Why not repeal the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights…
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.
My Question…
In 2007, does the USA really need to have a well regulated militia? Don’t we have a United States Army, The Marines, Air Force, Navy, and National Guard to protect the “security of a free state?”
The argument you hear from pro 2nd amendment people is that you need an armed populace to stop tyranny, or to protect the homeland in case of invasion by a foreign party.
But if things get so bad that we need rednecks with shotguns and gang-bangers with glocks to protect our security, wouldn’t the shit have hit the fan so bad at that point that it wouldn’t really matter?
A well regulated militia. Great for 1787, a little quant and silly in 2007.
Other western nations such as Australia, Japan, and Great Britain seem to get by just fine without an armed populace, why can’t we do the same?
It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment, there is no place for something as powerful as a handgun in modern society. We don’t need an armed populace. While there are plenty of responsible gun owners, it only takes one to take scores of innocent lives by simply pulling a trigger.
How many times do we have to learn this lesson?
Are the events of yesterday, or at Columbine, or in the Amish country, Post offices, 101 California, work places, or any of the other 30,000 yearly gun deaths enough already?
Sure, some hunters and sports shooters would be inconvenienced if guns were made illegal, however I’m sure they won’t be nearly as inconvenienced as the families who will be planning funerals in Blacksburg this week.
restless — On 4-17-2007 at 9:22 am
Gun in home = higher suicide rate according to study released last week. That said, the most interesting thing about Michael Moore’s film, Bowling for Columbine, was the Canadian section.
Guns are allowed there, why isn’t there the high murder/suicide rate like here? His surprising answer was: fear-mongering bullshit. He delved into that extensively with Barry Glasner, author of “The Culture of Fear.” The 2 of them even appeared on Oprah and ran the same angle down again.
Fear is a vicious circle. Reaction out of fear causes more violence causing more reaction of fear. I’ve talked to people who live out in the country who cann’t stop talking about the threat of “home invasion” by bums or thugs. To talk to them, you’d think it’s all they can think of, but how often does it happen? This fear bullshit goes for many, many aspects of American life now. News shows and television series add to the mix. My point is: the fear level is so high, you aren’t going to get any traction with a movement to take people’s guns away. Yet, just having a gun, increases the likelihood you’ll die from a gun.
One other fact you should know: it used to be much much worse. Violent death in America has actually gone down from our past when you were more likely to die violently. The only thing that makes that hard to believe is the constant “show me the blood” news and the “nut with a gun” massacre guys. But like I said yesterday, those massacre guys are reacting to another aspect of America that is relatively new: the intense, in some cases unbearable pressure to get an education and succeed.
In this month’s issue of Playboy, studies have shown that workplace massacres in the Post Office make perfect sense. Yep. Apparently, the workplace environment of the “new” Post Office in the past 20-30 years is so fucked up that it adequately explains people completely cracking up. And workplace pressure, unfairness, etc., doesn’t end at the USPO. Hey, no one is excusing it. And if messed up people didn’t have easy access to guns, there would be less of it, that’s sure.
But, something’s more wrong with things than there’s too many guns out there. It’s too easy to prohibit the symptoms without addressing the causes. That’s the easy remedy for everything. It’s why we have the highest prison population in the world, but violent crime is on the rise and drugs are easily available. Address and work on the cause: much more difficult to get consensus on and achieve. But nothing will change much until that is done.
Clay — On 4-17-2007 at 9:24 am
Your opinion that we are now officially safe from tyranny is at odds with the obvious and well documented erosion of our constitutional rights over the last 6 years. While handguns may not do much against an M1A1 battle tank, in the hands of responsible adults they can help preserve one small slice of independence from the government. You cannot deny that if I depend for my very life on coercive apparatus of the state, I am less able to challenge its idiocy in other arenas.
Moreover, cops cannot and should not be everywhere at once. If you are about to be murdered, you will most likely be alone with the killer.
