From my perspective - The Second Amendment is for the most part impotent

[kaiser soze]

I was wondering this the other day - What purpose does the 2nd Amendment hold? The original intention of this Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical government, the support of militias, law enforcement, and self-defense.

I have a hard time understanding why people place this Amendment above the other Amendments that immediately affect us in a free and civilized society - The 1st and 4th Amendments.

Yeah I guess it's there for posturing, but ultimately it's existence has not made a single difference in how our rights can and have been without little protest been violated in the modern world.

Has it defended someone from having their 4th Amendment rights violated? What effect has it had on illegal checkpoints, body searches, the police pilfering through your car or information - for the most part reacting with a gun would get you labeled a criminal (and many times by gun-huggers who believe law enforcement can do no wrong) - or dead.

Now don't get me wrong - I believe in a healthy and impervious Constitution, I've gone hunting, target shooting, enjoy watching future weapons, and own a muzzle loader pistol (never fired). But I just can't bite into the hysterics behind gun ownership especially in the form of assault weapons and militarized armament and how the undying support of that Amendment seemingly takes precedence over the 1st and 4th without providing the influence (or intimidation) many believe it has.

I have had many discussions with people who believe the 2nd Amendment is undoubtedly unalienable but yet make light of peaceful protest protected under the 1st Amendment.

Since the assassination attempt on Senator Giffords and the senseless deaths of the innocents who peacefully gathered there have been shootings and suicides in schools, an Airman killed another soldier before killing himself and I'm sure I've missed many more. Gun violence is an every day occurrence and it's been quite evident that the tragedy outweighs the benefits.

Can someone enlighten me as to why this Amendment is so important for our continued free society rather than for the profits of gun makers.

[travesty]

I don't think the 2nd is any more, or less, impotent than any other ammendment. Over time, all of them have been bastardized and constrained beyond anything the writers envisioned.
Free Speech? Check with the FCC first.
Unreasonable Search and Seizure? No problem if they have "probable cause".
Due Process, Self Incrimination? Ever had an audit of your tax forms by the IRS?
States Rights? Don't even get me started.

My point is this, all of the ammendments have been whittled down and restrained, sometimes heavily, since thier inception. The second is no different. Some restraints could be considered beneficial, others not so much. The second is important as it guarantees an ultimate recourse againt the government. Should the people find it necessary to take over the government the 2nd allows this to happen without voiding the constitution itself.

The second also gurantees citizens the right to defend themselves and thier property as well as provide a means of survival. There are some interesting facts and studies (summarized here (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)) that show guns are used defensively in the US at a rate more than double that of guns used in commission of a crime. Interesting stats also show homicide and crime rates spike in Britain, Chicago and DC following gun bans. (Gun stats are kinda like global warming reports....I don't usually believe them because every study is funded by someone with a desired outcome in mind.)
Anyhow, at the end of the day I understand some people just don't dig guns and some really tragic things have happened with guns in the hands of fucked up people. However I believe the 2nd deserves the same respect, preservation and everyday practice that all of our other rights demand. It's there for a reason. Whether you agree with the current interpretation of the 2nd or not, taking away any small bit of any of the rights is still, after all, an infringement of our rights and should be fought.

[kaiser soze]

I agree that it's not the only Amendment that has been scrutinized or modified - I actually thought about that greatly after my post - It seems for the most part these rights are viewed as privileges for us by those who can alter them.

I can't buy the whole "defense against the gov't" bit considering any force in the form of an organized military/law enforcement will have the upper hand in firepower and technology.

With home defense, I can see why some people in certain demographics would feel safer with one around - but that doesn't consitute bragging about your gun (collection) - if it's a tool for defense keep it on the low, a kung fu master doesn't do flying kicks about the donut shop to let people know he can kick your ass.

So at what point do you think people should be exercising their 2nd Amendment right as a form of protection while participating in a peaceful anti-war protest or display their piece at the line of the TSA to help reinforce 4th amendment right? It will never happen - or if it did, the circumstances wouldn't benefit the citizen.

[travesty]

I guess unless you strictly beleive those rights are actually "God given" then they are only priviledges given to you by your fellow American and granted by the government. Therefore they are immenently alterable regardless of how un- or inalienable you want thm to be. At least that's how I see it.

