The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[LexusInfernus 908]

This thread is about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which has been taken by the general citizenry to be a license to have as many firearms of whatever type they choose at any time, in any place. No matter what people may think, I do not believe that this was the intention of the people who drafted that document. They were basically saying that in order to prevent a despotic government from coming to power, private militias are OK. An individual does not constitute a militia.

Im sure that giving people guns in the beginning of the US it served is purpose. I mean, it was a dangerous place, large places were still unsettled, communication was poor at best in a number of areas. Sure, guns served a purpose there. But today? Are Americans really that afraid of their own democratically elected officials that they need guns to defend themselves in case the evil government decides to take away their liberty? I find this rather funny, that the US, the champion of democracy, one of the two major parties is so afraid of the other major party that they still require guns in case those evil liberals come to take away their freedoms. Whats even better, is that this same party consistently votes in favor of legislative bills that restrict personal liberties in several ways. Think of the Patriot Act or the Republicans consistent anti women and anti gay legislation. Why do they need guns, if their biggest enemy are they themselves?

Notwithstanding some hawkish organizations, it is unlikely that any group could ever overthrow even a state government by force in this day and age. They'd never get enough support, and might not even be able to put together a decent coup d'etat cadre. Most governments are so decentralized that they would have to have a sizeable force to occupy enough of the government to get any kind of control, and then they have the problem of those who would defend the state against all comers. People don't have the stomach for this in North America.

Indeed, as literally no private militia tried to stage a coup when the Patriot Act was voted through, or when Obama gave the presidency power to detain US citizens for an indefinite period of time when they are terrorism suspects.

I don't take it upon myself to state how the populace should live, make broad statements how the political parties are run nor how the governments should govern in countries in which I've never lived.

Im sorry, Im a political science student, and this is pretty much the reason why I started studying political science

Now...since I don't believe in any form of gun regulation (yeah, I'm one of those I-should-be-able-to-own-whatever-I-please gun owners ~ and that includes, but not limited to, a Stinger if I can afford it and if I so desire) I'm only going to comment on issues relating to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the right of the citizens here to bear arms. If you live where your government doesn't trust you to freely own weapons, well then, that's really your problem isn't it and I feel truly sorry for you? If you really believe that when you call for help they'll come running to put their lives on the line to save you...I'd say that you're being a tad delusional. I know what the response time to my location is and by the time any 'help' arrived, whatever threat I had would be over...one way or another.

Granted, the Netherlands is a small country and response times are therefor rather quick. And again, Im not saying people shouldnt have the right to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary. But I do believe that lethal force in a self defense situation should still only be used as a last resort option. And such stand your ground laws like in Florida do not stress such a point at all. In fact, they are pretty much the opposite of this, allowing lethal force pretty much from the start. As for what I said about citizens being able to get out scott free if they claim self defense, I suggest you read for example the self defense law of Florida. It pretty much gives you the right to use deadly force when you have reasonable believes that you are about to get killed, suffer great bodily harm or to prevent an imminent commission of a forcibly felony or when youre defending your home. If this is the case, you are immune from criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits. Yeah, George Zimmerman only has to prove that he had reasonable cause to think that he was about to get hurt or that the guy was about to commit a felony and he walks away with no more questions asked.

Funny thing though, the part about preventing an imminent forcibly felony can be seen as giving neighborhood watches and such the right to play police officer and in all cases they would not be able to get prosecuted in case they make a mistake.

