2nd Amendment: The Right To Kill People?, Is it time to amend the US Constitution? Options

[hardbodyactiv]

Considering that USA have more deaths by the deliberate use of firearms than all 21 affiliated countries in Europe, Canada and Australia...approximately 500,000,000 (five hundred million) people, do you not think that it is about time that the US Constitution was amended to outlaw the purchase and use of firearms and restrict their sale to private individuals only for the purpose of hunting and only allowing these to be of the shotgun or rifle variety?

Long question I know and perhaps a bit deep...but most of you will at some time or other encounter a firearm incident if you live in the Continental US and it is even more likely if you live in certain urban areas or states such as Texas, Florida, California or New York. Perhaps this is due to State in addtion to Federal legislation and also perhaps an explosive mix of different social & ethnic backgrounds.

Please don't just post yes or no as you must have a reason to give an answer


Peace Out

[snak3y3z1001]

Restricting guns wont do sqat. Here in NYC its illegal for civilians to carry a conveal firearm. Yet lots of guns are smuggled in. In other countries I know they have banned and restrict guns completely thinking it will stop crimes. Yet crimes involving firearms have steadly increased instead of decreasing.

[dahding]

shouldn't this be in debates?

[Nicolatofu]

I see this as becoming a debate... if any mod feels I have misplaced it, feel free to move it =]

-->Topic moved to interests>>debate<--

[hardbodyactiv]

thx for moving it...i hadn't seen debates as a topic.


Peace Out

[*kryogenix*]

restricting the right to bear arms takes guns away from the responsible and lets criminals who steal guns a free ticket because if they rob someone, the person being robbed can't fire back.

i'll say it again, It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

[sadolakced acid]

if every citizen were issued an assult rifle which they carried, there would be no crime, save murders.

hey, you're stopping rape, robbery, muggings, etc.

it's great, isn't it?

[*basick*]

what i think...

[XoJennaoX]

if every citizen were issued an assult rifle which they carried, there would be no crime, save murders.

hey, you're stopping rape, robbery, muggings, etc.

it's great, isn't it?

I don't think you can make that conclusion, it is not that easy.

Here is the key point: Criminals do not obey laws. What would laws actually do to stop criminals? On the other side 1,000 innocent people a year die from gun accidents, i'm still torn between both sides. I don't need a gun, will never need a gun, and i certainly wouldn't feel safer owning a gun. I don't think i trust most civilians having guns on them, it is just too easy to pull a trigger on someone.

[sadolakced acid]

well, yea, but not many people will rape a 17 year old girl at 3 in the morning when she has an AK-47.

guns give an advantage to whichever side has one. if one side doesn't have a gun, they're disadvantaged. if both sides have a gun (and know how to use it), then they're about equal, as they're both disadvantaged.

so how does it save lives by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, while the criminals stil lhave guns?

you're right. the laws won't stop criminals.

[XoJennaoX]

well, yea, but not many people will rape a 17 year old girl at 3 in the morning when she has an AK-47.

In most rape cases a gun is not even involved. Say i had a gun in my purse. A guy comes sneaking up behind me, he is much stronger and rips my purse with my gun away from me. Now he has two guns, and if he didn't have a gun to begin with, he does now.

guns give an advantage to whichever side has one.  if one side doesn't have a gun, they're disadvantaged.  if both sides have a gun (and know how to use it), then they're about equal, as they're both disadvantaged.

I wouldn't feel any safer walking with a gun, even if i know how to use it. It can always turn into someone elses weapon against you, it is never an equal battle dealing with guns.

[*suddenly she*]

Restricting guns wont do sqat. Here in NYC its illegal for civilians to carry a conveal firearm. Yet lots of guns are smuggled in. In other countries I know they have banned and restrict guns completely thinking it will stop crimes. Yet crimes involving firearms have steadly increased instead of decreasing.

that's true. even if they make a law restricting us from owning guns, people will still find ways to get them. anyway, i think you need a license to own one and it has to be renewed every few somethings, or maybe those are just some certain guns.

why a gun? anyone can fire a gun. why not something like a rope dart or a dagger? a pocketknife is pretty inefficient and most people don't know how to use daggers (or rope darts) properly.

sorry, that was off-topic.

oh and the freedom to own a gun doesn't give you freedom to kill.

