The Definitive U.S. 2nd Amendment Debate Thread

[Bugfatty300]

among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.

So the founding fathers decided the best way to deal with armed civilians uprising against the government was to give them the right to keep and bare arms?

Besides. I could give you a who book worth quotes from the founding fathers that pretty much shows they were in favor the people's right to keep and bare arms.

 

[warpus]

Besides. I could give you a who book worth quotes from the founding fathers that pretty much shows they were in favor the people's right to keep and bare arms.

For reasons that no longer apply today.

 

[Bugfatty300]

As a Canadian, this surprises me

My bad. But courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply only to American citizens.

 

[Xanikk999]

For reasons that no longer apply today.

Doesnt matter, read my post on the last page.

 

[Bugfatty300]

For reasons that no longer apply today.

People aren't oppresed by their governments today? People aren't attacked and murdered? People have no need to defend themselves? Wow. What utopia the world has become!

 

[warpus]

Its not about the original reason though, if theres a different reason for it today by all means keep it.

And the constitution has been changed tons of times over the 231 years since the founding of our country.

Yah, well, if there are other reasons, new reasons, other than the ones that resulted in the updating of the constitution, then why does everyone still quote the 2nd amendment when asked why they deserve to have the right to bear arms? (and arm bears?)

And what are these new reasons anyway?

 

[warpus]

People aren't oppresed by their governments today? People aren't attacked and murdered? People have no need to defend themselves? Wow. What utopia the world has become!

The 2nd amendment was never created so that people could defend themselves against criminals and common thugs.

In any case I must do some work now, I will return to this semi-interesting conversation later.

 

[Xanikk999]

Yah, well, if there are other reasons, new reasons, other than the ones that resulted in the updating of the constitution, then why does everyone still quote the 2nd amendment when asked why they deserve to have the right to bear arms? (and arm bears?)

And what are these new reasons anyway?

Maybe protecting youself on your property? Im for very strict gunlaws but we dont need to disarm the entire populace.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The 2nd amendment was never created so that people could defend themselves against criminals and common thugs.

Sates have always decided self-defense law. Not the US government. The 2nd amendment is simply a pillar of those concepts of personal defense.

 

[Fëanor]

my 2 eurocents

(1) What was the motivation behind introducing the Second Amendment?

So that Americans could quickly organize militias to defend their interests, mainly from Foreign invasion, Indian raids and Criminal Gangs.

(2) Is the U.S. Second amendment (the right to bear arms) outdated?

Yes, it has been outdated for some fifty years.

(3) What would be the likely consequences of removing said amendment form the Bill of Rights?

Less people would end up dead.

(4) If you do support the second amendment, do you do so to ensure the existance of militias, for personal protection of self and property, or both?

I don't support it.

 

[bhsup]

For reasons that no longer apply today.

Does the government have the potential to become tyrannical, even if only a remote possibility? Yes. Then I'll be keeping my right to keep and bear arms, thank you kindly.

Do the police guarantee pre-emptive prevention of all possibile crimes which could be perpetrated upon my body or property, or those of my fellow citizens? NO. Then I'll be keeping my right to keep and bear arms.

Could a crazed and rabid badger come out from the brush while I am on a camping trip/hike/whatever and attack me with little warning? Yes. Then I'll be keeping my right to keep and bear arms.

Can you give one reasonable and compelling reason why someone, who has not shown themselves to be a danger to society if they were to get a gun, should be denied the right to have a gun? NO. Then I'll be keeping my right to keep and bear arms, thank you kindly.

 

[woody60707]

For reasons that no longer apply today.

Why would that matter in any gun laws, or any laws? Congress doesn't have the power to just say, "well that doesn't really matter now of days, so lets just makes laws as if the 2nd amendment didn't really say that". That may be a case for Amending the Constitution, but that should never be a reason for congress to pass laws. And being you would be hard press to get more then one or two states (lets alone 3/4th needed) to ratified the amendment, that doesn't seem much as a debate.


Now saying that, just like the right to vote and other rights, the state does have some limited power to place *shell we use the word guidelines to be nice* in the use of those rights. (states can make laws by which ppl can lose the right to vote and such)

Am I for Amending the Constitution to change the 2nd amendment, Hell yea, it's kind of out of date.

Do i think congress is passing gun laws that are in violation of the Constitution, hell ya.

But those are not even close to being the same issue.

 

[Fëanor]

@VRWCAgent: Medicine cannot guaranteed that your testicles will not develop cancer, will you remove them just to be on the safe side?

 

[warpus]

Does the government have the potential to become tyrannical, even if only a remote possibility? Yes. Then I'll be keeping my right to keep and bear arms, thank you kindly.

You think you can take on the U.S. military with a gun?

Why would that matter in any gun laws, or any laws? Congress doesn't have the power to just say, "well that doesn't really matter now of days, so lets just makes laws as if the 2nd amendment didn't really say that". That may be a case for Amending the Constitution, but that should never be a reason for congress to pass laws.

An amendment being out of date is no reason to amend it/get rid of it?

 

[bhsup]

You think you can take on the U.S. military with a gun?

Of course I can. Winning, now that would be a different story.

An amendment being out of date is no reason to amend it/get rid of it?

If you can get 3/4th of the States to agree with you, go for it.

@Feanor: While owning a gun as a preventative measure is not the only reason to have one (forgetting for a moment that I don't have to even give a reason, it being a right), it isn't comparable to your scenario. Owning a gun causes me no harm, while self-castration would hurt to say the least.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Am I for Amending the Constitution to change the 2nd amendment, Hell yea, it's kind of out of date.

I'd like a revision of the 2nd Amendment to read:

Article II: A well armed militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms for security and legitimate defense shall not be infringed.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You think you can take on the U.S. military with a gun?

No. The US government has already made sure of that many, many years ago during the great depression when there was a serious threat to the government. They did the same with another NFA in the 60s.

Today any resistance would be forced to go underground and fight insurgent style.

 

[woody60707]

You think you can take on the U.S. military with a gun?

Iraq? 10 char

 

[warpus]

Of course I can. Winning, now that would be a different story.

Yeah.. I don't think the 2nd amendment was meant to create situations like.. Waco

This is why I think it's out of date. It might be relevant for other reasons, but not for the initial ones.

 

[Yuri2356]

So the founding fathers decided the best way to deal with armed civilians uprising against the government was to give them the right to keep and bare arms?

No, the best way to deal with an armed uprising (When you can't guarantee quick response from the national armies) is to let each state's government form its own armed militia. That way, they have something to maintain stability or start quashing resistance with.