Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, I know I'm asking to be shot down in flames here by my fellow dakkaites from the west side of the pond, but here goes.

The second ammendment to the US constitution states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OK, lets look at this from a number of angles.


The Historical View: At the time this was written, the US had recently been engaged in an armed conflict for independence. National armies were still a new concept and were viewed with fear and distrust even in those countries that had them. There was a genuine fear that any armed authority could restrict individual freedom by force.
The original concept, therefore, was that rather than a standing army, an armed citizen militia would be used where necessary in defense of the nation.
With changing conditions over the last two centuries, the concept of the citizen militia has been abandoned as the primary means of security and defence. Government regulated armed forces, reserve forces and even police forces of all forms are now not only the principle, but indeed the only recognised security authority.

It could be argued therefore that the second ammendments provision for armed citizens is now redundant because there is no 'well regulated militia' for them to serve.


The Grammatical View: That part of the ammendment which states '...the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' is NOT a seperate sentance. A strict interpretation of the grammatical sense of the sentance as a whole would clearly permit a right to bear arms ONLY in the context of it being part of the '...well regulated militia...'.

It could be argued therfore that any legitimacy of the second ammenment applies ony to those engaged in the security of the state (thus allowing unfettered access to arms for anyone in the armed forces or security forces).


The Social View: When in the past social conditions have given rise to such a need, the US constitution has been ammended in the interests of public safety (prohibition in this case).
The US has approximately 17,000 gun-related homicides per year from a population of 300million. By comparison, the UK has 50 gun-related homicides per year from a population of 60million.
This is a rate per head of population nearly 70 times higher than the UK. Given the similarities in British and American culture, I find it hard to believe that Americans are 70 times more likely to be homicidal.

It could be argued therefore that a repeal of the second ammendment is in the express interest of the security, economy and social stability of the United States.

LAST SECTION EDITED BY MODQUISITION TO AVOID FLAMEWAR AND OPENED

A counterpoint (and intending to keep this one civil)

1. The Second Amendment is an absolute right. Destroying the Second Amendment destroys our freedoms as much as destroying the First or the Fourth.

2. US citizens have an absolute right to hold themselves inviolate against the depredations of the lesser elements of the society, and the lesser elements of other societies that are in the country. They have a right to protect themselves from tyrannic government as well, and was noted so by several of the founders of this Republic.

3. Self defense. Weapons are shown but not used in a substantial amount in this country to deter crime, which is not reported by the pro control side. FBI stats had something on the order of a million + instances in the last several years where criminals were warned off by people with firearms. The FBI is also noting the legal use of self defense is rising in the last few years in the US (justifiable homicide). Australia was noted as a case study where, when strict gun control was enforced, violent crimes and robberies jumped dramatically. I note areas with high control are also areas that have high crime, that has risen (Washington DC/Chicago as examples).

4. There are already restrictions on the right to own a gun. Criminals, mental defectives, etc. are already prohibited. There are currently background checks in place. Types of firearms permitted by civilians are also limited. Yet these laws do not stop criminals from using firearms. If we can’t stop 20MM illegal immigrants and drugs getting into the country, stopping firearms is not going to happen.

Now what will happen is other posters will throw up a variety of links to various statistics. The pro Second Amendment crowd can do so as well-the game of statistics is well played in this arena. But in the final analysis, the Second Amendment is a guaranteed right, fought and died for, the same as the other rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights. The right of self defense is a basic right of all humans. My right to protect myself, my family, even unrelated victims of a crime occurring is inviolate and an ingrained US tradition. This Amendment ensures that.

This


+ this


Insures we are safe from this:

In my view there are already so many weapons in the USA (a couple of hundred million, I believe) that there is no way they can be got rid of without a sea change in the attitude of the society towards the use of weapons.

Frazzled gives the example of Australia as a society in which the banning of guns was followed by an increase in crime. I do not know if that is the case, and even so, the two events may not be causally related.

However, I give the example of Switzerland as a country where the entire male adult population is armed to the teeth with modern military weapons, and violent crime is practically unknown.

This shows that the possession of weapons is not the determining factor in crime rates. It is something more complex to do with social attitudes and probably the distribution of wealth in society and so on.

I'm intrigued by the use of the word 'absolute' in your first point. You rightly state in your fourth point that restrictions are in place against certain weapons and ownership by certain groups in society.

Is this not contradictory? If a right is absolute then surely it should apply equally in all cases?

Your second point is also well taken, however, citizens of other nations are also allowed to hold themselves inviolate. 'Reasonable force' can be used by any citizen of the UK to protect themselves (or for that matter anyone else) or their property, up to and including killing the attacker should a court decide that this was a justified action. I believe the same applies in the US.

