The 2nd Amendment

Bal,

I think the topic is still the 2nd amendment, have you got anything to offer relevant to it?

 

Indie

Then why did you make such a big thing about the 1st amendment and then go all weird not explaining why you had?

I’m arguing that if there wasn’t this level of fear, apprehension, dread, disquiet, foreboding, worry, etc about being harmed (by crime or government) seemingly amongst so many pro-gunners then maybe people wouldn’t feel like they needed guns for protection and there wouldn’t be this level of hysteria whenever any gun control measures were proposed.

Then there could come a time when the 2nd Amendment could be changed by another amendment to make it clearer.

 

Indie

Oh and you must have missed my questions -

Should someone who has committed a crime especially a violent crime be allowed to own guns?

What about people with serious mental disorders?

 

So now you're implying a level of hysteria being exhibited?

I think the 2nd amendment is quite clear.

I'm unaware of where you feel I've claimed that someone who has committed a crime, especially a violent crime should be allowed to own a gun. In fact, as you posted, there are laws already on the books which allow rights to be deprived relative to the actions one takes within society. The same is true for those with mental disorders. All I'm talking about are the remainder of society who have not acted in any way to be preemptively deprived of their rights. Statistically speaking, what are the odds of any gun owned by an individual citizen, excluding police, military, etc., being used in an unprovoked threatening way or commission of a crime?

 

Indie

So you are against certain criminals and the seriously mentally ill from owning guns - great – so how could that be brought about?

A few thoughts -

You would need all guns to be registered on a data base that flagged people that had convictions or became subsequently convicted.

Comprehensive criminal background checks made before sale.

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation. (to be taken again bi-annually)

No sales to be made without a comprehensive background check.

No private sales.

Not having a registered gun would result in heavy fine and imprisonment.


*

Now according to the FBI most guns in criminal hands in the US were once purchased legally in the US and either passed on to criminals or stolen by them.

To try and alleviate that problem I have suggested a few ideas

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

 

Bal,

That sounds like a great proposal for Europeans, but much too intrusive on law abiding citizens in a free society. Besides most criminals would find a way to circumvent the laws, after all they are law breakers are they not? And how much more government bureaucracy would be created in order to implement all that?

Thanks, but no thanks.

After all, you yourself have pointed out how small the chances are of needing a gun for protection that I'm convinced there is little need to worry about a need to regulate them. You've convinced me and I can now carry or not carry a gun whenever I want knowing I will never have to use it.

 

Someday, I think the Second Amendment will be repealed.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt it though. Personally, I see the US ceasing to exist as more likely than the 2nd being repealed.

 

You are such a sensationalist.

Let me explain it to you this way. I will lawfully defend my home, my property, my life and my family. I don't give a fuck who it is. You break into my house to steal my property with guns drawn and start killing my animals, we are going to have problems.

And many people feel the same way. 120,000 people in the state of Florida applied for concealed carry permits in January alone. The state has hired 30 new employees to process the overload of applications.

You see, my state supports our American rights so this discussion is a non issue.

And you are speculating about the societal problems. You have no idea what you are talking about, it is liberal European socialist thinking and entirely devoid of fact.

 

Indie

This was exactly the reply I expected.

Pro-gunners claim that they want guns out of the hands of criminals but then they put up objections for actually doing it – the second bit turning the yes effectively into a no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

Many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them.

The problem to me is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

But if pro-gunners are so unworried why do they feel they need guns to protect them from harm? Why do they so often bring up killing, stabbing, rape etc, in connection with their reasons for having a gun?

And if they were so unworried why would they be to vehemently opposed to regulation that would work toward getting guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, given the high levels of gun related crime in the US.

 

Deviate

This is the scenario I presented –

What if tough gun controls were brought in outlawing private ownership of certain firearms and let’s say someone had three handguns, a shot gun, two rifles and an AR-15. What if the law said they had to give up the AR-15, would pro-gunners refuse to obey the law I mean they would still have all the other guns. What if the police were sent to collect it, would they shoot the innocent police officer who’s just doing their job?

You seem to imply you would refuse. So I asked out right - basically you’d refuse to comply with the law right up to the point that they have to raid your house and then you would shoot at the police?

And you seem to be saying yes that exactly what you would do. You would shoot at, possibly even kill the police officers.

It would not be lawful action it would be criminal behaviour.

If that is incorrect please explain what you have said.

Also this raises several things I’ve talked about in my theories on US gun ownership and the connection to certain attitudes and mentality.

The gun control in the scenario would have come in through the democratic process. The response is classic ‘individualist’, in other words the belief that the pro-gunners individual ‘right’ trumps any community wishes or actions, brought in for the betterment of the community.

The other is intimidation - basically it is about threatening that if gun control measures are brought in, some pro-gunners at least will make society pay.

 

Deviate

This fits in with my theories -

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.


Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

As I have explained on numerous occasions this isn’t about tackling the underlying problems the causes of crime it is about feeling the symptoms can be suppressing through the threat of violence.

Once more someone without any rational or reasonable argument has to fall back on telling me ‘I’m wrong because they are telling me I’m wrong’.

That’s not a weak argument it is so below a weak argument as to not even be an argument.

 

Bal,

Obviously it's not my desire to dissapoint you.

Pro-gunners, which I take to mean supporters of the 2nd amendment, likely would prefer any offensive weapon removed from the hands of criminals, and even better yet criminals removed from our societies. The 'second bit' you refer to is more realistically no, we don't need to infringe upon the rights of ALL citizens, but yes, we fully support the loss of rights when they are put to use in a criminal way.

