America, sometimes I despair of thee.

[747XL29]

I'm generally pretty moderate. I just get upset when I see people trying to infringe upon what I perceive to be a basic freedom.

Spot on ... I agree. I also carry firearms daily, teach their use to former military as well as civilians and LE and have served my country in both the military and in a LE role. We are not "the rest of the world" and in my opinion, having worked on 5 different continents many times under arms, that is a good thing. The 1st Amendment and the 4th are just as important in the long run as the 2nd....

The Federalist Papers and the Constitution are very clear is you take the time to red them both...I find it odd the for over 200 plus years the viewpoint of this is now being called "extremist". Fucking pathetic if you ask me.

Ciao

[EvenOlderButWiser]

Self defense is a basic freedom and expecting people to defend themselves with knives and poles is unrealistic.

And therein lies your basic problem, and why you will never win your argument (Except with a fellow American who supports the same "right")

When the Second Amendment was written (1791) knifes and poles were exactly what they had in mind, along with single shot muskets.

They didn't have high caliber automated assault weapons, that pretty much anyone can buy, in mind.

It seems to me (and Im not an American or an expert here) that the Right to Bear Arms amendment has been hijacked by the gun lobby and turned into some kind of perverse right to give people the means to kill large numbers of other Americans (including school kids) in as short a time as possible.

I don't have an issue with Americans having guns. But semi-automatic assault weapons in private hands cannot possible be justified within a civilised society. Its time to get back to your knives and poles.

Just my view.

ObW
X

[nfisher1226]

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.

The radical gun enthusiast crowd purposely ignore the preface to the sentence. The entire reason for the amendment was in response to the historical disarmament of minority segments of the populace, going back to the disarmament of the protestants by the papists. This is critical to understanding the intent. The founding fathers fucked this up by being too vague in their wording, but what they intended was to make sure that a strong central government would not have the power to suppress "undesirable" segments of the population.

In other words, they didn't want a future version of our government to become akin to the colonial type of government they fought to overthrow. They wanted to give the people the ability to band together (free assembly), speak out against their government (freedom of speech) follow their own religion (no establishment of a national religion) and if it came down to it defend themselves against a tyrannical government (keep and bear arms in a militia), as they had done. The language as ratified had a lot of very unintended consequences that I personally doubt they would have approved of.

Is the problem solvable? All problems are solvable including this one, but it requires thoughtful analysis of the problems and a thoughtful debate on the subject. When you shut your ears to another viewpoint you're holding that process back.

[dfiant1]

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.

The radical gun enthusiast crowd purposely ignore the preface to the sentence. The entire reason for the amendment was in response to the historical disarmament of minority segments of the populace, going back to the disarmament of the protestants by the papists. This is critical to understanding the intent. The founding fathers fucked this up by being too vague in their wording, but what they intended was to make sure that a strong central government would not have the power to suppress "undesirable" segments of the population.

In other words, they didn't want a future version of our government to become akin to the colonial type of government they fought to overthrow. They wanted to give the people the ability to band together (free assembly), speak out against their government (freedom of speech) follow their own religion (no establishment of a national religion) and if it came down to it defend themselves against a tyrannical government (keep and bear arms in a militia), as they had done. The language as ratified had a lot of very unintended consequences that I personally doubt they would have approved of.

Is the problem solvable? All problems are solvable including this one, but it requires thoughtful analysis of the problems and a thoughtful debate on the subject. When you shut your ears to another viewpoint you're holding that process back.

Kudos for that post, well done.

[nfisher1226]

Thanks for that.

Incidentally, for an uplifting example of why America actually does work, read up on the ratification of the 27th amendment. First submitted by James Madison in 1789, it did not receive enough support and became largely forgotten. 80 years later the Ohio general assembly dusted it off and ratified it in protest to the "Salary Grab Act" of 1873. It sat again, unratified, until 1978 when Wyoming ratified it, again in protest to a congressional pay raise. Then in 1982 a graduate student named Gregory Watson wrote a paper on the subject and began a letter writing campaign to all of the remaining state legislatures, which culminated in the adoption of the amendment in 1992.

This is a wonderful success story, and a wonderful piece of legislation. It provides a basic check on congressional greed.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[dfiant1]

The challenges of accepting change are not unique to the USA, we have all had to change and adapt to everything that we take for granted these days because back when I a majority of laws were written the technology was not available, let alone even though of.

We need to move at the same haste our technology is moving or risk being redundant.

The problem when is comes to gun control is the propagandists (The NRA) immediately go on the defensive 'You are not taking my guns away from me.'. Gun controls are exactlly what the word CONTROL means, removing access to guns from those people that are most likely to commit offences and take lives with those guns.

The bottom line is yes have your guns that is your right, but it also everyone elses right to feel safe and if you don't feel safe around guns, then it is your right to protest gun ownership. It is also everyones right to expect those weapons to be keeps under lock and key and out of the hands of the Adam Lanza's who didn't legally own a gun but had access to guns that another person legally had. Same with just about every tragic shooting in a school to date.

[MisterTinkles]

If the politicians and police weren't all-consuming corrupt and a complete waste of tax payers money, no one would need to have guns in their homes.]

Until we get REAL politicians in office and HONEST police in the ranks, people will need to protect themselves from the degradation, scum, and hostility the politicians and police allow to thrive in the USA.

[CellarDweller]

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.

I was just about to post this as well. That amendment was written so the general public could form a militia for defense against invading forces. Not for the general public to stockpile weapons for personal use.



