Actually, it wouldn't be that unprecedented to breech the constitution - the second amendment is a change to the original constitution in the first place. Even revoking an amendment isn't unheard of (see prohibition of alcohol). They've even changed the operating procedure of congress before (see the cap on representatives for the House).
Actually, it would be that unprecedented. You see, the second amendment isn't just an amendment. The first ten "amendments" of the constitution are what's called the "Bill of Rights". These are the things that place checks and balances on the government. The first amendment gives you freedom of expression against the government, the second amendment gives you the ability to rebel against the government, the freedom from forced housing of federal soldiers, etc etc. These weren't late additions or edits, these are the foundation of the constitution meant to place the responsibility of freedom in the peoples hands, not the governments, because the people that wrote it knew that invariably, every government overextends is power and needs to be knocked back.
People talk about how they could not have foreseen the technology we have today and that the constitution is irrelevant due to obsolescence, but that's not true. They had the foresight to see what could happen and what will need to be done, regardless of the means.
And yes, amendments have been made, amendments have been removed, but NOTHING has ever amended the Bill of Rights. It is the cornerstone of our entire legal system and pretty damn good at what it does in my opinion.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The Constitution was never a perfect document. But in this case, that's not precisely my point.
That paragraph, while horrible, was an element of the constitution designed to solve a problem: how do we count slaves for the purpose of taxation? At the time, slavery - while still horrible - was a reality. There wasn't enough political will to undo slavery and many of the founding fathers were slave owners and had a predisposition to maintaining the status quo in that regard. And so, it was a solution to a problem. Then the civil war happened - an event that was always possible, but the U.S. was ill-prepared for and slavery became illegal. The original problem (how to count slaves for the purpose of taxation) was solved by solving the root problem (Can we own another human?)
Another example: Originally, the house or representatives added seats based on population. When a state reached a certain population marker, it received another representative. It continued this way for a while, until they realized the number of representatives couldn't keep increasing forever or there would be too many people in the room. So, they capped the number of representatives at 435 (the current total), and started to have those 435 representatives represent more people as the population grew. They amended the operating rules of the U.S. Government to solve the growing population problem.
I'm not trying to say the Bill of Rights isn't important or should be removed; please don't misunderstand that. I like my first amendment very much thank you, and the other amendments (2nd included) serve an important function. What I'm trying to get across is:
1) The constitution was never a perfect document and therefore 2) We cannot decide that any part of the constitution is sacred and unchangeable because 3) If we declare from on high that "These rules shall never change!" for any reason, we automatically dismiss any alternative solutions to the problem and no discussion or critical reading of the document can occur.
The thing is that the founding fathers, for all they did, are dead. They have no say in this democracy, their will is irrelevant, and they should never have a say again. The people who live in the U.S. NOW are the only people whose opinions truly matter for the purpose of how they the U.S. is governed. We NEED to be able to look at the constitution and all its amendments with our own eyes and be able to ask "Is this solution still working?", "Are there any unintended problems with the solution?", "Is there a better solution to the problem available?", and "Does this problem still exist?" without any kind of bias that would influence our answers in any unwanted way.
I think that the Second Amendment is still a good solution to the problem, but it needs to be controlled. The right to bear arms exists to protect us from governments - The U.S. or otherwise - and individuals who would hurt us, but the abuse of that right (to take lives of others unwarranted, to steal, to hurt the world around us, to impress the will of a minority upon the masses) is another real problem that needs to be addressed and so we must be able to look at the Constitution and all of its elements with clear, unbiased eyes.
Incidentally; my answers: 1) Is this solution still working? - Yes 2) Are there any unintended problems with the solution? - The abuse of that right by a segment of the population 3) Is there a better solution to the problem available? - Limits on who can get a gun and limits on what capabilities those guns can have, in addition to reform of the mental health institutions, the placement of trained professionals in vulnerable public locations, and a comprehensive gun ownership database 4) Does this problem still exist? - Absolutely
Side note: That whole "civil rights movement" thing, effectively added to the bill of rights (the minority became able to express opinions [1st amendment] openly), so expansion of the Bill of rights has occurred; a kind of amendment to the bill of rights. It just did so through an additional amendment.
*hops off soap box before I start yelling about the electoral college system*
Being British, the closest gun I know of is in the police station in town, the closest civilian I know is my friend's father in the next town over. I honestly don't see why any civilian would need a gun, it just promotes violence and gun crime.
