Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[timmy4]

Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?



Moderator comments made necessary by repeated behavior
Enough with the troll talk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, if you don't want to talk to this man, then don't talk to him.

Staff will let this continue. Exercise your debating skills or stay silent.

If you call timmy a troll, or can't control your temper on-line, you will get an infraction.

 

[Ashcons]

Well, what does the Second Amendment say? Equally important, if the Second Amendment appears to be unclear to you, what does the discussion in the body politic at the time surrounding the ratification of the Bill of Rights say about the principle of arms ownership? This will require some homework and critical thinking on your part that should make you ask questions outside of your comfort zone (that isn't meant to be a snarky response). When I get free time later, I will write a response to your questions, though I am sure others will cover the important points before that happens.

Welcome to THR.

 

[Baba Louie]

timmy4
It's because of the history behind the 2nd and the last four words in it probably. You do know why the 2nd was added to the BORs and why the last four words were adamant, correct?

There used to be a thread called "I'm an anti with questions" If you can use the search function, it makes for some fascinating reading.

Welcome to THR by the way. Enjoy your stay.

Maybe you can educate us and vice versa?

 

[hso]

You should spend some time researching the basis for why we oppose the restrictive aspects of the proposed legislation before diving in too deep.

2nd Amendment - The wording is "the right shall not be infringed". This means that nothing to limit or undermine the right to keep and bear arms is permitted by the Second Amendment.

Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines that Sen. Feinstein has wanted to ban for the past 20+ years constitute a tiny fraction of all murders. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.

These rifles have been used in hunting and personal defense since the '60s. They have been used for competitions for 20+ years. Today there are more participants in official competition with them than competitive shotgun competitions. Articles on their suitability for hunting are found in every hunting publication. Ads for their hunting use date back to the late '60s. Reviews of their performance are found on hunting websites. Television programs focused on hunting have featured them specifically with respect to deer hunting and controlling destructive feral hog populations. The US Park Service and National Forrest Service contract for feral hog control services using these firearms. "Traditional" hunting rifle manufacturers like Remington have invested in tooling and added these types of rifles and offer them specifically for hunting. Any search for "AR deer hunting" or "AR hog hunting" will provide sufficient evidence these firearms are used for hunting. These days they easily meet the definition of sporting firearms.

Recently in Rochester NY a resident used an AR to protect himself and roommate against armed intruders. This occurs every year. Departments of the U.S. government issue RFPs for "personal defensive weapons" requesting bids for these rifles. These modern rifles are used effectively for personal defense by citizens and the federal government departments and agencies define them as personal defense weapons. Prohibitionists say these firearms have no use for personal defense, but the government itself says they are suitable for personal defense.

Government and university studies show that firearms are used from half a million to 2.5 million times a year to stop violent crime. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm That's a remarkable contrast to the roughly 8,000 murders committed with every type of firearm reported in the FBI UCR. This is also in contract to the sporting uses in hunting and competition noted earlier and the personal defensive definition of government RFPs. Prohibitionists that claim they're "just for killing" ignore the facts that they're used to save lives as well as in sport and recreation.

Senator Feinstein has been promoting the same agenda for 20+ years while violent crime rates drop, personal defense and sporting use of these firearms increases. Her attitudes, information and legislation are at odds with the facts, government data, and the increasing popularity of these firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense. It is important to study the data, facts and opinions before espousing that of others.

 

[timmy4]

Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

You could make a better argument, in theory, that banning certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines might violate the 2nd Amendment. But that argument fails in logic, because we can't allow private citizens to have any kind of ordnance. For instance, you would not want your neighbor to possess a nuclear suitcase bomb. Therefore, we should all be able to agree that there are SOME limitations, and once we agree to that point, none of this falls under the Second Amendment.

Again, I am not arguing at this point that these proposed new restrictions make sense (in my opinion, some do and some don't.) I am simply arguing none of them violate the 2nd Amendment as it was written.

 

[BobTheTomato]

I would suggest you read Larry Correia's piece on gun control:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

This would be a good start as to how these are "feel good" measures that wont really do anything. Also, most of us know the second amendment is about self defense and protection from tyrannic government (don't forget governments killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century). In almost all cases they disarmed those they planned to kill. Lastly, those who say we need to do this make sure they are protected by men armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. If you only need 10 rounds for self defense it would seem 30 secret service agents with 10 round mags should do just fine to protect 1 man.

 

[hso]

nuclear suitcase bomb

Poor argument since it is not a personal firearm.

 

[timmy4]

Poor argument since it is not a personal firearm.

I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Are you really arguing that per the 2nd Amendment, there can be NO limitations on privately owned firearms? I doubt the Supreme Court would support you on that.

 

[skeeziks]

"I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated."

Regulate = Infringe

 

[BobTheTomato]

Timmy,

What restrictions are acceptable for speech? How about search and seizure? There are several other amendments I could ask if you are okay at approaching from a slippery slope argument. If you can limit something, you can keep making arguments to take more and more rights away.

