Jump to content

Why The Second Amendment Should Matter To Those Who Dislike Guns


nivek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why the Second Amendment should matter to those who dislike guns

Buckeye Firearms Association

by Dave Yost

 

"Congress will consider legislation next month that would require

people wanting to speak in public to first undergo a background check

and pay a permit fee. Not really! But how would you react if it was

true? What if your other constitutional rights were treated the same

was as your right to bear arms? Whether you own a gun or not, the

Second Amendment should matter to you -- because if one constitutional

right can be taken away by majority rule, they all can be. Imagine if

you had to get a government license before you were allowed to freely

worship, or to be safe in your own home from warrantless searches and

seizures. Or what if you had to get government permission to own a

printing press?" (04/29/09)

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6651

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I understand there is a bill being put forward in Congress, HR45 that would do just that and more. These stupid ass Democrats just love to try and ban guns any way they can. They piss me off, freaking dirty jackasses. What a shocker, the sponser is from Obama's state. Obama probably put the congressclown up to it. Luckily it looks like it may not go far but who knows what those sneaks will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you gun lovers would take a peek at this blog; http://www.thehappyheretic.com/current.htm. The article was just published yesterday. Here's a table from the article which struck me:

 

In 2004, handguns murdered -

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

 

What's wrong with this picture? I, for one, would feel a hell of a lot safer if there were a lot fewer handguns (and assault rifles) around. Gun lovers seem to be very afraid of the government, but it's not the government that's killing those 11,000 people a year in the US. As Pogo said, "I have met the enemy and it is us."

-WizenedSage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you gun lovers would take a peek at this blog; http://www.thehappyheretic.com/current.htm. The article was just published yesterday. Here's a table from the article which struck me:

 

In 2004, handguns murdered -

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

 

What's wrong with this picture? I, for one, would feel a hell of a lot safer if there were a lot fewer handguns (and assault rifles) around. Gun lovers seem to be very afraid of the government, but it's not the government that's killing those 11,000 people a year in the US. As Pogo said, "I have met the enemy and it is us."

-WizenedSage

 

Wow, if you are that scared that you are the enemy, you're in a world of hurt. The typical gun owners are not the problem, it is dumbass criminals and gangs. They are the problem, and the answer is not more laws. Look at how effective drug laws have been.

 

Also, you stated "In 2004, handguns murdered..." Again, this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object. It is like stating that the recent car attack on the Dutch royal family is evidence that cars should be more tightly regulated, or that streets and sidewalks should be separated by tall barriers. The people that commit crimes like this are an aberration, not the norm. So pressuring society to contort itself to mitigate the aberration is absurd. Such reactive legislation causes much more loss of freedom and quality of life than the aberrant acts themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuego,

You're missing the point. Why are there so many more hand gun homicides in the US than in any of those other countries? It's because those other countries have stricter gun control laws.

 

And who are the victims of these homicides? Well, among 26 of the industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States. Also, if you own a handgun you are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

 

Your automobile analogy doesn't work. We don't need to take people's cars away from them, but when all speed limits were 55 mph or lower, during the oil price run-ups years ago, the number of auto deaths plumeted. No, you can't stop the occasional nut who's going to be dangerous with an auto or a handgun, but we can try harder to identify those nuts and protect ourselves a bit more than we are.

WizenedSage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?

Guns aren't responsible for killing people, people kill people and sometimes they use guns to do so. Sometimes they use knives too. And when they don't have anything too terribly efficient, sticks and stones will do the trick. The whole misdirection that guns are responsible for killing people in relation to criminal activity involving firearms is about as retarded as the idea that cars are responsible for killing people in relation to vehicular homicide. A gun doesn't take the stand in a court of law for things like manslaughter or 1st or 2nd degree murder. Neither does a BMW, or a Mercedes, or a Honda Accord. Now, I wonder why that is? I mean obviously the bullet kills the person, obviously the car is what runs the person over....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2004, handguns murdered -

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

Something about "lies, damn lies..."