I absolutely agree with you that the 2nd is completely impotent inregards to the "defense against the government" thing simply due to the fact that the restictions we have placed on it in order to make a more secure society, have virtually stripped it of it's teeth in this regards. At it's writing citizens were allowed to possess the same "arms" that the goverment had. Rationally it makes sense to prevent people from owning bazookas, Abrams tanks and F-22's with heat seeking missles. However because we are prevented from from doing so, our ability to actually utilize our rights against the gubment are drastically diminished. But if anything can be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, a determined force with little more than small arms, on thier home land, can hold even the most powerful military in the world to a stalemate.

I agree with you to an extent but if you saw a guy doing flying kicks around the donut shop would you try and rob him? Not many people are going to try and mug the cowboy with a Colt 45 on his hip. As a gun owner myself my list of priorities for home defense go like this
1) Zip Code
2) Alarm System
3) Dog
4) Gun
In other words it's kind of a last resort but I understand that others are a little more fervent than I am.

As for the last question I guess that's up to a citizen's fellow statesman. If they aren't breaking any laws about where they can and can't carry a gun then I guess I don't have a lot to say about it. I believe there are a lot of things that are legal but are just stupid to do, but others may see things differently. If people want to force the issue of defining a certain constitutional right by pushing the boundaries of social acceptance, I'm all for that. But people need to understand that when you push an issue to the forefront of social judgement sometimes society will decide to eliminate or constrain that right instead of reinforcing it. Personally I believe it's better to exercise our rights quietly but some people can't help but make a bunch of noise about things.

[Schmeltz]

Canada's national newspaper ran an interesting article on this issue (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/five-reasons-why-gun-control-has-been-disarmed/article1871530/) a couple of weeks ago. A relevant excerpt:


After a string of catastrophic school shootings, the National Rifle Association was searching for a way to tweak its message as the 2000 election drew near.

“They had to reframe this issue, which really belongs on the militia fringe, to appeal to the politicians like Newt Gingrich,” says Mr. Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

So they called in the pros.

The NRA hired the Mercury Group, a high-powered consulting company that describes itself on its website as “masters at melding news with drama, politics with theatre, and public affairs with popular buzz to make your message sing and your story sell.”

Mercury Group worked with the NRA to identify key states to target with their new campaign: “Vote Freedom First.”

The campaign featured radio and television ads, billboards, bumper stickers and “other collateral materials.” Huge “Freedom First” rallies were organized in dozens of cities in swing states leading up to election day.

Afterward, the NRA and Mercury Group declared victory, citing an 85 per cent success rate in state and local elections of sympathetic candidates, a pro-NRA majority seated in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and “a pro-NRA President in the White House.”

...

“The pro-gun lobby has done a very good job in convincing people that if they give up their guns they’re going to lose something very valuable, their personal freedom,” says Ms. Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort.

“They’ve been able to equate the possession of a handgun in a public place with the long-standing tradition of freedom.”

This particularly American equation of freedom with firearms possession is something that has always left me bemused - as kaiser pointed out, it's quite clear that no private individual or organization is going to be able to compete with the firepower of the American military (and as an aside, allow me to posit that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq are of absolutely no value in terms of a comparison to any potential armed uprising against the American government on American soil). And yet ordinary Americans like travesty continue to insist that


because we are prevented from [developing firepower capacities equal to those of the military], our ability to actually utilize our rights against the gubment are drastically diminished.

What I detect in statements like this is an inherent lack of faith in the American political process. A substantial subsection of the American populace seems to genuinely believe that no social contract exists within their society and that their elected representatives - if not the total apparatus of the state itself - constitute a predatory threat to their collective freedom, a fifth column chosen from among themselves, rather than the human personification of that freedom's enaction, as in other cultures. They seem to feel that it is inherently impossible for them to develop workable political institutions, and therefore a substantial reservoir of personal firepower must be maintained as a failsafe against the (presumably inevitable) deployment of the state military machinery against their liberties.

There are a lot of complex undercurrents at work here, but the most prominent seems to be a powerful sentiment of collective cultural anxiety, if not outright fear - fear that freedom, peace, and prosperity might turn out to be ephemeral and fleeting circumstances of chance, rather than the lasting product of a firm historical legacy. It boils down to a fundamental mistrust of the next guy, a complete lack of trust in any civic institution besides the right to arm oneself against one's neighbours.

