Time to kick out the second amendment

I just watched the second part of Michael Moore’s trilogy, ‘Bowling for Columbine’. This one actually made me laugh out loud once or twice, so I must be developing my satirical edge. Kudos to Mike.

Anyway, as usual, Michael did loads of stunts (propping the photo of the 6 year old girl who got killed by her classmate in Flint against one of Chuck Heston’s pillars was my favourite). And he actually got KayMart to stop selling 9mm bullets (though it seems you can still pick up a gun from your local bank).

But Mike failed to address the main question, although he raised it often enough. Why not kick out the second amendment that gives him and his countrymen and countrywomen the right to possess guns? After all, as Chuck pointed out to Mike, it was stupid white men (okay, Chuck used the word ‘wise’, but we know what Mike thinks of these guys) who made the decision, so it must be a stoopid idea. And Mike himself tells us that during only 2% of break-ins do guns actually shoot the bad guy. The rest of the time, the shooter shoots his/her loved ones (or themselves).

So, a plea to Mike. Join with me in making the world a safer place by kicking out the second amendment.

Surely the whole section of the film in Canada answers your question? It’s not just free access to guns that he was criticising - it’s that combined with a culture of fear and of alienation.


Which of his [url=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/]dozen or so film projects
are you saying make up a trilogy?

And why do you hate America?

fixed link

News to me, as I have 150 rounds of 9mm FMJ upstairs purchased from K-Mart just recently. As well as 50 of .44 Mag too…and I’m unaware of any “bank” selling guns, except for the “Weatherby rifle account” ones the NRA used to advertise in the Rifleman (I’ll see if anyone gets the reference).

As to the rant portion of your post, I need not address it positively or negatively, as it would serve no useful purpose. Just wanted to post some facts.

Why not “kick out” that pesky First Amendment while we’re at it? Surely the Founding Fathers could not have forseen the negative effects on society of electronic mass media like television and the Internet.

Just wait a few weeks until the “Ugly Guns” ban sunsets, because God knows that for the last ten years I’ve been dying to wield my non-flash suppressed “assault rifle” with its high capacity magazine and kill a whole bunch of people via bayonet charge. It’s taken me ten years, but now I get my chance. As a gun owner I am practically drooling with bloodlust in anticipation, the opportunity to compensate for both my cowardice and my small penis. Did I hit all the high points? :rolleyes:

For those of you that didn’t notice the rolleyes, I will state explicitly that the above was sarcasm, even though some of you sincerely think that that is the actual attitude of gun owners. I figured I’d get it out of the way quickly, because as this is the standard, boilerplate, right on time because we haven’t done this in a few days anti-gun thread, the stereotypes were bound to come out eventually.

Good luck getting that repeal on the 2nd Amendment, by the way. It’ll never happen, but everyone has to have dreams, I guess.

The most compelling part of the Canadian segment was the girl interviewee who, when asked why Americans kill each other, said that they liked fighting one another. Out of the mouth of babes…

Let’s make the world a quieter place and nuke Hong Kong. :rolleyes:

Doesn’t matter if they do, because the necessary equipment to make your own gun can be found in any machine shop. The second amendment gets repealed and you’ll suddenly see a large influx of folks taking shop classes and chemistry classes (gotta know how to make the powder, doncha know). A dedicated machinist with a set of these plans (and somehow, I doubt that they’ll be able to ban the publication of weapons plans) can build himself a nice weapon in a short period of time. And since it’s already illegal to own the thing, why not go ahead and replace the crank with an electric motor, so you don’t have to tire yourself out as you mow down hordes of folks?

I dislike guns as much as anyone, but I would oppose any attempt to kick out the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights are about as sacrosanct as it gets in this country, and messing with them sets a bad precedent. I would keep the Second Amendment because I don’t want anyone messing with the First Amendment.

Anyone else hear the Simpsons’ “Amendment to Be” song in their heads?

