The 2nd Amendment

[Spivonious]

I read an article in the paper last week that a guy had successfully fought to not have to give his social security number to buy a handgun. So this got me thinking about the 2nd amendment.

Here it is:

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.

Now, to me this says that we (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to bear arms in well-regulated militias. Since the country was founded with the support of these militias, this makes sense.

Not being a hunter, I see no reason to own a gun. If I were a hunter, I'd see no reason to own a handgun. So why is there so much resistance about handgun regulations? It's a fact that keeping a gun in the home for self defense correlates to a higher risk of being shot. My opinion is that having a gun makes us feel more powerful and therefore makes us a bit more confident in our actions. This leads to us being in situations where we normally wouldn't be.

Since this board has many international members, I'm curious what the gun laws in your countries are and your thoughts on the U.S.'s gun policies. Does making guns illegal actually make a difference in crime? Do people still rob banks if all they have is a knife? Are police viewed as less-powerful if they don't have guns? When was the last time you heard about someone being shot in your country?

I'd like to keep this thread civil, if possible. I know that strong opinions exist on this subject.

[Tashtego]

Check out South Africa, UK, and Australia for recent stats on the benefits of making private gun ownership illegal.

[rjohnstone]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on your question as to what the 2nd Amendment means.
They interpreted it as meaning both "Militia" and "the people" not just one.

Whether guns are legal or not makes no difference in overall crime rate.
I have yet to read one report that says otherwise.
Certain types of gun related crime may drop, but other forms of violent crime make up for the lack of a firearm being present.

[fett]

Yeah. I never could figure out how that sentence can be interpreted as anything other than in the context of the times. The word "Militia" is the key word. The intent of this amendment was to be able to call up a citizen army if necessary and assure the states that the Federal Government would not get too strong militarily. It's all about State's Right vs The Feds. I think. As for the Supreme Court .........

[Cleveland Metal]

Now, to me this says that we (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to bear arms in well-regulated militias. Since the country was founded with the support of these militias, this makes sense.

Yes that does. However historically, you’ll also find that the constitutions written by the separate colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, spoke of firearms ownership specifically as an individual right encompassing personal protection, and not just a tool to facilitate state militias.

Not being a hunter, I see no reason to own a gun. If I were a hunter, I'd see no reason to own a handgun. So why is there so much resistance about handgun regulations?

Basically, it's just another tool in the toolbox, just different.

It's a fact that keeping a gun in the home for self defense correlates to a higher risk of being shot.

I don't necassarily think so. Show me this information.

My opinion is that having a gun makes us feel more powerful and therefore makes us a bit more confident in our actions. This leads to us being in situations where we normally wouldn't be.

Maybe, if you're some sort of person that needs counselling. Please note, if that is how "you" feel, then I'd recommend seeing someone about that really. But please don't judge my stability and logic by your possible instability and illogic.

If anything, in the past, carrying a gun has kept me more focused on purposefully staying out of situations that might compromise my saftey or accenuate the possibility that I may have to use force to stay safe. In other words, unarmed, I might yell at some idiot in traffic doing something particularly dangerous to me or others around me. Armed, I realize that could easily instigate a situation where the guy may wish to have physical contact with and that would be bad. So, I shut up and go on about my business. A logical, responsible gun owner that is carrying would never put himself into a position that would mitigate the use of their weapon out of sheer bravado or over confidence. That's just nuts.

Does making guns illegal actually make a difference in crime?

Yeah, it's much easier for the predators of society (who really ignore all laws incuding gun laws) to have their way with you and your unarmed family. So, it makes it easier for criminal to know who is an easy target.

Do people still rob banks if all they have is a knife?

Yeah, I'm sure someone doing something illegal like bank robbery, would truly feel that he should really not have that illegal gun, since it's well ummm, illegal...

There's alway the "I have a bomb" note I spose... Oh wait, they're illegal too! No one would use those I guess. Nevermind.

Are police viewed as less-powerful if they don't have guns?

Around here, they'd be more useless than they already are at this point with the regulations and BS media constraints that are put upon them and tie their hands behind their backs...

