Indifferent to the 2nd Amendment?

Great Debates
1

Am I the only person who is indifferent to the subject of gun rights? In theory I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves . . . and in theory I believe that we need to aim toward a society in which people don’t need to arm themselves. But beyond that the subject just doesn’t interest me enough to really take sides. I have never even touched a gun, and have never seen one except in a cop’s holster.

I don’t want this thread to become yet another gun rights thread. I’m just wondering how many other people just don’t care enough to take sides.

2

Unfortunate Wording Cat leaves comedic ambiguity.
:stuck_out_tongue:

3

Are you truly indifferent, or do you just not think about it that much? I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about the Third Amendment, but I can guarantee that I would quickly develop strong views regarding it if a platoon of soldiers showed up at my door and informed me that they would be staying at my place for the weekend.

Even rights that have more modern relevance, such as my Sixth Amendment rights, never get much thought from me.

4

I am a moderate on gun control, & I think the 2nd gets in the way of writing sensible law. Admittedly, in its absence we’d presumably have seen laws that banned gun ownership for ethnic minorities or urban populations, leading to general abuse; but that happened anyway. One problem with the 2nd is that too many people take it as absolute Word of God & so won’t consider practicality.

I believe that some capacity for self-defense is good; the police can’t be everywhere (& often ignore certain despised populations). But cities should have some ability to regulate what level of firepower is allowable where population density is high.

But between those who would ban all guns & those who scream at banning any, it’s hard to be heard if you think the following:

Yes, it is good to let the people bear such arms as are practical in their self-defense. (All the people, not just whites.) No, you don’t get to use the Second Amendment to justify owning any damn fool thing you can call a weapon. Assault rifles, for example, are not generally available.

5

I’m indifferent to it as well.

I grew up in a country where guns were prohibited.
I’ve lived in California for the last decade or so.

In neither case do I feel particularly threatened or empowered.

If you want details:

I think guns are cool in a “look at this fancy tech that can fling a piece of metal at supersonic speeds!”, video-gamey kinda way.

I think guns are sad in that they enable poor decisions to become permanent, lethal ones.

I think they give too much power to those who would most abuse it.

I think that power differential can be somewhat remedied with a change in mentality, a shift in personal responsibility, and a few hours at the range.

I think more women need to learn how to defend themselves, whether through martial arts, non-lethal weapons (tazer, pepper spray), or guns.

I think the Castle Doctrine should be expanded to all states.

I believe guns are an effective means of self-defense against ordinary criminals. I believe common sense and reasonable caution are usually sufficient in areas with low to moderate crime.

I believe gun control laws abridge the intent of the 2nd Amendment since small arms and semi-auto weapons seem inadequate for defense against any serious enemy (police, government, cults and extremist organizations, foreign invasion, etc.). But this be could partially argued as a result of the arms race spawned from this very mentality.

I believe the world would be a better place without guns, but then again it’d be a nicer place without poverty and starvation and greed and disease too – i.e., how realistic is that?

I believe that the wallet can be a far more dangerous weapon, apathy and ignorance greater everyday threats.

I’ve shot guns at ranges and enjoyed the experience. I’ve considered owning a handgun for recreational and self-defense usage, but I don’t want to deal with the hassles of maintenance and the expense of ammo. I’ve yet to feel sufficiently threatened to want to defend myself with lethal force, but I can see guns becoming a top priority if that ever happens.

On the other hand, I would be totally if ok guns were banned and somehow removed from the hands of 99% of current owners. If it came to a vote, I’d simply abstain.

I am by nature pacifist, but I understand that the rest of the world is not. I believe in my right to survive and to enable the survival of those I care about. I am willing to respond with deadly force should it become necessary. I am not willing to use violence to get what I want beyond that.

I believe that “the man” isn’t out to get me, but that individuals with egos can and do overstep their authority and abuse their power.

I believe that high-profile, low-casualty tragedies should not override statistics, no matter how villainous the lone gunman or how adorable the victims.

Edit: I should also add that I think the Constitution is just a piece of paper and should be amended whenever necessary to reflect the will of the people. Whether something is or isn’t in the Con shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how our society behaves.

But I don’t particularly care either way. In day-to-day life, guns just aren’t a part of the picture.

6

I feel like it’s very possible for a free, happy and prosperous country to have near-universal gun ownership. I also think it’s possible for a free, happy and prosperous country to have almost zero gun ownership.

I definitely think that the whole debate becomes muddled because pro-gun people object to proposals not for their own sake but because (rightly or wrongly) they see each individual step as the first step towards a gun ban. So if a registration or waiting-period or background-check law is being proposed, it’s not really evaluated on its own merits.

7

I expect that people will become indifferent as the Heller and McDonald precedents are understood to be settled law, and the protection of one’s right to keep and bear arms becomes as much a non-issue as the question of one’s right not to quarter soldiers in one’s home.

8

This is an issue I definitely don’t care all that much about.

I’d elaborate, but… seriously, I just don’t care.

9

I have quite a different view then I ever heard expressed. I believe all laws are mediated by God (not just the laws of the OT). The second amendment is very unusual in it’s wording and I believe it is intentional, used by both God and the world (Satan).

In it’s Satanic form, the second part it refers to gun ownership, the right to revenge, the right to hold deadly force.

In it’s Godly form the second part refers to the right of the people to possess spiritual armor (Eph 6), the Word of God which is a weapon, the State or any power can never deny a person a Bible.