 

Never mind the fact there's simply no feasible way to disarm the U.S. citizenry (as Burned said, many gun owners simply wouldn't comply, and many cops wouldn't really enforce it). Comparing the U.S. to those other nations without accounting for the very important variable of local culture is at best ignorant, if not intentionally misleading. Ours is a much more individualistic (read: violent) culture than those of most other developed nations. Guns certainly enable that violence to a (possibly substantial degree), but they're far from the root cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
The main purpose of the Second Amendment is for the citizens to protect ourselves from a run away government who would take us down the road to tyranny. Even if the military would be able to out gun us, it would be at a great cost to them. The fact we are so armed is message enough to would be tyrants that freedoms are worth protecting. For that, I am willing to risk the other inherant risks of accidents, etc, to keep my freedom. If you are for taking guns, you do not understand freedom. Those who would give up their right to own guns...any kind of guns are far more dangerous than the people who may cause the injury or death of someone because of a firearm discharging at the wrong time or the wrong people. I will take freedom over safety ANYTIME!

 

 

This country was founded on that specific type of freedom, and there are many ideas of just what "freedom" is. While we can debate different conceptions of "freedom" found in other countries and their obvious merits and demerits-as well as those of our own traditional understanding of freedom- this country wasn't founded on the idea of freedom that wizened sage spoke of. So in as much as Wizened Sage believes that his idea of freedom is better, he and everyone like him can at least rest assured that their idea of freedom is NOT the same idea that guys like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine, and others founded this country on. Any cursory examination of the sayings and writings of the men who founded our country will show that an idea of freedom that involves surrendering arms or control of arms to the government is not one that this country was founded on. Now granted statistics didn't even exist back when our country was founded, but the principle that people should be allowed the 2nd amendment within the context of the traditional understanding of that same amendment-the way that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and others understood it- is a cultural argument that has to do with American Identity and our US Constitution as it was given to us. I think if people care to change that Constitution then they should be intellectually honest about such efforts and vote in legislation to do away with the Second Amendment, rather than attempting to claim statistics as justification for undermining that same amendment as it was explicitly intended to be given to us by our Founding Fathers, and upheld, safeguarded, and protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1m65v8QI3A

 

Knives certainly help too.

 

 

Yes they do, but the risk of personal injury by killing someone with that method seems to keep that from happening very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1m65v8QI3A

 

Knives certainly help too.

 

 

Yes they do, but the risk of personal injury by killing someone with that method seems to keep that from happening very often.

 

 

Seems? To a dedicated criminal I really can't see how that would seem to be the case. Knives require them to get closer, but I am having a hard time "seeing" how that would present more risk to them if they avoided human line of sight deliberately and took pains to be quiet. Also, define "very often", as that's a fairly interesting contention....

 

 

 

Also, just to take countries where guns are heavily discouraged:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4527570.stm

 

QUOTE:

'Knife culture'

 

"The knife culture must be stamped out and a growing gun culture nipped in the bud.

 

"The underlying causes of crime need targeted, but there must be no mercy shown to those who use guns, knives or other weapons randomly or indiscriminately."

 

Jeremy Purvis MSP, Liberal Democrat justice spokesman said: "These are disturbing figures, especially that 53% of the murders were committed by people with knives.

 

"This adds weight to my view that the Police Bill needs to be tougher on knife crime.

 

"We should take this opportunity to bring the law on knife crime into line with the law on firearms."

END QUOTE

 

 

As you can see, it doesn't just stop at guns, people want to regulate the knives too once they have the guns regulated. It kind of proves my point. Criminals will find a way and knives certainly help too. Once the guns were regulated, the violent criminals developed a knife culture, and once that gets regulated they will merely take to other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If using a knife instead of a gun does not pose that much more of a risk to a criminal than why don’t we see 1000’s of homicides by knives in countries that prohibit guns to civilians? I don’t by this “America is a more violent country” reason at all. I honestly believe that if we could round up all the guns, homicide would be reduced by at least 80%. Few people just have the nerve to stab someone to death, guns just make the whole process easy and safer for the perpetrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
If using a knife instead of a gun does not pose that much more of a risk to a criminal than why don’t we see 1000’s of homicides by knives in countries that prohibit guns to civilians? I don’t by this “America is a more violent country” reason at all. I honestly believe that if we could round up all the guns, homicide would be reduced by at least 80%. Few people just have the nerve to stab someone to death, guns just make the whole process easy and safer for the perpetrator.

 

Perhaps you don't see 1000's of homicides (a ridiculous number btw) because you just don't? Also, I actually agree that homicide would temporarily be reduced by at least 80%, however I do not agree that the long term would necessarily bear that out at all. As you can see from Scotland, the guns got banned and a knife culture developed. Finally, as far as few people having the nerve to stab someone to death and guns making the whole process easy and safer for the perpetrator, I would just like to say that it's really easy to kill someone if you want to do so and will your way to do it. It's actually pathetically easy given an advantageous position, and hardened criminals know this too and they will do so with knives if they cannot with guns. It's more about the will than the way.

