Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?

[Larry1700]

LillyM,

Over the years I have enjoyed and agreed with most of your posts. The only one I can remember disagreeing with was your reply when I was asking for help understanding part of the Rosary, and you replied something to the effect of, “For goodness sakes, it’s a prayer!”

A few points:

I personlly don’t have a love affair with guns. I have a love affair with liberty.

You said the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us from external threats, not internal threats. The Constitution was written shortly after the United States liberated ourselves from Britain. Britain was an internal threat at the time, because the British government had soldiers stationed here to keep the citizens in line.

You asked (as I recall) what value an unregulated and untrained group of folks with guns might be. It took Georgee Washington and a former German officer quite a while to train all those volunteers from various walks of life, but they did a pretty darned effective job, because all those (formerly) unregulated and untrained folks defeated the (formerly) best miltary in the world.

Aren’t you from Australia? If so, what is your argument against the folks I’ve heard about from Australia who vehemently warn us against letting our government do to us what your government did to you?

 

[LilyM]

[SIGN][BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB][/SIGN]

LillyM,

Over the years I have enjoyed and agreed with most of your posts. The only one I can remember disagreeing with was your reply when I was asking for help understanding part of the Rosary, and you replied something to the effect of, “For goodness sakes, it’s a prayer!”

I’d have to see that post in context - but isn’t the Rosary in actual fact a prayer? Perhaps I’m mistaken and it’s really a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse? (apologies to the late great Douglas Adams)

But we digress …

A few points:

I personlly don’t have a love affair with guns. I have a love affair with liberty.

You mean you’re infatuated with the idea that liberty can only be won and protected adequately with weapons. Which is odd - women didn’t win their liberties to vote or own property or enter previously male-only professions or get the same pay as men forthe same work with guns, after all. Neither did our unions in Australia win minimum wage and work entitements by brandishing weapons either.

You said the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us from external threats, not internal threats. The Constitution was written shortly after the United States liberated ourselves from Britain. Britain was an internal threat at the time, because the British government had soldiers stationed here to keep the citizens in line.

You asked (as I recall) what value an unregulated and untrained group of folks with guns might be. It took Georgee Washington and a former German officer quite a while to train all those volunteers from various walks of life, but they did a pretty darned effective job, because all those (formerly) unregulated and untrained folks defeated the (formerly) best miltary in the world.

America already viewed itself for the most part as independent from Britain, being unrepresented in the British legislature but already having separate legislature(s) of its own. So in all but name it was independent and Britain was de facto an external power and threat.

And I note that Washington didn’t need no stinkin second amendment to achieve what he did.

Aren’t you from Australia? If so, what is your argument against the folks I’ve heard about from Australia who vehemently warn us against letting our government do to us what your government did to you?

I have heard no complaints in any of the Australian media or from any other Australians that has anything to do with guns. There was some tightening of gun control some twenty years ago which was not followed by any kind of increase in gun-related crime or other crime overall. And I live in a country area with a high level of gun ownership - the folks around me would be the first to complain, besides I am a lawyer with an interest in criminal law which also means I’d notice if gun crime or crime in general had gone up overall.

Our government is well and truly on the nose for a whole bunch of other reasons - perceived corruption, perceived pandering to a few key big business interests, perceived lack of adequate funding for essential services and supposedly ineffective immigration policies. Ain’t heard nothing about guns or gun control being an issue though.

 

[PrayerShark]

Aren’t you from Australia? If so, what is your argument against the folks I’ve heard about from Australia who vehemently warn us against letting our government do to us what your government did to you?

I’m from Australia as well, and can further agree that there have been no negative effects to a tougher stance on gun control. I think the general consensus of the Australian public and both sides of politics is that the gun buy-back scheme instituted by the former Howard government was one of the best things that ever happened in our country.

 

[jericho777]

During World War II England who had limited private arms was unable to arm their home guard and was fearful of a German invasion. They appealed to American gun owners to send their privately owned arms to help defend Britan. American gun owners did helped defend Britan. After the war Britan dumped the arms into the ocean.

General Yamamoto felt Japan could never successfully invade America because America was to heavily armed.

