The Second Amendment

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Kakumei, Oct 7, 2015.

  1. This is to debate your personal views on the Second Amendment.

    For those who don't know:

    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    People have different interpretations on what this means and people have different beliefs in how is meant to work today.


    Debates by nature can be hot and messy. During the time of the Founding Fathers, many of these debates were arguments in person which had many of them even threatening each others lives.

    What I ask is that even while the debate may get heated, we try to remain respectful and stay away from personal attacks in this debate.

    I usually don't reveal my positions in debate settings unless its a rebuttal to other peoples arguments or opinions and I never start a Thread (topic) of discussion with my personal opinion or views in the original post.

    This is meant to be an open ended topic; one that is specifically about this topic and not how it relates to other stories. If it relates to the Second Amendment, then it is fair game. If it is related to how guns effect us in our daily lives, then it is also fair game.
  2. I'm not even entirely sure how it's supposed to be interpreted. But based on how back then, citizens had those weapons even without being apart of a militia without issue, so I think it can be safe to assume that each comma is meant to be separated. So people who can have guns are
    A well regulated Militia (As long as they are fighting for freedom/security of the state)
    the people to keep and bear Arms (As in citizens)

    Which also goes to "What's considered bearing arms? Is a rocket launcher bearing arms?"
    And the answer to that, is yes XD
    Back then, bearing arms was any sort of projectile. They couldn't have predicted things like rocket launchers and stuff like that. Now i'm not a law expert so I'm not really gonna determine what explosives/rockets may be classified as. Personally, I think that rockets and explosives is where the line gets crossed. And that's not even because people will use them to blow up masses, its that I think that at that point, you're not protecting yourself. A gun is far more effective than explosives when it comes to personal self defense as if you throw a grenade in your house, your house is blown up. You throw a grenade at someone in the street, there goes that area. (Unless you're fighting an army. But at that point, it is militia's who will get explosives anyway through illegal means if they have to so it doesn't really matter :P)

    So are explosive based weaponry legal under second amendment? Personally, I have no idea. But they are illegal now, and i'm not personally complaining. And even if people say yes, It's something that I don't know enough about, only relying on my personal feelings. So that's not my fight to join no matter how I look at it XD
    #2 Shadon Xarian, Oct 7, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
  3. Back then, people had cannons in their yards. People think this means that it only refers to muskets, but the Founders were very aware of other types of guns. They had a revolver type gun that shot like 12 bullets at a time. Also something called a "Pucket Gun" which sounds weird but was something you certainly didn't want to be at the end of.
    • Love Love x 1
  4. This was established when the British aiming to invade/take over America after a revolution was a very real danger.
    At which time it was pretty necessary.

    Today though?
    America has a bigger army than the rest of the G8 combine.
    I think you're pretty safe. :P

    And if we're talking freedom from our own government?
    Once again, bigger army than the rest of the G8 combine.
    I think you're pretty fucked. :P
  5. You are making two mistakes with this argument.

    1st: This assumes that the only use of the Second Amendment was based on invading armies or tyrannical government.
    2nd: That guns only help within the scenarios described in the previous sentence.

    Ill address the arguments you've made in depth though.

    First, having a large army doesn't protect people from criminals within the US. While we do have a pretty broad police force within the US, it is very clear that it is not capable of dealing with crimes. In fact, most crime isn't handled by police until /after/ its happened.

    The benefit of having weapons is that you can combat crime as it happens, or in many cases deter it altogether. In America, the city that has the most violent crimes (and murders) is Detroit- which also happens to be the city with the most strict gun laws.

    Now dealing with the part of your argument about a tyrannical government-

    No, American's clearly have the upper hand. Yes, we have unarguably the most powerful army currently among the superpowers, but as a country we also have more gun owners within that country. Registered gun ownership within the US is somewhere at 80 million. Actual gun ownership is higher (though for obvious reasons not accurately known) as you don't actually /have/ to register your weapons.
    • Love Love x 1
  6. So, because trained professionals struggle we want untrained novices taking it into their own hands?

    Note: By Trained I mean more than just knowing how to shoot a gun.
    Correlation doesn't equal Causation.

