2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by Kimber1911

The 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is NOT a privilege, that would infer that it can be taken away, which is what the anti-gun zealots want you (us) to think. This is a RIGHT! not given to us by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. If they take away our 2nd amendment rights then what is to stop them from taking away our 1st and all the others in the constitution. It's all or nothing.

I would offer that it is the 2nd Amendment that ultimately ensures the safety of the other Amendments by preserving the right to forcibly remove a despotic government if necessary. This makes the 2nd the most important Amendment there is.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Kimber1911

The 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is NOT a privilege, that would infer that it can be taken away, which is what the anti-gun zealots want you (us) to think. This is a RIGHT! not given to us by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. If they take away our 2nd amendment rights then what is to stop them from taking away our 1st and all the others in the constitution. It's all or nothing.

I don't believe anyone is trying to take away the "right" to bear arms. They want to define "arms" in a specific way.

Why does everyone always assume that if they further define one amendment to the constitution that was written before current technology necessitated an update that it means that suddenly we're going to rewrite the whole damn thing?

I'm with you guys when you say that we have the right to bear arms, and I'm against the limitations proposed. But lets be realistic instead of exaggerating- gun control laws aren't going to spurn 1st amendment rights being taken away. Even if you're against some of the laws proposed, at least admit that you're simply making an unprovable assumption when you bring up the 1st amendment at all as a basis for an argument.

That's fearmongering. You'd do well in arguments to avoid it- it riles up those who agree with you already, and makes those who oppose you less likely to listen to you.

[Juan.Camaney]

The thing with regulation is once its on the books, its easier to keep modifying it until they make it virtually impossible to exercise your rights. Better to keep stuff off the books, IMO.

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I don't believe anyone is trying to take away the "right" to bear arms. They want to define "arms" in a specific way.

Why does everyone always assume that if they further define one amendment to the constitution that was written before current technology necessitated an update that it means that suddenly we're going to rewrite the whole damn thing?

I'm a dedicated pacifist-- but the authors of the constitution were very clear that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to enable the population to resist any tyrannical government that may be insinuate itself in the future.

Attempts to define what weapons citizens are permitted to possess always insures that the government will have the superior firepower.

There is a conflict of interest. Perhaps we want to insure that criminals cannot possess superior firepower than our police. But then how do we insure that our citizens have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in the event of a coup?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

The thing with regulation is once its on the books, its easier to keep modifying it until they make it virtually impossible to exercise your rights. Better to keep stuff off the books, IMO.

I understand the slippery slope argument, but just because something is easier doesn't mean it WILL happen.

The gun thing has two distinct sides to it (look at this thread for proof). Freedom of speech isn't exactly a 50/50 issue. I just don't think they can be thrown in together like people keep doing.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The gun thing has two distinct sides to it (look at this thread for proof). Freedom of speech isn't exactly a 50/50 issue. I just don't think they can be thrown in together like people keep doing.

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.

I understand the slippery slope argument, but just because something is easier doesn't mean it WILL happen.

That's exactly what is happening in California, Ryan. Do you think its fair that someone in Washington can go apply for a permit to carry and all he has to answer is what are you packing and what for, and almost instantly get it while someone in a more dangerous part of the country like say, you and I, pretty much get laughed at if we even bothered to apply? Or how about a 10 day waiting period for a shot gun in CA while some people can go buy one over the counter, fair? That's like telling CD over on his side that he can talk all he wants, but you have to wait a few days before you can even whisper.

I know it sounds ludicrous to some people to compare talking with owning a gun, but its not! Thats what you have been taught to think because guns are seen as an evil thing that kills. Well, hate speech is often protected by the 1st and it has been causing people to die for ages!

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.


That's exactly what is happening in California, Ryan. Do you think its fair that someone in Washington can go apply for a permit to carry and all he has to answer is what are you packing and what for, and almost instantly get it while someone in a more dangerous part of the country like say, you and I, pretty much get laughed at if we even bothered to apply? Or how about a 10 day waiting period for a shot gun in CA while some people can go buy one over the counter, fair? That's like telling CD over on his side that he can talk all he wants, but you have to wait a few days before you can even whisper.

I know it sounds ludicrous to some people to compare talking with owning a gun, but its not! Thats what you have been taught to think because guns are seen as an evil thing that kills. Well, hate speech is often protected by the 1st and it has been causing people to die for ages!

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

In evolution, that's just called thinning the herd...

Gotta agree with you Juan.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.

