Uzair (12 posts)
The second amendment is bullshit, and we all know it
I was glad to hear Bill Maher say it last week.
I am fully aware that the likelihood of an actual repeal of the second amendment is far fetched, to say the least. That is not the topic of this post. I am not talking about the likelihood, popularity of, or support for the full repeal of the second amendment. I am talking about the validity of the second amendment itself.
Comparisons of the second amendment with the first, or with any of the others, or with prohibition (an amendment that was ironically, REPEALED!), are invalid. If you counter my argument that the second amendment is bullshit by citing the others, you are committing the slippery slope logical fallacy. You're changing the subject.
The reasons that the founding fathers included the second amendment in the bill of rights is also a dodge. Those reasons, whether they were valid or not at the time, have no bearing on the validity of the second amendment today. Laws change over time, all the time, including amendments to the Constitution (see: Prohibition).
The fact of the matter is, if America wants to actually solve the problem of gun violence, the only way to do it is a full repeal of this law. No other civilized nation on Earth has anything remotely resembling a "right" to "bear arms". I put the word "right" in quotes because to say that owning a firearm is some sort of inalienable human right is complete and utter bullshit. We all know it, so let's just say it. I understand why Obama and everyone else have to pretend like they want to solve this problem "while still respecting second amendment rights", but again, that's not the subject of this post.
The fact of the matter is, America has more gun related deaths, both homicides, suicides, accidents, and the like, than any other first world nation on the planet. When gun nuts cite the dropping numbers of gun deaths over the years, or the drop in crime in general over the years, they conveniently ignore the fact that despite the trend other countries have gun crime rates orders of magnitude below America. There is 1 per capita gun crime in Canada for every seven in America. Seven. That's not some minor blip. That's 700%. How many people here would like a stock they might own to increase 700%?
The fact of the matter is the UK, Canada, Japan, France, and the like all play the same video games, all watch the same TV shows and violent movies, all have violent histories. What these other countries DO NOT have is an obsolete, ill advised, bullshit law etched into their Constitutions that give people a "right" to own a gun. These other countries have been able to pass laws restricting gun ownership, regulating it, setting up registries and background checks and the like, because they don't have some stupid amendment in their Constitutions making it damn near impossible for them to do so.
The fact of the matter is these other countries have not, I repeat, have not BANNED ALL GUNS. If you live in Canada, you can buy a gun. If you live in the UK, you can buy a gun. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, you are restricted to only certain types of guns, etcetera. The so called "responsible gun owners" in these other countries actually ARE responsible gun owners, because the system is set up to make sure that they are. They have to get background checks, and licenses, and have to pass tests, be put into a national registry, etcetera. They may not have a "right" etched into their constitutions, but they still own guns. Can you imagine if all you had to do to drive a car was buy one? (And to cite the high level of deaths by auto accident is also a change of subject, as auto deaths would undoubtedly be FAR HIGHER if not for the restrictions on licensing and registering).
The fact of the matter is that criminals who are hell bent on getting guns do not generally succeed at getting guns in these other countries. While a few may, the vast majority of criminals have a hell of a difficult time getting their hands on a gun when guns are regulated to the extent that they are in these other countries. They usually opt for knives or bats, or other things that are objectively (NOT subjectively, OBJECTIVELY) far less lethal than guns. And the guns that they usually DO get their hands on are still far less lethal than the bushmaster .223 or other similarly designed military style weapons that should only see a battlefield. And just as a little side note here, before I get too off topic, I want to say that guns are not TOOLS like hammers or saws or knives or pickaxes. While these TOOLS may be used for lethal purposes, guns are WEAPONS. Label them as such.
The fact of the matter is that this so called "freedom" and "right" to own a gun is what's holding America back from solving this problem that has already been solved in every other civilized nation on Earth. Gun nuts need to stop bullshitting themselves and bullshitting everyone else. You don't have your guns because it's your right to have them. You have them because you LIKE them. You get off on shooting them. It's a fetish. It's a vice. You grew up with it, passed down through the generations, and you think it's normal. And you know what? That's OK for you. But you're vice is harming society.
The fact of the matter is that EVERY SINGLE GUN shot by a criminal was once purchased by one of you. They got their hands on it somehow because you sold it, or you lost it, or it got stolen from you. You were irresponsible somewhere along the line, and the government had no power to make sure that your gun was traced somehow. They had no power to do it because they can't get past this bullshit thing called the second amendment. They can't pass a law to make sure that you truly are the responsible gun owner you say you are. And guess what? You're most likely not. You're most likely going to shoot a family member with it. You're most likely going to kill yourself, either intentionally or accidentally, with it. These are statistical facts, not opinions. Everybody thinks it will never happen to them until it actually does. Stats is stats, math is math, reality is reality.
The fact of the matter is that other civilized countries have social safety nets like universal health care, and that does help. America doesn't do enough in terms of education, mental health, and the like. But creating a true social safety net in America, while not doing anything about the gun laws, will only serve to reduce violence overall, but not GUN VIOLENCE in particular. The people who fall through the social safety net will still have easy access to guns, unlike the people in other countries who opt to use knives. Again, knives and other things that can do harm to others are FAR LESS LIKELY to be as lethal as guns. On the very same calendar day of the Sandy Hook shooting - THE SAME DAMN DAY, a man in China attacked school children with a knife. Not one of those children died.
