2nd Amendment of USA constitution

[bigfootbob]

As the policeman by me quoted and another, member of this thread, the Constitutions is putting the guns in the streets and their business i taking them from the streets. It is ridiculous of officers get killed on the way…

About this debate, it surprises me that some people refute the former police officer when he had 20 years of experience !!! I mean is like teaching the Holy Father to your Parish Priest !

This police officer is not an authority on crime! No offense to the police officer, but just because he is a police officer doesn’t mean he is an expert on this topic. He has not been trained to analyze crime, he has been trained to respond to it, and/or prevent it.

Moreover, some compare the USA with Uganda, Libya, whatever…I mean,the USA should be compared with the countries with the lowest criminality in the world, no? No with the one which have the highest rate of criminality !!! The question is: what the USA citizene want to be? A copy of the Far West or a peaceful country?

Please restate this, I don’t understand what you mean.

The argument lead to a point where it was pointed out that countries with less guns had more crime rate. No matter how statistian you are, it is hard to swallow. If I eat 2 hamburgers and you eat none, on average, the 2 of us eat an hamburger: that is the what bad statistic analysys can lead. If that was true, monastic budhist orders would be the worst local of crimes.

Your analogy does not make any sense. Two of us did not eat a hamburger, you ate two. On average, the total hamburgers eaten was one per person.
I agree with you that statistics can be misleading, that is why you need to analyze them carefully. If you analyze gun statistics carefully AND OBJECTIVELY, you will find that more guns equals less crime.
In places that imposed gun control, and then allowed citizens to carry guns later, the crime rate dropped astronomically.

And take the reverse: the more guns, the less crime. Very hard to swallow. If I get into a fight with you, if I have a gun, I shoot, If I have a knive I stick it, If I have only the fists, I punch. The lesser the aggressiveness of the weapon, the less the damage. I think it is dangerous to defend this situation. What is to “gear arms”?: guns, machine-guns, canons, tanks, rockets? Why not a small atomic bom that you can carry in a bag?

If I am in a fight for my life, I want to win, and I will do what I have to.

Talking to an ambassadeur of an European country to Pakistan, I asked: “Dont you fear that they might built a mobile atomic bomb?” He said: “That is the problem!” and changed subject.

When you have the ideology that it is the latinos who cause the problems, you could easily solve the problem with a suitcase atomic bomb, why not?

I think 2A was dated. For the 17th (???) century with guns that would take you 5 minutes to refill (today it would be kicked out by any gangster), OK. I thin they produced more smoke and noise than arm.

The time it takes to shoot a loaded gun is almost the same today. I can load a 17th century gun in about 30 seconds; a good soldier could do it in 8 1/2 seconds back then.

But today ??? Should you keep many American Cities like the Vietnam War?

2A down !!! And please, ARA, let’s see things on perpective for the common good and for the World Good!!!

Yes, lets see things in perspective and objectively.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You are going to be sorely disappointed when you realize that the police have NO obligation to protect you from burglars. They show up only after the crime has been committed.
One police officer against the 2nd Amendment does not equate with the Pope against something. I know a number of police officers, do their opinions count? Or only those that agree with you?

Yes I would love to hear their opinion. They have an experience that the Congressmen do not have. I would be sincerely interested in knowing what they say.

 

[thesmiter1]

Taking away firearms is essentially taking away the right to defend oneself for many people. Not everyone is capable of fighting physically. I’ve seen some interesting things where I live. Firearms laws are very lax, and the majority of people seem to own firearms. Yet the most of the violence is committed by and towards illegal immigrants, who do not have the right to own a firearm in the first place.

I have seen very many instances where violence was, in fact, averted by the presence of a firearm in a law-abiding citizen’s hand. I have also seen lives saved by the actions of armed citizens.

Weapons exist. The right to defend oneself is inherently endowed on us by our Creator. Since weapons exist, and it is common that criminals use them, why, then, is it wrong to allow law-abiding citizens the right to use weapons in their own defense? To take away the rights of the many because of the few makes little sense at all.

What is more interesting is to consider that those who should not own firearms are the ones who are least inclined to obey firearms or weapons laws. Why would someone who will disobey laws regarding rape, murder, robbery, and assault obey laws saying they could not own a firearm? If not legally able to purchase a firearm, why wouldn’t they break more laws and do so illegally. THEY DO. All the time.