Strazdas: Certainly, there are many many laws that could save many many lives. however the question is that of outweighing the benefits. Limiting cars to 40 MPH (actually where i live the limit is 45 MPH, so close) would save a lot of lives, certainly, but it would also remove the benefits of safe, long roads. try driving 800 miles at 40MPH, its not fun.
This is exactly the kinda response I was looking for. Your right of course a 40 MPH country wide speed limit is a ridiculous idea and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Even if it would save thousands of lives for your average everyday driver the benefits DO NOT outweigh the restrictions. But yet when the anti-gun lobby talks about their so called "common sense gun laws" they are shocked and appalled that gun owners don't immediately side with them in placing more restrictions on their gun's. All because we don't think the benefits outweigh the restrictions, they call us callous and uncaring about the lives of innocent children when I guarantee these same people would rabidly fight against a nationwide 40 MPH speed-limit even if it would save the lives of thousands of innocent children. It's because as I said earlier gun control is not now nor has it ever been about saving lives gun control is people control plain and simple that's all it has ever been throughout history.
A lot of people on both sides of this debate like to throw around statistics because stats are easily manipulated and can easily be taken out of context or just plain lied about to make one side or the other side argument look more effective. There are some stats though that cannot be dismissed, fact of the matter is violent crime numbers in the US has dropped about 50% in the last 20 years. I have yet to hear any arguments to the contrary on this one from the anti-gun side, usually when it's thrown out in a debate the anti-gun people just do their best to ignore it. Also in the last 20 years gun sales and ownership have skyrocketed, again there is no arguing this fact there are far more guns in circulation now then there were 20 years ago.
This would seem to indicate more guns = less crime, and that's the argument a lot of pro-gun groups like the NRA use. For the record I disagree with that statement I don't think its that simple, that black and white. There are far to many factors at work to say that more guns = less crime, but the same goes for the other side of the coin. A lot of anti-gun groups like to say more guns = more crime (they like to use murder over crime but murder rates have also dropped in the last 20 years) and it is just not true.
So whats the answer to stopping all these gun murders, the answer is that there is no answer, at least no easy answer. A better mental health system and better educational system are certainly good places to start more after school programs and programs to prevent gangs and gang violence are also good steps. I'll even go as far as to say that optional gun turn in and buyback programs might be a good step, though I am admittedly on the fence on this one but if people want to turn in their guns for Walmart gift cards (lol) then that's their decision. At least it might at least get some guns out of the homes of people who don't want them. What I don't think is a good idea and I know will not work is taking away or restricting the rights of lawful gun owners and enthusiast's. And if the anti-gun lobby is really only interested in saving lives then maybe they should focus their efforts on education on and prevention of obesity instead of trying to remove or restrict people's constitutional right to bear arms.
Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.
ALL of our rights are limited in some way.
Freedom of religion? We don't allow human sacrifice.
Freedom of speech? You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or lie under oath.
Right to bear arms? Anyone try to buy a short-range missile lately?
The question is WHERE do we want to draw that line. I see no reason for assault weapons for hunting or home defense. Guns should be registered and tracked, just as cars are. Gun owners should be licensed, just as drivers are.
None of this is unreasonable, except to the fringe gun-nut crowd who have fallen under the spell of unreasoning fear.
At least that's my 2 coppers, for what they're worth.
the7ofswords: Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
If that happened a bunch of people would immediately go to court, the court would almost definitely find there was harm done, and if that didn't get it changed it would go to a higher court, and keep going, it it had to, to the Supreme Court, which would almost definitely find the law unconstitutional. If there was an amendment passed first that allowed the government to do this then all bets are off, and the law(s) probably wouldn't take effect or even be passed until after the amendment was, so people would probably leave the country or hide their guns between the amendment being passed and the new laws(s) being passed or enforced.
Like someone would come around to TAKE your guns. Like they can afford to send people around to COLLECT all the stupid fucking chunks of metal.
If the US gov't passes gun control laws, at MOST this will mean that having an illegal gun would be a problem if you happen to come under police scrutiny for some other reason. They're not going to come around to pick up your guns. Any idea that they would is a ridiculous paranoid delusion.
the7ofswords: Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).
There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.
I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.
the7ofswords: Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).
There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.
I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.