The fact that we are not allowed to carry firearms does not make this right disappear (although I admit it gives one less option to enforce it).

Finally, on the subject of self defense - obviously in the UK, we can't use guns for self defense! so I can't speak to that point specifically, but there has been a rapid rise of knife crime recently and studies have shown that those who carry knives for self defense are in fact more likely to be victims of stabbing (as their own weapons are used on them by their attackers).


P.S. - the intent of the question was genuinely not to start a flamewar. I am intigued by the topic and am genuinely curious to hear the arguments on the other side.

I'm generally steering clear CC and watching to insure flamewars do not start on this post (also steering clear to make sure I'm not the one starting the flamewar).

I will say I can understand others' opinions in this area, and that reasonable people can disagree rationally on the topic.

No probs Frazzled - I do understand this is a sensitive topic and am grateful for both your initial contribution and your fairness and impartiality as moderator.

Regards,

C_C

On the one side, the second ammendment was written back when it took about twenty seconds for a trained soldier to reload a firearm, and so they could not have predicted in their worst nightmares a bunch of amoral alcohol-fueled gansters spraying bullets from tech-9's and Kalashnikovs at innocent bystanders just to amuse themselves.
On the other side, it's too late to have any sort of gun control, there are too many guns out there. (I don't know the numbers, but I think there are now as many AK's of the various types together in the world as there are people.)
It might reduce the crime in the U.S. if the government wasn't in the back pocket of the corporations, whose policy it seems to be to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I'm not following warpcrafter your last statement. Lets assume you're right on the US government/corp thing. Please clarify you sick warp spawned puppy
(that is a disconcerting avatar).

I'm a gun owner, and I don't want to see the right taken away. However, I don't think the 2nd should protect all or even most categories of firearms. I'm not clear why citizens need concealable weapons (i.e. pistols), for instance.

Although it may appear the US is very polarized over this issue, there are many gun owners (primarily hunters like myself) who aren't NRA members and simply see no reason for some of the types of weapons (such as the so-called "assault" variety) that the NRA tries to keep legal. There are shades of grey here.

@Calvin: Here's the thing about carrying a knife -- if you have any street sense, you don't pull it out unless your life is truly endangered. Otherwise, it'll just cause escalation (how do you know what the other guy(s) is carrying?) or generally pi$$ them off. A knife doesn't make you all that dangerous.

Frazzled wrote:I'm not following warpcrafter your last statement. Lets assume you're right on the US government/corp thing. Please clarify you sick warp spawned puppy
(that is a disconcerting avatar).

Thanks to lobbyists throwing money at members of the house and senate, most of them have become puppets of whomsoever has the funds to influence their voting. Be it the oil industry, the pharmacuticals industry or any other, they have replaced values and integrity with cold hard cash. For example, the recent bank bailout bill didn't pass until it was laden with tens of millions of dollars of wasted money allocated to pet projects, stuff the only benefits the corporate interests that prompted their inclusion in the first place.
Also, it's way too late to take our guns, and no amount of quoting statistics is going to make any difference. The gun industry has their lobbyists too.

warpcrafter wrote: The gun industry has their lobbyists too.

Not just the industry. There are several million gun owners insuring their rights are protected through the representative process as well.

warpcrafter wrote:The gun industry has their lobbyists too.

It is a little more complicated than that. Even if you took away the gun lobby it is not as if suddenly people would give up their firearms.

It should be pointed out that rights do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are protected. You are allowed to own a firearm not because the Constitution says you can, but rather because the Constitution says that the Government can not take that right away. Most of the Bill of Rights are a list of what the Government can not do, not what it can do. The right of free speech is inherent and the government is held at bay from trampling that by the First Amendment. There are of course limits as no limits at all would not be rule of law.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I'm intrigued by the use of the word 'absolute' in your first point. You rightly state in your fourth point that restrictions are in place against certain weapons and ownership by certain groups in society.

Is this not contradictory? If a right is absolute then surely it should apply equally in all cases?

Your second point is also well taken, however, citizens of other nations are also allowed to hold themselves inviolate. 'Reasonable force' can be used by any citizen of the UK to protect themselves (or for that matter anyone else) or their property, up to and including killing the attacker should a court decide that this was a justified action. I believe the same applies in the US.

The fact that we are not allowed to carry firearms does not make this right disappear (although I admit it gives one less option to enforce it).

