The USA Should Get Rid Of The 2nd Amendment!

[Guest fountainhall]

I’m going to start the controversy. The shootings in Tucson reinforce my belief that the second amendment of the United States Constitution is an historical dinosaur that ought to go the way of all dinosaurs. I can see no reason why private citizens should have the right to bear arms as they do in the USA. I also do not believe that any provision in a Constitution or piece of legislation in 1791 is necessarily applicable in 2011. To suggest that is virtually to support the claims of those who believe that what is written in the Bible, the Koran and other religious texts are as precisely valid today as they were when written.

 

I know little about the history of the second amendment. But from what I have picked up, it seems to have been influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, although the right to bear arms is believed to have been regarded as a long established natural right in English law long before that Bill was passed. However, without going in to detail which I do not fully grasp, there is clearly a quite widely held legal view that the Second Amendment gives an imprecise, incomplete and, indeed, false impression of English Law at that time. Perhaps others can explain why in a nutshell, but there is an extensive wikipedia page on it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Whatever the reasons, the latter halves of the 17th century in England and the 18th century in the USA were clearly times of great instability with new governing systems being put in place in each country. To suggest that similar conditions exist today regarding the need to bear arms – arms that are now vastly more sophisticated and deadly – is, I think, nonsense.

 

So, unzip your briefs, get your weapons out and fire away (with apologies to Mae West for the misquote)!

[Guest anonone]

No need for controversy...always a good thing to have open discussion on issues.

 

I agree there is not a rational need to "bear arms" as a precaution against instability in the US government. I am much more concerned with personal safety and the "right" (and ability) to defend myself against others.

 

There are an astonishing number of firearms in the US and they are readily available to anyone in the criminal sector. In a dream world, it would be great to have all these guns disappear. In the real world, when a drugged up thug has access to a firearm, I really want to have one also. I do not want to be the one bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

The more disturbing thought is why the US society seems to be focused so heavily on violence to others. When first traveling to Europe, I was amazed at how "safe" I felt walking the neighborhoods at night. Same holds true for Thailand. There is something fundamentally wrong when I feel safer wandering a foreign land where I don't even speak the language then in my own country. (And I am certain there are areas of both Europe and Thailand where I would feel uncomfortable, but I still hold the basic idea to be true.)

 

My first thoughts, with only one cup of coffee so far. I look forward to other points of view as well.

[Bob]

Well, let's first look at the precise language of the Second Amendment: "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."

 

It's my view that the appellate courts over the years have misinterpreted that language. One needs to look at the language in connection with the intent of the original drafters and the various state legislatures that ratified it.

 

There are a lot of people that have argued (unsuccessfully, I'd add) that the right to bear arms was not a personal right but a right held by the states to maintain their own citizen militias. Militias in those days consisted of private individuals who usually brought their own flintlocks or swords with them (heck, that was largely the case with the continental army). The political reason for reservation of this right to the individual states was that most or all of them totally distrusted a centralized government and the states' right to keep it's own militia (army) was it's way of physically defending itself against an overpowering central government. Remember, most of these states believed they were joining a "federation", not giving up all their powers to some central sovereign (one of those damn "kings!). It was called and is called the "federal" government for a reason.

 

With that background, I'd argue:

 

(1) First, if one argues that it is a personal right and not a right that belonged to the states, then what was the purpose of the set-up (purpose) clause (the clause that says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State)? To me, it makes no sense that what was intended was a personal right as, if that was the intent, then there was absolutely no need for the "militia" clause. It's my view that, at a minimum, the original drafters intended that the entire language to mean what it says (at least in my eyes): that the federal government cannot infringe on the states' rights to maintain a militia who have arms. And, because it doesn't say a State cannot do it, I also take the position that each State has the right regulate the holding of arms by private citizens. If one accepts those premises, there's no reason in the world that a state cannot prevent, for example, people owning handguns or owning clips that hold more than 5 bullets (i.e., they can outlaw even semi-automatic AK-47's).

 

2) Second, what the heck did they mean by "arms." I'd hope everybody would agree that there was no intent whatsoever that every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be allowed to personally keep a canon let alone two tons of black powder or a missle or two. If one so agrees, then there obviously were intended limits to what "arms" even the state could keep. I'd hope that Nebraska might not take the position that it can own it's own nuclear weapons. Thus, again, if you accept the argument, whatever it is that you want to call the "right to bear arms", it sure as hell ain't the right to bear any arms you want. The "arms" of the time were a flintlock....something that was single-shot and hardly could repeat fire in any rapid fashion. Even if (hey, Scalia, you and your originalist brain listening?) you argue that that the right to bear arms is a personal right, then what the drafters and adopters were thinking about at the time was a relatively inaccurate single-shot weapon (well, besides swords, spears, and arrows).

