Eh, I might have a couple of carbon credits to throw your way. 
I’m that unusual gun owner who advocates re-writing the Second for today’s world.
Take a few years, think it over carefully, get rid of that restrictive “militia” (what freakin’ militia?) crap, and punctuate it correctly because it isn’t.
The Old Guys who wrote it had no inkling about what the world would be like now, bless their ancient souls.
Personally, I subject my right of ownership to the rules of my community. Which means simply that I will follow the law.
The problem with that is, to rewrite the Second Amendment you need to hold a Constitutional Convention. This opens up all of the Constitution and its amendments to being rewritten or deleted. Fourth Amendment? Nah, too dangerous to have what with them Mooslims aroun’!
Another Amendment can be written and possibly ratified that clarifies the Second, but it has already been ruled that the Second does recognise the right for individuals to have firearms.
Aha! The exquisite, simple beauty of The First.
I’m pretty sure I know exactly what I said, since I quoted it to you. If you’re unclear on the meaning, you might try asking questions instead of amking assumptions.
Except for the fact that it does. Does the name Meredith Emerson mean anything to you?
How many does it take? Criminals are the minority at virtually all times and places, usually the very, very small minority. Does it follow that nobody should take any precaution? Or is there some threshold at which Early Out gets to decide it’s now officially dangerous, and everybody else must go along?
YOU may feel it’s not dangerous enough to warrant carrying a firearm, and I happen to agree. That doesn’t mean everyone does the cost/benefit ratio the same way, and it also doesn’t mean I can’t be glad that other people do go armed. I chose not to carry a cellphone on my hike; I was nonetheless glad that other people did, in case need should arise.
Sure I was … so what? The danger is NOT zero.
My state allows concealed carry, so that every time I’m in Wal-Mart the odds are good that a couple citizens are armed. I like that, too, even though the odds of anything happening at Wal-Mart are only slightly higher than they are on the AT. Any time, any place I have armed permitholders around, I feel safer.
Right … which probably is why I didn’t say you could. I choose my words carefully. Please read accordingly.
I suspect that part of the reason for that ruling was that the gun people don’t want it clarified.
Too risky, I’ve heard (read).
So we drive ourselves crazy trying to get past the “militia” thing.
Problem is, our rights are very much infringed. I don’t want a full auto 50, or a sidewinder, but…
A Tommy Gun would be pretty cool.
I fired one in the Navy. 
A few things…
“Early Out” hasn’t responded. Therefore, I’m winning the argument." Ever hear of “other things in life,” like eating, sleeping, going for a bike ride? You can’t expect 24x7 responses. And some comments really don’t warrant a response.
“Mr.X/Ms.Y defended himself/herself with a gun.” Yes, it happens. Anecdote. Not enough to make policy.
Finally, regarding the “manly man” notions about gun ownership that always seem to pop up in threads like this. We’ve heard it both from Argent Towers and SenorBeef. I’ve got a simple question for you:
Person A always has a loaded gun with him. Won’t leave home without it.
Person B will go almost anywhere in the world without a gun.
Which person would you describe as being timid and fearful? Which person would you describe as being confident and bold?
Target shooting? That always gets cited as the non-lethal purpose of handguns. I’ve always found that a little hard to swallow. It’s a bit like saying that tennis balls have two functions - playing tennis and juggling. A bit of a reach, I think. It’s *possible *to do something else with them, but that’s not why they were created, and generally not why they’re manufactured.
At any rate, if that’s the “other” function of a handgun, then keep them permanently chained up at the firing range.
You are making a common but unfortunate mistake. The burden of proof as to why one wants a firearm, and the function for which he expects to use it, does not lie with the gun owner. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Therefore there is no burden on the gun owner to supply a rationale for possessing his weapon. The burden lies on those who want to abrogate that right. You have to supply a good enough reason that outweighs the right.
The Founding Fathers decided that gun ownership is a right that deserves the protection of the federal government. They felt, in other words, that the public safety drawbacks of private gun ownership are outweighed by the benefits of the same.
Thus, in order to justify a ban on guns in any set of circumstances, the anti-gun side needs to show that that specific set of circumstances has something about it that justifies the abrogation of Second Amendment rights.
Public safety concerns in national parks don’t cut it. You would need to show that there was some special circumstance that applies in national parks that does not apply in hunting zones, or similar. The Second Amendment already establishes that the public safety concern of keeping and bearing arms is outweighed, when considered in general. Unless and until there is something shown about national parks that doesn’t apply in other areas, the Second Amendment remains in force.
Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is a good illustration. One can show, in that specific circumstance, there is a special consideration that does not apply to free speech in general. I have not heard any arguments in this thread that would establish such a special circumstance necessary to justify the banning of guns in national parks and forests.
Regards,
Shodan
No. You could erase the Second completely by simply passing the Twenty-Eighth Amendment by two-thirds majority of House and Senate, and having it ratified by three-fourths of the states, to read: “The Second Amendment of the US Constitution is hereby repealed.”