When was the last time you heard about someone being shot in your country?

An innocent motorist was shot and killed two nights ago while being robbed at a stopsign by local thugs... This happened less than a quarter mile from my home.

I'd like to keep this thread civil, if possible. I know that strong opinions exist on this subject.

Hope I didn't seem too malicious or uncivil in my responses. I just feel strongly about my rights to protect myself from human predators and some of your comments really are typical of anti-gun propaganda. No offense really.

[lerxstcat]

Handguns are covered as well as long guns because, hey, military have both, right? So a civilian militia would have to have the same capability for close quarters combat.

The idea of that militia is that the militiamen show up having provided their own arms. Whether it's defending the nation from an external threat or internal tyranny doesn't matter. We can't expect the government to issue us arms in order to oppose it, now can we?

[lerxstcat]

Oh yeah, the majority of bank robbers DON'T use a gun. They hand the teller a note and may SAY they have a gun, or a bomb, but either don't really have them or don't produce them in the robbery.

[YetAnotherOne]

The actual intent of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens remain armed so that they remain capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government should the situation arise. That's why people who understand the original intent and historical context of the Amendment are typically very skeptical of government attempts to limit or prohibit gun ownership. You can debate the utility of the original intent in modern times but the intent itself is a well-settled question.

Having a gun in your home may make you statistically more likely to shoot yourself or a member of your family but that's a matter of personal responsibility. If you're too irresponsible to own a gun ... DON'T! However it's also absolutely true that gun ownership reduces crime rates. Ditto concealed carry laws. There's an inverse relationship between violent crime rates and strict gun control laws. Feel free to not protect yourself and your family but don't prohitbit others from protecting themselves and their families.

[lerxstcat]

Oh yeah again! GREAT post, John! That's fucked about the person getting shot right down the road though...

[Cleveland Metal]

Yeah, I'm actually pretty bummed about that. I drive pastthe spot several times a day, and my senses are pretty heightened right about now.

That was Saturday night. I took my exam for Cleveland Police Patrolman Saturday morning... Sigh...

[zeegler]

You need to have a gun in case someone pisses you off and you have to shoot them.

[Cleveland Metal]

Parma Man Carjacked, Killed On West Side
Cleveland, OH - A 37-year-old Parma man, Gregory Fitz, was carjacked and killed on W.38th Street over the weekend.

Robbers demanded money, Fitz only had ten dollars, and the thugs shot him anyways. Fitz expired at a Metro hospital from a gunshot wound to the torso.

Police are looking for those involved in the fatal shooting.

[Ripley7t]

Hmm, I used to live in Parma on laurent ave. Just down the street from the mall.

[Norton]

It doesn't matter,if you have a gun or not,in Turkey.If some thief,breaks into your house,and you shoot him in the foot,that's ok.If you shoot him from anywhere else,you get into jail.If you kill anyone even if you're right and don't get into jail,you still pay a fine.And if a policeman kills a fugitive to protect himself,he still gets in some trouble.


The point is,I should have the right to kill a person,if he breaks into my house.But the law doesn't let me.Killing must be more legal in necesary situations..It's a part of the circle of life.

[Cleveland Metal]

In America, if you legally shoot a criminal in your home (note that there are legal and illegal circumstances), sadly, you are likely better off killing them.

You see, once the legality is determined, you are ok criminally. Then there is the civil side where you will be sued by (insert scumbags name here), or his surviving family.

If you're shooting to "wound" him, say in the foot, or otherwise long term disable him, amazingly, you can civilly be in considerably higher financial liability than if you were to actually kill the perpetrator.

If the crimial is dead, they will likely establish some sort of monetary value on his deleted remaining existance in some way. Say 10-15k a year (re: welfare earnings etc)for however many years and some other misc pain and suffering etc. Maybe a couple hundred K maybe?

However if he is disabled, you may have some tremendous financial burdens. Reperations for causing some to be paralyzed or merely disabled, can be considerable. Seems I've seen millions of dollr settlements.

Wild stuff huh?