The Second Amendment

Riddle78

Riddle78

Four Thousand Club
Humor an outsider,for a moment.


I live in Canada. However,I know about the American Right to Bear Arms. However,in the face of the modern battlefield and tactics,I have to ask something...


Is it still relevant?


The Right to Bear Arms was made just in case the government pulled a "Great Britain". And,for the time,it was an effective measure. But today? If the American government wanted to exercise total authority,it would be able to,without effort,Second Amendment or not. What's an M16 going to to to an LAV when it has a 40mm autocannon or GMG? Nothing. What's going to happen to a town or city that had declared intent to rebel? If negotiations fail,they'd either invade with armour,or,more likely,flatten it with artillery or airstrikes. Because revolution is war. And to declare intent to rebel is declaration of war.


In the modern world,revolution simply cannot happen without significant backing from a foreign superpower. From where I'm standing,the Right to Bear Arms is outdated. And Americans that support it seem to follow the fallacious logic of "Guns=Freedom",where,in actuality, "Guns=Combat". While the Right to Bear Arms enables civilians to protect themselves or their property,it also enables the unintelligent and criminally inclined to arm themselves to follow through on their unintelligent or criminal urges.


To take away your guns is not to support totalitarianism. It's to support safety of the masses and suppression of those unfit to think rationally or act responsibly. Does a civilian really need an M4 or a Sig Sauer? No. If you're truly that scared for your safety,learn how to fight properly. Learn how to wield a kitchen knife like a combat knife. Learn to turn ordinary,everyday objects into effective weapons. But giving every Tom,D*ck and Harry a firearm is a ticking time bomb.


Because,honestly,if you fear for your own safety,then the police aren't doing their job. Which is something to bring to your town council,is it not?


Figured I'd get this out there,because the argument comes up all the time in the Shoutbox.
 
*applauds Riddle, agrees with everything he says* 
The problem, though, is that we Americans are stubborn. People in general are stubborn. Even with your logic, Riddle, people here in this country are, as my dad says, "married to the gun". We are so in love with the idea of the gun that suddenly any talk about gun control and it's "oh no no no, second amendment! You can't, you're taking our freedom!"


Which is honestly like a horrible, vicious addiction. An addiction to guns, and we need to pull the plug. Too bad not many can see that.
 
2nd Amendment - The right to bear arms.


Indeed this was established to give every man, woman the right to defend their home. However if the Government does in-fact take this away, you will face revolts.... This will probably end up with Riot Police, National Guard being called up... etc etc until the last straw which it does come down to revolution, but another matter is, especially here in the military, we have a calling to defend civilians of the United States against any enemy foreign or domestic, so the case of the matter here would be firing upon your own civilians which is a double negative in that case, which would cause military uprisings as well. The 2nd Amendment was established as a fundamental right for every citizen to take up arms if they are able too, however maybe they should pass stronger checks and a mental stability test before they decide to allow the next citizen to purchase a firearm....
 
Okay, I was promised cookies, so here are my two-cents.


Alright, so I agree completely with everything Riddle has said, but the fact of the matter is, it's clear certain areas are going to get a little rowdy if we take away the right to bare arms, actually, I don't mind people baring arms. In fact, my Dad would have gotten severely hurt walking home from work if he didn't have his handgun with him, mind you he owns his handgun legally.


But what I don't see the need for is the fact that people that shouldn't have access to weapons have them. Maybe they got Uncle to buy them one, maybe they took it out of Grandma's locked cabinet. Alright, so all weapons shouldn't be banned, in my opinion, stricter regulations should just be put on them, in all states. It's not like anyone needs a semi-automatic-missile-launcher-zoom-in-power-scope-Satan-slayin' machine gun anyways, you'll be all right with a hand gun, just watch who you give them out to.


This point sounded much better in my head, unfortunately sleep keeps pooping on my thought process, I'll have it nice and pretty tomorrow, maybe. *takes cookies and rolls out*
 
Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom.