The framers of our Constitution included the 2nd Amendment as a way of deterring a government from trying to enslave it's populace. Since civilians at the time (the ones who would answer a 'call to arms' and form their own Militia) had the same weaponry as any standing army, the playing field was somewhat 'equal'. Could the Framers foresee the advancement in weaponry? No, I seriously doubt that. I do, however, believe that they would hold fast to the theory that civilians should have the same armament as those who might choose to enslave them. Otherwise it's a one-way battle. Until a President decides to declare 'Marshal Law' and strip the 'Posse Comitatus Act' from Federal Law (it prohibits the government from using the military against it's own citizens), it's safe to assume (yeah, yeah, I know) that the military will not be used against the citizens of the United States. Yes, there are loopholes in Posse Comitatus, but, having known a fair amount of both military personnel & law enforcement, it will be very difficult to find a majority serving that would be willing to fire on their fellow citizens. Members of law enforcement also get to see 1st hand the benefits of an armed citizenry. Just because it doesn't apply to whatever country you live in doesn't mean that you know better than anyone living here how things should be run. Those are just your opinions and, if you know the old saying, 'opinions are like...'

I think youd be surprised how many people will willingly follow orders to shoot at fellow citizens. Introduce a stressful situation, humans tendency to defer to people with more authority than themselves, and you have soldiers firing at unarmed mobs in no time. I mean, sure, in peace time everyone will claim different, and about 35% of them will hesitate, but even with 35% less guns firing you can still cause a massacre (refer to the Millgram experiment). Also, its not any different in other countries, so what would make America an exception? Because you all love each other so much? You already have certain religious groups openly claiming that they will put gay people and what not in concentration camps and kick out or kill every liberal and Atheist.

Not that I think it will be necessary. Like I said earlier, I doubt that an armed revolution will happen anytime soon, and the US has by now developed more exact ways of neutralizing troublesome individuals. Why turn the country against the government by openly declaring war on yourself? But okay, thats probably something we should discuss in a different thread.

And just in case y'all (that's a southern term) think that we're all lazy here and wouldn't stand up to a challenge...I held the office of Vice-Commander of a local Militia here in California. Just one of thousands scattered across the country who are more than willing to place our lives on the line to preserve our nation. Can you say the same for yours?

Im not saying youre lazy, Im saying that you are unwilling to give up all the securities for one very big insecurity with almost no chance of success. That is, going to war against the US Federal government because they have become a tyranny.

There's a very good and valid reason that both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution can be printed to fit into a pocket-sized reference book...the Framer's were very much aware that by keeping things simple there would be less room for 'interpretation'.

Technically, the simpler your write a law or a law like document, the more open it becomes to interpretation. Mostly because as time progresses, situations change, new sorts of situations come up, situations the original drafters didnt take into account. That means it becomes highly uncertain how these new situations should be seen in context of the original law. The simpler it is, the less obvious the spirit behind the document becomes, the more it starts to depend on judges. Which is funny, as these judges, who are entirely democratically elected have the final say over what happens in the US. They can veto laws introduced by democratically elected officials because according to them (these 9 people, more often actually only 5) these laws do not fit with a document that is hundreds of years old. Hmm.... Oh well, this might make an interesting topic by itself though, so lets drop it for now.

At one point in our developing nation's history, consideration was given to keeping lawyers from coming here. What does that tell you about the historical view of lawyers and what they've done to the country? The majority (at least this was true a few years ago) of the members of Congress are lawyers. And they're the ones that write the convoluted rules that not even they know what all are in some of the so-called 'laws' that they pass. Time and again, 'laws' that Congress passes are thrown out by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. And my favorite...'But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy' (Nancy Pelosi, 09 March 2010). It turns out that buried in the onerous 'Affordable Care Act' were things like kicking your business taxes higher if you have 20 employees or more, filing a 1099 Tax Form if you spend more than $600 on a single business expenses (like, oh say, a new computer), and on...and on...and on.

Those lawyers have helped establish a bureaucracy. Now, generally people dont like a bureaucracy because it sound so cumbersome, but what they often forget is that the bureaucracy is actually the thing that keeps the country going. They are responsible for the day to day operations of every level of government, they ensure people get their welfare checks, that companies get their building permits, and every other thing the government has to do on a day by day basis. While at the top level presidents, governors, senators and what not get replaced every time and the broad policies change radically, these lawyers you so despise make sure everything gets translated into actual policy that can be done by the lower levels of the government. Every nation that does not have these things in order are corrupt like in China or Russia, or utter anarchy like in many parts of Africa. Though I suppose that having a gun would come in handy if that were the case.