As much as thinking people would like to de-invent the handgun and end violence forever, human beings have been killing each other over women, resources, and pride forever. A new ballot initiative is not going to stop that.
restless — On 4-17-2007 at 9:35 am
In the late 80s, Time Magazine had one issue showing pictures (if available) of every person killed by a gun in one previous week. It had the details of their deaths. At least 90% were ex-wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/lover killings. It was perhaps even higher. The idea that having guns, keeps us free from a tyrannical state is fallacious as can be easily seen by events such as Waco. The idea that you would be able to prevent yourself being murdered is also remote even if you were packing heat at all times. If someone is robbing you at gunpoint, does it matter you have your gun with you that night? Do you even have the cajones to use it, if you have it in your pocket? There is a reason that in WWII, military studies revealed a large percentage of soldiers who weren’t firing their weapons. Maybe guns make you feel better psychologically. It’s bullshit of course, because the human psyche has its ups and downs and you’re just as liable at some point in your life trajectory to feel badly, and then there’s that gun, waiting for you in your house.
The first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, need not be changed I agree. But a gun doesn’t make you more safe or more free.
Porter Venn — On 4-17-2007 at 9:57 am
Clay, I agree that our constitutional rights have been erroded, but how is a Hand Gun in my dresser going to stop that?
Porter Venn — On 4-17-2007 at 10:03 am
Restless, I agree, it’s all about fear, this country thrives on fear, hell it’s the juice that feeds the Neo-cons and most of the Republican party. Regarding 90% of the gun related murders being x-Lovers etc… my point is this, if that X-Lover had say…a composite bow… or a Samurai sword, in otherwords, a weapon that took skill to wield, how many of those X-lovers would still be alive? If the nut at VA Tech had machettes and knives and a crossbow, he still might have been able to kill some people, but 32 people? I doubt it. It’s the power of the gun itself that has thrown things out of wack. Yes people will probably always try to kill other people, however something with the size, and power of a handgun makes it incredibly easy to do so. When the 2nd amendment was written Uzi’s, Glocks, and 38’s didn’t exist.
Aaron — On 4-17-2007 at 10:30 am
“When the 2nd amendment was written Uzi’s, Glocks, and 38’s didn’t exist.”
Exactly. Can you imagine this Cho guy wandering around the campus with some 6 foot long musket (having a reload time of at least 30 seconds)?
Mark — On 4-17-2007 at 6:24 pm
There are still a whole lot of people running around who believe—without a trace of irony—that all the other rights spelled out in the Constitution stem directly from the right to bear arms.
I have to work with these people.
Based on years of unscientific observation, I would have to guess that, if the government wants to oppress you, regardless of the presence or absence of firearms in your house, then your ass is gonna get oppressed. I mean, if it’s all a question of firepower, come on. They have TANKS. Do you have tanks? Even one? Please.
Or take the example of someone who ends up in what’s commonly called a stand-off with police. Do those situations ever conclude in favor of anyone BUT the police? And if you’re talking about using a gun to defend your rights, isn’t that the exact situation you’re in?
I’m not in love with these opinions, based as they are on my near-total ignorance of any specifics. But they do conform to the notion that the 2nd Amendment just may have outlived its usefulness.
Porter Venn — On 4-17-2007 at 6:31 pm
Saying you need arms to defend yourself against a tyranical government is BS.
It’s a red herring that the Gun Lobby uses for justification of an antiquated right. If things get SO BAD that the Government is snatching people in the middle of the night in some Gestapo-Esque manner, and we become some sort of totalatarian nightmare, then it’s not going to be gun ownership that will stop it. You’re right, the Police will always win.
What kind of fucked up country do we live in, where smoking pot, (which is waaaaaay more benign and harmless than Whisky, Beer or Wine) can land you in jail, yet it’s perfectly legal to own a small metal device that a 5 year old can easily aim at somone, apply a tiny bit of pressure to a trigger, and end their life.
