Amendment #2 - its importance

[Good Sir Knight]

Oh I can't help it...I'll stay in this thread and have some fun.

 

 

 

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell

[Dagobahn Eagle]

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.

As I already said, that's not democratic at all. "It's in the Constitution, so it's right"? Come on, now. Dissent always was, is, and will always be a vital part of democracy (in my little opinion).

 

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.

There are laws against slander, untrue statements, and threats, so no, technically you don't.

 

All rights were bestowed on the people and any attempt to infringe or reinterpret them is horrendous.

I addressed this one, too.

OK, then the US is horrendous for infringing the citizens' right to marry freely, even within their own gender. Damned re-interpreting of "right to pursue happiness".

 

The US is horrendous for denying its citizens the right to free (socialized in Neo-Con Political Correct-ish) Health Care.

 

The US is horrendous for... And so on. See, everyone has a different opinion about what your rights should be.

[toms]

The constitution isn't fixed. The fact its had so many ammendments shows that. It also isn't exclusive.

 

I still don't get WHY the right to bear arms is held so dear by so many americans though. I'm asuming it must be due to some collective hangover from the war of independence?

 

Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.

 

The constitution wasn't ammended to make sure everyone had guns to play with.. it was ammended to ensure everyone had what guns could provide.

If chickens could have provided the same functions as guns then maybe the 2nd ammendment would have been the right to bear chickens. It isn't the guns themselves that are important.

 

But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.

Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?

 

Most democracies don't have the right to guns, but are just as democratic. Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes. Guns don't overthrow governments.. blogs do. A militia with rifles can't stand up against enemies who can take them out from a safe distance. If the government comes to get you then guns don't help a lot (think waco).

 

So maybe the 2nd ammendment needs to be updated to include the right to have WMDs.. or jet planes. Heck, maybe there is still a minor value in the 2nd ammendment.. but I cna't see how anyone can argue that it is close to being as important as the first - or close to being as important and relevant as it once was.

 

If they tried to ban something I was attached to like computer games then i'd be up in arms about it too. Which is understandable because i'm attached to them. But i wouldn't be able to logically argue that it was important enough that there be a "right to video games" ammendment. IMHO the right to bear arms isn't important enough these days to need its own ammendment... its one of those miscelaneous additional rights to be determined by the courts.. like the right to privacy, or the right to imformation, or the right to video games.

[TK-8252]

Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.

 

I agree. I think that a lot of the southern types around where I live DO just love guns. They like to collect guns, go hunting, or just shoot crap on their property. But I don't see why that's bad... I wouldn't hunt, because I don't see how killing animals could be a source of entertainment, but just because I wouldn't do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected (gay marriage, anyone?).

 

But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.

 

Hey, look at Iraq. The U.S. military has all the best technology and yet a bunch of nuts with AK's can still do so much damage.

 

Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes.

 

If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house. If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.

 

And then you have situations like in New Orleans where citizens needed guns to defend themselves when there was no order.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?

Nepal. Right now. Thank Heaven the world media's finally paying attention to the situation there.

 

Hey, look at Iraq. The U.S. military has all the best technology and yet a bunch of nuts with AK's can still do so much damage.

Already been addressed. How many Coalition soldiers are in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands? 2000 killed, in that case, is not "so much damage".

 

If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house.

And that's why so many people want guns banned - because too many people think they have the right to take upon themselves the role of judge and jurty and sentence people to death for things that a real judge and jury would only give you a fine or jailtime for.

 

If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.

That's already been brought up, too. This is going around in circles:rolleyes:.

 

And then you have situations like in New Orleans where citizens needed guns to defend themselves when there was no order.

But of course, if the National Guard was levied on time there wouldn't be a riot.

[TK-8252]

Already been addressed. How many Coalition soldiers are in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands? 2000 killed, in that case, is not "so much damage".

 

And yet we have thousands upon thousands upon thousands more of U.S. and coalition casualties, Iraqi police and army deaths and casualties, civilian deaths and casualties, and the destruction of so vehicles. You sound like a neo-con when you say that the Iraq war, eh, only 2,000 killed, not so much damage.

 

And that's why so many people want guns banned - because too many people think they have the right to take upon themselves the role of judge and jurty and sentence people to death for things that a real judge and jury would only give you a fine or jailtime for.

 

If someone breaks into my house with the a gun know I'm gonna shoot the bastard. And if I'd have to kill him I would. I'm defending myself, and I don't wait for the government to do that for me (when it's too late). There is NOTHING wrong with killing someone who has broken into your house with a gun. What would you THINK if that happened to you?

