America: taking guns too seriously since 1776

Honestly, I don't get it. They're just things that make little pieces of metal move really fast. Why are you guys so fixated on them?

Because they are a tool fundamental in survival, defense, and preserving freedom?

I'm alive and free. The police defend me. I've never fired a gun and almost certainly never will.

In fairness, this law does sound like a steaming pile of faeces that won't work at all in practice but at least be honest and say something like "I enjoy it".

When have the police defended you? Police generally respond to events, not prevent them from happening. It is the duty of a man to protect his family and himself. I'm not saying you have to have a gun to do so but there is a clear constitutional protection in place so any law which seeks to diminish a person's ability to exercise their rights needs to be questioned.

Our self defence laws are a bit of a grey area in this litigious age anyway. I'm only being obtuse to illicit an honest reaction, not one of spouting soundbytes doused in hyperbole.

It's perfectly ok to say "I really enjoy shooting my gun, but also I feel it may come in handy for self defence one day". It's honest, it's true and is much more likely to make other nay-sayers see your point of view than saying it's "a fundamental tool" for anything when you know full well nobody needs a gun.

/just sayin'

Go die in a fire

But it is a fundamental tool for many people for the reasons I cited which is the basis for consitutionally protecting the right to begin with. Just because there are many people that would choose never to use a own a gun in order to be better prepared for a survival or defense situation or raise one up in the defense of liberty doesn't mean nobody needs a gun. The all around point is moot, though. Yours and mine. The fact is that it is a protected right which needs no reasons to defend it. Unless we're going to start talking about an ammendment process so that the government may infringe upon our right.

I've written to my Representative and Senator a couple of times on different issues (the new GI bill, offshore drilling, etc). I usually get fairly canned responses.

However, I know someone that works in a state senator's office, doing constituency contact work. According to her, e-mails are mostly disregarded, simply due to sheer volume. Actual written letters get her politician's attention, just because the extra effort and care makes the message stand out. So that's something to consider if you are writing about an issue really important to you.

It's only a few bucks in those vending machines in Bioshock, but that's because of the wonders of free-market capitalism.

Actually, I tend to think it's the other way around. Well, around here, anyway. I completely agree with you, they're just things that make little pieces of metal move really fast. And yet a lot of people in other countries, and even in ours (see california, new york, illinois) act like they are the root of all that is evil. Around here, they're just part of life, in many cases as much as a hammer is. It's just that they have this stigma associated with them in many places....that just doesn't need to exist.

However, we DO take our rights very seriously, and this is one of them the same as freedom of speech, and freedom from illegal search and seizure, if not moreso. It's one of the great equalizers that makes the people of this country more than just peasants. Because each person has the power to defend his rights, and doesn't have to rely on the system to continue working.

Yes, I feel terribly sorry for the rest of the western world, to whom this right has not been given and as a result we are a squalor of feudal oppression. If only we had a gun-laden Walmart or two, only then could we become democracies!

Hey, I'm not in here trying to patronize your country's culture, traditions, and foundations. Please don't patronize me and mine. I'm talking about how OUR country was founded, and the core of OUR country's entire government. That's it.

You still pay attention to Mort-Hog? Why?

Because if I maintained a list of people who I would not talk to on here, it'd pretty quickly approach the point at which I might as well not come here at all. And that's sadtimes. :saddowns:

Regarding writing representatives: There's almost no point. All my representatives are crazy Republicans. They do not, and will not, represent me.

Regarding gun control: I used to be in favor of strict gun control. I assumed, like many do, that the more available guns are, the more crime there will be. However, every time gun laws are relaxed, clime rates go down. And since I think government should be based on pragmatism and actual results rather than ideology, I now oppose most gun laws - including the one mentioned in the OP.

