The 2nd Amendment

[Norton]

Oh,I heard about the "it's better the kill than to disable" thing a lot,about America.It's really annoying,to deal with so much problems,just because of scumbags.I guess we call that "justice".

[hippietim]

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.

That intent is useless in modern times. When it was written, a group of men with guns had nearly the equivalent fire power as the tyrannical governments of the times. If they could score some cannons then they're on equal footing. Today's tyrannical government is so drastically better equipped that it is a silly argument.

Handguns are for people that cling to some notion that it is some freedom they are entitled to regardless of whether or not it is sensible anymore.

[npacheco]

I always carry a handgun with me when I hunt. Hate to run into a mountain lion or bear without it.

[Cleveland Metal]

No "clinging to notions" here.

Dunno, my state has seen fit that carrying a concealed weapon is quite "sensible". Unconcealed is not cool. So, my guess is that they are ok with handguns. And well, I'm ok with that.

I know given the option, I'd rather have the stopping power and visual impact of my 12 gauge. But, given differing situations, a handgun would likely be very well serving at times.

Police seem to see a need for both. Actually here, the have 9mm sidearms, 12 gauge shotguns, and Mini 14s or an M16 variant available.

I'm sure the guy up the street would have been happy to have had a handgun on Saturday night.

[rjohnstone]

Handguns are for people that cling to some notion that it is some freedom they are entitled to regardless of whether or not it is sensible anymore.

I'll keep "clinging to my notion" until they pry it from my dead hands.
I know... a bit cliche', but still a good one.

Every time a group of people tries to arm themselves in a fashion that would give them a good chance at kicking ass in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment (a true militia), the government labels them as a cult or terrorist group and forcibly disarms them.

Yes, some are fanatical, but we will never know the real truth about any of them since the feds control the release of information about them.

Show me one example of a true militia that exists today that the feds actually like.
The government wants them all gone to protect it's own existence.
They do this under the claim of "protecting national security", when in reality it's to preserve its own future. This is in direct conflict with the constitution.

[Newc]

As long as criminals have unrestricted access to guns, law-abiding civilians should have unrestricted access to guns to defend themselves against the armed and unarmed criminals. What good does a cop at the station do me if I'm being robbed at gunpoint? Is the robber going to allow me the fair chance to call 911 so the cop can get there in time to thwart the criminal?

I seriously doubt it.

[hippietim]

I'll keep "clinging to my notion" until they pry it from my dead hands.
I know... a bit cliche', but still a good one.

Every time a group of people tries to arm themselves in a fashion that would give them a good chance at kicking ass in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment (a true militia), the government labels them as a cult or terrorist group and forcibly disarms them.

Yes, some are fanatical, but we will never know the real truth about any of them since the feds control the release of information about them.

Show me one example of a true militia that exists today that the feds actually like.
The government wants them all gone to protect it's own existence.
They do this under the claim of "protecting national security", when in reality it's to preserve its own future. This is in direct conflict with the constitution.

Thank you for making my point

[skorb]

I'm a pro-gun guy for personal and home defense. always have been, always will be.

[YetAnotherOne]

That intent is useless in modern times. When it was written, a group of men with guns had nearly the equivalent fire power as the tyrannical governments of the times. If they could score some cannons then they're on equal footing. Today's tyrannical government is so drastically better equipped that it is a silly argument.

I don't disagree that the balance of power between the people and the government has tipped far too much in favor of the government and that, as a result, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is more or less moot as a practical matter. However said intent remains and the Amendment should be enforced according to that intent until such a time as it is formally amended. We have a process to formally amend our Constitution and I invite interested parties to pursue changes to the Second Amendment through those means.

I realize that it's more expedient to ignore the intent of the 2nd Amendment and simply allow local, state, and federal bureaucrats to run roughshod over the rights guaranteed thereby. But I'll suggest that this is a poor approach as this time they'll be restricting a right you oppose whereas next time it might well be one you value.

Handguns are for people that cling to some notion that it is some freedom they are entitled to regardless of whether or not it is sensible anymore.

Tim that's an asinine statement and I know you're far more intelligent than to actually believe it. Here's an example of a situation where your "logic" is dead wrong: Dad (83 years old, 5'9", ~180#) has been threatened by a former employee (40 years old, 6'5", ~350#) who has been hired away by the other side of the family in order to gain advantage in a bitter struggle over the family business. The precise threat was, "I'll catch that old fucker when he's alone working [which he is every day in isolated areas where the nearest person is likely to be a minimum of 1/2 mile away --ed] and beat the holy hell out of him." According to the police it's a credible threat based on the fact that the person making it has that sort of history and is an extreme alcoholic. Aside from hiring a bodyguard dad's only possible feasible protection is to carry a handgun.

