2nd Amendment of USA constitution

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The Pilgrim Fathers had no atomic bomb, no submarines, no airplanes, no rockets. To defend themselves, they statued that every man had the right to bear arms.

But, nowadays? Why the USA does not abolish the 2nd Amendment? No other country has such a rule. I think on this for a long time and the movies Americans produce that influence the whole world of such a violence, guns, shooting …

Now, I had to start this thread. Yesterday night I was seeing a reporter following a patrol car the whole night in Philadelphia. The Brotherly Love City has got 50 shootings a night. What struck me most was what a clak policeman saying: “We are here to take the guns out of the street!”.

LOL, it was the American Constitution that puts them there !!!??

Remember the 5th Comandement for Christian Amecia: “You shall not kill!”. Please do not tell me that guns do not kil it is people who kills,…please…

 

[Cristiano]

So you are telling me that in the European countries where there is no equivalent of the second amendment there are no murders or violent crime? Are you telling me that in countries like Libya, Syria, Egypt that do not have an equivalent to the second amendment the government can be trusted with the security of the citizens? Are you also telling me that guns have the free will to kill people and humans are just objects wrapped around the guns?

BTW the 5th says do not murder (as in do not kill the innocent one)!

 

[SanAgustin]

I think he is saying that the right to bear arms, to protect against a tyrannical government with nuclear weapons and flying robot armies (drones) is a bit outdated by technology.

That is until we decide that it is OK for your neighbor to have tanks and tactical nukes.

As for Europe, I thought it was established that the gun crime rate is a lot lower than in the US?

I also think, it hasn’t really been proven today that countries with populations that are armed with AK-47s are more free than others.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Criminals will always get their guns illegally, in fact, a majority of the criminals you mentioned got their guns illegally.

Law abiding citizens get guns to hunt or to protect their families in case, some wacko comes trying to kill them or break into their house.

The second amendmant is the right to self-defense, or a safe-guard to prevent the government from turning into a tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson said: that we needed the second amendmant to protect the first amendment.

In areas where guns are illegal, i.e. London, Chicago only criminals have guns, have fun in figuring out how that turns out.

A criminal with a gun gets that sense of security that whoever he robs, most likely a law abiding citizen, will not be able to defend themselves.

This is why in areas where guns are allowed, through concealed carry or the like, crime is actually very low. Riff-Raff tend to avoid areas where there is a high risk of being stopped or killed in the middle of their crime.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think he is saying that the right to bear arms, to protect against a tyrannical government with nuclear weapons and flying robot armies (drones) is a bit outdated by technology.

That is until we decide that it is OK for your neighbor to have tanks and tactical nukes.

As for Europe, I thought it was established that the gun crime rate is a lot lower than in the US?

I also think, it hasn’t really been proven today that countries with populations that are armed with AK-47s are more free than others.

 

[Cristiano]

…As for Europe, I thought it was established that the gun crime rate is a lot lower than in the US?..

The point is that gun crimes still exists, murders without firearms still exist, and violent crime is still widespread.

BTW how many lives of innocent people are saved by gun ownership? Where I live quite a few people own firearms, and the crime rate is low. In other cities where there are stringent gun laws the crime rate associated with firearms is quite high.

…I also think, it hasn’t really been proven today that countries with populations that are armed with AK-47s are more free than others.

Can you cite the countries where the governments allow their citizens to be armed with Ak-47s. Switzerland is a country where most of the citizens have military weapons and the firearm crime rate is quite low. Israel does not have to many internal problems due to firearms either.

 

[SanAgustin]

The point is that gun crimes still exists, murders without firearms still exist, and violent crime is still widespread.

I don’t think anybody claims that banning guns will magically eliminate murder or crime, but we also don’t seem to have evidence that countries that have well armed citizenry are more peaceful. I see all kinds of contradictory numbers on them, but nobody is going to argue that we have the lowest crime rate in the world. Just look at our jail population.

BTW how many lives of innocent people are saved by gun ownership? Where I live quite a few people own firearms, and the crime rate is low. In other cities where there are stringent gun laws the crime rate associated with firearms is quite high.

I think these figures are debatable, you did bring European countries so I was comparing generally country vs country.

Can you cite the countries where the governments allow their citizens to be armed with Ak-47s. Switzerland is a country where most of the citizens have military weapons and the firearm crime rate is quite low. Israel does not have to many internal problems due to firearms either.

