Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?

[jericho777]

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.

These were Admiral Yamamoto’s personal thoughts and not those of the his Japanese superiors. Many times Generals have differing views of those over them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

**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. **

Once the policy of an armed citizenry is abandoned, how do you know that the chance of government tyranny will not become sufficiently higher than it has ever been? In which case the policy having been adopted, there will be no means for the people to arms themselves if a military dictatorship should arise. I know that doesn’t seem likely to you now, but what about 20 or 50 years from now? The dictatorship of moral relativism identified by Pope Benedict is already with us, thanks to the radical left.

A U.S. Army Reserve manual has already mistakenly identified the Catholic Church as a right wing terrorist organization.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/military-archdiocese-objects-to-catholic-extremist-label/

 

[jericho777]

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.

Actually there were five attacks on the US during WWII. history.com/news/history-lists/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii

Actually many Americans were conscripted into the armed forces during WWII. If europe had fallen then certainly our homeland would be invaided. Do you think there is no possibility our nation would ever be invaided? Actually 9/11 was a domestic attack. BTW our nation prepares for a real “Red Dawn” scenario.

 

[LilyM]

Actually there were five attacks on the US during WWII. history.com/news/history-lists/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii

Actually many Americans were conscripted into the armed forces during WWII. If europe had fallen then certainly our homeland would be invaided. Do you think there is no possibility our nation would ever be invaided? Actually 9/11 was a domestic attack. BTW our nation prepares for a real “Red Dawn” scenario.

Espionage and sabotage? By mere handfuls of people? By that definition I cannot count the number of ‘attacks’ the US and the Brits made on Russia - not to mention on Australia (yes, you have spied and continue to spy on us) during the Cold War. And by that definition there were probably far more and worse such ‘attacks’ by your own disgruntled citizenry than anything the Germans perpetrated.

Funny, in all my years of study of history I have never heard such everyday wartime (and even peacetime) acts referred to as ‘attacks’ before. How many casualties were inflicted in these ‘attacks’? Where are the Purple Hearts awarded to the valiant defenders who repelled these tyrannical invaders? Where are their war graves and memorials? Where are the yearly anniversary celebrations of these ‘attacks’?

Again, I’m not saying that Germany wouldn’t have got round to actually attacking America - as in an attack worthy of the name, with guns, bombs and soldiers and stuff - but the truth is there was no imminent threat of military or mass armed assault upon the US by Germany when you guys went to Europe to bomb the smithereens out of Dresden, Berlin and the Ruhr valley. And again, I’m not saying it was unjustified.

9/11 is a big tangent, we were discussing WWII. Although a bunch of unarmed folks did manage to prevent one of the planes crashing into the Pentagon, which is no more than armed folk could have done. So I’m dubersome that arms were the required solution.

 

[polytropos]

poly

**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. **

Once the policy of an armed citizenry is abandoned, how do you know that the chance of government tyranny will not become sufficiently higher than it has ever been? In which case the policy having been adopted, there will be no means for the people to arms themselves if a military dictatorship should arise. I know that doesn’t seem likely to you now, but what about 20 or 50 years from now? The dictatorship of moral relativism identified by Pope Benedict is already with us, thanks to the radical left.

I admit that we can be certain that the chance would not increase if gun ownership were retracted. I do think that other checks and balances should be put in place that do not have the standing consequences that gun ownership does. It would be ludicrous to claim to be certain that the government will never be tyrannical.

I am also still unconvinced that the current American citizenry could resist a tyrannical government anyway. This is not 1775. The gap in expertise of a gun owner and a trainer soldier is far wider than it used to be; not to mention, other technology of war is far more available to the military these days. Most people do not own guns and never will. Many people who do own guns never imagine using them for insurrection, just for incidental self-defense. Certainly, if an insurrection actually were “necessary” they would be forced to consider it - but I can’t imagine the handgun that my grandparents keep in a safe being much use against a tyrannical government.

 

[Larry1700]

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

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 …

And the sarcasm remains. I was simply attempting to understand one of the phrases in it, so that when I pray it, I can do so with sincerity. A prayer, to me, is not simply a series of words.

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.

