you know, i myself would like to know what yer view on this. i know i will disagree, and i will never agree with you. but i am still tryin to understand why you think the way that you do. i ussually do get hot about this topic, but ill refrain myself.

 

Ive said before and I'll say it again...The Second Amendment to the constitution is the only garantur of our rights...without the second amendment our rights would become priviledges...

Notice that the right to keep and bear arms follows freedom of speech...it's not a coincidence that it was written in that order...

I think this makes my 200th post...A good subject for this milestone...

 

1956MarkII,

Throw it out there. I do it almost every day and I'm still alive. You have nothing to fear through a computer screen. One of the biggest reasons why I think people are so quick to personal attack on these boards, is that they're safe from any true conflict. I feel free to voice my opinions. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, only to make them aware of other viewpoints, and I'm certainly not afraid to agree to disagree. A clear and logical debate benefits both sides, the problems start when the discussion turns personal, subjective, and based on belief rather than fact. I'm sure there are those out there that woudn't pee on me if I were on fire, but if I even got them to think about the subject a little bit, I think we both benefitted, and so be it.

In general, the level of debate on this forum is remarkably good, I've been on others where it instantly detioriates into personal attack and name calling. That's pretty rare here, a testament to the moderators.

I'm a gun guy, but even I question some of the people and posts on here. A .50cal handgun? What possible purpose does that serve in the world. Hunting? Please, if you can hit anything with that gun at range of over 25 yds I'd be amazed. It is built to kill people. It might be fun to fire at a range (I doubt it, I don't even like to sight in my 7mm Mag), but is that the kind of gun we need out there?

I feel the same way about the military style guns, M-16s, AR-15s, and the other large caliber stuff that people talk about. Those are restricted in Canada, not illegal, but HIGHLY regulated, and IMHO, they should be. You don't need an M-16 to hunt deer, or for fun at a range. These are guns designed to kill PEOPLE in WAR by SOLDIERS. I don't understand it.

I think the gun culture in the USA is a little overboard. The staunch belief in defending yourself with a concealed weapon. I think there's a reason why the crime rate and gun related death rate in Canada is about 1/3 that of the US.

Now, if someone tried to take away my shotguns and hunting rifles, well, there'd be trouble.

Is this hypocritical? Maybe. Illogical? Maybe, but I don't think so.

This is an argument that can't be won, in fact even compromise is difficult. Both sides have strong arguments and beliefs.

I'd like to hear what your thoughts on it were, I'm sure there'll be point on which many will agree and disagree, but all benefit from being exposed to the points.

Waxy

 

I have no issue with guns whatsoever. I don't have one at my house as my wife does have an issue with them. She doesn't want them in the house with a 4 year old running around the house.

The issue I have is people that do not respect or properly handle guns. The way I look at it is guns don't kill people, irresponsible gun owners do. If every gun owner took care of his/her gun and stored them properly and used common sense, the majority of accidents involving guns would be greatly reduced.

I have a friend that was shot in the leg as a kid because his older brothers were playing with a gun that their dad left under his bed. To me, that is irresponible and could of been prevented by a little common sense.

To follow along Waxy's comment about the gun culture in the USA going over board, maybe it is. I have a friend that just bought a shotgun a couple of months ago. He is the responsible type and I have no problems with him personally owning a gun. What bothered me is, he is living in the US on a temporary Visa. He went about buying the gun legit. He ended up buying it at Walmart.

I will probably buy a gun this year as I intend on going hunting with a few friends of mine. I say owning a gun should be more of a privelage than a right, like a drivers license. However, good luck trying to use my gun, as I have to make sure that my 4 year old will never find it, and I can remember where I put it.

As for the most important freedom. My opinion, the freedom of speach. It is a good thing that I can go on here like a ranting jacka#$ and give my 2 cents.

 

Waxy--the point of owning guns like a .50 cal handgun is not to hunt with it. The point of owning an M-16 or AR-15 is not to shoot deer. (By the way an M-16 is actually a very small caliber gun.)

The point of the second amendment is not to allow people to shoot deer or ducks. Although people often invoke this sentiment, it is totally irrelevant. The second amendment was not written for hunters or target shooters.
The second amendment was written for the sole purpose so that people would have the abiliy to shoot and kill other people should it become necessary. The Founding Fathers left the desicion of when it becomes necessary for such drastic measures to the people of the United States. We are a country born of revolution-sacrifice, bloodshed, and death. Our founding fathers wanted to leave in place the mechanisms for further revolutions if "things didn't go so well" with the new form of government. In a very real sense, all Americans are supposed to soldiers standing up for our rights. So yes, those guns are designed to kill people if the need arises, much like the second amendment.

So this begs the question, in this day and age do we still need the ability to kill our fellow man if the circumstances warrant that. I would argue that yes, it is vitally important. You can imagine any number of circumstances where it could become necessary to use deadly force. (Don't even try to play the 'we live in modern times, our government would never allow that to happen' tune. History has shown that type of thinking to be a prelude to trouble.)