And just a few quick quotes from some of the people who helped to form this nation. I think that it's a safe assumption that they might be the ones who knew what they meant to say

Indeed, to bad they are all dead so you cant ask them what they meant when they said that.

  Edited August 25, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@Hell Law: Congratulations on making a new verb 'to bad'. (I think you really meant 'too bad') but if not, then I wonder how it would conjugate from the infinitive? Perhaps: I bad, thee badst, he/she/it bads, we bads, you bads, they bads? There is no doubt in English that 'any noun can be verbed' but an adjective?

And by the way, the nominative case of law in Latin is just lex and the combining form is leg-. This is later Latin, too. I seem to remember the term for 'code of law' is iuris iurandum with both nouns declined in usage.

Now, maybe we can get back to the subject of this thread?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Im sorry, but English isnt my first language. I often make mistakes when it comes to the use of 'to' and 'too' and 'your' and 'you're'. I know the difference between the words, but I often forget to check for it. Anyways, lets return to the topic of guns and the second amendment.

As Im sure you've gathered by now, I oppose such a thing as the second amendment. At least in its current form.

  Edited August 25, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think any person living outside the United States probably agrees to that. The only other armed camp that I know of is Switzerland, and I am not sure that after military service the reserve are allowed to keep their weapon any longer.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The Constitution of the United States of America needs to be amended. It is long overdue and certain things have been made into federal law that could much easier be made into amendments. One could theoretically overturn the second amendment with a new one but it is in the Bill of Rights.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I think any person living outside the United States probably agrees to that. The only other armed camp that I know of is Switzerland, and I am not sure that after military service the reserve are allowed to keep their weapon any longer.

I think the Swiss can keep their gun when they go home, and are even expected to maintain and train with it. Although I think youre not permitted to walk around on the street armed if youre not in uniform or something, and the discussion about this rule was getting louder. These guns are often used in sucides or murder suicides.

[krbe 193]

And just a few quick quotes from some of the people who helped to form this nation. I think that it's a safe assumption that they might be the ones who knew what they meant to say

Indeed, to bad they are all dead so you cant ask them what they meant when they said that.

Imagine witnessing the transformation of ius into fas. Fascinating, especially considering this has happened in country which shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

I think any person living outside the United States probably agrees to that. The only other armed camp that I know of is Switzerland, and I am not sure that after military service the reserve are allowed to keep their weapon any longer.

I think the Swiss can keep their gun when they go home, and are even expected to maintain and train with it. Although I think youre not permitted to walk around on the street armed if youre not in uniform or something, and the discussion about this rule was getting louder. These guns are often used in sucides or murder suicides.

Yes people will commit suicide by firearms as a means, but the question what is the % per 100,000, and it is way lower then in countries like Japan, were there are no firearms and yet suicide is still high. People will do it if they are serious enough.

We must not forget that the side of a country like Switzerland also eschews its statistics, as far more people in England kill themselves per year then in Switzerland, even if the rate is lower.

I feel that the prevalence of firearms will have little effect on lowering the suicide rate, since people will find alternative means. Now the Netherlands you can even own fully automatic assault rifles, which makes me jealous, since owning a semi automatic look alike here in jersey gets you pulled over for fun. And yet your suicide deaths are lower then england, yet the percentage is roughly the same. So firearms ownership doesn't play that much of a role in death then it is perceived to be.

i could go on and on about rates of suicide, but i posted an article up somewhere on another forum but i have to find it. made a good debate argument, where it shows that rapes and MDK are lower in countries or areas with high firearm ownership, such as the USA, but are higher in England and other guns restricted areas. Mainly i feel the leech pin on all of this has to do with conceal carry.