I’ve read AK-47s were legal in Iraq even before Saddam. Even if they were illegal, it is fairly obvious it is not rare for a civilian to own one, and it didn’t magically make a tyrannical government disappear.

To be quite honest, I’m not saying you can’t defend yourself or your family with a firearm, but it is quite ridiculous to say that the type of weapons people own are any balance against a modern army controlled by a tyrannical government. That concept is really gone with technology, unless you let people own more dangerous weapons, which is a really bad idea.

 

[Warrior1979]

I think he is saying that the right to bear arms, to protect against a tyrannical government with nuclear weapons and flying robot armies (drones) is a bit outdated by technology.

Actually, no. Why do you think China is paranoid about large gatherings of people? They have nukes and a fairly sophisticated weaponry, yet still fear gatherings of people that have none of that.

That is until we decide that it is OK for your neighbor to have tanks and tactical nukes.

The second amendment isn’t about what the neighborhood has…it’s about what you have to avoid a tyrannical government.

I also think, it hasn’t really been proven today that countries with populations that are armed with AK-47s are more free than others.

Interestingly enough, many of those populations are free from the government of the country that rules them. Plenty of residents of Waziristan are well armed, and effectively an area independent of nuke-armed Pakistan.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

To be clear, first, the Founding Fathers and the Pilgrims are entirely different, though some Founding Fathers were descendents of Pilgrims.

Second, getting to the point of this thread, it’s my understanding that the Second Amendment was not instituted so that people could defend themselves against common criminals with firearms much less to allow hunters to keep their rifles (as some anti-gun people sometimes seem to think) but essentially it was so that there could be a second American Revolution if the current government became tyrannical. By constitutionally banning the government from disarming the citizens of the republic it intended to force the government to treat those citizens well, since they in their various local militias had the collective power to overthrow the government and set up a new one, or at least there would be a serious risk that the citizens could succeed in such an attempt.

Between the precedent of the Civil War regarding succession, developments in military technology making government-controlled forces so much stronger, laws against the very kinds of weapons that might be useful in a second revolution, and the danger of wacko terrorists, I think it’s worth taking another look at the Second Amendment and deciding whether it still plays a practical role in maintaining liberty and good government in the 21st century. If it doesn’t, should we make changes to make it functional again, like allowing private ownership of serious weaponry, transforming the National Guard into militias under the independent control of the states, etc., or should we amend the constitution to repeal it and let gun control be just a prudential matter of crime prevention? What I think we should not do is leave the Second Amendment on the books but legislate as though it were not there.

 

[SanAgustin]

Actually, no. Why do you think China is paranoid about large gatherings of people? They have nukes and a fairly sophisticated weaponry, yet still fear gatherings of people that have none of that.

China restricts all kind of rights, but many gun advocates make it sound like gun ownership is the main or sole driver preventing a tyrannical government. If that was the case, China will just restrict gun ownership (which they do) and not bother with restricting internet access or any of the other freedoms people in this country sometimes take for granted.

The second amendment isn’t about what the neighborhood has…it’s about what you have to avoid a tyrannical government.

That wasn’t my point, feel free to read it as “you yourself owning a nuke” or not. The point still stands that owning hand guns is not going to give you an equalizing force against a modern army.

 

[exnihilo]

Who would take away the guns? The government. Who would still have guns. The government. Who kills the most people each year? The government.

The number of state murders in the last century exceeded 100 million. The number of private murders doesn’t even come close.

If only the government had weapons there would still be plenty of killing and actually much more as the government would not have to worry about armed citizens to resist it.

As for military weapons no private citizen has ever nuked anyone. A government has nuked people. Why would you trust government with the most dangerous weapons when they have shown they will use them? Even going back to mustard gas it wasn’t private citizens using it to kill people.

Growing up a guy near us had an old canon. He never once used it to harm anyone. He’d fire it occasionally for fun. The fact is even when you are talking about more dangerous weapons private citizens typically do not use them for evil.

Regarding gun crime there is a lot in the US only because that is the best weapon. If you take away guns they’ll use other weapons. In cities like Chicago and New York they have effectively banned guns and there are still lots of shootings. Anti gun laws make target rich environments. In cities with gun laws the good folks cant protect themselves from evil. Since evil folks know this they are actually emboldened.