I think the the true issue is that some people seem ready to kill others at the drop of a hat. For them it doesn't take much of a reason to make a killing 'necessary' in their eyes. For some people any slight, whether real or imagined, is justification for violence. For the overwhelming vast majority, things like tyranny and oppression are about the only things that would cause them to take arms.

The trick is to balance out the safety of the many without trampling on the rights of all people (not just those who choose to exercise them). This is true of all the amendments, not just the first, second, fourth, etc.

I do not know the answer to this dilemma, in fact I don't think there is a definitive answer. It is one part of the back and forth dance that are societies.


whistler

 

whistler hit the nail on the head!!! but i do believe that there is a cure fer the debate on this issue. i believe that it is common sense and punishment fer those people who abuse these rights that we have so graciously been given. an im not talkin about tryin to figure out to what degree of murder a murdurer has commited. he either did it or not. and he or she must me punished accodingly. i believe that is part of our societies problem these days. we do not have proper punishment fer the crimes that are committed.

 

Okay, I'll post my views. It will take me a day or two to put it together, and it's been insanely busy here at work. In fact, today's my day off and here I am, trying to catch up. So much for slow times in the car business- but I'm not complaining! Thanks for the support guys (and gals)- this IS what this country is all about.

 

AMEN!

 

Quote:

The second amendment was written for the sole purpose so that people would have the abiliy to shoot and kill other people should it become necessary. The Founding Fathers left the desicion of when it becomes necessary for such drastic measures to the people of the United States. We are a country born of revolution-sacrifice, bloodshed, and death. Our founding fathers wanted to leave in place the mechanisms for further revolutions if "things didn't go so well" with the new form of government. In a very real sense, all Americans are supposed to soldiers standing up for our rights. So yes, those guns are designed to kill people if the need arises, much like the second amendment.

So this begs the question, in this day and age do we still need the ability to kill our fellow man if the circumstances warrant that. I would argue that yes, it is vitally important. You can imagine any number of circumstances where it could become necessary to use deadly force. (Don't even try to play the 'we live in modern times, our government would never allow that to happen' tune. History has shown that type of thinking to be a prelude to trouble.)

I agree with most of what you're saying and I clearly see the point you're making, I just think that in this day and age it's a little antiquated.

What chance does a population armed with M-16's (~6mm I believe) have against a military armed with stealth bombers? I can't think of a scenario where the American military wouldn't be involved in the conflict. Best case scenario, the military leaders are split and you have might on either side. I guess in that situation it may come down to man to man conflict.

If a tyrannical government came to power (I'm not sure how), and had the might of the military backing it up (again, I'm not sure how), an armed uprising would be futile, regardless of numbers you'd have about as much chance of winning as the Iraqis.

Look at all the militia groups, they're armed to the teeth, if the US government decided to eliminate them, they could do it tomorrow.

In the case of outside invasion, where having heavily armed citizens would be VERY helpful (it caused the Japanese to think better of it), the American military is pretty much unassailable in today's world.

I think the second amendment is almost more for the peace of mind of the citizens than it is of practical use in today's world of military technology.

I think redranger1's comments were also RIGHT ON. You want to eliminate the use of firearms during the commision of a crime? Make the punishment appropriate and ENFORCE it. Automatic life sentences for those that use a gun in the commission of a crime just might make people think twice.

Waxy

 

Waxy--

I see you are not familiar with a particularly timeless phrase that Americans hold dear, "Give me liberty or give me death."


You are correct that a bunch of citizens like me with M-16's and homemade dynamite would probably get pummeled by a modern military force. However, I would rather die trying than live under a tyrannical government. I suspect that most Americans, when push comes to shove, would feel the same way.

Like you, I cannot see how such a governmental entity like that could come to power here in the United States. Just because you and I can't fathom it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

A second issue relating to this discussion, is the notion that certain human rights can become antiquated. We don't say this about other fundamental rights in our country. I'm pretty sure that we would never say the fourth or fifth amendment has become antiquated, obsolete and no longer relevant because the government 'just won't do bad things like that'. I think that whole vein of logic is flawed; fundamental liberties do not go out of style, they are not a fad, they are the fabric of (our) modern government.


That being said, I think redranger1 is 100% correct. We are way too lenient with criminals in our society. I am all for freedom and liberty until you screw up. When you have chosen to violate the laws, when you have breached the public's trust, when you are a danger to other people--society really doesn't need you anymore. Any you should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Whistler

 

I respect that, and I know that I would fight to the death too, the point is, either way, you're (we're) gonna lose.

Quote:

A second issue relating to this discussion, is the notion that certain human rights can become antiquated. We don't say this about other fundamental rights in our country. I'm pretty sure that we would never say the fourth or fifth amendment has become antiquated, obsolete and no longer relevant because the government 'just won't do bad things like that'. I think that whole vein of logic is flawed; fundamental liberties do not go out of style, they are not a fad, they are the fabric of (our) modern government.

