Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Expression, thought and ergo faith, assembly, my arm, my leg, my life, liberty. These are by their nature inherent and inalienable.Enshrining what is essentially a property issue alongside these makes farce of them. Putting the ownership of a weapon alongside these also likely highlights why that even accounting for gun ownership being disproportionately high in the US, gun related crime is still disproportionately high.
The original purpose of the Second Amendment was that for States to have means of defending themselves against Federal power, should the need arise. The Heller case has attributed this as an individual right, but ignores the preceding preamble regarding a well regulated militia, which should by common sense imply that this article is meant to be enacted by a collective. This original intention is also no longer particularly relevant, thus making it a relic.
One doesn't need to enshrine the right to own a car, purchase a toaster or download porn. Yet fulfill certain legal and monetary requirements made and you can drive, eat toast and jerk off as much as you want.
You attempted to speak for 2nd supporters when you said:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Gun owners "cling" to their guns because they feel a sense of empowerment, that doesn't particularly mean it actually empowers them against 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
But that isn't the case. We cling to them for personal protection from some punk on a dark street, or someone who tries rob their store. No sane person actually thinks they can take on the govt. with their shotgun, which is what you seem to think.
The first clause you quoted is regarding gun owner mentality, the second clause of the statement you quoted is regarding the assertion that gun-toting US citizens pose any real threat to a modern military. I generalized; which I probably shouldn't have; and poorly phrased perhaps.
I didn't particularly mean an empowerment against the government, although that is the original intention of the Amendment as far as I'm aware.
Besides your assertion that it makes you feel safer is akin to a sense of empowerment anyway.
The punk on the dark street presumably fits my generalization as well, just from a different angle.
None of which particularly refutes my assertion that it's enshrinement as "a right" is relatively obsolete and antiquated.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Besides your assertion that it makes you feel safer is akin to a sense of empowerment anyway.The punk on the dark street presumably fits my generalization as well, just from a different angle.
Yeah, it's technically still empowerment. But being able to fight off a would-be carjacker is a far cry from trying to take the White House in a coup.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
None of which particularly refutes my assertion that it's enshrinement as "a right" is relatively obsolete and antiquated.
The right to be able to protect your own hide will never be obsolete.
Trying to make self-defense and a property right issue equivalent doesn't make the Second Amendment as originally framed any less antiquated or obsolete. The points I made earlier, still stand...
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Expression, thought and ergo faith, assembly, my arm, my leg, my life, liberty. These are by their nature inherent and inalienable.Enshrining what is essentially a property issue alongside these makes farce of them. Putting the ownership of a weapon alongside these also likely highlights why that even accounting for gun ownership being disproportionately high in the US, gun related crime is still disproportionately high.
The original purpose of the Second Amendment was that for States to have means of defending themselves against Federal power, should the need arise. The Heller case has attributed this as an individual right, but ignores the preceding preamble regarding a well regulated militia, which should by common sense imply that this article is meant to be enacted by a collective. This original intention is also no longer particularly relevant, thus making it a relic.
One doesn't need to enshrine the right to own a car, purchase a toaster or download porn. Yet fulfill certain legal and monetary requirements made and you can drive, eat toast and jerk off as much as you want.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The argument is that guns serve as deterrent against government oppression.
The government has a massive modern arsenal of conventional weapons; nuclear weapons; I'm not sure of the status of chemical and biological weapons - although it may have those too.
The counterargument is simply that if the full force, or even part of the force of that weaponry was turned on the citizenry they would stand no chance.Gun owners "cling" to their guns because they feel a sense of empowerment, that doesn't particularly mean it actually empowers them against 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The typical US citizen isn't the Viet Cong or Mujahideen.
The typical US landscape is hardly the Vietnam jungle or the Tora Bora caves.
The typical US citizen is either overweight or obese, and about a quarter of them are myopic.
The typical US citizen is not Agent V or Jason Bourne, despite delusions of grandeur.Enshrining "gun ownership" as a right, is frankly relatively bizarre. I'm just going to repost this from another thread:
I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.I don't consider gun ownership an inalienable "right" of the same level as freedom of speech, religion or association, civil rights, human rights, due process; nor the view that it needs to be enshrined in the same way. It's something that you can acquire if you meet certain requirements, like a knife or a car or a toaster or porn.