There shouldn't be two sides, but there are. Just because it's in our constitution doesn't make it right. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was fine- times change. Gun technology has drastically changed. Thermonuclear weapons exist, as do many weapons of mass destruction. Re-visiting our constitution to update things that are no longer valid as written isn't something I take lightly, but it's something that needs to be continually done. If you've ever worked on a project, you know that the initial plan is rarely if ever put 100% into action at the end. Things change, and we have to adapt to these changes.

Guns have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written. When written, guns could only do so much damage. Now, even the weakest guns would blow those old-time muskets away. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world can change around us and we'll be fine just sticking to our outdated laws without altering them to keep up.

Freedom of speech isn't threatened in that manner, though. It's not like I can suddenly shout at you specific words that didn't exist previously that are suddenly going to kill you. I have no idea how many people out there are anti gun, but lets throw a number at it like 30% of Americans. If 30% of Americans are anti-gun, then .000000001% are anti-free-speech. You can't ignore that and simply lump them in together, even if they are conveniently written right after one another. 30% of Americans might have a prayer at changing gun laws. .000000001% don't have a prayer of accomplishing anything with free speech laws.

No matter what happens with gun control laws, free speech laws will not be changed and anyone who argues that they will is simply fearmongering. There is a good argument against gun control- mentioning free speech isn't it.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

I agree with you that most of the proposed laws are ridiculous. Not because it threatens my 1st amendment rights, though. Because they threaten my 2nd amendment rights. I'm with you on the anti-gun control thing... I just refuse to use "if they do this they'll surely take away free speech next" as an argument.

Yes, I've been to a shooting rang. Yes, I've shot a gun. No, I don't own one today, but I may in the future if I ever feel the desire or need.

I agree that we should let nature run its course and just arm everyone, for the record.

And take off the warning labels on everything while we're at it. If you can't figure out that coffee is hot without a warning, you deserve to get burned.

[CD]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

Pfffft. There will always be new stupid people to take their place. That argument is also the argument I hear about killing terrorists. The war on terror can never be won, just like the war on drugs will never be won. It's ingrained into the psyche of select people. The smart thing to do is to minimize the outside damage done by those we are supposedly at war with.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by Ryan

There shouldn't be two sides, but there are. Just because it's in our constitution doesn't make it right. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was fine- times change. Gun technology has drastically changed. Thermonuclear weapons exist, as do many weapons of mass destruction. Re-visiting our constitution to update things that are no longer valid as written isn't something I take lightly, but it's something that needs to be continually done. If you've ever worked on a project, you know that the initial plan is rarely if ever put 100% into action at the end. Things change, and we have to adapt to these changes.

I've already answered this issue. Show me where the constitution, bill of rights, or anything says "In order to keep our nation productive, the people reserve the right to own blacks as property" I'll go ahead and wait until the 5th of Never because you know there is no such thing. The constitution is over 200 years old and the ammendments since it was first drafted have served to make certain things right. Its served its purpose well, and the more people try to ammend it, the more fucked up it gets.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Guns have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written. When written, guns could only do so much damage. Now, even the weakest guns would blow those old-time muskets away. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world can change around us and we'll be fine just sticking to our outdated laws without altering them to keep up.

I don't get this argument. Guns have changed....well no kidding. They still serve the same purpose. You aim it at something's general direction, squeeze the trigge and it will make a hole in it. It doesn't matter if it shoots one bullet or a pellet, and it takes 20 minutes to reload, or if its a .50 cal mounted to the back of a humvee, if you aim it at something human and pull the trigger, it will probably die.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Freedom of speech isn't threatened in that manner, though. It's not like I can suddenly shout at you specific words that didn't exist previously that are suddenly going to kill you. I have no idea how many people out there are anti gun, but lets throw a number at it like 30% of Americans. If 30% of Americans are anti-gun, then .000000001% are anti-free-speech. You can't ignore that and simply lump them in together, even if they are conveniently written right after one another. 30% of Americans might have a prayer at changing gun laws. .000000001% don't have a prayer of accomplishing anything with free speech laws.

Assumptions and random numbers, guy. New words are added to the dictionary every year. New terms are coined by guys at bars every day too. You go back in time and call someone a taint licker and most will look at you like, wtf mate?!

Originally Posted by Ryan

No matter what happens with gun control laws, free speech laws will not be changed and anyone who argues that they will is simply fearmongering. There is a good argument against gun control- mentioning free speech isn't it.

You really think so eh? Have you been paying attention to people trying to silence the right wing media? Granted I hate Limbaugh with a passion and would kick the guy in the back of the head until he flat lined if left alone with him for longer than a few minutes, but why silence only those who oppose those in power? So many are clueless as to what the government really does until they do it to you.