 

[Cristiano]

…but it is quite ridiculous to say that the type of weapons people own are any balance against a modern army controlled by a tyrannical government. That concept is really gone with technology, unless you let people own more dangerous weapons, which is a really bad idea.

It is not ridiculous at all. Just look at Afghanistan, the USA have the technology and still a large number of people armed with basic weapons can hold them in place. Why do USA army manuals emphasize the need to collect weapons from armed civilians once the war is won? The USA are already discussing how to get the weapons out of the insurgent hands in Libya. General Vo Nguyen Giap made it quite clear during the Vietnam war that a simple technological supremacy does not win a war.

 

[Balian]

Since I am one who believes that the U.S. Constitution (as well as the amendments) should be literally interpreted rather than subjected to the whims of what some federal judge thinks it means, I do not personally believe that the Second Amendment gives all Americans the inalienable right to possess and bear arms. In other words I don’t see the amendment conferring a right in the sense of the freedom of speech. Nevertheless the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed gun ownership as such by ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right.

If it were up to me I would outlaw the ownership of handguns in this country. As a retired police officer I have seen firsthand the carnage that handguns produce. The ease of concealment means that handguns are perfect for committing crimes like armed robberies. In addition I lost count of the number of shootings that occurred during domestic argument circumstances that occurred because a handgun was easily at hand. Handguns are made for one specific purpose, the killing of human beings. Those who support the right of gun ownership always argue that they are needed for home protection and hunting. Shotguns and hunting rifles are designed for hunting and no handgun could equal a good shotgun when it comes to the weapon of choice for home defense. With a shotgun shot placement is not an issue (you need not worry about missing) and accurate fire can be achieved at a greater distance than with a handgun.

In twenty years of law enforcement I never saw a single instance where any crime was stopped by a concealed carrying citizen. Armed criminals are no more concerned by the prospect of facing a concealed carrying citizen than they are of facing an armed police officer. There is no credible evidence that the concealed carry laws prevent or deter crime.

It is true that most criminals who use guns in criminal acts obtain them unlawfully. In fact most come from residential and auto burglaries. I once took four separate reports in a single day in the city where I worked from citizens who had guns stolen from their vehicles. One of those “victims” had four loaded, large caliber handguns stolen from his car while staying overnight in a hotel. The first question is why he needed to travel with four handguns in the first place? Next, why did he think locking them inside his vehicle overnight was a responsible way to secure them? I personally recovered hundreds of handguns on the street that had been reported stolen during residential burglaries. My solution is simple. Outlaw the possession of handguns by all but law enforcement officers and military personnel. Yes, then only criminals will have handguns but that would just make life a lot simpler and safer for police on the streets because they would immediately know that a person armed with a handgun was a criminal.

We don’t live in the Old West anymore and allowing the ownership of handguns is irresponsible on the part of our government. I think the survivors of those killed by handguns in this country should be able to sue the federal government for gross negligence for allowing private possession and ownership of handguns. Those who want to hunt and protect their homes can use shotguns and rifles.

It would take a long time of course to get rid of the majority of handguns currently owned if they were outlawed but stopping new ones from entering circulation would in my opinion be a good start. I have no doubt at all that once the number of handguns out there was significantly reduced that violent gun crime in the country would also decline.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I do not think any European can reasonably comment on any part of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, because they have no experience with its guarentees of freedom.
In Europe, only two countries have gun laws similar to those of the US: Finland and Switzerland.
The reason for the lack of gun violence in most of Europe is not their severe anti- gun laws. It is because with the exception of Great Britian, the population of these countries
have never been allowed to posess firearms and, these countries police agencies have wide latitude in controlling the behavior of their rather uniform populations. The degree to which most European countries give their police forces the power to control individuals and groups of people their would be anathma in the US. Just a simple thing for a policeman to “stop and frisk” results in a civil rights lawsuit against the police in the US. To gain entrance to any domicile in the US, requires a court issued warrent in the US. Something that is almost unknown in Europe. Go tell a German cop he can’t go into a hippies pad in Hamburg!
In European cities such as London and parts of Paris, where you have a large ethnic minority population that feels discriminated against, the riff raff of these ethnic groups arm themselves with illegal firearms, leaving the law abiding population at their mercy.
In recent years a flood of firearms has entered the British Isles and Western Europe…despite their anti-bun laws. 30 years ago, it was almost unheard of for an English criminal to be armed with a hand gun. Today, London, in particular has been flooded with cheap illegal handguns in recent years. Their crime and gun violence rates rivals that of New York City and Chicago, US cities that have the most stringent anti-gun laws in the USA!
The fact is, that US cities that have liberal firearms possession and carrying laws have lower violent crime rates than any major Canadian city. In such cities, crimes such as armed robery of a store or mugging by an armed criminal and burglary at night are virtually unknown because even the most stupid crook knows that there is an excellent chance of being shot in such attempts.
The unspoken but sad fact about anti-gun laws is that they exist in large American cities where we have a large black or latino population: Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and St Louis. Philadelphia is the exception because the State of Pennsylvania only allows its State legislature to enact firearms legislation, and they have an excellent system for legitimate individuals to possess and carry handguns. The average white person in those cities, expecially women feel threatened by even the idea that the minority might be armed.
So, when you read about gun violence in the US, in most cases the guns involved are illegaly possessed by the perp, and in most cases it is because somehow, somewhere, at sometime a policeman failed to do the job he was paid for.

