The Definitive U.S. 2nd Amendment Debate Thread

[Che Guava]

I'd say that when law enforcement is absent is exactly when 2A rights become most important - what sounds better to you, "armed truce" or "mob rule"?

And how much of a difference is there..? ( 's lawyer)

 

[IglooDame]

And how much of a difference is there..? ( 's lawyer)

To the non-mob? The difference in life or death.

Take 911 away, take the police away. Now the two or three tough guys with bars, bats, or knives (heck, maybe they looted a police station and have some guns now) are able to do what they want with virtual impunity. You're in your house, alone or with your wife and children. They want your generator, or your food, or your wife.

Hurricane Katrina's aftermath in New Orleans changed a lot of people's attitudes about the Second Amendment.

 

[Che Guava]

To the non-mob? The difference in life or death.

Take 911 away, take the police away. Now the two or three tough guys with bars, bats, or knives (heck, maybe they looted a police station and have some guns now) are able to do what they want with virtual impunity. You're in your house, alone or with your wife and children. They want your generator, or your food, or your wife.

Hurricane Katrina's aftermath in New Orleans changed a lot of people's attitudes about the Second Amendment.

Or rethink a situation like this: the Hetfields and McCoys mischief have been living side-by-side for years in Louisiana for years but have a healthy distrust for each other over some land disputes. When the flood hits, a teenaged McCoy is caught stealing food from the Hetfield's bunker. The Hetfields call together a posse (militia) to defend thier turf and retreive the stolen food. The McCoys, who accuse the Hetfields of unfairly hoarding food, say they won't return it, and furthermore they are calling their own posse together to defend thier property...

How long do you think peace will last in that situation?

 

[IglooDame]

Or rethink a situation like this: the Hetfields and McCoys mischief have been living side-by-side for years in Louisiana for years but have a healthy distrust for each other over some land disputes. When the flood hits, a teenaged McCoy is caught stealing food from the Hetfield's bunker. The Hetfields call together a posse (militia) to defend thier turf and retreive the stolen food. The McCoys, who accuse the Hetfields of unfairly hoarding food, say they won't return it, and furthermore they are calling their own posse together to defend thier property...

How long do you think peace will last in that situation?

How long do you think peace will last, even if neither side had any guns?

But hey, if they want to get all stupid about it, then let them completely annihilate each other; I'm not much inclined to care about two large families that are apparently capable of united self-defense one way or the other.

 

[Che Guava]

How long do you think peace will last, even if neither side had any guns?

I think crime is a function of opportunity and 'ease of execution'; I just think that guns make it easier, and thus more likely, for people to commit crimes

But hey, if they want to get all stupid about it, then let them completely annihilate each other; I'm not much inclined to care about two large families that are apparently capable of united self-defense one way or the other

I might be inclined to agree . But again, I think this can partly be explained by a difference of culture; some societies feel the need to put measures in place to protect the stupd people too..not that they make it easy

 

[Che Guava]

Every once in a while, I like to read politics blogs by people who mostly have no idea what they're talking about. Not for the information content, but to get the exagerated view of some average people, and to get a few laughs...

On that note, here's a somewhat amusing entry I found on the application of second amendment to cars...

Think of it as a way to save on gasoline
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published March 29, 2007


How many times has this happened to you?

You decide to open fire at your workplace, to terrorize your boss and co-workers...

... only to realize that your gun is not in your car out in the parking lot.

No. Your stupid company policy forbids weapons on company property.

So you have to drive ALL THE WAY HOME to get your gun. This, of course, is terribly inconvenient.

Fortunately, the Florida Legislature is all over this problem. There are bills in both our House and Senate this year to make it illegal for employers to ban weapons in their own parking lots.

This is absolutely true.

Senate Bill 2356 and House Bill 1417 say that no employer or business could bar guns, as long as employees or customers owned them legally and kept them locked in their cars.

SB 2356 says that a citizen does not give up the right to keep "constitutionally significant" property merely by becoming "a customer, employee, or invitee" of an employer or business.

Employers and businesses could not search cars on their property, could not have a no-weapons policy as a condition of employment, and could not fire an employee or ask any customer to leave merely for having a gun in the car.

Interestingly, the bill anticipates the consequences, and says that no property owner will be held liable when a gun owner shoots somebody.