  Edited October 7, 2012 by pepsi71ocean  

[Duke87 1,070]

The very valid point here is that any correlation between gun legality and homicide or suicide rates has plenty of exceptions and thus is rather weak. Means and motive are two different things entirely - having a gun won't make you want to kill someone, and not having one won't stop you from doing so if you really want to.

It's a question of culture more than anything else. The countries with the highest suicide rates are the countries where the culture is least tolerant and understanding of people being different from what is defined as "normal". In a country like Japan, where there are a lot of expectations of you which it is considered a shame upon you and your family if you fail to meet, you can understand why the suicide rate is high. Lots of people getting shamed and thus depressed.

And similarly, the countries with the highest homicide rates are the countries where violence is the most glorified and most tolerated. So long as you have kids thinking it's cool to join a gang and get into rumbles with rival gangs, it's going to keep happening, guns or no guns.

And then you have to consider the rates of other crimes. There are places in cities in the US where it is genuinely dangerous to be after dark. Not that anyone's going to be looking to kill you (it's very rare that someone will kill a random stranger), but getting raped or mugged on the other hand... if you are unfortunate enough to be stuck living in such a neighborhood it is only common sense that you should not walk around unarmed.

[LexusInfernus 908]

[Yes people will commit suicide by firearms as a means, but the question what is the % per 100,000, and it is way lower then in countries like Japan, were there are no firearms and yet suicide is still high. People will do it if they are serious enough.

We must not forget that the side of a country like Switzerland also eschews its statistics, as far more people in England kill themselves per year then in Switzerland, even if the rate is lower.

I feel that the prevalence of firearms will have little effect on lowering the suicide rate, since people will find alternative means. Now the Netherlands you can even own fully automatic assault rifles, which makes me jealous, since owning a semi automatic look alike here in jersey gets you pulled over for fun. And yet your suicide deaths are lower then england, yet the percentage is roughly the same. So firearms ownership doesn't play that much of a role in death then it is perceived to be.

i could go on and on about rates of suicide, but i posted an article up somewhere on another forum but i have to find it. made a good debate argument, where it shows that rapes and MDK are lower in countries or areas with high firearm ownership, such as the USA, but are higher in England and other guns restricted areas. Mainly i feel the leech pin on all of this has to do with conceal carry.

What?! I can own a fully automatic assault rifle?! Since when?

No, trust me, you cant own a fully automatic assault rifle in the Netherlands, unless youre in the army and on duty. It is even illegal to carry around imitations of fire arms (airsoft guns that resemble actual guns for example). Civilians can at best carry around airpressure guns and even then not outside their own property.

You can get a permit for owning actual fire arms, usually for hunters and people who are part of a shooting club, but even then the kind of weapon you can own is restricted to I think just semi automatic pistols.

  Edited October 7, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[pepsi71ocean 2]

[Yes people will commit suicide by firearms as a means, but the question what is the % per 100,000, and it is way lower then in countries like Japan, were there are no firearms and yet suicide is still high. People will do it if they are serious enough.

We must not forget that the side of a country like Switzerland also eschews its statistics, as far more people in England kill themselves per year then in Switzerland, even if the rate is lower.

I feel that the prevalence of firearms will have little effect on lowering the suicide rate, since people will find alternative means. Now the Netherlands you can even own fully automatic assault rifles, which makes me jealous, since owning a semi automatic look alike here in jersey gets you pulled over for fun. And yet your suicide deaths are lower then england, yet the percentage is roughly the same. So firearms ownership doesn't play that much of a role in death then it is perceived to be.

i could go on and on about rates of suicide, but i posted an article up somewhere on another forum but i have to find it. made a good debate argument, where it shows that rapes and MDK are lower in countries or areas with high firearm ownership, such as the USA, but are higher in England and other guns restricted areas. Mainly i feel the leech pin on all of this has to do with conceal carry.

What?! I can own a fully automatic assault rifle?! Since when?

No, trust me, you cant own a fully automatic assault rifle in the Netherlands, unless youre in the army and on duty. It is even illegal to carry around imitations of fire arms (airsoft guns that resemble actual guns for example). Civilians can at best carry around airpressure guns and even then not outside their own property.

