Jump to content
laripu

The second amendment

Recommended Posts

The second amendment says:

 

"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."

 

But for that militia to be well regulated, it can't just be an undisciplined collection of people with guns.

 

So I propose that everyone that wants to own a gun should undergo mandatory militia training for two weeks a year. It can be provided by the National Guard in the state in which they pay taxes. Employers should be required to give unpaid time off for this purpose. Trainees should be required to pay the cost of the training, just like they must pay to buy a gun.

 

At the same time, the gun owning potential militia members should undergo assessment of their sanity. If it is deemed that they have squirrels in the attic (rabid or otherwise), or have felonies or domestic violence in their record, they should forfeit their guns immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad.  I don't think I want to go get militia training for two weeks every year.  Will you grant exemptions for military service?  For the police?   

 

Two weeks is about 4% of the work-year.  Pew Research says 30% of Americans admit to owning guns.  So, your plan would cost us roughly 1.2% of GDP in lost productivity, leaving aside the cost of actually tracking and conducting the training.  GDP is $19.39 trillion.  So, the lost productivity represents roughly $232 billion annually.  

 

Against that, we would need to estimate how many lives might be saved.   Then, we would need to compare those benefits to the potential benefits we might get by spending that $232 billion in other ways.  

 

Just my gut feeling...I think we could probably do better spending the effort on global warming or building low-income housing or free college educations or....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second amendment was talking about freaking muskets and back then they were legitimately concerned about this new nations ability to hold together. I just wish some type of vision into a potential future regarding this amendment would have taken place. I'm sure if Thomas Jefferson and the other forefathers of this nation could have had a quick peek into the future they would have made appropriate changes and safeguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, laripu said:

The second amendment says:

 

"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."

 

At the time, since there was no standing army, the Militia was "necessary to the security" of the free states.  Now, we have standing armed forces.  The National Guard is the closest thing to a militia and the weapons they use are issued only in military facilities and collected when they leave.  There is no longer any official militia which supplies it's own weapons.  

 

The language of the Second Amendment no longer applies and has been deliberately misinterpreted, in our time, by "gun rights" advocates.

 

1 hour ago, fourputt said:

I'm sure if Thomas Jefferson and the other forefathers of this nation could have had a quick peek into the future they would have made appropriate changes and safeguards.

 

There is no doubt about it.  The writers of the Second Amendment were responding to the conditions of their time in history.  If they could come back today and rewrite it, assuming they would want a Second Amendment at all, it would look completely different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade said:

Not bad.  I don't think I want to go get militia training for two weeks every year.  Will you grant exemptions for military service?  For the police?

 

Exemptions for police, sure, because they get training. Military service gets an exemption for up to one year after leaving service. Exemption for those in the national Guard too.

 

I understand that you don't want to get militia training for two weeks a year. That's the point. Lots of people will not own weapons because they don't want the training or can't afford the time off.

 

6 hours ago, Renegade said:

Two weeks is about 4% of the work-year.  Pew Research says 30% of Americans admit to owning guns.  So, your plan would cost us roughly 1.2% of GDP in lost productivity, leaving aside the cost of actually tracking and conducting the training.  GDP is $19.39 trillion.  So, the lost productivity represents roughly $232 billion annually.  

 

The plan wouldn't cost anywhere near that much because I expect only about 10% of the people who currently own guns would go for the training. There's a lot of big talkers who take pride in their guns, but I'd bet that most of them won't give up two weeks pay and the cost of the training, just in order to have the right to participate in a militia, potentially, with their gun(s). So that cuts the cost by 90% right there.

 

6 hours ago, Renegade said:

Just my gut feeling...I think we could probably do better spending the effort on global warming or building low-income housing or free college educations or....

 

I think we should do all those things too. In fact, if there's free college education, you could include free college gun classes (if they were registered in a degree program).  The two weeks needn't be all in one go... it could be ten Saturdays, 9 to 5 with a one-hour break for lunch.  Every year. It would be so convenient, and yet I'd bet dollars to dimes most of the big-mouth pro-gun people wouldn't take it and would rather give up their guns.