That was sufficient to get rid of the Eighteenth, after all.
Could passage of the Twenty-Eighth be contigent upon ratification of the Twenty-ninth, which would be the “replacement” for the Second? Or would that be included in the Twenty-Eighth?
It ain’t gonna happen, but this is interesting.
Insufficient. Let’s go with original intent - you can have a musket.
I know this has been beaten to death, which makes it even more surprising that you’ve trotted it out again. The Second Amendment has been interpreted many, many times in order to define what “arms” are. We have numerous restrictions on various types of “arms,” all of them deemed to be Constitutional.
There’s no reason why the legislature could not pass a bill that made private possession of handguns illegal, citing the huge number of people who are killed by them every year, coupled with the unlikelihood that they would be of any use in repelling a foreign invader, or even a homegrown tyrant. If the Constitutionality of the law is challenged (as it surely would be), there is nothing to prevent the courts from deciding that the Amendment refers to, say, rifles, and not to handguns, and that the statute passes muster.
You either have to allow for modern interpretation of the Constitution (the FF would not have extended the protection to X, had they known what we now know), or stick with “original intent” (the FF couldn’t have been referring to X because it didn’t exist in the 18th Century). You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t recall proposing that we do away with the Fourth Amendment.
If (unlikely as it obviously is) a law were passed that banned private ownership of handguns (signed by the executive, passed muster in the courts), and you persisted in possessing one, then you would, in fact, be a criminal. If the police have probable cause to believe that you have a handgun, present their info to a judge, get a warrant, search your home, and find the gun, then you are, indeed, going to be dragged from your home. That’s what happens when you commit a crime.
Would this create some “new” criminals? Of course. That’s what happens when a law is passed that prohibits something that wasn’t previously outlawed, and someone chooses to ignore the new law. The solution is fairly straightforward: obey the law.
Would genuine “bad guys” still get handguns? I’m sure they would, but over time, there would be fewer and fewer of them in circulation, which is the goal of the (proposed, fictional) law.
EarlyOut
So you’re saying it would have been better that X and Y hadn’t been able to defend themselves? You can make that decision for someone else?
EarlyOut
If the situation arises where you have a gun pointed at your face, you will not be confident and bold. You will be reduced to a sniveling child with no control whatsoever over your own survival.
In that case, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I have said that there are any number of handguns specifically designed for target shooting or hunting, and not for killing people.
Also: Would you like to know how many people I’ve killed with a handgun? Zero. Would you like to know how many people I’ve shot with a handgun? Zero. Would you like to know how many people I’ve shot at with a handgun? Zero. Would you like to know how many times I’ve exercised the privileges of my CCL? Zero. Would you like to know how many times I’ve hunted? Zero. Would you like to know how many times I’ve been target shooting? More times than I could possibly tell you.
Take a poll and then see if it’s ‘hard to swallow’ that most handguns are used to poke holes in paper.
You are advocating taking away people’s rights based on your own uninformed and unfounded fears.
EarlyOut, it seems that you disappear long enough for posts that challenge you to end up buried under new posts.
So backtracking, did you follow the link to the Susan Hupp story? Can you honestly say that she should not have had the power to save her family?
I’m curious about the “huge” number of people killed by handguns each year. If we take the DOJ statistics, then roughly 11000 people are killed (not suicides) in America annually. That translates to about 30 a day. And of those 30, some are justified defense shooting. Of the rest, some die by handguns, some by rifles, and some by shotguns.
So we should punish the millions of gun owners for the benefit of what, maybe 15 innocent lives per day?
We could do much better in aggregate numbers by banning cars. We could save more (actual) children by banning swimming pools. But for whatever reason, cars and swimming pools are not scary like the concept of guns has become.
Well, you can always “interpret” the Constitution so it doesn’t mean what it says. Using this same line of argument, Congress could restrict freedom of the press because the modern machine-operated print press didn’t exist in 1787.
And, of course, there is no indication that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to apply only to muskets. If you have any evidence that they did, by all means let’s see it.
Regards,
Shodan
I never said anything about bravery. I was talking about attitude - philosophical outlook. The examples I gave - how kids used to go to school with guns for the rifle club, or how you could order guns out of the sears catalog - were meant to demonstrate the different attitude society had rather than bravery.
My point was that as a culture, we used to give a greater value to independence, self sufficiency, and personal responsibility. I’m not saying that people who carry guns for self defense are brave badasses, but rather they acknowledge that the ultimate responsibility for defending themselves and their family lies with them. As a culture, people like that used to be far more common. Now, people who are willing to be subservient to the government and rely on them for protection are far more common.
And that brings up another point. The police just can’t protect us. They will tell you that they normally show up after the fact. No fault of their own. They just can’t be everywhere.
Time for eating, sleeping and bike riding I guess.