep them as collectibles, or to prop up a wobbly table leg. My reasons for owning a gun are irrelevant. My right to own a gun isn't to be questioned, limited, or infringed upon. My reasons for owning a gun are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.

[Radar]

Also, a well-armed citizenry could overcome the weapons of the military. This is especially true when you consider that very few in the military would actually fire on American civilians. And for the person who suggested that the national guard was supposed to defend us from federal oppression, that is laughable. The national guard is considered part of the military. While the governor can call on them to do certain things, they are considered to be a smaller part of the whole army and they would refuse to fight against the regular army if ordered to do so by the governor.

The only thing that can stop the U.S. military from being misused against our own people is a well-armed citizenry. To those who say it can't be done, ask yourself how many people are in the military and how many millions of Americans own guns. Even assuming the U.S. Military has 2-3 million people which is ridiculous, we've got more than 50 million gun owners in America.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Radar

........... are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.

Quick question here Radar. If someone has committed a crime with one in the past, say armed robbery ( of someone without a gun ), does that person still have the right to own a gun?

[Radar]

If someone has gone to jail and been released, they should have 100% of their rights restored. This includes the right to vote, the right to own guns, and all other rights. If they pose an danger to others, they should not be released from jail.

[icileparadise]

Originally Posted by Radar

If someone has gone to jail and been released, they should have 100% of their rights restored. This includes the right to vote, the right to own guns, and all other rights. If they pose an danger to others, they should not be released from jail.

Okay I'm just catching up, Radar if you have a professional Army with Navy and Air Force the best in the world and the National Guard and then the CIA FBI DEA NSA etc... and Federal Marshalls and State troopers and police who are also efficiently armed, Defense companies, security companies . Then sportsmen and women - hunters, skeet shooters, target etc.etc. then home owners, citizens ... who does'nt own or have access to a gun in America? I think American Hospitals must have the best gunshot wound doctors in the World except for those in battle zones.

I would very much hope that a released convict could never legally gain a firearms certificate upon their liberation - probation would forbid it even with State differences. I'm not arguing your right to bear arms Radar, but you are exactly arguing for them because of your next door neighbour potentially flying off the handle. Let the Police deal with it, I don't want you to pull the trigger. If someone pulls a gun on you and you're carrying what you gonna do? Give them anything they want. You and they will live.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

The only thing that can stop the U.S. military from being misused against our own people is a well-armed citizenry. To those who say it can't be done, ask yourself how many people are in the military and how many millions of Americans own guns. Even assuming the U.S. Military has 2-3 million people which is ridiculous, we've got more than 50 million gun owners in America.

But how does a well armed citizenry have anything to do with banning certain types of guns? If there was a revolution, we have to ask what types of guns will be used by the people and how we will get these guns. From what I am thinking right now, and as Richlevey pointed out already, the guns that will mostly be used are guns that are illegal as of now and guns that will never be banned (rifles, shotguns, etc).

I won't get into the rifles and such because there is no point but when we focus on the heavier assault rifles, where would we get these guns? I am assuming there isn't a big stock in the United States right now because of laws and even if they were overturned, I cannot see 50 million rocket launcher owners. So that means most of the heavier guns used in the revolution will be imported from other countries regardless if they are legal or not.

So for the legality issue the question comes, how worth it is it to have assault rifles and rocket launchers legalized? Those guns are not much more useful for personal protection unless you expect twenty guys to attack your home, which brings up questions about your lifestyle, they will be imported anyways in case of revolution, and will probably not be in high demand with those actually wanting to use it in ways that are beneficial to society so I personally don't really see what is so bad about banning those weapons as long as the people call for it.


Though as you pointed out Radar, the US is not in big trouble if the military does decide to take us over. Rifles and shotguns will never be banned (I would be against the ban as well) and those will make up most of the guns used in the revolution, in the beginning at least, and the rest will be imported anyways.