 

"Oh, I'll just hope he's a nice guy and I'll just wait 'till the cops catch him, and he'll get thrown in prison!"

 

But of course, if the National Guard was levied on time there wouldn't be a riot.

 

But it wasn't, and that's the point. I wouldn't want to die because my government screwed up and couldn't put in protection.

[toms]

I should point out at the start that I'm not calling for guns to be banned, or even the 2nd ammendment protection to be removed... just pointing out how it doesn't seem to be remotely important compared to most of the other rights declared in the constitution (and a few outside it).

 

Nepal. Right now. Thank Heaven the world media's finally paying attention to the situation there.

 

But again.. the maoist rebels have been fighting an armed war for years.. had no effect whatsoever. Its only when the people themselves started taking to the streets (and not with rifles or guns from anything i've seen), writing about it in papers and on the internet and the world media started to pay attention that anything began to change.

 

I know that "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a cliche.. but it does seem to hold pretty true.

The only armed uprisings i can think of are the ones that have INSTALLED dictators, not overthrown them. And most have THOSE have been by the army and not the people. All the major overthrowings of dictators (east germany, eastern europe etc..) have been largely peaceful and unarmed on the part of the people.

 

Almost no other democracies feel the need to enshrine the right to bear arms (do ANY?) and yet they are still democratic. Everyone in iraq or the middle east or parts of africa seems to be armed... yet it hasn't brought them democracy or safety.

 

In iraq you had a properly trained army.. yet they still stood no chance against a load of jets and tanks.

Those that are causing trouble now are doing so mostly with guerilla/terrorist tactics.. to which the right to bear arms is irrelevant. Just look at the attacks by the IRA or ETA or Tim McVey.. they managed to carry out pretty effective terror tactics in without needing to have a right to arms.

 

If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house. If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.

Do you have a gun under your bed? If not, why not?

If you didn't have a gun then why would they kill you? No one would be dead.

 

I don't want to get into the annoying gun safety arguments here as they are neverending and both sides have statistics that show they are right. But if we take an average of those views and statistics, and look at other countries then it becomes clear that guns have almost no effect on public safety.

More people with guns = more guns getting into the hands of criminals - so it evens itself out.

I don't know that burglary rates differ significantly at all betwen countries with guns and those without. I doubt it.

 

I think guns have just become so ingrained in american culture and psyches that they are now inseperable. Whether they are needed or not is now beside the point. I might never need it, it might never help me, but pry it from my cold dead hands anyway!

 

I can't help but think that if it wasn't guns but chickens then the glamour wouldn't be there. Every film and tv series wouldn't involve stylish chicken-outs. Everyone wouldn't want them. ;-)

 

I've lived alone for a reasonable time, often in some dodgy neighbourhoods and i have to say that it has NEVER crossed my mind that "oh, if only i had a gun i'd be so much safer!". if only we all had guns...

 

[edit]

Ok.. some quick top of my head research reveals that:

States with lowest gun ownership:

Middle atlantic (NY,NJ,PA) 11% - Violent crime rate: 409. Property crime rate: 2400

States with highest gun ownership:

E South Central (Ala., Ken.,Miss.,Ten.) 28% - Violent crime rate: 425, Property crime rate: 3700

 

Now I know i just bashed these figures together. The gun rates are from 96-98 and the crime figures from 2003 (per 100,000pop) and that many other factors can influence crime rates (such as poverty, ghettos, culture etc..)

But even if you factor in a major amount of error you can see that gun ownership appears to have no real correlation to crime rates. (even within each block some were high and some were low). Its a non issue either way...

[Good Sir Knight]

<I drafted this message yesterday and wasn't able to post, I look over the replies since then but for now here it is>

 

 

The constitution isn't fixed. The fact its had so many ammendments shows that. It also isn't exclusive.

 

I still don't get WHY the right to bear arms is held so dear by so many americans though. I'm asuming it must be due to some collective hangover from the war of independence?

 

Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.

 

The constitution wasn't ammended to make sure everyone had guns to play with.. it was ammended to ensure everyone had what guns could provide.

If chickens could have provided the same functions as guns then maybe the 2nd ammendment would have been the right to bear chickens. It isn't the guns themselves that are important.

 

But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.

Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?

 

Most democracies don't have the right to guns, but are just as democratic. Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes. Guns don't overthrow governments.. blogs do. A militia with rifles can't stand up against enemies who can take them out from a safe distance. If the government comes to get you then guns don't help a lot (think waco).