 

[polytropos]

Polytropos says: The government, however, is not tyrannical.

This is strictly your OPINION.

Of course it is. It is also an opinion that a tyrannical government (only) could be stopped by an armed citizenry.

I would understand (and expect) that Catholics would not be satisfied with the US government (although you would probably choose a word other than “tyrannical” to better convey your meaning). I would not understand Catholics violently rising up against the current government to combat its “tyranny.”

 

[polytropos]

I would refer you again to the words of George Mason, who was the driving force behind the Second Amendment:

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And a few more from perhaps perhaps the most widely quoted of America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

It seems pretty clear that they did, in fact, see it that way.

George Mason (and Thomas Jefferson) were not absolute authorities. You’ve quoted a handful of rhetorical statements that these flawed men made. These statements are just unsubstantiated claims made by famous rhetoricians who were trying to rile people up for their cause. I am certain you would not agree with George Mason and Thomas Jefferson on other matters - so why do you agree with them on the necessity of guns for freedom?

 

[polytropos]

Here’s another way to phrase that question:

When employees of the Federal Government who are currently being armed from various NON-MILITARY departments start invading your neighborhood, and soldiers bang on your door and order you at gunpoint to leave your house immediately and get in the vans, and the President is suddenly one every single TV channel and internet line urging “peaceful cooperation” because this is “for your own good”… at that time will you wish you and your neighbors still had your rights to form a militia? Or even that you had just one gun to protect your kids?

If you are under age 50 and say this is impossible, shut up and go read a few history books before you reply.

I would never claim that a tyrannical government is impossible anywhere, just that it is very improbable in the US and that an armed citizenry would not be very effective in resisting it.

I am under age 50 and I have read a few history books. It is a big assumption on your part to imply that the hellish dystopia you’ve described would occur in the United States. The fact that government have been oppressive in the past does not substantiate your fear-mongering.

 

[Pugsly]

2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Something to think about:

thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

I have never fired or owned a gun…but I say NO…Read the book “Lights Out” and then tell me you think having private gun ownership repealed is a good thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Lily

**That fact totally defies any sort of logic. No-one, but no-one, should be permitted to own a weapon without such basic checks. **

This thread is not about background checks at all. It is about repealing the 2nd Amendment. I agree that background checks for mental health problems are more significant a way to attack mass killings than banning weapons.

Very much to the point is the fact that our society is losing its moral bearings, and this has led to a decline in mental health and the creation of a class of people who need to be treated for mental problems.

You don’t hear much talk about addressing that problem by the quick-fix people who want to ban gun ownership.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

George Mason (and Thomas Jefferson) were not absolute authorities. You’ve quoted a handful of rhetorical statements that these flawed men made. These statements are just unsubstantiated claims made by famous rhetoricians who were trying to rile people up for their cause.

Oh, you must be referring to that silly document the Declaration of Independence, which would have meant nothing if nearly every man did not own a gun on July 4, 1776.

 

[jericho777]

poly

George Mason (and Thomas Jefferson) were not absolute authorities. You’ve quoted a handful of rhetorical statements that these flawed men made. These statements are just unsubstantiated claims made by famous rhetoricians who were trying to rile people up for their cause.

Oh, you must be referring to that silly document the Declaration of Independence, which would have meant nothing if nearly every man did not own a gun on July 4, 1776.

Actually on April 19, 1775 the British were moving to disarm the American people. That’s the date of the battle on Lexington green. The battle that started the American Revolution. Monday is the day we celebrate “The shot heard around the world.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jericho

Thank you. And here is the more or less complete story.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

 

[shoe]

2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Something to think about:

thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

I believe that the law-abiding citizens who are willing to bear the responsibility of owning guns always should have the right to keep and bear them. I don’t think anyone should have the power or authority to deny individuals the right and the means to defend themselves with either a gun or rifle.

 

[polytropos]

poly

George Mason (and Thomas Jefferson) were not absolute authorities. You’ve quoted a handful of rhetorical statements that these flawed men made. These statements are just unsubstantiated claims made by famous rhetoricians who were trying to rile people up for their cause.