Those are the guns they claim are not covered by the ban. As for the guns that are, this is the relevant section:
However, between the ban and the ridiculously low magazine capacity size, only a small number of Shotguns and Revolvers aren't covered by this, so it's essentially a blanket ban regardless. (Even standard issue Glock 22's have a capacity of 15-16)
They can't take my guns away regardless since I don't like in NY, and I will shortly become an LEO, who are exempt from the Act anyway.
the7ofswords: Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).
There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.
I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.
There are some segments that are worded...kinda strangely. For example, one can make the argument that there is a provision where if you had to reapply for a permit for whatever reason, the government can take away all of your guns, even the ones grandfathered. The same weapons that you can not get BACK as while they were legal when you bought them, they are illegal now. It is a loophole to retroactively apply their new law.
I am not saying that it how it IS, just how it can be easily interpreted due to semi vague language.
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).
There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.
I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.
Those are the guns they claim are not covered by the ban. As for the guns that are, this is the relevant section:
However, between the ban and the ridiculously low magazine capacity size, only a very small number of Shotguns and Revolvers aren't covered by this, so it's essentially a blanket ban regardless. (Even standard issue Glock 22's have a capacity of 15-16)
They can't take my guns away regardless since I don't like in NY, and I will shortly become an LEO, who are exempt from the Act anyway.
...You didn't actually read the whole list have you? The point that is most likely concerning you is this one. 8. Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. Meaning the actual gun is not being banned, assuming you pass all the necessary background and mental health checks they are not going to take it away from you. The magazine on the other hand is what is being confiscated, as such the dirty grubby government is taking your magazines, not your guns. And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.
...You didn't actually read the whole list have you? The point that is most likely concerning you is this one. 8. Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. Meaning the actual gun is not being banned, assuming you pass all the necessary background and mental health checks they are not going to take it away from you. The magazine on the other hand is what is being confiscated, as such the dirty grubby government is taking your magazines, not your guns. And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.
Because most weapons have mags that are by default larger then 7 rounds. Such as your typical S&W or Glock have a default magazine cap of 15. Most rifles with detachable mags can't function with a size smaller then 10 as the mag disappears inside the mag guard. It's basically a round about way of banning entire classes of handguns and rifles.
What the 2nd amendment actually says is ignored basically 100% of the times it's referenced. There's a first qualifier sentence in there that people like to pretend doesn't exist.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Nowhere in that sentence does it say that murdering law enforcement officers for doing their jobs becomes justified, legal, or encouraged upon the US government deciding to use their employees to steal people's firearms. Also, is a paranoid nut owning 5 guns and carrying them around concealed at all times really necessary to the security of a free state? What about those who have already committed violent crime, or the obsessed and/or mentally deranged people who think it's a great idea to massacre a schoolfull of children, are they protecting the security of their free state? Was Jared Loughner part of a well regulated militia? What percentage of private gun owners are required to be members of well regulated militias, or even have to earn a licence these days? The 2nd amendment does not say anyone can do anything they like with a deadly, offensive weapon wherever and whenever they like. Guns give their owners power over whether the people around them live or die, and it's insane to say that everyone has a right to that power.
So basically your argument boils down to only the government should have firearms? The Second Amendment is the vehicle by which the US People can protect the other nine from a corrupt government. You take away the Second, the rest in the Bill of Rights stay as long as it at the government's pleasure and that's exactly what the founding fathers didn't want.
And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.
As Tornado said, most rifles can't handle a magazine that small.
And like I said, it's mostly them extending the Assault Weapon Ban even further, which is already ridiculous. Telescopic stock to make a longgun more comfortable to use? Gun is banned. Pistol grip for ease of use? Gun is banned. Do you know what a pistol grip is, even?
That is a rifle with a pistol grip.
That is a rifle without one.
But no, that's considered too dangerous to have on the streets. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a pistol grip, think of all the lives that would have been saved!
I can't think of any modern rifles or shotguns without a pistol grip; and most have telescopic stocks. The reason is that they're comfortable, convenient, and easier to use, so there's no reason not to use them. It's entirely possible to design a modern gun without those things, and they will be if the ban goes through, but it's retarded regardless.
I can think of a lot of reasons why you'd need more than seven rounds. Competition, hunting, pest control, self-defense.