[fameONE]

I'm not sure if any of you have been on both ends of the barrell but let me just give a real life account.

My best friend blew his own brains out. My uncle was caught in the crossfire and was killed at 25. And I have been held up at gunpoint on more than one occasion. My family opposes guns... to an extent. I oppose guns... to an extent. Afew weeks ago, a few guys were on my property trying to steal my car, but a 20gauge shotgun spoke otherwise. My little cousin was almost raped, but her .45 let out a cry for help right in the guy's spine.

Thank God for guns.

[rOckThISshYt]

what i think...

I agree with you.

Did you know that most of the killings that are done with guns are done with illegal guns? It doesn't matter if the person has a license or if guns are legal or not. The black market will always be alive no matter what.

[sweet_devil]

I agree with you.

Did you know that most of the killings that are done with guns are done with illegal guns? It doesn't matter if the person has a license or if guns are legal or not. The black market will always be alive no matter what.

i definitely agree with you about the black market thing...

[hardbodyactiv]

What about the fact that with less legally owned guns, with a change of legislation, there would be a substantially reduced opportunity to purchase illegal guns; obviously they will never be eradicated as they are available even here in the UK...just that their indiscriminate use is severely limited.

We all know the well-used phrase 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. With a change of culture, it may take some time but eventually through a change in attitude through legislation and via education, any society can be altered, even one as vast as the USA.

Private gun use on so many levels and in so many ways is just wrong and definitely creates an aggressive culture. The fact that with very limited checks as a foreign citizen owning property and having a bank account in the USA, I could have recently purchased a Mach10 which fires 30 rounds/second. If I had so desired I could have purchased that gun and immediately gone on a killing spree, without ever having held a gun before. Is this right?

If it was that easy for me, how much easier is it for US citizens to buy a revolver or semi-automatic if that's their choice. And what training do they have to receive (unlike Military/Police) and what kind of mental analysis do they have to receive prior to a licence being issued?

You all know the answer to that.


Peace Out

[sadolakced acid]

guns don't kill people, bullets do. we need bullet control.

yea, that's corny.

the right to bear arms was not put as the second ammendment becuase they needed guns for hunting. rather, it was in response to the british policies regarding the colonists and guns.

the right to bear arms comes right after freedoms of speech, religion, press and petition. why? because the right to bear arms was important to the founding fathers.

now look at the bill or rights.

the real text.

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

now, this real text makes it obvious the purpose of the right to bear arms was to protect the state.

not the individual, but the state.

however, if you will look, it says "... necessary to the security of a free state..."

therefore, the right to bear arms is to ensure freedom. it is to ensure the army cannot take control of the country. (which happened a lot in europe). it was to ensure that citizens, once they'd expressed thier opinions on the government, published them, and put them in a petition, that the citizens would have the power to put the bullet behind thier words.

the right to bear arms is not about defense of self.
it is not about hunting.

it is about ensuring a free state

and that is still relevant today.

[fameONE]

My response to opposers is for you to refer to my previous response.

[someflipguy]

Guns can be a savior. But, can also cause hate and dispare

[*kryogenix*]

bumping this, as I will be bringing this topic up in my Issues in American Society class.

I can't believe there aren't many people here that support gun control.

[technicolour]

Guns can be a savior.  But, can also cause hate and dispare

GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE.

GUNS DO NOT CAUSE HATE.

it's the retards holding them.

[ComradeRed]

More guns = less crime. The reason the US has more crime than other countries is because we have more DIVERSITY (not just racial, but in all ways). Diversity trades social conformity in exchange for individual freedom, so a little crime is a necessary side effect. The highest crime rates in the US are in the South, and really the South is the most diverse part of the country, whereas crime is nearly nonexistent in northern New England, where everyone is about the same.