    Also, are there any cases of Gun Owners actually stopping crimes?
    This is a claim that's made often, but cases of these actually happen is almost unheard of.

    And I don't just mean prevent in regards to the fear factor of "Armed people here, let's not start something".
    I mean once a crime is being committed, do registered gun owners ever end up stepping up, and fixing the problem?
    But you lack professional training/tactics, top of the line gear, drones etc.
    If for some insane reason Government vs The People ever happened, you'd have the numbers, but the Government has everything else.

    Though ultimately, neither side would win. America would go into Chaos and then get taken over by whatever nation wasn't in-fighting...
    Or once that happened America would go nuke crazy and destroy the world.
  7. And to add to that, do you honestly think that the US soldiers will turn against their own family and friends back home? Their job isn't to protect the government, their job and service is to the people and the country. If the people want a revolution (Which one of the founding fathers suggested happen every few decades I believe?) then we will win as long as we are brave enough and actually fight.

    As to what @Kakumei said about Detroit, here's a fun little picture I found just the other day. I wasn't sure if it was true or not at first, but it's leaning more towards the at least 80% true from what I can gather.

  8. Assuming the military remains with the establishment as they are also citizens. Not a faceless entity.

    The right of the citizens to bear arms is important to keeping a democracy a democracy (although we're technically supposed to be a republic). A government that does not fear it's own citizens automatically gravitates towards oppression.

    Of course, there are many who argue that time has come and gone. I think it all depends on your viewpoint if you're okay with that or not. In my opinion, people will find ways of killing other folks whether it's a gun, a knife, or a fucking rock on the ground. That's how it's been since the caveman days.

    The police are not trained to prevent crimes. It is the citizen's duty to prevent and report crimes. It's the police's job to react to a crime. It's supposed to be it's own kind of way of curtailing crime ... but it doesn't really work. My father works at the department for juvenile justice and most of the individuals in there are second or third generation criminals. They know at least 3 or more people in prison and/or have had someone in their family killed while committing a crime.

    Secondly, there's a lot of the inner pro-gun circle who are very against registering their guns. It dates back to WWII when invading countries were able to obtain and disarm citizen's weapons through registration records. I know plenty of people who think it is not the federal government's job to know whether you own a weapon or not. I'm pretty iffy on that personally.
    • Love Love x 1
  9. There's plenty XP You just barely hear about it because that's not the story that gets the media much money or attention (And agenda too I suppose)

    It's almost unheard of because it doesn't seem to happen often enough to catch attention... Because people these days are cowards DX
    It doesn't have to. Evidence gathering is nothing but Correlation. Then you put the evidence together, and it all adds up to a Causation.
  10. Assuming the entire military would side with the populous though.
    You really don't need that many people in the Army to contain civilians if lethal force was allowed.

    Hell, if stuff like Ferguson is any example the people would start robbing and in-fighting themselves even.
    Ok... Where are they?
    This is the Internet, you should be able to find some stories to support that if they exist. :P
    Science is a lot more than that.
    It's controlled experiments, repeated testing etc.

    They don't just throw two graphs next to each other and make a conclusion out of that.
  11. I'm also pretty sure Vigilantes are illegal. You'd probably get your butt arrested if you showed up to a crime scene and tried to do anything about it outside of self-defense. As in you went around actively looking for crimes to stop instead of randomly finding yourself in that situation.

    I seem to recall that playing a factor in the GZ and TM case.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Well, I'm going to approach this topic logically. I fully expect people to get angst-ridden over it and screech about "thinking of the children" or "but muh guns doi hoi", because I tend to take a middle ground on this. Also, I'm a damn, dirty foreigner, who loves maple syrup, and whose police dress like discount Walmart Red Coats, so... Up up, and away!

    #1: Switzerland. Because that glorious country of tax evasion-enabling banks hills and valleys will be cited at some point as a beautiful, progressive country, full of fucking guns. Which, is true... Sort of. First, assuming Wikipedia's numbers are at least semi-accurate, there are 2.5 times as many guns in the US than there are in Switzerland per 100 citizens. Which, thinking about it, is kind of a bit fucked up when one realizes that Switzerland trains and arms its populace, meaning that everyone in that country should have a gun pretty much for free. All they'd have to pay for is ammo (not military grade, but civilian comparable is legal) and then go get a licence. Part of the licencing process is turning fully automatic rifles into semi-automatic ones, by the way, that should be mentioned.

