The 2nd amendment

[InkL0sed]

Rifles and shotguns are OK for hunting. Handguns are iffy. Anything more hardcore should be banned imo.

PS. By the way, the sentence "the right to bear arms" does not mean "the right to bear all arms" or "the right to bear any type of arm." It is completely compliant with the semantics of the sentence to completely ban some arms.

After all, if you can't have an Uzi, but you can have a pistol or rifle, you can't say that you don't have the right to bear arms.

[King Doctor]

Alright so a more serious answer to the Doctor.

Put it this way, a guy wants to rob a bank in a small town where everyone owns and carries a gun.
How likely do you think that man will successfully pull off that heist? Not really lookin good for him, lol.

Actually, looking pretty great.

All he and his buddies need to do is arm themselves, then burst into the bank at some point during the mid-morning (not too many folk in there then) and yell "everybody freeze, this is a robbery". If any of the unprepared citizenry decide to take 'hero action' then they can be swiftly dispatched by the robbers (who have already drawn weapons and resolved to use them), the rest of the robbery is industry standard.

The only thing that extra guns adds to that situation is a higher bodycount, because the possibility of armed citizenry gives the criminal a higher incentive to shoot. The idea that bank customers will all draw weapons and repel the baddies is just a Hollywood wet-dream, pre-prepared criminals will blitz them almost every single time.

As for killing sprees itself...Well let's say everyone has a limit to...Oh idk...Either a handgun or a basic AR. If the guy starts shootin up two or three people in public, chances are thirty different other guys are gonna think the same thought of simply shootin him and moving on.

Unless they do the far more likely thing and just panic and run. And even if they don't, your policy of permitting easy access to handguns has still cost the lives of three or more people, which is barely a big win for society.

Again, people don't turn into Hollywood action heroes when random nutters start shooting the place up. You can tell, because places that have free-carry policies don't actually have lower crime rates than comparable locations which don't.

It's sort of like the Death Penatly, only without the prison sentences and judges and what not.

Yeah, well that sounds, uh, great?


Also, death penalties in America actually appear to have had the opposite effects on crime rates than the one you seem to think they have.

[Baron Von PWN]

Utterly ludicrous.

Why not just have an amendment that says every American is required to sit in their garden and chant Hari Krishna at the moon for at least an hour a day, just so that they can all believe that it's possible to heal the world with the power of joy alone.

I mean, it's good to believe that's possible, right? Kinda like a placebo effect.

So...You're tellin me this won't work?

f*ck you, you're still a horrible fuckin doctor!

In other news...
I simply think that if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime (Not that this has anything to do with this thread really.)
And less liberals.
And less idiots.
And less rapists.
And less pedophiles.
And less Killing Sprees.
...Clap if you agree.

In Canada crime rates have been falling steadily since I think the 80's. In Canada gun ownership is restricted.

In the USA crime rates have been falling steadily since I think the 80's, in both districts where gun ownership is mandatory (there are a couple) and regions with restricted gun ownership.

What does this imply? That gun ownership is unrelated to crime levels. I also don't see how gun ownership would decrease any of the other things you list either.

[PLAYER57832]

Alright so a more serious answer to the Doctor.

Put it this way, a guy wants to rob a bank in a small town where everyone owns and carries a gun.
How likely do you think that man will successfully pull off that heist? Not really lookin good for him, lol.
As for killing sprees itself...Well let's say everyone has a limit to...Oh idk...Either a handgun or a basic AR. If the guy starts shootin up two or three people in public, chances are thirty different other guys are gonna think the same thought of simply shootin him and moving on.

It's sort of like the Death Penatly, only without the prison sentences and judges and what not.

Nice in fiction. In reality, it doesn't usually work that way... and that, by-the-way is why the times it does work wind up on the national news.

[PLAYER57832]

Rifles and shotguns are OK for hunting. Handguns are iffy. Anything more hardcore should be banned imo.

PS. By the way, the sentence "the right to bear arms" does not mean "the right to bear all arms" or "the right to bear any type of arm." It is completely compliant with the semantics of the sentence to completely ban some arms.

After all, if you can't have an Uzi, but you can have a pistol or rifle, you can't say that you don't have the right to bear arms.

The NRA definitely disagrees.

[PLAYER57832]

A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger

Uh.. hunting, shooting sports, etc.

The Second Amendment might be about protection, but guns are definitely much more. Around here, there are more than a couple of people who, even now, largely depend on game to eat.

[PLAYER57832]

The right to bear arms was put in place to insure that if the government ever again became tyrannical that the people would have the power to fight a revolution and yet again overthrow the government.

