I’m sure that Razor will reply to the rest of your post, but I simply could not pass this by.
This reading of the Second Amendment is simply not true. Nothing in the archaic wording means what you said. The phrase “well regulated” means “well trained”. It was included to indicate that a simple cache of arms kept under lock and key would not suffice. The citizens, in order to defend themselves and thier liberties, had to be trained in the use of arms. And therefore, they had to be individually allowed to own them.
It never meant that we coudl own guns but only under limited circumstances. It really was an attempt to codify a natural right as important to the founding fathers as speech, assembly, or religion.
Oh, come on now, the butcher knife analogy was used just to illustrate that there are other implements that can be used to murder. A gun is just a tool that can be used either for good or evil, just as the butcher knife.
Is there, or is there not such a thing as justifiable homicide?
Sure it does. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights–to restrict government power
You’re right, just as freedom of speech can be restricted in such manner as to criminalize yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater, it is not the words, per se, that are being restricted, but the endangerment of the public that is being restricted.
Likewise, the possession of firearms is restricted when it comes to endangerment. While mere possession does not constitute endangerment, the pointing of a firearm at an innocent party is restricted under penalty of law without violating Constitutional principles.
One thing is apparent from this thread so far: The Second Amendment is the only real “hot button” in the BoR. Some other parts, such as the Third Amendment, might seem quaint and archaic and useless, but they are also mostly inactive and obviously harmless, and nobody seems to have any strong interest in repealing them.
No surprises there, I guess.
Somebody answer me this: Does anyone know of an active movement to repeal the Second Amendment? In my experience, gun-control activists focus on how the amendment should be interpreted. The idea of repealing it seems to be an untouchable third rail.
You seem to be okay with the idea of having a natural right to life and liberty - prove to me that you have them. The right to self defense is a natural extension to the right to life - and the right to arms is a natural extension of the right to self defense.
**
What makes you so sure? The right of self defense is very fundamental - it’s not an abstract legal construct.
That contradicts the wording and spirit of the amendments. Lengths were taken to make sure that the Constitution wasn’t phrased to as to say it granted rights to anyone - but merely recognized already existing rights. And every quote from any founding father I’d read supports that idea.
Guns have a purpose beyond murder, which I assume to mean an unjustified killing. They give parity to the weak against the strong. An old lady has no chance of physically taking on a larger, younger man - and a gun provides a means for self defense. Surely that’s a productive non-murder purpose.
**
True enough, but you say that as if it were a bad thing. As if every case in which one could threaten or use physical force is automatically negative. Self defense is justified, and is a practical purpose. You say guns have no practical purpose but to shoot someone as if it you meant guns have no practical purpose but to have (wrongfully and criminally) shoot people.
**
Yes, the first amendment can’t be used to justify yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater the same way the second amendment can’t be used to justify murder.
“Arms” as used in common parlance then and somewhat today refer to individual weapons with discrete, individual targets. In those days “cannons” were not considered arms, but rather ordnance. As such, modern ordnance would have the same treatment.
After an hour or sor os googling I was unable to locate more than a few Op Ed pieces calling for the repeal of the second amendment. Most of the gun control lobbies seem pretty sure that the it does not grant an individual right to bear arms. And they procede to propose various control schemes.
They seem to have a few court decisions on their side. Although it is interesting that second amendment cases are somewhat rare in the supreme court. Ironically, this is held as validation by both sides of the debate.
Rights do not exist. All hail the holy state!
Rights only “exist” when the all-holy state grants them to the miserable and useless worms known as “the people”. All hail the holy state!
And why do you think that is? Surely it wouldn’t be that the majority of Americans approve of the right to keep and bear arms?
Know why the connotation of “liberal” has become so reviled?
While piously expressing lofty platitudes for “the will of the people”, adherents of the liberal orthodoxy find that they must circumvent the ballot box, which they sanctimoniously claim to revere, to impose their vision of a collectivist utopia on the majority of Americans that still embrace the traditional American values of individual freedom and liberty.