You can get a permit for owning actual fire arms, usually for hunters and people who are part of a shooting club, but even then the kind of weapon you can own is restricted to I think just semi automatic pistols.

My mothers, sisters husbands son(from former marriage) lives outside of Amsterdam and owns firearms, he has a friend that he goes to the range with that lives near i think Lijnden who owns a Select fire M14. I have seen pictures of them at the range. He came out here (i think its two years ago now) with his kids and i took them all to the range and we shot off my collection there and i know the kids had a blast, and he had alot of fun shooting rifles that he said he can't own because they restrict you to a maximum of 5 guns. He has a few semi automatic rifles, a M14 clone (M1A) and two bolt action rifles. And i think a semi auto shotgun, because pump shotguns are illegal, or is it the other way around, im not sure i haven't seen him in almost two years. although he brought the kids over because he felt that the US is going to follow the Netherlands eventually in gun laws, and that feel his kids may not get to fully enjoy shooting by the time they are 18(At the time). I think the oldest son is now 16 or 17.

But i could be wrong, i never did research out the gun laws in the netherlands, i just know i wouldn't move there, maybe switzerland or Israel but nowehre that restricts guns worse then New Jersey.

Ima going to see if i can find him on FB and shoot him a message and see what the story is, from what i saw two years ago it seems like they had it better then us.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I think those guns are all pretty illegal. It is possible to ask for an exception, though than you have to demonstrate a good reason on why you should be allowed to own such guns. Maybe if he joined some shooting club it might be that they gave him permission to get these kind of guns because of that.

They are getting stricter on it though, after some mentally disturbed kid took his gun collection and went on a rampage in a shopping center. Now you also have to do a mental health evaluation, and the police is going to do all kinds of extra checks on you if you apply for an exception. Though it could still fail, cuz the guy had more guns than he had permission for and some of those weapons where the kind he shouldnt be allowed to have anyways. I think the guys that had to do the checks didnt take their jobs to serious.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In today's global market you can get anything if you are willing to do what is necessary and have enough money.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Sure you can buy a gun online, but that still goes through customs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Sure you can buy a gun online, but that still goes through customs.

That's rather naive, don't you think? There is a black market and you can get anything for enough moolah.

  Edited October 13, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

Sure, but no law abiding citizen is going to buy his gun on the black market. Otherwise he wouldnt be a law abiding citizen. Also, access to the black market generally requires certain connections to certain people. Connections most people dont care to cultivate. The point is, sure you can get anything if you know the right people and places, but most people dont, and dont want to either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Which is why one should avoid generalities, like this.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

3 things...

Sure you can buy a gun online, but that still goes through customs.

I have bought a few guns online, but they still have to be shipped to an FFL first before you pick it up.

2nd thing.. I spoke to my nephew in Holland, i'll have to paste back with his answer when i get it, but he im in a rush atm.

and 3rd.

these idioits remind me of why not to pull a prank like this

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/10/teen-shot-in-head-during-home-invasion-prank/

morons, yes luckly the friend didn't kill his friend with this, but i bet alcohol was involved.

[LexusInfernus 908]

and 3rd.

these idioits remind me of why not to pull a prank like this

http://abcnews.go.co...invasion-prank/

morons, yes luckly the friend didn't kill his friend with this, but i bet alcohol was involved.

Why the hell does a teenager carry a gun?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Why the hell does a teenager carry a gun?

Because in the U.S. he can. A gun is an occasional tool of growing up very fast indeed.

[hym 358]

The article does not stipulate how or why the boy had the gun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The article does not stipulate how or why the boy had the gun.

It was probably his father's (or the household's) gun. In the U.S. no one has to account for guns.

[AcmeSigns 97]

It was probably his father's (or the household's) gun. In the U.S. no one has to account for guns.