Oh, you must be referring to that silly document the Declaration of Independence, which would have meant nothing if nearly every man did not own a gun on July 4, 1776.

I was not really referring to the Declaration. I am noting that the quoted statements are aphorisms made by people who spent a lot of time writing rhetorically about liberty. I doubt many Catholics here would invoke Thomas Jefferson as a religious authority although he wrote about religion. To quote Thomas Jefferson in this respect is to pick one of his statements, which is no more valid than any of his other statements, merely because it supports your opinion.

Quoting George Mason is not a substitute for thinking about gun policy. To think that the population needs to be armed because governments will otherwise inevitably repress them is as much an ideology as Deism.

In any case, guns were used by citizens in the American Revolution because we didn’t have a standing army. The role of violent insurrection in the making of the United States does not necessitate the threat of violent insurrection in maintaining the United States.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No it should not be repealed, because the reason it was put into place was to have the people be able to protect themselves from the government. If it is repealed, it would open the potential for the government to harm citizens (more than they are already).

I’m not sure how much that would help against entities with superior weapons, such as weaponized drones. Speaking of which, I’ve always wondered if it is legal to weaponize my drone.

 

[LilyM]

During World War II England who had limited private arms was unable to arm their home guard and was fearful of a German invasion. They appealed to American gun owners to send their privately owned arms to help defend Britan. American gun owners did helped defend Britan. After the war Britan dumped the arms into the ocean.

General Yamamoto felt Japan could never successfully invade America because America was to heavily armed.

Yep, Pearl Harbour showed the whole world just how scared the Japanese were to invade and just how successful American armed civilians would be at repelling said invasion … not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly
**
The role of violent insurrection in the making of the United States does not necessitate the threat of violent insurrection in maintaining the United States. **

If I’m not mistaken, you are absolutely certain that there will never be a need for armed revolt in this country. I hope you are right. But what if you are wrong and there are no arms of any kind with which to revolt? Would that not require absolute submission to absolute tyranny?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

L**ily

Yep, Pearl Harbour showed the whole world just how scared the Japanese were to invade and just how successful American armed civilians would be at repelling said invasion … not. **

How much history do you know? Both Germany and Japan were bent on seeking our destruction by armed assault. The only reason we are not slaves to Japan and Germany today is that we rapidly manufactured arms with which to defend ourselves against tyranny.

No?

 

[LilyM]

L**ily

Yep, Pearl Harbour showed the whole world just how scared the Japanese were to invade and just how successful American armed civilians would be at repelling said invasion … not. **

How much history do you know? Both Germany and Japan were bent on seeking our destruction by armed assault. The only reason we are not slaves to Japan and Germany today is that we rapidly manufactured arms with which to defend ourselves against tyranny.

No?

Haha. When did Germany attack US teritory? Ever? The reason they didn’t was because a) they were bogged down in places like Russia and b) you flew and boated your troops over to Europe to attack them. It wasn’t so much self-defence as pre-emptive aggression. Not that I am saying it was unjustified or ineffective.

As for Japan - and your general point. You manufactured weapons, true. Military weapons - tanks, planes, bombs and the like - which were solely in the hands of trained military professionals. There were no civilians nor even conscripts fighting against Germany or Japan. The war wasn’t won, nor any American defended, by civilians wielding guns but by soldiers and sailors and pilots who were mostly dropping bombs and shooting from tanks.

 

[polytropos]

poly
**
The role of violent insurrection in the making of the United States does not necessitate the threat of violent insurrection in maintaining the United States. **

If I’m not mistaken, you are absolutely certain that there will never be a need for armed revolt in this country. I hope you are right. But what if you are wrong and there are no arms of any kind with which to revolt? Would that not require absolute submission to absolute tyranny?

I did not say that I am absolutely certain. I am saying that there are consequences of gun ownership that have not been sufficiently investigated (although the relative success of other countries that have eliminated or restricted gun ownership should be enough to impel us to investigate more), and those consequences would have to be weighed against the probability of government tyranny.

The chance of government tyranny has to be sufficiently high to justify holding onto a policy that costs people lives. We should not hold onto policies that cost people lives just because we can imagine a unlikely contingency in which the policy would be useful.