First off, I don't own a gun, don't see the purpose of it, and think the second amendment is idiotic.

Having stated the above, I also wish that gun opponents will look to the facts for once! Gun availability by itelf doesn't contribute significantly to homicides! For every place with strict gun control and low homicide rates (e.g. Japan) -- there is also a counterpoint country with an ABUNDANCE of guns and also low homicide rates!!!

Guns and ammunitions are widely disseminated in places like Israel and Switzerland -- and both countries have very low homicide rates!

When will we Americans sober up and realize that something else is going on in our society that make our people generally more prone to violence -- with more of a penchant to "take others down with us"? And if this remains unchanged, we can take away all the guns and I daresay we will still have high homicide rates in this country!

Edited by ben2world on 03/18/2009 17:03:40 MDT.

Was this in reference to something?

;)

POSTAL WORKERS DO!!!! Ali :)

OK, Ali has a point...

Guns DO NOT KILL people. People do.

Gun control does not mean taking citizens guns away from them...(ahem...Mr. President...) It means using BOTH HANDS!!!

cheers

>"don't see the purpose of it, and think the second amendment is idiotic."

I think that was an idiotic statement.

Mr. Tang, If we as citizens do not have the right to own weapons in which we can defend ourselves from the scum of this world, then WHY was the United States of America started in the first place!?!

The Second Amendment was made to ensure we had the right to defend ourselves. Otherwise, the government and anybody else can do anything they want to us. We would be sitting ducks to any and all criminals who would still have possesion of "illegal" weapons.

Do you think that if the government takes all our weapons form citizens who DESERVE the right to defend ourselves, do you REALLY expect criminals to do so also?

That's the problem with you Anti-Second Amendment people. It's like you want all our rights to be taken away by our ever growing goverment.

When I turn an adult, I intend to get a concealed weapon carry pemit for the sake of me and my (possibly) future family.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

"When will we Americans sober up and realize that something else is going on in our society that make our people generally more prone to violence -- with more of a penchant to "take others down with us"? And if this remains unchanged, we can take away all the guns and I daresay we will still have high homicide rates in this country!"

What would you say that "something" is?

as if ONE thread on guns on a lightweight backpacking forum isn't enough, we now have TWO. thanks ben.

Well, Dave, at least it's in Chaff...

See you all tommorow.

-Evan

I think a lot of Americans confuse "the right to bear arms" with the right to not have any weapons controls imposed by the government. In many countries, citizens can earn the priveledge to own a firearm. It is a priveledge that can also be taken away, even in America. The second amendment should be reworded to fit modern society. "You can earn the priveledge to own some firearms, with restrictions, if you are a good citizen and do not abuse the priveledge." It is not an unalienable right.

In NZ, if you don't have a criminal record, you can apply for a licence to own a gun as long as it is securely stored (behind a lock) with the ammo stored separately. You may not carry it around with you to hang out at the mall just in case you need to shoot someone, but you can transport it in a locked trunk/boot of your car to take hunting. You can be certain that if our government ever became tyrannical to the point of us taking up weapons, the guns would be unlocked and used appropriately. But it's pretty hard to just pull it out and shoot someone in a fit of anger, or to have a child get hold of it and do someone else damage, or for criminals to steal it.

Most of the original US constitution was thrown together in a hurried and haphazard way, and has had to evolve with the addition of amendments. The pro gun lobby sees and attempt to control guns as agaisnt their rights. Maybe those rights need be more explicitly spelled out as priveledges (and even amended)? After all, the declaration of rights originally gave us the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But only if you were a caucasian male. Slaves could aspire to none of these, and women were excluded too. And even now, that liberty and pursuit of happiness clause does not include the right to use non-sanctioned (non-taxed) recreational drugs and foods. So things can and do change, even if enshrined in some noble original "mission statement" for the country.

Why Americans are more likely to pick up a gun and actually shoot someone with may never be known. Maybe it's the "wild west" evolution of the culture. Maybe there are just more crazy people running around free in America. Maybe there's a bigger crime influence. Maybe it's just an expression of undue stress/unhappiness. Or maybe it's because access is so much easier. I'm not a sociologist, so I can't even speculate very well.

Alright Ill be more level headed this time and just try to explain this,

Constitutional rights are not privileges, they are not given to citizen by the government and therefore can not be taken away.

We already have some very sensible laws restricting, but not "infringing" on gun ownership. Like not allowing violent criminals to own guns, gun safety laws ect.
The problem is people who dont believe citizen should have the right would lead you to believe that there are no laws and or want laws that infringe upon law abiding citizens rights and have nothing to do with public safety.

And sorry,our constitution was not a haphazard mission statement. Some of us view it as one of the great master pieces of humanistic western thought. Yes , in the begging it only applied to white men but there was some debate about it and eventually after a war and domestic turmoil it extended to everyone.