Lets start making some changes people. The Baby Boomers and X-Gen’rs are very close to having all the power in this country, lets “Get ‘Er Done”
John Mefford — On 4-18-2007 at 6:07 am
“A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.” I know thats been said before. Everytime some wacko with illegally aquired guns goes beserk, the wimps want to outlaw guns. My guns have NEVER hurt anyone.
BTW Aaron, a musket can be loaded and fired 4 to 5 times a minute
Porter Venn — On 4-18-2007 at 8:05 am
John, that’s great that your guns have never hurt anyone, it’s not your guns that anyone is worried about, it’s the millions of others, are you willing to vouch for those as well? To say “Well I’m a responsible gun owner, my guns will never hurt anyone” doesn’t take into account the thousands of people who are not responsible gun owners, and it only takes 1 gun to wipe out the futures of 30 people, and devistate a community. One measly gun, that anyone can purchase inside of 15 minutes, and not need any skill to weild is capable of huge amounts of destruction in the wrong hands, and there are a lot of wrong hands out there.
Porter Venn — On 4-18-2007 at 8:12 am
I’ve never owned a gun, so I’m a subject? All this time I had no idea, damn the man! That sentence points out the jist of the problem, pro gun people are afraid, they believe they either believe there is some boogyman out there (usually of color) to hurt his family, or, they believe “the man” is going to take away his property and belongings, and rape their cows and eat their wives.
what man? who knows, some theoretical man in the future, some bad man with which he will kill with a gun.
It’s utterly rediculous and mad, and because of this need to arm ourselves against this man, and black…errr.. I mean… bad people, 30,000 people a year in America lose their lives. It’s insane. Man… I really hate America, I’m one of them darn-tootin America Haterss, I should just fucking leave already.
Bazule — On 4-18-2007 at 8:25 am
Here’s a world map view of Gun Deaths. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0704/map.guncrime/Map.swf The U.S. is right up there with Kazakistan, Nigeria and Senegal. We’re #1 We’re #1 GO USA!
restless — On 4-18-2007 at 9:47 am
Saying that they didn’t realize we’d have Uzi’s when the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment is like saying they didn’t realize we’d have porn when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Sorry, these amendments are not subject to being out-of-date. The basic principles still apply to a free people.
The causes of violence are what a government and a people must address; the symptoms can only be repressed. The Amendments give no excuse for bad government that creates a society such as ours and they specifically forbid repression as an alternative.
Repression is repression whether it be on speech or on right to bear arms. Fix the cause.
Aaron — On 4-18-2007 at 10:07 am
“Sorry, these amendments are not subject to being out-of-date.”
.
Tell that to the eighteenth amendment.
Porter Venn — On 4-18-2007 at 11:18 am
Yea.. the 18th amendment, how quant, just like the 2nd. The 2nd amenment had it’s time, it made sense 200 years ago, but that was a different world, it was a world where a disturbed person couldn’t go down the street to a local gun store, and then 30 mins later blow 30 people away with a small little device the size of a shoe. Do you think the founding fathers, if writing the bill of rights and Constitution from scratch today, would word the 2nd amendment the same, or include it at all? I doubt it. Lets move on.
restless — On 4-18-2007 at 12:46 pm
Aaron I was referring to the first the Bill of Rights, not stupid amendments regarding prohibition passed long after the founding. Actually the repeal of the 18th is a good reminder that we shouldn’t be messing with the constitution.
restless — On 4-18-2007 at 12:50 pm
This just in: “a disaster comparable to the Virginia Tech massacre occurs four or five times a day every day in Iraq” And Porter, the world may have changed in 200 years, but the fundamentals of freedom haven’t. If the government can’t provide safety and a sane society, we need a new government, NOT a change in the Constitution. Enough said.
Aaron — On 4-18-2007 at 2:48 pm
“Actually the repeal of the 18th is a good reminder that we shouldn’t be messing with the constitution.”
I don’t think the founding fathers were perfect, merely well ahead of their time. Now we are behind the time.
Anonymous — On 4-26-2007 at 6:04 pm
no