Purpose of the second amendment?
- Thread starter b22
- Start date
According to Handgun Control Inc's logic, police don't need guns either.
They like to point out on their site that in such and such a year, there were only a hundred or two justified homicides by private gun owners, saying that this means that guns in the hands of private citizens are useless.
Well let's see here... In 2005, we have 143 justified homicides with firearms (going back three more years, 166, 203, 189, and 183). How's law enforcement doing? In 2005, 337 (and 364, 366, 338, and 375 for the previous years). So it looks like recently, law enforcement has only about twice as much in a normal year. 200% of useless is still useless, I'd say (and most private citizens aren't called up on the radio and sent into dangerous situations). Especially when you consider how HCI would love to compare that 143 with how many people are murdered with firearms (10,100 in 2005).
They like to point out on their site that in such and such a year, there were only a hundred or two justified homicides by private gun owners, saying that this means that guns in the hands of private citizens are useless.
Well let's see here... In 2005, we have 143 justified homicides with firearms (going back three more years, 166, 203, 189, and 183). How's law enforcement doing? In 2005, 337 (and 364, 366, 338, and 375 for the previous years). So it looks like recently, law enforcement has only about twice as much in a normal year. 200% of useless is still useless, I'd say (and most private citizens aren't called up on the radio and sent into dangerous situations). Especially when you consider how HCI would love to compare that 143 with how many people are murdered with firearms (10,100 in 2005).
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Did you tell him that violent crime in Australia has skyrocketed since the gun bans which followed the Tasmania shooting? That's violent crime committed with AND without guns, have both skyrocketed. Robbery is up 44% there since 1996. I think his gun laws are insane, since they demontrably increase & encourage violent crime.
chemist308
New member
You're going to want to argue with the fact that the reports indicate the serial numbers were filed off, and the shooter was a foreign nation who may not have legally been able to purchase these guns, making them most likely illegal anyway--more bans or laws wouldn't have stopped it. Criminally insane people will alway find guns on the black market even if they are outlawed.
Virginia Tech chose to prevent lawful concealed carry on campus, which had they not done could have prevented this massacre, or at least could have given folks a fighting chance.
The 2'nd ammendment was written for a number of reasons, 1 being to ensure our government never turns into a dictatorship, another being to stave off invasion and a third being personal self defense (as evidenced by many state constitutions).
Virginia Tech chose to prevent lawful concealed carry on campus, which had they not done could have prevented this massacre, or at least could have given folks a fighting chance.
The 2'nd ammendment was written for a number of reasons, 1 being to ensure our government never turns into a dictatorship, another being to stave off invasion and a third being personal self defense (as evidenced by many state constitutions).
Fundamentally, our system is a system of checks and balances. Our Founding Fathers recognized that power corrupts.
This is why we have such a broken up system of power. On the Federal Level, the Executive battles the Judicial battles the Legislature. Within the legislature, the houses battle it out. Within the Federal System, States battle with the Federal Government. Within the state system, Governors and Legislatures battle it out. This, precisely, is why the United States has maintained greater freedoms than our European counterparts, and why we have been a beacon of hope and freedom for the last one-hundred years (or more, I basically see America as a beacon when it came onto the world stage when WWI came about).
In accordance with the time-tested belief that power corrupts, so too do we balance government power with the power of the people. I believe the entire point of the Second Amendment in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, (I also believe this is the correct point, whether or not they agree with me), is that it arms the individual against the possible tyrrany of the society.
One might say this is an anachronism. I think Jews might have disagreed 70 years ago. I think many Chinese might have disagreed 40 years ago. I think Cambodian Intellectuals would have too. Look at the numbers in the 20th Century, and you'll come up with around ~~120-150 million (if memory serves) killed by organized government action. The worst spree killer in the world can't match up. The top ten-thousand spree killers in the world couldn't even come close. To paraphrase someone around here's signature, individual murderers are gnats compared to even the most benign government.
This is why we have such a broken up system of power. On the Federal Level, the Executive battles the Judicial battles the Legislature. Within the legislature, the houses battle it out. Within the Federal System, States battle with the Federal Government. Within the state system, Governors and Legislatures battle it out. This, precisely, is why the United States has maintained greater freedoms than our European counterparts, and why we have been a beacon of hope and freedom for the last one-hundred years (or more, I basically see America as a beacon when it came onto the world stage when WWI came about).
In accordance with the time-tested belief that power corrupts, so too do we balance government power with the power of the people. I believe the entire point of the Second Amendment in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, (I also believe this is the correct point, whether or not they agree with me), is that it arms the individual against the possible tyrrany of the society.
One might say this is an anachronism. I think Jews might have disagreed 70 years ago. I think many Chinese might have disagreed 40 years ago. I think Cambodian Intellectuals would have too. Look at the numbers in the 20th Century, and you'll come up with around ~~120-150 million (if memory serves) killed by organized government action. The worst spree killer in the world can't match up. The top ten-thousand spree killers in the world couldn't even come close. To paraphrase someone around here's signature, individual murderers are gnats compared to even the most benign government.