Well right now, you can safely say that the government is actually the banks, and the banks are / were tyrannical.
So why the f*ck are Americans not loading up the gun racks and heading off to the Hamptons?

Maybe because guns don't have near the power of banks, lawsuits or even debt collectors right now.

[DirtyDishSoap]

The second amendment says the right to bear arms. Does that mean we should have the right to bear nuclear weaponry? If you are sane and say no, then you have to accept that the amendment should be interpreted by what "arms" meant at the time. I'm pretty sure weapons that didn't exist yet (like automatic weapons) weren't part of that definition.

I'll go to the nearest gun shop and buy myself a musket.

Blah blah blah.

Well good lord, I hope EVERYONE that witnesses a killing spree and carries a loaded weapon on him just runs to the nearest bunker. I mean really, if I had a handgun on me, saw some douch bag goin crazy, I'm more the likely going to shoot him.
Pretty sure people don't carry handguns for fashion.

As for the robbery...Maybe. I can see your point of view on that where people are ill prepared for an actual ORGANIZED robbery. I was simply saying one man couldn't take on an entire bank full of armed civilians, security, clerks, you name it...But yar, if it was more then, idk, four or five, then yeah it'd probably be a blood bath and better suited for SWAT to handle with minimium damage and casualties.

I happen to like he death penalty, less people get out on the streets and probably will do the same thing again, and jails wouldn't be as crowded with a bunch of psychos and what not.

My point of view, whether you agree or not, I simply don't care.

[2dimes]

Sorry DDS the doctor is right. You and I should be allowed to pack but I'd have to say most Americans probably shouldn't. Also all guns should be thrown to the bottom of the ocean. Until then I should have one. Well maybe I shouldn't but I'm pretty sure I should.

As for the death penalty it prevents repeat offenders.

[The Bison King]

As for the death penalty it prevents repeat offenders.

I'm extremely skeptical of the death penalty. I definitely don't think it should be given to anyone for their first offense, no matter how horrendous that offense may be.

[mviola]

A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger

Uh.. hunting, shooting sports, etc.

The Second Amendment might be about protection, but guns are definitely much more. Around here, there are more than a couple of people who, even now, largely depend on game to eat.

I meant in a situation where a gun is needed for defense from another person. You don't exactly need a shotgun to defend yourself in a home invasion. The handgun will scare the robber just as bad.

[2dimes]

I disagree Bison, the punishment should absolutly fit the crime. If the victem is someone like you they should only be given a fine of $37 canadian. If it's someone important like Player 567489 the purpetrator should be removed so as to prevent them from killing again.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I agree with dimes on the penalty. If it fits the crime, then yar. You kill us, we'll kill you.

[PLAYER57832]

A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger

Uh.. hunting, shooting sports, etc.

The Second Amendment might be about protection, but guns are definitely much more. Around here, there are more than a couple of people who, even now, largely depend on game to eat.

I meant in a situation where a gun is needed for defense from another person. You don't exactly need a shotgun to defend yourself in a home invasion. The handgun will scare the robber just as bad.

I believe a pistol is just as dangerous, perhaps more so, than a shotgun. (did you mean a machine gun?) They are both dangerous.

A shotgun is much more practical for hunting. A handgun can be used for shooting sports, but its primary use is for defense, and its primary benefit is that it can be concealed more readily. That aspect makes a pistol more dangerous, not less than a shotgun, which is why so many cities proscribe handguns, specifically.

The use of ANY gun for defense is debateable, though. If you keep it unlocked, then you risk a child or visitor getting it. If you store it like you are supposed to, with locked up ammo in one place and the gun locked up seperately, then it is often not available in time for defense. If you refer to "packing" "around town", then you better be sure you have the training to judge exactly when someone has harmful intent and does not. Every year, just about, we hear about children who are shot because police, trained police, thought they had a gun when they didn't or thought they were something other than a child.

Also, in the instance where a gun is helpful, there are usually other things that could/can work as well. The sensational exceptions are just that... sensational exceptions.

[tzor]

I love second amendment discussions. Some people like NASCAR; I love second amendment arguments because it’s fun to watch an argument crash into the wall.

Seriously, you cannot have a decent discussion of the second amendment until you understand all of the conditions that were in place at the time of the writing of the Constitution. You also need to understand the philosophical underpinnings of “democracy” as it was considered in the late 18th century.

