Thanks for breaking the ice
Just a question: given the size and capabilities of the goverment today, does allowing citiztns to keep personal arms really protect them against tyranny?
well it seems to work in irqa
The Definitive U.S. 2nd Amendment Debate Thread
- Thread starter Che Guava
- Start date
well it seems to work in irqa
skadistic
Caomhanach
How can you be sure of the intentions of the government?
It doesn't mater what the intentions of the populace are. Since the vast majority of fire arms owners don't commit crime or shot anyone I'd say by simple reasoning the intent is to defend themselves and/or sport shoting.
You seem to be implying that there is a posibility something bad might happen we shouldn't take the chance and just do away with it . Well then you'd have to do away with knives too, right? Because as stats in the UK show knive crimes are up. And you'd have to ban cars becaus people run people over.
I'm still waiting for some one to come up with a realy good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a fire arm.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
All true, what I was addressing was more of the 'militia' implications of the amendment, and what really constitutes a militia. Could the admendment be interpreted to mean that states and municipalities have the right to keep police/security forces, giving the people access to arms through a community proxy that doesn't work directly for the federal government? If so, does that have consequences for individual gun ownership rights?
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
All I will say is that the 2nd amendment is about as out of date as the 1st.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
No soundbytes here: explain why it's relevant!
All, right. I meant my comment to inspire thought.
People say the second amendment is out of date because a) there is no chance for the common man to fight the government and b) there is no need for firearms(the government will protect you) and c) firearms are dangerous.
Well the first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. Well, one person can't very well do much just by speaking out. And it's not like the government is going to do anything that it should not be able to stop you from speaking. The freedom of speech is not really necessary. You can live a perfectly fine life without saying anything that angers the governing powers. In the World History forum there is a thread about how bad the Soviet Union actually was. As far as I can make out most people don't think it was that bad that they didn't have freedom of speech. The first amendment also protects the free exercise of religion. Both speech and religion are dangerous. If the government wants to protect people from harmful words or bad religions why should there be an amendment to stop it?
skadistic
Caomhanach
That militia is run by a government even at a local level. Whats to stop them when they turn on the people? A well armed population. If the gov. militia turns on the people the people would still need their own militia. Thats why the individual has the right to be armed.
A good modern day exampl of why an armed popluation is still needed was hurricain Katrina. Most of the cops ran out of town. Some of those that stayed were them selves looting. Drug gangs ran wild. Had their been a well armed civilian militia to fill the void things could have been different.
People make fun of the pictures of rednecks holding signs that say "if your a lootin' we're a shootin" when hurricanes hit the south but you know damn well there aint no looting. The population has to have the tools at hand to take care of them selves and protect them selves and their property.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
True, but then the question becomes, do you keep rights for the sake of having rights, or do you lok at the practical consequences of those rights. If, for example, it was shown unequivically that individual gun ownership caused a significantly higher murder rate (not entirely unforseeable, if you make some assumptions about the pace of personal arm technology development), would the U.S. be compelled to change the second amendment, or simply take it as the price of keeping free of the possibility of tyranny?
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
But remember that a militia, as an organized entity, is a government as well, one that can be reasonable and fair, or autocratic and self-serving. My question is, where does governmetn end and citizens begin? If you live in a district small enough that direct democracy (i.e. voting on individual issues as a community), or at least a 'close representative' system (i.e. a small population base for each representative) is possible, then is that government, or a citizens group? And if it is a citizens group, then they own the arms that the police uses, and thus are communally 'owned' (no need to storm the bastille), but put in the hands of trained officers that can make best use of them as a community?
Maybe naive, but I'd still like to hear thoughts on it!
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
First of all merely banning something does not get rid of it as I hope we have learned with the War on Drugs and Prohibition (oh and check my sig). Secondly you could not unequivocally show that gun ownership causes a significantly higher murder rate. Thirdly, if you want to stop deaths, you should first ban automobiles, cigarettes, and fast food. Fourthly , if someone commits murder with a gun (just like any other weapon) it is the person's fault and the way to fix the problem is to lock murderers up for the rest of their lives not to ban what they used to commit murder.
skadistic
Caomhanach
And how many police should there be? Whats a good number there?
I think your missing the point of a militia. It is not a police force. It is a defence force. I also don't think a well trained officer will make the best use of arms. Again what is going to protect me from them.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
True, but ignoring a problem doesn't solve it either.