If you're not mentally retarded or imbalanced, are of a reasonable age and don't have homicidal tendencies, and you're not going to leave them lying around for the children, and have money to burn then sure buy as many guns as you like.
But I don't get the strange view that it needs to be protected as an individual right, there isn't an individual right to machetes or cars so I don't see the comparison. And the interpretation by the Supreme Court really isn't an accurate literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment
Actually, I personally find that freedom to freely trade should be an inalienable right, which would then include machetes, cars, assault weapons, nuclear weapons and socks.
The argument about government oppression may not be a good one, but it is clearly what the writers of the constitution intended. I also agree that the amendment is misinterpreted and that gun nuts in the USA are knee jerk morons. And though you are right that ultimately the military can just crush you if it wants, it's still a deterrent for the people actually working for the government. If your local mayor knows that there are 5000 people in his town that have guns and if your local police knows that then their approach is in some ways at least limited. Blatantly inacceptable and unfair laws would be much harder to pass and enforce. You are right that ultimately a military with nuclear capabilities could keep order, but a) at extreme expenses and b) the likelihood of such an act of power is more unlikely.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Expression, thought and ergo faith, assembly, my arm, my leg, my life, liberty. These are by their nature inherent and inalienable.Enshrining what is essentially a property issue alongside these makes farce of them. Putting the ownership of a weapon alongside these also likely highlights why that even accounting for gun ownership being disproportionately high in the US, gun related crime is still disproportionately high.
The original purpose of the Second Amendment was that for States to have means of defending themselves against Federal power, should the need arise. The Heller case has attributed this as an individual right, but ignores the preceding preamble regarding a well regulated militia, which should by common sense imply that this article is meant to be enacted by a collective. This original intention is also no longer particularly relevant, thus making it a relic.
One doesn't need to enshrine the right to own a car, purchase a toaster or download porn. Yet fulfill certain legal and monetary requirements made and you can drive, eat toast and jerk off as much as you want.
That is one of the most basic human elements there is: self-defense. And if that means, guns, it means guns.
a right to free trade and a right to self defense are not rights to own guns. An extension of those rights is that guns may be part of a free market or may be used as self defense.
and unfortunately, given the way the world works, re: the state has a monopoly on the use of force, nobody has the right to defend themselves against the state. This is true even in Randian political theory (actually, it is an axiom of Rand's theories).
I agree 100% with X's point here. That gun ownership is a "inalienable human right" or whatever is frankly ludicrous. Many other nations are able to have reasonable gun ownership without needing to protect it with a constitutional amendment. Also, lets not let ideology put little twinkles in our eyes. America has a serious problem with crime and guns. While gun ownership itself is not the cause of this, there is a cultural factor that precipitates this problem. To claim that individuals can buy and sell nuclear weapons because it is their right to have access to a free market or that self defense is equivalent to the right to have 64 loaded AK47s in a home in the suburbs is such an exercise in academic theorizing that it is nearly moot.
Implicit in the idea of rights come responsibilities. American society is not responsible enough for the guns they have. Far more issues of practical importance need to be addressed before something like "I should be allowed to stockpile automatic weapons because it is my right in the economy" has any real salience, other than stating a idealistic view of how the economy should run. Look, I'm the last person to say the government should be involved in anything, but given we have hundreds of years of government intervention to push back, and a society dependent on government power, the only way we are going to see the changes necessary to society is if the government acts to empower people to be responsible enough to own and operate weapons.
Originally posted by KidRock
How do I defend myself if someone breaks into my house with a knife and tries to kill me? Or if someone tries attacking me on the street with a gun (since banning guns doesnt prevent criminals from getting them)?
but the right to "self defense" is not context specific.
This could be extended to "what if I need to defend myself from a tank?" which then, according to the exact same logic you have posted, would mean RPG ownership is covered under "self defense".
All the right to self defense means is that, you may protect yourself if attacked. Nowhere does it say what with.
Originally posted by inimalist
and unfortunately, given the way the world works, re: the state has a monopoly on the use of force, nobody has the right to defend themselves against the state. This is true even in Randian political theory (actually, it is an axiom of Rand's theories).
Woah, what Randian theory did you learn.
