Why The Second Amendment Should Matter To Those Who Dislike Guns

[AKR]

Statistics can be used to argue anything.

 

In the mass media, yes.

 

Actual statisticians--including criminologists, who aside from demographers are the most stats-obsessed of all social scientists--are very good at keeping one another on their toes.

 

I notice you don't have any stats from Switzerland. You know why? Because they have tons of guns but their murder rate is so low, they don't even HAVE statistics.

 

1. Almost every Swiss male is a permanent reservist.

 

2. Those military rifles you speak of are kept in locked chests and keep the ammo in sealed tins. They're only allowed to bust them out for range times, or when the call goes up.

 

3. They don't have anywhere near our level of poverty, urban decay, or lack of social services. This really serves as an incrimination of how far we've let our poor people and inner cities sink, not to mention the failed drug war.

 

It does not, however, strike out the "handgun variable." The murder rate is in great part due to the easy availability of handguns. Criminologists, even the ones that are politically conservative in their off-time and who as scholars claim that gun ownership is a deterrent to violent crime if you're an honest gun owner (there's several such criminologists, actually), all know this.

 

4. Switzerland is tiny and homogeneous. It's exceedingly difficult to compare a massive country like the United States, or even France, to a tiny little country like Denmark, Iceland, Slovenia, etc.

 

 

All you're showing is that you can't simply look at stats and make a conclusive statement about a topic. As you have shown, there is a lot more to things than simply looking at a few stats. Thanks.

 

BTW, I wasn't just speaking of military rifles. It doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be locked up. They have the keys, so who cares? They still own guns. I thought we were talking about banning guns, not requiring people to lock them up. Too hugely different ideas. As far as the other guns, I don't believe they have to be locked up. Lots of them shoot for sport or hunting.

 

 

1. You can't carry an AK-47 in your pocket or waistband.

 

2. You can't stash an AR-15 in your high school locker or fit it in your back pack. Unless you disassemble it.

 

 

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. You're not exactly helping you're argument. I tell you that very few AW's are used in crimes, and you only support that statement by explaining why they aren't.

 

 

3. Shotguns are cheaper, easier to get, and pretty damned effective at close range on multiple targets, if you're talking about drive-by shootings. Though handguns are usually used in those.

 

So, then it'd make more sense to ban those than guns that are rarely used, wouldn't it (not that they should)?

 

 

The easy availability of handguns is one of the top contributors to the American murder rate. Gun owners need to be intellectually honest, and frame this as an acceptable cost of maintaining the 2nd Amendment.

 

Which is an acceptable cost? The deaths or the banning of hand guns? I think the deaths are an acceptable cost. Are we going to ban vehicles now because they cause more deaths than guns?

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't a Republican that did HR45 which I was reffering to. And, I hate Republicans as much as Democrats but it's the Dems that continually bring these stupid ass laws up far more so than Republicans.

 

 

You weren't just referring to one bill; you were claiming that "These stupid ass Democrats just love to try and ban guns any way they can." Not only did you claim it was democrats and not both democrats and republicans, but you lied and acted as if this bill is about banning guns, which it is not. Don't make a check your big mouth can't cash.

[Vixentrox]

The bill could effectivly ban guns by making them very difficult to own. You have to take a test from the government. They could make the test so difficult that it could be very hard for the average person to pass. You have to get and maintain a liscence from the feds. Maybe you might have to wait a year or more for them to process it. You have to let them search all your medical records. You want them rooting around in your medical records? And just what are the criteria for saying NO based on a medical reason? And if you have owned guns all your life and can't meet these criteria you become an outlaw? You move and fail to tell the feds about it and you go to fucking jail. Maybe you want to bow and worship and TRUST the federal government and its intrustion into your life? So yeah, this could easily be a back door ban. Open your eyes and don't trust the government because they have done precious little to earn our trust. So if you want to call this a lie....fine I'm a liar.