 

Oh, one more thing. They'd have to pass the militia gun test. That could be a problem for those reading at a grade 4 level. They'd have to demonstrate reasonable aim - not perfect, just reasonable. Hit a 5x2 foot paper target, anywhere on the target, 9 times out of 10. And mixed-up nuts should be screened out at the same time.

 

The goal is to make anyone that wants to own a gun responsible, knowledgeable, and aware of their responsibilities. And to reduce the number of guns available in society that can be illegally bought by criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

The language of the Second Amendment no longer applies and has been deliberately misinterpreted, in our time, by "gun rights" advocates.

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

The writers of the Second Amendment were responding to the conditions of their time in history.  If they could come back today and rewrite it, assuming they would want a Second Amendment at all, it would look completely different.

 

Yup, yup, yup and yup.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, laripu said:

I understand that you don't want to get militia training for two weeks a year. That's the point.

 

15 hours ago, laripu said:

I'd bet that most of them won't give up two weeks pay and the cost of the training

 

I see.  If your goal is to make gun owning safer (for everyone) then regulation can be reasonable.  If your goal is to stop people from owning guns, it's not reasonable under the current constitution.  At least, that's how I understand it.  This reminds me of Trump wanting to ask about citizenship on the census form.  He said it was for some purpose, but the court found that his real purpose was to intimidate immigrants.  This also reminds me of some of the restrictions Republicans try to put on abortion.  Again, they say the goal is to make abortion safe, but objective analysis shows that they're really trying to stop abortion.  Since your real purpose is to coerce legal gun owners into not being legal gun owners, I don't think it passes muster until the Constitution is amended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bludog said:

At the time, since there was no standing army

 

This is incorrect.  The US Army traces it's history back to 14 June, 1775 and the formation of the Continental Army.  Our 'standing army' has been in continuous existence ever since.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified on 15 December 1791.

 

I wasn't around in the 18th century, and I'm not enough of a historian that I can confidently argue what they were thinking at the time.  But, I do see a positive purposes for our 2nd Amendment.  I won't even discuss hunting and target practice which are, in my opinion, trivial justifications. 

 

In my opinion, there are two good reasons.

 

Self defense is not trivial.  Crime is a real threat in many parts of the country.  In a perfect world, a policeman is always standing nearby when the bad guys show up.  In reality, that's seldom the case.  My brother lives in a rural area where the houses are about a half-mile apart.  The crime rate in that county is much higher than what you see in a well-patrolled city precinct.  Being poor, and rural, they can only afford a couple of part-timers for an area of about 400 square miles.  The county helps a little, but it's a poor county and the 'cities' are far between.  If you call the county sheriff, he might show up in a couple hours...if he's not already busy.

 

So, my brother has plastered his property (160 acres) with signs like "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and "Fight Crime - Shoot First" and "We don't dial 911".  On any given Saturday, you might find him, his wife, and his four children out on the front porch shooting various rifles and handguns into the pond embankment next to the road.  The whole town knows they're armed and know how to shoot.  Not surprisingly, he and his family have never been robbed, vandalized, or assaulted.   The 2nd Amendment allows them to protect themselves.  I can't imagine what they would do if they were forced to disarm.  

 

The other purpose I acknowledge as significant is to provide private citizens with a check against the power of the government.  I know, that's an old 'talking point' that the NRA has used for years.  That doesn't make it wrong.  In nations around the world, governments oppress people.  In some cases, the people have the ability to fight back.  In others, they don't.  I see private gun ownership as an insurance policy against the possibility that the United States might someday be under oppressive government.  

 

Some on this board have argued that Donald Trump and the Republicans are a threat to democracy in this nation.  If that should happen, whether from the left (Venezuela style) or from the right (Russia style), I believe citizens need the means to physically resist.  Truly corrupt governments don't respond well to peaceful protest.  

 

If it wasn't for private gun ownership, the American Revolution could not have happened.  I think it's more likely than not that we we will need to have another one someday.  

 

I recognize that we pay a price in lives for this insurance policy.  The question is whether or not it's "worth it".  How each individual answers that question will come down to the relative values they assign to life and liberty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Self defense is not trivial.

 

I acknowledge this.

 

34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

check against the power of the government.

 

This part is nonsense. Government power has long exceeded the point where armed civilians can affect it, if the government is sufficiently totalitarian.