To accomplish their aims, they conspire to bring their issues in front of a judiciary that has been infected with their ideological kindred.
Well, that at least does not apply to me. I’m a lawyer, but I’m always for solving political questions at the ballot box, not in the courtroom. That’s why I post so many threads about proportional representation, instant-runoff voting, ballot fusion and other electoral reforms – to make the ballot-box route more effective. (For right-wingers as well as left-wingers, inevitably.) I think American liberals have relied too much on the courts because the Warren Court in the 50’s, which decided so many groundbreaking civil rights cases, established a tradition. If you’re confident the Supreme Court will always decide your way, what’s the point of getting out on the streets and organizing? But I think this attitude is slowly fading, and has been slowly fading ever since the Reagan appointments.
The subject of this thread, of course, is amending (rather than reinterpreting) the Constitution, and that can only be done through the political process, not the courts.
“Traditional American values of individual freedom and liberty,” eh? I had no idea that individual freedoms had suddenly become important to conservatives.
We wouldn’t dream, of course, of suggesting, say, that homosexuals should be allowed to exercise their freedom and liberty by engaging in consensual intercourse. Not us liberals.
And let us not forget, of course, that its always been us evil liberals trying to bend clear separation of church and state into accordance with narrow religious viewpoints. We love that Judeo-Christian stuff- to hell with you poor benighted heathens!
The point of gun control isn’t to take away your right to shoot me; its to defend my right not to be shot. Considering your gun is more likely to be used on someone you like than on someone who’s robbing/raping/murdering you, its just freaking common sense.
Do a search for “gun control” in the GD forum please. That stupid misconception is brought on by a widely publicized but totally dishonest study, and if anyone brings it up it’s a good sign that they’re not educated on the issue at all.
Here’s the way it works. If it gets to the point that I have a right to shoot you, then you are comporting yourself in such manner as to deserve being shot. In which case, you forfeit your right to not be shot.
I was expecting a little more intelligence than this even from you, Dogface. Silly me. I should have learned by now.
After reviewing the posts above, one glaring omission stands out: Except for the extremely unlikely event of a coup d’etat and armed popular resistance to same (in which event the whole U.S. Constitution is almost certain to go out the window in the end no matter what happens), nobody on this thread has yet demonstrated how an armed citizenry can have any real political value. Nobody has shown how, in an ordinary period of stable civil government, owning guns can do anything to protect the rights of private citizens from unjust encroachment by the state. Nobody has even suggested circumstances in which shooting back at the police or the National Guard might be wise or justified. Nor has anyone shown how private ownership of guns can do anything to protect America from its enemies. Red Dawn, my rosy ass! The Soviets weren’t scared of a few militiamen in Idaho or a few suburbanites with automatic pistols, and neither is al-Qaeda!
I’m not at all sure what you mean by “stable civil government” which also “unjust[ly] encroaches [on the rights of private citzens]”.
But we have. In the event you cited (coup d’etat) if the army, national guard, or even parts of them sided with the provisional government we might have to shoot at them to defend the constitution.
And really, I don’t think the founders meant that the people would use arms to defend the constitution. Rather I think they meant that the people should have the right to defend all of the rights which the constitution does not grant, but was enacted to protect. Even (and especially) in the event that the constitution somehow began to be used to subvert those rights.
For instance. Imagine that somehow (via bribery, hucksterism, brainwashing, hypnotism, whatever) you and I were able to repeal all 10 of the bill of rights (and severl others for good measure). Then we influenced congress to pass draconian laws regulating what can be said and written, where and when people could meet, revoking right to jury trials, etc. Further imagine that most of the army stayed loyal to the federal government. Are you suggesting that simiply because the rights are being trampled legally that they don’t exist anymore? Or are you simply saying that we should not have a right to defend those rights?
Or even easier, imagine a cabal involving 2/3rds of congress and a majority in 3/4ths of the state legislatures (not likely sure, but it would not violate any laws of physics). They could theroetically put through any ammendments they wanted. They could essentially rewrite the constitution (except for equal sufferage in the Senate for the states apparently).