It should also be noted that many common items that can be purchased at stores are very capable of becoming lethal weapons capable of causing mass destruction. Should these be restricted? Because drunk drivers exist, should we restrict the ability to own vehicles? Or would it be wiser to simply make it more difficult for former drunk drivers to drive? Similarly, why shouldn’t someone who is not likely to use a firearm for illegal purposes not be allowed to own one on account of people who break the law and surrender their rights anyway?

The 2nd Amendment may not serve as an anti-tyranny tool as well as before, but in the case of a tyranny, it would certainly cause difficulties for the controlling power. Resistance is sometimes all that can be offered. If all citizens were armed, it would be quite difficult for ANY government or military to quell all resistance. Simply look at Iraq for evidence of this. Then look to any successful tyrannical government for proof that it is a significant hinderance (Soviets, China, Nazis, and many other tyrannical governments throughout history have made it a priority to disarm threats within their domain).

Perhaps their are deeper societal and cultural issues that are driving violence in America and elsewhere that should be addressed? Going after a means of committing violence will lead everyone in a circle, since a creative mind can commit violence with a great number of items. Indeed, there are far more complex issues that must be solved. But no one points to the breakdown of social institutions, such as the family, religion, or traditional Christian morality. No, it MUST be the guns. Those evil inanimate objects…

Lastly, consider that the founders considered many inalienable rights to be endowed by God, the right to life being one of them. I happen to agree. If one has the right to life, then does one not also have the right to preserve it? A law-abiding citizen owning a firearm only helps them defend their life. Evil will exist regardless. The question is: what can be done to aid the righteous man in resisting this evil?

 

[thesmiter1]

Here are some quotes I find interesting:

Adolph Hitler: “1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer’s hand. – Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. – L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach)

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. (NOTICE HE WASN’T WORRIED ABOUT BEING OVERTHROWN, JUST ABOUT THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF OPPOSITION TO HIS POWER) – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558

Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins. – Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, who confessed to 19 murders, and whose testimony convicted John Gotti

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun. –Tom Clancy

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This police officer is not an authority on crime! No offense to the police officer, but just because he is a police officer doesn’t mean he is an expert on this topic. He has not been trained to analyze crime, he has been trained to respond to it, and/or prevent it.

Please restate this, I don’t understand what you mean.

Your analogy does not make any sense. Two of us did not eat a hamburger, you ate two. On average, the total hamburgers eaten was one per person.
I agree with you that statistics can be misleading, that is why you need to analyze them carefully. If you analyze gun statistics carefully AND OBJECTIVELY, you will find that more guns equals less crime.
In places that imposed gun control, and then allowed citizens to carry guns later, the crime rate dropped astronomically.

If I am in a fight for my life, I want to win, and I will do what I have to.

The time it takes to shoot a loaded gun is almost the same today. I can load a 17th century gun in about 30 seconds; a good soldier could do it in 8 1/2 seconds back then.

Yes, lets see things in perspective and objectively.

1. This police has the authority of experience and being prepared to give his life, what very few people are ready to do. He had the authority that he has, no more, no less.
2. There are comparison between countris. You are the voter. You want to become the USA the best on the world in frime-free country or are you compare yourselves with the countries whci are worse’ What do you want for Ameria in terms o crime?
3. If you insist on the statistics, i wil see the statistics on guns lowering criminality rate.
   I studied now that that comes from a book of John Lott and the statistics come from the United -states. If Japan has no weapons and a extremly low crime rate how is it possible to make that statement?
4. So you are thinking only in YOUR life. so you would be ready to accept that every citizen would have the right to save HIS life. No matter it would be ncecessary the atomic bom !! Very nice.!!
5. I was not discussing the time to load guns in ht 17th century. I was dicussing whether the uSA citizen can have possession of ANY arm, from the knofe to the biggest one.

 

[bigfootbob]

1. This police has the authority of experience and being prepared to give his life, what very few people are ready to do. He had the authority that he has, no more, no less.

He is not a crime analyst. Yes, he does have some authority on the matter, but less than you seem to think he does.

1. There are comparison between countris. You are the voter. You want to become the USA the best on the world in frime-free country or are you compare yourselves with the countries whci are worse’ What do you want for Ameria in terms o crime?

1. If you insist on the statistics, i wil see the statistics on guns lowering criminality rate.
   I studied now that that comes from a book of John Lott and the statistics come from the United -states. If Japan has no weapons and a extremly low crime rate how is it possible to make that statement?