[chefranden]

The bill could effectivly ban guns by making them very difficult to own. You have to take a test from the government. They could make the test so difficult that it could be very hard for the average person to pass. You have to get and maintain a liscence from the feds. Maybe you might have to wait a year or more for them to process it. You have to let them search all your medical records. You want them rooting around in your medical records? And just what are the criteria for saying NO based on a medical reason? And if you have owned guns all your life and can't meet these criteria you become an outlaw? You move and fail to tell the feds about it and you go to fucking jail. Maybe you want to bow and worship and TRUST the federal government and its intrustion into your life? So yeah, this could easily be a back door ban. Open your eyes and don't trust the government because they have done precious little to earn our trust. So if you want to call this a lie....fine I'm a liar.

 

PTSD is one reason used to deny a person a gun. Just think of all the Vets that supposedly fought to preserve the constitution but won't be able to exercise its rights.

[Vomit Comet]

All you're showing is that you can't simply look at stats and make a conclusive statement about a topic. As you have shown, there is a lot more to things than simply looking at a few stats. Thanks.

 

Of course there's a lot more to it than looking at a few stats.

 

You see, there's the people that know what they're doing, and then there's the people that don't. Which would be the vast majority of everyone else, including all but a select few journalists.

 

Which is an acceptable cost? The deaths?

 

Yes.

[Vomit Comet]

Most handguns that end up in the hands of serious criminals were stolen from a legit gunowner's home or car.

 

Gun safe. Bolted down. Make it mandatory. That would really do a lot to ameliorate the problem.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

Most handguns that end up in the hands of serious criminals were stolen from a legit gunowner's home or car.

 

Gun safe. Bolted down. Make it mandatory. That would really do a lot to ameliorate the problem.

 

 

That actually sounds reasonable as a rule of thumb, but enforcing that would be problematic.

[Vomit Comet]

but enforcing that would be problematic.

 

Wouldn't be that hard. Proof of compliance or you get a fine.

[Vomit Comet]

I am waiting for someone who is a convicted fellon, who has served his/her time, to challenge the current law about disallowing fellons to own guns. The United States Constitution does not specify who can or cannot, just that it cannot be infringed. Any attempt to limit is technically unconsitutional. When the founding fathers used the word "to regulate" it did not mean then what it has come to mean. It simply meant to make sure the weights and measures were the same in all the states and that the value of the money was on an equal par. It NEVER was meant to restrict every area of our lives. If they try to use regulations to restrict people....FUCK'EM! I will sue their ass on constitutional grounds. Fuck any rules that say medical reason or "mental stability"...who the fuck decides that? Fuck anyone who thinks they are the self appointed authority of who is not crazy. If everyone is armed, equally, you might find yourself in a more polite society as you are all equal in firepower, at least at close range.

 

In the old days they'd hand your guns back to you when you walked out the prison gates.

[Vigile]

If everyone is armed, equally, you might find yourself in a more polite society as you are all equal in firepower, at least at close range.

 

This isn't really my issue, but this statement strikes me as fantasy. Humans just aren't that rational. History has proven that a well armed world will use those arms. The only exception to this rule, so far, is nuclear tech, but only time will tell if MAD will always be a deterrent. If everyone walks around with holstered weapons I suspect we would have a lot more shootings, not less. Was the wild west not named wild for a reason?

 

I believe in protecting the bill of rights but the right to bear arms isn't really the same as the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to remain silent, due process, etc... The government is not afraid of people's guns as they are much better armed and organized that your average joe ever can be. I think some of you guys take gun apologetics as an article of faith.

 

IOW, I support people's rights to have guns if they want. I wouldn't feel safer if they all went out and exercised their rights. Quite the opposite.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

but enforcing that would be problematic.

 

Wouldn't be that hard. Proof of compliance or you get a fine.

 

A gun safe in the home, requiring proof of compliance? That would lead to police officers making an awful lot of invasive trips into peoples' homes, or some other branch of the government. I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound realistic, not enough cops and not enough time. Not to mention that it's awfully invasive.

[Vomit Comet]

but enforcing that would be problematic.