 

So maybe the 2nd ammendment needs to be updated to include the right to have WMDs.. or jet planes. Heck, maybe there is still a minor value in the 2nd ammendment.. but I cna't see how anyone can argue that it is close to being as important as the first - or close to being as important and relevant as it once was.

 

If they tried to ban something I was attached to like computer games then i'd be up in arms about it too. Which is understandable because i'm attached to them. But i wouldn't be able to logically argue that it was important enough that there be a "right to video games" ammendment. IMHO the right to bear arms isn't important enough these days to need its own ammendment... its one of those miscelaneous additional rights to be determined by the courts.. like the right to privacy, or the right to imformation, or the right to video games.

 

 

This is pretty funny, I have two people one from the UK and one from Norway telling me that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership even though the ACLU can't help but admit it (though fight against it).

 

You also go on to blast us for not putting free health care into it....it's also not free...it'd only be free to those who don't work for a living.

 

Have you seen Canada's healthcare system? With a large nation like that, just forget about getting cancer treatment or an organ transplant...just right it off and die or have the money to come down to the states. Sure if you break your leg it's great but just count on you and your family never getting a major illness.

 

On to the subject at hand......

 

You're entitled to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You can think of it as our National Guard... hardly a militia as it'd Federally funded and fighting in that war people cry about but okay, hardly a peoples militia wouldn't you say? I don't think there is a civilian counsel for the National Guard so the militia argument is not only bogus but it's false.

 

A great many people disagree with you. People that were raised in families that honored the right to bear arms. If you haven't been around guns, if you haven't had the training and if the only thing you know about them is from movies and your parents then I think you're being a little naive.

 

It's natural for us to be scared of what we don't understand. I'm sure it's been vilified over and over and pressed into your brain that guns are bad.

 

Truth is, guns are nothing more than tools. You may fear guns, I don't, I own a few. I fear people because a gun cannot hurt you with out a malicious or careless person.

 

Restricting rights to firearms because of criminals and a few idiots is naive, totally naive.

 

You have more to fear from your common man and if I'm not mistaken England has seen it's stabbings increase year after year. Better ban those kitchen knives too.

 

 

Stabbings 'a public health issue'

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You also go on to blast us for not putting free health care into it.

Don't remember doing so in this thread. I said different people have different views on what your "rights" are, and thus you can't just say that "this is my right, period, no one infringe on it or you're evil". I think you missed the whole point.

 

A great many people disagree with you. People that were raised in families that honored the right to bear arms. If you haven't been around guns, if you haven't had the training and if the only thing you know about them is from movies and your parents then I think you're being a little naive.

 

It's natural for us to be scared of what we don't understand. I'm sure it's been vilified over and over and pressed into your brain that guns are bad.

And I'm sure you understand that ad hominem remarks aren't really useful here. No offense. However, just to do it I'd like to point out that my father's heavily into hunting and thus own four shotguns.

 

Truth is, guns are nothing more than tools.

Try "weapons". A "tool" is used to mend, build, alter, etc. A gun is used to kill and destroy. Big difference.

 

Restricting rights to firearms because of criminals and a few idiots is naive, totally naive.

A few criminals and morons? Don't 11 000 people get shot in the US each year?

 

This is pretty funny, I have two people (...) telling me that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership even though the A.C.L.U. can't help but admit it (though fight against it).

You're right, there's a contradiction in the amendment (it says gun owners are to be in an organized militia and then says there's no need for organization or militia-membership whatsoever as the right to bear arms shall not be attacked).

 

You sound like a neo-con when you say that the Iraq war, eh, only 2,000 killed, not so much damage.

Not compared to the total, no.

 

And I'm not trying to rationalize the Iraqi invasion - the US, her allies, and the Iraqi law enformenent forces, armed forces, and civilians have combined lost a lot of men, most of whom would still be alive today had Bush&Co. not gone into the God-forsaken country. However, I can say that without contradicting myself as the casualty number, although high, has not really put a dent in the Coalition as a whole. They're still determined to stay in Iraq, they're still strong, and they're not going to be driven out.

[TK-8252]

Do you have a gun under your bed? If not, why not?

 

I would like to, but I'm not really ready to go take all the required training. My dad has asked around, though, about getting some type of pistol.

 

If you didn't have a gun then why would they kill you? No one would be dead.

 

No one put up resistance to BTK, and yet he killed everyone. Why did HE kill all those people?

