Second Ammendment Discussion

[screamingman12 30]

For those who may not know what I am reffering to, I am talking about the Second Ammendment to the US Constituion. The one that allows public ownership and display of firearms. 

It reads as follows:

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.quote>

The Question is, in light of recent developments, (VA Tech, Columbine) do you think that the Second Ammendment should stand or be repealed/modified? Note, this is all hypothetical, feasibility would not be an issue. 

Note: If this turns into a flame war, I will not think twice about closing it.

[JakeMD 107]

yes, dont think twice about closing this one, this is a serious topic.

I for one dont care if the 2nd amendment is there or not, i just dont like it that schools allow firearms to be brought onto campus, how that?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SWAT-MEDIC

I for one dont care if the 2nd amendment is there or not, i just dont like it that schools allow firearms to be brought onto campus, how that?quote>

Please name one school that actually allows that.  I don't think there's a single university (I said think, cause I don't know for sure) that allows guns on the campus, by either state or national law.  And what high school wouldn't confiscate the gun, if not arrest the student, if a gun was found in their possession?  Here at the university I'm at, I don't think even our own police force has guns.

Lots of people say that "Guns Kill."  That's bogus, and I would assume everyone among us knows that no gun can get up off a table and shoot people, so that point disproves itself.

Now, let's analyze something else.  Guns actually save lives.  A lot of the older members probably remember hearing about the Luby's massacre in Killeen, Texas.  There was even a woman there who had a gun, but because of state laws at the time, had to leave it in her car.  Had she been able to take it into the building with her, odds are good that Hennard either wouldn't have killed as many people, or would at least have had some resistance to take care of first.  Now, think about the VT massacre.  Both Cho and Hennard knew something before-hand.  It was against the law for anyone to have a gun in both circumstances, so both Cho and Hennard had free reign in a "gun-free" zone.  Said zones create a massive false sense of security, when in fact, a person is without a doubt the most helpless in one of those areas.

Now, before anyone disses what I just said there, let me ask a question.  Why, if armed citizens aren't any good at protecting a situation, why do thieves, when robbing a bank, always take out the guard as soon as they find him?  There are tons of people they could kill if they wanted to, but they specifically make a point of killing the guard as soon as possible.  Why?  They've neutralized their biggest threat when they kill him.

On top of that, history has shown us that it's foolish to try to use gun regulations to prevent crime.  Washington DC taught us that when you disarm the citizens, like they had laws for until not that long ago, you create a crime infested zone, and DC quickly earned the title of "Murder Capital of the Country [if not the world]."  Now that citizens can arm themselves, if they do, the people intent on robbing and killing the other ones will quickly find out that they may need to rethink what they're going to do to someone, because the won't know if the person they want to violate is armed or not.  And this will mean that crime will drop.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Several years back, it was revealed that banning guns in S Africa brought a huge increase in the killings of police officers...for their guns. They lost, or so I read, 1500 officers in one year, often by groups of teens carrying machetes.

The Second Amendment, it has been said, is the one that guarantees all the others.
Granted, some people can't be trusted. And you do what you can.

[Easy Bakes 253]

There was a reason that  was put in to the Bill of Rights.

The people we rebelled against ( the leaders anyway) knew this fact:

Its harder to rebel against the ones in charge if your unarmed.

This kind of thinking goes back long before there were fire arms

when serf/ peasants were not allowd to own martial weapons( swords/armor ect).

[Mikemat5150 0]

Ah, I needs my guns. How can I shoot stuff without guns?

[manman99 2]

we have to take the "world today" into consideration.  I would rather have a gun, and not need it, then to need a gun and not have one. 

Of course, guns are dangerous, but just like the next person to with the right, i need one.  And this "world today" is going mad.  People guns, but dont need them, other people need guns, but dont have them.  Its a basic concept of trial and error, do you take the chance and shoot someone, or do you save your rights and have one, and not need one?

Gangs, persons like Virginia tech, have guns, but dont need guns. 

Its all about how you use the right given to you.  I say, no, the right should definetely not be repealed. 

It promotes safe and unsafe practice, and keeps people on their toes.

[Meg 368]

I’ve always wondered what, exactly, it is supposed to mean.