Finally, on the subject of self defense - obviously in the UK, we can't use guns for self defense! so I can't speak to that point specifically, but there has been a rapid rise of knife crime recently and studies have shown that those who carry knives for self defense are in fact more likely to be victims of stabbing (as their own weapons are used on them by their attackers).


P.S. - the intent of the question was genuinely not to start a flamewar. I am intigued by the topic and am genuinely curious to hear the arguments on the other side.

The UK Crime stats actually show violent crime fairly steady however the number of teenage knife victims has gone up. The perception that crime is increasing is largely due to media coverage.

Frazzled wrote:
They have a right to protect themselves from tyrannic government as well, and was noted so by several of the founders of this Republic.

This bit makes me laugh. Anybody who thinks a few armed militiamen can do anything against a military armed with all flavors of laser-guided bombs is only fooling themselves.

Laws are written for their time.

Ther big problem with any form of Constitution is that thetre is a timeseal to it. Common law is superior. Here in the UK there is resistance to a European constitution yet some want a Uk constitution too.

It is a triumph of ignorance over understanding history. Constitutions are a bad thing long term. The nations that do best long term are those that grew up without one.

I disagree.

I am a great admirer of the US constitution. One of its good points is that it can be amended to suit the times.

Remember that the 2nd amendment is an amendment, and could be amended out by a properly constitutional popular vote. See the history of alcohol prohibition.

Orlanth wrote:Laws are written for their time.

Ther big problem with any form of Constitution is that thetre is a timeseal to it. Common law is superior. Here in the UK there is resistance to a European constitution yet some want a Uk constitution too.

It is a triumph of ignorance over understanding history. Constitutions are a bad thing long term. The nations that do best long term are those that grew up without one.

We have freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process. Do you have a guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process, religion? Any of these? Whats to keep the government from taking those away from you with a new law? EDIT: I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what protections do you have to keep a judge from changing his mind, or a new law being made. After all stare decisis only matters up to that court case, then everything can change.

Mind you, these amendments came about because the British government did not have them.

Many of these rights have been increasingly restricted thanks to recent anti-terror legislation.

Kilkrazy wrote:Many of these rights have been increasingly restricted thanks to recent anti-terror legislation.

It's not the first time and it won't be the last and like those times eventually it will cause a backlash that corrects it. It is the problem with governing in which people are involved. It took one Presidency in for the new Country to violate the Constitution (Alien and Sedition Acts) but eventually minority and womens suffrage still came about, equal rights, prohibition was overturned, ect.

Also note that the "assault weapon" classification is entirely subjective to whichever legislature you talk too. Calling something an "assault weapon" is more or less a quick and easy way to brand something as more dangerous than necessary simply for the purposes of legislating.

For example, in California, a normal, pump action shotgun is not illegal(for now at least). If you were to take THE SAME MODEL OF GUN, and add a pistol grip to the foregrip of said weapon, it is now considered an assault weapon(in California) and therefore illegal(In California). You have not changed the calibur of the gun, or the rate of fire of the weapon, or otherwise made the weapon functionally different, but because of legislative shenanigans, it is an assault weapons.

There is a disconcerting amount of emotional non-think regarding the issue, and this is one of the better examples.

Railguns wrote:There is a disconcerting amount of emotional non-think regarding the issue, and this is one of the better examples.

I agree that this kind of thing doesn't help; there is a lot of ridiculousness going on here. Generally I'm for the Second Amendment but I do believe there needs to be some limts, and they need to be common sense limits. To paraphrase the West Wing, it is a complicated issue with many viewpoints but I think we should all be able to get behind banning Grenade Launchers. It blows my mind that there are people that own chain cannons like the one from Predator. On the other hand they do look really cool firing at night with tracer rounds.

Well those people that own those things legally have proven that they are qualified to own it through military experience and background checks.( they are also usually very wealthy and have uncommon access to military grade weapons most everyone can't afford.) Thing is, most people aren't out to own grenade launchers. My dad and I are ardent supporters of the 2nd, but we absolutely refuse to take such things into our house because of how incredibly dangerous they are. You shouldn't have to put culturally accepted gradiations into a legal document because a)they change, 2) they unnecessarily draw the original idea behind the law into territories it wasn't meant to include, and C) if someone wants a grenade launcher for illicit purposes, the law isn't stopping them in the first place.

Ahtman wrote:

Railguns wrote:There is a disconcerting amount of emotional non-think regarding the issue, and this is one of the better examples.

I agree that this kind of thing doesn't help; there is a lot of ridiculousness going on here. Generally I'm for the Second Amendment but I do believe there needs to be some limts, and they need to be common sense limits. To paraphrase the West Wing, it is a complicated issue with many viewpoints but I think we should all be able to get behind banning Grenade Launchers. It blows my mind that there are people that own chain cannons like the one from Predator. On the other hand they do look really cool firing at night with tracer rounds.