The bill has a loophole for employers related to "national defense, aerospace or domestic security," who could still ban weapons if they presented "an increased danger of explosion or reasonably predictable catastrophic event."

Schools are exempt, too.

In the event you think this is a wacky idea that has no chance: SB 2356 was approved this week by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee by a vote of 7-1, and has one other committee before reaching the full Senate.

To quote the singer Alanis Morissette, isn't it ironic?

This same Legislature is considering a bill to allow supermarkets, Wal-Marts and such places to prohibit political activity by citizens and customers on their premises, such as gathering petition signatures, under the theory of "private property rights."

But those places would be powerless to keep out guns. The Second Amendment would trump private property rights, while the First would be a weak sister.

Besides the obvious, another flaw with these bills is that they deliberately misunderstand the Constitution.

As the old saying goes, one person's right to swing his fist stops at the end of the next person's nose. There is no "free speech" right to cuss out your boss or picket in the middle of Sears, for example. Rights are not absolute - they can be limited by employment, by entry onto commercial property, or by being present in public gatherings.

So if we're going to say the Second Amendment trumps all other peoples' rights, I think we oughta include the First too. I envision employee parking lots everywhere filled with bumper stickers saying, "My boss is a $#$%."

Especially in the state Capitol.

linker-linker!

Kinda silly, but still some points to consider...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I've changed my stance on this since I was last around. I now have three shotguns and I sit outside my house on a rocking chair taking pot shots at cats

 

[IglooDame]

How many times has this happened to you?

You decide to open fire at your workplace, to terrorize your boss and co-workers...

... only to realize that your gun is not in your car out in the parking lot.

No. Your stupid company policy forbids weapons on company property.

So you have to drive ALL THE WAY HOME to get your gun. This, of course, is terribly inconvenient.

His mocking tone doesn't mask the fact that someone inclined to open fire at their workplace probably isn't too bothered by the fact that they're violating a company rule by having a gun in their car.

That said, I support an individual's right to control their property (including parking lots), no matter how stupid they're inclined to be about it. If you don't like the rules, then don't work there.

 

[Che Guava]

His mocking tone doesn't mask the fact that someone inclined to open fire at their workplace probably isn't too bothered by the fact that they're violating a company rule by having a gun in their car.

That's what really made me really laugh about this piece. I was picturing a Lee Harvey Oswald look-a-like sitting in a cubicle trying to plan an afternoon shooting "Hmmmm...If I take my break right before lunch, I could take highway 8 and be home and back in time...but there has been a lot of traffice on turnpike...dang it!"

Hyperbole aside, I think there is a hint of an actual point in that: if you took a psych evaluation of the entire country, I think that you would find that some inflated number of people (say, 10%) would likely fire on people with a gun immediately following an argument/embarrasment/tense situation, but a much smaller percent (say, 1%) would actually carry that grudge all the way home with them and back again...

That said, I support an individual's right to control their property (including parking lots), no matter how stupid they're inclined to be about it. If you don't like the rules, then don't work there.

I think that's a pretty healthy attitude!

Having said that however, there is the issue of an individual's right to live in a safe environment. For example, if yours is the only big employer in town, is it fair to impose what some might consider an unsafe working environment by allowing people to keep fire-arms on the premises?

To take that argument to another angle, what happens when a public (or private) school decides that it would like to arm all of its teachers? SOme (like myself) would argue that an environment like a high school is simply not the right environment for a large cache of weapons, and would more than likely increase the risk of an 'accident' (however you want to interpret that). If there aren't any other schools nearby, and you can't spare the time to home school your children, is it time to move?

 

[IglooDame]

That's what really made me really laugh about this piece. I was picturing a Lee Harvey Oswald look-a-like sitting in a cubicle trying to plan an afternoon shooting "Hmmmm...If I take my break right before lunch, I could take highway 8 and be home and back in time...but there has been a lot of traffice on turnpike...dang it!"

Hyperbole aside, I think there is a hint of an actual point in that: if you took a psych evaluation of the entire country, I think that you would find that some inflated number of people (say, 10%) would likely fire on people with a gun immediately following an argument/embarrasment/tense situation, but a much smaller percent (say, 1%) would actually carry that grudge all the way home with them and back again...

You miss my point. You think that 10% (and by the way I'd trim both your percentages by a factor of ten) of employees would obey the rule in the first place?