Yes, those are excellent points. And I would add Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. I have struggled with this a lot. I lean toward the idea that, although peaceful means have often been effective, many times throughout history force has proven necessary to stop aggressors. And there are other cases where an armed citizenry could have prevented their control or death by either tyrannical governments (Mao Tse Tung, etc.) or ruthless groups (such as the KKK). See Star Parker: Blacks Who Back Gun Control Need to Study History of Slavery and Jim Crow regarding the latter.

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.

Wow, I’ve never heard that interpretation before. From what I understand, the British influence was certainly strong enough to cause a lot of folks to want real independence. Their soldiers were here, not in Britain. They were enforcing British law. I don’t understand how that can be viewed as independence.

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

True, and I had never thought about that. However, for some reason the founders thought they needed the 2nd Amendment.

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.

I asked the question in sincerity (as with the Rosary question), not derisively. One of the two links where I read about it is no longer available. This link is from the NRA, which you might dismiss out of hand, but it is a video of what seems to be a lot of Australians speaking out against it. I trust you will view the video in its entirety before dismissing it simply because it is on the NRA website.
Australians Protest Gun Ban

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly
**
I am also still unconvinced that the current American citizenry could resist a tyrannical government anyway. This is not 1775. The gap in expertise of a gun owner and a trainer soldier is far wider than it used to be; not to mention, other technology of war is far more available to the military these days. Most people do not own guns and never will. Many people who do own guns never imagine using them for insurrection, just for incidental self-defense. Certainly, if an insurrection actually were “necessary” they would be forced to consider it - but I can’t imagine the handgun that my grandparents keep in a safe being much use against a tyrannical government.**

All of the above sounds like fatalistic submission to tyranny, such as we see in North Korea today. Damned if we resist and damned if we don’t. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it any more than I would walk onto any battlefield without a weapon. That is suicidal of both life and spirit.

 

[LilyM]

And the sarcasm remains. I was simply attempting to understand one of the phrases in it, so that when I pray it, I can do so with sincerity. A prayer, to me, is not simply a series of words.

Sarcasm aside.

The Mass used to be prayed entirely in Latin, everywhere. Many Catholics did not understand Latin, and not all had access to translations in their own languages. And so probably did not understand every word of the Mass. That did not stop them sincerely praying along with it.

St. Paul speaks of how the Spirit intercedes for us without words when we do not know the right words to pray with. So the Spirit does for you even if you do not understand all the words you are praying in your Rosary or your great grandmother did not understand the Latin words she was saying at Mass.

Yes, those are excellent points. And I would add Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. I have struggled with this a lot. I lean toward the idea that, although peaceful means have often been effective, many times throughout history force has proven necessary to stop aggressors. And there are other cases where an armed citizenry could have prevented their control or death by either tyrannical governments (Mao Tse Tung, etc.) or ruthless groups (such as the KKK). See Star Parker: Blacks Who Back Gun Control Need to Study History of Slavery and Jim Crow regarding the latter.

Hmm - many countries have greater levels of gun control than the US, some at least have no right to bear arms enshrined in their constitutions. I’ve never really heard of any cases where such legal niceties prevented effective, even armed, overthrow of tyranny.

Wow, I’ve never heard that interpretation before. From what I understand, the British influence was certainly strong enough to cause a lot of folks to want real independence. Their soldiers were here, not in Britain. They were enforcing British law. I don’t understand how that can be viewed as independence.

The US - or most of its citizenry - saw itself as (and in a lot of ways pretty much was) independent. Great Britain disagreed, hence the soldiers. No it was not total independence, but enough that most Americans did not call the War of Independence a civil war (the correct term when two groups are fighting each other who are not more-or-less independent nations).

True, and I had never thought about that. However, for some reason the founders thought they needed the 2nd Amendment.

Their primary concern would probably have been that Britain would come back for another round - which is indeed exactly what it did in 1812. Not so much that their own fledgling government would turn on its own citizens. As I said, external more than internal threats.