I think John Lott addresses that in his book. I am not personally familiar with Japan’s situation, but I do know that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime.

1. So you are thinking only in YOUR life. so you would be ready to accept that every citizen would have the right to save HIS life. No matter it would be ncecessary the atomic bom !! Very nice.!!

Yes, actually.

CCC2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own
right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

If someone was attacking me and I used an A-bomb, I would die too (along with innocent people), so you can forget that example.

1. I was not discussing the time to load guns in ht 17th century. I was dicussing whether the uSA citizen can have possession of ANY arm, from the knofe to the biggest one.

Yes, there is a place to draw the line, and it is illegal to own a fully automatic gun (for most people). I think that is a relatively logical place to draw the line.

 

[Hboggs]

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…

I saw an article “somewhere” recently that stated when you consider all the people in the US holding hunting licenses, they constituted something like (I can’t remember for sure) the 3rd largest “army” in the world. It is this potential threat to those who would like to really harm us that helps to keep us free. You don’t like guns. Move somewhere else.

(added): By the way, I don’t own a gun and have never hunted.

 

[SanAgustin]

**I saw an article “somewhere” recently that stated when you consider all the people in the US holding hunting licenses, they constituted something like (I can’t remember for sure) the 3rd largest “army” in the world. It is this potential threat to those who would like to really harm us that helps to keep us free. **

Not at all, what protects us from invasion is the fact that we have the most powerful armed forces and most destructive weapons ever known in human history.

You don’t like guns. Move somewhere else.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

bigfootbob:
You seem to like to take justice into your own hands…
You think that atomic menace is a joke. You may leave the atomic boms with a clock in a "lation " area and in 1 hour you are 100 km away.
Let’s not play with words. There people dying in the Stated and the States has a moral responsability of showing a good image, which is not the case with the 2nd Amendment, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

This kind of sentences that I dont know but I know do not make any rationality:

I am not personally familiar with Japan’s situation, but I do know that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime.

I dont know Japan’s case, I do not care, for the only thing that exists in this world is the USA and I am sure that what I tell is true and whoever contradicts me is wrong…

Yes for the atomic bomg no to the machine gun:

Yes, there is a place to draw the line, and it is illegal to own a fully automatic gun (for most people).

So, you think that one must draw the line!
That is what I am saying: draw the line taking down the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I saw an article “somewhere” recently that stated when you consider all the people in the US holding hunting licenses, they constituted something like (I can’t remember for sure) the 3rd largest “army” in the world. It is this potential threat to those who would like to really harm us that helps to keep us free. You don’t like guns. Move somewhere else.

(added): By the way, I don’t own a gun and have never hunted.

That is I did: I do not live in America.
I am not intrusing into you freedom. If you like one day to be shot around the corner for a member of the “3rd largest “army” in the world”, be happy, die smiling.
You opinion is pretty contradictory: the armies generally fith against the enemy. But this 3rd army it seems fights agains americans: americans fighting each other. You like it that way?
I know many and many Americans that do not think that way.
Remember that we are in CAF: is that the way God wants America to be? The message of Christ: “forgive your enemies” is there?

 

[bbarrick8383]

That is what I am saying: draw the line taking down the 2nd Amendment.

LOL

Will never happen.

Folks with hunting license’s do not go around shooting each other. It’s the city folks that have a problem with shooting each other.

Us country folks like to play with toys that go bang, and as long as we are armed any country that might ever consider invasion is going to have to consider that fact.

 

[SanAgustin]

Pfaffenhoffen;

No, we don’t see our army as keeping out citizenry in check.

No, we don’t all mistrust our government so much that we imagine a modern plausible scenario we we’d have to fight against it. We know that our constitution, the separations of powers and our democracy are the best defense against a tyranny.

No, most of us are not deluded enough to think we are not being invaded because some of our citizens have rifles and hand guns. We know that we have the most powerful military in the history of the world and that is enough to keep enemies at bay (for large scale invasions).

No, most of us don’t see the possibility of another “civil war” as something that we should look forward to, nor we think it’s likely to happen soon.

Most of us make no distinction between “city folks” and “country folks”, we’re all fellow American citizens and children of God.