In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

[Chase]

I am also disturbed by this article:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/0...n-schools/

Officers handcuffing students for not wearing a belt? Yikes! I like belts as a fashion but even I forget to put it on one of of ten of the times.
Now not only does the USA still have states where teachers paddle elementary and high school students, sometimes with paddles that have holes for less wind resistance, but we now also have states where stupid-ass security guards hand cuff students for violating the dress code.
We don't have to outlaw guns, we just need better control of who can own one. One thing we could do is make it so gun owners have to show proof they have proper safes in storing their guns. We can also make it so there are laws that do a better job discouraging parents from sharing their gun-safes code/key-location. Psychological evaluations, perhaps? That might come off as fascist to some folks but I'm sure the gun industry would quickly help pay the psychologists for prospective gun-owners.
Speaking of fascism, the gun-control left certainly needs to get a reality check just as much as the gun-nut right. I heard one story where a boy in school chewed his pop tart into the shape of a gun, and was then suspended for it. In the story the NRA then gave him a life-time membership. You'll have to google the story yourself, I don't care if it is true or not because I've seen such imbecility on gun-phobic teachers when I was a kid. When I was in first grade I once just pointed my finger at something and said "bang" and my 1st grade teacher practically had a heart attack. Puh, yeah, okay lady, you can read to my class a story about Noah's Arc, a story about genocide, yet I can't go "bang" to an imaginary inanimate object.
I took a gun safety class and I myself am thinking about applying for a firearms license, so I don't believe I am bias when I suggest more gun-control. Verification of safes, harsher penalties for not following the gun-safes laws, psychological evaluations, and these are just suggestions to go on top of my own state's gun-control laws.
There is, however, the Grandfather Clause. Where new laws can't affect guns bought before the new laws were passed. I understand how this can come off as dogmatic, but it is this same dogmatism that forced the USA to admit it had no right to do what it did to Japanese Americans during WWII. Hobbes was much more on the mark than Locke was when it came to the nature of man. To this day, many Americans are very bigoted, and we need a constitution with god-like powers that says they can't just go locking up, killing, whatever, of anyone who they think is going to Hell.
As for the "right to bear arms" in the Second Amendment:

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.

"A well regulated Militia" - not exactly necessary in this day and age. Nuclear bombs always come to mind with this one, but if another nation really wanted to occupy America without creating nuclear waste they could just burn all our crops from their air force's airplanes, causing us all to starve to death. Thankfully we have a military superpower with a very high tech air force to prevent such an invasion. So not only do we have a standing military that makes the militia minutemen that drove out the British obsolete, but if goodness forbid that military were defeated, a militia would be useless - for an enemy military could either just eradicate us along with the land in nuclear bombs, or starve us all out from an aeronautical invasion. Maybe a gun-nut has a fantasy of taking out his machine gun and shooting an enemy airplane, however many modern airplanes and drones can fly so high they are indistinguishable from birds seen from the ground.
But the USA's founders didn't just believe militias were for keeping out invaders, to an extent they believed militias were necessary in preventing the government from taking away freedoms. Of course, when it comes to things like the mass-racism that once plagued America, things start to get, iffy, when you have a constitution that prevents the government from taking away citizen's freedom, and protecting the freedoms of people from other people because people are naturally bigoted and want to persecute others, so there is suppose to be a militia that prevents the government from persecuting its citizens, yet those same citizens want to persecute other citizens, things just get a little, iffy. But millions of Americans hate my guts because of my beliefs and sexuality, so as of yet I still have my rights - as of yet. We can debate if the harm done from gun-rights outweighs the benefits of Constitutional freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of expression all we want, just remember to stick to the facts. I know the slippery-slope is a logical fallacy, but if the second amendment is removed, will others be removed? John Hagee is a televangelist that makes millions off of ignorant Americans, he's publicly states all American atheists need to leave the USA, and before Obama, President Bush said he supported the "Sodomy laws" before they were declared non-constitutional, would people like that jump at the opportunity to make the "silent majority" undo the freedoms awarded to us in the minorities? If the 2nd Amendment is stripped, will the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" be replaced with the 1st commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before (YHWH)"? Because I work with a so-called Christian who has told me he certainly wants that to happen.
Digressing from problems someone might have with the American Constitution, I'd like to bring up another slippery-slope everybody keeps hearing about - if guns go, what else will go to? When I took my gun-safety class the NRA guy made me roll my eyes with that, saying if "liberals" succeed in outlawing guns, then soon they'll go to knives, then sticks. That, however, works both ways. I don't know how much money it cost to build an atomic bomb, but if making one were a freedom it certainly is possible that they'll be made in private. If making a nuclear bomb were legally possible, and let us say the price would be five to ten million dollars, then certainly the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups could collectively make one in a matter of time, and then, well Wikipedia has a page on "The Turner Diaries" where you can read what their intentions would be without having to pay for the book. Of course, nuclear arms aren't "arms" the founding fathers were talking about, and of course, most modern guns aren't either. The revolver my grandfather owned is the Star Trek Enterprise compared to the muskets the American founders used.
So, I'll give it a rest. I don't give a damn if a liberal calls me a penis size-compensating monster for being interested in applying for a gun license, and I don't give a damn if a conservative calls me a commie for believing in gun-control.

[Sylph]

Although i have to wonder why they're so prevalent in America.

We've had one gun on the island that we know of that = 6 deaths I think over a 2-3 year period, that came from America ironically enough by boat. (Which they got thankfully, but suspect that more can be brought in, which had our government crack down on Marine transport)

However, it just seems like you can fall into America, sneeze and get shot by like 30 assault rifles, 5 grenade launchers and a Nuke.

And it all comes from within, which I dont get.

So essentially, Americans are protecting themselves, from themselves, for themselves?

Whatever happened to self defense classes and the police?