Hugh Damright
New member
Didn't seem to work very well at VT did it?
The Second Amendment regards a political principle that a free government is endangered by a standing army, and that the proper defense of a free State is militia (because a standing army might turn against the people, but militia is inseparable from the people).
Why would you try to debate an idiot? It will only cause you stress and frustration. You might as well go outside and try to convince a stump or a rock that gun free zones make us less safe. No matter what you say, the stump or rock will be unchanged.
You're going to want to be careful saying that. Their murder rates have dropped, and although their robbery rates peaked about 44% higher in 2001, they have since come back down to roughly their 1996 levels (oddly enough, the armed and unarmed robbery rates match each other VERY well in rising and falling together, from 1993 onward which is all the chart covers).FirstFreedom said:
Their assault rates have been climbing though, while America's have been falling. Now, America's reported rates are aggravated only, but I'm assuming that Australa isn't reporting simple assaults either, since their statistics are otherwise comparable to the FBI's.
The really, really interesting part is to look at their percentage of homicides committed with guns (link). Though the rate has almost reached record lows, the percentage started dropping around 1985 (though an earlier, more gradual decline had started in 1969), and still isn't below its trough in 1950 or 1951.
Then there's the fact that we kill each other WITHOUT guns about as much as they kill each other with anything they can get their hands on. That's... Well, that's a bit of a downer, to be honest.
2nd
Amendment right gives the every day law abiding the right to keep and bear arms so something like this can't happen, and by the way, it keeps government tyranny away too. If one person in those different buildings had been armed and trained in how enforce personal protection, the outcome would of been different. The news pushes new questions but the facts are that the legislature killed concealed carry on campus, which lets someone with a gun just walk freely among innocent, defenseless, people and be God. The very presence of guns every where and any where deters crime because anybody could have a gun, so the B/G is outnumbered and defeated. DUH!
Amendment right gives the every day law abiding the right to keep and bear arms so something like this can't happen, and by the way, it keeps government tyranny away too. If one person in those different buildings had been armed and trained in how enforce personal protection, the outcome would of been different. The news pushes new questions but the facts are that the legislature killed concealed carry on campus, which lets someone with a gun just walk freely among innocent, defenseless, people and be God. The very presence of guns every where and any where deters crime because anybody could have a gun, so the B/G is outnumbered and defeated. DUH!
JuanCarlos
New member
Homicides, however, are down. Significantly. You know, just to play devil's advocate.
JuanCarlos
New member
Dp
2nd
The purpose of the 2nd was to have an armed citizenry and militia act as a disuader to a national government turning tyrannical - or as a defense against one already become tryannical. Like all amendments, it protected the citizenry from the governmnent's power.
I believe this one was heavily influenced by the colonists' hatred of standing armies they had experienced under George III in the years preceeding the revolution. They did not want, therefore, in their new country, to have an armed Federal Army with power over an unarmed citizenry.
To the argument that somehow this original intent of the amendment precludes an individual's right to bear arms now that times have changed is not true. Even though times have evolved beyond the point where practically our .38s and 30.06s would defend well against the 7th Cavalry: WE WOULD HAVE THE SEEDS OF BEING ABLE TO - far better than in many countries. For the "people" own not only our own guns, but the gun manufacturing companies, the "people" own the means of all production of heavy equipment, and the government contracts from all of these. In a "State Of Siege" of long duration, it would not have an easy time of continuing it's intial massive superiority in already available armaments. The tide would shift.
As well, the argument that the 2nd - written for broad purposes - precludes guns for a citizen's private purpose is silly. Most importantly, it is not written with any such proviso stated and if that had been part of the intent of the Founders it would have been. They weren't stupid. It was rather accepted as flowing from the basic right they had set down: a citizen has the right to bear arms. When in doubt: read the directions.
For fodder for your arguments: tell the folks you're arguing with that you now see their point and completely agree, for it the same as your King, George III's, (who also was very much against gun ownership), and who you love as dearly as they do.
The purpose of the 2nd was to have an armed citizenry and militia act as a disuader to a national government turning tyrannical - or as a defense against one already become tryannical. Like all amendments, it protected the citizenry from the governmnent's power.
I believe this one was heavily influenced by the colonists' hatred of standing armies they had experienced under George III in the years preceeding the revolution. They did not want, therefore, in their new country, to have an armed Federal Army with power over an unarmed citizenry.
To the argument that somehow this original intent of the amendment precludes an individual's right to bear arms now that times have changed is not true. Even though times have evolved beyond the point where practically our .38s and 30.06s would defend well against the 7th Cavalry: WE WOULD HAVE THE SEEDS OF BEING ABLE TO - far better than in many countries. For the "people" own not only our own guns, but the gun manufacturing companies, the "people" own the means of all production of heavy equipment, and the government contracts from all of these. In a "State Of Siege" of long duration, it would not have an easy time of continuing it's intial massive superiority in already available armaments. The tide would shift.
