The Bill of Rights - which would eliminate?

[pervert]

Brain and Dutchboy, Ireally don’t want to get into a gun control debate. I am more interested in the principles of rights that started this thread. However, let me give you a couple thoughts and you can reply.

I don’t see at all how the second amendment is interfering with gun control. As you mentioned, Brain, We have all sorts of restrictions on which guns we can buy. Where we can buy them, who we can buy them from, and what we have to do just to purchase them. Contrary to myth, dutchboy, not “any retard can walk into a gun show and walk out with his own personal arsenal”.

Meanwhile, I don’t see how the second ammendment is interfering with “rational discussion of the issue”. Interfering with your proposed solutions to the problem perhaps. But much discourse takes place quite rationally on this issue.

Certainly there are loopholes. And technology continues to evolve. so we constantly need new laws to cover new loop holes. But the only honest solution I can see is to make it more difficult for criminals to buy hand guns and perhaps easier to catch those who do. Taking guns from otherwise law abiding citezins will not accomplish your desires for a safer society.

Here is some useful information.
This site has a plethora of statistics and links to studies concerning gun ownership.

In particular this set of numbers seems to indicate that gun availability has little to do with crime rates.

And this is a comparison of international homocide rates. Gun and non gun related. Be sure to note the percentage of households with guns. Especially in Norway, Switzerland, and Canada.

And, this seems to be a more reasoned discusion of the implications of comparing US homicide statistics with other nations.

Lastly, this seems to contain some interesting options for reducing gun violence.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by BrainGlutton *
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.

So what? Let’s grant your position on the effectiveness of militia for a minute (history would dispute it, but just for the sake of argument let me grant to you that the militia will never ever ever be able to revolt successfully).

The effectiveness of a right for any particular purpose does not void that right. IOW Just because you don’t think I can defend myself does not give you the power or right to prevent me from doing so.

If you would prefer to “do it Ghandi-style*” that’s fine. I certainly would not want to prevent you. Why must you insist on interfering with my rights (or try to rationalize those rights away)?

For instance, if I want to go down fighting because I would rather die free than live as a slave by what twist of logic do you say I should not be able to?

If we’re going to become a really civilized and healthy society, we need to get as far away from that[personal violence] 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’m sorry, I simply don’t understand this at all. What about the second ammendment promotes personal violence? I don’t think Ed Meece had much of a point at all when he tried to link pornography with criminal behavior. But at least he had a mechanism in mind. The link between the second amendment and violence escapes my ability to pervert ideas.

*I will let the video I have running in my perveted head based on this phrase stay there.

Boy Can that guy DANCE!

And talk about a LOOOOOOOOOVER!

[Aminal]

Well, I for one think they are all important, we should keep them all, they were put there for a reason. I take particular issue with the abolition of the Second Amendment.

If you do not agree with it, fine don’t own any arms, why do some people feel need to restrict my right to keep them?

Outlaw guns all you want, it won’t stop crime or keep people from killing each other, if somone is incensed enough, they will probably find a way. A law abiding citizen should be able to protect himself, his property and his loved ones if neccesary.

If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or mine, am I just supposed to reason with them until the cops get there? I sincerely hope that it never ever even comes close to that situation.

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by dutchboy208 *
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.

CITE?

I was assualted by 2 thugs with a tire iron in Muskego, Wisconsin, a small middle class/upper middle class city.
Self defense tactics didn’t work, tear gas spray didn’t work (we didn’t have pepper spray back then). This was a good old fashioned mugging. The only thing that kept my skull from being completely smashed in was pulling a gun.
Your boo-hoo stories about kids is absurd. I’m not surrendering my rights because someone else is irresponsible.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by dutchboy208 *
**Razor, you’re doing a lot better than any other pro-gun type I’ve seen try and argue this case. At least, you were, except for the two lines above.

Granny’s butcher knife is for cutting steaks. The fact that it can be used to chop up a person is irrelevant, because it has a practical, non-violent purpose beyond murder. In any case, I’d much rather be confronted by someone with a butcher knife than a gun. The chances that I can outrun a knife-wielder are clearly better than the chances that I can outrun a bullet.

Again, the automobile, while dangerous, has a practical purpose beyond running people over. You can get around in a car; you can’t ride a gun. The handgun has no practical purpose beyond being pointed at someone and/or fired.
**

And guns are not designed for murder. Your points are completely false.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by BrainGlutton *
** 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.

**

I’m confused by your usage of “in an ordinary period of stable civil government” - you seem to be saying don’t need to protect yourself from a benevolent government!’, but perhaps I’m misreading you.