 

All in all, it's my view that the appellate courts have misinterpreted the Second Amendment over the years and expanded it into something not at all justified by the original language or the original intent of the drafters. So, I'd support a modification (an amendment to the amendment, if you will) that would simply allow the invidivual states to decide what arms a private citizen can own or carry. If, after a generation or so, that doesn't work out very well, then maybe I'd support simply tossing the Second Amendment altogther and allowing the federal government to decide what is or isn't allowed.

[Jason1988]

Since the USA is more than likely NOT your home country you should probably mind your own business.

The USA is just fine as it is. I own several guns and enjoy going to a shooting range often.

The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of the insane. Focus on that problem before

you start trying to change the laws in a land you don't belong to.

 

On a final note, I do enjoy your posts and hope you'll continue, but this topic is something

that you know too little about.

[TotallyOz]

The USA is just fine as it is.

 

Do you really believe that? The USA is on a downhill spiral. Once a great nation, the lunatics have taken over the asylum and taken the country with it.

 

America will soon be run by Christian zealots and Americans will be looking to the world dumbfounded asking, "what happened?" The answer is simple. With every step of our liberties and freedoms removed, we are less than a great nation.

 

I had hope that Obama would be the catalyst for change. He was not. He was a pussy in wolf's clothing.

[Bob]

Since the USA is more than likely NOT your home country you should probably mind your own business.

The USA is just fine as it is. I own several guns and enjoy going to a shooting range often.

 

As a matter of background, I am a US citizen. I have owned several long and short guns, hunted since I was very young, probably engaged in more target practice than 99% of all other gun owners in the states, etc. I feel rather free and entitled to discuss the issue. But I also don't believe that us "gun owners" have any right to shut any other citizens out of the discussion as there are far many more citizens who don't hunt and don't target practice with guns than those that do.

 

I also don't have a problem with anybody else - including those from other countries - discussing the issue although I do acknowledge that they often come to the table with a rather inaccurate view of what's happening in the US due to them having access to news that is inaccurate and focused on the bizarre (versus what really happens in the average American town on a daily basis). But, of course, in the end game, it is the citizens of the US that will decide where we go with this issue. Our original constitution and Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) were brought to us by "them foreigners" (people who by and large were born in Europe and who looked to the European models and legal and political history to shape our Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and so I wouldn't be so blind as to ignore good ideas wherever they should come from.

 

I totally reject the NRA notion that any attempted regulation of guns is either unconstitutional or just the first step in taking all guns away from everyone. That's just pure political hysteria attempting to totally divert attention to issues that need to be addressed. Everybody (I hope) understands that there needs to be some regulation (hopefully, even you believe that we shouldn't give guns to kids or automatic weapons or bazookas to anybody) and the issue can't be pigeon-holed into any "just say yes to guns" or "just say no to guns" sophmoric discourse. The issue is what reasonable regulations are best for the US society and should we consider amending the Second Amendment (or, effectively, legally correcting what I consider to be wrong interpretations by appellate courts over the years)?

 

We Americans never seem to be able to inwardly reflect as to why we have some of the problems we have. Our homicide rate with guns - which, contrary to the views of movies and the news floating around the world, doesn't usually involve any robbers or strangers - is unacceptable (at least to me) and is downright horrible in certain metropolitan areas. Some effort ought to be made to improve that situation and I totally reject the idea that having more citizens own more guns is the answer.

 

The Tucson story brings up the issue for discussion but, unfortunately, it'll fade away in the next news cycle. How, for example, did the kid get a 30-shot clip for a 9mm handgun and why would we allow anyone in the US to have a weapon capable of holding that many shells? As you know, it's not allowed in a hunting weapon (my state caps capacity at 5 shells in a rifle or handgun which is semi-automatic) and it's hardly needed for target practice or self-defense.

 

The issue is complex and often wrapped (warped?) with false information and political hysteria and fear-mongering. We won't solve it here but I'd like to think we can at least talk about it in a civil way.

[Guest fountainhall]

Since the USA is more than likely NOT your home country you should probably mind your own business.

