Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Second Amendment
Jeffrey
Veteran
I hope this topic is not taboo, mountains, I thought it was worth discussing.
The way I see it civilians who know weaponry can become an asset should the need for guirila war arise. Does that make sense? I think that is basically how the colonies defended against the british and also how the vietnamese defended their lands from americans.
The way I see it civilians who know weaponry can become an asset should the need for guirila war arise. Does that make sense? I think that is basically how the colonies defended against the british and also how the vietnamese defended their lands from americans.
0
Comments
Saying that, even if you do change the 2 ammendment, people will still be able to get guns on the black market like they can in the UK, but the thing with the US is, as I have already said and you agreed, it is built within your culture that guns are such prominent object that it may not make much of a difference. Because your country is so young and clings to what it was founded on, but it has also rapidly changed with time. I personally think changes need to be made, but I am not an American..
When I watched the documentary on the colombine kids, that really shook me up and stirred something inside me. It kind of gave me a sick feeling I have never had before. That is just one example why it should be changed.
So, that can be read in different ways. One could argue that handguns are unnecessary for keeping a militia, rifles only, but then what about machine guns? I don't know, the whole thing is very messy. I think that in view of so many accidental (and criminal) deaths in the US, there's a pretty good argument for somehow limiting or sidelining the 2nd amendment.
Here's what I want to know: we've seen the argument come up that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I've never heard anyone worry about that in countries where guns are outlawed, which is most countries, I think. How do people in gun-free nations feel about this?
Thx for contributing, Tom.
Would you think it government's role to search houses? That sounds like if you give that power to government its worse than having the guns.
People having guns does not stop crime and violence.
Reducing the number of guns does not eliminate crime and violence either, but it will reduce the number of shootings and the number of accidental deaths.
Without guns society is a bit safer.
And guns against tyranny? That’s not very convincing.
Look at revolutions and revolts. Handguns are not what they are about; they’re about strikes, demonstrations and the decisive factor is the position the military forces take.
When I was a kid the armed forces were formed by general conscription and I remember my schoolteacher explaining how this would prevent the armed forces to become a tool of suppression.
Now general conscription has been cancelled, and nobody ever thought of that as a political risk. Maybe that’s because we don’t have a history of the military getting involved with politics.
I may get slammed for this, even on a buddhist site. But the US has little history has it is a little child in terms of it's age. So whatever history you guys have, for the majority of people you seem to grasp at it and defend it pretty hard. We are buddhists here, well most of us at least (forget that online survey for a moment lol), but guns kill people, they kill animals. Killing living beings is one of the worse things you can do in terms of the dharma.
You don’t take the gun away; you give the owner a permit. And in order to keep the permit he has to keep the gun locked away in his house. When he commits a violent crime he loses his permit. When he gets drunk and carries his gun around in public, he loses his permit. And so on.
And then, gradually you give fewer permits on stricter conditions.
But no politician is going to burn his fingers on this one, I guess.
I do have to admit, I myself own a handgun. a .357 magnum. I bought it legally, and I filled out ALL the paperwork and registerd it with the police dept. I bought it for home protection. I dont have kids. My wife is aware and fimilar with the gun, and it stays in one spot and collects dust. I hope I will never have to use it. I also have the recipt for it too with the serial # on it, in case it does get stolen I can turn that into the police and hope it gets located safely. IF I HAD TO, I WOULD GIVE UP THAT RIGHT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF MANDKIND AND MY COUNTRY. But I guess Im a rare breed. Most would not do that. Some even go out of the way to not let the Government know they have them out of paranoia that someday they will take them away.
I know a lot of people who go to those gun shows, or find guns that they dont have to fill out paper work on. Its scary how easy it is to get a VERY powerful gun at a low cost and under the radar. We actully had a gun dealer in town get shut down for selling guns without proper paperwork. Some of the guns where soposely stolon. His excuse was because it is the American right to do it. He said he didnt care who bought the guns as long as they where american. He believed he had the right. The cops sent in a "informant" who was a vilent felon(illegal to own an firearm) do a controled buy on a gun. The dealer sold it to him.