 

Sadly, I think the difficulty is that people who could never even imagine doing those kinds of things ever cannot put themselves in the mindset of the people that do. I happen to be able to for various reasons, and I can tell you that having a knife only makes it a bit more challenging to them. That's right, it's a challenge to them. Where you may see it a certain way, they do not see it that way, they see it as being a challenge when it comes to mapping it out and psyching themselves up. I am talking people who are like seriously violent criminals here, people who plan cold blooded murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1m65v8QI3A

Heh, I was waiting for that (both for topical relevance and just 'cause I like the clip :grin:). He's absolutely right, the gun does help, and outlawing or severely restricting public ownership of firearms would certainly decrease violent crime in the U.S. The catch is that simply doesn't seem feasible. We have a deeply ingrained gun culture in this country which isn't going away anytime soon, and government efforts to abolish it will spark a lot of unnecessary ugliness.

 

I guess it's just a matter of pragmatism for me. It's a lot easier for me to pick up and move to a country whose values are more in line with my own than to try to change the culture I currently live in. What can I say, I'm a quitter. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1m65v8QI3A

Heh, I was waiting for that (both for topical relevance and just 'cause I like the clip :grin:). He's absolutely right, the gun does help, and outlawing or severely restricting public ownership of firearms would certainly decrease violent crime in the U.S. The catch is that simply doesn't seem feasible. We have a deeply ingrained gun culture in this country which isn't going away anytime soon, and government efforts to abolish it will spark a lot of unnecessary ugliness.

 

I guess it's just a matter of pragmatism for me. It's a lot easier for me to pick up and move to a country whose values are more in line with my own than to try to change the culture I currently live in. What can I say, I'm a quitter. :P

 

 

I agree Woody, I have no desire to initiate gun control in the country. The cat is already out of the bag and trying to put in back in would be even worse. I just get riled up when I see people taking the stance that "guns make us all safer." No, they make YOU safer, while making everyone else targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
this shows a predisposition to blame the object rather than the one using the object

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1m65v8QI3A

Heh, I was waiting for that (both for topical relevance and just 'cause I like the clip :grin:). He's absolutely right, the gun does help, and outlawing or severely restricting public ownership of firearms would certainly decrease violent crime in the U.S. The catch is that simply doesn't seem feasible. We have a deeply ingrained gun culture in this country which isn't going away anytime soon, and government efforts to abolish it will spark a lot of unnecessary ugliness.

 

I guess it's just a matter of pragmatism for me. It's a lot easier for me to pick up and move to a country whose values are more in line with my own than to try to change the culture I currently live in. What can I say, I'm a quitter. :P

 

 

I agree Woody, I have no desire to initiate gun control in the country. The cat is already out of the bag and trying to put in back in would be even worse. I just get riled up when I see people taking the stance that "guns make us all safer." No, they make YOU safer, while making everyone else targets.

 

 

I am sorry but the founders of this country would not agree with you. Also, the cat has been out of the bag ever since those same founders said what they had to say about the matter around the time they overthrew the British forces from this country. And they had quite a bit to say on the subject, and while they certainly were not infallible men and while what they said does not constitute a dogmatic truth, what they had to say about the subject formed the basis for the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution and it also formed a major part of the American Identity-as well the philosophy the founding fathers had regarding guns is one of the many things that enabled me to type what I am typing now. The fact that the Brits later went on to ban guns is none of my concern as I am not British. What is my concern is protecting and preserving that which was entrusted me by those same violent, dangerous, and seditious men that founded my country (and not just the founding fathers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we ban guns and go back to swords and spears.

 

That way there wouldn't be so much collateral damage when a couple of gangstas get it on. In addition there would be less fat people, because you have to be in shape and intensively trained to use these weapons.

 

Interesting: Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but the founders of this country would not agree with you.

 

The Founding Fathers that were referring to muskets, are those they ones you are referring to?

 

Fortunately the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that future generations should not give a rat’s ass as to what they believed, and gave us a living breathing constitution that is open for revision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
I am sorry but the founders of this country would not agree with you.

 

The Founding Fathers that were referring to muskets, are those they ones you are referring to?

 

Fortunately the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that future generations should not give a rat’s ass as to what they believed, and gave us a living breathing constitution that is open for revision.