I have a few statisticians that might disagree with you.
In all seriousness, we can't see what the future might bring, and someday the numbers could show with an insignificant amount of doubt that individual gun ownership in the US is responsible for a significant amount of murders. Some argue that the numbers already show this, but that's why we have debates like this.We tolerate deaths related to cars, tabacco and fatty foods because thier potential benefits outweigh the costs. What we want to be able to decide here is whether the benefits of individual/militia gun rights outweigh the potential (and real) costs.
We already have many laws that restricts what an individual can own because of the potential they have to harm. No automatic firing weapons, no race cars on public streets, no poisons (that don't have other uses, say like pesticides). The questio is where we draw the line. Where do you drawn the line in terms of gun ownership?
skadistic
Caomhanach
Gun ownership does not increase gun crime. Show me the statistics that compair the number of owners and how many of them killed some one. Then show me how many gun murders were commited by people who did not legaly own the gun they used.
Or even easier show me how many gun owners didn't kill some one in %.
Or even easier show me how many gun owners didn't kill some one in %.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
I guess that is for the local government to decide....
Can't it function as both? For that matter, why can't a local government set up a public defense militia of thier own?
I guess I just don't like arguments that reduce to 'me against all of them'. I beleive that people need to be able to work together to make a functioning society, which is why I like the idea of militias over individual gun ownership, provided that the militias are held to a certain public standard.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
If you're looking for numbers to argue with, i can direct you to a few:
http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/LudwigGunspap.PDF?CFID=8055156&CFTOKEN=41913560
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/issues/v109n5/019506/019506.web.pdf
But the statistics aren't important, as this debate isn't limited to the right here and now. Imagine, if you will, a future in which violence in areas of unrestricted gun ownership has increased dramatically, while those with restrictions have remained low, pointing strongly to a correlation between individual gun ownership and a large social cost in the form or increased violent crime (you don't have to beleive it, just assume it for now). At what point would we have to say 'no' and remove the second amendment? Or is the right to bear arms an inalienable right, no matter what the cost to society?
skadistic
Caomhanach
I want one simple number. What % of total gun owners did not murder some one. Pick any time frame. You can make the ifs ands or buts you'd like but maybes and posibals aren't facts.
Its not the guns that are the problem its the people. In England they took away the guns and now knife crime is up.
The 2nd is an extencion of inalienable rights to life and liberty.
Its not the guns that are the problem its the people. In England they took away the guns and now knife crime is up.
The 2nd is an extencion of inalienable rights to life and liberty.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
To provide an additional check against the government.
I used to think "no". I used to think "WTH can a few amateurs with a few guns under improvised command structures do against the richest and most powerful military machine in the world?". Then there came Iraq.
The second amendment nuts are going to go wild. There will perhaps be a decade or two of chaos. Then either the chaos will die down or the amendment reinstated.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Sorry, this argument can't be reduced to a single figure: any conclusion made with one number would be absolutely useless and without foundation.
One can expect that if guns are gone, then knives go up; the question is whether you still make a net gain for society (i.e. lesss violent crime and nurders in total)
Keep in mind that if it is an inalienable right, you can't, by your own rules, deny weapons to criminals, non-citizens, or anyone, really....
skadistic
Caomhanach
This argument be boiled down to one figure. Simple how many gun owners didn't kill some one. That number destroys the whole guns = crime argument.
No you would not make a net gain like I said its not the tool its the opperater.
Criminals give up rights when they commit crimes even life and liberty. They forfit them of their own doing the government doesn't take it away.
No you would not make a net gain like I said its not the tool its the opperater.
Criminals give up rights when they commit crimes even life and liberty. They forfit them of their own doing the government doesn't take it away.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Sorry, I can't think of any way that you could accurately measure gun ownership's impact on society with one number. Can't be done. If 5% of gun owners commit crimes, what does that tell you? You have nothing to compare it to! Even if a minority of gun owners were responsible for violent crime (say 30% of them) there would be a MASSIVE social cost!
The tool dictate efficiency: the easier it is to do, the more likely it will happen. You can kill a man with your own two hands, but they'll still take away your knife in prison because you could more easily kill someone with it.
Ok, but then by your own definition, they are no inalienable rights. Even prisoners have the right to free speech.
And following that argument, couldn't the government just make it so an offense like jaywalking be sufficient to take away your arms? how can you trust the government if they make up the rules?