Although I do support repealing the second amendment, on the grounds of States' Rights. States should be allowed to determine their own gun control policy, because the States that have loose gun control laws are doing just fine, whereas, if a state wants to commit suicide by having tough gun laws, that's their issue. The evidence clearly supports that higher gun ownership creates less crime in similar areas (Chicago vs. New York, Maine/Vermont/New Hampshire vs. Wisconsin/Minnesota, Texas vs. Louisiana, etc.) A criminal isn't going to attack a victim he thinks might be armed. That's simple incentives--just like a criminal isn't going to commit a crime where there's a lot of police becaue he has a higher chance of being punished, it's the same for committing a crime where there's a high rate of gun ownership.

Once again, to take the example of Philadelphia and nearby Wilmington. It is easier to get a gun in Pennsylvania than Delaware, so many Philadelphia drug dealers found it hard to operate in PA, and had to relocate their bases to Delaware, while going into Philadelphia by day. This caused Philadelphia's crime problem to spill over into Delaware which basically made Wilmington the most dangerous mid-sized city in the country--but you don't hear about Boston's crime problem spilling over into New Hampshire, do you? A Boston drug dealer who wants to run his operation in Nashua would be driven out by the locals.

It's a TERRIBLE idea to amend the Constitution to repeal private ownership of guns. Vermont has almost NO crime yet allows anyone above the age of 15 to buy a gun without background checks (even felons) and carry it concealed, so it's silly to force the same gun laws there that you would have in New York City. Only something like one in five hundred guns are being used irresponsibly; most guns are used for self-defense or lawful entertainment--so a ban on guns is like saying, "one in five hundred Muslims is a terrorist... so let's nuke the Middle East and kill all of them."

Also, as for the militia wording, the United States Code and the Militia Act define the "unorganized militia" as all adult male individuals, so the right to gun ownership in the Constitution now does extend to all of them.

[*disco infiltrator*]

A knife can kill too. Fists can kill. Anything can kill. The guns don't kill, the people do. Perhaps a background check/childhood/family life check type thing would help before a person is allowed to purchase guns. Also, asking for the use of the gun would help too. I really don't think anyone needs an AK 47 to shoot a deer with..

[*kryogenix*]

A knife can kill too. Fists can kill. Anything can kill. The guns don't kill, the people do. Perhaps a background check/childhood/family life check type thing would help before a person is allowed to purchase guns. Also, asking for the use of the gun would help too. I really don't think anyone needs an AK 47 to shoot a deer with..

You might need an AK47 to protect yourself from the government.

[sm0kinm0nky]

Yes, I believe we have the right to bear arms. We should be able to half self defense but we shouldn't be allowed to walk around with guns

"The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress and ratified by the States, reads:

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. "



Just about everyone never reads that part of the amendment- they get excited once they hear about right to bear arms

[demolished]

What? The 2nd Amendment didnt say you have the right to kill people. It say something like, you have the right to protect yourself, not killing.

Anyways, we really need 2nd amendment for our own safely even it's a gun. It may be against the law but you can kill a person w/ your deadly body such as karate or assassin. =) Not everyone knows how to fight. There's always evil and good whenever an actions is performed.

[sadolakced acid]

no, it says states have the right to protect themselves through the right to bear arms and call up militias.

[sprezzatura]

Just prohibit those people from carrying their guns around in the streets but its OK to keep them at home is a REALLY SAFE PLACE.

[ComradeRed]

The US Code CLEARLY defines the unorganized militia as ALL adult male citizens aged 17 and higher. So even if you read the second part of the amendment is saying only militia should have guns, that just means that people under 17 and women shouldn't have guns, which isn't the reading at all.

If I say, "Studying is necessary to get good grades; therefore, students should study." That doesn't mean that students should study ONLY to get good grades. Similarly, "A militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the people have the right to bear arms," Doesn't mean that ONLY militia should bear arms.

Or look at the Patent Clause. It says, "To promote science and useful arts; Congress may give patents" or something like that. But we still give patents to porn and religious fanatics who specifically want to retard science and useful arts. "Science and useful arts" is but ONE reason to have patents, just like "militia" is but ONE reason to have guns, and doesn't change the fundamental reading that people have that right.