According to statistics there is 1 police officer for every 23,000 people in this country. Now how can that 1 policeman be there to protect me. The constitution does not guarantee us protection from murder or crime. It does provide us with a means to protect ourselves with the right to bear arms. We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country.


Also.
 
The House of Congress is a temporary seat. And,from what I've seen,is full of people taking bribes from various interested parties,which includes firearm associations. Eventually,the House of Congress will be staffed by individuals who understand logic and civic duty. Britain isn't coming back. If you feel the need to arm yourself out of safety,then the underlying problem is the inadequacy of the police force,and freely armed criminals act COUNTER to the protection of the law-abiding,because it makes the job of the police more complicated and dangerous.


As outlined in my original post,if you want to defend yourself,there's martial arts. And they're nowhere near as complicated as people make them out to be. Want a simpler option? Knifeplay. Not exactly legal,but a properly wielded knife is just as effective as a handgun,and has more uses than simply combat. Still not your cup of tea? Take a leaf from Jackie Chan's book. Improv Fu. Use a chair. Or a handbag. Or a branch. Anything that allows you to subdue your attacker while putting distance between yourselves.


There's an underlying issue here. Addiction? Power fantasy? Unwillingness to seek alternatives? You just like the bang? Let's face it: Guns are just like swords. Tools that lack any and all use outside of the theater of war. Civilians do not belong there.
 
Amend, not appeal. There were loud demonstrations in Albany New York after the massive gun control legislation was passed in the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting. Whether it's a fallacy or not, people DO associate their guns with freedom, and with safety, safety provided by their own ability, rather than waiting and praying for law enforcement to arrive, and hopefully apprehend the right people.


I certainly agree that learning to defend oneself with weapons, or objects, other than a gun is crucial, in fact, I would think it advisable to include in a PE program sooner than dance classes.


When the Bill of Rights was drafted, guns were mostly inaccurate, and unweildy, best for hunting. If you were going to be shot by someone, it was in a professional capacity, or possibly a raid. This 'outdated' situation, though, does not negate the simple fact that people with guns are more difficult to take over than those without; Austria. Additionally, as we all well know someone determined to enact violence on another person does not need a gun; Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire.


If any Thumb, Pickle and Hairy could carry a gun, don't you think the criminally inclined would be more hesitant to draw on someone who could be armed as well or better than them? Sure, draw a distinction between a military grade and civilian; if you can't carry it concealed by a jacket, then you need a permit. Teach rifle and gun safety in class instead of floor hockey or ultimate frisbee. The legislation passed in New York included a clause that required physicians to report patients that they feared were mentally unstable, or a possible risk to others. How comfortable do you think someone in NEED of help will feel opening up to someone who could possibly put them on a register?


If someone tries to shoot you, you shoot them back.


On a final note, @Riddle, I had my flip blade--that had a switch lock to keep it from opening unintentionally--taken away from me when I went into Canada. It's illegal to have a weapon that can be armed with one hand, according to that border patrol officer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if the president DID try to appeal the 2nd Amendment' date=' he would get impeached so quick.[/quote']
That's not what impeachment means and that's not how it works. Everyone always misuses that term and it frustrates me.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars' date=' and there's no movement to ban them.[/quote']
Well, see, here's the thing. Cars were not produced for the sake of finding another and better way to kill people. "Well x kills people, why don't we just ban x?" Is one of the most flawed arguments I've ever heard, and it's used all the time. All those other murder weapons have original, non-lethal uses. People do not use them primarily to hurt others. Cars, for the sake of your example, are used for transportation.


But are guns used for transportation? Are guns used for cooking or cleaning or building or creating?


No, guns don't have any alternate, primary use. You know what their primary use is? Taking lives. That's exactly what the gun was built for, and that's all it will ever be, a tool for destruction and death. And hunting? Gee, what's hunting? That's death right there. That's taking the life of an animal for sport.