 

The real danger is from people who are either crazy or convinced that they have a just cause, and find a way to kill thousands. Because technology advances and people get crazier, technology will soon allow people acting in concert to do McVeigh times 10. Then times 1000. They will find weapons to do this.

 

34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Protected by Smith & Wesson

 

We will not be protected by Smith & Wesson, any more than you can protect yourself from flu with a condom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

This part is nonsense. Government power has long exceeded the point where armed civilians can affect it, if the government is sufficiently totalitarian.

 

Is totalitarianism a one-way street we go down, never to return?  We recently saw several revolutions (the 'Arab Spring', for example), some of which were successful (Egypt for a while, Tunisia).  Syria might have been a success but for Russia.  Some that failed (or haven't yet succeeded) might have had better luck if they had weapons (Venezuela, for example).   

 

3 hours ago, laripu said:

The real danger is from people who are either crazy or convinced that they have a just cause, and find a way to kill thousands. Because technology advances and people get crazier, technology will soon allow people acting in concert to do McVeigh times 10. Then times 1000. They will find weapons to do this.

 

People are getting crazier.  Why?  I can see it happening but I don't even have a theory. 

 

Those weapons ("to do McVeigh times 10"), like the ones McVeigh used, are probably not going to be rifles.  If these WMD's are "the real danger", then why go after law-abiding gun owners?  As I see it, an honest bystander with a gun is a great defense against this sort of thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

This is incorrect.  The US Army traces it's history back to 14 June, 1775 and the formation of the Continental Army.  Our 'standing army' has been in continuous existence ever since.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified on 15 December 1791.

 

This may be technically correct.  However, the framers would not have worded the first phrase  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ", if they didn't believe it to be true.  The framers abhorred the idea of a standing army and a professional military was anathema to most Americans at the end of the 18th century.  The fear of a standing professional military grew largely, out of the American experience with the British army before and during the Revolutionary War.  And after the Revolutionary War was over, the Continental Army was reduced to 700 men in order to greatly weaken it in relation to the Militia.  

 

The second phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  is contingent on the first phrase which postulated the necessity of a well regulated militia.  Since we no longer have a militia which supplies its own weapons, the Second Amendment, as written, is obsolete.  It does not apply, in any way, to the US of 2019.

 

During the War of 1812 the weaknesses of militias first became glaringly obvious and, over the next 100 years militias were completely replaced by the National Guard.  But the Second Amendment was never changed to keep up with a changing America.  It has become an antique which does not address today's issues.

 

https://truthout.org/articles/how-the-second-amendments-militia-became-part-of-todays-standing-army/

 

There are still legitimate reasons why law-abiding Americans should retain the liberty of gun ownership.  But the moribund Second Amendment needs a rewrite to reflect current reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

People are getting crazier.  Why?  I can see it happening but I don't even have a theory. 

 

I have a guess. Actually a couple of guesses, working together.

  1. Some people, a small number, are affected more than the average by physically and mentally by environmental toxins. We're polluting and have been polluting, at increasing levels for 60+ years. Look at your shampoo ingredients, that's going down the drain, times 300 million in the US. Consider that plastics are endocrine disruptors, and that plastics are everywhere. You eat them and breathe them. Then consider the rest of the world polluting too. We're living in our own waste.
  2. Some people, a small number, are affected more than the average by physically and mentally by population stress and job stress and media stress.

Stress+toxins, and most people can easily cope, but some small number can't, and lose it. The worse it gets, two things happen in different time frames: first, society gets uglier and less predictable. More murders. More mass murders. More mass destruction.

 

The second thing, if we last for evolutionary amounts of time, is that the human race evolves resistance to environmental stressors.

 

Just a guess. Personally I'm pessimistic. Every ride has got to end. I think we're coming to the end of this one, a big die-off, about a billion.

Well maybe not. Maybe I'm just a Grumpy Old Man ™.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

Just a guess. Personally I'm pessimistic. Every ride has got to end. I think we're coming to the end of this one, a big die-off, about a billion.

Well maybe not. Maybe I'm just a Grumpy Old Man ™. 