The person who put the above jackass up to making that threat (my uncle if you're keeping score at home) recently attempted to intimidate my sister (42, 5'4", 130#) when he learned that she'd spent a couple of nights working alone in an isolated area. She replied that she had no fear for her safety because she was always armed and, given the threats made against our family already, would always be so.

The same jackass who made the threats against dad was sitting at the intersection of a rural road and a local highway a couple of weeks ago as I approached on the highway in one of dad's (easily recognizeable) trucks. He then proceeded to roll his truck out from the stop sign where he was sitting as if he were going to hit me. I stopped, swung the truck around, and pursued him until he pulled into my uncle's driveway. Mom happened to mention this incident to the police during one of what are becoming regular visits and they were intent on arresting the guy and tossing him in prison since that was an aggravated assault, a felony here in Kansas. I put a stop to that because I'm not going to jeopardize my ability to gather evidence for the forthcoming civil suit by tipping my hand this early. Nevertheless those actions do demonstrate the credible threat we have to deal with here.

So pardon me if I tend to believe that your last sentence above is one of the most utterly stupid things I've ever read in my life.

[rjohnstone]

Thank you for making my point

Your point is noted, but still not a valid argument against lawful gun ownership.
Our government will destroy itself in its own zest for wanting to control everything.
Absolute control is an illusion.

[Newc]

And Tim, the Government is not the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the crackhead down the street who will rape/steal/kill just because he decides to do it.

Why do people immediately assume the sole purpose to own a gun is to defend against the government? There's bigger threats out there. The government can take away everything I own with a writ. What am I gonna do, shoot the writ?
The crackhead who wants to take what I've worked for because he's too lazy to get a job has to come through my door to do it - his wrts of claim to my property are not recognized by anyone, so he's gotta come take it by force. I should give it all up and say "oh well, I can always get more because I have a job"?
Once again, I seriously doubt it.

[npacheco]

And Tim, the Government is not the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the crackhead down the street who will rape/steal/kill just because he decides to do it.

Why do people immediately assume the sole purpose to own a gun is to defend against the government? There's bigger threats out there. The government can take away everything I own with a writ. What am I gonna do, shoot the writ?
The crackhead who wants to take what I've worked for because he's too lazy to get a job has to come through my door to do it - his wrts of claim to my property are not recognized by anyone, so he's gotta come take it by force. I should give it all up and say "oh well, I can always get more because I have a job"?
Once again, I seriously doubt it.

+1 A free state, does not merely mean free as in not ruled by a dictator, but free to go to the local supermarket without fear you will be attacked.

Well regulated militia does not merely mean a group of organized individuals who patrol the streets. We as citizens are part of a militia, just because we don't go to weekly meetings, does not mean we are not regulated (there are laws after all).

We as free people have the right to not live in fear. If owning a gun helps you feel unafraid, then no one should infringe upon those rights.

What many people fail to realize, is that there are plenty of "gun laws" on the books. Most gun related crimes are perpetrated by individuals who have broken one or more of those laws.

[hippietim]

I don't disagree that the balance of power between the people and the government has tipped far too much in favor of the government and that, as a result, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is more or less moot as a practical matter. However said intent remains and the Amendment should be enforced according to that intent until such a time as it is formally amended. We have a process to formally amend our Constitution and I invite interested parties to pursue changes to the Second Amendment through those means.

I realize that it's more expedient to ignore the intent of the 2nd Amendment and simply allow local, state, and federal bureaucrats to run roughshod over the rights guaranteed thereby. But I'll suggest that this is a poor approach as this time they'll be restricting a right you oppose whereas next time it might well be one you value.



Tim that's an asinine statement and I know you're far more intelligent than to actually believe it. Here's an example of a situation where your "logic" is dead wrong: Dad (83 years old, 5'9", ~180#) has been threatened by a former employee (40 years old, 6'5", ~350#) who has been hired away by the other side of the family in order to gain advantage in a bitter struggle over the family business. The precise threat was, "I'll catch that old fucker when he's alone working [which he is every day in isolated areas where the nearest person is likely to be a minimum of 1/2 mile away --ed] and beat the holy hell out of him." According to the police it's a credible threat based on the fact that the person making it has that sort of history and is an extreme alcoholic. Aside from hiring a bodyguard dad's only possible feasible protection is to carry a handgun.

