The 2nd amendment: Is it really necessary?

[Riddle]

After seeing some debate about this in the healthcare topic I decided to create an official thread in which to debate this.

Should the 2nd Amendment be abolished?

Here are some basic arguments for both sides.

Pro 2nd Amendment:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18629
http://thompson2004.tripod.com/id10.html

Anit 2nd Amendment:

http://www.guninformation.org/
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm

I need practice on my devil's advocate so I'll just do that.

 

[manhunter098]

Personally I think that aspects of the second amendment are good and aspects of it are bad. Its clear that it needs to be brought into the 21st century though.

As far as the arguments of mounting a revolt and the second amendment protecting our right to own guns, pathetic, weak, guns, I don't think its really doing anything. If there is going to be a revolt in an oppressive modernized state it will be done by a militia armed with weapons far more devastating than a mere handgun or even an assault rifle, it will be won with explosives and all kinds of weapons that are not even considered protected under the second amendment.


What I do think the second amendment is useful for is protecting the right of one to own a gun for self defense. Even if you are caught off guard by a criminal who has a gun, if you yourself have one on hand you will be far better equipped to protect yourself than if you had no gun at all (and any passerby would be more capable of saving you should they be carrying a gun). Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens really would only leave them in the hands of criminals.

Its certainly situational, but police are not a service for preventing crime they are a service for capturing criminals and providing security in some situations, they certainly cannot be there to protect everyone and everyone has the right to protect themselves.

 

[aeghrur]

As far as the arguments of mounting a revolt and the second amendment protecting our right to own guns, pathetic, weak, guns, I don't think its really doing anything. If there is going to be a revolt in an oppressive modernized state it will be done by a militia armed with weapons far more devastating than a mere handgun or even an assault rifle, it will be won with explosives and all kinds of weapons that are not even considered protected under the second amendment.

However, to maintain any type of militia, one obviously needs guns as a starting point.
Even in modern day, guns are still used as weapons amongst wars, and I don't think there will be an exception should there be a revolt now. Also, if the second amendment is repealed, we can't even maintain a well-armed militia of regular people. Instead, it will be a government militia, which serves no purpose at all should we need to create a new government.

 

[manhunter098]

Guns certainly have their use in warfare, but no longer does a superior gun, to be held by a soldier have any major bearing on the outcome of a way, guns could certainly work to our advantage if we were to use guerrilla style warfare in our revolt, but that will amount to little more than some armed resistance, its certainly not going to allow us to win any kind of revolt, our military is too strong to be taken down by an insurgency, the only way we the citizens could hope to defeat our own countries military would be if we had the cooperation of a large percentage of the military itself.

If we want an amendment that will actually allow us the ability to overthrow our government by force than we need to give people the right to own much more powerful weapons than simple firearms.

 

[AltF4]

The second amendment isn't REALLY so much about guns as much as it is about power. The second amendment is really about making sure that American citizens maintain power over their government, not the other way around.

Back when the constitution was written (and amended), power was delivered through the barrel of a gun. Today, this is not quite so true. In an era with riot police, automatic weapons, and tanks a forcible revolution by a "well armed militia" is not feasible.

If a group of angry revolutionaries with guns actually marched on the White House... they would be instantly wiped out.


So I agree with the Second in principle. (And I would argue that the Second Amendment should be extended to the information age in the form of privacy laws) I'm not so sold that gun ownership provides what it used to.

 

[Crimson King]

Fact is if you get rid of the second amendment, and illegalize gun ownership, you aren't doing anything but taking guns away from people who wish to follow laws. The people would use guns for defense/protection will give up weapons (and the ones who do not become criminals) where as the people who will use the weapons for murder and robbery will likely still use the guns for it.

Also, yes, the second amendment is in place to protect the citizens from being pawns of the state. As Thomas Jefferson said, the second amendment exists for us to overthrow the government if it gets to powerful.

 

[pacmansays]

I think most democratic countries have done well without a second amendment.

 

[Riddle]

The original reasoning for the 2nd amendment that it would allow the people to overthrow the government became too powerful is now a moot point. Any revolt would be almost immediately put down unless the army was involved in the revolt. However, I do not believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be abolished; I just think the reasoning behind it has changed. Guns are a valuable method of self defense and cause a much lower violent crime rate in states where you are allowed to carry them.

"The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. "

I think most democratic countries have done well without a second amendment.

That's irrelevant. The 2nd amendment has proven benefits and it has been shown that no other countries have lower crime rates due to gun control.

"...the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. "


Here's my source.