The second amendment. That's the problem. Let's stop beating around the bush. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Enough bullshit. Until America repeals the second amendment, the gun problem will continue to exist. The gun problem is real. It is not imaginary. The numbers are the numbers. When 7 people are killed by a gun in America for every 1 person in Canada, the gun nuts can cite every single statistic in their book of tricks that they want to. Falling crime rates, lower crime rates in right to carry areas, whatever the hell they want to cite. They cannot refute the first fact. What's the point of saying gun crime rates are falling, or that gun crime rates are lower in right to carry areas when you purposely ignore the fact that the gun crime rates are still astronomically higher than in other countries that solved this problem? The point is to obfuscate. To lie. To change the subject. To keep everyone distracted from the fact that the gun problem is real and that it's not going away any time soon.
At least not until the second amendment is repealed. Likely to happen? Of course not. But it is what must happen.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022726539How is it such educated people, as they claim to be, have no reading comprehension abilities?
Why is it they think the Constitution was written in code and a right to bear arms didn't really mean a right to bear arms, and somewhere else in the constitution there is an absolute right that can not be infringed for abortion.
I do wish the founders had written the second like this, The people have the right to bear arms and this shall not be infringed. We really mean it!
defacto7 (2,964 posts)
1. You might say
the weakness of the second amendment logic cheapens and weakens the rest of the constitution.
That is true, let's move to the first amendment. Use the argument that times were different then, and religion was important, but now we as a society have evolved and religion has now become a danger to society so in order to secure a safe state we must ban all religion.
What about free speech? Times were different then, and when someone spoke they didn't have the means to broadcast worldwide, with today's technology and nutjob with any idea can say anything and influence others to commit violent acts, in order to secure a safe state we must limit speech.
Once you assholes dismantle one amendment it is only a matter of time before everything in the Constitution, that is really there, becomes null and void.
rightsideout (743 posts)
3. We need socialized medicine
To handle the damage caused by the Second Amendment.
We're actually getting better at reducing gun death rates. As a matter of fact shootings have increased but gun deaths have decreased due to better medical skills and technology. We can put a shooting victim back out on the street so they can get shot again. It does happen.
Anything is an argument for more freebies to these people.
Loudly (1,148 posts)
4. Welcome to DU. The availability of guns and ammunition can be separated from the 2A.
Jurisprudence effectively limiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of new product can help neuter the damn thing.
Friendly courts can substitute for the impossible pipe dream of repeal.
Just like the courts have dragged society kicking and screaming into modernity on prior occasions.
Sometimes, the People are too simply too ignorant, prejudiced and fearful to do the right thing on their own.
How about we get friendly courts to tinker with the most important right you idiots think there is, abortion?
The amazing thing is, there are many more deaths linked to abortion than there to guns. Every person who exercises the right to an abortion will end a human life. Most gun owners will never even wound a human, much less kill a human with their gun.
SunSeeker (4,606 posts)
8. We don't need to repeal the 2nd Am., we just need to interpret it properly.
And we are just one right wing justice away from being able to do that. It is a lot easier to overturn the ridiculous 5-4 Heller decision than to amend the Constitution.
In other words we need to interpret it in a way that we can ban guns.
ErikJ (2,446 posts)
10. 2nd Amend is as obsolete as the Muskets it was for
THe 2nd Amendment was written for the maintenance of our citizen Militias because of certain Founding Fathers like Jefferson refusing to OK standing Armies. Hell, the country's first paid police dept wasnt even until 1837 in Boston.
It took 100 muskets to equal one soldier or police gun today.
The War of 1812 was fought and won with citizen militias. They worked then.... but not so much now. TOTALLY OBSOLETE. Time to repeal the destructive 2nd Amendment. As they say, the Constitution isnt (or shouldnt be) a suicide pact.
That is one the dumbest arguments they use. At the time when the second was written, the musket was the high tech "assault riffle" of the time. The founders in their wisdom allowed the people to own the same weapons that were military grade in order to protect themselves and their freedoms. As the technology improved the rights of the citizens should have been maintained so that whatever "assault riffle" the Army had the people could in fact own as well. That hasn't happened since we have allowed all kinds of restrictions on what we can own. Now there are people working tirelessly in order to drive the final nail in the coffin of gun rights, but instead of rolling over we the people are fighting back just as hard in order to maintain a right that is spelled out in the Constitution. The founders didn't stutter when they said we have the right to bear arms and that right shall NOT be infringed.
friendly_iconoclast (8,787 posts)
20. You have no Constitutional right to say that as you didn't post it with a quill pen...
Mr.Pain (39 posts)
11. At the time that the constitution was written
Many native tribes were forming raiding parties against settlers in the "frontier" areas of the colonies. The right to defend ones self and family had to be protected. Now that the nearly complete genocide of native American tribes is over, and we no longer need to defend our homes from those invaders, we probably should get rid of that "silly" amendment.
Has to be a mole.
newmember (36 posts)
12. We actually got the idea of the seconded amendment from the Brits
That we did. The brits came to grab our guns we let our guns do the talking and the rest is history. The founders knew that once the government, any government started grabbing guns it was over.
MillennialDem (112 posts)
13. 2nd amendment is utterly irrelevant to today
- Weapons are vastly different
- Defended by the military rather than a mostly militia
- Most importantly world is entirely different... we're not talking about people on the frontier, hours if not days away from their nearest neighbor.
Tell you what buddy, if an intruder breaks in to your house feel free to call the police to come protect your ass. They will draw those neat little chalk outlines around your dead body. This logic is like saying you don't need a fire extinguisher in your house. There is a fire station just miles away.