I asked the question in sincerity (as with the Rosary question), not derisively. One of the two links where I read about it is no longer available. This link is from the NRA, which you might dismiss out of hand, but it is a video of what seems to be a lot of Australians speaking out against it. I trust you will view the video in its entirety before dismissing it simply because it is on the NRA website.
Australians Protest Gun Ban

I am unable to see video links just at present. All I can say without seeing it is that the last real gun control legislation was passed some 16 years ago. There have been no indications since of either an increase in overall crime or violent crime in particular. If anything, the legislation has possibly resulted in a decrease in gun suicide rates, though it seems other methods have replaced guns to compensate. This raises a whole other issue - potential decrease in accidental gun injuries/deaths or suicides. Which are surely a far more present risk than governmental tyranny.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#section_3

In short, if the people in the video are suggesting the sky has fallen in here, take it with a grain of salt. At worst it has been ineffective, in that it has not led to a huge decrease or anything, but none of the research suggests that it has produced any of the increases in gun crime or violent crime feared by gun control opponents in the US.

 

[ProVobis]

Lily
**
All this might theoretically be true IF repeal of the second amendment was done without any legislation being introduced to at least partially restore gun-totin rights to the citizenry. Which is impossible given America’s love affair with guns.**

It’s interesting too that at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, ammunition was in very short supply. Maybe the fixation of firearms became greater because of it? For example, why weren’t the bow and arrow protected, as there was quite a supply of that?

 

[polytropos]

poly
**
I am also still unconvinced that the current American citizenry could resist a tyrannical government anyway. This is not 1775. The gap in expertise of a gun owner and a trainer soldier is far wider than it used to be; not to mention, other technology of war is far more available to the military these days. Most people do not own guns and never will. Many people who do own guns never imagine using them for insurrection, just for incidental self-defense. Certainly, if an insurrection actually were “necessary” they would be forced to consider it - but I can’t imagine the handgun that my grandparents keep in a safe being much use against a tyrannical government.**

All of the above sounds like fatalistic submission to tyranny, such as we see in North Korea today. Damned if we resist and damned if we don’t. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it any more than I would walk onto any battlefield without a weapon. That is suicidal of both life and spirit.

You can call my belief that the current American armed citizenry is not capable of resisting a tyrannous government a “fatalistic submission to tyranny,” but I could call your belief that gun ownership among the populace could prevent tyranny an illusion. I may be relying on the government not being tyrannical; you are relying on a militia of untrained gun owners to defeat a professional army. The ineffectiveness inscribed by that reliance could also be equated with submission. That’s all ideology.

The point that has to be considered is whether it is reasonable to arm a populace to the extent that it would be capable of resisting a professional army. If not, then you are not gaining much by arming the populace, and you still have to deal with any of the consequences associated with arming the populace. If it is not reasonable to arm the populace enough to resist a tyrannical government with a professional army, then protection against a tyrannical government must be sought alternatively.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

** If it is not reasonable to arm the populace enough to resist a tyrannical government with a professional army, then protection against a tyrannical government must be sought alternatively. **

Interesting point. What would be the alternative. How do you rebel against a tyranny without arms?

The point that has to be considered is whether it is reasonable to arm a populace to the extent that it would be capable of resisting a professional army. If not, then you are not gaining much by arming the populace, and you still have to deal with any of the consequences associated with arming the populace.

Aside from arming a nation against the possible tyranny, people ought also to be able to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves against criminal types, who will be legally or illegally armed. Do you think law abiding citizens should have no right to protect themselves against criminals. Are we to submit to them as well as a tyrannical government?

 

[Larry1700]

Sarcasm aside.

The Mass used to be prayed entirely in Latin, everywhere. Many Catholics did not understand Latin, and not all had access to translations in their own languages. And so probably did not understand every word of the Mass. That did not stop them sincerely praying along with it.

St. Paul speaks of how the Spirit intercedes for us without words when we do not know the right words to pray with. So the Spirit does for you even if you do not understand all the words you are praying in your Rosary or your great grandmother did not understand the Latin words she was saying at Mass.

Point taken about Latin Masses (which, by the way, I am a proponent of, although I still think we should strive to understand it). I guess it’s my Baptist upbringing making me want to try to understand as much as possible the things I pray at Mass and at home (hey, give me credit for praying the Rosary–that was a big hurdle to overcome as a convert!). 'Nuff said about the Rosary, I guess, since this is a 2nd Amendment thread.

Hmm - many countries have greater levels of gun control than the US, some at least have no right to bear arms enshrined in their constitutions. I’ve never really heard of any cases where such legal niceties prevented effective, even armed, overthrow of tyranny.