You are quite correct; I am not American. But I visit there and do business there. Plus I have very good friends who live there. I believe I have as much right to comment on what goes on in America, as I do in my home country (the UK), my adopted home (Hong Kong) and the place where I live (Thailand), as I have the right to comment on anything that the media choose to write about. Let's face it - America's gun laws are rarely out of the media, as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

You are happy to live in a country which permits gun ownership and you enjoy using them. That is your right and your privilege under the law of your land. I happen to abhor such a law and cannot understand why any private citizen would want to use guns for any reason. But then there are laws in my own country I don't like much, either.

 

So I am happy to stick with my original position: basically that a law passed in the late 18th century should not necessarily continue to apply in the very changed conditions and circumstances pertaining in the early 21st. America then was still a fledgling country, commencing a westward expansion into largely lawless territory. America is a hugely different country. now. Society has changed immeasurably. Population has expanded immeasurably. I believe these are just a few of the grounds for reasoned, rational debate unshackled by the inexplicable power of the NRA.

[Guest RichLB]

I would love to argue with Michael's view on the demise of the USA's virtues, but doing so will derail the thread. But, on topic, I, too, think the interpretation of the right to bear arms has been insanely applied. However, isn't the genie out of the bottle? With roving bands of gang bangers, fully armed drug cartels, and illegal guns available for sale in every inner city ghetto, how can such arms be removed from those who should not have them? As sad as it may be, it could be that the only determent to the bad guys is the threat of an equally armed citizenry.

[Guest kjun12]

Jason and his ilk are the problem with trying to get any type of gun control in the US. I am a US Citizen and have long felt that guns are a serious problem in the US. There is no, absolutely NO, reason for so many guns to be held by the citizenry. Most of the people killed with guns are relatives and neighbors. These are heat of passion killings and with all these guns around it is certainly easy to understand why the interpretation of the second amendment is bad. I 100% believe in gun control and feel that no one but the police should have guns. Possession of guns by the citizenry is no deterrent to criminals. That is obvious from the level of crime in our country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

[Bob]

One of the startling statistics (from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000 statistics) is that 78% of the homicides in the US are by firearm and there's only one other country (Columbia) that beats that number.

 

Other statistics:

(1) England & Wales had a total homicide rate of 1.45 people per 100,000 and 8 percent of their total homicides were by firearms.

(2) Germany had a total homicide rate of 1.17 per 100,000 and 40% of their total homicides were by firearms.

(3) India had a total homicide rate of 2.97 per 100,000 and 25% of their total homicides were by firearms.

(4) The US had a total homicide rate of 7.55 per 100,000 and 78% of their total homicides were by firearmss.

 

I'm not sure how you interpret these figures other than to conclude that the availabilty of guns (handguns especially in my opinion) only leads to more homicides.

 

One of the NRA's popular idiotic chants is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yea, sure. I'll have to remember that concept when the Judge asks me if I have anything to say after I've been convicted for hacking somebody to death with a machete (hey Judge, you dolt, machetes don't kill people, loss of blood kills people!).

[Jason1988]

Do you really believe that? The USA is on a downhill spiral.

 

Perhaps in your mind it is. There are many opportunities in the USA that you could never find in some

other countries. Many, like you, have the USA dead and buried. I'm not so sure she is ready for that!

 

Yes, Mr. Obama has been a miserable failure and if he doesn't get his act together will be a one term president.

But remember, we said that about George W. Bush and he was reelected.

[Guest anonone]

 

Other statistics:

(1) England & Wales had a total homicide rate of 1.45 people per 100,000 and 8 percent of their total homicides were by firearms.

(2) Germany had a total homicide rate of 1.17 per 100,000 and 40% of their total homicides were by firearms.

(3) India had a total homicide rate of 2.97 per 100,000 and 25% of their total homicides were by firearms.

(4) The US had a total homicide rate of 7.55 per 100,000 and 78% of their total homicides were by firearmss.

 

I'm not sure how you interpret these figures other than to conclude that the availabilty of guns (handguns especially in my opinion) only leads to more homicides.

 

 

 

 

I bolded the key stats in my view. It is revolting how many homicides are committed in the US. When you realize that the majority of homicides are committed by someone who knows the victim (family, friend, lover, etc), it is scary how incapable we are of managing emotions, dealing with conflict, key parts of relationships...

 

I am less concerned with the whole 2nd amendment discussion and the percentage of homicides committed with a gun. To me, if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. The victim is just as dead if they are stabbed or beat to death.

 

By the way, I don't have the answer...or even a suggestion. Just a sad reflection on our culture.

[Guest fountainhall]

if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. The victim is just as dead if they are stabbed or beat to death.