 

[pacmansays]

That's irrelevant. The 2nd amendment has proven benefits and it has been shown that no other countries have lower crime rates due to gun control.

"...the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. "


Here's my source.
[/COLOR]

Yes but lower crime rates and lower gun crime rates are different things....there's a variety of ways a person can kill someone else and allowing most citizens the right to carry a gun is just another means for the crime to be commited

 

[manhunter098]

Yes but lower crime rates and lower gun crime rates are different things....there's a variety of ways a person can kill someone else and allowing most citizens the right to carry a gun is just another means for the crime to be commited

When you apply for a gun permit and get one it makes it MUCH easier to track any crime that is committed with that weapon. When you get a gun from the black market, its a lot harder to get evidence to pin against the criminal who owns that weapon, because we dont know who the actual owner is.

Hooray for keeping track of deadly weapons.

 

[illinialex24]

The second amendment is very confusingly worded. You can interpret it to be the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed, or the right of the people in general (do you take the right of the people to be the right of the people in the militia or altogether is the question) and depending on that it takes on a different meaning.

I believe for the 21st century it is important for the right of the militia only to bear arms, because there still many instances of violent crime (although it has gone down from what I understand from the mod 20th century).

Examples like he Virginia Tech shooting would have been much more unlikely if he had not had easy access to a gun, among other things.

Many people feel that if everyone is carrying a gun, people wouldn't be willing to commit crimes, the truth is thats partially correct. Its just like WW1, when it does happen, you have a slaughter.

 

[Crimson King]

The second amendment is very confusingly worded. You can interpret it to be the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed, or the right of the people in general (do you take the right of the people to be the right of the people in the militia or altogether is the question) and depending on that it takes on a different meaning.

I believe for the 21st century it is important for the right of the militia only to bear arms, because there still many instances of violent crime (although it has gone down from what I understand from the mod 20th century).

Examples like he Virginia Tech shooting would have been much more unlikely if he had not had easy access to a gun, among other things.

Many people feel that if everyone is carrying a gun, people wouldn't be willing to commit crimes, the truth is thats partially correct. Its just like WW1, when it does happen, you have a slaughter.

Actually, there are several quotes that shows Jefferson calling the people the Militia. If we are being invaded or our government becomes to big, we become the rebellion/army.

The rest of your argument relies on the fact that these crimes were committed by legal gun owners. VT was a failure on the part of the school. The shooter was reported by teachers as being frightening, but since he had no prior incidents of violence, he was, and shouldn't have, been declined a weapon. To say it could have been prevented had he not had access to guns is laughable because even if he can't obtain one legally, he was clearly in the mental state to obtain one illegally. Our country has wide-open borders that makes smuggling of drugs and guns as easy as going to the store. By illegalizing it, you won't create a safer environment; you create a larger market for weapons, and you tell all criminals that want to rob houses that no one inside will have weapons.

 

[Eor]

I don't think the second amendment should be abolished, though I really don't think it'd help at all if we ever had to overthrow the government, and I honestly think most of the people who use that for the reason either don't critically think on that fact or are engaging in wishful thinking, like the guys who buy knives for self defense.

But instead of debating about whether or not we should be allowed guns, I'm wondering if anyone here thinks the right to guns should be universal, as in the Government shouldn't be able to stop anyone from buying them. I'm for gun control, but I always wanted gun control that didn't make it harder for regular people to get guns, but instead increased penalties for illegal guns, and required more for a license. For example, required screening for people who want to apply for a license to see if there's any signs of major anger problems/things of that nature, and maybe required a five year checkup to make sure it's the same, and maybe also requiring that the person who wants the permit be able to get some minimum goal for marksmanship.

 

[Deleted member]

First of all, what does murder have to do with anything?

How do you expect to revolt nonviolently? Especially since AltF4 showed how technology renders pistols essentially useless.

Second of all, you're never going to have to use a gun in a revolt? Great idea! I suppose that pre-Revolution Americans should have just sat down with the Brits and had a tea party with them.

Umm, you basically contradict yourself here. "Who said anything about murder?!" and "You're never going to have to use a gun in a revolt? SCOFF!" seem to... well, clash.

The second amendment is outdated. It was meant for the American Revolution and is now being used to justify and glorify gun ownership. You shouldn't have any reason to own a gun, unless you're some sort of hunter.

 

[AltF4]

There is a comical thread in the PRoom right now about the right to bear tanks.