 

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.quote>

 

 

That is not a sentence that can be diagrammed. (Do they still teach kids how to diagram sentences?)   What are the subject(s) and verbs there?

 

If X is “A well regulated Militia” and Y is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, then it reads:

 

X, being necessary to the security of a free State, Y, shall not be infringed.quote>

 

 

Logically, what does that mean? Don’t get me wrong; I think our Founding Fathers had some brilliant ideas but their grammar here is terrible.

 

There are many ways to use pieces of that to make a logical sentence:

 

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.quote>

 

 

But then, where would the “well regulated Militia” fit in?

 

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.  Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.quote>

 

So people can keep and bear arms if (and only if?) they are in that well regulated militia?   It doesn't say that.

 

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.quote>

 

 

Oops, lost the well regulated militia again.

 

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to maintain a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.quote>

 

 

That’s the best I’ve been able to manage. But we know darn well that no one died and appointed me the editor of the Constitution.   But I would like to know what they meant.

 

But, all of that aside, this amendment isn’t going to be repealed any time soon. And I don’t think it should be.   Making guns illegal wouldn’t solve anything. We have well worn distribution networks for illegal goods. The criminals would still have the guns.

 

 

[crazyyaya 4]

The second ammendment is obsolete. The bill was made into law to protect the country. So american colonists could protect thier land from the possiblilty of British invaders. Today America has a powerful, overbloated military armed with a nuclear arsenal to protect itself. Did you know america has the most civilian guns per captia ( 90 guns in civilian hands per 100 people). In second place is India with 4 guns per 100 people.

Humans are smart enough to create guns but not responsible enough to hold them. - Crazyaya

[Zelgadis 638]

The primary problem I've always had about the second amendment is that it was written when the most fearsome weapon in existence was a cannon.  So, given modern times and interpreted literally, it gives citizens the right to bear nuclear weapons.

In my view, (outside of hunting), only the fearful have guns.  I do not let fear rule my life.  If I am to be killed by a maniac with a gun, so be it.  If the next terrorist attack has my name on it, so be it.  I'm not going to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder.  I've had enough of that.

ISF

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and to maintain a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.quote>

I think that moves too much around such that some meaning and connections are changed or added, so much so that the rewording suggests that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is what is necessary to the security of a free state, with the militia being a convenient secondary venture. While some might argue that principle, the amendment does not explicitly say that. The original seems to read that the rationale was in the Militia being necessary for the security of the free State, and that in light of that necessity, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A better rephrasing would be:

As a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

This does not explicitly require that the people necessarily be in a well regulated Militia, only that the people have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, and it is implied that it is from such people that a well regulated militia can be had. The establishment of a Militia isn't even being required, thought it does strongly suggest that we should have one if we want to secure a free State.

But, oh well, I also don't read it as forbidding restrictions on specific classes of weapons, tracking devices, multiple safety features, safety classes, hefty public safety taxes, and deeply compiled registration and watch lists. Afterall, it says you can keep and bear arms of some sort...it says nothing about the rest of us knowing that you keep and bear them, nor deciding what sort they can be. "Infringed" is a nebulous word indeed...

Of course, we need only look at the U.S.'s gun crime statistics compared to other democratic industrial countries to wonder if something is wrong or not.

But we all know the Feds and their liberal puppetmasters in the Sinister Evil World Government are coming, so stock up now!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Do they still teach kids how to diagram sentences?

quote>

quote>

No. I first heard of "Diagramming a sentence" when it was mentioned in A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Louis Peck, which my class read in 10th grade English. They do still teach kids (usually in late elementary into middle school) all about the various parts of speech and whatnot, but most consider such stuff boring, useless, nerdy knowledge and quite willingly forget it all over the summer. The place where a lot of those terms end up coming back and being necessary to use is in High School and/or College when you study a foreign language. I remember my Italian teacher saying we were going to learn direct object pronouns and I was the only one in the entire class who had any clue what those were. He had to go and explain "well, that's stuff like him/her, us, etc. pronouns you use for something the verb is acting on as opposed to the subject of the sentence."