In any case, we’re not talking about a benevolent government. We’re talking about a government with the propensity to violate rights. And at least on the small scale, disregarding any guerrila rebellion aspect, having a highly armed populace makes it a lot harder to have a government have some people… dissapear.

Use the warsaw ghetto uprising as an example. The presence of arms can make taking people quietly in the night so much more logistically difficult.

Not that I think the US government is in the business of doing that - but governments are responsible for the greatest evils ever perpetrated upon mankind.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by dutchboy208 *
**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.

**

Pardon my assumption.

**

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.

**

You don’t quantify “tiny” or “significant”, so you can mean just about anything. You could call the very few incidents of fatal accidents involving guns and kids “tiny” (under 100 per year, generally, IIRC) and the likelihood of finding yourself the victim of violence “significant” (quite a lot more than 100 incidents of violence per year).

**

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.

**

I guess so.

**
Firearms kill more adolescents than anything except auto accidents. Personally, I think letting 16 year olds drive is insane, but that’s another topic. **

I know, they’re a menace. Guns getting up by themselves, walking over to kids, then shooting them.

Anyway, if you disclude gang-related and drug-related violence (often in these studies ‘adolescent’ extends to people in their early 20s), quite a bit of those numbers go away.

[SenorBeef]

This one is wrong in so many ways. Let’s see…

*Originally posted by dutchboy208 *
**Yes, I did say that, didn’t I?

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.

**

Oh, right. Forgot about that. I keep forgetting that once a law is written banning guns, then they cease to physically exist and dissapear spontaneously.

First, there’s a huge amount of guns out there. Second, it’s a trivial task to smuggle contraban into the US. We throw billions upon billions at stopping drugs, and you can find them at every street corner in every major city. Guns would be no different.

There are enough guns around to always arm criminals. Criminals don’t obey laws not to have guns. Hence, it’s very likely that gun bans aren’t going to eliminate criminal ownership of guns.

The only people it effectively disarms are the people who aren’t the threat anyway, those who obey the laws.

**
If you disarm the criminals, you need not arm the people.

**

Right, because if guns were outlawed there would be no violent crime. No one would need to protect themselves with a gun, because if criminals don’t have guns, they don’t commit crimes! Large, strong men with the iniative wouldn’t rape a smaller, defenseless woman, because… well… if guns were outlawed… uh… she wouldn’t need a gun.

Disarming criminals, even if it were practical, doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone is safe from violent attack. In some ways, it encourages violent attack - the criminal has initiative, and usually strength and size. It’s not if a criminal will stop mugging old ladies because he doesn’t have a gun - he may even feel safer in doing so.

So your assertion that disarming the criminals will lead apparently to safety from violent attack is just silly.

**

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. **

Not sure what you’re responding to here.

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**This one is wrong in so many ways. Let’s see…
Disarming criminals, even if it were practical, doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone is safe from violent attack.
So your assertion that disarming the criminals will lead apparently to safety from violent attack is just silly.
**

Listen up:

*I am a large man.
*I am a cop.
*I have been a police officer, either full time, or part-time, over the last 20+ years.
*I’m a pretty big guy
*I have always been able to defend myself. My Daddy taught me well, after that Uncle, after that the police academy.
*I have been an assistant Defensive Tactics Intructor (teaching other cops how to fight) for 12+ years.
*I know how to fight. WOE unto you if you doubt this.
*You DO NOT want to get into an unarmed fight with me!
*When the situation comes up, I fight HARD!!!

One day 2 guys tried to mug me. I fought like you would not f**king believe. I broke one of my assailants nose, and punctured his esophagus. I sprayed them with Mace brand tear gas spray (CS or CN, I don’t remember which). As I fought I screamed “Stop! I’m a Police officer! Stop! You will go to jail”

Not good enough!
They pounded me in the head and the neck with an average, everyday tire iron. These guys pounded the living shit out of me!
It took almost a month to recover!
At that time I rarely carried a gun off duty. It was a fluke that I had it!
I almost piss myself when I think about what would have happen to me had I not pulled that gun! In 20 years of working in one form of law enforcement or another, it was OFF duty that I absolutely needed a gun!!!

It’s hard to admit that I got my ass kicked, but this is a true story!
SCREW gun control! My philosophy is, “anyone who opposes guns has never really needed one”. I’ve never met anyone who ever used a gun to save their precious life and yet support gun control.

[SenorBeef]

Er… I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me.

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**Er… I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me. **

No, I’m backing up what you’re saying.

My point is, if a guy like me can get badly beaten, what chance does a smaller guy, or a woman have? The 2 that assaulted me didn’t have guns, so gun control/bans, even if they worked, would not have prevented what happened. Only that pistol I had stopped what was happening.