Seven bullets may not be enough to kill a normal person, much less, say, someone hyped up on certain kinds of drugs can take a lot of firepower to bring down. I wish I could have found the video, but there was a fairly recent instance of a man being shot by police outside of a McDonalds. One cop shot him 6~ times, and the guy only staggered back before righting himself, at which point the cop emptied the rest of the magazine into him, which finally put him down. Real life isn't like the movies; where people go down in a single shot and then that's it for them. People can survive for a while even after being mortally wounded, so it's entirely possible that you can fire your seven rounds, hit with five of them, and then the other guy pulls a weapon and shoots/stabs you before he dies. That's also why, if the situation allows, you're supposed to empty your magazine into an assailant, to make sure they're dead.
If they actually gave a damn, then they would be more concerned with restricting calibers. Because a 7 round magazine with .45 ACP is more deadly than a 12 round magazine with .22. However, that would hurt hunting worse than it would anything else; since most large animals can take more punishment than most humans can. (Not that .45 is a hunting round, because I'm 90% sure that it isn't.)
Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.
Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).
There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.
I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.
There are some segments that are worded...kinda strangely. For example, one can make the argument that there is a provision where if you had to reapply for a permit for whatever reason, the government can take away all of your guns, even the ones grandfathered. The same weapons that you can not get BACK as while they were legal when you bought them, they are illegal now. It is a loophole to retroactively apply their new law.
I am not saying that it how it IS, just how it can be easily interpreted due to semi vague language.
OK, but this applies only to weapons classified under "assault weapons" ban. This is them grandfathering in the current owners of the weapons that will be banned, but not allow them to be passed on to people who do not currently own them. Other guns are unaffected by this-their sales must be tracked, though, except in the case of transfer to family. They're banning a certain class of weapons, but not TAKING them from anyone who currently has one. I'm not seeing the problem here.
The magazine limits are going to be more problematic, sure, but no one is actually coming to take anyones guns away.
People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around. I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place. See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.
Kenkurogue: People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around.
The government has drones, tanks, attack choppers, stealth bombers, and nukes. I don't think the presence of armed civilians is what's stopping the country from turning into a police state.
I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place.
So any measure that wouldn't prevent 100% of shootings isn't worth doing?
See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.
Any idiot can brew up moonshine, grow pot, or cook meth. The same idiot would be hard-pressed to build their own an AR15. The harder something is to manufacture, the more effective restrictions on it are.
chadachada123: That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK,
Heh, I recently heard a bit on NPR (only caught the tail end, couldn't get any references) talking about how gun purchases for traditional gun uses (hunting, sport shooting) are down as the population urbanizes. And how despite how violent crime is down year-on-year across the US, a major reason people choose to buy guns is for their personal safety, a reason encouraged by gun manufacturers.
In other words, despite you being safer than ever in the US, gun manufacturers create the impression that you are not in order to sell more guns and therefore compensate for losses. According to this story, major gun companies are basically encouraging paranoia in order to make money...
Even if gun manufacturers did push that image (and they don't appear to be), isn't the fact that gun crime has been going down while gun ownership is going up...show that more gun control isn't necessary at this point?
At the very least, it shows that gun ownership is not correlated nor causally related in and of itself to gun crime.
That's without getting into the fact that gun owners (in Texas) who go through the Concealed Handgun Licensing process (with a training course and written test) and purchased their firearm legally are fourteen times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and seven times less likely to commit a violent crime. That is, the armed and educated citizen is far safer and less violent than the unarmed, uneducated one. It's almost as if...they value their liberty and don't want to risk it.
Single Shot: Yeah, right, a breach of this part of the constitution? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" Do Americans know what a militia is? I read this and thought of the Swiss system of gun laws built around every 20 - 30 year old (Male?) being part of a trained militia with the option to keep semi-automatic versions of their issued rifle afterwards because they had proper training and respect for the firearm BEFORE being allowed to own it.
You're thinking of "militia" as "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies." Most pro-gun folks would argue the Founders wrote the Second Amendment with "a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers" in mind, who could be "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government" if shit went down. And they'd say "regulated" as in "adjusted so as to ensure accuracy of operation" rather than "controlled or directed by a rule, principle, method, etc." (defs from dictionary.com)
What does " a well regulated militia" mean?
I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.
Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.
At the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant every able bodied adult male pretty much every guy 15 or older with no major health problems. And "well regulated" meant they knew how to handle a firearm and could fight. With our cultural changes I would say militiwould now be every adult over 18. But that first sentence in the second amendment is not a "qualifier" as I have heard it called, its a preamble.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't each state in America maintain the rights to basically veto the government's policies if they feel they aren't within the state's best interest? If that is the case I can see America splitting right across the waist - it'll be a less violent version of the Civil War all over again.