And its hard to imagine maybe but many in the US have grown up with guns, our sweet old grandma and grand dad have guns, or lovers and brothers and sisters, and neighbors and co-workers have them. So it rings hollow looks quite extreme when you say guns are for people who want to kill, by which the tone it takes suggest people mean "murder" and "assault". Since we know or friends and family are not murderers and wouldn't dream of hurting anyone its just not a good argument. The flip side to "kill" is our nations long history of using land,including public, to feeds ourselves. And then there is "kill" as in protecting our selves or our loved ones since its not reasonable to have a police officer watch over us 24/7.

I appreciate Ben's attempt to get at the motivation of violence and not concentrate on one of the means. Why is there so much violence in our nation? I dont have the answer.

I am not getting involved in this spurious discussion about the morality of gun ownership, but I want to express to those of you wishing to discuss the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights one simple fact that may help in your interpretations.

The Bill of Rights was not thrown together haphazardly.
It was carefully drafted with precedence and well chosen words, with one specific, unifying purpose.

That purpose is to limit the power of the Federal government. Pretty simple.
Makes interpretation exceedingly simple and straight forward, no matter what great lengths some go to twist the words and meanings.

Carry on.

"OK, Ali has a point..."

You're both wrong. Bullets kill people. So, if you're serious about cutting down on ballistic mayhem, why not finesse the 2nd Amendment arguments by banning ammunition? I have a sneaking hunch that would be a bigger cluster f#@$ than Prohibition, but at least it would take it out of the courts and put the whole issue in the hands of the people.

I think the 14th and 16th Amendments (and sometimes the 1st) are idiotic. Do I get a prize?

The power of the federal executive doesn't seem to be much limited by widespread gun ownership. What's the plan, if the govt does something the people don't like, everyone's going to to go down to the white house and twirl their pieces or something?

deleted, tired of the threads.

Edited by oware on 03/19/2009 16:59:02 MDT.

@Roger - The power of the federal executive doesn't seem to be much limited by widespread gun ownership. What's the plan, if the govt does something the people don't like, everyone's going to to go down to the white house and twirl their pieces or something?

You gotta remember who wrote this document, and what they had been thru, and with whom.

I can't believe I'm contibuting to this. No more. Back to hiking.

"The power of the federal executive doesn't seem to be much limited by widespread gun ownership. What's the plan, if the govt does something the people don't like, everyone's going to to go down to the white house and twirl their pieces or something?"

Exactly my question. When the constitution and bill of rights were created, the nation was new and it was a very different era. I just can't see how having the freedom to "take up arms against a tyranical governement" in this day and age requires someone to carry a pistol with them everywhere. You'd be better off packing a few nuclear bombs, smart missiles and an assortment of chemical and biological weapons. At the very least an AK47.

But the reason for so much violence is a pretty interesting question. Does anyone know if violence, overall, in America is higher than other developed countries with more gun control? I mean, is there really more violence, or is there just more gun violence in America?

RE: Grandparents and guns, yeah, my grandparents were big into guns (my parents too). They owned a ranch in the middle of the Mojave desert called "Wild Horse Ranch" and signs were posted all over the fences telling trespassers that they would be shot! And my grandfather meant it. Then again, my grandfather was the single most racist, sexist, and generally hateful WASP I have ever known, so it was kinda in keeping with his character. He died a paranoid, lonely and unhappy death. Not a nice way to live IMHO.

Re the question about: "What's the plan, if the govt does something the people don't like, everyone's going to to go down to the white house and twirl their pieces or something?"

Hopefully, no, not every time the government does one crazy thing or another that someone don't like. But it would no doubt be another matter entirely if government acts to end the freedom enjoyed by American people.

And the adoption of the Second Amendment makes a lot of sense considering the fact that the folks who created the government in America over 200 years ago had good reason to fear tyranny, and had good reason to secure the "power" to resist a serious effort to take away their freedom.

Although protecting against tryanny was a big motivation for including the Second Amendment, that amendment did not actually "create" the right to bear arms. It instead limited government's ability to restrict that pre-existing and "ancient" right, a right that had proved its value at other times and places, even England's own past. In its most recent case on the Second Amendment, the US Supreme Court explained that America’s founding generation knew from history, both its own and England's too:

“. . . that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

"The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Anti-federalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 TheComplete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M.Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down."

From pages 25-26 of District of Columbia v Heller at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Heller opinion is worth reading for anyone wishing to understand the Second Amendment's importance in America, not just for resisting an attempt to impose tyranny but also for personal self-defense . . . and even hunting.

JRS

Edited by JRScruggs on 03/19/2009 17:20:03 MDT.

I really think people should be more respectful towards the standards and principals our Founding Fathers created this nation upon.

good night all