Amendment #2 - its importance

[Dagobahn Eagle]

This thread in response to:

Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.

Would you mind telling me just how that is?

 

There are lots of countries that "infringe on the basic right to own an AK-47". In fact, in most countries you aren't allowed to own a heavy machine gun at all (Shock and Horror! ). However, many of those countries easily outrank the US when it comes to low crime rates and liberties both.

 

How is your "right" to own a handgun/machine gun as important as free speech? And don't come dragging in some conspiracy theory á la "the government will come thundering in to take away our other liberties once we give up our guns". That never happened in other countries with stable, healthy democracies where citizens were dis-armed. But then again, maybe you're sub-consciously afraid that with the PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Torture, wire-taps, insulting of dissenters, and other un-democratic incidents, the USA might not be as friendly as you think?

 

The ACLU doesn't see it that way and I think that's wrong. This goes to you too, Toms, no right in the constitution shall be infringed regardless of how scary some people might think it.

That's the problem here: Different people have different views on what you should have the right to do.

 

I think free health care is a right, most neo-cons disagree.

 

I think you should have the right to not be tortured - most neo-cons appear to disagree (at least after I prove to them that Bush ordered the Guantanamo torture - before that point, they tend to be "aw, come on, we've got it under control there have been tonnes of dishonorable discharges, don't try to link Bush to such atrocities).

 

I think it's a right to marry whoever you want, the neo-cons think that if your mythology says otherwise, that should override that right.

 

Let's not start discussing gay marriage, health care, and torture here. I'm just saying that if you state that something is "in the Constitution, which deems it a basic right, so it's right and shouldn't be altered" is simply not enough. If gay marriage, free health care, and torture-free prisons for everyone was in the Constitution as basic, set-in-stone rights, would you support them? Nope, don't think so.

 

So how, exactly, is it that the 2nd should be set in stone?

[rccar328]

Well, to start off with, if you can show me where the Constitution says that there is a right to free health care, I'll agree with you. If you want that to be a basic right, write to your Senators & Representatives and push for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I disagree with the basic ideology behind it...but if gay marriage, torture-free prisons, and socialized health care (don't ever call it free, because it isn't) were in the Constitution, I may not agree with the ideology behind them, but they would be part of the law.

 

But on to the 2nd Amendment. I have mixed feelings (of amusement and disgust) when I hear liberals (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about how America is turning into some kind of Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state, and then turn around and knock the right to keep and bear arms. If it's really as bad as many around here seem to believe, those people should be the first ones on the 2nd Amendment bandwagon...because if George W. Bush's secret police are going to haul me off in the dead of night, I'm not going down without a fight.

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn't just a crime issue (though communities that have fewer restrictions on gun ownership have been shown to have less crime - criminals are less likely to try and pull something if they don't know who will shoot back, whereas communities with harsh gun restrictions have been shown to have more crime - not necessarily more gun crimes, but more crime in general, and bolder criminals). Think about the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written: if England had had the same kind of gun control laws that they do now, the American colonists wouldn't have been able to revolt. So yeah, you can restrict gun ownership in the name of reducing crime...but don't come complaining to me when you couldn't defend yourself from that robber. And on top of that, if/when that Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state does arrive, don't be complaining when the people can't defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

 

That is why the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st.

[toms]

The second ammendment is so badly written as to be almost unenforceable anyway... as nobody, not even constitutional experts, seem to able to agree on what it actually means. In a case where a law is vague and subject to multiple interpretations it makes sense for an organisation like the ACLU to say "damned if we know what it actually means.. so we can't really argue about it in court if we don't understand it".

 

For info:

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

 

"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."

 

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

 

"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."'

 

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.

Unfortuantely commas can be important in the english language and proper use of them can change the meaning of the sentence.

 

------------------------

 

Does State refer to the Nation State of the Individual states within the nation?

 

Does security mean security of state independence from National government? Security from invasion? Security of citizens in their homes?

 

I've heard it said that the 2nd ammendment is to allow citizens to protect their rights under the constitution and 1st amendment and overthrow any government that infringes those rights... but it doesn't read that way.