Personally. I think the constitution works pretty well. I happen to agree with the process more than most people I know (I think that the electoral college is still a good idea). But I am not convinced that it is perfect. Neither am I convinced that it will protect all of my rights and the rights of all my posterity forever under all circumstances. And if the day ever comes when it fails us, what else will we have except our weapons to protect these rights.
Or, perhaps, are you simply saying that the possibility that we would need to do individually defend our rights is so remote that it does not justify heavily arming our population? I thinlk, perhaps, this is what you believe. (I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so if I am wrong about this tell me so and feel free to ignore the rest of this post)
If this last possibility is true, I think it may indicate that your original suggestion to repeal the 2nd ammendment really is a way to achieve gun control. At least I think it was you that said removing the second would not necessarily imply a regimen of gun control.
And that is another debate all together. I believe that individuals have a right to be armed. I’m not sure how far this right extends. I’m not at all sure that we should have a righ to own ICBMs in our backyards. <Although, I’d really love to have a bunker back there. Have you been down in one? They are very cool! :)>
No. But the 2 guys that were beating me silly with that tire iron were afraid of the pistol I produced. I didn’t even have to point in at anyone. At that very point there was nothing else I could have used or done to protect myself.
I’m not talking about Kellermann and Reay. Did I use the “43 times” figure? No. Did I mention the study? No. I’m well aware that their study was horribly flawed.
The fact remains, however, that unless you live in, say, Detroit, the chance that you will ever need to pull a gun in self-defense is tiny. However, the chance that one of your kids will find your gun, if not properly stored (and 43% of gun owners keep at least one gun loaded and unlocked) is significant. The chance you’ll murder your wife when you catch her screwing the pool boy is a lot higher if there’s a gun in your glovebox.
Firearms kill more adolescents than anything except auto accidents. Personally, I think letting 16 year olds drive is insane, but that’s another topic.
No, I am saying there is no way we could defend those rights with guns, even if we all had guns. If the Army were loyal to the government under these circumstances, popular armed resistance would be much, much worse than pointless. Militiamen can’t fight the Army. Get over it. If you must resist, do it Gandhi-style.
Yes, that too.
No, not to achieve gun control, merely to open the door to it. Open it a little wider, that is. We already have gun control – try to buy a fully-automatic assault rifle and see how many hoops you have to jump through – but rational discussion of the issue is made much more difficult by the existence of the Second Amendment. Repealing it would make it clear that gun control is and should be just one more political issue, not a civil-rights issue. I’m not entirely convinced, actually, that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons to defend their homes, etc., against criminals. I just think people owning guns causes more problems than it prevents, for reasons I discussed above. But this whole thing properly belongs in the arena of ordinary politics.
I started a GD thread a while back: “What was the message of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine”?” (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=216568) When I saw the movie, I was expecting Moore to make a case for gun control, but he didn’t. In fact, he emphasized the point that Canada is a heavily armed country, with about 10 million privately owned firearms for 25 million people, and yet their annual homicide rate is insignificant compared with ours. Just as every other industrialized nation’s homicide rate is insignificant compared with ours. Guns might be a problem, but they’re not the whole problem, not close to it. I think the real difference is cultural. Americans are just more accepting than other peoples of the use of personal violence. If we’re going to become a really civilized and healthy society, we need to get as far away from that as possible. Repealing the Second Amendment would be a good first step even if it does not actually lead to any guns being confiscated.
I have no problem with the police coming and shooting a criminal.
What you all seem to have missed- well, the “guns are good” people, rather than the “being armed is a natural right” people- is that gun controls don’t exist to take away your guns, as much as to take away EVERYBODY’s guns.
If you disarm the criminals, you need not arm the people. However, gun owners, like everyone else, may dispose of their property as they see fit. If that means selling a 12-gauge to that shifty looking guy that’s always hanging around the convenience store, then so be it. If any retard can walk into a gun show and walk out with his own personal arsenal, obviously every now and then a criminal is going to get his hands on a pistol.