-----------------

Anyway, onto the topic at hand, the second amendment is not going anywhere. Repealing of a constitutional amendment requires another constitutional amendment, which requires that it be approved by 2/3rds of the states in the union (today that means at least 34 states), and, the since second amendment is part of the original bill of rights, touted as one of the most important documents in the history of  not only our country buit the whole world, it's not getting touched. I know a lot of Europeans and people from other parts of the world are much more pro-gun control as they see guns as not serving much more of a purpose than being weapons to hurt and kill people with. In America, not too many people hold that view, and in order to understand why we have such a "bold" amendment, one must understand the history behind it. One of the ways the British Empire tried to keep the colonies in line was by banning commoners from owning guns. Since the Colonial Army in the revolution consisted almost entirely of common citizens (farmers, tradesman, etc.) who decided to grab guns and fight for their rights, in the beginning days of the US the right for people to carry weapons was considered very important, lest at some point in the future the government become oppressive again and another revolution be required. It was well understood that the main purpose of guns was not as weapons of aggression but as tools for defense of oneself, one's property, and one's rights. I forget who said it, but some important figure early in US history said that it was not only the right but the duty of the American people to take up arms and overthrow their government should it become oppressive. Also note that at the time it wasn't intended that the federal government would ever amass too many armed forces, that the country's defense would come from smaller state-run armies and local civilian militias. Of course, as time went on and technology advanced, it became such that there were tools of war which are too dangerous to haven just anyone to possess, and so the federal army grew much larger as it was mostly them that would be using these weapons. You don't see local civilian militias anymore (such is considered primitive now), but those state-run armies still exist in the form of the National Guard.

It's been 218 years since the bill of rights went into effect, and times have changed significantly, so the practicality of the second amendment can be called into question a bit. As zelgadis said, technically it means citizens should be able to buy and keep nuclear weapons... of course, that isn't at all practical, but people being able to own guns nevertheless remains an important right. Though the idea of taking up arms and fighting the government isn't anywhere near being on too many people's minds (even the anarchist types usually only advocate violence against police, not unarmed government workers or politicians), they nevertheless remain important as tools of self defense, especially in higher crime areas. If someone tries to break into your apartment, a gun is a useful thing to have. Of course, the same can also be said about people who live in very rural areas. In a densely populated area, someone is bound to notice such activities occurring and inform the police and perhaps even intervene themselves, whereas if you live out in the middle of nowhere, there's a good chance that no one will be there to hear you scream for help, and thus you need to be able to defend yourself because no one else will be there to defend you, either from a burglar, wild animal, or some other type of threat. Not to mention that guns get used for hunting, too. There are many places in the country where invasive animal species are overpopulating the area and outcompeting the local species, and thus local governments may allow and even encourage hunting them for sport as a way of helping keep them under control.

Guns need to be kept legal, but within reason. I'm all for requiring that you need to be 18 to buy one, need a license to carry one (for which you need to pass a test showing that you know the gun's safety features and proper precautions, and are aware of the laws restricting their use), and not be permitted to purchase one if you have any violent crime convictions on your criminal record. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles should all be perfectly legal within this. Assault weapons aren't quite as generally useful, but I'd be in favor of permitting them to be owned by anyone who's ever served in the armed forces and was not discharged dishonorably. Anything explosive (grenades, RPGs, etc.) would still be beyond the rights of civiliains.

[Easy Bakes 253]

You can have stong controls on guns with out

infringing on the right to own them.

provided you register and are not a convicted fellon

Background checks, no automatic weapons waiting lists

are a good start. That is if these things were enforced.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, the general public running around with automatic weapons as such doesn't constitute a "Well regulated militia" now does it?

Maybe an amendment should pass that stated only active members of the state or federal National Guard should have the right to bear arms other than the regular forces.

[hamsterTK 93]

You can have stong controls on guns with out infringing on the right to own them.quote>

thats kind of my view on it

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body 

Well, the general public running around with automatic weapons as such doesn't constitute a "Well regulated militia" now does it?quote>

No, it doesn't.   Which is why I wish they had done a better job of composing that sentence.

Maybe an amendment should pass that stated only active members of the state or federal National Guard should have the right to bear arms other than the regular forces.quote>

 

Well, that would be one way to increase enrollment in the National Guard.