 

We all know the unending arguments about the meaning of militia.

 

I have to say that I don't rate the relative importance of the 2nd ammendment as that high. At least not in today's world.

 

What actual USE is the right to bear arms now?

 

- It wouldn't allow the people to overthrow a corupt government. It wouldn't help if the USA was attacked/invaded by a foreign power. It wouldn't increase the security of the state as a whole.

 

In order to do any of those things it would need to allow people to have tanks and anti-air systems and nukes. Though as I read it it doesn't specify WHICH arms they should be allowed... so maybe they should all have those already.

 

- It would let you go hunting. Which is fun... but hardly an essential basic human right. Not now that hunting isn't required to survive.

 

- It might let you defend your home... but then it also lets those invading your home have guns too. And makes you near enough as likely to injure yourselves as anyone invading. ANd if you have the right to defend your home.. you have the right to defend yourself in the street... so we are back to a wild west situation of everyone walking around with UZIs.

 

So basically: doesn't increase security noticeably. doesn't safeguard freedom. doesn't increase safety.

 

Even if we are generous and say it doesn't make things worse.. or even makes each of those things slightly better... its still harldy as important as the right to be free - the right which people often claim it was set up to defend in the first place. (would be odd if the "the right to defend freedom" was more important than the "right to have freedom" even if it worked.)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Well, to start off with, if you can show me where the Constitution says that there is a right to free health care, I'll agree with you. If you want that to be a basic right, write to your Senators & Representatives and push for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I disagree with the basic ideology behind it...but if gay marriage, torture-free prisons, and socialized health care (don't ever call it free, because it isn't) were in the Constitution, I may not agree with the ideology behind them, but they would be part of the law.

Not very democratic of you, is it? I suppose, then, that you want Amendment XVIII, the "Liqour abolished"-amendment, back in, too?

 

I hope you see what I mean. You can say "it's the law" all you want, but that doesn't make it more or less right. In fact, you seem to know this yourself, as you whole-heartedly support the NSA and PATRIOT ACT as they overlook just about any amendment in the Constitution they can overlook.

 

Think about the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written: if England had had the same kind of gun control laws that they do now, the American colonists wouldn't have been able to revolt.

And since the USA's still under a tyrannical State across the Sea, we need guns for the big revolt. Right:rolleyes:

 

But on to the 2nd Amendment. I have mixed feelings (of amusement and disgust) when I hear liberals (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about how America is turning into some kind of Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state, and then turn around and knock the right to keep and bear arms.

Even more so vice-versa, ask you me.

 

The neo-conservatives sit idly around as right after right, and amendment after amendment is removed (another hypocritical statement: First the Bush-supporters blindly follow the Second Amendment, then it's OK when the PATRIOT ACT and all the other Dubyan actions take tonnes of other amendments away), but then hold onto their guns because they're afraid of a dictatorship. It's akin to letting a forest fire spread towards your neighbourhood without doing anything, and then install smoke detectors in your house because "well, we never know, someday there might be a fire..."

 

The liberals try to stave off the dictatorship, the neo-cons can't even see it coming, but prepare "just in case someone tries to take away my Sacred 2nd Amendment - we can't lose any Amendments, you know, except the ones His Holiness Bush has taken away".

 

Can anyone else than me see the oxymoron here? Neo-cons are the first to defend the PATRIOT ACT, which allows for searches of suspects' library records and other insignificant things. However, checking to see if a terrorist suspect's bought a gun? Too dangerous for democracy...

 

PS: Not to say Bush is necessarily trying for a dictatorship, far from it. But it's possible, which is what I'm saying.

 

Not to mention that if the wrath of the US government does turn against you, a couple of civilians with rifles wouldn't change a thing. Is the insurgency in Iraq making a huge difference? Nope. Killed 2000 soldiers, no more. US is still determined to get there, with a ton of tanks and airplanes and soldiers.

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn't just a crime issue (though communities that have fewer restrictions on gun ownership have been shown to have less crime - criminals are less likely to try and pull something if they don't know who will shoot back, whereas communities with harsh gun restrictions have been shown to have more crime - not necessarily more gun crimes, but more crime in general, and bolder criminals).