That's not correct, though you could be forgiven for thinking it given how often states try to pretend that Federal law doesn't apply to them.
But Federal law trumps state law. Otherwise there would be no federation. There would just be 50 states that effectively have treaties with each other if they want to. Which would be an absolute nightmare.
And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.
As Tornado said, most rifles can't handle a magazine that small.
And like I said, it's mostly them extending the Assault Weapon Ban even further, which is already ridiculous. Telescopic stock to make a longgun more comfortable to use? Gun is banned. Pistol grip for ease of use? Gun is banned. Do you know what a pistol grip is, even?
That is a rifle with a pistol grip.
That is a rifle without one.
But no, that's considered too dangerous to have on the streets. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a pistol grip, think of all the lives that would have been saved!
Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart :p
Anyways, that isn't a ban on guns per say, nor is it an attempt to seize them. I agree with you, it's stupid, but ultimately irrelevant if you already own an assault weapon. I can't think of any modern rifles or shotguns without a pistol grip; and most have telescopic stocks. The reason is that they're comfortable, convenient, and easier to use, Wouldn't increased ease of use make a gun deadlier? so there's no reason not to use them. It's entirely possible to design a modern gun without those things, and they will be if the ban goes through, but it's retarded regardless.
I can think of a lot of reasons why you'd need more than seven rounds. Competition, hunting, pest control, self-defense.
Well let's address these one by one Competition: fine, allow shooting ranges access to higher capacity mags on the ground that all participation return them pending the completion of said competition.
Hunting: Generally speaking, hunting relies on first shot accuracy. Once you startle every animal in a quarter mile radius of taking your shot, your chances of hitting anything becomes exponentially more difficult. There is a reason that the most popular hunting rifles in the U.S are bolt action, people prefer first shot accuracy over quick follow up shots.
Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?
Self defense: Here's the thing, an effective use of a gun in self defense ideally involves no shots being fired. The threat of the gun itself serves as an deterrent, no matter what type or how much ammo is in the magazine. Besides, a gun is not defense. It's designed to kill, to maim, to puncture your flesh until you die. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon, (say i don't know a taser) would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing. True you can argue that a gun can be used defensively, but hey! If we all switched over to tasers maybe we wouldn't have an extra 32,000 deaths every year.
Seven bullets may not be enough to kill a normal person, much less, say, someone hyped up on certain kinds of drugs can take a lot of firepower to bring down. I wish I could have found the video, but there was a fairly recent instance of a man being shot by police outside of a McDonalds. One cop shot him 6~ times, and the guy only staggered back before righting himself, at which point the cop emptied the rest of the magazine into him, which finally put him down. Real life isn't like the movies; where people go down in a single shot and then that's it for them.
People can survive for a while even after being mortally wounded, so it's entirely possible that you can fire your seven rounds, hit with five of them, and then the other guy pulls a weapon and shoots/stabs you before he dies. That's also why, if the situation allows, you're supposed to empty your magazine into an assailant, to make sure they're dead.
Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.
If they actually gave a damn, then they would be more concerned with restricting calibers. Because a 7 round magazine with .45 ACP is more deadly than a 12 round magazine with .22. However, that would hurt hunting worse than it would anything else; since most large animals can take more punishment than most humans can. (Not that .45 is a hunting round, because I'm 90% sure that it isn't.)
Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?
Kenkurogue: People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around. I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place. See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.
Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers who are trained to keep their cool under fire, as well as being better equipped than you could ever hope to be. Besides, last time I checked the second amendment stated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Well we certainly have the well armed part down, still have to work on that well regulated militia. On top of that, it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment. But don't take it from me, take it from Thomas Jefforson "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Well we haven't rewritten our constitution in more than 200 years (read:ever)and this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud. You know, those wildly inaccurate guns that fired one shot and required a minute to reload? Not exactly the type of weapon you can walk into a school with and kill 20 children in a matter of seconds. That was a gun to the founding fathers, so if you want a musket, knock yourself out. Times change, an AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds. This law written over 200 years ago referring to a weapon that pales in comparison to our modern firearms in every single way. You are so enamored in preventing a hypothetical Dystopian reality, in fighting an imaginary Hitler who wants to take our liberty that you stonewall any attempt to deal with our ACTUAL dystopian reality. A reality in which 32,000 men women and children die every single year. Why don't you ask their families about the importance of owning guns to fight against the feds? tThis is a conversation we NEED to be having, and hiding behind the second amendment isn't helping anyone.