 

You can call me paranoid... I don't think I'm paranoid, I just would want to be prepared. The same way you have a fire extinguisher in your house. Chances are you won't have to ever use it... but you still have it right? I would not want to wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a broken window... and think, damn, we're helpless if this guy has a gun.

 

More people with guns = more guns getting into the hands of criminals - so it evens itself out.

 

But the criminals already have guns, at least in the U.S. Maybe not in Europe. More guns means more citizens who can defend themselves.

 

They're still determined to stay in Iraq, they're still strong, and they're not going to be driven out.

 

Not if you ask Murtha, but that's a different argument.

[Mike Windu]

You can defend your home just as well with a .9mm instead of a freaking AK/RPG/MTA Missle/Nuke, and with a hell of a lot less damage.

 

I'm all for keeping the amendment in there.

 

But there should be a sense of restraint. I.E. The First Amendment a while back, where anti-homosexuals made a ton of noise at a gay soldier's funeral.

 

Similarly, the government should refrain from letting certain guns be owned, especially without a specific license.

[TK-8252]

You can defend your home just as well with a .9mm instead of a freaking AK/RPG/MTA Missle/Nuke, and with a hell of a lot less damage.

 

Of course, but what if someone wants an AK just as a part of a gun collection? Or to just shoot cans and **** with in their property? As long as they aren't shooting up people, or my house or car with it, I don't care if they want to have one.

[Mike Windu]

You miss the part where I said "with a license"?

 

Gun collections are an irrelevant argument/red herring. This the right to bear arms. If you want to pop cans, hey, that's fine. Get a full AK license.

[ET Warrior]

What if someone wants a nuclear bomb just as part of a weapons of mass destruction collection? Or just to blow up small uninhabited islands with? As long as they aren't blowing up people, or my house or car with it, etc. etc.

 

I know it's an extreme, but I really don't see any reason for people to have automatic weapons. If you want a pistol or a hunting rifle, then whatever.

[TK-8252]

I know it's an extreme, but I really don't see any reason for people to have automatic weapons. If you want a pistol or a hunting rifle, then whatever.

 

There's a lot of things that you may not see reasons to do, hey, I would never go hunting, but if it isn't going to harm me or anything else, even though I don't understand why you would do it, why should I care?

 

Automatic weapons should be licensed, though, I'd agree with that.

[toms]

Technically the 2nd ammendment protects the right to nukes as much as the right to a pistol. It doens't define the right to bear "guns" it protects the right to bear "arms"... which would technically include any weapon past, present or future.

 

This is pretty funny, I have two people one from the UK and one from Norway telling me that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership even though the ACLU can't help but admit it (though fight against it).

No one in this thread has argued the "applies only to a well organised milita" argument.

 

The ACLU and a lot of legal experts (who i'd imagine know more about the law and legal wording than us) feel that it is a valid argument. However, as i mentioned, i think its a badly worded ammendment meaning that its an unwinnable argument for both sides. So I'm still not going into it. Are you actually reading our responses, or just writing arguments to counter what you think our posts would say?

 

On the other hand i'm reading your post and you have yet to give a single reason WHY you feel the right to bear arms is as important as the right to free speech.

 

But the criminals already have guns, at least in the U.S. Maybe not in Europe. More guns means more citizens who can defend themselves.

But where do you think most of the criminals get their guns???

There are enough figures on both sides (guns used to prevent crimes, guns more likely to kill family member than intruder, guns more likely to be stolen than used against intruder etc..) to convince me that the overall effect of guns on crime is pretty much negligible.

 

From the responses in this thread it does seem clear that the only justification for the 2nd ammendment is the "it makes people safer one". And that is totally unclear and unproven.

 

You have more to fear from your common man and if I'm not mistaken England has seen it's stabbings increase year after year. Better ban those kitchen knives too.

Once again. No one is talking about banning guns - simply the need and relative importance of protecting the right to them.

 

I would though be against a move to make the right to carry knives protected in british law.

 

Its also true that knives are becoming a big problem... with lots of kids carrying them for protection.

But here is an interesting thing: in surveys almost all of those carrying knives have said they are carrying them because they know that others do and they are for protection only. And yet the number of stabbings has gone up dramatically since all these kids started to carry knives for protection.

 

Which either means that they don't work as protection... or that lots of arguments and minor scuffles that would have previously ended in a few bruises are now ending in stabbings and deaths...

So I guess your solution would be to let everyone have guns for protection? Surely that would just escalate the situation even more?