So you accept that the right to bear arms is purely cultural and traditional, much like monarchies in most of Europe? It is not some fundamental cornerstone of freedom and equality, without which the entire structure of democracy will collapse? The observation that free speech and equality (on which your country ranks notoriously poorly, might I add) exist wonderfully without that right shines a light on the fundamental importance (or lack of) of the right to bear arms and its significance in the modern world. Culture and tradition are obviously important in framing a national identity, but this has to be weighed up against the overall impact of preserving tradition for the sake of tradition. All European countries have been through this too, as removing the power of monarchy had long been opposed on the grounds of losing cultural and historical identity (and is currently the opposition to modern republican movements in Europe), but the benefit of not having an institution that leads to indiscriminate fear and murder was eventually seen to overcome the historical importance of preserving it. America is a very young country, but the time will come when America must have that same discussion on the historical relevance of the constitution.

Thought so. Never should have clicked "view post".

No, it is not purely cultural and traditional. It is PART of the culture and tradition, but that is not WHY it is valuable. It is part of the constitution, which is the FOUNDATION of our entire country. Not as a symbol, but as an actual legal document. And yes, I believe that it is a fundamental cornerstone of freedom. Yes I think our system is inherently better than any other system currently in place. I'm just saying I didn't come in here to say "We're right, you all suck, we rule!" I just wanted to explain why we need to protect our rights.

And if you want to talk about who has the most freedom and the most "equality", criticize the US all you want, especially lately, but don't act like any other country is doing so much better.

The United States Constitution, as a legal document, includes provisions and a framework for making changes to the United States Constitution. You could say that altering or repealing an amendment would be an expression of the values the United States was FOUNDED on: the capacity for adapting to changing circumstances.

Or you could just accept the fact that the Second Amendment is the most ambiguously-worded and hotly-debated portion of the Bill of Rights. While it's undisputed that 'bear arms' has military connotations, it's still questioned whether that refers to military service candidacy (per the OED definition dated to 1795) or the personal possession of firearms (per the modern interpretation.) The text of the passage literally refers to personal firearms as an integral prerequisite of a well-regulated civilian militia, which would seem to mandate some form of registration or training for the sake of organization. There's also a debate over historical relevance: does the amendment refer directly to arms as they existed in 1791, in which case people would be entitled to own only a flintlock rifle, or did the authors of the amendment take into consideration the advancement of weapons technology? Even lawyers and constitutional scholars cannot agree on this issue, so your personal preference for uncontrolled firearms ownership means exactly zilch.

Either way you can't claim that the second amendment, in the modern interpretation, is the FOUNDATION of your entire country, since nobody knows what it means and the laws exist so it can be changed. A foundation is immutable. The right to masturbate over your chrome .50 deagle isn't.

people are bound to dismiss your whole post on that misunderstanding of what he said and put their fingers in their ears

To me the text appears quite clear. I think some reasonable debate on minor nuances is understandable but to interpret it as anything other than what it is, the protection against government infringement of personal freedom is silly.



Even considering the military connotations it is difficult for the people to establish a well regulated militia if their right to bear arms has been infringed.

i agree the constitution was written to explicitly allow for changes to be made to it... hence the amendment process. however the fact that it is allowed to change does not mean that change is a necessity.

also...*cough* District of Columbia v. Heller */cough*

Er, actually, it was to protect Americans against the British, as America didn't have a standing army at the time so an invasion would be fought off by local militias. This milita was not another word for armed citizens, it was an organised military force 'well regulated' by state governments (subject to various legal requirements).
Unless America rapidly develops superior cricket skills, the threat of a British invasion is pretty low.

Oh, sure. Every other amendment [in the Bill of Rights] is to limit the government's ability to infringe upon the right of the people but that ONE amendment is to make sure the government doesn't stupidly disarm the military in case the British invade.

Yep, makes sense to me.

It doesn't take a lot of knowledge of history to realize that the second amendment was specifically intended to ensure the legal right of the citizen population of the states to bear arms as a counterbalance to the military presence of the federal government, to prevent it from doing the same thing the british had done, which was of course still fresh in everyone's mind.