A lot of things happened in the years prior to the revolutionary war and during the war that were simply intolerable. Many of these injustices are seen in the bill of rights. One might be tempted to lump the second amendment into this as well, but there is more to this amendment than meets the eye. In the eyes of many of the founding fathers, a standing army was an open invitation for a dictatorship. Since the only need for an army would be for national defense, the concept of the citizen solder was considered the highest ideal of a democratic government.

The ideal would be that full time workers would muster together into the militia at times of crisis. While the militia would be organized, armed, and disciplined by congress and the trained and staffed by the states, the bulk of the force would be added as needed. In such cases, in order to have a well trained militia, it’s necessary for the men to be able to jump in with as little extra training as possible. Remember that breech loading muskets and rifles do require some skill to load rapidly and this was the standard until the end of the civil war.

Since these are the “arms” considered at the time of the writing of the constitution, this is the point of view where all second amendment arguments should focus on. Sadly, few do, on either side.

[mviola]

A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger

Uh.. hunting, shooting sports, etc.

The Second Amendment might be about protection, but guns are definitely much more. Around here, there are more than a couple of people who, even now, largely depend on game to eat.

I meant in a situation where a gun is needed for defense from another person. You don't exactly need a shotgun to defend yourself in a home invasion. The handgun will scare the robber just as bad.

I believe a pistol is just as dangerous, perhaps more so, than a shotgun. (did you mean a machine gun?) They are both dangerous.

A shotgun is much more practical for hunting. A handgun can be used for shooting sports, but its primary use is for defense, and its primary benefit is that it can be concealed more readily. That aspect makes a pistol more dangerous, not less than a shotgun, which is why so many cities proscribe handguns, specifically.

The use of ANY gun for defense is debateable, though. If you keep it unlocked, then you risk a child or visitor getting it. If you store it like you are supposed to, with locked up ammo in one place and the gun locked up seperately, then it is often not available in time for defense. If you refer to "packing" "around town", then you better be sure you have the training to jude exactly when someone has harmful intent and does not. Every year, just about, we hear about children who are shot because police, trained police, thought they had a gun when they didn't or thought they were something other than a child.

Also, in the instance where a gun is helpful, there are usually other things that could/can work as well. The sensational exceptions are just that... sensational exceptions.

Oops. I meant machine gun. But either way, shotguns and machine guns can cause way more damage like you said. This wouldn't be as big a problem if people could keep their guns away from children or didn't accidentally misjudge harmful intent

[bedub1]

if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime (Not that this has anything to do with this thread really.)

<snip?

And less Killing Sprees.

Yes. Giving everybody lethal weapons is a sure way to stop them from committing lethal crimes. Just as giving them weapons capable of enabling killing sprees will stop them from perpetrating, uh, killing sprees?


Tell me DDS (and don't get me wrong, I like you) why does your "more weapons = less crime" thinking apply to guns, but not to baseball bats, hand-grenades, and chainsaws?

Let me elaborate on just one of the questions, chosen more or less at random: How wild was the "wild" West?

The standard story there, seared into the American consciousness and folklore by motion pictures and other tall tales, is one of constant chaos and peril. But historians have been rejecting that old view for some time. In fact, implausible as this may sound, what is most impressive about the old West was how peaceful and cooperative it was. Although you’d never know it, scholars have repeatedly shown that the old West was actually safer than most American cities today.

In the absence of formal government, voluntary institutions emerged that defined and enforced property rights and adjudicated disputes. Far from a land of lawlessness and violence, a myth spun from tales designed to sell dime novels, the old West actually constitutes a fascinating case study of the ability of market institutions, even in apparently impossible conditions, to facilitate peaceful interaction and to carry out functions we normally associate with government.

[King Doctor]

Well good lord, I hope EVERYONE that witnesses a killing spree and carries a loaded weapon on him just runs to the nearest bunker. I mean really, if I had a handgun on me, saw some douch bag goin crazy, I'm more the likely going to shoot him.

Yeah, but you're still missing the point that he's more likely to shoot you first.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that surprised, unprepared citizens are about to win shootouts with determined, prepared, criminals who have already drawn their weapons. In the "[i]everybody freeze[/i]" scenario, the citizen that reaches for his gun in order to rectify the situation is doing little other than signalling to the gun-totting baddies that he's the one they should shoot at next. Raising the possibility of citizens drawing weapons on criminals doesn't make citizen's safer, it just gives criminals a really good reason to shoot anybody who makes a sudden movement at the scene of the crime.

That's not making things safer. It's making them more likely to escalate and become lethal.

Pretty sure people don't carry handguns for fashion.

I guarantee to you that some people do.

But that line of discussion is somewhat off topic here.