Laughable on the surface, but that's what would be necessary for a violent overthrow of the government today. Mere guns are not sufficient. So should citizens be allowed to own tanks? It is essentially equivalent to a rifle in 1776. Or, maybe not a TANK, but perhaps a bomb. Should citizens be allowed to own bombs? For the sole purpose of possibly using it against the US government.

It sounds absurd but that's exactly what the 2nd amendment is. It says: Hey, look US Government. Don't mess up because we've got a whole country of people with guns watching you. But I just don't see how that holds true today. I don't see government legitimately fearing uprising from the citizens if they mess up.


I find this to be a more compelling argument than ones regarding murder rates. Ensuring that we have a Free country seems to be more important than lowering the murder rate. There are plenty of ways that people abuse freedom, but that's no excuse to remove the freedom.

 

[pacmansays]

I think its stupid to put it in place to begin with but considering America has had guns for most of its history its not going to be something that if banned will go away...

What about the issue of escalation? People have guns, so the police get guns, the police have guns so the public get semi-automatics, the public have semi-automatics....

 

[Riddle]

The 2nd amendment is incredibly outdated, and its original purpose can no longer justify the right. However, if we modernize the 2nd amendment we can allow people to carry guns for self defense rather than for overthrowing the government. Guns would be essentially useless in overthrowing the government, but for protecting your family they are proven to help (Source). If guns are illegalized criminals will still be able to obtain guns easily (probably even more easily than before) but law abiding citizens will not. Criminals will be able to rob someones house without fear, because the chance of the owners having a weapon that is threatening to the criminal is negligible. This will increase crime rates and generally cause more injuries and fatalities to people. Howevver, if we are allowed to own guns then criminals can be scared off and are less likely to hurt or kill someone.

 

[aeghrur]

I think its stupid to put it in place to begin with but considering America has had guns for most of its history its not going to be something that if banned will go away...

What about the issue of escalation? People have guns, so the police get guns, the police have guns so the public get semi-automatics, the public have semi-automatics....

Mutually assured destruction.
IE Russia vs the US.

 

[Crimson King]

There is a comical thread in the PRoom right now about the right to bear tanks.

Laughable on the surface, but that's what would be necessary for a violent overthrow of the government today. Mere guns are not sufficient. So should citizens be allowed to own tanks? It is essentially equivalent to a rifle in 1776. Or, maybe not a TANK, but perhaps a bomb. Should citizens be allowed to own bombs? For the sole purpose of possibly using it against the US government.

It sounds absurd but that's exactly what the 2nd amendment is. It says: Hey, look US Government. Don't mess up because we've got a whole country of people with guns watching you. But I just don't see how that holds true today. I don't see government legitimately fearing uprising from the citizens if they mess up.


I find this to be a more compelling argument than ones regarding murder rates. Ensuring that we have a Free country seems to be more important than lowering the murder rate. There are plenty of ways that people abuse freedom, but that's no excuse to remove the freedom.

The right to bear arms did not end there. It also came from the fact that the police were vastly inefficient, the government was a lot more hands off, and if you got robbed or something, you needed to be able to defend yourself, which I feel is still valid.

Want proof? Get robbed, tied up, and murdered and see how long it takes to the cops to come. If you had a weapon, it'd be a bit different since there would be a shoot out, but you'd still have a chance at defending yourself.

Self-defense is a basic human right.

 

[Eor]

The right to bear arms did not end there. It also came from the fact that the police were vastly inefficient, the government was a lot more hands off, and if you got robbed or something, you needed to be able to defend yourself, which I feel is still valid.

Want proof? Get robbed, tied up, and murdered and see how long it takes to the cops to come. If you had a weapon, it'd be a bit different since there would be a shoot out, but you'd still have a chance at defending yourself.

Self-defense is a basic human right.

Could you please provide any statistics that shows that people who are armed are more likely to successfully defend themselves or stop a crime?

 

[Riddle]

Could you please provide any statistics that shows that people who are armed are more likely to successfully defend themselves or stop a crime?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

"The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. "

 

[Eor]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

"The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. "

I dd not mean on a macro case, I meant for the individual

 

[Riddle]

I dd not mean on a macro case, I meant for the individual

So do you mean you want me to find a situation in which a person who had a gun successfully protected themselves from a criminal? I'm not really clear on what you mean.

 

[manhunter098]

Well I am not quite sure how much you want the statistics individualized as far as defensive gun use goes, but I came across a study that I think provides some useful statistics in determining how effective guns are at preventing crime.

I had some trouble finding the actual study itself (still have yet to see it) what I have though is a rather in depth analysis of the study which covers the figures as well as the methodology of the study.