[MrCinatit 30]

The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. The gun lobby is as strong as the oil, cigarette and alcohol lobbies. And, as we are finding out, it is the lobbiests who are running things in Washington, not the People.

[ShortStraw 1]

Well, if you're using the "militia" idea to support legal gun ownership then you kind of have to support the broad wording that allows for ownership of all sorts of nasty weapons.  After all, if the civilian population can only have shotguns and hunting rifles they're not going to be a very effective opposition to the U.S. Army and friends.  This milita would need to be sufficiently armed so as to be comparable in firepower to their potential enemy (the corrupted U.S. government).

What's more, for all practical purposes the National Guard is just a branch of the U.S. Army.  I have friends in the guard who are even now huddled down in the desert far from their home nation slugging it out with foreign defenders on foreign soil. So I don't think the National guard or Reserves or Coast Guard really counts as a civilian militia.  Though they certainly are well regulated.  Just like the rest of the federal government.

I actually tend to think that our current gun laws are about as good as they can get for our current set of circumstances.  I'm pretty happy with the level of enforcement going on right now.  It may be different in other parts of the country but around here one cannot buy explosives or fully automatic weapons (machine guns) without going through some lengthy qualification processes, even if you manage to meet all the legal requirements, you're not gonna get fully automatic combat rifles and hand grenades (much less nukes, heh) legally.  You can get a license to carry, openly or concealed, but it does require a qualification process that includes gun safety and education classes as well as fairly extensive background checks.  I assume this is working since most gun deaths around here are not caused by registered weapons in the hands of licensed individuals.  The well enforced waiting period on handgun purchases seems to be a pretty effective deterrent for  "crimes of passion", forcing people to use knives, baseball bats, gardening tools, etc when they catch their spouse cheating or lose too many hands of poker on a heavy drinking night.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that most of the suggestions I'm seeing in this thread for controlling guns are already in use in my home state and are working as far as I can tell.  I found an interesting CDC (Centers for Disease Control) site here that tells me in 2004 (latest data) my state (Arkansas, Pop. 2.75 million according to the site) had 406 firearm related deaths.  Here's a quick breakdown of the data from that site...

Total Firearm Deaths- 406

Accidental- 16

Police Action (cops shot someone)- 6

Homicides- 141

Suicides- 232

Anyway, that's the best I could do on numbers in short order.  I hope the CDC site is a reliable enough source.  Check it out regardless, it has all sorts of interesting info (Twice as many people here died in transportation related incidents as in gun related...that sort of thing).  All that statistical and whatever data notwithstanding, I've seen much of this stuff with my own eyes.  My parents have been cops in this state for over 20 years now and growing up in a police household I picked up on a few things.  Things like, the guns confiscated from criminals are generally  un-registered and illegally acquired low quality weapons.  The people these guns are confiscated from are not generally what you would call "gun nuts" but rather opportunistic petty criminals who often display an alarming ignorance about their weapons of choice.  The above numbers on homicides vs suicides seem to support what I've seen as well since my parents responded to many more gun suicides than gun homicides over the course of their careers.  I could go on but this post is getting quite long.

To sum up, I think we're on the right track concerning gun control.  Improvements can always be made of course and the system is far from perfect but considering that most of the people in my state legally own some sort of firearm or know someone who does and still manage to NOT kill anyone is encouraging.

Also, just for the record, at heart I am an idealist and would love to see conditions where gun ownership could be abolished in my country.  I admire countries that have absurdly low gun deaths due to strict gun control policies and I wish it could be that way here.  Unfortunately, the reality of the situation seems to be that we're doing the best we can with what we have.  Thanks for getting this far if you actually read all this and all apologies to Skigeek for my atrocious sentence structure.

Edit: Oh yeah, and the lobbyists aren't really impressing me all that much.  Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are astronomical, driving consumption (and profits) way down.  The successful lawsuits against "Big Tobacco" have gelded that particular beast despite the best efforts of a small army of lobbyists.  The fact that I can't go out and buy a combat ready AK-47 or hand grenade and my 14 year old nephew can't even buy a paltry little .32 auto handgun at Wal-Mart suggests that gun lobbyists are dropping the ball as well.  Oh well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men and all that...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw 

What's more, for all practical purposes the National Guard is just a branch of the U.S. Army.  I have friends in the guard who are even now huddled down in the desert far from their home nation slugging it out with foreign defenders on foreign soil. So I don't think the National guard or Reserves or Coast Guard really counts as a civilian militia.   quote>

But they are supposed to be a civilian militia.  imho, they don't belong overseas; they are supposed to be protecting the homefront.  

and yes, I am saying the National Guard is being horribly misused at present.  I still want to know who the idiot was who thought it was a good idea to send the Louisiana National Guard overseas during hurricane season.  They sure would have helped matters during Katrina if they were where they belonged.

