"Although the Constitution provides the right to bear arms, American society has changed to the point that it is too dangerous for this right to continue as originally written."
As a good knee-jerk liberal, I've struggled with the Second Amendment for a while. I'd like to ban handguns, I really would. But, the amendment says what it says. It also, fortunately for sanity, says "A well-regulated militia," so fortunately there's room to regulate arms without infringing on the right to do so. As Michael Moore pointed out in "Bowling for Columbine," we don't have the right to have plutonium or ICBMs in our back yards, so the regulation we're arguing about is just a matter of degree. There's also a lot of legitimate uses for firearms, besides knocking over the corner liquor store or having your children turn themselves into statistics. My dad pointed out that, when it comes to keeping coyotes away from the livestock, kind words and a rifle go a lot farther than kind words alone. I believe a stronger economy, a larger middle class and a smaller underclass, and a more secure social safety net will help bring our gun casualties a little closer to European or Canadian rates. Gun violence is a symptom as well as a problem by itself. (Why do I want to substitute the First Amendment for the Second, in this example? Or the Third? It's about time we as citizens did our part, and allowed the British Army to quarter the troops in our homes! WHO'S WITH ME?!)
I believe the statement is factually correct. At a time when people are shooting other people in our freeways, it is hard to argue that the right as written does not bring danger to our society. The question is whether Americans are willing to put up with this danger in order to preserve a right which was given by the founding fathers at a time when things were very different. Aparently most of them are. Personally I'd like to see more restrictions on guns.
I thought it was going to be a poll about whether Mel and Karl should no longer be allowed to post threads in this forum. Crap.
Let's see: On one side we have the framers of a document which has withstood over 200 years of scrutiny and is a beacon of light and hope for the downtrodden across the globe. On the other hand, we have Mel Brennan, who has carved his niche as a beacon of confusion and condescension to those who populate an obscure soccer message board. It's close, but I gotta side with the Founding Fathers on this one.
Keep in mind: the statement only says that the law is too dangerous AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. There's no mention of abolishing the law alltogether. All it's saying is that it's about time we change the wording of the second amendment, seeing as things today are a hell of a lot different than they were in 1776. I'm finding it really hard to not agree with that. Of course, there are tons of other things in our government that could probably stand to undergo the same process, but that's a few other threads.
This is true. At the risk of getting my liberal card revoked, all the gun control in the world isn't going to eliminate gun violence. There's a reason Park Slope in Brooklyn has fewer cases of violent crime than Brownsville. But there's also a reason why you're more likely to be shot in Detroit than, say, Brixton. I really have no problem with the amendment - it might not be as useful to urban and suburban Americans as it was back in the 18th Century, but at the very least, it has great symbolic value. At the same time, I wish the anti-gun control types were less disingenuous about the "well regulated militia" part. It does seem to imply the government's power to define "well regulated".
In rural America where guns matter most, there is no pattern of violence. This is a city issue. You cityfolk go deal with it. Screw the federal standard, I agree, but there's no way I want New York/Boston/Philadelphia/D.C., etc. deciding when, where, or how I carry my firearms in Texas.
Ian repped me for the above post. I just want Ian to know that I reccomend a full good ole American communist solution, rather than a gun-control solution, to solve the problem. i.e.- send all these inner-city thugs to art school!
I respect your opinion but please don't lump New York, the safest big city in America, with those warzones you named.
I don't see why a database of barrels can't be created before sale. Shoot the gun, record the lands and grooves, and require the buyer to keep track of the gun-- if lost or stolen, report it, if sold keep a record of the buyer. This would not infringe the right to keep and bear arms in my fairly libertarian estimation... but it would give law enforcement a place to start more often than not. Yes I know there would be an incentive to buy a gun, report it stolen, and then sell it as untraceable, but I bet good policework could put buyer and seller together often enough to make it a bad career move overall...and it wouldn't be unreasonable to treat the last traceable owner of a murder weapon as an "accessory before the fact" if he hadn't reported the weapon lost or stolen... I also don't see why its impractical to "mark" ammunition to make it traceable. If we can establish that Joe Doaks was the original owner of the gun, and that the bullet was bought in Glens Falls, and that Sam Stiff is the victim, there's a pretty good database to investigate from... you don't have to catch everybody, you just have to catch enough to add disincentives and prevent repeat offenders... over a decade you'll cut the incidence by maybe 3/4... Also, I wonder how much privately owned artillery there was (other than maritime guns) when the amendment was written? Would someone like Jacob Brown or William Henry Harrison have owned field artillery? Would anyone have owned a seige gun? Or would militia have been limited to small arms? In other words, did the framers think they were writing about automatic weapons, bazookas, armor piercing rounds etc, or did they think it meant rifles, shotguns, and handguns?