You also have to remember Ahtman that those weapons are already illegal. You have to have a Class 3 license to get those, which is exceedingly difficult outside of law enforcement. Now grenadae launchers, well we pass those out to schoolkids here to keep the varmint population down. If you've ever seen a jackalope on the attack, you'd understand why.

It was a line from a TV show, as I said, but one I think is accurate.

That being said I know several people who actually have grenade launchers and launchers are advertised in trade magazines quite a bit so they aren't really that hard to get. He'll I've seen a quad mount to hook 4 M-60's up to for sale. What is the point of that? Put it at the top your stairs to defend the household?

Railguns wrote:Well those people that own those things legally have proven that they are qualified to own it through military experience and background checks.( they are also usually very wealthy and have uncommon access to military grade weapons most everyone can't afford.)

I would agree except for the people I have met don't fall into those categories often. Usually it is someone that just really really really likes guns to the point where it has become a fetish. It's also funny to see it pointed out that it is illegal except for the people who own them. I don't think anyone should have a personal Grenade Launcher, but that is just me.

Ahtman wrote:It was a line from a TV show, as I said, but one I think is accurate.

That being said I know several people who actually have grenade launchers and launchers are advertised in trade magazines quite a bit so they aren't really that hard to get.

*Seen anyone with live grenades?

He'll I've seen a quad mount to hook 4 M-60's up to for sale. What is the point of that? Put it at the top your stairs to defend the household?

No you're completely getting that wrong. You hang the quad mount off the balcony or in the cab of your pickup. You know they give you the directions booklet for a reason Ahtman. Educate yourself

Frazzled wrote:*Seen anyone with live grenades?

I don't think i should answer that question.

Frazzled wrote:No you're completely getting that wrong. You hang the quad mount off the balcony or in the cab of your pickup. You know they give you the directions booklet for a reason Ahtman. Educate yourself

I should point out it was an off the cuff remark and I in no way think that it reflects the vast majority of gun owners.

Except Texans and people from Miami of course, who have gun turrents installed in their Porsches....


Seriously, I don't think there is much disagreement that grenade launchers, artillery, miniguns, etc. should remain illegal as a reasonable restriction just as there are reasonable restrictions on free speech.


EDIT: Anecdotal Reason One for the Right to Bear Arms
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438644,00.html

Heck, we actually own an intiquated grenade launcher, one of those stick in the barrel and fire from a rifle types. Are we going to go and find grenades to fire from it.... Not unless there is a Zombie apocalypse.

But anyone and dog can make a mount. And as far as the guns you find in magazines, those are all made for semi-auto fire. In other words, an M-60 from some mag is machined to fire one bullet at a time, not to spray a hail of metal death.

Now people who buy one, and re-tool it themselves are another story. I remember a guy who had rigged up an old WWI water cooled machine gun with a cordless drill plugged into the firing mechanism at the range.

*Plink*.....*Plink*......*Plink*.....(me shooting our AR15)

*BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM*


But seriously, I'd expect most gun owners that aren't irresponsible societal failures in the first place could be trusted to not abuse military firepower under the field artillery level, because they would have a sound mind, familiar with how easy lax behaviour with even a .22 can end a life quickly.

Now if we got came upon a howitzer and a range to use it, curiosity can lead to dangerous fun.

Railguns wrote:But seriously, I'd expect most gun owners that aren't irresponsible societal failures in the first place could be trusted to not abuse military firepower under the field artillery level, because they would have a sound mind, familiar with how easy lax behaviour with even a .22 can end a life quickly.

And again, i agree with that. Even the nuts that have some of the exotic stuff aren't that dangerous. When was the last time you saw/read about someone being killed with a chain cannon or grenade launcher outside of a military conflict?

Railguns wrote:Now if we got came upon a howitzer and a range to use it, curiosity can lead to dangerous fun.

Oh, you have no idea.

Ahtman wrote:

Railguns wrote:But seriously, I'd expect most gun owners that aren't irresponsible societal failures in the first place could be trusted to not abuse military firepower under the field artillery level, because they would have a sound mind, familiar with how easy lax behaviour with even a .22 can end a life quickly.

And again, i agree with that. Even the nuts that have some of the exotic stuff aren't that dangerous. When was the last time you saw/read about someone being killed with a chain cannon or grenade launcher outside of a military conflict?

Before I asnwer that, do you consider inner city LA a military conflict zone?