Thankfully, I live in England. We (and not to mention many others) grew out of this particularly childish predilection many years ago. Thus it would be most satisfying to see you Americans join the rest of the civilised world on this certain topic. Who knows, in a few decades time you might start coming to agree with other basic principles. Like the fat that the earth is more than 6,000 years ago, or man-made global climate change is actually occurring before our very eyes. Here's hoping.
At the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant every able bodied adult male pretty much every guy 15 or older with no major health problems. And "well regulated" meant they knew how to handle a firearm and could fight. With our cultural changes I would say militiwould now be every adult over 18. But that first sentence in the second amendment is not a "qualifier" as I have heard it called, its a preamble.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah I just looked up the case of D.C vs Heller in 2008 which was the first time the court had said it DOES apply to individuals, and that "The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
I get the whole "right to bear arms" thing, but its application in terms of a militia really shows the Amendments age in the modern time.
gyroscopeboy: What does " a well regulated militia" mean?
I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.
Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.
Forget the Patriot Act, we now have the NDAA. The power to detain for an indefinite period of time anyone the government labels a terrorist, including American citizens on American soil? Yes, please!
I think the ideal of a "well-regulated militia" in the context of the Second Amendment would mean that the majority of Americans own a rifle, they are trained in its operation (marksmanship, maintenance, safe handling and storage, etc), and should the unthinkable occur, they would be ready to take up arms and fight. "The ideal" because most of us fail the first two points and would probably fail the third if it came down to it, myself included. And "the unthinkable" being something that goes grossly beyond the pale, a la the Spanish Civil War. The Declaration of Independence sums it up well imo (though, for the record, I don't think even the American Revolution fit the description of throwing off "tyranny." It was essentially an economic dispute with amazing PR.)
[Whenever] any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The likelihood of this happening, likely outcomes, etc is the kinda thing I could rattle off pet theories about for hours. But basically, I think the ever-vigilant patriot is an ideal most countries don't require or have much use for, but it's a mindset that would make the US a much better place to live and a far more reasonable actor on the world stage. Private ownership of firearms is a part of that.
Barciad: Thankfully, I live in England. We (and not to mention many others) grew out of this particularly childish predilection many years ago. Thus it would be most satisfying to see you Americans join the rest of the civilised world on this certain topic. Who knows, in a few decades time you might start coming to agree with other basic principles. Like the fat that the earth is more than 6,000 years ago, or man-made global climate change is actually occurring before our very eyes. Here's hoping.
if growing up means becoming a society where a rape victim recieves more prison time for hitting her rapist than her rapist recieves for raping her, I'd like to stay developmentally stunted, thank you very much.
Spoiler: Click to 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
*Sniff* Your post was beautiful.
Thank you.
It truly sucks being an educated person that cares about civil liberties, in a country where the vast majority of citizens can't even educate themselves on things as important as Obama signing the NDAA 2012 and PATRIOT Act renewal, or, worse, not even caring when they find out. But, no, as soon as someone points out how absolutely disgraceful President Obama and Democrat Congressmen/Presidents of the past 20 years are towards civil liberties, people immediately assume that this is any sort of justification whatsoever towards the abuses that many Republican Congressman, Presidents, and Presidential candidates commit/support in the same time frame.
"Gee, this is such a big issue that I really don't know my stance on this. Education and a change in culture is the way to reduce these deaths, but that's such a long-term solution...what about the now?"
After seeing poll results:
"lolfuck, no-one deserves a gun."
Seriously, 10% of people would shoot an officer if they tried to take your gun away from you?
As I said before, this is such a big issue that I don't want to tackle it (especially since the thread is absolutely bubbling with anti-American/anti-European hate) but I seriously think that American culture needs to shift in such a way that guns are not so much a right as they are a huge responsibility you have to earn.
Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart :p
I specifically said that modern guns are mostly made with those things out of convince. You can easily make a modern gun without either of those things, and it's lethality wouldn't have changed at all.
Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?
You must live in the city. I was raised on a farm for most of my life. Foxes, Boars, Crocs; and a lot of other critters do a lot of damage to livestock and crops. Crocs are hard to put down, and Boars tend to be very aggressive (They can kill a human without too much difficulty) and travel in very large packs. Shoot at them, and they're just as likely to rush you as they are to flee. It's also against the law to create laws that only affect certain groups or areas; so making a different set of laws for rural and urban areas can't be done; nor would it be a good idea anyway.
Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.
There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc can all kill. Additionally, I never said it happened with every encounter; nor did I say that a few bullets couldn't kill. I said they don't kill immediately, and someone who is shot with something that isn't a shotgun can generally continue to function for a while. Despite the fact that it seems really easy to kill them at times; humans are pretty durable.
Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?
As mentioned above, I didn't say they're bad at killing. I said that they don't kill immediately; or even greatly inhibit someone who is hyped up on adrenaline or hard drugs. I also said it was a bad idea to restrict caliber.
Let's put it this way; "Are magazine sizes of 7 and under necessary?" Putting aside the arguments made so far; is it necessary for everyone to wear anything other than a cheap gray jumpsuit? Is a car an absolute necessity for most people as opposed to a convenience? Is alcohol absolutely necessary to drink, despite the fact that it kills 47,000-75,000 people a year and causes others serious injury compared to gun's 16,000?
If innocent deaths really bug you that much, push for more restrictions on alcohol.
You need boots on the ground to hold the territory you claim is yours in a war. Just like how the Taliban/Czechian Rebels/Mujahideen fought back against the US and USSR/CIS Military, you don't go after the tanks and the IFVs or stand out in the open for air power to blow you away. You hide in the shadows, the forests, the mountains and ambush infantry patrols and thin skinned vehicles and bleed the enemy dry. Plus the US Military LIVES in the country they would be trying to subjugate by illegal force and I can tell you as a veteran of the USAF, our bases are protected by little more then a barbed wire fence and some HUMVEE Patrols.
This isn't even taking into account that some Police, National Guard/Air Guard and Active Duty units would flip to the resistance side. And to those who think the US Military are crack shots, a passing marksmen grade is 27 out of 40 shots against stationary targets, suppressive fire and asset support wins the day in modern wars.
Lucky Godzilla: Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers
Those soldiers are gun owners, would be affected by flagrant violations of the Constitution. Military/LE are some of the strongest supporters of gun rights because they use them every day, unlike the vast majority of people who want them outlawed, who are completely ignorant and naive. They are as fed up with government as civilians.
Lucky Godzilla: it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment.
We got rid of Citizenship Rights? You're probably talking about 18 which 21 repealed. Want to know what that repealed amendment was? It BANNED something. The scary part is that it actually passed.
Liquor was banned. Citizens turned criminals and criminals turned kings. Many drugs are banned. The same thing has happened. Do you really want to try this with guns?
Lucky Godzilla: this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud.
..AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds.
A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".
You don't get to make up the rules as you go, and if you believe rights just sit there collecting rust until we write a new Constitution, you better be careful because the next Constitution will guarantee half as much freedom as the current one does, 2700 pages long and would put any software agreement/patent law in history to shame. It will not empower the people and set up a government, it will be a list of rules we have to obey, written by them.
It's illegal for the average citizen to own a gun in the UK, just as it's illegal for the average citizen to possess medication that isn't prescribed to them (assuming prescription drug law in the UK is similar to the US).
If you're required to have a reason to own it...then it isn't really legal, not anymore than regulated medication that is only allowed for choice people that have a "valid" doctor-approved reason.
First off your reasoning is wrong. Totally wrong.
Your saying the average citizen cannot own a gun because they must first join a gun club. But the average citizen CAN join a gunclub.
The average citizen wants to own a gun. He/She:
Joins a gun club. Recieves two people to vouch for his responsibility. Can now get a gun for recreational use at home.
If you can point out what step is inaccessible to the average citizen tell me. Your argument makes as much sense as saying the average citizen cannot own a car since a test is required. We just have more Bureaucracy than you. The truth is the averge citizen in the UK does not own a gun because they do not want to. I personally DO since i have an interest in rifle shooting. Ive shot before and my gun lives down at the range. If the average citizen wanted a gun right now nothing would stop them following the above steps and getting one.
That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK, and how, because of this, some 50% of robberies in the UK happen while the homeowner is present, compared to 13% of US robberies.
There was another eye-opening statistic on the chance of being harmed while having your home robbed: Unsurprisingly, you are far, far more likely to be hurt (specifically, stabbed) if you live in the UK and have your house burglarized than if you live in the US.
It is surprising. Nothing you stated suggests that introducing guns to our citizens would change this statistic.
Consider the following.