    So, while Switzerland is definitely a country chalk full o' fuckin' guns, they don't just hand everyone assault rifles and then tell them to go hunt some wild animals with military ammunition and fully automatic rifles. Americans who wank themselves to Swiss flags, dreaming of a country with more ammunition than single celled organisms, can probably stop now.

    #2: Countries which institute gun control do see a sharp decrease in gun-related violence... Sort of. Australia is the prime example of this, even cited by John Oliver in a comedy piece he did with Jon Stewart's show. For a bit of history, Australia used to suffer mass shootings like the US. This was the one that convinced them to institute sweeping gun control legislation. As a result, gun-related homicides dropped 50% and gun-related suicides dropped 80%. (CNN.) However, homicide and manslaughter rates have remained a relative constant regardless, and haven't dropped until around 2007 (Australian Government Statistics). Homicide dropped from around 1.9 to 1.3 per 100,000, manslaughter remained at the same rate. The laws controlling firearms didn't come into play until around 1988-1989, and gun buybacks weren't completed until 1996. It took a ten year period for homicide to drop, and it wasn't a dramatic and sudden plummet, implying that the strict gun control laws had little to no impact on the homicide and manslaughter rates.

    #3: The US Constitution is not a bulletproof document by any stretch of the imagination. People who cite it as the sole reason that there should be no gun control are apparently incapable of reading the fine print, because the very constitution that protects their gun rights had to have that amended in, along with twenty seven other amendments. The US Constitution--that sacred bloody cow--has been edited post-launch twenty seven fucking times. If it was a video game, most people would be screeching about how horrendously designed it must have been to fail to account for all of this other stuff. So if your argument is "but muh constitution", you can stuff it. Constitutions can be edited and amended. Even the US Constitution has been amended multiple times, even by the people who originally wrote the damn thing. It's not a sacred, immortal thing: It's a piece of paper that instructs you as to what core values the US has. If you think core values don't change, then I'd like to play Jeopardy with you and bring up Slavery for 500.

    #4: Mass murders. This shitty thing to do is really old. Like, really. With or without guns, people do mass murders, serial killings, and other such activities as this. Contrary to popular belief, the deadliest mass murder to occur on US soil at any school involved explosives, not firearms. You can make pipe bombs (and by extension, sticky bombs) and molotov cocktails with any home materials. Most of the explosives used by the IRA were home made. People can get very creative and destructive when you deprive them of ease.

    #5: Summary.

    Switzerland is not a fantasy land devoid of gun control. You will not stop mass murders from happening by instituting gun laws, but you can significantly reduce gun-related fatalities by doing so. Australia is not a fantasy land devoid of homicides. The Constitution is not a sacred cow. Unless sacred cows can be edited twenty seven times and still be considered sacred cows. I'm fairly sure the same forward-thinking forefathers who created the documented (and then amended it) would have likely approved of people questioning it and looking for ways to improve it--not think of it as something to never be questioned. I mean, the entire fucking country popped up because people hated the status quo and wanted to do something better. When people want to murder, they will find a way to do it. Heck, I know how to create molotov cocktails. All you need is some gasoline, a flammable piece of cloth, an empty bottle, and a lighter, and you're good to go to start your own IRA.

    #6: In Conclusion.

    I'm for gun control, but not the wholesale banning of guns. You don't want firearms to end up in the hands of deranged lunatics, I think we can all agree on that. Screening people's medical histories for psychological disorders and addictions, and criminal records, is a sensible precaution. (Most US states do this, by the way. I'm not sure if they all do, though, someone can feel free to let me know if all of them do.) Multiple tiers of licencing also makes sense to me. We do it with motor vehicles, I don't understand why we can't do the same thing with guns. (Ex: A hunting licence could be acquired by taking a firearms safety course, which lets you use semi-automatic or bolt action scopeless rifles. Sport hunting would be the next "tier", and allow you access to scoped rifles. Then another tier for enthusiasts, collectors, and so on. That way, you can screen out the fucking loons, without punishing the responsible gun owner who just wants to have access to an automatic firearm.) Encourage (though perhaps don't force by legislation) people to get electronic tags in their firearms, akin to SIN Cards in cell phones. That way, if you lose your gun, or it's stolen, you can report it and the government can remotely activate the tag to look for it. (Though I fully admit this is not a bulletproof solution, people would find a way to remove the tags if they were determined. This is more to slap at stupid wannabe gangbanger kids.)