Which is where the next most powerful cultural element comes into play: the fact that this dimension of anxiety creates a ready market for the profitable sale of firearms. travesty, there's actually a certain logic to what you said:


Not many people are going to try and mug the cowboy with a Colt 45 on his hip.

... the corollary being that somebody's making money off the cowboy's fear of getting mugged, and the further corollary being that the more afraid people are, the more money is made. Don't believe me? But it's true (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346339/Arizona-shooting-Glock-sales-soar-gun-used-Jared-Loughner-Tucson-massacre.html). Before you ask: no, I am not suggesting that firearms manufacturers or the NRA are conspiring to produce mass shootings. That's ridiculous. But their after-the-fact responses to these horrible, tragic events invariably demonstrate where their true interests lie: look what just happened, they say. You can't trust your fellow Americans. Anyone could come at you with a gun. You should have one, for your own safety. For your own freedom. And we just happen to have some for sale.

That Americans continue to buy into the sale of fear, insecurity, and anxiety - which is just as nefarious and predatory as anything the federal government has ever come up with - is a truly depressing paradox of American culture: paradoxical because it so often seems that those who insist so strongly on the enduring value of the principles of freedom and democracy seem to have the least amount of actual faith in them, depressing because, as I've said before, America should be shining a light for the West in the contemporary world, not shrouding its values in the darkness of fear. And there are dark days ahead indeed, from the look of things.

[travesty]

Is it possible for anyone's opinion to be less relevant to a discussion on the American 2nd amendment than that of a tunnel visioned lefty Canadian?

[Schmeltz]

Not much to say, huh? Pretty pathetic, but at least you're honest about it. (y)

[travesty]

Not to you. On this topic you are coming from a perspective of complete ignorance coupled with your ever present extreme bias and topped off with a healthy dose of intolerance. Having a conversation with you about this subject would be like talking to an African goat herder about whether BMW or Mercedes has better road feel. How would they possibly know if they have never driven one. I don't post opinions on discussions about living under a monarchy (heheheh it's even funny just to say) because I've never lived in one and have no idea what it's really like. So spare me if your whole "Americans are just scared" rant on our 2nd amendment means absolutely nothing to me. Like I said, it's literally irrelevant.

[Bob]

I don't post opinions on discussions about living under a monarchy (heheheh it's even funny just to say) because I've never lived in one and have no idea what it's really like.

heeyyyyy that sounded like an opinion

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, so everyone's still allowed to have opinions, travesty, irrespective of their country of origin. Is nobody allowed to have an opinion about the Second World War except for the people who lived through it? But hey, far be it from me to prompt you to engage in conversation - if you're too afraid to have another debate, that's your call.

Anyone else?

[kaiser soze]

schmeltz took the words out of my mouth, but I'll post em

How can someone who supposedly believes in inalienable rights disavow the perspectives of others who are exercising those same rights (Freedom of Speech). Isn't that what the wars are for - spreading our kind of freedoms?

So I guess outside the U.S. people shouldn't have opinions on how gun rights are handled. May it be the 2nd Amendment or the Firearms Act of 1995 - Gun laws and rights are not explicitly specific to the U.S.

[travesty]

Of course you can have an opinion schmeltz, they're like assholes...everyone has one. I just don't feel the need to respond to nor legitmize yours. Bait someone else on this one.

[Schmeltz]

Thanks for coming out, t. It's a brave man who can admit when he's beaten. (y)

[travesty]

Bahahaha....whatever let's you sleep at night.

[kaiser soze]

I guess there's only one way to settle this....



































































































with a duel!

[DIGI]

I disagree. My crops and covered wagon are ravaged on a monthly basis.

[Dorothy Wood]

fix the problems that cause the need to buy guns. duh. so lazy.

[kaiser soze]

Not.Gonna.Happen

With mental health services getting cut from some budgets (Vermont) - it is just amazing that someone would propose to do such after a mass shooting blamed on insanity.

And how do we find a solution to stupid parents leaving their guns out for their kids (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-01-25/story/5-year-old-brings-loaded-gun-palatka-pre-kindergarten-class) to take to school?