My, my. It's Americans like you that are hated with a passion around the globe. Just thought you might like to know. Personally I think it's the combination of social misery and the easy availibility of guns that cause the problem. Stricter rules on the right to carry arms probably won't do much good on their own. So there's no easy solution. I do know that the less arms around, the less likely people are to die or get severely injured. Every idiot can see that.
At this point in our history, guns are a cultural issue. And you can't just legislate culture away, as much as some would like. I, along with Herr Loney, am a pretty liberal person. And I hate guns. I really really hate guns. Antique rifles, ok. But I don't understand people who take pride in mass-produced machines that only have one purpose - to kill another living thing at a distance. That aside, I don't think getting rid of the 2nd amendment is gonna solve anything. Again, it's a cultural thing. If we want to get rid of hand gun violence, it needs to start at a much deeper level than just pushing a law through congress. Loney's right, too, about economic issues that are related. Move a quarter of what we spend on defense to education (especially school building and teacher salary), and you'll see a drop in gun violence.
The knee-jerk to some sensibility around guns is interesting, but the correct answer is the third selection in the poll. Warning: there's some reading below. According to Jon S. Vernick and Stephen P. Teret of Johns Hopkins University Injury Prevention Center, the Supreme Court has examined two broad issues involving the Second Amendment's reach. The first is whether the amendment controls federal law only or whether it also can be extended to the state and local levels. The second is whether it protects individual rights to own firearms, or only collective, "militia" rights. On the first question, the Court ruled definitively in United States v. Cruikshank that the amendment "means no more than (the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress." This 1876 ruling established that states and localities are not prevented from enacting their own gun-control laws--and they remain free to do so to this day. In 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, the Court reaffirmed the concept of a state's rights, as it were, to control guns, and this position has never been modified. Therefore, it re-mains the Court's last word on the subject. Lower courts have time and again held to this precedent. Regarding the second broad question of individual versus state-militia rights, the Court held in its 1939 United States v. Miller decision that individuals have in effect no right to keep and bear arms under the amendment, but only a collective right having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Lower courts have consistently applied the Miller decision in upholding various gun-control laws over the years. The Supreme Court most recently revisited this question in 1980 [in terms of these broad questions, or other broad questions, if there are other major decisions along these lines, please post them and your/someone's take on their significance), when it reconfirmed that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." One significant part of that case is that then Chief Justice Burger and current Chief Justice Rehnquist both supported that interpretation. Burger has denounced the NRA's edited version of the amendment [missing the entire first clause] as a "fraud." The legal precedents are clear: Almost any state or local gun-control action is fine; the Second Amendment does not apply. On the federal level, only laws interfering with state militias are prohibited. There's really no legal problem with gun control at all. As a legendary sports figure once pointed out, in a different context, "You could look it up." On the other hand, most Americans (56 percent) don't want to, since they now agree with the statement, "Although the Constitution provides the right to bear arms, American society has changed to the point that it is too dangerous for this right to continue as originally written."
Tell you what Mel; I'll give up 2nd Amendment Rights if you give up 1st Amendment Rights. Deal? I thought not! "From my cold dead hands!" Charlton Heston! My sentiments exactly! Or, the Marine Infantryman's Creed: "God grant me the ammunition to kill all my enemies and the patience to try!"
I want to see the first local politician that tries to enact gun control in Texas. It would be a hoot. Hell, he probably wouldn't make it to the end of the press conference announcing his idea for new gun legislation before someone in the crowd with a concealed weapons permit shot him. And, yes, I firmly believe that they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Oh quit being melodramatic. If they came to get your gun tomorrow, you'd bitch and moan some and then go out and buy Hunters Paradise for X-Box.
You never travelled much in the Red States have you? Wait... you're from Texas yes? OR ARE YOU????????????
Gun rights at the State level are being advanced, not voided! Even as late as YESTERDAY the House declared several of DC's absurd gun laws history! In related news: Rights are being respected at the State level!