I certainly didn't state that human rights, or the second amendment, were a "fad", those are your words. My point is that the intent behind the 2nd ammendment has lost some of it's meaning in our current technological society. I don't think that argument is flawed in any way.

The simple fact is we live in an ever changing world where technology has the ability to quickly outpace laws and the vision of society. The forefathers of the US had incredible foresight, but do you think they envisioned a country that could elimate the world's population, or a single factory across the Atlantic, with the push of a button? The world is VERY different on a military basis now than it was when the second amendment was drafted. At that time owing a gun made you an equal, in today's technological world, it doesn't. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment no longer provides the means for the common man to stand up to tyranny as it did when it was drafted. In that way, I feel that it has indeed become antiquated, not the ideal behind the 2nd Amendment itself, but the simple practicality that was the basis for it.

Waxy

 

Waxy-


I have two points.

#1
As you wrote:

Simply put, the 2nd Amendment no longer provides the means for the common man to stand up to tyranny as it did when it was drafted. In that way, I feel that it has indeed become antiquated, not the ideal behind the 2nd Amendment itself, but the simple practicality that was the basis for it.


Let me put what you said another way. The ideal of common citizens having the ability to stand up, militarily, to a government they oppose is good. This ideal has not become antiquated. Therefore, it is the practical tools available to common citizens that have become antiquated. Correct?

Then following this logic one step farther, I should have the right to own things like fully automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, laser guided missles, armored personel carriers and, if I had the cash, tanks.

After all, if all citizens had those items we might have a fighting chance against the hypothetical tyrannical government.


#2


I highly doubt that the framers of the Constitution could envision the incredible weaponry that is available today. And I just as highly doubt they had to foresight to envision radio, TV, satellite broadcasting, the internet, email, chat rooms/forums, or instant messaging. That doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to those communication tools.

So then, why shouldn't the second amendment also protect my right to own weaponry not even considered by the framers of the constitution?


Whistler

 

It does. You own an M-16 don't you.

You're comparing apples to oranges. None of the things you've listed have put the ability to excerise your first amendment rights in jeopardy, if anything, they have enhanced the common man's ability to exercise his rights.

The same cannot be said for advancements in weaponry and military tactics not foreseen by the second amendment.

Quote:

Let me put what you said another way. The ideal of common citizens having the ability to stand up, militarily, to a government they oppose is good. This ideal has not become antiquated. Therefore, it is the practical tools available to common citizens that have become antiquated. Correct?

Then following this logic one step farther, I should have the right to own things like fully automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, laser guided missles, armored personel carriers and, if I had the cash, tanks.

On a strictly hypothetical basis, you're correct, but there has to be a point were logic intervenes. By your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I, or anyone else for that matter (I think you can see where this is leading), would have the right to build and possess WMD's. The government has them right? So why not me, or any other nut job down the block?

Would you choose to make this the case? Would you want to live in a world where any of the items you listed was readily available to anyone who can afford them. I don't see how this would benefit the common man, or prevent tyranny, but this is the vision of the second amendment that you've presented. Was that the intent of the founders? IMHO, no.

When the constitution was written, any band of a thousand farmers, with the guns they all possessed and used in their daily lives, was the equivalent to a military force of the same size, bar some training and maybe a cannon. This simply is not the case today.

I'm certainly not trying to argue the validity of the 2nd Amendment, my point is that the advent of mechanized warfare and technology have made the ideal of a citizenry being able to stand up to a tyrannical leader, the ideal behind the right to bear arms, an impractical one. You yourself have so much as stated this.

Waxy

 

Waxy--

The point I was trying to make with the forms of communication is that the government has not taken them away from us or disallowed their use. In the context of the 2nd amendment rights, this is a fair analogy. Not perfect, but fair.

I personally think that common citizens should not be allowed to own tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. Not because of 'common sense' (i.e. It's too dangerous!!!), but only because that would be a new form of tyranny. The government as we know it, would cease to exist. What is the point of the police force when they are outnumbered? A major mission of the government is to provide for "domestic tranquility". That would be impossible if everybody had their own nuke. Society would become a tyranny of one man over everybody and nobody.

So that leads us to the question of how do these disparate factors meet and weigh out? That is the true value of this discussion--not to reach a solution but the examine the issue in depth using critical thinking. It only through discussions like this that reasonable compromise can occur.

Waxy, thanks for a great discussion. I enjoyed it tremedously.


Wh1stler

 

Whistler, as did I!

I've found this site to be a remarkable forum for discussion on some pretty heavy topics, it's starting to take up too much of my time.

I guess in the end we're right back where we started, which is where do you draw the line in the sand? At a .22, an M-16, tanks? That question could and should be debated endlessly, so that reasonable compromise, as you've said, can be met.

Waxy