Either way, it's silly to have Federal gun restrictions. It might be dangerous for everyone in NYC to be carrying around Ak-47s in the street, but Manchester? Burlington? Salt Lake City? In those areas, gun ownership is a part of the culture and is entirely salutary and safe. In some suburbs of Pittsburgh where I'm from, there is nearly 100% gun ownership, including assault rifles and hunting rifles (a good hunting rifle is FAR more dangerous than an assault rifle, since most assault rifles are useless at ranges of more than 200-300 yards), and almost no crime.

[*kryogenix*]

Just prohibit those people from carrying their guns around in the streets but its OK to keep them at home is a REALLY SAFE PLACE.

Bad idea. Because people who are going to break the law anyway will still carry the guns, but the people who are actually responsible gun owners will have nothing to fight with.

[*mipadi*]

I'm actually hesistant to join this debate, because I really don't have a strong opinion either way. My lack of a strong opinion, however, is not based on apathy, but rather, the fact that I don't feel I am informed enough to make a clear decision. To be honest, I can see both sides of this issue; unfortunately, I have not read up enough on statistics and other facts to make what I really feel is an informed decision. However, there are a few things I know about the issue that has helped to begin to shape my feelings on the subject.

I think Comradered makes some very good points. Removing guns does not get rid of crime. A perfect example of this is in European countries; while many have similar gun control laws, I will use Germany as an example, because Germany is the nation I am most knowledgeable about. In Germany, is it very difficult to obtain a firearm. Many gun control advocates point to the fact that Germany has a much lower gun-related crime rate that the US as a result. This is true. However, the crime rate in Germany is not significantly lower than the crime rate in the US. This can be attributable partially to the fact that violent crime still happens in Germany, albeit with weapons other than firearms. A lack of guns, therefore, does not necessarily mean that crimes (and more importantly, violent crimes) will not occur.

I think that the gun control laws in the US are, in theory, satisfactory. They are adequately designed to allow access to firearms for legal purposes, while prohibiting access for illegal purposes. The problem in the US is that many of these gun control laws are not effectively enforced. Columbine is a good example: many of the weapons used in the commission of that crime should have been prevented, but weren't because of ineffective enforcement of the existing laws, or due to loopholes in the laws. For example, Robyn Anderson, the woman who bought several weapons for the Columbine shooters, was not given a background check before her purchase; when asked if a background check would have kept her from purchasing the firearms, she answered yes. [1]

In short, the problem with gun crime in the US is not directly attributable to relaxed gun laws, but rather an inefficienty and ineffectiveness in enforcing existing gun laws.

[EddieV]

Pshh, guns....

I use a sword, it's much more civilized...

[simx]

The second amendment says states have the right to protect themselves through the right to bear arms and call up militias. (I think someone mentioned this)

[ComradeRed]

No. The Bill of Rights (except for the tenth amendment which specifically mentions states) are about personal rights. People have the right to free speech, not states. People have the right to due process, not states. Etc.

The US Code clearly says that unorganized militia is all male citizens 17 and older.

[sadolakced acid]

and so all males 17 and older should be allowed gun ownership, and no one else.

i believe gun ownership is a way to keep the power in the hands of the people. How do you have an uprising agaisnt a totalitarian government with no guns?

[ryfitaDF]

well if we mess with the second ammendment it means that we can mess with the first, and messing with the bill of rights at all is just un-american. but, as you should know, there are restrictions on the first. there should also be restrictions on the second.

for example: Keith Watts was shot to death outside of Carrick High School in my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, shortly after the ban on automatic weapons to civilians was lifted. he was shot with an automatic assault riful. how many hunters do you know that need an uzi? i'm sure that keith isn't the only person to be killed by a weapon of unnecescesary power, either.

i personally am very against guns. their only purpose is to hurt and kill. and i'm very anti-hurt/kill.

[sadolakced acid]

^ killing was the way the american revolution was won.

guns are about power. the people should have the power, not just the military. therefore, the people should have access to military weapons.

[*mipadi*]

guns are about power.  the people should have the power, not just the military.  therefore, the people should have access to military weapons.

Does that include tanks and missiles?