Can you prove that somehow? I'm asking because all the statistics I have ever seen prove the exact opposite. The more guns, the more crime. The tighter gun regulations, the less crime. Look at the UK - crime rate went up a bit after guns were banned, but then - surprise, surprise - it plummeted. So much for your argument.

 

And of course, unless you can prove to me that most gun deaths are from defensive firing, not from offensive ones, your argument is even more void.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I have no problem with people having guns so long as they're responsible with them. I do think that there need to be restrictions placed on who can have them and what they can do with them. I see no reason why the second amendment should just be ignored and people would be denied access to weapons, but I don't like the idea of some wacko going ape-s*** in a public space and killing people-and having restrictions on where and to who guns (and ammunition for that matter) can be sold/can be sold to can help prevent... bad things.

[TK-8252]

I think we need to look at the lesson of prohibition... it doesn't make something go away, it only makes a huge criminal black market for it. So criminals will have it and those who obey the law will not have it.

 

So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.

 

There's probably different studies showing different results from tighter or looser gun restrictions, but here's an interesting interview with an author who wrote a book about how more guns equal less crime:

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns misfire, in which case, guns do kill people

[TK-8252]

Guns misfire, in which case, guns do kill people

 

Only until someone invents a gun with artificial intelligence will that argument be invalidated.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Only until someone invents a gun with artificial intelligence will that argument be invalidated.

Ehhh, who would get the blame in that situation? As far as I know neither fate nor bad luck are physical entities capable of being blamed for something. The resultant of an action is not dependant on it's original intent (or lack thereof).

 

***Edit***

Did you mean validated?

[TK-8252]

Did you mean validated?

 

Nah, I meant invalidated, but meant the original argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Nah, I meant invalidated, but meant the original argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Whatever, it's an off-topic argument anyways.

[toms]

I think we need to look at the lesson of prohibition... it doesn't make something go away, it only makes a huge criminal black market for it. So criminals will have it and those who obey the law will not have it.

Prohibition is unlikely to work in the US because there is already such a huge cache of guns there. If they had never existed in the first place then the issue might be different.

Its getting worse in the UK, but guns are essentially prohibited here and gun deaths are way lower even if the only guys with guns are the bad guys.

I can never imagine a criminal even considering the probability of the homeower having a gun to be honest... criminals don't tend to think that far ahead.

 

So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.

Though you'd be more likely to be shot by that gun than your parents need to use it to defend your home.

 

There's probably different studies showing different results from tighter or looser gun restrictions, but here's an interesting interview with an author who wrote a book about how more guns equal less crime:

None of those studies is worth a damn.. because its all either guesswork or comparing different cultures. Who knows what would happen if they banned guns in the US. My guess would be very little would change. there is too much of a gun culture and too many weapons in circulation. Regulation and taxation might slowly reduce the number though.

 

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.

God.. every time i hear that I want to kill people, if only myself.

 

---

 

BUt anyway... the merits of guns aren't really the point of this thread.

The question is about the relative importance of the right to have a weapon.

 

My argument would be that the advances in military weaponary, surveilance and communication have made the right to bear arms near enough irrelevant.

 

It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.

 

- I can see the importance of the 1st ammendment.

- 3rd is kind of irrelevant today for the same reasons as the 2nd.

- 4th to 8th all seem pretty important to ensure a fair justice system.

- 9th and 10th are catchall exceptions that make sense.

- 11-27 are mostly tweaks and clarifications.

 

Of the major ones i'd rather sacrifice 2 and 3 than 1 or 5-10.

 

But i'd like to hear from someone who is PRO gun ownership why they feel that they are so important that they need constitutional protection??

the 9th ammendment explicitly states that there are additional rights not contained in the constitution and defined by case law (such as the right to privacy) and i'd think that this would be sufficient.

Whether you aare pro or anti or neutral on gun ownership I just don't see that its an important enough right to need an expicit constitutional ammendment.

[TK-8252]

But i'd like to hear from someone who is PRO gun ownership why they feel that they are so important that they need constitutional protection??