I think that's probably true. What concerns me more are those thousands or more who are killed 'by accident'. The young man who went after the congresswoman in Tucson surely did not proceed on his way that day with intent to kill a 9 year old girl?

 

I can never get out of my mind the sad story of the young 16 year old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1992. Still only with basic English and dressed in a tuxedo, he was on his way with his homestay friend, Webb Haymaker, to a Halloween party for Japanese students when mistakenly they approached the wrong house. This is how wikipedia describes the horror of what happened thereafter -

 

Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, likely thinking he said "please," stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairs' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help.

 

The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood

At the trial, a police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."

 

That mistake was caused directly by the US gun laws. Hattori, you'll have noted, had no weapon.

 

In Japan, the owning of a gun is anathema to all but the criminal class. Witness the number of shootings you hear about in the country - hardly any.

 

The criminal trial of Peairs lasted seven days. After the jurors deliberated for three and a quarter hours, Peairs was acquitted under Louisiana's 'Kill the burglar' statute.

[Jason1988]

As the immediate shock of the mass shooting in Arizona subsides and the conversation turns to gun control, it's becoming increasingly clear that there is little chance that new anti-gun measures will pass the Republican-dominated Congress.

 

But a picture is also coming into focus of a gun control movement that has been on the retreat for at least a decade, facing setbacks not only in Congress, but also in the courts and in public opinion polls, and of a Democratic Party that, from President Obama on down, has all but ceded the issue to the National Rifle Association.

 

"The last 10 years -- the NRA has won them 10 to zero," Jim Kessler, the co-founder of Third Way and a former official at Americans for Gun Safety, tells Salon.

 

Not long after the Saturday shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people in Tucson, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announced plans to introduce legislation to ban the type of high-capacity magazines used by the shooter, Jared Loughner. He reportedly fired 31 shots before having to reload, at which point bystanders tackled him. Under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, manufacture of magazines containing more than 10 rounds was illegal. McCarthy, who got into politics after her husband was shot to death in 1993, is the leading gun control advocate in the House.

 

Republicans have, so far, been united in dismissing the need for any new regulation. As Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday: "The weapons don't kill people; it

[Guest fountainhall]

From what I have seen on television I am sure Jason1988 is correct - there is little movement to do much in the way of gun control in the USA. Every time any gun control is even thought of, the NRA is right in there with its PR campaigns and its massive lobbying power and its ability to derail candidates' platforms. Is it any wonder change is unlikely? It often seems to outsiders that many Americans are just plain afraid to stand up to the NRA.

 

So the problem, Jason1988 considers, is that the majority of Americans actually want to bear arms. The fact is that all freedoms come with responsibility. Too many Americans it seems, want the gun, but without fail to exercise the responsibility that goes with it. Shoot first and with no thought for that responsibility. Tell the family of Yoshihiro Hattori about such freedom, and a justice system which allows the shooter to kill an innocent man to get off scot free because of some idiotic burglar law. Tell that to those innocent victims gunned down in Columbine High, in Tucson and goodness knows where else. But then, of course, I forget that it is the hand that pulls the trigger that is at responsible; not the gun. Funny, isn't it, that there are always loopholes that someone forgot to plug? How many more are there out there that will end up killing more innocent victims, and another loophole will supposedly be plugged.

 

Open up the floodgates and it's almost impossible to contain the spillage. The US has chosen this path and, as Bob suggested, it's going to be mighty difficult to get off it. I remain one who abhors gun ownership. I maintain what I said in my first post.

 

I can see no reason why private citizens should have the right to bear arms as they do in the USA. I also do not believe that any provision in a Constitution or piece of legislation in 1791 is necessarily applicable in 2011. To suggest that is virtually to support the claims of those who believe that what is written in the Bible, the Koran and other religious texts are as precisely valid today as they were when written.

[Guest mlomker]

Why don't we throw away the 1st and 4th amendments as well? Why should they apply to computers or anything that the founders didn't know about?

 

All you have to do is read the debates that took place in congress to understand what the founders intended with the 2nd Amendment. It's blatantly obvious that it is a personal right and that it was intended for self-protection as well as dealing with a tyranical government (they'd just got done dealing with England). Whether it's pragmatic to go up against the US Army's tanks with a shotgun is irrelevant, really. Many states back in that time period required able-bodied men to own firearms, at penalty of law! That's how the militias operated. Any of you that don't understand the basic facts such as these simply hasn't bothered to learn any history.

