The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
This thread is one of the reasons I hate the young.

We gave you a beautiful free country and you're pissing it away.

You don't deserve it.

Just thought this needed to be stated again. Nothing more to add really.

MOTF!

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Being a non-American my view on this issue is moot. I am neither pro or anti gun. I do think that it is not logistically feasible to disarm the American public, there are so many guns in the US a person is probably safer owning and carrying one. If you take away the LAC's guns then armed criminals will have a spree, that's my view.

However another poster has brought up a point that has been on my mind of late. If it is the 'duty' of US citizens to 'dismember and overthrow' their government when it becomes tyrannical, and this seems to be the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, and clearly the US government could be classed as tyrannical, when are the citizens of the USA going to exercise their 'duty'?(I know it's a simplistic view on the matter but someone please address this question).

It's fairly safe to say that if the general populace had guns in my country there would be a smaller population, by about half, in a matter of weeks.

Because as so eloquently illustrated in the Declaration of Independence human nature is that people tend to tolerate abuse as long as it is tolerable. Despite all the problems and abuse for most people things still seem relatively normal with just a few extra bumps in the road. The American people are divided and most are still to comfortable despite the abuse to rise up and TPTB also know this which is why they implement tyranny in increments and often by crisis like this latest shooting. When enough people have had enough they will make a stand. They are pushing the edge of tolerance with this gun grab but you never know what will trigger the masses to say enough is enough.

Yeah, and while we're at it let's outlaw coc aine, heroine, meth, switch blades, brass knuckles and downloading digital files (movies, music etc) without permission! ...oh wait, all of that stuff is illegal but I can get any thing on that list inside of 30 minutes.

A simple question:
If we send guns to Syria and Libya because they help end tyrannical and oppressive governments, why do you need to take mine?

Is our government saying it is perfect, or is it giving us a bit of foreshadowing?

reply to post by elysiumfire


And here is where the "but things are different now" crowd miss the point. Things are not different. Human nature has not changed in spite of our "enlightened" times. We still have evil people: rapists, criminals, dictators, the power hungry and the brutal predators. Nothing has changed since 1791.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

I can see where you're coming from, but the implications of the words that I replied to are still valid and relevant to the OP.

Like the poster I replied to, slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bill of Rights but has since been recognised as unacceptable in a modern setting. The implications to gun control can be seen to be the same.

How many massacres were committed by a single shooter when the Constitution was drawn up? If these massacres were common then, the law may have been written differently.

All legal systems evolve with time, why should gun laws be exempt?

edit on 20/12/1212 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't do grammar

Fristly, we had to amend our Constitution to do away with slavery.

Secondly, removal of slavery was a movement towards civil liberty, removing the right to self defense would be a movement away from civil liberties.

Oh my, OP! You opened up a can of whoop-ass with this thread, and honestly, you deserve it.

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. As King Solomon wrote, all those many thousands of years ago, "There is nothing new under the sun". The rights guaranteed under our Constitution are as valid today as when they were written over 200 years ago. Because some things never change in the human condition. To say that it is outdated and a "relic" is a sad commentary about how little some people know about history and our potential future.

As for the poster who said that it is women who are behind this push for disarming America, let me say that I am middle aged, female, and I believe that we should leave the second amendment the hell alone. So tired of this patently obvious, blatant attempt at taking away our only defense against tyranny and total takeover.

Most of my friends, who are female, are gun-toting, and no, they're not all in Texas, they are all over the country.

The first thing any tyrant would need to do in America is disarm us, in order to complete the subjugation of the masses. The fact that most Americans are armed is a thorn in the side of any despot, and the only thing that has kept us from being turned into a totalitarian state. You want to get rid of that last, best defense against our downfall, Missy?

In the corner with the pointy duncecap, NOW.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

Thanks Fission.

I anticipated the heated discussion this article would provoke. I also understand how passionate many are about the 2nd amendment.

Please know that I do not favor disarming Americans and never said that.

I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".

The constitutions was never meant to be UPDATED or else the founding fathers would of seen fit to enclose a clause stating it !!!

The constitutions stands at it is, deal with it and accept it, period!

P.S. Gun cortrol is all about, aim, breathing and squeezing the trigger nice and soft.

One cannot put the responsibility of gun control on the Governement, one can only secure his guns in a matter to not let them be accesible to the ones that are not entittled or able to use them. It's that simple!

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

Thanks Fission.

I anticipated the heated discussion this article would provoke. I also understand how passionate many are about the 2nd amendment.

Please know that I do not favor disarming Americans and never said that.

I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".

Automatic weapons are already highly regulated. You can not transfer or purchase one manufactured after 1986. Some states ban their purchase out right. At the very least you have to go through a long series of paper work and back ground investigations by the ATF. Then you have to ask permission from the local head of the police. Then he can deny you just because he wants to.

zedVSzardoz:

The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.

No. You are quite in error. It seems to me you are confusing personal opinion (and I don't just mean your own interpretive opinion) as if they pertain to sanctioned rights of the constitution...they do not!

The 14th amendment relates to negating the Black Codes of the South, conferring equal citizenship to the black man as all it conferred on the White man. This automatically conferred the same rights stipulated in the 2nd amendment for bearing arms. It did not confer a right for the black man to be armed individually, but that he had the same rights as the white man to bear arms as part of a militia.

hawkiye:

First you need to look up the definition and purpose of a comma and second the personal writings of the founders are absolutely relevant for they give us the meaning of and intent of the text they wrote into the constitution.

Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. You really must stop believing that the personal thought, thinking, opinion, carry the same weight of conferance of 'right' as that which has been passed by congress, or ratified by the states. It does not matter what a founding father or any writer of the constitution states in a personal diary or biography in clarification of what he meant or hoped for...his personal thoughts were not passed as law or right. They are irrelevant! I believe there are enough 'commas' in this paragraph to show you that I am quite aware of what a comma is for, and how to use it!

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

What? No blame for the school who failed at security and allowed this kid through with a AR-15 assault rifle? It has to be THE GUNS fault? Not the person in charge of that checkpoint? How blind can you be?

Lets say these guns were banned.. well this kid had 3 guns on him.. only one of which was an assault rifle. The kid was mentally disturbed.. if he wanted to kill, he could have used any means at his disposal, a knife even. So you see, banning the guns themselves and not placing blame where it is due.. On the schools security, will do nothing to stop crimes like this.

Listen sister, I have a semi-auto 12 shot pistol for protection that saved my life. You would rather have me dead and not have my gun to protect me? You just killed me. What a horrible person you are !

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

Thanks Fission.


I do however, fully support some sort of "automatic" style, military style weapon "gun control".

yeah none of the kids were armed. do you want everybody to share their fate? no? then arm the schools! i don't want my children (when borned) to be unsafe where someone with a gun can just walk in, kill unarmed people, and get arrested later. if you take semi automatic weapons out of the equasion, the we as americans are inadequately defenseless against attackers with semiautomatic weapons or fully automatic weapons

People who feel that we dont need "assault rifles" are Not potentially a part of a citizen militia and thus they should not own guns (unless they feel the need for self defense). People who are mentally ill or have a criminal history should not own guns. Please spend your time figuring out how to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and common criminals and dont tamper with the Constitution for all other able bodied (and minds) men and women.

I see you still don't understand by the "automatic" statement just say high capacity rifles instead.
No, we need all of our magazines,ammo and guns.so what I saw in Iraq,Korea,and any other warzone I know of WILL NOT HAPPEN TO MY COUNTRY.Or for that matter to pretty young girls like you. Seeing kids get killed enrages me and I have a pathological reaction to it.
I need every weapon I can afford and legally have that I know how to use to do it right.If the guns you mention are no longer in circulation,anyone can to us as they please and it I fear, will destroy us.No more make up,cell phones, elaborate foods, nice clothes or public gatherings,just what the latest tyrant demands.
On a personal level.My neighbor 2 doors down in an apartment complex was murdered by 6 Cholos who were so bold the kicked in the door shot him and walked to their cars joking about it.I could have easily killed them all but not without bullet over penetration in a populated area. It took the police 20 minutes to get there.
Thats what I eventually got a shotgun for.
I live in Colorado,it isn't that bad here,but it happened so there you go.

In response to the OP:

Your right. The 2nd Amendment is old. It plays no part in today society. Come to think of it, we should also change the 1st Amendment too. Because freedom of speech often leads to peoples feelings being hurt. So that should be removed to. Oh and how about the 4th Amendment. I mean.. in today's day and age, with terrorism and all.. the police should certainly be able to stop and search anyone they want. It's in everyone's best interest right?



Obviously I am being sarcastic. But if you start changing one, when does it end? Guess what? It won't. Those in power will continue to erase our rights to suit their own needs.

reply to post by Julie Washington
And thats all it is....provocative.


Heres a read to help you understand a bit better.

Read

Stevens is full of bull. Now dont make me break out the Federalist Papers on that posterior.

Originally posted by elysiumfire


Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. You really must stop believing that the personal thought, thinking, opinion, carry the same weight of conferance of 'right' as that which has been passed by congress, or ratified by the states. It does not matter what a founding father or any writer of the constitution states in a personal diary or biography in clarification of what he meant or hoped for...his personal thoughts were not passed as law or right.

Oh oh oh ho. Madisons writings which OPs deal had to do with were not "personal diary or biography". They were the records of his public discorse.....it was public writen arguments on the same that later became law of the land....no diff than what the SCOTUS heads write down about a case.

You are igno-rant.

This is all hypothetical based on claims that citizens would be completely helpless against a tyrannical government with "tanks and drones" etc etc

It's not about running into the streets and overpowering the military, it's about a deterrent that would stop that situation from ever becoming a possibility. A tyrannical government wouldn't start an all out war against it's citizens if they were armed, unless they wanted to be seen as the next Hitler. Too many casualties all around. Look at history, populations were all disarmed a decade or two before the SHTF.

Yes, the military could swoop in and kill millions of people and we couldn't stop it, but tyranny is becoming more and more subtle. We're in the information age. Tyranny in the free world needs a big smiley face and false justifications for it's underlying goals. They can't be open and to the point, at least not in the US where a large portion of people need to be appeased/fooled into going with the alternate agenda.


One thing to keep in mind in this argument, are the statistics of how many lives are saved/criminals killed in home defense situations compared to how many deaths there are in mass shootings/firearm fatalities. If you follow the logic of the following link, it's 300,000 to 9,000 (300,000 lives saved in defensive gun uses and 9,000 US firearm fatalities in 2011). That's right, 300 to 9, or 100 to 3.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

The concept of gun bans is a thing of the past too. We have seen past tyrants use it. So it is a moot point. YOu can argue it the other way around