 

[exnihilo]

I saw an article “somewhere” recently that stated when you consider all the people in the US holding hunting licenses, they constituted something like (I can’t remember for sure) the 3rd largest “army” in the world. It is this potential threat to those who would like to really harm us that helps to keep us free.

You could say the citizen militia discourages invasion, which is different than what keeps us free. But I would say what mostly discourages invasion is the lack of a strong aggressive power sharing a land border. It would be almost impossible for any country to successfully invade the US. That is what makes the US’s constant war on foreign nations so ridiculously tragic. The US has to send their troops over great distances to make war on the alleged threat. The threat itself could never do such a thing.

I personally dont see the US as being particularly free and certainly not to the extent it was in the past. The biggest threat to any people is never a foreign enemy but its own government. The US government has been wise like any empire and gotten the people to concentrate on meaningless foreign threats which allows the state to seriously destroy freedom at home.

You seem to like to take justice into your own hands…

English law and its descendant US law is based on the idea that the citizen does participate in justice. At the very least all criminal charges are judged by a jury of citizens. So the determination of justice is at the end a matter not for government but for citizens. US law traditionally considered that citizens could administer justice and that the state stepped in to rectify injustice. That is why citizens can defend themselves and arrest or detain criminals. That is why we have bounty hunting. That is why the constitution grants Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal which allow private groups to attack and capture enemy vessels. At its most basic level parenthood is the private administration of justice. To say in a strict and complete sense that justice in private hands is wrong would undermine the authority of parenthood, which the state has done by the way.

No, we don’t all mistrust our government so much that we imagine a modern plausible scenario we we’d have to fight against it. We know that our constitution, the separations of powers and our democracy are the best defense against a tyranny.

I would argue that is not a very traditional American understanding of the state. America was born out of mistrust of government. The very reasonable and Christian understanding was that power corrupts. A government is not likely to be good because people with power are not likely to be good. It defies human nature to say great power accumulated by the state will not be abused. Government is pure force. The only thing that keeps it in check is force or the threat of force. There is no magical system of words in documents that keep a government in check. It takes people being willing to stand up and face death for what is true and right to keep government in check. Very few Americans are willing to do that and so the US government has no real checks upon it.

 

[exnihilo]

Almost forgot about this recent story. San Francisco police were chasing someone when he pulled out a pistol. The suspect did not shoot but the police did. They ended up not hitting the suspect but two innocent bystanders. In this case the alleged criminal even though carrying a gun was not a threat to citizens but the police with their guns sure were.

San Fran police shoot two innocent bystanders.

 

[Hboggs]

That is I did: I do not live in America.
I am not intrusing into you freedom. If you like one day to be shot around the corner for a member of the “3rd largest “army” in the world”, be happy, die smiling.
You opinion is pretty contradictory: the armies generally fith against the enemy. But this 3rd army it seems fights agains americans: americans fighting each other. You like it that way?
I know many and many Americans that do not think that way.
Remember that we are in CAF: is that the way God wants America to be? The message of Christ: “forgive your enemies” is there?

I’m sick and tired of left-wing liberals whose policies have resulted in the dramatic moral decline in this country due to everyone “rights” and on and on and on. Abortion is the result of left-wing liberals; the decline in education is due to the elimination of discipline as championed by left-wing liberals. And among other things they bitch about guns and gun control, yet it precisely the history of our country and the 2nd amendment freedoms that have kept this WORLD free. I don’t know where you live, but if you get invaded by Russia or China or Iran or an equivalent, give France or Italy a call to come to your rescue and see how you fare. The old joke that if they fought each other in a war, they’d both lose is really not a joke. In the end, it will come down to the USA against the next major world wide enemy and it will be those who support the 2nd amendment in this country that step up to the plate to fight and die in support of everyone including those adamantly opposed to guns.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

LOL

Will never happen.

Folks with hunting license’s do not go around shooting each other. It’s the city folks that have a problem with shooting each other.

Us country folks like to play with toys that go bang, and as long as we are armed any country that might ever consider invasion is going to have to consider that fact.

Bin Laden got the Twin Towers down.
What was the use of the 2nd Amendment for that?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Pfaffenhoffen;

No, we don’t see our army as keeping out citizenry in check.

No, we don’t all mistrust our government so much that we imagine a modern plausible scenario we we’d have to fight against it. We know that our constitution, the separations of powers and our democracy are the best defense against a tyranny.