 

Its no harder to smuggle guns into the UK than it is to the USA. So how come all the criminals in the UK don't just all carry guns??? It would make them much more powerful than the poor gun-less british citizens!!

The answer has to be either:

(a) They don't need guns because the victims don't have guns.

(b) Guns are harder to get hold of because there are less floating around.

 

Gun crime IS rising in the UK... (though murders (even with stabbings) and gun deaths are still way below the USA per head)... but in almost all cases its BETWEEN gangs of criminals. WHY? Because a guy breaking into my house doesn't NEED a gun! Rival drug gangs DO need guns or knives because "the other guys have them!".

 

So, lets see... Criminals only carry guns when they need them. Criminals only need guns when they think they will encounter someone else with a gun. Letting everyone have guns will make us all safer. Hmm...

[TK-8252]

But where do you think most of the criminals get their guns???

 

Many of them are illegal.

 

Its no harder to smuggle guns into the UK than it is to the USA.

 

We have Mexico on our southern border... the UK doesn't. If we think that the drug smuggling problem on the border is bad, we would have yet to see how bad the smuggling would get if guns were prohibited in the U.S., or even just restricted more than they already are.

 

So how come all the criminals in the UK don't just all carry guns??? It would make them much more powerful than the poor gun-less british citizens!!

The answer has to be either:

(a) They don't need guns because the victims don't have guns.

(b) Guns are harder to get hold of because there are less floating around.

 

I'm sure that if an organized criminal in the UK could get a gun I'm sure they would.

 

Because a guy breaking into my house doesn't NEED a gun! Rival drug gangs DO need guns or knives because "the other guys have them!".

 

A guy breaking into your house doesn't need a gun, right, because if he wants to he can just strangle you to death (you know, like BTK?).

 

So, lets see... Criminals only carry guns when they need them. Criminals only need guns when they think they will encounter someone else with a gun. Letting everyone have guns will make us all safer. Hmm...

 

So a car-jacker or a mugger or rapist who shoves a gun in someone's face thinks the person they're attacking might have a gun? The lady in her car, the guy walking down the street, or the woman alone at night? They might have guns?

 

No, criminals carry guns because if they can get one they will use it no matter who it is they're going to attack. If it's a rival gang member or the little old lady.

 

In the UK it clearly would be harder to get a gun with their laws, and no Mexico to smuggle in from. In the U.S., there's enough guns in circulation, and even if they were banned, you'd still have plenty coming in from Mexico.

 

If you're arguing that there is no need to protect the right to have a gun as much as the right to free speech, well, there's a lot of things that are protected in the Constitution that may not be as essential as free speech. I mean, if there really is a "right to an abortion"/"right to free health care" in the Constitution, is that as important as free speech?

[Mike Windu]

You have the random incidents sure; but violence on the whole would go down. It's not quite *that* easy to smuggle a gun. I'm sure many criminals would be deterred from buying black market guns. (maybe not big time criminals, but small time thieves? yeah.)

 

Knifings on the whole would go up.

 

I'm still for having guns, but I just don't think it's that important. I think that yes, Americans should retain this amendment, but certain restrictions need apply.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Which either means that they don't work as protection... or that lots of arguments and minor scuffles that would have previously ended in a few bruises are now ending in stabbings and deaths...

Exactly. Which is why pepper spray "pwnz" knives. It's got the same range, if not a much longer range, and while knives kill, spray only disables temporarily.

I'm sure that if an organized criminal in the UK could get a gun I'm sure they would.

You didn't answer his question: Why don't the criminals in Britain have guns when they know that if they used them, they'd gain a huge upper hand?

[TK-8252]

Exactly. Which is why pepper spray "pwnz" knives. It's got the same range, if not a much longer range, and while knives kill, spray only disables temporarily.

 

Pepper spray doesn't do much to fight off someone who's got a gun aimed at you. And there are some big mother****ers who can take pepper spray and keep going. And if a bad guy is trying to kill me I don't see why I can't kill them first. It's like if you point a gun at an armed cop; expect to be shot, not maced.

 

You didn't answer his question: Why don't the criminals in Britain have guns when they know that if they used them, they'd gain a huge upper hand?

 

Here's what I think:

 

1) Gun laws make it too difficult to find guns in the UK

2) Too hard to smuggle in guns (we have Mexico, you don't!)

3) Too expensive to buy a gun and ammunition from the black market

4) Are there super high penalties on those caught in possession of illegal guns? That would deter criminals from owning guns if a knife would suffice.