    Certain kinds of weapons should only be stored at a lock and key weapon range. I don't think anyone wants to live in a world where rednecks install gatling guns into the back of their fucking pickup trucks and then dakka down a line of trees, dropping dead everything in the forest, from Bambi to your kids. Even if that does sound really fucking awesome. :ferret:

    Beyond that, crime rate is influenced far more by necessity or culture than by the presence of weapons. As much as I do enjoy deflating the joy NRA-drooling nitwits have over their fantastical version of Switzerland, I get the same kind of glee doing it to people who have an equally fantastical version of Australia. While you have the occasional deranged fuckwit who goes on a mass shooting because the voices in his head commanded it of him, I guarantee that the majority of homicides and other tragic crimes are the result of other factors. A lot of the mass shootings in the US lately have been done by people who are obviously mentally unstable and who are not receiving help because the state of the mental health industry in the US is fucking shameful. A lot of homicides in the US are related to race and gang related conflicts, as easily seen by the fact that black males have over ten times the homicide rate of their white male counterparts, and men are far more predisposed to committing murder than women are. (Government Statistics.)

    There is a plague in the US, choking the life out of it. While better gun control could certainly be employed and would impact gun-related fatalities, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall homicide rate if previous cases are anything to judge by. The bigger issues that need to be tackled are mental health, the war on drugs (and its habit of fucking up one side of the race column more than any other), and systemic poverty. Race is still an issue in the US, no matter which side of the table you look at it from. Even gender could be construed as an issue here, though I won't get into that in this thread in particular. Another thread can be made for it, if desired.

    tl;dr: Guns are the scapegoat. Focus on other issues that are in a far more dire strait, and put gun-related issues on the back row. People won't commit murder if they don't have a reason to do so in general. Something is driving this fatality rate up, with or without the guns. I mean, think about it, really hard. Do you think this gun related massacre problem has existed since the inception of the US? No. It's had its good years, its had its bad years. Granted, better gun control would be useful, but banning guns won't work. It didn't stop the IRA, and Australia has a "gray market" with over 250,000 illegal firearms. Do you really fucking think it'll suddenly and magically work in a country with more firearms than living, breathing people? Think more practically. Kill the causes, not the symptom.
    #12 Brovo, Oct 7, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  13. How much training does a person need? Pointing at and shooting a person who is about to rape you doesn't take much skill. Taking cover and returning fire to someone walking into a building and going "spray and pray" on a group of people doesn't take much training either.

    In fact, when a person gets a conceal and carry or a weapons permit, you are given a basic course on what to do in multiple situations.

    That's the rub, isn't it? You don't see stories about mass murders being stopped by a citizen with a gun because they are usually stopped before the casualty count required for the shooting to become a mass murder.

    However, the answer is a definite yes. Since its conception, The Blaze website makes it a point to post at least one story a day in which a crime was stopped in the act by a responsible gun owner. Every time I visit the site, I usually find one story reporting just that. It really isn't that hard if you are willing to look.

    Should tyranny arise within the US, it would be likely that a large group of the Armed Forces would turn to fight said tyranny. And 80 mil plus is simply too large of a number for the US's own armed forces to deal with.

    A nation would never be able to invade the US. Germany, Japan and even Russia (their leaders during known times of hostility) have all said that such a thing would be ridiculous and impossible to even try.

    And I highly doubt America would nuke crazy. Nuclear weaponry is at best political weaponry in the world. Only in the hands of psychotic third world monkeys (ISIS or Iran for example) would they be used.

    Either way, your basically making arguments that are too definitive in nature to be logical. In fact, the "either/or" scenarios argument that you made are some sort of logical fallacy, however I am too tired and lazy at the moment to look up the exact name.
    • Love Love x 1
  14. Keeping an eye on somebody isn't a crime. Following somebody in a public area isn't a crime either, unless someone has a court order that demands such a thing.