Here is the link to it, there was a lot of information in the article and to quote bits and pieces of it I feel would be less effective than simply telling you to read it for yourself so you can see all of the information gathered from the study.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

 

[AltF4]

The right to bear arms did not end there. It also came from the fact that the police were vastly inefficient, the government was a lot more hands off, and if you got robbed or something, you needed to be able to defend yourself, which I feel is still valid.

Want proof? Get robbed, tied up, and murdered and see how long it takes to the cops to come. If you had a weapon, it'd be a bit different since there would be a shoot out, but you'd still have a chance at defending yourself.

Self-defense is a basic human right.

Okay, I get that. But I see two arguments being used here that I think should be made more clear, because they're quite different.

On one hand, you may say that guns make us safer. That we need guns because the robbers will have guns anyway, and allowing citizens to have guns will lower the mortality rate. (You didn't say that in the quoted post, but the message is present, I think)

That is a statement of practicality, it is an assertion with a factual answer. It either makes us safer or it doesn't, and studies can tell us whether or not it is true. I've seen conflicting information on the subject, and I'm no expert on the matter, but I think the general consensus is that homicide rates are not significantly changed across countries depending on their gun laws. But this isn't as interesting to me as the second argument.

The second argument is one of human rights. That each citizen has the right to protect themselves. This is not a factual assertion like the first. It is an appeal to human rights, and I'm much more apt to buy into this one.

Just like Freedom of Speech may or may not benefit the economy, but we should keep it no matter what. Even if it were the case that as a whole the 1st amendment caused us economic damage, we should still have it. On the grounds of basic human rights.


A mini-debate on what constitutes a human right, and whether gun ownership is one is non-trivial, I think. But I'm certainly more apt to buy that one. I'd say I'm leaning toward saying yes on those grounds, but hadn't thought it through (nor heard a dissenting opinion) on the matter. For example, we'd need to have a conversation about slippery slopes. Weapons ranging from sticks to atomic bombs, which should be allowed for citizens to own, and which should not? Where do you draw that line, and on what grounds?

 

[Crimson King]

Okay, I get that. But I see two arguments being used here that I think should be made more clear, because they're quite different.

On one hand, you may say that guns make us safer. That we need guns because the robbers will have guns anyway, and allowing citizens to have guns will lower the mortality rate. (You didn't say that in the quoted post, but the message is present, I think)

That is a statement of practicality, it is an assertion with a factual answer. It either makes us safer or it doesn't, and studies can tell us whether or not it is true. I've seen conflicting information on the subject, and I'm no expert on the matter, but I think the general consensus is that homicide rates are not significantly changed across countries depending on their gun laws. But this isn't as interesting to me as the second argument.

The second argument is one of human rights. That each citizen has the right to protect themselves. This is not a factual assertion like the first. It is an appeal to human rights, and I'm much more apt to buy into this one.

Just like Freedom of Speech may or may not benefit the economy, but we should keep it no matter what. Even if it were the case that as a whole the 1st amendment caused us economic damage, we should still have it. On the grounds of basic human rights.


A mini-debate on what constitutes a human right, and whether gun ownership is one is non-trivial, I think. But I'm certainly more apt to buy that one. I'd say I'm leaning toward saying yes on those grounds, but hadn't thought it through (nor heard a dissenting opinion) on the matter. For example, we'd need to have a conversation about slippery slopes. Weapons ranging from sticks to atomic bombs, which should be allowed for citizens to own, and which should not? Where do you draw that line, and on what grounds?

Since you were touching upon it without actually saying it, I want to address safety. In order to legally own a gun, not only do you have to be mentally competent without a criminal record, BUT you must also take gun safety courses + shooting proficiency (at least here). The reason for this is because if I am armed, and legally licensed to carry a gun with the badge (which looks like a police badge, and I have a friend whose brother was robbed, and now that he has a license to carry + the badge, he isn't even approached because people think he is off-duty police), I need to be able to shoot accurately and well so as not to injury others.

If you go through the process of gun ownership, you become a highly competent gun owner.

 

[CRASHiC]

Regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, regardless of its relavance in modern day society, you will not convince a single politician to touch and edit a single thing in the bill of rights, it would be political suicide. The only way you can do anything about this is to get the supreme court to rule in your favor, which based on past rulings, is very unlikely.

 

[Riddle]

Regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, regardless of its relavance in modern day society, you will not convince a single politician to touch and edit a single thing in the bill of rights, it would be political suicide. The only way you can do anything about this is to get the supreme court to rule in your favor, which based on past rulings, is very unlikely.