Shooting range? That's practice, practice to get better at hurting people and animals. In fact, aren't some shooting range targets shaped like people?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
And hunting? Gee, what's hunting? That's death right there. That's taking the life of an animal for sport.
Click to expand...
Hunting is not only a sport, Flight. People hunt to keep themselves and their families alive by keeping food on the table. If you take away guns then what is there to hunt with? Bows and crossbows? If you shoot a animal with a arrow or a bolt it will not go down first shot and you will have to track further into the woods to track the animal down before the other animals get to it.
 
@ Hatchet:


Here's the flaw in your argument. Here is where things are going to get a little more heated, I believe:


Why would someone be trying to shoot you if they don't have a gun to shoot you with?


And sure, one could make the claim that criminals could get those guns illegally and whatnot. The properly paranoid, I suppose. Though really, the common thugs who usually wind up involved in armed violence are not smart enough or rich enough to somehow arrange a gun smuggling. Furthermore, where would they even smuggle the gun from? We Americans are the most gun-happy, it would seem. So if not here, where? Where, and for that matter, how in a way that wouldn't cost extra thousands?


If a child is throwing a dangerous toy at another child, you take the toy away. Sure, there's crying and screaming, but in the end, it's best for everyone. 


People hunt to keep themselves and their families alive by keeping food on the table. If you take away guns then what is there to hunt with? Bows and crossbows? If you shoot a animal with a arrow or a bolt it will not go down first shot and you will have to track further into the woods to track the animal down before the other animals get to it.
Click to expand...
First of all, our ancestors had no issues hunting animals with bows and crossbows. Second of all, what? Who the hell still hunts like that in this day and age? Why go through that trouble when it's so much easier and less time consuming to just go to the market and pick up a box of hot pockets? You're speaking like this is the 18th century, which it's not. Hunting for food is outdated, hunting for sport is offensive to mother nature, and hunting for people is illegal. So what's the point of guns again?
 
First of all, our ancestors had no issues hunting animals with bows and crossbows. Second of all, what? Who the hell still hunts like that in this day and age? Why go through that trouble when it's so much easier and less time consuming to just go to the market and pick up a box of hot pockets? You're speaking like this is the 18th century, which it's not. Hunting for food is outdated, hunting for sport is offensive to mother nature, and hunting for people is illegal. So what's the point of guns again?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of people that still live like that and hunt for food now a days. Plus the people that do that dont have the money to go buy some hot pockets from the store. They buy a box of bullets and hunt and a deer can feed a family of four for a while. Just because its outdated does not mean it does not happen. And as for hunting for sport. If we did not do it there would be a over population of the animals we do hunt. Right?
 
"If there were no guns" is a flawed argument. There ARE guns. If there were no guns, there would be another primary weapons, such as a sword, or bow and arrow, used for killing.


If someone wished to attack another, they do not NEED a gun, it just makes it easier. So my 'flaw' I will amend to 'If someone attacks you, shoot them.'


I find it a narrow minded assumption that 'common thugs' are inherently not clever or capable to smuggle or otherwise acquire anything that they have sufficient desire to attain. Even were that so, they ones involved in the 'armed violence' do not need to be involved in the smuggling, they only need to have access to the ones who are purportedly clever and rich enough to do that deed and not get caught.


The properly paranoid cite this: Shot by Bored Teenagers. There was a real chance that a neighbor could have shot back at them, open carry is legal in Oklahoma. But this is a case of criminal being criminal. No laws in the world can stop that, and no safety in the world is worth giving up the toys, the weapons, the choices that would HOPEFULLY prevent such violence.


To be honest, I think our greatest flaw, in every argument of this nature, is assuming that somehow violence can be cured, somehow eradicated in our 'civilized' society. Far better to enable those who would defend, not harm, than disable them and merely inconvenience the ill-intentioned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@ Emberspark: Not lots of people. A very small minority.


@ Hatchet


We can at least reduce violence. There will always be violent people, but that whole "there will always be violence" argument implies that we should simply sit back and do nothing while things like the Dark Knight shootings happens. There is no "do nothing". That can't be an option anymore. People are so quick to blame so many other things, like comics and movies and video games, but the truth of the matter is that there are sick, sick people out there who should never ever ever have access so a machine where you can simply click a tiny trigger and instantly make your enemies fall down, dead.