    With the George Zimmermann and Trayvon Martin case, a crime wasn't actually committed until Martin actively started assaulting Zimmermann, assuming (with evidence to support) that he initiated the encounter.
    • Love Love x 1
  15. You've never used a gun have you?
    There's the proper stance, dealing with recoil, having the discipline to stay clam under pressure, dealing with moving targets.

    And that's just the basics, and coming from someone who hasn't shot a gun either.
    Someone who own's guns could go into far more detail.

    But in a nutshell, this isn't a movie or game.
    You don't just pick up a gun and shoot someone like it's no big deal.
    *Looks at their Latest News*

    Nothing related to Guns.
    Should also be noted I asked about Crimes period, not specifically mass murders.
    I'm not going to get deep here mainly cause world politic's and military tactics is a whole different ballgame.

    But in a nutshell, it can be too large. Depending on the restrictions they have in place.

    Leaders stated invading America is impossible, in it's current state. If they were in civil war/chaos, they'd be left as easy pickings by the end.
    Especially if the civilians can hold the fight you claim they can.

    And Nuclear War was a huge danger in the Cold War. Right now we're held back by peace, but if a countries on their hind legs? They might unleash it.
    +Iran isn't a villain. No Country (Save for North Korea maybe, but that's more one fucked up family) is a villain.
    You're confusing countries with terrorist groups, which is exactly what the Oil companies wanted people to confuse.
    Not really. :P
    I'm making an argument, you're making an argument. They clash/disagree.

    And reviewing my post, I don't see where an "either/or" argument was made.
    Unless if you mean my first post, in which I giving outcomes depending on which perspective you meant. Cause the OP left it rather unclear.

    Regardless though.
    Our positions are clearly clashing, and seeing how we've now delved into "You're not being Logical" accusations clearly it is also turning hostile.
    And admittedly I'm falling for the "Smart Cheeky Bastard" style here myself.

    And I don't care to get dragged into hostile debate, so I'm bowing out of the thread before either one of us drags it any further downwards.
  16. Some time after WW2 they did stop handing out automatic rifles like candy. Yes- They have changed quite a bit. No, they don't have guns and guns and guns.

    They do have a lot of guns though. They have two things that work, both the guns and a culture that seems to curtail violent crime.

    You can take the guns, but you don't take away the thirst (obviously not literally) for violent crime. You don't need a gun to kill someone. Or rape someone. Or violently assault them. Violent crimes went up in the UK.

    Just because the US Constitution has had changes, doesn't mean that the Second Amendment isn't infallible. That also doesn't mean that it is. Sure, the US Constitution has had a few changes, but there has only been ONE US Constitution. How many revolutions have the French seen within the years the US Constitutions existence? How about the UK? Russia? See what I am getting at?

    Either way, people can say "but muh Constitution" all they want. IF the Constitution grants them the Right to use guns in self defense, then it does. Simple as that.

    Something we pretty much seem to wholeheartedly agree on.

    Quoting it just to prove I read it. Most of what is written here I addressed above when I thought it was necessary.

    Some of these precautions I can get behind. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop a mentally ill person from stealing a gun from a person who legally acquired one. Fact is, no solution is an iron-clad 100% solution.

    Gatling guns would have been great. They could have put them in front of homes and businesses to protect from the gangs and rioters who were burning down businesses and destroying homes after Freddy Gray's... Suicide? I do think it was eventually ruled a suicide. If not, accidental death.

    A few interesting things to note. The NRA advocated for blacks to be able to get conceal carry permits to defend themselves during the Civil Rights era and advocated for MLK Jr to get the conceal carry permit that he applied for.

    I dont think the mental health "industry" is shameful in the US. The fact is, you simply cannot catch every single case of any disease. If that were true, every case of HIV would be caught before it advanced to AIDS.

    Yes, Blacks within the US do have a higher homicide rate compared to Whites. Unfortunately, something like 80% of those homicides are black on black crimes.

    Of course, because guns aren't sentient beings that do bad things as the hard-left Americans would have the world believe. Culture and mental illness play a huge part into the problem of murder not just in America, but all over the world. If creating laws automatically stopped things from happening, then illicit drugs wouldn't be obtainable within the US and Alcohol wouldn't have become a huge black market under Prohibition.