 

Ha ha ha.  I like your trademark but you are thinking realistically;  and in agreement with many in the biological and physical sciences. The vast majority of people are either ignorantly complacent or in denial that the odds greatly favor us joining the over 99% of species which have gone extinct since life started on this critically placed speck.  My own experience is that most uniformly insist that no matter how bad it gets, there will be survivor to carry on.  This is in stark contrast to the large number of physicists and biologists who advocate terraforming Mars to give our species double the chance of avoiding extinction.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

I have a guess. Actually a couple of guesses, working together.

  1. Some people, a small number, are affected more than the average by physically and mentally by environmental toxins. We're polluting and have been polluting, at increasing levels for 60+ years. Look at your shampoo ingredients, that's going down the drain, times 300 million in the US. Consider that plastics are endocrine disruptors, and that plastics are everywhere. You eat them and breathe them. Then consider the rest of the world polluting too. We're living in our own waste.
  2. Some people, a small number, are affected more than the average by physically and mentally by population stress and job stress and media stress.

 

            3. The pace of technological and social change has increased exponentially since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  People's jobs are becoming obsolete and automated at a faster pace with each decade;  Causing more people to feeling helpless, isolated and alienated.   Also the accelerating information glut, of which almost no one can absorb more than a fraction, exacerbates these feelings of social disconnect.  Causing a growing few, at the polar extremes to lash out at their perceived tormentors with deadly violence.  These may be the same few people whose endocrine systems are most compromised by pollutants.  Hence the growing number of severely disturbed young men committing mass shootings.

 

             4. Throughout history, there have been varying degrees of anxiety about war, sometimes severe.  But only in the last 74 years have people had to worry about nuclear armageddon.  And its siblings chemical and biological warfare.  Add to this, anxiety about pollution and, most recently, climate change.  Now Bolsinaro is burning the Amazon, which provides 20% of the world's oxygen;  Plus releasing a huge volume of added CO2 to the atmosphere.  And just yesterday, the Trump administration announcing the relaxing of methane standards.  To many, myself included, it appears we are committing mass seppuku.

 

It probably shouldn't be surprising that so many are in denial.  Or misplace their angst against false culprits, who are usually racial and ethnic minorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some simple statistics:

 

In 2018, there were 14,611 gun deaths in the United States. These were non-suicide gun deaths. Click here for the source of this statistic.

 

The ratio of population is around 327 million to 37 million, i.e. 8.84 to 1, roughly. If Canada had the same number of gun deaths, per capita, as the US, they should have 14,611/8.84 or about 1653 gun deaths.

 

The two countries have similar but not identical cultures. Similar levels of insanity, all the same violent movies, all the same violent video games, all the same TV shows. A bit of Canadian content that you rarely see here, but sometimes it makes it. (John Candy, Kids in the Hall, K.D.Lang, Celine Dion, Leonard Cohen.) 

 

In actuality, in 2017, Canada's gun deaths hit a record high: 266. Click here for the source of that statistic.

 

Conversely, if the US had Canada's rate of gun deaths, we'd have about 266 * 8.84 or about 2351 gun deaths.

 

The difference: gun culture. For gun culture, for the 18th century conception of liberty, we're sacrificing over 12,200 people per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comparison   ^   ^   ^ .     It stands to reason that decreased access to guns, especially semi-auto weapons, which accept high capacity magazines, results in fewer incidents of mass shootings.  When severely disturbed you men, with homicidal fantasies of mass murder are denied easy access to semi-auto, firearms which can be shot rapidly, at high volume, their dreams of mayhem are  far more likely to go unfulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CNN another reason for the increased prevalence mental problems: diets low in essential nutrients.

 

The profit motive has encouraged companies to provide low cost, low nutrition meals that people like eating.

 

On the one hand, some parts of society are losing the culture of home cooking and of families sitting down together for a meal. (I suspect this happens more as you go down the economic ladder.)

 

On the other hand, the food, over time, contributes to depression.

 

We're eating crap, and living in our own waste.

 

The association between diet and depression is true in many developed countries, but only in one is there easy access to weapons that can kill dozens in minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, laripu said:

The two countries have similar but not identical cultures. Similar levels of insanity, all the same violent movies, all the same violent video games, all the same TV shows. 

 

 The difference: gun culture. 