 

[CmdrSlander]

Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

You could make a better argument, in theory, that banning certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines might violate the 2nd Amendment. But that argument fails in logic, because we can't allow private citizens to have any kind of ordnance. For instance, you would not want your neighbor to possess a nuclear suitcase bomb. Therefore, we should all be able to agree that there are SOME limitations, and once we agree to that point, none of this falls under the Second Amendment.

Again, I am not arguing at this point that these proposed new restrictions make sense (in my opinion, some do and some don't.) I am simply arguing none of them violate the 2nd Amendment as it was written.

Actually any restrictions on privately held arms (arms being the weapons of an infantryman, not ordnance, which are explosives, etc. There is a reason it says "arms" not "weapons" - you can regulate weapons, but within the subcategory of weapons that is "arms" you cannot regulate) does violate the Second Amendment as it is worded. It is an incredibly broad and radical statement, perhaps the broadest declaration of a right in the Bill of Rights. We let some restrictions fly because they aren't very onerous but others are challenged. With the right court we could strike down the NFA, large swaths of state gun laws, etc.

 

[Siaharok]

Hi Timmy,

I really hope that you're sincere about being here for a respectful debate. If that's true, then you're about to be exposed to a lot of eye-opening information -- stuff that you probably haven't thought of. I hope, in the spirit of your first post, you will take the time to truly digest what is presented.

Re: the nuclear thing. This always comes up. Anti-gunners love to leap from rifles to nuclear weapons. Why? It's just silly.

But to answer your silly question, the 2nd Amendment is clearly talking about "arms" that are carried by infantry. The whole idea was for the average person to have access to whatever weaponry the infantry was carrying. In that day and age, it was a musket. Today, it's an AR-15.

 

[timmy4]

I would suggest you read Larry Correia's piece on gun control:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

This would be a good start as to how these are "feel good" measures that wont really do anything. Also, most of us know the second amendment is about self defense and protection from tyrannic government (don't forget governments killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century). In almost all cases they disarmed those they planned to kill. Lastly, those who say we need to do this make sure they are protected by men armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. If you only need 10 rounds for self defense it would seem 30 secret service agents with 10 round mags should do just fine to protect 1 man.

You make several points here. I don't want to get into the "feels good but wouldn't do anything" debate right now, because it's a separate issue from the 2nd Amendment. But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

 

[Skribs]

First of all, I respect you not trolling. Most of the anti's we get are people pretending to be gun owners baiting us to say we agree in "reasonable restrictions." So let me spell out for you my position, which is I believe the position of many people here...

1) The second amendment was put into place for the purpose of defense against tyranny or invasion, as evidenced by papers written by the founding fathers. If you look at the Bill of Rights put into many state constitutions at the time, you can see that self defense is present, too. The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" and does not include the word "except". This is why we feel the second amendment gives us the right (and hints at the duty) to own the same weapons the military uses...that's how the revolutionary war was won. However, those weapons are already strictly regulated, and the current bans that are being proposed would make this further from the truth.

2) Making something illegal means law-abiding gun owners won't do it. You make private sales illegal, and most law-abiding citizens will follow that law. However, that criminal that stole guns from a law-abiding citizen doesn't care about selling his guns in a face-to-face transfer. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Making more laws, making them obtained more illegally, won't solve that problem.

3) You reference a magazine ban. It would really serve no purpose except to neuter the self defense capabilities of a citizen. A man going into a school prepared to shoot a bunch of people isn't just bringing the magazine in the gun, he's bringing a backpack full of magazines. If he has to reload an extra couple times (a process that takes only a couple seconds if you're not very good at it), then it's not going to do much to slow his rampage.

However, if the magazine has no bullets in it, it can take some time to load up the magazine. Your average homeowner probably only fills up the magazine in the gun, and not the spares...if he does, it is usually one spare. So making the homeowner have 10 rounds instead of 17 (standard for a Glock) or 30 (standard for an AR) means if they need 12 rounds, they probably don't have a reload available. Think that's a bit much? There was a woman recently who shot an attacker 5 times in the face out of 6 shots from her revolver, and he walked away. If he was determined, her and her kids would have been at his mercy.

4) You say guns scare you. That means you are probably suffering from what is called hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons. Are you fine around kitchen knives? Power tools? How about your own bare hands (bare hands are the #1 weapon used in child homocides). The fact is, the gun is just the tool. The vast majority of gun owners (99.9999%) promote safe, responsible use. We aren't likely to draw willy-nilly in the middle of an argument because we understand the moral and legal ramifications. We practice safe handling, so we minimize the chance of a negligent discharge and minimize the damage if one occurs. The firearm is simply a tool, it has no will of its own. We find the best cure for hoplophobia is a combination of education and experience. So it's good you're asking questions here, but I would also suggest you go to a gun range, let them teach you how to safely handle the weapon, and try it out.