I think that's a pretty healthy attitude!

Having said that however, there is the issue of an individual's right to live in a safe environment. For example, if yours is the only big employer in town, is it fair to impose what some might consider an unsafe working environment by allowing people to keep fire-arms on the premises?

To take that argument to another angle, what happens when a public (or private) school decides that it would like to arm all of its teachers? SOme (like myself) would argue that an environment like a high school is simply not the right environment for a large cache of weapons, and would more than likely increase the risk of an 'accident' (however you want to interpret that). If there aren't any other schools nearby, and you can't spare the time to home school your children, is it time to move?

Some might consider it an unsafe working environment by not allowing people to keep firearms on the premises. Keep in mind, if you can't keep the gun in your car in the parking lot, most likely you can't take the gun with you at all, and there's some significant percentage of people that do carry for personal safety - you've just denied them that.

And in any case, my view on it applies to both sides - if someone feels unsafe because the employer allows firearms in parked cars, then equally tough noogies for that employee.

Public schools are not private employers, so that's another issue entirely, but private schools with teachers carrying? See above - you don't like it, pull your kids out of the school.

I can't find the statistic, but I've read where Texas or Florida (can't remember which) concealed-carry permit holders have a violent crime record lower than that of the police in that state. It seems to me that establishing rules to prevent those people from carrying guns where you work or where your children go to school is at best a waste of energy.

 

[Che Guava]

You miss my point. You think that 10% (and by the way I'd trim both your percentages by a factor of ten) of employees would obey the rule in the first place?

I would too, but writing in decimal points is such a pain...!

The point I'm making is that most people who would shoot someone else would only do it in th heat of the moment. Therefore, they wouldn't be bringing a gun every day, they'd just be wishing they had one when that jerk in the corner office gets the promotion...

Some might consider it an unsafe working environment by not allowing people to keep firearms on the premises. Keep in mind, if you can't keep the gun in your car in the parking lot, most likely you can't take the gun with you at all, and there's some significant percentage of people that do carry for personal safety - you've just denied them that.

Again, i thin it comes down to what this amendment was intended for precisely. I can get behind the militia idea, i can even find it acceptable that people keep guns in their homes for protection of family and property. But given that guns are equal opportunity attacker/defenders, I think I would feel decidedly unconfortable in an environment where I know most, or even some of the people around me were carrying dangerous weapons. I don't like the idea of having to take into account what a co-worker of mine might be carrying for 'self-defense' (even if it is just in the car) if I get in an argument or disagrement with them.

And in any case, my view on it applies to both sides - if someone feels unsafe because the employer allows firearms in parked cars, then equally tough noogies for that employee.

I think if I were president of a banana republic, i would decre that those worried about fire-arm attacks in public places would simply have to wear bullet-proof gear. But I;d be one of those 'nutty' despots, anyway

Public schools are not private employers, so that's another issue entirely, but private schools with teachers carrying? See above - you don't like it, pull your kids out of the school.

True, but there's also the issue of where 'public' property begins. Would the second amendment (or its' state's interpretation of it) trump the right of a mall to forbidstore emplyees from carrying hand-guns?

I can't find the statistic, but I've read where Texas or Florida (can't remember which) concealed-carry permit holders have a violent crime record lower than that of the police in that state. It seems to me that establishing rules to prevent those people from carrying guns where you work or where your children go to school is at best a waste of energy.

And this is why we're still having the debate. I've seen a lot of convincing statistics from some part of the US that seem to show me pretty conclusively that concealed fire-arms have deceased crime, I just can't sem to 'reason' my way to it This is why I'm also interested in the culture and soceital differences of say Texas and New York (or Canada, for that matter), where I've seen plenty of stats that seem to show other trends. I want to know why this seems to work some places and not others!

 

[IglooDame]

The point I'm making is that most people who would shoot someone else would only do it in th heat of the moment. Therefore, they wouldn't be bringing a gun every day, they'd just be wishing they had one when that jerk in the corner office gets the promotion...

Again, i thin it comes down to what this amendment was intended for precisely. I can get behind the militia idea, i can even find it acceptable that people keep guns in their homes for protection of family and property. But given that guns are equal opportunity attacker/defenders, I think I would feel decidedly unconfortable in an environment where I know most, or even some of the people around me were carrying dangerous weapons. I don't like the idea of having to take into account what a co-worker of mine might be carrying for 'self-defense' (even if it is just in the car) if I get in an argument or disagrement with them.