 

You'd know this better than I would, but my perception is that Canadians are far more law-abiding than Americans.  I don't believe violent gang culture is as prevalent there as it is here.   As a result, isn't Canada's overall crime rate far lower than in the United States?

 

11 hours ago, laripu said:

For gun culture, for the 18th century conception of liberty, we're sacrificing over 12,200 people per year.

 

Most of our gun deaths consistently occur in the same areas within the same cities.  New Hampshire has 0.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people (a lower rate than Canada).  On the other hand, the District of Columbia has 18.0.  In Chicago, the rate is even higher.   The root causes of this can be traced to any number of social issues, policy mistakes, and anti-establishment culture.  Residents of these high-crime areas don't have a good relationship with the police, which makes the problem more challenging.  

 

You can argue which is the kindling and which is the match, but when you combine this environment with easy access to guns you get a lot of shooting deaths.  

 

I would prefer to solve the problem by addressing the inner-city violence culture in positive ways (economic development, education, opportunity, etc.) rather than negative ways (taking away their constitutional rights).   What is the next step when they decide (as they certainly would) not to voluntarily surrender their guns?   What freedoms will we take away next?  Perhaps we need curfews?  Warrantless search and seizure?  Surveillance cameras on every street?  Personal tracking devices?   Taking away their guns won't give these people a better life.

 

Unless we address the underlying causes of the violence, it will only continue with other tools.  They'll use clubs, bricks, knives, bombs, fists, Molotov cocktails, cars, etc.  Maybe they wouldn't kill quite as many, but the rate would still be far higher than Canada's.  

 

Do we really need to take guns from everyone in New Hampshire because folks in Chicago are killing each other?   Instead, let's fix Chicago and DC and the other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Renegade said:

What freedoms will we take away next?

 

You don't get freedom without responsibility. Cultures lose freedom when they prove they are irresponsible; and if they don't, they degrade into lawlessness, gang rule, or loss of freedom through fear.

 

More on the right to bear arms: We can't bring ourselves to ban very dangerous firearms; what about weapons that kill biologically? Scratch your enemy and 24 hours later they're dead ... does the right to bear arms extend to that? If we can't ban large-magazine semi-automatic firearms, how can we ban weapons that introduce deadly viruses?

 

Here's what people are already doing:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614245/biohackers-are-pirating-a-cheap-version-of-a-million-dollar-gene-therapy/#Echobox=1567186508

 

Biohackers can work out gene therapy, and they do it because these are well-intentioned biohackers. I'd bet dollars to dimes that there are already ill-intentioned biohackers working on incurable viral infections ... just for the "fun" of it. Their fun, of course, no one else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always in favor of demolishing the Second Amendment. I think owning a gun should be a privilege, one that takes training, and gun laws should hold a high degree of regulation. I also think that gun manufacturers should hold a lot more responsibility. I would first mandate a gun registry, where by your gun is tracked, and if someone steals it or uses it to kill or maim, you are held responsible to some degree - that is if you never reported it stolen, or that is if someone you know used it. 

 

I think it's crazy that kids are killed each and every day by gun violence. We have some cities where kids are not let outside unless they are in school because it's too dangerous due to gun violence with gangs. And then - how many people kill themselves with guns each year? How many wrongful deaths occur from police actions - does anyone keep track of that?

One of the Democrats running for president, Steve Bullock, continually states that 40 percent of families own a gun. Is that true? 

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, laripu said:

More on the right to bear arms: We can't bring ourselves to ban very dangerous firearms; what about weapons that kill biologically? Scratch your enemy and 24 hours later they're dead ... does the right to bear arms extend to that? If we can't ban large-magazine semi-automatic firearms, how can we ban weapons that introduce deadly viruses?

 

Logically, that's a tough distinction to make.  But as a practical matter, we must.  The difference between a machine gun and a virus (in terms of destructive potential) is greater than between a pocket knife and an atom bomb. 

 

I believe that, given a sufficient period of time, anything that can happen will happen.  So, it's not a question of 'if' but 'when' someone will release a lethal man-made virus.  The world is a dangerous and scary place.  