So then we have the discussion over what it means to have an armed people. Keep in mind that it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This was to ensure that there would always be a pool of armed citizens who could band together (if needed) into organized militias. I think that just because it's more than 200 years later doesn't mean this is now irrelevant, personally.

Anyway, I'm just between classes, so I can't really go into it right now, but that is how I see the discussion.

lolcalifornia.

For those who think this is a good idea..do you not realize how little 50 rounds is? The qualification course I shoot with my personal handgun takes 72 rounds -- and that's just a qualification!

Yeah, before you even get to the shooting black people part!

If it were 500 rounds, it might, might be a little more reasonable. But for reasons mentioned, regulating ammunition is worthless.

Dude I am in New Hampshire. What black people?

Wrong. We have the discussion over what it means to have a well-regulated armed people. Zero regulations = not well-regulated.

I disagree completely.

1.) People are going to kill people, whether you give them bullets or not. The most effective and easily-accessible way of killing a great number of people, however, involves the use of a firearm. If you reduce the rate a person can obtain ammunition you are measurably reducing their murder rate.

2.) Many people like to collect firearms that are much more powerful than is reasonable, like .50 caliber machine guns or those Vegas gun ranges that have miniguns. If someone only has 6 .50 BMG cartridges he'll have spent his entire magazine before it is physically possible to aim at another person.

3.) You can regulate guns, but you can't regulate C&C lathes.

And you think regulations will stop someone from getting bullets in which to murder with?

That's a silly argument. By your logic we shouldn't bother making anything illegal, since people are just going to break the law to get it anyway.

But it's not illegal, only limited. There will still be plenty of ammunition to be had, and someone's bound to have more than the legal limit.

Well, I read it as "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" meaning that it is necessary (for the security of the free state) that a militia exist, and that the militia be well regulated. Now, in order to facilitate that, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. However, the "people" need not be regulated (necessarily) except when in a militia, and even then the phrasing does not contain any language that would imply that the regulation be by law, and even THEN if it were regulated by law, it says nothing about that law regulating the militia be regulated by limiting access to arms. That's actually quite counter-productive to the whole point of the amendment.

The only strong language (the only true REQUIREMENT) of the amendment is that the right of the people to keep (to own!) and to bear (to USE) arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Everything else is just background information.

It doesn't say "All states SHALL HAVE a well regulated militia." It's a bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of RESPONSIBILITIES. Its only function is to limit the FEDERAL government from infringing on peoples' (and states') rights.

However, the basis of the second amendment is that citizens of the united states have a natural right to keep and bear arms (that's why the government cannot infringe that right). And so, the amendment has been incorporated to apply also to individual states [edit: I should clarify that this has only been done within the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court], such that they also may not infringe upon that natural right.

Regulating the sale of firearms has done nothing to curb murder rates because stolen guns are readily available to those who want the. The same thing will occur should ammunition be regulated. Instead of just obtaining a gun illegally, people who want a gun to commit a crime will obtain a gun and ammunition illegally.

Also, those who collect machine guns have to apply for extra permits to obtain these weapons. They are responsible gun owners to the nth degree. They are not going out with these machine guns and killing people in waves.

To clarify: it isn't a legal limit on the amount you can possess, it's a legal limit on how much you can transfer.

If I'm correct, your impression is that the law exists to proscribe a particular sort of behavior. It's my opinion that most laws exist to provide law enforcement an opportunity to prevent more severe violations.

To provide an example: I imagine gang members do not intend to purchase ammunition from authorized ammunition dealers. This may be a calculated attempt to pin a crime on a particular type of criminal (smugglers or mules.)

About 90% of what I posted is just a joke.

C'mon, that's ridiculous. How many people don't murder someone because 50 bullets a month wasn't enough?

It's not just transferring. It's the having to be fingerprinted to buy ammunition and limits on purchases.

Sure. If someone has perfect accuracy they'll have to make at least one stop per 50 people killed, unless they buy from an authorized ammunition dealer in which case they can buy as much as they want.

Of course, technically they'll be breaking the law again should they 'give' those 50 bullets to people standing below a clock tower.