 

Wouldn't be that hard. Proof of compliance or you get a fine.

 

A gun safe in the home, requiring proof of compliance? That would lead to police officers making an awful lot of invasive trips into peoples' homes, or some other branch of the government. I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound realistic, not enough cops and not enough time. Not to mention that it's awfully invasive.

 

 

You buy a handgun for the first time, or for the first time after this law is passed, and a certified installer puts it in for you. Then you send in the paperwork to the police station, they put it on file, and they're good to go. No actual police visit necessary.

[Amethyst]

Most handguns that end up in the hands of serious criminals were stolen from a legit gunowner's home or car.

 

Gun safe. Bolted down. Make it mandatory. That would really do a lot to ameliorate the problem.

 

 

That actually sounds reasonable as a rule of thumb, but enforcing that would be problematic.

 

I have to wonder, if bolting down guns is going to be a requirement, how are people supposed to defend themselves during a break-in? Simply allow themselves to be shot by the thief while they are rushing to their closet or whatever to get a screwdriver to unbolt their gun? Just food for thought.

[Vigile]

Who decides who is rational? I sure as hell do not want some pencilneck dipshit deciding who is not rational and who is simply eccentric. The Bill of Rights in my estimation is absolute. I will fight ANY efforts to put limits and what has been put on before I was born or old enough to do anything about, I will push for repeal or outright challenge in court.

 

Go back and read my post and again and show me where I indicated or talked about limits in any way. I simply said if everyone exercised their rights we would not be safer as you suggested.

 

Says who?.....

 

Says me. Limiting gun ownership is an intrusion upon freedom but limiting speech is more than just an intrusion upon freedom, it's a way to protect politicians against criticism and as such potentially covers up all kinds of abuses. NRAers constantly argue that guns do the same because they think that gun ownership makes the government afraid of them and I argue that this is simply just not true. It's accepted as an article of faith but I think reality bears out something quite different.

 

So what makes it different from the other rights I listed is this. Limiting gun ownership is a limit on freedom. There are lots of limits on freedoms in the US that are legal. The other rights mentioned limit the government, not us.

 

Try reading some of the decisions and writings of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Also, try reading the Federalist Papers. I also subscribe to the contention that ALL the Bill of Rights carry the same weight and any attempt to limit them is an act of treason.

 

I've read a lot of this, if not all in the past. I don't need to reread it to make my argument here. I'm not discussing what the founder's intentions may or may not have been, I'm examining the rights critically and arguing that some are more important for the well being of the nation than others. I'm not a bill of rights fundamentalist, though I do believe that it is an excellent document and that it is worth protecting. This doesn't mean that I can't look at it critically. It's not holy after all.

[hereticzero]

If the government ever goes to open the Constitution to make changes, they will have access to change all of the document or even throw the whole thing out and start over. This is another reason why it is important even for nongun owners to oppose any change to the Constitution.

[Vigile]

If the government ever goes to open the Constitution to make changes, they will have access to change all of the document or even throw the whole thing out and start over. This is another reason why it is important even for nongun owners to oppose any change to the Constitution.

 

The constitution has already been changed, this is what amendments do. The second amendment was itself a change to the document. I wouldn't worry about them taking away the 2nd though. There is not enough political will to get it ratified. Most of these fears get stirred up by the NRA so that they can soak their membership for more donations.

[Amethyst]

If the government ever goes to open the Constitution to make changes, they will have access to change all of the document or even throw the whole thing out and start over. This is another reason why it is important even for nongun owners to oppose any change to the Constitution.

 

The constitution has already been changed, this is what amendments do. The second amendment was itself a change to the document. I wouldn't worry about them taking away the 2nd though. There is not enough political will to get it ratified. Most of these fears get stirred up by the NRA so that they can soak their membership for more donations.

 

Have to agree with Vigile here...it'll never get through Congress in the current political climate. Not to say it might not get passed years from now when phasers are invented, but gimme a Star Trek phaser over a gun any day.