Second Ammendment Discussion

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Here's a new low in stupidity. [link] A second grader suspended for drawing a stick figure shooting a gun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

More evidence of shrink wrapping kids, and parents who are afraid of society.

Getting back to the second amendment, don't you think that the current rabid groups like the NRA promote such feelings in ordinary folks?  What could be done under existing law or new law to clarify and restrict the idea of "militia".  After all, is it likely that a new revolution would ever be necessary in the United States?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

LOL, plenty of us think one is necessary now....Likely? No, people are too busy texting their BFF about last night's Dancing With The Stars.

[coolotter88 2]

I have the right to my arms, otherwise, how would I do work?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 I have the right to my arms, otherwise, how would I do work?quote>

Yes, but you don't bear arms, you wear arms that are attached to you.  The only thing other than use them you can do is bare arms.

The whole of the second amendment actually seems to be about citizens being able to resist an unjust state.  Wouldn't some better wording be more appropriate?  I am not a constitutionalist so I am really at a loss for the right words here.

Old clauses in the law like this were put in there in different times, for different purposes.  An update with respect to the current republic would be a cool idea, don't you think?  Look at how the language has changed in the 200+ years since this was written.  Things are so different now, a much needed removal of cobwebs should be done.

The original constitution and its amendments are getting a little long in the tooth.  How about a new consitutional assembly over the next few years?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The whole of the second amendment actually seems to be about citizens being able to resist an unjust state.quote>

now thats hiting the nail square on the head.

 

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The whole of the second amendment actually seems to be about citizens being able to resist an unjust state.quote>

That and the Founders didn't really like the idea of a standing army.  For example, Jefferson said something about wishing the nation to be a country of peaceful farmers.  They're idea of what they wanted was a population that would be an army when they needed to be, and regular citizens the rest of the time.

Wouldn't some better wording be more appropriate?quote>

Yeah, the wording is archaic, but I have a feeling the archaic wording is probably better than what would be proposed to replace it.

Old clauses in the law like this were put in there in different times, for different purposes.  An update with respect to the current republic would be a cool idea, don't you think?  Look at how the language has changed in the 200+ years since this was written.  Things are so different now, a much needed removal of cobwebs should be done.

The original constitution and its amendments are getting a little long in the tooth.  How about a new consitutional assembly over the next few years?quote>

How about not.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The whole of the second amendment actually seems to be about citizens being able to resist an unjust state.quote>

now thats hiting the nail square on the head.

quote>

Agreed.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Old clauses in the law like this were put in there in different times, for different purposes.  An update with respect to the current republic would be a cool idea, don't you think?  Look at how the language has changed in the 200+ years since this was written.  Things are so different now, a much needed removal of cobwebs should be done.quote>

There is a process in place to amend the Constitution.  It works just fine; it has been amended half a dozen times in my lifetime.

How about a new consitutional assembly over the next few years?quote>

In the current climate?  Let's hope not.  The Constitution is enough enough assault without deliberately setting out to undermine it.

[DanWalker8 3]

i asked my 11th graders whether or not this amendment is still necessary and they said yes, in order to protect themeselves from those who wish to harm them. I think it relates to the defence of life liberty and property. Even though the founding fathers' idea of a firearm was a 13 pound musket, and not a semi-auto 9mm with a 17 round clip. In all of their wit, they replied what if i miss 16 times?

[Meg 368]

 

Sounds to me like a good argument for requiring a license to own a firearm.  We require a license to drive a car, don't we?  Is there some reason that owners of firearms shouldn't be required to learn how to use a firearm safely?

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body More evidence of shrink wrapping kids, and parents who are afraid of society.

Getting back to the second amendment, don't you think that the current rabid groups like the NRA promote such feelings in ordinary folks?  What could be done under existing law or new law to clarify and restrict the idea of "militia".  After all, is it likely that a new revolution would ever be necessary in the United States?quote>

Regarding Manticores link, That's another indictment against "Zero Tolerance" policy.  Tolerance is not a bad thing.  School officials ought to be allowed a little leeway in deciding what behavior is punishable and what is not.  Every time a school punishes a kid for something stupid like this it involves a "Zero Tolerance" policy somehow.