[kniz]

It is fairly obvious that the second amendment causes the most emotion. I even suspect that some of the talk about the other amendments is nothing more than smoke covering the discussion of the second amendment.

Most if not all my neighbors have guns with which they go hunting which I do not object to at all. However, those of you that say you need a gun for protection, must realize that I am just as afraid of your possession of a gun as I am of the thief. Those that say you want a gun for protection from the government, just plain scare the shit out of me. :eek:

So I vote for the second amendment to be illiminated or clarified. In addition, I believe that all of the amendments should be reviewed and rewritten as necessary. That includes the first amendment which I absolutely support.

[Aminal]

*Originally posted by kniz *
Most if not all my neighbors have guns with which they go hunting which I do not object to at all. However, those of you that say you need a gun for protection, must realize that I am just as afraid of your possession of a gun as I am of the thief. Those that say you want a gun for protection from the government, just plain scare the shit out of me. :eek:

**

Hi Kniz, how exactly does someone owning a gun for their own self protection scare you?

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by kniz *
So I vote for the second amendment to be illiminated or clarified.

“illiminated”?
If you mean “illimitable”, then I agree!
How about re-writing it to read like our State Constitution:
Wisconsin State Constitution
Article I, Section 25
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,
defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Clearly written and stated. Owning arms is an individual right!

[pervert]

Originally posted by kniz *
** However, those of you that say you need a gun for protection, must realize that I am just as afraid of your possession of a gun as I am of the thief. Those that say you want a gun for protection from the government, just plain scare the shit out of me. :eek:*

I’m sorry, Animal asked more politely, so feel free to answer him if you prefer. But I have to say this is irrational. What possible reason could you have to be “just as afraid” of law abiding citizens? Just because they own guns? If the need to fight tyranny is so unlikely as others have argued here, How can a fear of that be anything like a fear of robbery which happens many times every day?

Please forgive my anoyance. I usually don’t like to post this way. But I think fear of something like this has to be irrational.

[BrainGlutton]

I notice it has not occured to anybody on this thread so far to question how important the Bill of Rights really is in protecting the rights and liberties it enumerates. As Daniel Lazare pointed out in The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1996), pp. 216-217, in the United Kingdom, there is no written Constitution and no suprapolitical Bill of Rights. Parliament can do anything. Nothing is really “unconstitutional” if Parliament decides it should be done. Yet, looking back on the 20th Century, the UK has a much better civil-liberties record than the U.S.:

Ever since Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power in the late seventies, British liberals have been bemoaning the damage done to civil liberties due to the ever growing concentration of power in the hands of the most right-wing government of the twentieth century. The complaints are quite valid, yet, from an American perspective, need to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as crime in the most economically depressed neighborhood in Glasgow or Liverpool does not compare to crime in Detroit or the South Bronx, civil liberties violations, even during the darkest days of Thatcherism, simply do not compare with what Americans have gotten used to on almost a daily basis. British civil libertarians were up in arms over the strong-arm tactics that Thatcher used to impede mass picketing in the 1984-85 coal miners’ strike. But such methods were in a different league from the Pinochet-like mass firings and arrests that the Reagan administration used to crush the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981. Prosecutions of journalists for violations of Britain’s Official Secrets Act are an international scandal, yet they hardly compare to the American treatment of dissidents of one stripe or another, from Mark Hampton, the Black Panther who died in a fusillade of police gunfire in Chicago in 1969, to the Branch Davidians, eighty-one of whom needlessly perished in a federal assault in 1993.

Over the longue duree of the twentieth century, moreover, the discrepancy is even more striking. Despite the absence of a Bill of Rights and judicial review, the British somehow found it within themselves not to throw thousands of radicals in jail immediately after World War I; not to make hundreds of thousands of arrests as part of an absurd crusade against alcohol; not to hound thousands of accused Communists out of jobs and into jail in the forties and fifties; and not to arrest millions more people as part of a neo-Prohibitionist war on drugs. The United States did all these things and more despite being blessed with the more glorious Constitution and Bill of Rights since the dawn of creation. . . .

Where the United States spent much of the twentieth century careening between “hysteria, repression and remorse,” as Arthurh Schlesinger Jr. once put it, British officials somehow kept an even keel. Political debate in Britain is livelier than in the States, the range of political opinion is broader, yet violence does not seem to be forever bubbling up from below. Britain and America share a common history, yet something about their makeup, their constitution, causes them to function according to very different principles.

[BrainGlutton]

FYI, the Man With the Golden Gun has just started a variant thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=221249): If we had to jettison all BoR amendments BUT one, which would you keep? I vote for the First.