Thanks for getting this far if you actually read all this and all apologies to Skigeek for my atrocious sentence structure.quote>

 

LOL -- I'm normally not a grammar nazi.  and I know there are times when government is deliberately ambiguous. but there are times when more clarity would be useful.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Well, the general public running around with automatic weapons as such doesn't constitute a "Well regulated militia" now does it?quote>

That kind of depends.  I may be wrong about this, but I remember reading at one point that every able-bodied man between 18-50 in Switzerland is in the military and keeps their standard issue weapon with them.  Seems to work for them just fine.

Maybe an amendment should pass that stated only active members of the state or federal National Guard should have the right to bear arms other than the regular forces.quote>

Which is basically the exact same thing as repealing the Amendment.  I, for one, never want to see that happen.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Maybe an amendment should pass that stated only active members of the state or federal National Guard should have the right to bear arms other than the regular forces.quote>

 

Well, that would be one way to increase enrollment in the National Guard.quote>

quote>

[iamihop11 19]

Voar Tok: "Why, if armed citizens aren't any good at protecting a situation, why do thieves, when robbing a bank, always take out the guard as soon as they find him?  There are tons of people they could kill if they wanted to, but they specifically make a point of killing the guard as soon as possible.  Why?  They've neutralized their biggest threat when they kill him."

This is in defense of the continued proliferation of gun use?  Doesn't that show exactly the problem?  If none of the victims had had weapons, then NONE of the victims would have been shot in the robbery...there wouldn't be a threat.  Let them have the money and let armed law enforcement track them down later...it's better than a civilian having a shoot-out with a bank robber.

Voar Tok: "On top of that, history has shown us that it's foolish to try to use gun regulations to prevent crime.  Washington DC taught us that when you disarm the citizens, like they had laws for until not that long ago, you create a crime infested zone, and DC quickly earned the title of "Murder Capital of the Country [if not the world]." 

Curiously, it has little to do with gun control laws.  DC stole the title of "murder capital of the world" from Richmond, VA, a gun-infested city with little control.  Also, DC is still crime-ridden, and it has more to do with economics (the city itself is very poor compared to the surrounding suburbs) than government policy.

I will never own a gun -- I can promise you that, and you know what else I can promise you? I will not be killed by my gun or in a shoot-out with someone else. Since an extraordinary number of suicides are carried out with hundguns, it stands to reason that without them, fewer people would die. Guns are appealing because if done "right" one simple movement can complete a suicide with little time for pain. It's the route for those who wouldn't have the nerve or depression to kill themselves in other ways. Americans live in a society rampant with fear. Part of this comes from a feeling that we need to arm ourselves because everyone is out to get us, and the abundance of guns and terror ensures that plenty of tragedies do occur. The cycle will not end until we stop fearing everyone around us. Change the constitution? No need; we've already skewed the interpretation of it to enable everyone to own weapons to use on each other, not in defense of our country.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: iamihop11 Voar Tok: "Why, if armed citizens aren't any good at protecting a situation, why do thieves, when robbing a bank, always take out the guard as soon as they find him?  There are tons of people they could kill if they wanted to, but they specifically make a point of killing the guard as soon as possible.  Why?  They've neutralized their biggest threat when they kill him."

This is in defense of the continued proliferation of gun use?  Doesn't that show exactly the problem?  If none of the victims had had weapons, then NONE of the victims would have been shot in the robbery...there wouldn't be a threat.  Let them have the money and let armed law enforcement track them down later...it's better than a civilian having a shoot-out with a bank robber.quote>

Yes, and no - that was to prove a slightly different point.  It has been said before on other occasions that the idea of a criminal running into someone that is armed doesn't bother them.  Well, if that's true, why do they kill the guard first?  Obviously, it does bother them.  Despite the "Dumbest Criminals" stuff that they do on TV, the majority of them are fairly intelligent.  They know what their primary threats are, and they know what that means.