We need tighter gun laws. We need to be like the UK in that regard (who I will point out, once again, is much lower than us this year, crime-rate wise). You know what else we need? More police officers and better mental health programs. This is not a "sure, maybe", this is a necessity. No guns is a ridiculous thing to wish for, of course, but military style weapons? Large amounts of ammo? No. No, that can't be available for the general public.
 
The UK also has a lower population, a lower birth rate, and a higher average income, money which funds law enforcement and surveillance. I am willing to bet that rural areas of the UK do not have the same views on guns as do the urban centers, but I do not have any anecdotes or statistics to support that.


I never advocated "do nothing." I advocate let the citizen be armed. "There will always be violence" implies no such thing as inaction, it is active awareness of an unalterable condition, similar to the fact that we need oxygen to survive. And keep in mind this sociological revolution of blaming an external condition is recent to the twentieth and twenty first centuries, where urban centers with their stores and their hot pockets became the common place and the expectation. Prior to that if a man murdered another man, he was responsible for what he did. He might have had a reason, but he was still the one who pulled the trigger or hacked the blade or broke the neck.


"People are so quick to blame...video games" followed by "there are sick, sick people out there who could never ever ever have access to a machine..." is hypocritical. At the very least you are saying that individuals already predisposed to behave in a violent manner are being further conditioned by a "a tiny trigger."


More police officers. Sure. Better mental health programs. Sure. I do believe I stated there should be a distinction between military grade and what is accessible to the average civilian. I do not agree on restricted ammo, though. Specifically, there is only so much an individual can carry. At best, restrict how much can be carried outside the home, but within one's own dwelling? Better to have your ammo when a rapist comes scratching, than to run out after seven rounds (which is the legal limit on magazines from that New York legislation, by the way).


On hunting: No one here survives or even makes a contribution to their daily survival by hunting, fishing or trapping. Point. I am not convinced that gives us the right to legislate those who DO, be they in remote areas, or if they do so by choice of refusing to pour their money into a food industry they may morally disagree with. Hunting for sport has always been a status symbol, either as 'I am a wealthy lord who owns these wild beasts' or 'I am a fierce warrior, I can provide meat and protection.'


And that protection is NOT exclusive to violence from a human upon a human. You cannot reason with a rabid dog. You cannot talk down a bear that has claimed your yard as its territory. You cannot take down a raging boar with a bow and arrow, or a knife, or a chair. These are not extreme situations, conjectures of the paranoid, these are DAILY encounters. You can YouTube the evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"People are so quick to blame...video games" followed by "there are sick' date=' sick people out there who could never ever ever have access to a machine..." is hypocritical. At the very least you are saying that individuals already predisposed to behave in a violent manner are being further conditioned by a "a tiny trigger."[/quote']
You misunderstand me. There are sick people. Guns don't cause violence like some people claim video games do. I'm saying it enables violence.


Also, where do you live where this so-called rabid dog, bear and raging boar is such a common problem? Why is animal control not on that? Why don't we set up more jobs for animal control specialists and police officers? More jobs is a good thing, right?


On the hunting bit for a second:


Sure, let's provide the isolated people with hunting rifles. But people in the cities? No. Cities are tense. Cities are emotional. Cities are crowded and full of potential firearms accident victims. For the potential rapist, there is pepper spray and there is the air horn. Then there is running out the door and there is 911.


People should not feel so threatened as to believe guns are an absolute must. A must out of paranoia and a must out of, as stated before, addiction and marriage to the gun. Quickly bringing video games into this, gosh I wish our culture as a whole would accept violent video games as an actual reducer of violence. I'd take a fake gun over a real gun any day, and the steam one can let out from a good shooter like Left 4 Dead is far more legal than, say, blowing the neighbor's brains out.
Click to expand...
 