You don't have to take it into account. Do you handle co-workers differently if you know they're judo black-belts? Or have a knife on their belt-loop? Or are 250-lb muscular 20-something guys, as opposed to 60-year-old retiree wannabes? I guess I just can't get my head around "he has a gun in his car down in the parking lot, I'd better not piss him off". Such an attitude baffles me. Folks that ordinarily carry guns are as likely to feel unsafe following a business' "no guns" rules as folks that fear guns are to feel unsafe if the business doesn't set such a rule down. The only difference is that in the first case, people likely to shoot the place up are also likely to ignore the rule - the safety is utterly illusory.

Would you be against all these sorts of restaurant/bar/public smoking bans if it turned out that secondhand smoke - while still a nuisance - actually posed zero health risks?

And this is why we're still having the debate. I've seen a lot of convincing statistics from some part of the US that seem to show me pretty conclusively that concealed fire-arms have deceased crime, I just can't sem to 'reason' my way to it This is why I'm also interested in the culture and soceital differences of say Texas and New York (or Canada, for that matter), where I've seen plenty of stats that seem to show other trends. I want to know why this seems to work some places and not others!

Most of it, I think, stems purely from population density, and perhaps average 'quality of life' for a given area.

But one thing is certain - something like 75% of all murders are committed by someone with a felony record - so far better to associate or argue with a CCW co-worker (the stats I remember are from Florida, where something like five violent crimes have been committed by a total of over three hundred thousand people with CCW permits over the course of a decade - they put Japan's homicide rate to shame) than with someone who might be a felon.

 

[Che Guava]

You don't have to take it into account. Do you handle co-workers differently if you know they're judo black-belts? Or have a knife on their belt-loop? Or are 250-lb muscular 20-something guys, as opposed to 60-year-old retiree wannabes? I guess I just can't get my head around "he has a gun in his car down in the parking lot, I'd better not piss him off". Such an attitude baffles me. Folks that ordinarily carry guns are as likely to feel unsafe following a business' "no guns" rules as folks that fear guns are to feel unsafe if the business doesn't set such a rule down. The only difference is that in the first case, people likely to shoot the place up are also likely to ignore the rule - the safety is utterly illusory.

Maybe that's jsut a cultural difference. I never grew up around guns, save a .22 that my gramps had at the farm, and a bb gun I used to tag rabbits with. I'm willing to admit that i have a bias: I don't like guns, I feel uncomfortable around handguns in particular (military arms and especially antiques, however, fascinate me), and the only people that I've ever known with 'defense' guns I would put in the catagory of thug-in-training, or survivalist (although i have to admit, i was much more afraid of his crossbow..). SO I'm willing to concede that maybe it will just have to depend on the majority's will.

Would you be against all these sorts of restaurant/bar/public smoking bans if it turned out that secondhand smoke - while still a nuisance - actually posed zero health risks?

If I found that out, I would be a 2-pack a day Camels consumer . In all seriousness however, I'm a 'results' person: if it's not hurting anyone in any measurable way, go ahead and do it, folks! The problem is, i haven't found a universal trend when it comes to personal gun ownership, making my opinion on this case dependant

Most of it, I think, stems purely from population density, and perhaps average 'quality of life' for a given area.

But one thing is certain - something like 75% of all murders are committed by someone with a felony record - so far better to associate or argue with a CCW co-worker (the stats I remember are from Florida, where something like five violent crimes have been committed by a total of over three hundred thousand people with CCW permits over the course of a decade - they put Japan's homicide rate to shame) than with someone who might be a felon.

Bolded for truthiness! I think the desicion to use a gun in an unsafe manner is a product of two things: access to said weapon, and the cost-benefit ratio of using it. Why do people in the ghetto use guns? Because they're easily bought on the black market, and you've got little to nothing to lose by using one. I mean, if I was squatting in a decrepit building, living day to day and depending on crack or cheap smack to make life bearable, prison (or being ostracized in your 'community') doesn't look too bad. And if your day-to-day situation is a life-or-death crapshoot, getting the meal of a lifetime and a humane death doesn't sound like a bad deal either.

Uh-oh, have I stumbled on another american political hot-potato...?
I guess that's for another time...