    I decided to go with the not tl:dr version. Impressed yet? ;3
  17. There's been two constitutions in the USA. Articles of Confederation? Yeah, didn't work too well.

    France had one revolution similar to the United States', constitution's been "the one" ever since.

    The UK's last revolution was...1688 I believe, well before the constitution of the USA.

    Russia has only ever had one as well, which formed the Soviet Union. It had an attempted coup around 1993 (when the modern "Russian" state was teetering into existence), but nothing came about from that one. And if you want to cite the current situation with Putin's government, I'll point you to the political machines and Tammany Hall - Russia's still a developing democracy, it may not change, but America certainly can't pretend its history is perfect in that regard. Regime changes with 70 years of history behind them don't go quietly.

    So the USA's on par with all the nations you listed for 'total revolutions'. Democracy's a constant work-in-progress. I'd go on, but I'd be redundant given what Brovo said above.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I'll respond tomorrow @Gen. Gwazi Senpai .

    I'm not getting hostile at all. You can say that something isn't logical or say it is a Logical Fallacy without being hostile. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

    Also, whats wrong with clashing positions? That is a debate, isn't it? ;P
  19. [​IMG]

    So errybody play nice and don't turn this into a pissing contest, 'kay?
    • Like Like x 2
  20. The point of that is that the constitution has been changed twenty seven times--including granting the right to bear arms in the first place. Ergo, if your only argument is "because of the constitution", that's an appeal to tradition, and nothing more. We also used to stone or drown women we thought might be witches. We, understandably, don't do this anymore. So if the constitution had to be amended again to abridge that second right, there's no legal argument you can make to prevent it. Otherwise, that same legal argument can be made about having added it in the first place.

    There are good arguments to be made against banning firearms en masse. I've made a couple already, even. I just find it a baffling culture, that there are people in the US who worship the Constitution as though it's infallible, when the parts they worship the most had to be edited in, in the first place. Use better arguments than faith-based ones and I'll be happy to entertain them, or test them, or examine them, or look for numbers supporting or denying them. Just don't deny change because it might interfere with tradition, that mindset isn't healthy. :ferret:
    Indeed. Life is struggle, imperfect universe, we're all hurdling to oblivion and all that jazz. Same free will that endows us with creation also grants us destruction. Et cetera. This is why I aim to put up locked doors, not iron curtains: The objective is to screen as best as you can, but built on the principle that American law seems to fancy so much. That principle being thus: It is preferable that ten guilty go free, than one innocent be jailed. Ergo, gun control should screen and train candidates, like a driver's licence, not act as a hard ban. I mean, look at the drug war, holy fucking shit, hard bans don't work.
    Then again, on the other hand, imagine the sheer gut wrenching terror of a nutso dragging one out to a school and going full ham with it. After a certain point, it does make some sense to put additional precautions on it. I'm not against it being used at firing ranges and the like, though. If film crews can get their hands on rows of them for set pieces, I don't see why the average joe can't pay a fee and crank a few hundred rounds off at a target.
    The NRA is a very strange organization from a foreigner's perspective. Very individualistic. You have quite sane and rational members who just really love their guns, and then total nutsos like this.
    The price of most drugs in the US is utterly baffling and insane. If I had buy to medications in the US instead of here in Canada, I'd have to pay almost five times as much for them. Speaking of AIDS... (Although I think here, we have a difference of ideology. I'm likely far more left leaning concerning medical care, as I fully advocate for public health care. Without it, I would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt by now. It quite literally saved my life.)
    Yes. Gang conflicts and the like. Bloods vs Crips comes to mind. Unfortunate, but that's a topic entirely separate of gun control. (Save perhaps better screening measures, but that won't kill the underground trade. Different solution needed there.)
    Yes. By the way, I'm quite left leaning. A lot of the principles I stand for could very well be described as socialist. The fantasy world mentality, the black and white world view, is not restricted to any particular political paradigm--only individuals who refuse to think critically and employ diplomacy in discussion.
    Certainly. Keep thinking and wielding diplomacy, and I'll be more impressed.