As well, the argument that the 2nd - written for broad purposes - precludes guns for a citizen's private purpose is silly. Most importantly, it is not written with any such proviso stated and if that had been part of the intent of the Founders it would have been. They weren't stupid. It was rather accepted as flowing from the basic right they had set down: a citizen has the right to bear arms. When in doubt: read the directions.
For fodder for your arguments: tell the folks you're arguing with that you now see their point and completely agree, for it the same as your King, George III's, (who also was very much against gun ownership), and who you love as dearly as they do.
Last edited:
When deciding public policy, I think our founders did a good job. We never confuse what is public (in Article I Section 8 & 9) and what belongs to the citizen or person (listed in the Bill of Rights and various amendments).
While homicides may go down through gun bans, a collectivist state policy will always move towards more collectivism. As it stands, we are too far down that road right now. I can choose to arm myself, and make provisions for my own defense. If I choose not to, then that was a choice I made and I must live or die with that choice. If I opt to, and I can exercise a right, then the state has left me in charge of my own person.
I hate it when the government makes affirmative actions to disarm citizens because they are then taking on the liability to protect me. When they don't, what is my recourse? Dead people can't seek redress of grievances. Dead people (Chicago excluded) can't vote the people out who took their rights from them.
So if more people die because they choose to not defend themselves- that is a risk I am willing to take. Just as some people are poor because they choose not to work. If people die because the government chose for them, then that is a much larger tragedy. I think the fewer murders in Australia (assuming that is correct), is still a larger tragedy than the more murders of people who simply opted not to protect themselves but were allowed the choice.
Oddly enough, in all these terrible tragedies of mass shootings, they occur in gun-free zones; Post Offices, Schools, Dorms, etc...
Even more odd- there has never been a mass shooting at the NRA convention or a gun show. I wonder why that is?
While homicides may go down through gun bans, a collectivist state policy will always move towards more collectivism. As it stands, we are too far down that road right now. I can choose to arm myself, and make provisions for my own defense. If I choose not to, then that was a choice I made and I must live or die with that choice. If I opt to, and I can exercise a right, then the state has left me in charge of my own person.
I hate it when the government makes affirmative actions to disarm citizens because they are then taking on the liability to protect me. When they don't, what is my recourse? Dead people can't seek redress of grievances. Dead people (Chicago excluded) can't vote the people out who took their rights from them.
So if more people die because they choose to not defend themselves- that is a risk I am willing to take. Just as some people are poor because they choose not to work. If people die because the government chose for them, then that is a much larger tragedy. I think the fewer murders in Australia (assuming that is correct), is still a larger tragedy than the more murders of people who simply opted not to protect themselves but were allowed the choice.
Oddly enough, in all these terrible tragedies of mass shootings, they occur in gun-free zones; Post Offices, Schools, Dorms, etc...
Even more odd- there has never been a mass shooting at the NRA convention or a gun show. I wonder why that is?
Duckman44!
New member
The 2nd is for a few things...
mainly self defense to all law abiding citizens. It was put in the bill of rights to make sure that we would be able to defend ourselves if the government ever had too much power and tried to take us all over. That would be kind of stupid to expect the government run army who takes direct orders from the president to protect us from a government take over. This australian guy is a dumbass! I have many guns and I havn't ever killed or robbed anyone. If some little south korean comes busting into my classroom with a death wish then hopefully i will be able to grant his wish for him.
Gun Control
There are million upon millions of guns worldwide. Can these politicians guarantee that no criminal will ever obtain a firearm? NO!!! They can't. They just disarm the law abiding citizens. And people forget, before guns people still killed each other! Dumbasses.
mainly self defense to all law abiding citizens. It was put in the bill of rights to make sure that we would be able to defend ourselves if the government ever had too much power and tried to take us all over. That would be kind of stupid to expect the government run army who takes direct orders from the president to protect us from a government take over. This australian guy is a dumbass! I have many guns and I havn't ever killed or robbed anyone. If some little south korean comes busting into my classroom with a death wish then hopefully i will be able to grant his wish for him.
Gun Control
There are million upon millions of guns worldwide. Can these politicians guarantee that no criminal will ever obtain a firearm? NO!!! They can't. They just disarm the law abiding citizens. And people forget, before guns people still killed each other! Dumbasses.Has anyone heard how many kids at VT called 911 or heard any recordings of their 911 calls? Do you think we'll ever be allowed to hear the recordings?
Somebody said something to the effect "You may never need a gun, and I hope you don't, but if you DO need it, you'll need it more than anything you'll ever need in your whole life".
I wish they had been given, at least, the option to defend themselves.
Why do we need the 2nd A? See above... and this:
"The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." ---Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994
badbob
Somebody said something to the effect "You may never need a gun, and I hope you don't, but if you DO need it, you'll need it more than anything you'll ever need in your whole life".
I wish they had been given, at least, the option to defend themselves.
Why do we need the 2nd A? See above... and this:
"The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." ---Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994
badbob
Another source for some good Facts
http://www.gunfacts.info/
I find this has a wealth of good info, that I find very usefull
Hope this helps,
http://www.gunfacts.info/
I find this has a wealth of good info, that I find very usefull
Hope this helps,