Guns in the US: The basis of a civilized democracy?

[August1991]

You can vote in this poll as you feel in principle. Then, you can argue here about the prospects of gun legislation in the US.

I personally think the US will rescind the Second Amendment (or the Supreme Court will severely restrict its interpretation) in this century.

IMV, the Second Amendment is an understandable error of the 18th century, understandably ignored in the 19th century and then understandably uncorrected in the 20th century. (In the 19th century, the US was preoccupied with slavery and secession and in the 20th century, Constitutional amendments got a bad reputation with Prohibition. Then the Soviet Union, Nazism and militarist Japan made Americans think about despotism.)

In this 21st century, with luck, Americans will have a chance to think about the Second Amendment and what it means for a civilized society. IMV, no civilized society allows an individual to keep a weapon at home except in special, defined circumstances.

More generally, in a civilized society, individuals confer on government agents the authority to use guns or weapons. In a civilized society, people phone 911. They defend themselves as a collective.

I disagree with Mark Steyn:

The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

The error at the Poly was that the police waited outside until they had secured the building. Lepine/Gharbi had time to wander.

Western justice (and science) is based on checks, and second checks. We confront evil together, not alone.

----

For those who don't know, here's the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's commentary on the Second Amendment.

[bush_cheney2004]

...IMV, the Second Amendment is an understandable error of the 18th century, understandably ignored in the 19th century and then understandably uncorrected in the 20th century. Constitutional amendments got a bad reputation with Prohibition and then the Soviet Union, Nazism and militarist Japan made Americans think about despotism.

I think you have answered your own question...the Second Amendment to the US Constitution will survive any such challenges, in no small part because of the experience with Prohibition.

By any measure the USA is a civilized society, and without firearms, would not exist. The very notion of disarming Americans challenges "civil" rights and individual power independent of government or state. This is a very American ideal, and not easily extinquished.

[August1991]

I think you have answered your own question...the Second Amendment to the US Constitution will survive any such challenges, in no small part because of the experience with Prohibition.

By any measure the USA is a civilized society, and without firearms, would not exist. The very notion of disarming Americans challenges "civil" rights and individual power independent of government or state. This is a very American ideal, and not easily extinquished.

Here, I disagree with you.

IMV, by 2100, the US and its Constitution will still exist but the Second Amendment will either have been rescinded by an amendment or else the Supreme Court will have severely restricted its meaning.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here, I disagree with you.

IMV, by 2100, the US and its Constitution will still exist but the Second Amendment will either have been rescinded by an amendment or else the Supreme Court will have severely restricted its meaning.

If this idea has merit, why such a long timeline? The USA may not even exist in 2100 according to some of our favorite conspiracy theorists.

Current trends are for states to issue more concealed/right-to-carry permits. This is the exact opposite of your proposition.

See this wiki animated graphic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

[B. Max]

More generally, in a civilized society, individuals confer on government agents the authority to use guns or weapons. In a civilized society, people phone 911. They defend themselves as a collective.

Hogwash. Maybe that's how they do it in socialist police state. In which case calling 911 is a waste of time, just call the morgue. The first ten amendments are listed in order of importance and are declaratory and restrictive as stated in the preamble. They restrict government power, and are rights the government can not change.

[August1991]

Hogwash. Maybe that's how they do it in socialist police state. In which case calling 911 is a waste of time, just call the morgue. The first ten amendments are listed in order of importance and are declaratory and restrictive as stated in the preamble. They restrict government power, and are rights the government can not change.

We didn't defeated Hitler and Stalin and Soviet Communism with handguns - it took organized, sustained, collective effort.

We won the Cold War. The West defeated Soviet tyranny. Why? We acted as a cooperative. The success of liberty does not depend on an individual's "right to bear arms". I hope that Americans understand this. If not, they will suffer tyranny.

Alone, an individual cannot defeat a criminal or stand up to criminals. Rather, honest people must know that they are not alone and a civilized society means that honest people stand together against dishonesty.

[bush_cheney2004]

...We won the Cold War. The West defeated Soviet tyranny. Why? We acted as a cooperative. The success of liberty does not depend on an individual's "right to bear arms". I hope that Americans understand this. If not, they will suffer tyranny.

Alone, an individual cannot defeat a criminal or stand up to criminals. Rather, honest people must know that they are not alone and a civilized society means that honest people stand together against dishonesty.

Gun ownership and collective security are not mutually exclusive. The success of liberty was made possible in no small part by well armed Americans. The Founders did not make a mistake. Americans do understand this, and choose to have varied opinions on the matter of gun ownership. Choice is good.

Please let the Americans be Americans.

[PolyNewbie]

Societies that have gun ownership have lower crime. Individuals that have guns are less likely to commit crime statistically. Guns are to protect a population from a tyrannical government in principle. Citizens with guns stop a huge number of crimes.

Rense.com has two excellent guests talking about gun control each for one hour this week.

The US government has built detention centers all over the country. The next step is to confisgate the guns. Thats how it works. Just ask Hitler, Mao or Stalin or any other dictator that wants to turn a tyrannical government against the population.

You will know when the purges of elected and leading establishment begins.

[kuzadd]

i voted: Yes, individuals with guns guarantee freedom.

BC

"The very notion of disarming Americans challenges "civil" rights and individual power independent of government or state. This is a very American ideal, and not easily extinquished. "

BC: I am going to agree 100 percent with you on this particular statement.