 

 

Fortunately they were also smart enough to know that the best way to preserve freedom is to ensure that people are allowed the right to bear arms within the particular philosophical approach to the matter that they took at the time which is clearly evidenced by everything that they had to say on the matter. You can overthrow a tyrannical government without a right to bear arms, but it's considerably more difficult to do so. I think what you really want is to do away with the second amendment. That actually is open for revision. The amendment concerning prohibition was revised too. I think the technical term is "repealed". So if you don't want people to have the right to bear arms due to your philosophy, then feel free to write legislation that repeals the 2nd amendment. If it gets enough votes, then perhaps it might pass.

 

Evidently, you too are one then who doesn't give a rat's ass what they believed. So then feel free to make the Constitution into whatever you believe it to be, perhaps it's just a goddamned piece of paper to you. Also, if you do feel that way, then feel free to move to another country whose identity, constitution, and founders are more suitable to your philosophy. Like woodsmoke said, it's not worth the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you really want is to do away with the second amendment.

:twitch:

 

I agree Woody, I have no desire to initiate gun control in the country. The cat is already out of the bag and trying to put in back in would be even worse. I just get riled up when I see people taking the stance that "guns make us all safer." No, they make YOU safer, while making everyone else targets.

Reading comprehension is your friend. :Hmm:

 

Re: Dennis - I can certainly understand that logic. Every time I'm standing on someone's porch and there's a dog on the other side of the screen barking and growling its head off and the owner tells me, "Come on in, he won't bite," I think the exact same thing. "No, he won't bite you. His current behavior makes it pretty clear I have no such guarantee of safety."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
I think what you really want is to do away with the second amendment.

:twitch:

 

I agree Woody, I have no desire to initiate gun control in the country. The cat is already out of the bag and trying to put in back in would be even worse. I just get riled up when I see people taking the stance that "guns make us all safer." No, they make YOU safer, while making everyone else targets.

Reading comprehension is your friend. :Hmm:

 

Re: Dennis - I can certainly understand that logic. Every time I'm standing on someone's porch and there's a dog on the other side of the screen barking and growling its head off and the owner tells me, "Come on in, he won't bite," I think the exact same thing. "No, he won't bite you. His current behavior makes it pretty clear I have no such guarantee of safety."

 

 

Too bad for you I was tested in the 6th grade to have a 12th grade grade reading comprehension level and tested again in the 7th grade to have a college level reading comprehension (standardized testing in a magnet school).

 

Sometimes people try to say more than one thing. It's precisely because I do comprehend it that I can see what he is getting at. While you should feel free to ridicule me as you wish, I will feel free to trust the results of those tests more than your assumptions on the matter, and petty rhetoric to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently, you too are one then who doesn't give a rat's ass what they believed. So then feel free to make the Constitution into whatever you believe it to be, perhaps it's just a goddamned piece of paper to you. Also, if you do feel that way, then feel free to move to another country whose identity, constitution, and founders are more suitable to your philosophy. Like woodsmoke said, it's not worth the effort.

 

They were men, not prophets. Their words were well chosen, but not scripture. I admire the constitution a great deal, but I do not revere it. The constitution should be a reflection of the current values of Americans, not a tablet brought down from the mount on how Americans are to believe or behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
Evidently, you too are one then who doesn't give a rat's ass what they believed. So then feel free to make the Constitution into whatever you believe it to be, perhaps it's just a goddamned piece of paper to you. Also, if you do feel that way, then feel free to move to another country whose identity, constitution, and founders are more suitable to your philosophy. Like woodsmoke said, it's not worth the effort.

 

They were men, not prophets. Their words were well chosen, but not scripture. I admire the constitution a great deal, but I do not revere it. The constitution should be a reflection of the current values of Americans, not a tablet brought down from the mount on how Americans are to believe or behave.

 

 

I agree with everything you just said, but it's where I draw the line that is obviously different. I agree with the particular philosophy the founders had regarding these subjects, as is evidenced by everything they had to say on the matter. You do not have to buy a gun and register with the NRA, no one is forcing you to do so. You don't even have to own a weapon of any sort, no one would force you to do that either. However, I think it needs to be said that the Imperial British government was overthrown by men who owned, kept, cleaned, fired, and maintained guns. The Imperial British government was not ousted by men or women who did not own such guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I think it needs to be said that the Imperial British government was overthrown by men who owned, kept, cleaned, fired, and maintained guns. The Imperial British government was not ousted by men or women who did not own such guns.

 

And in India the same British Government was overthrown by men who did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.