However, you mentioned a couple of interesting points.  Just because someone in a bank raid doesn't have a gun doesn't at all mean that they won't get shot.  All it means is that if the guy robbing the place decides that they're a threat, they're basically helpless.  Odds are very good that if a person is staring at them with a gun and telling them that they're about to die, they'd love for their to be something they could do about that.

Now, the other point is this.  Let's just say that what you said about if no one had guns, then no one would get hurt is actually true.  What do you do when the person didn't come there for money?  Cho didn't want money from the students and Virginia Tech, and Hennard didn't want money from the people in that Luby's.  Both of them were there to kill people.  Doing something like "here take the money!" isn't going to be worth a flip when they want to kill you and don't care about money.

Voar Tok: "On top of that, history has shown us that it's foolish to try to use gun regulations to prevent crime.  Washington DC taught us that when you disarm the citizens, like they had laws for until not that long ago, you create a crime infested zone, and DC quickly earned the title of "Murder Capital of the Country [if not the world]." 

Curiously, it has little to do with gun control laws.  DC stole the title of "murder capital of the world" from Richmond, VA, a gun-infested city with little control.  Also, DC is still crime-ridden, and it has more to do with economics (the city itself is very poor compared to the surrounding suburbs) than government policy.quote>

But A) there is a reason why they took the title away from Richmond, which only strengthens the original point, and B) the economics of it doesn't change much, because in rural Texas, there are lots of people who barely make ends meet, but they don't have rampant crime problems because the thieves all know that as soon as they get in the house, they're going to get their heads blown off.

I will never own a gun -- I can promise you that, and you know what else I can promise you? I will not be killed by my gun or in a shoot-out with someone else. Since an extraordinary number of suicides are carried out with hundguns, it stands to reason that without them, fewer people would die. Guns are appealing because if done "right" one simple movement can complete a suicide with little time for pain. It's the route for those who wouldn't have the nerve or depression to kill themselves in other ways. Americans live in a society rampant with fear. Part of this comes from a feeling that we need to arm ourselves because everyone is out to get us, and the abundance of guns and terror ensures that plenty of tragedies do occur. The cycle will not end until we stop fearing everyone around us. Change the constitution? No need; we've already skewed the interpretation of it to enable everyone to own weapons to use on each other, not in defense of our country.quote>

I'm sitting here, defending a right that guess what, I'll never use for it's intended purpose.  I don't really particularly feel the need to have a gun to protect myself.  I defend this right for different reasons.  It's a right that I as an American am given by the government, and the only way that they can legally take it away from me is by getting the approval of the nation.  And what's more, history has shown that disarming the citizens usually leads to stuff you don't want happening, like it did in Germany with Hitler.  I'm not saying that caused it, but it isn't at all coincidence that it was one of the first things he did.

EDIT: While I'm thinking about it, there are far easier and better ways to kill yourself than a handgun.  You can OD on sleeping pills, which even if you screw it up, won't leave you in a world of pain like a poorly done suicide attempt with a handgun.  Alternatively, you can drink yourself to death, which is even easier to do than the sleeping pills thing, and you might even have fun doing it.

[ShortStraw 1]

 

LOL -- I'm normally not a grammar nazi.  and I know there are times when government is deliberately ambiguous. but there are times when more clarity would be useful.

quote>

Heh, sorry, didn't mean to imply that you're grammatically  "uptight" SkiGeek.  I was sincerely admitting my own cruddy sentence structure...I tend to  input  my thoughts directly  into the keyboard with little editing which results in run on sentences, misplaced commas(poorly placed parentheses), alliteration, and all sorts of other problems that keep my point from getting across.  Besides, you can't be a grammar nazi, you failed to capitalize the first letter in the last two sentences of your post .