 

Probably because if it weren't for the 2nd Ammendment, guns would have already been outlawed as they are in the UK.

[Mike Windu]

Not my argument, but my teacher recently argued that getting rid of guns would cause a decrease in crime rate because there's the lack of a double motive, criminals have guns so I should have a gun too type mentality.

 

Of course you get criminals who buy black market stuff, but still, the rate would go down.

 

*shrug*

 

I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an ak to defend their front lawn.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.

Sure, because we all know that all burglars want is kill you because they're all evil.

 

Or maybe they're just after your money or valuables and just as likely to run off as committ mass murder upon being detected. Just maybe.

 

Seriously, though, if you're afraid of burglars, invest in deterrants such as burglar alarms, solid locks, etc. In semi-anarchist countries where it actually is a problem that AK-47-wielding mafias kick your door in, steal all your belongings, and rape and/or kill you for good measure, guess what people do? They buy good locks. They build iron gates in their houses, sealing off whole sections of it. And so on. They certainly are not dumb enough to get into a firefight.

 

So in other words, if you really are that paranoid about burglars that you feel you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, set up deterrants such as iron gates or burglar alarms. Then there's a 99% chance you'll never see a burglar in your life.

 

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.

:hurl:

 

I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an AK to defend their front lawn.

Exactly.

 

It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.

Exactly. Gun supporters can push the "we need to defend our country"-cliché-excuse all they want, but I'd be more convinced if they actually acted as if that was what they needed guns for. In other words, form organized militias, get your hands on some heavy weapons, and train for armed combat and guerilla warfare. And so on.

 

Thousands of untrained little morons with AK-47s don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army. The above-mentioned gun-toting "if you enter my house, I have the right to kill you to protect the $598 in my drawer"-style coach potatoes know that.

 

It's akin to me buying a life ring and saying "oh, who knows, maybe there'll be a flood one day?". Or a pilot packing a pack of Band-Aids instead of a parachute because he's "afraid the plane might crash and he might get hurt".

 

Sorry, but I don't quite buy that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.

Sure, because we all know that all burglars want is kill you because they're all evil.

 

Or maybe they're just after your money or valuables and just as likely to run off as committ mass murder upon being detected. Just maybe.

 

Seriously, though, if you're afraid of burglars, invest in deterrants such as burglar alarms, solid locks, etc. In semi-anarchist countries where it actually is a problem that AK-47-wielding mafias kick your door in, steal all your belongings, and rape and/or kill you for good measure, guess what people do? They buy good locks. They build iron gates in their houses, sealing off whole sections of it. And so on. They certainly are not dumb enough to get into a firefight.

 

So in other words, if you really are that paranoid about burglars that you feel you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, set up deterrants such as iron gates or burglar alarms. Then there's a 99% chance you'll never see a burglar in your life.

 

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.

:hurl:

 

I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an AK to defend their front lawn.

Exactly.

 

It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.

Exactly. Gun supporters can push the "we need to defend our country"-cliché-excuse all they want, but I'd be more convinced if they actually acted as if that was what they needed guns for. In other words, form organized militias, get your hands on some heavy weapons, and train for armed combat and guerilla warfare. And so on.

 

Thousands of untrained little morons, even with AK-47s, don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army. The above-mentioned gun-toting "if you enter my house, I have the right to kill you to protect the $598 in my drawer"-style coach potatoes should know that.

 

It's akin to me buying a life ring and saying "oh, who knows, maybe there'll be a flood one day?". Or a pilot packing a pack of Band-Aids instead of a parachute because he's "afraid the plane might crash and he might get hurt".

 

Sorry, but I don't quite buy that.

[toms]

Probably because if it weren't for the 2nd Ammendment, guns would have already been outlawed as they are in the UK.

 

But that implies that GUNS THEMSELVES are the end objective? Surely it is the benefits that the owenership of guns bring that was the objective when the 2nd ammendment was added? And as i've stated I don't believe that you have any more of those benefits with an Uzi under your bed than you do without.. as guns no longer matter in the way they once did.

 

Its the right to guns in order to protect freedom, not freedom in order to protect the right to guns.

(or at least that was the original idea)

[TK-8252]

I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an ak to defend their front lawn.