 

Statistics comparing America and England are interesting. England has much higher rates of assault, burglarly, and theft than the US does. You don't break into occupied homes in the US if you want to live but they have no such compunctions in Europe...a crook with a knife will mug you quicker than you can blink in London. If you don't feel safe somewhere in the US (or any other country) then why are you there? There are unsafe places and times everywhere. I didn't feel particularly safe walking near DongTan beach in Pattaya at 2am but I was staying at Room Club, so what option did I have?

 

The criminals in Thailand all have guns. Guns aren't that hard to obtain there. Someone could pay to rub you out for very little money. Cross the wrong people over there and tell me how safe you feel.

[Bob]

Statistics comparing America and England are interesting.

 

And your efforts to suggest we're safer in the US (because we have guns?) than in England seems to fall a little flat given the overall homicide rate is about 6 times (that's 600%) higher in the US than what it is in England. Please don't bother arguing that this difference has nothing to do with the availabilty of guns (you might as well argue the sun rises in the west).

 

I've had more access to and use of guns than most people I know and I fully understand how careful one must be in their use, possession, and storage; nevertheless, I'm not blind about the social ills that the wide availability of guns provides the US and I believe the price we're paying is too high. I don't advocate getting rid of guns entirely but I do advocate a fair number of restrictions (none of which would prevent any hunting activities, target practicing, or restrict defense of one's home or business); yet, I'm sure the NRA would oppose any and all efforts and argue that any regulation is just the beginning of the end of anybody's right to own a gun. Of course, that's simply BS.

[Guest Thor69]

Do you really believe that? The USA is on a downhill spiral.

 

 

Michael, Michael.....are you one that sees the glass half empty or half full?

Try not to be such a Debbie Downer. Life is better in the positive than the negative.

With the exception of an hiv test!

[Guest fountainhall]

A least someone is trying to do something about tightening the gun laws.

 

The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, today called for the imposition of universal background checks on anyone buying a gun in America, in an attempt to reduce the daily bloodletting that he said amounted to a national calamity.

 

Bloomberg invited a group of 34 gun victims or relatives of victims to New York's City Hall in a symbolic representation of the 34 people shot dead on a typical day in the US. He said that since 1968, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were gunned down in separate incidents, more than 400,000 people had been slain in gun violence.

 

"Every day in America 34 people are murdered with guns: 34 yesterday, 34 today, 34 tomorrow. We cannot turn our backs any longer on this national calamity," Bloomberg said , , ,

 

Bloomberg has been at the forefront of efforts in the US to tighten gun laws, a passion he said he obtained after the first time he went to hospital and had to tell a parent their child was never coming home. He now campaigns within a coalition of mayors of more than 500 cities across the country for the closure of loopholes that allow criminals, drug addicts and mentally ill people to obtain guns.

 

Bloomberg said that despite efforts made by Congress in the wake of the 1968 assassinations of King and Kennedy, and further measures in the Brady bill in 1993, the efficacy of the laws had been undermined by loopholes and woefully inadequate databases of criminal and mental history records. Millions of records that should be available to those carrying out checks on would-be gun owners were missing.

 

One of the largest loopholes is the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows guns to be sold by private dealers without any background checks. It was such a loophole that permitted the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, to get around the system by obtaining guns from an unlicenced seller with no questions asked.

 

The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people, had a history of mental illness but that did not show up on his records because it was not reported to the FBI's database.

 

Jared Loughner, who opened fire at a political rally held by congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson on 19 January, bought a Glock 19 pistol despite having a history of drug abuse and erratic behaviour for which he was expelled from college. None of these details showed up on the police database.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/michael-bloomberg-gun-checks

[Guest Thor69]

Jason and his ilk are the problem with trying to get any type of gun control in the US. I am a US Citizen and have long felt that guns are a serious problem in the US. There is no, absolutely NO, reason for so many guns to be held by the citizenry. Most of the people killed with guns are relatives and neighbors. These are heat of passion killings and with all these guns around it is certainly easy to understand why the interpretation of the second amendment is bad. I 100% believe in gun control and feel that no one but the police should have guns. Possession of guns by the citizenry is no deterrent to criminals. That is obvious from the level of crime in our country.

 

 

 

 

Jason1988 and his ilk are not the problem. There was a missed opportunity to get the guns out of the hands of the populace.

 

The USA had a huge opportunity to implement gun control when president Ronald Reagan was shot. Reagan dropped the ball and missed his opportunity to get all the guns rounded up and off the streets.

 

Ronald Reagan had a one track mind and it was focused on the reduction of taxes. In my opinion he was an empty suit.