 

15 hours ago, laripu said:

You don't get freedom without responsibility. Cultures lose freedom when they prove they are irresponsible; and if they don't, they degrade into lawlessness, gang rule, or loss of freedom through fear.

 

All true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade said:

The world is a dangerous and scary place.  

 

21 hours ago, laripu said:

You don't get freedom without responsibility. Cultures lose freedom when they prove they are irresponsible; and if they don't, they degrade into lawlessness, gang rule, or loss of freedom through fear.

 

All true. 

 

If so, then the best thing we can do to save this experiment in representative democracy is to teach responsibility.

 

But word and by example, both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a news article yesterday and it reminded me of this thread.  An 18 year-old daughter in Ohio came home early from college to surprise her mother.  The mother shot the daughter by mistake.  Newsweek   Luckily, it's not a mortal injury.   Other than sorrow for this family, my first thought was 'score another one for gun control'.

 

I see a lot of national stories (this one was also on CNN and other media) about accidental shootings.  How many times do you see stories about a 4 year-old shooting a playmate (CNN) or the guy who's cleaning his gun and shoots someone by accident?  If you google search for 'gun accident CNN', you'll find page after page. 

 

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any news coverage of guns being used for good.  Is that because it doesn't happen?   I did more googling and found that guns are sometimes used defensively.  one example.   Estimates of defensive gun use (most of which don't involve anyone getting shot) range from 100,000 to 3,000,000 per year compared to 300,000 violent crimes involving guns.  Forbes   NPR

 

So, why do we so seldom hear (at the national level) any positive stories about gun use?  Maybe I just overlooked them?  I tried to find examples on CNN.  I found 3 over the last 7 years.  Bun B (a rapper) shot some guy trying to steal his car, they had a video of a woman shooting at intruders, and a woman on the phone with 911 shot an intruder.  Most stories don't make it out of the local media.

 

It's a far better news story when an innocent is shot.  It's tragic and emotionally affecting.  It's just the sort of thing that attracts viewers.  On the other hand, a headline of 'Woman Safe After Warning Shots Fired' isn't much of a national story.  Even if the bad guys do get shot, that's what's supposed to happen.  There's no victim to feel sorry for.  The media are drawn to disaster and tragedy.  It's the nature of their business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 12:00 PM, Renegade said:

I saw a news article yesterday and it reminded me of this thread.  An 18 year-old daughter in Ohio came home early from college to surprise her mother.  The mother shot the daughter by mistake.  Newsweek   Luckily, it's not a mortal injury.   Other than sorrow for this family, my first thought was 'score another one for gun control'.

 

I see a lot of national stories (this one was also on CNN and other media) about accidental shootings.  How many times do you see stories about a 4 year-old shooting a playmate (CNN) or the guy who's cleaning his gun and shoots someone by accident?  If you google search for 'gun accident CNN', you'll find page after page. 

 

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any news coverage of guns being used for good.  Is that because it doesn't happen?   I did more googling and found that guns are sometimes used defensively.  one example.   Estimates of defensive gun use (most of which don't involve anyone getting shot) range from 100,000 to 3,000,000 per year compared to 300,000 violent crimes involving guns.  Forbes   NPR

 

So, why do we so seldom hear (at the national level) any positive stories about gun use?  Maybe I just overlooked them?  I tried to find examples on CNN.  I found 3 over the last 7 years.  Bun B (a rapper) shot some guy trying to steal his car, they had a video of a woman shooting at intruders, and a woman on the phone with 911 shot an intruder.  Most stories don't make it out of the local media.

 

It's a far better news story when an innocent is shot.  It's tragic and emotionally affecting.  It's just the sort of thing that attracts viewers.  On the other hand, a headline of 'Woman Safe After Warning Shots Fired' isn't much of a national story.  Even if the bad guys do get shot, that's what's supposed to happen.  There's no victim to feel sorry for.  The media are drawn to disaster and tragedy.  It's the nature of their business.

 

Why is it that some folks have the right to carry arms? How do I know if that guy carrying is not crazy? Am I supposed feel safe because this person has a gun in plain view?

Why do they have rights over mine when I do not want or feel the need to own a gun? Should I have to get a gun just in case?