The person who put the above jackass up to making that threat (my uncle if you're keeping score at home) recently attempted to intimidate my sister (42, 5'4", 130#) when he learned that she'd spent a couple of nights working alone in an isolated area. She replied that she had no fear for her safety because she was always armed and, given the threats made against our family already, would always be so.

The same jackass who made the threats against dad was sitting at the intersection of a rural road and a local highway a couple of weeks ago as I approached on the highway in one of dad's (easily recognizeable) trucks. He then proceeded to roll his truck out from the stop sign where he was sitting as if he were going to hit me. I stopped, swung the truck around, and pursued him until he pulled into my uncle's driveway. Mom happened to mention this incident to the police during one of what are becoming regular visits and they were intent on arresting the guy and tossing him in prison since that was an aggravated assault, a felony here in Kansas. I put a stop to that because I'm not going to jeopardize my ability to gather evidence for the forthcoming civil suit by tipping my hand this early. Nevertheless those actions do demonstrate the credible threat we have to deal with here.

So pardon me if I tend to believe that your last sentence above is one of the most utterly stupid things I've ever read in my life.

No need to pardon yourself, it's your opinion. I highly doubt it's anywhere near one of the stupidest things you've ever heard in your life though. The people in this family incident are clearly spewing much more ridiculous things than me.

I've heard variants of your argument and the "if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns" argument all my life. I grew up down the road from NRA HQ and was surrounded by gun lovers. Sorry, but they are not compelling arguments to empower a society of gun toting <insert derogatory term>. I fully realize there are fine people with guns that handle them responsibly. I've even met some of them. But based on my anecdotal experience over 40 years, the number of people that have guns that don't concern me is statistically insignificant compared to those that are a menace to themselves and others.

Here's a recent "for example" involving one of my former neighbors back in WA (a former bandmate in fact). He was a "card carrying NRA member" and a former military officer. He has an MBA. He even works for my company and we're generally known to hire reasonably intelligent people. You'd think he could safely own a gun, right? My son came back from their house one day and was telling me about the other kid's gun. I laughed thinking he was talking about a toy (they played "Army" a lot). My son insisted it was the real deal. I went to talk to Mr. NRA and was reassured it was just the kid's rifle BB gun. Cool enough - not likely a deadly threat. A few days later it came up in conversation and my son described it as a hand gun. Come to find out that the kids were handling Mr. NRAs hand gun! Not FUCKING COOL! Mr. NRA had previously assured me it was locked up securely. Apparently not. REALLY NOT FUCKING COOL!!! He then reassures me that no way was it dangerous because the bullets were locked up securely. Uh, yeah, right. We're talking about boys that were 7 years old at the time with access to a hand gun. My son definitely did not have any training with a gun but Mr. NRA tries to assure me that his son knows how to handle a gun. I don't think so - this kid couldn't handle a fucking basketball - he may have been the most uncoordinated kid in the state and had about as much common sense as a stick.

That's just one example. I could go on for days with the stupidity I've seen.

In your scenario, if the brute in the story goes to confront your family and encounters a gun it will just escalate to more violence if these dudes are serious. Because fortunately for them they can go to WalMart and arm themselves much better.

So pardon me if I think the stance that you have on handguns is one of the stupidest things I've seen all my life.

[hippietim]

And Tim, the Government is not the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the crackhead down the street who will rape/steal/kill just because he decides to do it.

Why do people immediately assume the sole purpose to own a gun is to defend against the government? There's bigger threats out there. The government can take away everything I own with a writ. What am I gonna do, shoot the writ?
The crackhead who wants to take what I've worked for because he's too lazy to get a job has to come through my door to do it - his wrts of claim to my property are not recognized by anyone, so he's gotta come take it by force. I should give it all up and say "oh well, I can always get more because I have a job"?
Once again, I seriously doubt it.

I never said the sole purpose to own a gun is to defend against the government. I was merely stating that that particular argument for gun ownership is meaningless.

[xenophobe]

The 2nd Amendment is an individual right not only a collective or state right.

Whether or not the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment is another debate. Although it hasn't been reviewed by SCOTUS and is generally seen as not being incorporated, the evidence of this can be understood by reading the original version of the 14th Amendment before the Civil Rights Act's citizenship clause was added.

The inclusion of being in a militia or not has no bearing on this individual right. Read the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Militia Act, Miller v. US and Parker v. DC. If you haven't at least read those, then you have no legitimate, intellectual argument against the 2nd Amendment, and you're just spewing regurgitated propaganda.