The point isn't to discuss if this is going to actually happen realistically. Of course its not. I want to know your opinion on the matter. Not politicians looking to get re-elected.

 

[CRASHiC]

At the moment, I have no set opinion. On one hand, my grandmother is a pirsion guard, and I can tell you, if someone wants you dead, they'll kill you one way or another. My grandmother has seen people craft a sword out of a pipe, and kill about 50 people before he was finally stopped. If we can't stop murder in an environment as controlled as a prison, then banning weapons isn't going to solve anything. Some people point to places with hand gun bans having a lower crime rate. What they fail to also note, is that these places do not have the wide gaps between rich and poor, as well as the large portion of minorities below the poverty line. That is the true cause of our crime rate, not the ownership of guns.

On the other hand, guns do allow for greater intimidation, and can be used for things such as a bank robbery more than a pocket knife can.

But beyond the ethics, I personally believe that ethics and morals have nothing at all to do with laws, and only what the rights set out in the governments legislation is all that matters. But how do I apply this to a discussion as to weather or not one piece of legislation is out of date with modern day society? That I do not know, and thus can't possibly reply to this thread.

 

[Deleted member]

Cops have guns. That makes sense to me. They need to have an inherent upper hand. Prison guards having guns also makes sense to me. They need to be able to shut down riots or prison yard brawls.

A normal person has no use for a gun.

 

[pacmansays]

Cops have guns. That makes sense to me. They need to have an inherent upper hand. Prison guards having guns also makes sense to me. They need to be able to shut down riots or prison yard brawls.

A normal person has no use for a gun.

Only in America though


Here in the UK the police (except in rare cases) do not carry guns and they've only just begun to introduce tasers....

You don't need them to have the upper hand, but they might be more necessary in America where the average citizen could be carrying a gun..

But, if my observations of US shows such as "to catch a predator" "Worlds most dangerous criminals" and all that tosh is correct that the police overuse the gun and kind of use it as a crutch...

 

[manhunter098]

Cops have guns. That makes sense to me. They need to have an inherent upper hand. Prison guards having guns also makes sense to me. They need to be able to shut down riots or prison yard brawls.

A normal person has no use for a gun.

Just because a normal person could never find a normal use for a gun doesnt mean that a gun would not be useful to a person who is in a situation where they are threatened by another.

And in a situation where you are threatened having a gun WOULD be useful.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Cops have guns. That makes sense to me. They need to have an inherent upper hand. Prison guards having guns also makes sense to me. They need to be able to shut down riots or prison yard brawls.

A normal person has no use for a gun.

So, should all hunting, clay pigeon shooting, etc. be illegal? Normal people have plenty of uses for guns.

 

[Deleted member]

So, should all hunting, clay pigeon shooting, etc. be illegal?

Perhaps - to what end do these activities lead to?

 

[manhunter098]

Enjoyment, fun. While not quite a perfectly analogous example, to what end does a dangerous activity like skydiving or free solo climbing (no ropes) lead to?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Perhaps - to what end do these activities lead to?

What kind of question is that? I would ban smoking and drinking long before weaponry if we are to start examining "to what end these activities lead".

 

[Crimson King]

Perhaps - to what end do these activities lead to?

Now you are just reaching. I can think of plenty of potentially dangerous hobbies that people do for the sole purpose of enjoyment. Just because you have no desire to partake in said activity, doesn't mean it isn't a fruitful endeavor. Seriously, your argument just plain fails.

 

[pacmansays]

Well give the public access to potentially life threatening equipment for the sake of a few sports seems a bit ridiculous....if they like hunting or clay shooting so much they could rent possible rifles from a local club or something

 

[Riddle]

Now you are just reaching. I can think of plenty of potentially dangerous hobbies that people do for the sole purpose of enjoyment. Just because you have no desire to partake in said activity, doesn't mean it isn't a fruitful endeavor. Seriously, your argument just plain fails.

Are these activities a risk to others though? I dont't care what people do if they could hurt themselves, but I do care if they are a risk to others. This is why I oppose somking (Second-hand Smoke) and other similar harmful "hobbies".

 

[manhunter098]

Riddle, almost anything can be used incorrectly (or accidentally) to harm others. I can stab you with a pencil and kill you but that doesnt make a pencil dangerous. Making sure that the people who own guns know how to be safe with them is very important and controls like that on weapons distribution would prevent a lot of accidents.

Also, smoking is not a hobby, its an act that people often enjoy, but it isnt the same as a hobby. Not that that really matters too much.