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

[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!!!!