 

Says you. And hey, you probably got an AK yourself, gangsta!

 

My house can't have iron gates (or any front fence for that matter), because it's against the regulations of the neighborhood. Locks don't always work, because windows can be broken. An alarm would be good for my house, because it's in a neighborhood, but what about the old guy with his family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods? An alarm wouldn't work for him, because there would be no one around to hear it. The ONLY option he would have is a gun. Don't count on the cops to save you... it'll be a half hour before they get out there. When it comes down to it, YOU are the one who is responsible for defending yourself. Not the police, not the government, not your neighbor. And I don't see any harm in having a gun under your bed. The idea that the government could take away your right to defend yourself is scary.

[ET Warrior]

A) The old guy with a family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods doesn't have neighborhood regulations prohibitting iron gates.

 

B) If the alarm is an audible one, and it signals the police, then the burgler will almost CERTAINLY flee unless it was their goal to murder the family in the first place, and in that case you having a gun won't do much good as they'll probably kill you in your sleep. Just because it could take the cops awhile to get there, they WILL get there, and a burgler won't want to be trucking around out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of stolen goods/dead bodies when the cops are coming.

[TK-8252]

A) The old guy with a family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods doesn't have neighborhood regulations prohibitting iron gates.

 

True, but an iron gate isn't sure to stop someone intent on murdering, raping, whatever.

 

And chances are a gun would be cheaper than building a damn moat around your house.

 

B) If the alarm is an audible one, and it signals the police, then the burgler will almost CERTAINLY flee unless it was their goal to murder the family in the first place, and in that case you having a gun won't do much good as they'll probably kill you in your sleep. Just because it could take the cops awhile to get there, they WILL get there, and a burgler won't want to be trucking around out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of stolen goods/dead bodies when the cops are coming.

 

A killer could very well break into your house, kill everyone, and get the hell out in five minutes. By the time the police arrive all they can do is collect evidence, and haul away your body and that of your wife and kids... okay, so I'm getting overly dramatic.

 

Also, if young women would be trained with concealed guns they could fend off an attacker if they have to walk alone at night.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

An alarm would be good for my house, because it's in a neighborhood, but what about the old guy with his family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods? An alarm wouldn't work for him, because there would be no one around to hear it.

Alarms nowadays are connected to security companies, which immediately scramble when the electronic siren alerts them.

 

True, but an iron gate isn't sure to stop someone intent on murdering, raping, whatever.

It's a deterrant, so yes, it will.

 

The ONLY option he would have is a gun.

And here I was thinking there were such things as self-defense courses, mace, guard dogs, "Panic Rooms", traps (), etc.

 

Come to think of it, mace and martial arts would work far better in such an enclosed facility as a house. If you lived in a sleeping bag in the middle of an open field, sure, a gun might be useful as the thieves would have to charge fifty metres of open ground to reach you. In a house? Nope, guns would be tactically unsound. Not to mention that there are such things as Less-Lethal guns, too, built to wound, not kill. What do you need a freaking AK-47 for? Next they neo-cons will be asking for TOWs and Stingers in the event of a break-in by helicopter- or tank-borne rapists .

 

Oh, and as for murderers killing you in your house in general: How often does that happen? Look, if you've pissed off Bubba or something, sure, get a gun/police protection/whatever. But owning a gun in case someone randomly breaks into your house? Nonsense.

 

The idea that the government could take away your right to defend yourself is scary.

But that's not what we're discussing, so no worries. We're talking about guns -one of many ways of defending yourself- and the second amendment.

 

Also, if young [men and women] were trained with concealed guns they could fend off an attacker if they have to walk alone at night.

Incredibly unsound argument. A gun is useless in meele (sp.?) combat. Mace, PepperGard, or even knives are far more effective, not to mention your good old martial arts.

 

And why concealed guns? Is it that important for you to be attacked, or is it just that you have no faith whatsoever in the deterrant effect?

[Cheech Marin]

Thousands of untrained little morons, even with AK-47s, don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army.