If you're unfamiliar with the US's myriad gun laws then I guess I can see the reasoning for such a statement. The truth, however, is that almost every state (probably all, ~ I haven't checked) have laws on their books in regards to the liability of a so-called 'adult' for not properly locking up their guns when minors are present. So, yes, there is 'accountability'. Unless, by your use of the term 'account' you mean that no one else knows who has what. In California where I sadly live, the government knows exactly what guns I own. Hence, I had to 'account' for my guns. But that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The articles stated, 'Jesse Rainey, 15, and seven male friends were spending the weekend at an unoccupied home that belonged to the grandmother of one of the boys...' Note that it says the house was 'unoccupied' (down here in the low country that usually means 'empty'). It does not say whether they had the grandmother's permission to be in said house. It sounds more to me like one of the boys brought the gun with him. Why? Who knows. But it did happen in Alabama where, according to my research ( http://crime.about.c.../gunlaws_al.htm ) the gun laws are pretty lax. However, if you take a look at the link you might notice where is states, 'It is unlawful to sell, give, lend or deliver a handgun to any person under 18...' which leads me to believe that either (a) the person with the gun was over the age of 18 or (b) he acquired it through other means. Someone is clearly at fault here even though they have decided not to prosecute.

And pepsi71ocean...the article also clearly states that, 'Drugs and alcohol were also not a factor in the shooting.' I doubt that Colbert County Sheriff Ronnie May is lying to cover anything up.

I chalk this up to just another instance of stupidity. Yes, they have lax guns laws in the South. That doesn't mean that basic gun handling fundamentals should be ignored. In reality, this kid getting startled and shooting his friend in the head is no worse the the New York City cop that just recently killed a bodega worker when he ran out of his shop that was in the process of being robbed and he, according the officer's report, 'just startled me'. Apparently, neither person in these two instances (the kid or the cop) had the proper training.

  Edited October 25, 2012 by AcmeSigns  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Training is everything when it comes to guns. One of the rules in most jurisdiction is strict lock-up at home, so one of the 'guests' may have had the weapon in his car, which is also a bad habit of our American cousins. My father was a Canadian Customs Officer, and he said the number of guns in the Customs lock-ups at the border stations was staggering.

The most amazing things happen, including peace officers from the U.S. blithely thinking they can cross the border armed to the teeth.

[JayStimson 211]

Why the hell does a teenager carry a gun?

Because in the U.S. he can. A gun is an occasional tool of growing up very fast indeed.

As far as I know ... in every state in the US ... you must be 21 to purchase and own a handgun.

All other gun laws vary widely among the states.

And as far as I know ... Vermont is the only state with realistic gun laws. Convicted criminals are not allowed to have guns. That's it.

What a concept. Freedom for law abiding citizens. Radical, huh ?

And everyone seems to be missing the real point here. The parent's responsibility to teach their children proper gun safety when

firearms are present in the house.

I also wish people would stop taking isolated incidents and using them as a general rule to justify more laws to control everyone else.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The kid said he didn't know the gun was loaded. It also means the safety was off, and he didn't check either. The parents should be taken to task for not training the kid.

[JayStimson 211]

The kid said he didn't know the gun was loaded. It also means the safety was off, and he didn't check either. The parents should be taken to task for not training the kid.

How do you know it was a pistol rather than a revolver ? Did the article say that ?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The kid said he didn't know the gun was loaded. It also means the safety was off, and he didn't check either. The parents should be taken to task for not training the kid.

How do you know it was a pistol rather than a revolver ? Did the article say that ?

At least one of the articles I read said it was a long gun.

[krbe 193]

I also wish people would stop taking isolated incidents and using them as a general rule to justify more laws to control everyone else.

More laws and more rules, please don't force me to think and take decisions. Please make sure there are ample opportunity for the government to put people in prison!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

That is, of course, the problems with statutes. Every country that relies on statute should also have a constitutional rule that for every new statute put on the books, two obsolete ones must be removed. After a couple of centuries, the result would be a very streamlined code of laws.