Oh and the right to free trade as I use it (absolute free trade) of course implies that you have the right to own a gun.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Woah, what Randian theory did you learn.Oh and the right to free trade as I use it (absolute free trade) of course implies that you have the right to own a gun.
the one she outlines in "The Virtue of Selfishness"
there are huge passages where she describes how it is necessary that the state be the only group with the ability to initiate the use of force. EDIT: I don't have it in front of me, I don't think she uses the word initiate, though I know she uses the term monopoly, which I used before
I'm sure your model of free trade does allow that. I was saying essentially just that, that it is a condition of free enterprise that allows you to own a gun, not an inalienable right to guns themselves.
and, I would also mention that an ideology of free trade that is detrimental to society is no better than communism. America, as a society, needs to fix some things before free enterprise into arms will no longer result in astronomical amounts of gun deaths.
Originally posted by inimalist
the one she outlines in "The Virtue of Selfishness"there are huge passages where she describes how it is necessary that the state be the only group with the ability to initiate the use of force. EDIT: I don't have it in front of me, I don't think she uses the word initiate, though I know she uses the term monopoly, which I used before
What you said though is that nobody has the right to defend themselves against the state, that's very much incorrect in her philosophy.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure your model of free trade does allow that. I was saying essentially just that, that it is a condition of free enterprise that allows you to own a gun, not an inalienable right to guns themselves.
Agreed.
Originally posted by inimalist
and, I would also mention that an ideology of free trade that is detrimental to society is no better than communism. America, as a society, needs to fix some things before free enterprise into arms will no longer result in astronomical amounts of gun deaths.
And Agreed.
Daily Gallup polls still show McCain up by 5 points. Also, that McCain is now winning the majority of independents, 52% compared to 40% before the convention.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
RCP average of 7 polls conducted Sunday and Monday show McCain ahead by 2.7 points. (the polls are 3 ties, 2 with a 2pt. lead for McCain, 1 with a 5pt. lead, and 1 with a 10pt. lead)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
WTF, non-Americans crying over America and it's gun laws again. Seriously, why do you care? It's not like Kid Rock and Mota are going to take their handful of guns and invade Canada.
Consider if America banned gun ownership, what would happen? You'd have law abiding citizens turning in their weapons, the people who generally wouldn't use those guns to commit a crime. While the criminals who would/do intend on using their guns unlawfully keeping theirs.
-
"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."
This doesn't mean a state, province etc. has to have a well regulated militia, or the amendment is obsolete, it simply means that the government can not impose on having one. A militia is basically armed citizens.
The issue of gun violence mainly pertains to the lower classes of the U.S. society which in turn is about crime.
Crime is rampant in areas where people are not able to sustain the basic necessities (home, shelter, food) without struggling. It is not as simple as restricting gun laws, although Bush did make some firearms more avaliable than Clinton.
What I'm getting at is that the massive amount of gun violence is a result of a lot of other issues, not just random nutjobs.
Originally posted by inimalist
but the right to "self defense" is not context specific.This could be extended to "what if I need to defend myself from a tank?" which then, according to the exact same logic you have posted, would mean RPG ownership is covered under "self defense".
All the right to self defense means is that, you may protect yourself if attacked. Nowhere does it say what with.
Well we should determine that then, but since we arent routinely invaded by tanks or have our self security threatened by an F-16 there wouldn't be a need for RPG's or an Anti-Air turret in my backyard. But the threat of someone attacking us with a gun or a knife is most definitely there, and we should be able to prepare ourselves for that situation..such as having a gun of our own.
Originally posted by Robtard
Consider if America banned gun ownership, what would happen? You'd have law abiding citizens turning in their weapons, the people who generally wouldn't use those guns to commit a crime. While the criminals who would/do intend on using their guns unlawfully keeping theirs.
-
Exactly, gun laws only hurt the law abiding citizens who would use their guns for home or self defense. It is as if some people think if guns were illegal it would be harder for criminals to get them, or make them less likely to use them.
For some reason I don't picture an inner city gang banger going into a gun store and buying a registered uzi to their name..they get it by illegal means and if guns were banned they would continue to get them by illegal means but now they wouldnt have to worry since the guy whos house they decide to break into wont have that shotgun waiting by his bedpost.