 

[Cristiano]

Since I am one who believes that the U.S. Constitution (as well as the amendments) should be literally interpreted rather than subjected to the whims of what some federal judge thinks it means, I do not personally believe that the Second Amendment gives all Americans the inalienable right to possess and bear arms. In other words I don’t see the amendment conferring a right in the sense of the freedom of speech. Nevertheless the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed gun ownership as such by ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right.

If it were up to me I would outlaw the ownership of handguns in this country. As a retired police officer I have seen firsthand the carnage that handguns produce. The ease of concealment means that handguns are perfect for committing crimes like armed robberies. In addition I lost count of the number of shootings that occurred during domestic argument circumstances that occurred because a handgun was easily at hand. Handguns are made for one specific purpose, the killing of human beings. Those who support the right of gun ownership always argue that they are needed for home protection and hunting. Shotguns and hunting rifles are designed for hunting and no handgun could equal a good shotgun when it comes to the weapon of choice for home defense. With a shotgun shot placement is not an issue (you need not worry about missing) and accurate fire can be achieved at a greater distance than with a handgun.

In twenty years of law enforcement I never saw a single instance where any crime was stopped by a concealed carrying citizen. Armed criminals are no more concerned by the prospect of facing a concealed carrying citizen than they are of facing an armed police officer. There is no credible evidence that the concealed carry laws prevent or deter crime.

It is true that most criminals who use guns in criminal acts obtain them unlawfully. In fact most come from residential and auto burglaries. I once took four separate reports in a single day in the city where I worked from citizens who had guns stolen from their vehicles. One of those “victims” had four loaded, large caliber handguns stolen from his car while staying overnight in a hotel. The first question is why he needed to travel with four handguns in the first place? Next, why did he think locking them inside his vehicle overnight was a responsible way to secure them? I personally recovered hundreds of handguns on the street that had been reported stolen during residential burglaries. My solution is simple. Outlaw the possession of handguns by all but law enforcement officers and military personnel. Yes, then only criminals will have handguns but that would just make life a lot simpler and safer for police on the streets because they would immediately know that a person armed with a handgun was a criminal.

We don’t live in the Old West anymore and allowing the ownership of handguns is irresponsible on the part of our government. I think the survivors of those killed by handguns in this country should be able to sue the federal government for gross negligence for allowing private possession and ownership of handguns. Those who want to hunt and protect their homes can use shotguns and rifles.

It would take a long time of course to get rid of the majority of handguns currently owned if they were outlawed but stopping new ones from entering circulation would in my opinion be a good start. I have no doubt at all that once the number of handguns out there was significantly reduced that violent gun crime in the country would also decline.

So you are saying that a long weapon such as an hunting rifle is a better choice of firearm for home protection?

My next question is about the percentage of law enforcement personnel that is properly trained and effective in the use of firearms.

Should we allow retired policemen to have personal sidearms? Do you own a handgun?

Should we allow policemen to bring home their sidearms?

 

[SanAgustin]

It is not ridiculous at all. Just look at Afghanistan, the USA have the technology and still a large number of people armed with basic weapons can hold them in place.

The number of weapons in that country didn’t prevent the US from invading it and changing the government, additionally, the number of weapons before the US was there didn’t prevent a tyrannical theocratic government to be in place.