I'll never understand people that are anti-gun. There's an old saying, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made men equal." If a 20-something thug was coming after my 80 year old grandmother, there's no way she could properly defend herself. And really people, if guns were the real issue, shouldn't there be mass shooting in places where there are *lots* of guns, instead of ones where guns are supposedly banned, such as schools, hotels, and yes, even military bases.
 
Guns are not the main issue, but they are certainly something that makes the issue worse. The real issue is who we are giving these guns to, their mental health, and how well the area they are in is, economically. People with poor mental health and people who are in financial trouble are more inclined to commit violent crimes. The gun makes this far worse. The gun empowers these "thugs" (people who need help, themselves, usually), and the only option to fight these gun wielders is to produce more guns so that there are more guns in the world and... Wait. No, something is amiss here.


Self defense classes are more welcome than guns. There are too many firearm related accidents in the world, and there are too many firearm linked suicides. At least with self defense, you can disarm a person trying to assault you. Even better; Pepperspray. They do a great deal, and you won't risk murdering someone or yourself.


Though really, why would an 80-year-old grandmother even be put in a situation where she was being attacked by a 20-something thug? And also, why would she own a gun? Guns have kickback that a frail old woman wouldn't be able to even handle, and certain age-related illnesses can cause hands to shake, and thus, throw off ones aim. Do you really want someone who can't aim or control a gun wielding one for self defense, when she is more likely to hurt herself in the situation than defend herself.


There are other ways to stop crime. You can't fight violence with violence. That certainly wasn't how Gandhi did it.
 
First off I will commend you for going after the route cause. In all these situations where there are shootings, you find that they are caused by issues where the person has serious mental health concerns or inner cities where poor economic conditions and the drug situation the way it is can lead to more violence.


Now as to your assertion that guns make the situation worst, I have to disagree. Take for example the UK that have some of the toughest gun laws in the books. While gun crime is indeed low, (although it should be noted that it gun related deaths have remained at the same levels as they were before the ban) violent crime is up. In fact, most studies on the issues have found that violent crime is far more prevalent in the UK, if not on equal footing.


The fact of the matter is that we all can't be Bruce Lee. There are many situations every day where a gun serves a better purpose in defense than does any alternative. And Pepper Spray is not a viable alternative. Not only have we seen many situations were a perpetrator has been able to shrug off a dose, but those with darker pigmentation of their skin have been found to be more resistant to them. This is not to speak of a situation where you have multiple attackers coming at you.


And we finally come to the erroneous conclusion of the idea that my grandmother couldn't use a gun. Perhaps if she was using some Dirty Harry 357 she would have to worry about a large kickback, but she uses a Glock 26 and is quite effective at it. I feel much more comfortable knowing that if someone was to break into her house, she could adequately defend herself. Alarm systems aren't fool proof, and the cops can only *respond* to a crime, not prevent one.


And as far as that hippy talk about not fighting violence with violence? If in the dead of night, I hear someone breaking into my home, where I have two little girls and my wife to protect, I'm going to be thinking of them before I think about some asshole that just invaded my domain. Gandhi never went through this. So please, don't be ridiculous.


Edit: There was one point that I made that seemed to be glossed over, but I thought I would revisit. The flaw in the argument of anti-gun folks, is the assertion that where there is more guns, you see more gun crime.


This falls flat on it's face when you simply stop to think about it. I have never heard of a mass shooting at a gun show or a gun store. If we were to believe those that state "guns are evil", well we should be hearing about these every day. Instead, what we see are gun crimes occurring in those areas where guns are explicitly not allowed!


Lastly, take a step back and think about this. If you were looking to break into two houses; one of which you knew had a person in there that was armed with several guns, and another where you were confident there was known, which would you be inclined to rob? Of course the one that you knew there weren't any firearms, because you would face very little risk to your own life.


Maybe it's mean, but to me the anti-gun group just wants us all to be victims. Well screw that I say! Someone comes into my own and threatens my family, I'll make sure him and anyone else that thinks of doing that in the future, don't ever attempt that again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top