Maybe the Founding Fathers were being "deliberately ambiguous" in their wording as an acknowledgment to the fact that they couldn't possibly predict all the variables that would arise after their time.   They surely knew Americas potential for greatness (were perhaps even obligated to know this) and probably understood that the globe would grow beyond imaginable limits in many spheres of knowledge and influence.  Therefore they spoke in ambiguous yet far reaching terms in order to personally and directly address people like you and me and Voar Tok and MrCinatit and that hamster guy and, of course N_O_Body and Easy Bakes and Duke and...well, you get where I'm going with this I guess....in other words, maybe when it came to the sloppy sentence structure of the founding fathers, they meant to do that!   

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that these posts get read, and Voar tok is that for real about Switzerland?  I would gladly carry a weapon and "standby" for my country between 18 and 39 (my current age is 39 so I cant say how I'd feel after that).  That sounds like what a "civilian Militia" should actually be about...

[Voar Tok 4]

Well, the first place that I read that could be argued as a questionable source, but Wiki seems to agree.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Well, that would be one way to increase enrollment in the National Guard.quote>

Considering that this would give you a large standing army, of sorts, maybe it would be better than a draft.  Carrots are always better than sticks.

Of course, something would have to be done for farmers and hunters who generally use long guns, I really think something needs to be done in your country to fix the general popularity of hand guns.

We have a gun problem here, and all guns in the hands of the unlicensed public are illegal.  However, if the gangs couldn't use the United States as an arsenal, it would be a considerable relief.

[DOXXP29 5]

Look at what the U.S. has become. It's already a police state, particularly after all the post 9-11 laws. There's nothing that some parties would like more than to take away the citizen's right to bear arms. And, as stated above, the D.C. laws are a perfect example of how disarming the populace causes crime to rise. Criminals don't care and won't abide by the laws, so the upstanding citizens are without protection. So, between the criminals having guns and a military and police force that could decide to enforce "new laws" dictated by the government but hated by the people, the populace wouldn't stand a chance.

One may not like guns and may not like gun crimes, but disarming the population as a whole is not the answer. We have fought for freedom and to maintain that freedom, the second amendment is a good thing. Look at Switzerland. Every male is issued a gun at 18. (At least they used to be. I don't think that's been changed, but correct me if I'm wrong.) What is the crime rate over there? Very low.

[Boggy1 45]

I'm gunna write a short post because I'm in college right now.

This is from a British perspective;

Here guns are banned. You need to have a license to own and use one, and the only civilians who have them are farmers. Even historic guns are not permitted. We have an old WW1 baynet rifle, which we had to, by law, take to the local army base, where they inspected it to see if it worked (it did work, much to the dismay of a car whos back window was shattered by the bullet), and so we had to concrete up the barel. It is of course now unusable.

Even our police don't have guns. It's very very rare to find a policeman/woman whos on active duty and is also carrying a gun. It's not part of their uniform. The most they have is usual pepperspray and/or a nightstick. Even those are rarely used.

If I was carrying a gun, I would feel MUCH LESS SAFE. I wouldn't feel protected by it, I wouldn't feel like I could use it to defend myself. If someone with a gun held me up, then there is more chance that I would get hurt if I ALSO had a gun. There if far more chance of a gun battle if both sides have guns, and thus there is more chance of collateral damage.

The Ammendment in question was designed so that you could protect yourself from AmeriIndians, Foreign invaders, wild animals, and the like. Those threats no longer exist. You have the largerst army in the world, and one of the most armed and largest police forces in the world. The second ammendment is ridiculous, and only serves to promote violence.

EDIT: Oops this did turn into a kinda long post.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

The Ammendment in question was designed so that you could protect yourself from AmeriIndians, Foreign invaders, wild animals, and the like. quote>

 

No, the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from an oppressive gov't. An oppressive British gov't was the inspiration!

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I wish it COULD be repealed, but I voted no, because I don't think it can.

Guns are now too widely available in the US to repeal this. It would have very little effect, as people who are serious about their guns wouldn't turn them in in an amnesty.

Thats just my view on the situation. I personally am glad that I live in a country where they are banned (or are supposed to be anyway).

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I wish it COULD be repealed, but I voted no, because I don't think it can.

Guns are now too widely available in the US to repeal this. It would have very little effect, as people who are serious about their guns wouldn't turn them in in an amnesty.

Thats just my view on the situation. I personally am glad that I live in a country where they are banned (or are supposed to be anyway).