Yes, we know Return of the Jedi the Ewoks beat the Empire, but you know the argument becomes much more difficult to make due to technological advances. Additionally, the more tyrannical the government, the less effective your hand guns are against it. So if let’s say all the gun owners in Texas wanted to seceded and attack Washington DC, president Vader could just nuke Texas and there’s nothing individual gun ownership can do about that.

Now you could make an argument about more organized state militias (which I think is still a bad idea), but at least that is more serious than a Red Dawn fantasy scenario many seem to be playing in their heads.

 

[SanAgustin]

As for military weapons no private citizen has ever nuked anyone. A government has nuked people. Why would you trust government with the most dangerous weapons when they have shown they will use them? Even going back to mustard gas it wasn’t private citizens using it to kill people.

I remember a private citizen who blew up a building some years ago, didn’t even care there was a daycare center in it. I’m sure if he had a legal right to a nuke we would have done more damage.

Growing up a guy near us had an old canon. He never once used it to harm anyone. He’d fire it occasionally for fun. The fact is even when you are talking about more dangerous weapons private citizens typically do not use them for evil.

I trust the government to hold these dangerous weapons more than private citizens because I believe I can hold the government more accountable than regular people. I can check if the government has the right checks and balances to make sure such weapons are not abused, that the people handling them are properly trained, and that I can change administrations via my vote if I don’t approve of their policies.

I’m glad the cannon guy was just having fun, but I honestly don’t think that means any weapon the government has should be owned by a private citizen, and I should just trust them because they’re “inherently non evil”.

 

[exnihilo]

In twenty years of law enforcement I never saw a single instance where any crime was stopped by a concealed carrying citizen… There is no credible evidence that the concealed carry laws prevent or deter crime.

See the work of John Lott. And concealed carry is a sub issue of gun ownership. I have read stories where concealed carry did stop a crime by disabling the criminal.

Armed criminals are no more concerned by the prospect of facing a concealed carrying citizen than they are of facing an armed police officer.

That might be true for some criminals, but not all. There is a range of criminal from the opportunist to the completely evil criminal who will do anything. And concern is not the issue otherwise police would have no reason to carry either. The point of carrying is to protect yourself against someone who is intent on harm. Somehow many people have gotten the notion that government can prevent evil. But it cant so long as humans are in this world. There will be evil acts so the issue is can good people protect themselves or must they be subjected to these acts without any means of stopping them?

We don’t live in the Old West anymore and allowing the ownership of handguns is irresponsible on the part of our government.

In the last decade the US killed probably at least 100,000 people in Iraq alone. Why would I think this entity has some special right to hold all the weapons when it uses them immorally so frequently?

 

[Cristiano]

The number of weapons in that country didn’t prevent the US from invading it and changing the government, additionally, the number of weapons before the US was there didn’t prevent a tyrannical theocratic government to be in place…

Well it looks like the situation is still out of control, it also looks like the local government supported by the USA is getting in bed with the enemy, and finally it looks like the local tribal culture was not displeased by a theocracy. I am not saying that any of that is good, just that it is real.

…Yes, we know Return of the Jedi the Ewoks beat the Empire, but you know the argument becomes much more difficult to make due to technological advances. Additionally, the more tyrannical the government, the less effective your hand guns are against it. So if let’s say all the gun owners in Texas wanted to seceded and attack Washington DC, president Vader could just nuke Texas and there’s nothing individual gun ownership can do about that…

Correct but that would not protect president Vader from retaliation, unless you end up killing most of the population and destroying most of the resources thus destroying the society that you want to control and the government becomes automatically obsolete.

…Now you could make an argument about more organized state militias (which I think is still a bad idea), but at least that is more serious than a Red Dawn fantasy scenario many seem to be playing in their heads.

Militias are ensembles of individual citizens. I think that you never received training in the army, because if you did you would realize of the danger of the so called ensembles of individual armed citizens. Soldiers are human beings and most of them do not like to kill and to be killed by fellow citizens. Just look at the historical behavior of the armed forces in countries when revolutions start.

 

[Cristiano]

…I trust the government to hold these dangerous weapons more than private citizens because I believe I can hold the government more accountable than regular people…

What about the thousands of weapons that ATF sent to Mexico and then lost track of?