I don't think an attempt at rewording the entire constitution (or any part therein) to bring it into "modern times" is called for.  I shudder to think how a politically correct modern wording full of legal speak and disclaimers would actually read.  In 100 years it would be at least as awkwardly

 decipherable as the current document..

I won't say that "militias" are valid entities at this point in time but I think the option should be there.  We The People should maintain the right to an armed response to Unjust government  even if the idea of Revolution seems absurd in our present society.

---

Edit

Sounds to me like a good argument for requiring a license to own a firearm.  We require a license to drive a car, don't we?  Is there some reason that owners of firearms shouldn't be required to learn how to use a firearm safely?quote>

We sort of have a half hearted attempt at that now.  You have to obtain a license to legally carry a firearm in public.  When I was in school we had a "Hunter Education" class every year around the opening of Deer Season.  Attendance was more or less compulsory, I think everybody in my class took the course though you could opt out if you really wanted to. Still, that was a few years ago, I don't know if they still do that.  And it probably does nothing to address urban or metropolitan areas (I went to school in a rural area).

I don't think it would be a bad idea to have to take a class or pass a test before you could buy any sort of firearm though.  That's workable and seems reasonable enough.

[DOXXP29 5]

I think what has happened with the second ammendment is that, like everything else in the states lately, the factions have become polarized to the extreme. On one hand you have the gun control zealots who want no weapons anywhere at all and, as Manticore shows us very well, will try to impose a zero tolerance policy which makes even thinking about a gun a punishable offense. On the other side are the neo-militia types who can be found at every gun show that comes around stocking up their arsenals with enough weapons to arm a third world country. To this volatile mix we add the criminals who have become so well armed that police departments have had to reissue newer deadlier weapons because they were being outgunned by the criminals who had more sophisticated weaponry.

What is needed is some sort of balance between access/ownership and control. Americans have the right to own weapons. In recent years, more and more restrictions have been made as to the type and amount of weapons one can buy as well as who is allowed to buy these weapons. I personally don't see any reason why anyone who can pass a test and qualify for a license should not be allowed to own a firearm or even be allowed to carry one. Look at the statistics for the crimes where a gun is involved. The number of crimes committed by people who have a concealed weapons permit and legally own a gun is miniscule. The vast number of gun crimes are committed by people with illegal weapons who wouldn't have been able to purchase them if they tried due to prior felony convictions. Taking away a person's right to own or carry a gun does not reduce crime. As I've noted before, one only has to look at Washington, D.C. as a prime example. Handguns have been totally illegal for the past few decades except for law enforcement personnel and a very few other exceptions. Yet D.C. has repeatedly had the highest rate of murder and other crime involving a handgun. (The few years D.C. wasn't the highest, it was in the top five.) Maybe, though we'll never know for sure, if instead of outlawing handguns, D.C. made it easier for a person to get a concealed weapons carry permit, the overall crime rate in D.C. would have drastically fallen. Instead of having to wait for a cop to come with a gun, would it not be better to have your own immediate access to a gun in the event that a criminal would try to choose you as his victim? Would a criminal not think twice before acting if he knew there was the possibility that you too could be armed? This is something that could be debated forever, but unfortunately, we'll never know what would happen in the latter case because that is something that, as far as I know, has yet to be tried in any major city in the U.S.

Given the recent political climate, especially since 9/11, the government has been doing more and more to minimize, if not outright take away more and more of our individual rights. I can see why, given this climate, that so many people are against anything that would minimize individual rights and give more power to the government. An unarmed populace is a defenseless populace, whether the adversary may be a criminal or a police state government. I'm not a gun owner, nor do I have any particular reason to be. However, it's nice to know that there are enough gun toting citizens out there that if our illustrious leader ever decided to declare that god had spoken to him and told him to be a dictator that he WOULD have a real fight on his hands! That was the original intent of the founding fathers (or at least that's how I see it) and it's as relevant today as it was then. And with all the hype these days about terrorists and how they have cunningly infiltrated society, wouldn't we be better off having the option of owning a gun so that we might be able to defend ourselves and possibly the rest of society against this new enemy?