There may be more things which could be done to limit the access to guns by criminals, how about a government maintained, publically available record of all persons who do not own guns?

I'd prefer more effort in getting and keeping persons who commit acts of violence off the streets permanently, and less thinking they can be rehabilitated and returned as productive members of society.

You're the one who keeps implying that those who possess guns are possessed with great fear or worry that a gun might be needed. Just because you have one available does not indicate anything close to what you are trying to promote.

In the rare instances where one might encounter threat of being shot, stabbed, raped, etc., a gun can be a very effective 'tool' in resolving the threat in ones own favor, and I think that at such an instant fear would be an appropriate term used by both an armed as well as, if not even more so an unarmed person.

Like alcohol prohibition, and drug laws prevented/prevent the consumption of alcohol/drugs? We have enough laws on the books today, which if enforced, would likely be adequate to imprison most all of the population. We don't need any new laws which could in effect criminalize more law abiding citizens.

 

Indie

Your reply is just a longer version of yes you want criminals to have guns.

As to the prison thing that’s covered in my theory –

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000 [edit in 2001 in 2009 it was 743) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq).

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

 

You ARE entitled to your opinions, but are you suggesting that we should make incarceration more pleasant to reduce crime?

 

Indie

Yes and so are you, but I seem able to explain and defend my ideas with rational argument while you do not.

Thanks Indie. This is exactly the kind of mindset I’ve being highlighting. There seems to be this emphasis on dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes. And a belief in threat, intimidation and suppression as means of social control.

 

That too is an opinion.

Is it your opinion that guns are the 'cause' of crime?

I find it quite the height of hypocrisy when you accuse others of traits, such as threat or intimidation, that you so fervidly apply in many of your posts in response to those who disagree with you.

What are the 'causes' of violent crime, and how would you suggest it be controlled? Make note that not all violent crime involves a gun.

 

Indie

No and I’ve never said that, I do really wish that you would read my posts, then I would have to keep repeating things that you then seem to forget sometimes I think you have the memory of a goldfish.

Hell man we have been through this many, many times

To repeat a line from Post 201

Only tackling the social, economic and political problems will the solution truly be found.

As I’ve said many times to me if someone does turn to crime then society has failed, crime is a societal problem. People are not born criminals, criminals are made.

Now individualistic thinking tried to imply that this is down to individual choices but some people have more choices than others (we went through that at length in the Effort or Luck thread).

 

Well Bal, since you seem to present yourself as the most sagacious contributor to each thread you appear in, perhaps you would have better success if you were to put less effort into castigating those who disagree, which only serves to degrade the so called rationality and reasoning you claim to have espoused.

I don't make an effort to recall much of your previous posts, although I have clear memory of the personality you exude, which you reinforce frequently.

Once again, the topic as I see it remains the 2nd amendment, not social, economic, or political problems, and crime does not always involve a gun, nor do life threatening situations, so even if all criminals were to give up their guns, I would still be supportive of the 2nd amendment and the right of all law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

You seem to find it quite easy to blame society on many if not all problems that exist within societies. People may not be born criminals, while I can't confirm that to be true in 100% of the cases, neither do I blame society when they choose to become criminals. In my opinion it's always a personal choice, and a poor one.

While everyone may not have the same choices, there are always good and bad choices. People are never going to achieve equality in the way you think it should exist, and while you may have difficulty accepting that as fact, I believe it will forever prove to be true as long as the human population is greater than one.

There is obviously a world of difference between how Europeans and many Americans think a government should operate, and I feel we Americans have been infected far too long by European thinking which has all but removed the people from having any input into how our government should work.

Elections more than often result in the same unknown, faceless, puppeteer(s) working with the Left the Right or both hands with little or no regard for the people once the elections are over.

 

If he came and knocked on my door saying "sorry to bother you, but I need to collect your AR15".. I'd refuse. I give enough of my money to the gov't they have no right to start taking my property that I have not broken any laws with for years and years.

Then, if they came PEACEFULLY with an arrest warrant I would surrender and fight it through the courts.

Now as I said, if they forcibly enter my home military style and start firing at my dogs.. which they would as my dogs are large and powerful and would be protective of me, then I would take that as my time and shoot until they overpowered me. I did not grow up in that kind of society and I am not accepting of it. I am a citizen of the United States and have rights that my gov't is bound by the Constitution to respect. My family fought, sacrificed lives and property for the formation of this country.

I would rather die than get on my knees and suck the gov't dick you are so fond of.

The democratic process does not apply to the Bill of Rights, how hard is it to get that through your mind? Seriously.

Secondly, my entire point of view about this is to protect society not make society pay. You see, it's clueless people like you that want to pass the buck onto society at large to improve things that are the most dangerous. You have this implied belief that authority is good and is only want to help everyone. We need a certain amount of authority but it needs to be limited. Not running rampant as you so passionately believe.

I have given the shirt off of my back for people more times than I can count. When I see I car on the side of the road for example, I stop. Do you? I've gone home to get tools and parts and fixed a strangers car on the side of the road. I've defended random people's honor. I've help dying kids I don't even know. I've fed bums. You have no fucking clue what kind of person I am or what kind of heart I have. I just happen to be strong and independent, unlike people like you that want some kind of system to take care of you because you are too weak to do it yourself. This is the root of all of your beliefs.