Sure makes it a lot harder, though! And an armed citizenry probably makes those in power think a little more before doing things too rash.

The US - or most of its citizenry - saw itself as (and in a lot of ways pretty much was) independent. Great Britain disagreed, hence the soldiers. No it was not total independence, but enough that most Americans did not call the War of Independence a civil war (the correct term when two groups are fighting each other who are not more-or-less independent nations).

Their primary concern would probably have been that Britain would come back for another round - which is indeed exactly what it did in 1812. Not so much that their own fledgling government would turn on its own citizens. As I said, external more than internal threats.

We’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this. I have to get back to my homework soon. (I’m an over-50 student, working towards an Accounting degree, and I’m a s-l-o-w reader!) Maybe someone else on this thread can address this (assuming someone else agrees with me).

I am unable to see video links just at present. All I can say without seeing it is that the last real gun control legislation was passed some 16 years ago. There have been no indications since of either an increase in overall crime or violent crime in particular. If anything, the legislation has possibly resulted in a decrease in gun suicide rates, though it seems other methods have replaced guns to compensate. This raises a whole other issue - potential decrease in accidental gun injuries/deaths or suicides. Which are surely a far more present risk than governmental tyranny.

The things I’ve read indicate otherwise (although I don’t have the time now to search for them). However, Snopes.com punches holes in one widespread email which may have been similar to what I’ve read. Snopes article on Australian Guns
Although I use them fairly often, I often wonder how authoritative they are. As I understand, they’re just a married couple somewhere. They do make good points in this article about how statistics can be misused. Not that we’re all not already aware of that, but it is good to be reminded about it sometimes, especially when we’re passionate about an issue.

In short, if the people in the video are suggesting the sky has fallen in here, take it with a grain of salt. At worst it has been ineffective, in that it has not led to a huge decrease or anything, but none of the research suggests that it has produced any of the increases in gun crime or violent crime feared by gun control opponents in the US.

When you’re able to see videos, and you get a moment, I’d like to hear your take on the video I mentioned earlier, depicting Australians upset about gun control. Also the Star Parker one is excellent.

I probably won’t be able to do much thread viewing/posting for several days, but I’ll check back when I get a chance to see if you’ve been able to look at them.

 

[jericho777]

Espionage and sabotage? By mere handfuls of people? By that definition I cannot count the number of ‘attacks’ the US and the Brits made on Russia - not to mention on Australia (yes, you have spied and continue to spy on us) during the Cold War. And by that definition there were probably far more and worse such ‘attacks’ by your own disgruntled citizenry than anything the Germans perpetrated.

Funny, in all my years of study of history I have never heard such everyday wartime (and even peacetime) acts referred to as ‘attacks’ before. How many casualties were inflicted in these ‘attacks’? Where are the Purple Hearts awarded to the valiant defenders who repelled these tyrannical invaders? Where are their war graves and memorials? Where are the yearly anniversary celebrations of these ‘attacks’?

Again, I’m not saying that Germany wouldn’t have got round to actually attacking America - as in an attack worthy of the name, with guns, bombs and soldiers and stuff - but the truth is there was no imminent threat of military or mass armed assault upon the US by Germany when you guys went to Europe to bomb the smithereens out of Dresden, Berlin and the Ruhr valley. And again, I’m not saying it was unjustified.

9/11 is a big tangent, we were discussing WWII. Although a bunch of unarmed folks did manage to prevent one of the planes crashing into the Pentagon, which is no more than armed folk could have done. So I’m dubersome that arms were the required solution.

The writings of those who founded this country are many. Their views on the individual’s right to keep and bear arms clearly falls with an armed populace. We are all responsible for our personal and collective defense. Our nation is different from all others in that WE THE PEOPLE bare the responsibility for our nation. We are responsible for its governance and defense.

Our world is more dangerous than ever. We are under the threat of attack as we speak from North Korea. Iran would like nothing more than to attack us also. I have no idea who else would use these situations to attack or invade America. As I stated earlier our military is planning for a real “Red Dawn” invasion of America. Where does that leave us in that situation? How will you protect yourself and your family? Like it or not this is a dangerous world and we have the right to protect ourselves.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

All of the above sounds like fatalistic submission to tyranny, such as we see in North Korea today. Damned if we resist and damned if we don’t. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it any more than I would walk onto any battlefield without a weapon. That is suicidal of both life and spirit.