Well As for the robbery...Maybe. I can see your point of view on that where people are ill prepared for an actual ORGANIZED robbery. I was simply saying one man couldn't take on an entire bank full of armed civilians, security, clerks, you name it...But yar, if it was more then, idk, four or five, then yeah it'd probably be a blood bath and better suited for SWAT to handle with minimium damage and casualties.

Well it's all very well saying that now, but in the chaos of said robbery people aren't going to sit down and make that kind of cost/benefit judgement. They're either going to panic and be useless (guns or no) or reach for their handguns and attract a bunch of bullets in their direction. Net result: Same as a no-guns society OR Lots more people die than would have in a no-guns society. Got to say, that doesn't sound too great a result from a policy that is supposed to reduce crime?

Well I happen to like he death penalty, less people get out on the streets and probably will do the same thing again, and jails wouldn't be as crowded with a bunch of psychos and what not.

From a costs point of view, it's great.

But from a human rights, miscarriages of justice, and actual effect on crime rates (which appears to be inverse to the one you'd expect) point of view... it sucks.

[Baron Von PWN]

Dealing more directly with the second amendment I see no reason why it should be so enshrined as say freedom of speech. That being said i also don't really buy the idea that simply banning guns will reduce crime as statistics of crime in areas with high and low gun ownership has shown crime to be unrelated. Guns might make crime more deadly (for all those involved) however I'm not even certain this would be the case, it assumes people will allways use the guns if they have them which might actually be counter productive to their goals.

Anyways my personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment is outdated and not very important to individual Americans liberty.

[PLAYER57832]

Oops. I meant machine gun. But either way, shotguns and machine guns can cause way more damage like you said.

Just to clarify, while both are harmful, a shotgun can shoot "slugs", but often shoots pellets that scatter. They can absolutely cause very nasty damage, but are a bit less likely to kill than either a pistol or shotgun.

This wouldn't be as big a problem if people could keep their guns away from children or didn't accidentally misjudge harmful intent

Both are harder than most people think. That last one... even trained experts can get wrong at times.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Well good lord, I hope EVERYONE that witnesses a killing spree and carries a loaded weapon on him just runs to the nearest bunker. I mean really, if I had a handgun on me, saw some douch bag goin crazy, I'm more the likely going to shoot him.

Yeah, but you're still missing the point that he's more likely to shoot you first.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that surprised, unprepared citizens are about to win shootouts with determined, prepared, criminals who have already drawn their weapons. In the "[i]everybody freeze[/i]" scenario, the citizen that reaches for his gun in order to rectify the situation is doing little other than signalling to the gun-totting baddies that he's the one they should shoot at next. Raising the possibility of citizens drawing weapons on criminals doesn't make citizen's safer, it just gives criminals a really good reason to shoot anybody who makes a sudden movement at the scene of the crime.

That's not making things safer. It's making them more likely to escalate and become lethal.

Pretty sure people don't carry handguns for fashion.

I guarantee to you that some people do.

But that line of discussion is somewhat off topic here.

Well As for the robbery...Maybe. I can see your point of view on that where people are ill prepared for an actual ORGANIZED robbery. I was simply saying one man couldn't take on an entire bank full of armed civilians, security, clerks, you name it...But yar, if it was more then, idk, four or five, then yeah it'd probably be a blood bath and better suited for SWAT to handle with minimium damage and casualties.

Well it's all very well saying that now, but in the chaos of said robbery people aren't going to sit down and make that kind of cost/benefit judgement. They're either going to panic and be useless (guns or no) or reach for their handguns and attract a bunch of bullets in their direction. Net result: Same as a no-guns society OR Lots more people die than would have in a no-guns society. Got to say, that doesn't sound too great a result from a policy that is supposed to reduce crime?

Well I happen to like he death penalty, less people get out on the streets and probably will do the same thing again, and jails wouldn't be as crowded with a bunch of psychos and what not.

From a costs point of view, it's great.

But from a human rights, miscarriages of justice, and actual effect on crime rates (which appears to be inverse to the one you'd expect) point of view... it sucks.

We'll never know until it actually happens.
That...And no system is perfect to begin with.

[clapper011]

keep the baiting and flames out...and have a normal discussion without attacking each other huh?

[DirtyDishSoap]

keep the baiting and flames out...and have a normal discussion without attacking each other huh?

NO!

[THORNHEART]

I own rifles, a few automatic guns, a machete millions of knives, and a few handguns


and like a rpg I got in my travels

[The Bison King]

keep the baiting and flames out...and have a normal discussion without attacking each other huh?

NO!

Please?