And what about the bullets? How many bullets can you buy? How many do you need to kill a deer or a duck or a rabbit? Sure, I've been hunting. I've been hunting with a shotgun and also with a bow. Most hunters I know care about the natural environment. When I was a kid I was shown to respect wild life. The reason for hunting was that many of the deer would starve, and if you killed a deer, well you better eat that meat because if you're just going off to bag a head of buck with no antler growth - aha, if he had many points, shouldn't he be revered ?

I was taught, the answer was yes.

 

Look, The 2nd Amendment was about militia's that were state sponsored because the states by themselves needed to have that capabilities, we needed to protect ourselves against the Native Americans whose lands we had stole.

Back in those days, you got shot and you were pretty much done for. Everyone knew it. That leg Jim, it has to come off right away otherwise the gangrene will soon set in, and that's a fact. And even then Jim, it's likely your life is toast. You know, reality. Good old fashion fact.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Look, The 2nd Amendment was about militia's that were state sponsored

 

On 8/28/2019 at 12:12 PM, bludog said:

At the time, since there was no standing army, the Militia was "necessary to the security" of the free states.

 

I was thinking about this...   The purpose of the 'militia' was to defend the nation/state.  Back then, the standing army wasn't large enough for a real war.  If and when England invaded we needed to be able to mobilize a larger force.   So, the whole purpose of a militia was to provide armed men to support and defend the government.

 

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to preserve individual rights against government encroachment.  So, why did they see the need for a 2nd Amendment at all?  If the government needs an armed populace, why do you need a constitutional right to prevent the government from disarming the populace?   It's sort of like having an amendment that says "the right of people to pay taxes shall not be infringed".  Taxes and militias are both forms of government support and need no constitutional amendment to secure their safety from the government. 

 

The only logical reason to put the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from taking it away. 

 

Of course, we can always change our mind.  

 

10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Why is it that some folks have the right to carry arms?

 

We all start out with that right, but some crimes can cause it to be forfeited.

 

10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Why do they have rights over mine when I do not want or feel the need to own a gun? Should I have to get a gun just in case?

 

They have no more rights than you do.  You're free to make your own decisions.  You don't "have to get a gun" if you don't want to.

 

10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

And what about the bullets? How many bullets can you buy?

 

A person needs to practice with their weapon.  It's safer for everyone when the person with a gun is proficient.

 

10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

How do I know if that guy carrying is not crazy?

 

I was driving down a two-lane highway last month, on my way to visit one of my daughters.   With cars going both directions at 65 miles per hour, separated only by a thin yellow stripe painted on the asphalt, I was thinking how much trust and faith I put in the drivers going the other way (and them in me).  If one of them, intentionally or otherwise, comes over into my lane...I'm a goner.  How do I know these people aren't crazy?   What if they're distracted?  Society is built on trust.  When we stop trusting each other, we start taking away each other's rights.  

 

10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Am I supposed feel safe because this person has a gun in plain view?

 

I do.  Consider that the vast majority of people are sane.  If you were in a room with armed citizens, and someone shows up intent on doing harm, you should be grateful that your fellow citizens are armed and capable of defending the group.  I believe the 49 people who died at The Pulse in Orlando would have preferred that at least one of their friends was armed that night.  You might say that the best situation would be if none were armed, including the shooter.  But, that's not practical.  Those intent on doing harm will always find a way to be armed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tightening up gun control laws is not a bad idea.  Starting by outlawing certain types of weapons is reasonable.  Almost nobody needs an assault rifle, and other than those few exceptions they should just not be allowed.  I don't really know or care what the details are, but closing the gun show loophole, maybe making background checks periodic (like renewing your driver's license), and amending the 2nd Amendment so that it clarifies that the government has these kinds of powers, while affirming gun ownership rights on some level, these would be good starts.  Until the 2nd Amendment is cleared up for people who just prefer to ignore the first half of it entirely, it will be used as a defense of unfettered ownership of anything people want by the gun nuts.  I don't care WHAT Thomas Jefferson was thinking in 790.  I know that 250 years later I can go buy a single weapon for a few hundred bucks and a pile of ammo, and I can kill dozens of people easily in a matter of seconds.  Thomas Jefferson ISN'T HERE.  We are.  This is OUR government and we need to clean this giant sink hole up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...