I don’t agree with the use of “fantastic” but I think that “damned” is a pretty good label for the state that N. Korean citizens seem to be in based on the stories that I’ve seen. Land minds and armed guards prevent passage through the southern border. Censored communications and lack of free speech are obstacles to organizing. Even some of those that manage to escape to the north through China some times get sold into the industry of human trafficking.

Do you think law abiding citizens should have no right to protect themselves against criminals. Are we to submit to them as well as a tyrannical government?

The current laws here vary from one state to another. If a person engaged in a criminal activity poses a threat and a person has the option to retreat in some areas the person is said to have a duty to retreat. In other states a person is said to be permitted to stand his or her ground and employ violence if an attempt of violence is attempted against him/her. (The state in which your profile shows that you live is a “Stand your ground” state).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking
**
The current laws here vary from one state to another. If a person engaged in a criminal activity poses a threat and a person has the option to retreat in some areas the person is said to have a duty to retreat. In other states a person is said to be permitted to stand his or her ground and employ violence if an attempt of violence is attempted against him/her. (The state in which your profile shows that you live is a “Stand your ground” state).**

Which state would you prefer to live in? The state that permits guns for the stated purpose of self defense, or the state that bans guns for that purpose?

If persons invades my home with guns drawn, and there is no place for me to flee to, am I not at the mercy of the invaders? Do the invaders have a right to exploit me and I have a duty to let them?

I know the law in Texas.

 

[billcu1]

They want to take away military style weapons which IMO would be as bad as taking shotguns and pistols. I believe the 2nd ammendment was to protect from government tyranny. The government no longer uses muskets but ARs and AKs. We still need them to fight the government. The tightest gun laws are in Chicago where there is more gun crime than anywhere. Hitler sad that if the government is perceived as working for the children people would be willing to give up just about any liberty. Notice when Obama signed legislation concerning guns he had kids around. This gun and sexual predator stuff will take more liberties than most in our modern world. Both are hyped up. For some reason when something happens everyone screams “well we have to make a law!” We have enough laws and they don’t stop criminals. Fear takes away reason. It’s like lemmings when one jumps they all do.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien:

The current laws here vary from one state to another. If a person engaged in a criminal activity poses a threat and a person has the option to retreat in some areas the person is said to have a duty to retreat. In other states a person is said to be permitted to stand his or her ground and employ violence if an attempt of violence is attempted against him/her. (The state in which your profile shows that you live is a “Stand your ground” state).

Which state would you prefer to live in? The state that permits guns for the stated purpose of self defense, or the state that bans guns for that purpose?

I’ve not said anything against gun ownership. What I have done is given a summary of some of the laws around the topic of defense. While I don’t have a gun I do carry a defensive weapon.

If persons invades my home with guns drawn, and there is no place for me to flee to, am I not at the mercy of the invaders? Do the invaders have a right to exploit me and I have a duty to let them?

I know the law in Texas.

Yep, that’s the castle doctrine. If a person enters your house and poses a deadly threat I don’t think there’s any states the use of deadly force in defense (I could have missed one though).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**While I don’t have a gun I do carry a defensive weapon. **

I bring a defensive weapon with me everywhere I go … my wife.

 

[jericho777]

Well living in the shadow of Boston with the Marathon Bombings and terrorists on the loose this is the perfect example of why real Americans should own firearms. The police and government cannot and will not protect you. You need to be able to protect yourself and love ones. By the time the cops get there you will be DEAD! Boston area is in lockdown, hand grenades and bombs being thrown, gun battles with the police. It has been a virtual war zone here all week. Family and friends are working in Boston with major stress of danger and not allowed to protect themselves. Wake up people this is as real as it gets. Don’t let anybody tell you don’t need to or should not own firearms. Your life is worth more than that.

 

[tonyrey]

Thinking

**While I don’t have a gun I do carry a defensive weapon. **

I bring a defensive weapon with me everywhere I go … my wife.

She must be a battle-axe!