“There’s a lot of flag burners
who’ve got too much freedom.
I wanna make it legal
for policement to beat 'em.
There are limits to our liberty,
least I hope and pray that there are
'cause those liberal freaks go too far.”

Who is going to do this “kicking out of the 2nd amendment”? Do you have any idea how hard it is to repeal an amendment? Do you have any idea how many gun owners there are in this country? Do you realize how powerful the NRA is as a lobbying group? Do you realize that it would be instant political death to politicians that even brings the topic up? Nobody wants to go there. It can never happen.

But those pesky Cantonese breed like rabbits, you know.

I know it was “Mike” who said this so I’m not really asking you for a cite, but I’d really like to see some credible evidence that this is the case. If it is as you describe, Moore is saying that for every 100 break-ins, 2 intruders are shot and 98 residents are shot! I don’t believe that for a second, if for no other reason than that someone doesn’t get shot every time there’s a break-in. My guess would be that the vast majority of the time the intruder either flees with no one getting shot or he makes off with the goods while the residents remain asleep. Also I would think there would be a fair number of times where someone either shoots to scare the bad guy off, or shoots and misses, and there would be other times when the intruder shoots and misses.

My guess is that this is just more of what Moore has become known for: i.e., playing fast and loose with the truth and manipulating the facts to his own ends. He has developed such a reputation for this that he had to go so far as to hire a team of lawyers to verify and be able to prove the things he says (but not what he implies, obviously) in Farenheit 9/11 are factually correct.

Like they say, figures don’t lie but liars figure.

Well, I don’t think we need a cite for this because it is idiotic. Let me get this straight, a intruder breaks into your house. You have a gun. You obviously open fire when anyone comes in because that is what the quote says. However, every time that you open fire you only have a 1 in 50 chance of actually hitting the intruder. All of the other times you either shoot yourself, your dog, your mother-in-law, or your daughter.

With statistics like that, I can see why you feel compelled to do something.

I have a hard time believing you actually paid much attention to the movie. I was really impressed with Columbine because Moore clearly went in with the intentions of making the anti-gun movie that you thought you watched, but he discovered along the way that the facts didn’t bear out that belief.

Sure, he pokes fun at gun culture, and he points out that it’s illogical to own guns because you’re more likely to hurt yourself than protect yourself, but his eventual conclusion is that guns aren’t the problem.

My prediction is that some time within 20-30 years a case will be brought in front of a Supreme Court packed with judges opposed to the concept of individual firearms ownership, who will unambiguously and in detail rule, in opposition (IMO) to the wealth of historical data and writings of the FF, to declare that no individual right whatsoever exists, or ever did, or was ever intended to exist, to own or possess any “arms”. At that point it becomes a waiting game to see when the Federal government decides to ban what and in which way. This is followed by a gradual erosion which takes about 50-100 years, where we end up in the same state as the UK w.r.t. firearms.

By a few generations from now schoolchildren will giggle nervously at the absurd thought that anyone could ever have had any “right” to possess a weapon to defend themselves, shoot for “sport”, or even kill an actual animal - “hunting”, I think it was called?

Okay, I admit it, you caught me in a Mikeism. By skilful editing, deliberate disregard for context, and a cavalier approach to statistics, I’ve attempted to manipulate the truth. Here’s the full (well, fullish, can’t quote the whole darned book, else I’ll be sued by Mike’s legal eagles) quotation from his Magnum opus, Stupid White Men:

"The idea that having a gun is the only way to ensure “home protection” is a myth. Fewer than 1 out of 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home. Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves-or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

Nonetheless, we have almost a *quarter-billion * guns in our homes.’ (Mikey’s italics)

So what are we going to do about it, Mike? Aim for half a billion? A round billion?

Clearly? Did he? How do you know?The guy’s a member of the NRA. Actions and words and all that. Seems like a phoney to me.

What, the homeowner never just misses, hitting no one?