I would encourage you to read this blog post. It is written by an author who also is an active member on this forum, and a very smart man. It is long, but answers a lot of questions that anti-gunners have:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 

[CmdrSlander]

I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Are you really arguing that per the 2nd Amendment, there can be NO limitations on privately owned firearms? I doubt the Supreme Court would support you on that.

The Supreme Court would not support us on that point, you are correct. But the SCOTUS relies on case law and precedent as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the former two sometimes conflict with the latter. You have to understand that when dealing with us gun owners you are dealing with Constitutional fundamentalists. I, for one, believe that under the 2A you should be able to have a rocket launcher, and you should be able to cash and carry a machine gun, and silencers should be unrestricted, etc. I believe this because such weapons would be excellent for fighting a modern military, be it a foreign invasion or local tyranny, and fighting those things was the original point of the 2nd Amendment.

If you believe the Second Amendment is irrelevant then we have nothing to discuss because that is like debating a religious issue and starting out with "God doesn't exist but..." - at that point you are entirely opposed to the person you are debating to the extent that you cannot grasp their world view and common ground will never be found.

 

[timmy4]

Hi Timmy,

I really hope that you're sincere about being here for a respectful debate. If that's true, then you're about to be exposed to a lot of eye-opening information -- stuff that you probably haven't thought of. I hope, in the spirit of your first post, you will take the time to truly digest what is presented.

Re: the nuclear thing. This always comes up. Anti-gunners love to leap from rifles to nuclear weapons. Why? It's just silly.

But to answer your silly question, the 2nd Amendment is clearly talking about "arms" that are carried by infantry. The whole idea was for the average person to have access to whatever weaponry the infantry was carrying. In that day and age, it was a musket. Today, it's an AR-15.

Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.

 

[Ashcons]

You make a great argument for loosening weapons restrictions there. How's our military done in recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan re: fighting a peoples where combatants and non-combatants aren't easily differentiated? Do you suggest that if there were a civil war today that the military and law enforcement would be effective at fighting a war on American soil? Not a moot argument at all, IMO.

 

[Skribs]

You make several points here. I don't want to get into the "feels good but wouldn't do anything" debate right now, because it's a separate issue from the 2nd Amendment. But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

It is absolutely relevant to the second amendment, because the second amendment protects our right to defend ourselves.

Guns might not be much against tanks and helicopters, but the people likely enforcing the rules of a tyrannical government would be police and infantry. It's pretty evident with a lot of the third-world rebellions going on today. They can be fought with firearms.

We might not be close to a tyrannical government (some say we are), but the fact remains the constitution wasn't put in place to protect our rights when tyranny rears its ugly head. It's to keep tyranny out completely.

 

[StrikerPaws]

Timmy,

Why do guns scare you?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I would say that if you have to ask, you really don't know what the second amendment is all about. You need to go read it, and get your own understanding. Bear in mind the guys that wrote it just took government into their own hands, by force.

 

[clutch]

Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?

Before I indulge you, let me ask you a question, what is your opinion of free speech zones ?

That First Amendment is pretty important to us in the freedom culture, almost as much as the Second Amendment that is a bulwark for the First.

 

[Skribs]

Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.

Your proposed limitation on high capacity magazines would affect the majority of my weapons. Except for sub-compact carry guns and 1911s, most pistols hold more than 10 rounds. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America for sport shooting (both target and action sport) and home defense, and is quickly becoming the most popular (if it isn't already) for hunting. Standard capacity is 30 rounds. We don't have to use all 30, but it's nice to have them there if there's a bad guy that makes us use them in self defense.

Gun control measures are never effective at reducing crime. Criminals do not follow the law, and even if denied this particular tool, they still have access to numerous other devices, all unregulated (kitchen knives, power tools, cars, etc.). In order to stop violence you have to deal with the violent criminals. The gun is just a tool.

 

[CmdrSlander]

Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.

We resist because the measure you propose would crimp our lifestyles...

...in truth this is the main reason we oppose them, intellectual justifications, for most, come second, not first, on this point.

It turns our stomachs to imagine waking up one day and with the stroke of a pen being less free than you were the day before. Even if restrictions are "reasonable", they are still onerous to those on the front lines of the issue.

We look at countries like Australia and Britain and see that near total disarmament always starts with "reasonable" restrictions. Imagine you are a persecuted minority (maybe you are) and the government said "we want whats best for you and we will never hurt you but would you kindly where this patch that makes you easily identifiable..."

It doesn't inconvenience you that much... but knowing what you know about where that lead the last time someone asked people to do that, would you do it?

 

[StockKahr]

timmy4,

Let's start with some basics. First, do you believe that it would be an infringement of one's Second Amendment rights if the federal government were to restrict the civilian ownership of "arms" to only muzzle-loading muskets and pistols of the type that were available when the Bill of Rights was enacted? Why or why not?

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

This thread is a great example of why we need to take care with postings open to the public. I have no real kind words for "Timmy" and suspect this is being used as a fishing expedition in order to bolster anti-gun arguments.

Really? Confusion or ignorance regarding the why of bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Even my most liberal of Flagstaff dwelling family members understand the impact of that amendment.