The first part is basically a statement of the satanic enforcement of the rule of law, the a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, basically stating Satan’s views, that the state needs to be well regulated by him in order for him to produce security, which is usually a form of bondage for the general population.

As such I am totally indifferent to the popular view of the amendment, but understand it’s spiritual implications and thankful that the right of the people to use the power of God against the state will not be infringed.

10

Not being american i stopped thinking about guns when i turned 8 or so. Since then i’ve given them no thought whatsoever just like most of the rest of the non policeman/military/criminal world. I don’t care about gun rights one bit and i think the concept of owning one is about as silly as owning a scalpel in case i get a tumor. My last GF had a gun locked up in a safe somewhere in her house, i don’t think i ever got to see it.

11

I’m a gun owner and a lawyer, and I’m more interested in the second amendment as a lawyer. It baffles me how the same people can believe that the Constitution does not provide individuals with the right to bear arms but does protect a woman’s right to have an abortion (I’m pro-choice, BTW).

12

This is timely. I heard a story on NPR today about the recent ruling on the Chicago gun rights case.

I used to shoot and hunt a lot. Back then guns were a big part of my life, as such I paid a lot of attention to the whole issue.

Nowadays, I rarely shoot and seldom hunt, and frankly block the whole issue from my mind (everything is portrayed these days as 100% for or 100% against, and moderates like me are just cast aside, so why bother expending effort thinking?).

13

There are other Constitutional amendments that I feel much stronger about than the 2nd. I have never owned a gun and never plan to.

14

Unlikely. Large numbers of people are still going to keep being killed by guns; when in recent decades has the subject of quartering soldiers even come up as anything but an obscure point of law? And it’s not like the pro-gun people aren’t going to keep on pressing for more “rights” and against any restrictions whatsoever of guns.

:rolleyes: There’s no connection at all between those two things.

15

I think most people are indifferent to things that don’t effect (or is it affect) them.

I am a gay male in my 40s, I don’t care about abortion at all. I can fully see both sides of the issue and understand the arguments, but I honestly don’t care. Why? Because I’ve never even SEEN a naked women, much less had to deal with pregnancy.

As for the OP question, I don’t get all emotional, but it does bug me that I live in Chicago where every two bit thug has a hand gun and I, a law abiding citizen can’t. But it doesn’t bug me enough to actually go out and do something about it. Mainly 'cause I know if I ever bought a gun I’d shoot MYSELF with it. I’m just that lousy of an aim. :slight_smile:

16

:rolleyes: Of course there is. The right to bear arms is right there in the constitution. The exact words say “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” There are no words in the constitution specifically dealing with the right of a woman to have an abortion.

Nevertheless, many folks of a particular mindset will argue that the constitution does not grant individuals a right to bear arms and does grant women the right to choose.

17

I’m not completely indifferent to gun rights as a whole, but I’m indifferent to the politics of the issue.

If I really thought the government was likely to take people’s guns away, I’d probably be out there protesting with the gun nuts. Similarly, if I really thought that particular gun control legislation would likely make a significant practical difference in violent crime, I’d probably be out there with the Million Moms.

But I know that any attempts at gun control are just making miniscule movements in the line we have to draw somewhere in between no guns whatsoever and private ownership of nuclear warheads, and that for the most part new legislation is going to mildly inconvenience a few criminals and aggravate a few law-abiding gun enthusiasts.

In truth, I think our country is too big and too diverse for a one-size-fits-all policy on gun rights. Guns mean something different on the south side of Chicago than they do in the sticks of Appalachia. I agree that the handgun bans in DC and Chicago were probably in conflict with the second amendment, but I also think that if a city has significant problems that it can demonstrably fix by banning certain types of firearms it should be able to do so.

18

If you are in a well regulated militia, which as far as I’m concerned is covered by the National Guard.

Nor are there words specifically allowing for free speech on the internet, yet the First Amendment is considered to apply despite this being neither verbal nor a printing press.

19

I’d like to think that as well from a philosophical point of view, but in practicality unless the sale of guns are regulated at the Federal level then they will just make their way into places like Chicago and DC anyway.

I’m not sure what the right approach is. I have no problem with hunting and target shooting, but the idea of people stockpiling weapons to fight off the govt bothers me because we have a bunch of well-armed nutters. We now have people on major networks talking about “treason” by a President who was elected by a large plurality in an open election, and who has not taken any extreme positions at all. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if armed conflict breaks out the next time the Federal govt tries to enforce a law that conservatives don’t like. For example, if a public school system insists on having prayer in school, or a state judge decides to base decisions on Biblical law.

What I would like to see is draconian punishment for people committing crimes with a gun. As far as I am concerned, if you brandish a weapon during a robbery you are threatening to kill me just to get money, and I’d like to see you put away for life with no parole.

20

The second amendment does not say that the right to bear arms is only for those in a well-regulated militia. That is what the plain text says, and that is what the Supreme Court has said it says.

Also, I’m not sure what you are getting at with the first amendment analogy. The first amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, and it doesn’t say anything about the medium used for the speech. So, the medium doesn’t matter to the right. Therefore, having the right to free speech on the internet is more like having the right to bear arms (i.e, a right based on the simple words of the document) than is having the right to have an abortion (i.e., a right based on emanations from penumbras created by lots of different rights embodied in lots of different words).