So how does America, or any other country, safely and legally sell and own guns. I would have to say its impossible. There is always going to be someone fall to greed and ruin it.
On that note. I hate guns. I am conditioned through growing up with them to feel safe with one. But I hate the idea of a machine built for one thing, to kill.
And by the day they are getting more and more effecent at it.
So to conclude, I live in a country that is conditioned to fear everything, and only feel safe with a gun. It is sad. But it is the state of affairs that we are in.
Bullets are the problem.
Let anyone buy a gun if they want to....
But the bullets should be $5000 a piece.
"Do you feel lucky, punk? Well.....Do you?
tbunton also raises a good point: there are a fair amount of nut jobs out there selling guns, being irresponsible about it for their own reasons. Not to mention the nut jobs buying guns.
Guns don't have to be for killing. Guns can be for disabling an intruder. Shoot 'em in the foot, then call the police. (Well...unless he has a gun. Then I guess you do have to shoot to kill. arrghh I guess that argument just went down in flames...
As I read the founding documents of the USA, I notice that the 'Creator' 'endowed' humans with three 'inalenable' rights - all of which can be limited or removed entirely by the state. The same 'Creator' does not appear to have endowed us with the right to firearms or even edged weapons.
As far as I( can tell, every country has gone through a period when their population was armed. In general this was as a result of the family or clan conflicts which became international wars. A large number of firearms were in circulation in the Allied countries, in the hands of returning servicemen, after the 1914-1945 conflict. Increasingly strict laws and regulations were enacted, alongside amnesties allowing such weapons to be handed in and put beyond use. This process was successful. Of course, success has not been 100% and, for example, Switzerland, which supplied Europe with some of the most effective mercenary troops up to and including the 19th Century, has approached the problem by enforced military service and weapons training as experience has shown that trained personnel are far less dangerous to the general welfare than amateurs.
The point, of course, is that a concerted effort has to be made, as was done with slavery, to encourage a general repugnance with privately-owned weapons among a majority of the population. This is mainly achieved by having a competent, respected and more-or-less incorrupt policing policy which protects the general population. I may be wrong but, from the number of times I have read discussions such as this one and listened to my USian friends on the subject, the fervour with which the Second Amendment is defended arises from an underlying fear of disordewr and chaos, alongside a sort of reverence for a text that existed for a specific historical need that may now be in the past.
This is fascinating, though. So people actually turned in their guns after the war? Nobody held back? How would the police know if anyone failed to participate in the program?
But I think in this day and age, there is more fear of disorder and of "outlaws with guns" than there is fear of tyranny. Although that may be changing, post-OWS.
btw, speaking of arms, and tyranny and stuff...a cop was shot at Virginia Tech, and one other person. A gunman walked up to a cop and shot him dead as the cop was stopped in a campus parking lot, and then fled the scene. He shot one more person along his escape route. Nothing more is known at this time, AFAIK.
I think if citizens actually did decide to form a militia and take on the police and the national guard, etc., it would get extremely messy. I don't even think this is feasible. It was feasible in the days of the 13 colonies, but not today. So why are we clinging to the 2nd amendment? Maybe we should practice non-attachment.
Taking guns away from the US is like trying to take a dogs favourite one away from him/her, it just is not going to happen and if it does, it will be one hell of a struggle.
In the midwest real men spend their time learning how to cook bacon with a machinegun! http://republicofbacon.com/2011/01/24/use-a-machine-gun-to-cook-your-bacon/
We have the one of highest prison populations in the world because of strict, senseless laws (and more are being passed daily!) - we are becoming a police state.
Peaceful protesters are being assaulted viciously on the streets.
We give African American's rights, and then women, and then go right on to another minority (homosexuals and others) and take away their rights.
We are in wars that are fueled by money and greed - and more are sure to come.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."