[toms]

I'm sure that if an organized criminal in the UK could get a gun I'm sure they would.

 

It isn't hard to get an illegal gun in britain (apparently), hasn't been for years. Yet very few criminals carry them... and 99% of those that do are of the type i mentioned above - involved in inter-criminal gang/drug violence.

Sailing a boat across the channel from any country in europe is easy... just as easy as transporting guns or drugs from mexico.

 

No, criminals carry guns because if they can get one they will use it no matter who it is they're going to attack. If it's a rival gang member or the little old lady.

i doubt even in the US that a lot of small time muggers would bother with guns. In the UK they certainly don't.

And I also doubt that many of them intent to use them, or even do so except when things go wrong. Heck, if some scary guy grabs you and demands money he probably doesn't need ANY weapon to get you to comply... let alone a gun. Probably why they don't bother...

 

I mean, if there really is a "right to an abortion"/"right to free health care" in the Constitution, is that as important as free speech?

I thought you were from the US, don't you know? AFAIK neither healthcare or abortion are protected by the constitution. Abortion is protected under the right to privacy.. which is one of those pesky "additional rights" that the constitution allows. It is defined by case law.

I don't see why the right to arms couldn't be defined similarly.

 

You admit that there are more guns in circulation in the USA... surely you can't think they all come from mexico illegally... the vast majority would have been legal weapons at one point that were either stolen or lost track of. So your right to have guns to defend yourself is counterproductively arming those you want to be defended against.

Again, i'm not saying guns should be banned... but hypothetically if they were then they would slowly begin to phase out of circulation.. the black market price would go up.

 

We are getting onto "gun control" here, rather than the importance of the 2nd ammendment...

 

Do guns make your country more democratic? (no)

Do guns make you safer? (unproven, but at least as much evidence says no as yes)

Are guns more useful than freedom of speech in overturning a government? (no)

Is the ammendment even clear? (no)

Would people with guns stand a chance against a modern army? (no, homemade bombs and planes seem more effective)

 

As important as the right to free speech? (no)

As important as the right to a fair trial? (no)

As important as the right to elect your government? (no)

As important as the abolition of slavery? (no)

As important as equality for all regardless of sex or race? (no)

 

Irrelevant, out of date and merely an indulgence of a historical facination? (wouldn't want to say... )

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Pepper spray doesn't do much to fight off someone who's got a gun aimed at you.

However, I was referring to how it's better than knives, not how it's better than guns.

 

And there are some big mother****ers who can take pepper spray and keep going.

Very, very few can do that. And even so, it's the same with knives - you can technically keep fighting after taking a slash and a stab.

[TK-8252]

It isn't hard to get an illegal gun in britain (apparently), hasn't been for years.

 

Well, if it isn't hard for Britain, then it's a breeze for the U.S., what with racks full of shotguns right next to the baby clothes section in Wal-Mart.

 

I thought you were from the US, don't you know? AFAIK neither healthcare or abortion are protected by the constitution.

 

I am U.S., but I don't really want to get into all that in this thread.

 

Abortion is protected under the right to privacy.. which is one of those pesky "additional rights" that the constitution allows.

 

Well, I could just as well use the "right to privacy" argument to say that I have a right to smoke weed in the privacy of my house... but that and abortion, health care, etc., are separate arguments.

 

I don't see why the right to arms couldn't be defined similarly.

 

It could be, but it isn't... and I don't see why it would need to be changed.

[rccar328]

Here's a great example of the importance of allowing citizens to own guns:

 

Washington DC, the city with the most restrictive gun policy in the United States (gun ownership is banned). The DC chief of police has declared a 'crime emergency' in the city because crime rates are so awful. There has been at least one murder every day this month (13 murders by July 12), and robberies and armed assaults have jumped 14 and 18 percent, respectively.

 

The state of Florida, which has been a leader in loosening restrictions on gun ownership, has seen its crime rate drop to the lowest level since 1971.

[toms]

Proves nothing.

 

Gun ownership has no provable effect on crime rates... and specifically at that granular a level when guns can be bought just outside town. On average states with the highest gun ownership still have just as high violent crime rates.

 

Crime rates in regions of the UK regularly jump or drop by 10-15 percent... for no discernable reasons, often when nothing has changed.

 

I also fail to see how gun ownership would have helped tourists and a british activist... or even those women walking in the park. But then i don't have some deeply embeded cowboy complex in my collective psyche...