No, most of us are not deluded enough to think we are not being invaded because some of our citizens have rifles and hand guns. We know that we have the most powerful military in the history of the world and that is enough to keep enemies at bay (for large scale invasions).

No, most of us don’t see the possibility of another “civil war” as something that we should look forward to, nor we think it’s likely to happen soon.

Most of us make no distinction between “city folks” and “country folks”, we’re all fellow American citizens and children of God.

Uffff, thanks for your post. A breath of Fresh Air…

One thing is to say that it is quite common for everybody to have guns, it is something that it is quite hard to change, another is not to see the crime rate in the States and worship the useless 2nd Amendment as a golden sacred bull (thatt only brings troubles: Judges are discerning what is an arm: is a machine gun an arm? and a su-machine gun?).

Any Congress law about guns would do. You do not need, in the XXI century an anachronism as the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You could say the citizen militia discourages invasion, which is different than what keeps us free. But I would say what mostly discourages invasion is the lack of a strong aggressive power sharing a land border. It would be almost impossible for any country to successfully invade the US. That is what makes the US’s constant war on foreign nations so ridiculously tragic. The US has to send their troops over great distances to make war on the alleged threat. The threat itself could never do such a thing.

I personally dont see the US as being particularly free and certainly not to the extent it was in the past. The biggest threat to any people is never a foreign enemy but its own government. The US government has been wise like any empire and gotten the people to concentrate on meaningless foreign threats which allows the state to seriously destroy freedom at home.

English law and its descendant US law is based on the idea that the citizen does participate in justice. At the very least all criminal charges are judged by a jury of citizens. So the determination of justice is at the end a matter not for government but for citizens. US law traditionally considered that citizens could administer justice and that the state stepped in to rectify injustice. That is why citizens can defend themselves and arrest or detain criminals. That is why we have bounty hunting. That is why the constitution grants Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal which allow private groups to attack and capture enemy vessels. At its most basic level parenthood is the private administration of justice. To say in a strict and complete sense that justice in private hands is wrong would undermine the authority of parenthood, which the state has done by the way.

I would argue that is not a very traditional American understanding of the state. America was born out of mistrust of government. The very reasonable and Christian understanding was that power corrupts. A government is not likely to be good because people with power are not likely to be good. It defies human nature to say great power accumulated by the state will not be abused. Government is pure force. The only thing that keeps it in check is force or the threat of force. There is no magical system of words in documents that keep a government in check. It takes people being willing to stand up and face death for what is true and right to keep government in check. Very few Americans are willing to do that and so the US government has no real checks upon it.

Thanks for the clear and succint explanation which opened my eyes.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m sick and tired of left-wing liberals whose policies have resulted in the dramatic moral decline in this country due to everyone “rights” and on and on and on. Abortion is the result of left-wing liberals; the decline in education is due to the elimination of discipline as championed by left-wing liberals. And among other things they bitch about guns and gun control, yet it precisely the history of our country and the 2nd amendment freedoms that have kept this WORLD free. I don’t know where you live, but if you get invaded by Russia or China or Iran or an equivalent, give France or Italy a call to come to your rescue and see how you fare. The old joke that if they fought each other in a war, they’d both lose is really not a joke. In the end, it will come down to the USA against the next major world wide enemy and it will be those who support the 2nd amendment in this country that step up to the plate to fight and die in support of everyone including those adamantly opposed to guns.

I am pro-american but not stupid.
I live in Italy.
We owe America veru much and I am grateful for what you did in WW I and WW II. But let’s be clear: your idea that it is always WW II and that you must intervene in every part of the world is a thinking that got YOU into trouble. YOU not me. In Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, it is American soldiers who are dying.
I am not amecrican but I feel sad for them. Most of my wife’s family is in Connectivut. We haev a cousin in Iraq as tank commander and another in Afganistan as pilot of helicopters. They have children and we care for them for they ar our family. I guess I have more family at work that some of you.

And abover all: it was NOT for the 2nd amendment that America intervened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan.

The 2nd amendment is for the Americans to fight each other. I see no other purpose.

An Army? Every nation has an army without any item in the constituion.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Bin Laden got the Twin Towers down.
What was the use of the 2nd Amendment for that?

Bin Ladens not a country with an invading army. Maybe if you guys knew how to shoot Hitler wouldn’t have made it as far as he did. It’s too bad, some of the best shotguns in my country are made in yours. I bet I’ve pulled the trigger of a good ol Benelli more than many Italians have.