You stated that criminals do not fear their victims in the UK. Why would the introduction of guns change this dynamic? At the moment it works like this:
Criminals have knives - I have knives. And yet they dont fear me despite our potential fire power being the same.
If you change the situation to:
Criminals have guns - I have guns. What has changed in the power dynamic. Why would i be feared MORE now when relatively i have nothing over the burglar that i didnt before.
The real issue we are tackling now is to make our self defense laws FAR more generous to people defending their homes and to allow us to kill/wound invaders without fear of the law. THAT changes the power dynamic because now home owners have nothing to lose using lethal force. Criminals do not feel as if they cannot be stopped by the owner. Youve totally assumed correlation = causation and its not logical to do so. Especially when simply giving EVERYONE in the situation a more efficient weapon changes nothing in how much the criminal should fear me. Sure im armed better but so are they. Its the same amount of risk for both of us except with guns the shared risk is higher since its far far easier to kill eachother.
That said banning guns in your country would be fucking stupid since the dynamic would change from:
Burglar has a gun - I have a gun
To
Burglar has an illegal gun - I have a knife.
So in America i see no real reason to introduce a BAN on guns. Regulate who has them so the mentally ill or the criminal cannot possess them sure but banning them is silly. Dont presume to look at England and say "Air dropping a tonne of pistols into your country would improve everything" though. Our countries are not comparable enough in crime culture to do such a direct comparison.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The Constitution was never a perfect document. But in this case, that's not precisely my point.
That paragraph, while horrible, was an element of the constitution designed to solve a problem: how do we count slaves for the purpose of taxation? At the time, slavery - while still horrible - was a reality. There wasn't enough political will to undo slavery and many of the founding fathers were slave owners and had a predisposition to maintaining the status quo in that regard. And so, it was a solution to a problem. Then the civil war happened - an event that was always possible, but the U.S. was ill-prepared for and slavery became illegal. The original problem (how to count slaves for the purpose of taxation) was solved by solving the root problem (Can we own another human?)
Another example: Originally, the house or representatives added seats based on population. When a state reached a certain population marker, it received another representative. It continued this way for a while, until they realized the number of representatives couldn't keep increasing forever or there would be too many people in the room. So, they capped the number of representatives at 435 (the current total), and started to have those 435 representatives represent more people as the population grew. They amended the operating rules of the U.S. Government to solve the growing population problem.
I'm not trying to say the Bill of Rights isn't important or should be removed; please don't misunderstand that. I like my first amendment very much thank you, and the other amendments (2nd included) serve an important function. What I'm trying to get across is:
1) The constitution was never a perfect document and therefore
2) We cannot decide that any part of the constitution is sacred and unchangeable because
3) If we declare from on high that "These rules shall never change!" for any reason, we automatically dismiss any alternative solutions to the problem and no discussion or critical reading of the document can occur.
The thing is that the founding fathers, for all they did, are dead. They have no say in this democracy, their will is irrelevant, and they should never have a say again. The people who live in the U.S. NOW are the only people whose opinions truly matter for the purpose of how they the U.S. is governed. We NEED to be able to look at the constitution and all its amendments with our own eyes and be able to ask "Is this solution still working?", "Are there any unintended problems with the solution?", "Is there a better solution to the problem available?", and "Does this problem still exist?" without any kind of bias that would influence our answers in any unwanted way.
I think that the Second Amendment is still a good solution to the problem, but it needs to be controlled. The right to bear arms exists to protect us from governments - The U.S. or otherwise - and individuals who would hurt us, but the abuse of that right (to take lives of others unwarranted, to steal, to hurt the world around us, to impress the will of a minority upon the masses) is another real problem that needs to be addressed and so we must be able to look at the Constitution and all of its elements with clear, unbiased eyes.
Incidentally; my answers:
1) Is this solution still working? - Yes
2) Are there any unintended problems with the solution? - The abuse of that right by a segment of the population
3) Is there a better solution to the problem available? - Limits on who can get a gun and limits on what capabilities those guns can have, in addition to reform of the mental health institutions, the placement of trained professionals in vulnerable public locations, and a comprehensive gun ownership database
4) Does this problem still exist? - Absolutely
Side note: That whole "civil rights movement" thing, effectively added to the bill of rights (the minority became able to express opinions [1st amendment] openly), so expansion of the Bill of rights has occurred; a kind of amendment to the bill of rights. It just did so through an additional amendment.
*hops off soap box before I start yelling about the electoral college system*