[ryfitaDF]

^  killing was the way the american revolution was won.

guns are about power.  the people should have the power, not just the military.  therefore, the people should have access to military weapons.

but what do people do with that power? nothing but kill eachother. shouldn't safety be a top priority for a country's citizens?

life > a persons right to own something that shouldn't have to be used.

[*kryogenix*]

but what do people do with that power? nothing but kill eachother. shouldn't safety be a top priority for a country's citizens?

life > a persons right to own something that shouldn't have to be used.

The Swiss have one of highest gun ownership per capita, but one of the lowest gun crime rates.

Guns help people live; they're pretty helpful when hunting.

Removing guns now would only take guns away from those who are responsible, and obey the law. People who disobey the law (meaning, people more likely to commit gun crime) will still have guns. And the responsible people are helpless to stop those who are irresponsible.

[sadolakced acid]

Does that include tanks and missiles?

yes, including tanks and missiles. just ban them from being exported, and from being shot.

when something costs 20 million dollars, and will get you in jail for 20 years if you shoot it, i doubt many people are going to buy it. register people who buy it, charge them a million dollar fee for a comprehensive history check (5 people to dig up all details of thier pasts to birth, all the people they're aquainted with, etc. all the results will be open to the public. ). trust anyone rich enough to buy a missile won't do it.



but it is about liberty and freedom. it's principle.

but what do people do with that power? nothing but kill eachother. shouldn't safety be a top priority for a country's citizens?

life > a persons right to own something that shouldn't have to be used.

it's a matter of liberty.

sure, everyone would be safer if we were all locked in little rooms with only comptuers to interact, but that wouldn't be desireable, would it?

what if the computers decided to be tyrannical?

the's a batter of liberty and maintaining liberty. The only way to maintain liberty is through power- and power comes from weapons.

[*kryogenix*]

Does that include tanks and missiles?

There's a guy who's slowly building his own airforce. He has the only privately owned MiG-29's in the world. I think he has 30 planes ready to fly at a moments notice, 10 under repairs, and a few more being ordered.

[sadolakced acid]

^

does he have pilots?

does he have enough fuel for more than one or two sorties?

does he have enough ammunition?

[Heewee]

I feel like I've already responded to this topic before, maybe I just read it. I'm sort of confused by your poll and what you wrote in the topic...they seem to contradict each other. Are you asking if we should be allowed to kill people and take care of "business" however we want or are you asking if we should restrict the use of firearms? I guess I'll give my view on both questions.

First of all, an ammendment to allow people to kill each other would never EVER pass. If it did, all hell would break loose and you could say good-bye to any sort of civil life in America. I strongly, strongly am against any sort of thought of this. As Americans, we do have certain unalienable rights but those become limited when they start getting in the way of others. Theoretically, no man's rights are greater than the next....so why should they be able to decide if they can kill you or not? In addition to that, I'm sure there are many religions that would be against something like this. Even though the US doesn't have the greatest reputation right now, I think we would be asking for another war, or something close to it, if this ammendment was added

As a few others have said, restricting firearms won't do a damn thing. There are already so many laws and rules that go with them that people break, it will only drive the demand for guns upward. I would much rather see time and money well spent on something beneficial for the same types of people that would be affected, like education, rehabiliation, and the community rather than weapons.

[*mipadi*]

^ 

does he have pilots?

does he have enough fuel for more than one or two sorties?

does he have enough ammunition?

How do we keep those kinds of weapons from falling into the hands of people who can afford such things--like terrorists?

[sadolakced acid]

have laws that track them.

and laws that limit the ownership of them.

[*kryogenix*]

Well, he uses Soviet fighter jets, so they were imported, meaning they went through customs.

[murderous_though...]

People dont obey laws, thats why they are called criminals Its just like marijuana, its illegal, but i still find ways to get it...i mean, people still find ways to get it lol....And if you take away the right to carry a gun, the people who dont obey the laws are gonna be able to pretty much take over because they know that the person they are gonna rape, rob, or whatever cant fight back...i dont know too many people that can stop bullets, do you? If you dont allow people to bear arms, its like taking a shepherd away from his flock, theres no way for the sheep to defend themselves against the wolves....KEEP THE GUNS!!!!