Originally Posted by Ryan

No, I don't own one today, but I may in the future if I ever feel the desire or need.

You might not be able to if things keep swinging too far left.

Originally Posted by CD

Pfffft. There will always be new stupid people to take their place. That argument is also the argument I hear about killing terrorists. The war on terror can never be won, just like the war on drugs will never be won. It's ingrained into the psyche of select people. The smart thing to do is to minimize the outside damage done by those we are supposedly at war with.

I'd rather have an abundance of idiots being killed than just an overall abundance of idiots :D

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

You really think so eh? Have you been paying attention to people trying to silence the right wing media? Granted I hate Limbaugh with a passion and would kick the guy in the back of the head until he flat lined if left alone with him for longer than a few minutes, but why silence only those who oppose those in power? So many are clueless as to what the government really does until they do it to you.

People are always going to try to silence those who they disagree with. The fact that Limbaugh, Coulter, (and left wing extremists like Olbermann for that matter), etc are still on their soap boxes should be enough proof that people can complain all they want but are never going to get anywhere.

The best anyone can do is get the person fired from whatever company is amplifying their voice. Google "nappy headed ho's" for more info. It's not like Imus went to jail.

I think you and I are going to simply disagree on whether or not the 1st amendment is threatened by gun control. I've laid out my opinion and don't need to restate it. I understand where you are coming from, but neither of us can prove whether or not a potential event could have a certain outcome. I can accept that as the best we're going to do with this disagreement.

Bottom line, though, is that we agree that many of the proposed gun control laws DO threaten 2nd amendment rights. Regardless of the affect on free speech, it's not a road I'd like to travel down.

[Juan.Camaney]

I don't know how you define freedom, Ryan, but to me its the liberty to do something without consequences. I also don't know how you define rights, but to me its a list of things I can do freely. Regulation infringes freedom.

[Ryan]

Some people define freedom as not having to pay taxes or any responsibilities whatsoever.

Unless you're comfortable with no police / military to protect you, you have to give up at least a LITTLE freedom. It's about how much freedom we're willing to give up in the name of safety and security.

If LA was bombed, you and I both know the government would institute a curfew of some sorts. We would be forced to stay in our homes. To me, that's infringing upon my rights as a citizen, but I understand that sometimes my rights have to bend a bit for the safety of myself and others.

If you refuse to admit that sometimes certain freedoms need to be regulated for the safety of the populace, then to me you are arguing in favor of anarchy (of course it's an exaggeration- but it's a slippery slope and anarchy is the end of the slope).

I think the government needs to step in and regulate certain things. Without regulation, any idiot could go out and buy nuclear weapons. Are you arguing for COMPLETE deregulation?

If you admit, on the other hand, that there are certain areas where regulation or government intervention is necessary, you can't tell me that one area is more valid than another- that's merely an opinion.

Other thoughts on regulation: would you argue that regulation of cigarettes and alcohol with regards to children should cease? Should we stop age requirements? Are we not infringing upon the rights of the children to smoke and drink? Who are we to arbitrarily set an age where the government feels a citizen should finally be afforded that right? Obviously I'm not suggesting you want children to smoke and drink, but I'd like to hear your feelings on that regulation compared to gun regulation. Bear in mind that alcohol is regulated on age of purchaser and strength of the liquor (among others). Although not defined with an amendment that we should have the right to drink alcohol, both alcohol and guns are regulated in a similar fashion.

Take note, everyone watching Juan and I go back and forth. This is how you respectfully argue two sides to a disagreement without being a giant douche.

[Car Enthusiast]

Ryan I agree with you that things need regulated, but I think to need to impose regulations on someone's belief's, hobbies or way of life it should be an actual risk to someone's safety. Statistics show that firearms aren't a big enough cause of violence that it needs to be restricted, actually the numbers I have seen show that without firearms crime actually rises. I guess it is a ratio of pro's and con's, and the pro's definitely out weight the cons. So why regulate something that isn't the main problem with why crimes are committed? Well because fixing the real reason we have crime is hard and a long term fight that politicians don't want to tackle because to me it is harder to show results before elections come around, and it is easier to stand in front of a table of guns and say we have to protect the children. For the public standpoint it is a long term fight/investment that takes a lot of faith and perserverence not to mention a stiff upper lip when sob stories come along and pull on your heart strings.

CD, I found a stat to go along with your car and licensing arguement earlier that I couldn't find till now:

There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns and 207,754,000 automobiles). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council... despite cars having been registered and licensed
for almost 100 years.

Automobiles estimates, Federal Highway Administration, October 1998. Firearm estimates, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996. (I know they are a little old but I think the point is still the same)