 

*Points to Iraq*

[Dagobahn Eagle]

As it were - they don't stand a chance. The Coalition rolled in unobstructed, and the "militia" has succeeded in killing "only" 2000+ US troops. That's nothing compared to the NRA's conviction that an armed rabble (and let's not get into how the Opposition in Iraq is relatively well-trained) could drive the USA out in no time and that the said rabble is all that's keeping the US juggernaut from installing a dictatorship since the said juggernaut is so terrified of them.

 

And chances are a gun would be cheaper than building a damn moat around your house.

True. But the moat can double as a swimming pool if you just watch out for the sharks:p.

[TK-8252]

It's a deterrant, so yes, it will.

 

Not if someone is crazy. If someone is drunk, truely desperate, or just plain insane, a gate won't stop them. See what happens with border fences... they don't work as they are now.

 

And here I was thinking there were such things as self-defense courses, mace, guard dogs, "Panic Rooms", traps (), etc.

 

Self-defense courses are no good against an armed assailant, not all people can be stopped with mace, guard dogs are super expensive and can be shot and killed... a taser would be a good alternative, but still, what's the harm in owning a gun if you use it right?

 

Oh, and as for murderers killing you in your house in general: How often does that happen? Look, if you've pissed off Bubba or something, sure, get a gun/police protection/whatever. But owning a gun in case someone randomly breaks into your house? Nonsense.

 

Tell that to those who lost loved ones to serial killers like BTK...

 

Incredibly unsound argument. A gun is useless in meele (sp.?) combat. Mace, PepperGard, or even knives are far more effective, not to mention your good old martial arts.

 

That's the point... if you have a gun, you don't have to get into a melee. And you have less of a chance of getting stabbed or having your weapon stolen off you.

 

And why concealed guns? Is it that important for you to be attacked, or is it just that you have no faith whatsoever in the deterrant effect?

 

I wasn't sure if you could have non-concealed weapons. If you can, that'd be even better.

[Good Sir Knight]

This thread in response to:

 

Would you mind telling me just how that is?

 

There are lots of countries that "infringe on the basic right to own an AK-47". In fact, in most countries you aren't allowed to own a heavy machine gun at all (Shock and Horror! ). However, many of those countries easily outrank the US when it comes to low crime rates and liberties both.

 

How is your "right" to own a handgun/machine gun as important as free speech? And don't come dragging in some conspiracy theory á la "the government will come thundering in to take away our other liberties once we give up our guns". That never happened in other countries with stable, healthy democracies where citizens were dis-armed. But then again, maybe you're sub-consciously afraid that with the PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Torture, wire-taps, insulting of dissenters, and other un-democratic incidents, the USA might not be as friendly as you think?

 

 

That's the problem here: Different people have different views on what you should have the right to do.

 

 

I'm going to post one thing in here because I feel so strongly on this issue, it's one of the only things I won't debate with someone over. I just get too fired up and it's because I'm half libertarian... no right in the constitution should be infringed or reinterpreted.

 

Yes Eagle, other countries infringe on the rights of their people to own weapons. That's part of what sets us apart my Norwegian friend...or are you just a yank visiting?

 

At the end of the day, I look at the constitution and I don't espouse what is important in the document purely on my little oppinions.

 

There is nothing there that states that the first amendment is better than the second, nothing.

 

I also can help but agree with RC, with this supposed Orwellian nightmare going on wouldn't you want to protect your family? It's amazing that people feel they are that important...to be spied on... makes you wonder....

 

So yeah, I believe in the right for every person to own any weapon he wants. Just like how I believe everyone has the ability to insult/inflame people verbally via the first amendment. All rights were bestowed on the people and any attempt to infringe or reinterpret them is horrendous.

 

Of course liberals and conservatives alike believe that what they are doing is right and of course, they are wrong. Always about furthering there little agenda.

 

I believe in a free country. It's amazing that liberals stand behind these universal principles of freedom except for when it comes to someone owning a gun or offending a lifestyle.

 

After all it's okay to throw pictures of a depraved jesus/mohammed at Christians/Muslims but if you tell a homosexual that he lives a dirty lifestyle you're a bigot.

 

Just a point of view and I bid you adu.