As this is how by and large the Americans I know feel about this issue.

IMO, the founding fathers of the US understood why guns guaranteed freedom, IMO, it was largely, but not soley, for protection against tyranny, from their own government, as it had been alleged had been their experience with Britian.

BC if you have a different opine, on that? But from many Americans this is what I understand is the case.

Interestingly , the foudning father's didn't seems to crazy about standing armies, but an armed poulace was the way to go.

Was this because they understood the concept of guerilla warfare?

Wonder?

[PolyNewbie]

If I was an American I would consider it a responsibility to get my carrying permit but an option to back it up with hardware. I probably would have a gun in the house but I don't think I would want to carry one around.

It was argued on one of the rense interviews that even if you don't want a gun you should get the carry permit just to help preserve the constitution and make it that much more difficult for the nihilists to take guns away.

[Peter F]

Kuzad:

IMO, the founding fathers of the US understood why guns guaranteed freedom, IMO, it was largely, but not soley, for protection against tyranny, from their own government, as it had been alleged had been their experience with Britian.

The American founding fathers certainly did understand why guns guaranteed freedom. Guns of the 18th century being muskets. The most fabulously equipped European armies of the time were equiped with the best weaponry money could buy - muskets. Of course it wasn't all that difficult for lowly citizens to acquire the very same weaponry as any elite European army (excepting cannon, of course) - more muskets.

But things have changed. Anyone that thinks that their and thier fellow citizens 9mm Glocks, Smith and Westons, the odd kalishnikov and Ruger, are going to stand up to Tyranny's grenade launchers, rocket launchers, armoured vehicles, 25mm chain guns, mortars, medium MG's, 500lb bombs etc - is, simply, a fool.

[Guthrie]

Guns have never and never will be banned in the US

those peddling such a fear have an agenda different from democracy

[B. Max]

name='August1991' date='May 5 2007, 03:30 AM' post='215860']

name='B. Max' post='215857' date='May 5 2007, 02:05 AM']

We didn't defeated Hitler and Stalin and Soviet Communism with handguns - it took organized, sustained, collective effort.

So what. That has nothing to do with the second amendment or the first or any of the first ten.

We won the Cold War. The West defeated Soviet tyranny. Why? We acted as a cooperative. The success of liberty does not depend on an individual's "right to bear arms". I hope that Americans understand this. If not, they will suffer tyranny.

It depends on the constitution, and understanding it. If not they could very well suffer tyranny.

Alone, an individual cannot defeat a criminal or stand up to criminals.

Simply not true. Even the FBI estimates that guns are used, not necessarily fired, as many as 700'000 times a year in self defence. Others have put it higher.

Rather, honest people must know that they are not alone and a civilized society means that honest people stand together against dishonesty.

I would agree, and that would include those who attack the second amendment with dubious arguments. The framers considered the first ten amendments inherent and inalienable, and those who would attack one would given time, attack all of them.

[Guthrie]

It depends on the constitution, and understanding it. If not they could very well suffer tyranny.

this is completely meaningless

I would agree, and that would include those who attack the second amendment with dubious arguments. The framers considered the first ten amendments inherent and inalienable, and those who would attack one would given time, attack all of them.

who attacks the second ammendment? what are these, 'dubious' arguments. As to the framers, this is a very uninformed and ill-conceived comment about them.

Simply not true. Even the FBI estimates that guns are used, not necessarily fired, as many as 700'000 times a year in self defence. Others have put it higher.

This is absolutely false.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC if you have a different opine, on that? But from many Americans this is what I understand is the case.

Interestingly , the foudning father's didn't seems to crazy about standing armies, but an armed poulace was the way to go.

Was this because they understood the concept of guerilla warfare?

Wonder?

No, I think you have a keen understanding of the underlying issue and history. Arguments have been made that "guns" threaten "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but these public safety assertions (e.g. homicide & suicide) quickly unravel in the face of other daily perils and risks.

Firearms are a fundamental element of the American experience.....they are even embedded in American English as terms to express power, speed, and individualism.

[Guthrie]

... quickly unravel in the face of other daily perils and risks.

bogus

Link

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—

* 1.3 unintentional deaths

* 4.6 criminal homicides

* 37 suicides22

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.

* Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.

* Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.23

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.

That last fact is from FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997.

firearms do not make us safer,

firearms make us less safe

[Remiel]

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.

The way I have always interpreted this statement is that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms if they are part of a well regulated militia, with the well regulated militia being the primary right granted in the amendment.

I was reading not too long ago however that there isn't really a true militia in the U.S., most of the organizations that call themselves militias are just a bunch of yahoos.

[bush_cheney2004]

The way I have always interpreted this statement is that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms if they are part of a well regulated militia, with the well regulated militia being the primary right granted in the amendment.

I was reading not too long ago however that there isn't really a true militia in the U.S., most of the organizations that call themselves militias are just a bunch of yahoos.

People are free to interpret the Second Amendment any way they choose, but it is very clear from the record that there was far more concern than just a well regulated militia, notably disarmed British subjects. The language was sculpted many times down to a simple idea that is questioned because of comma usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm..._and_compromise

[B. Max]

name='Guthrie' date='May 5 2007, 04:46 PM' post='216128']

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.

That last fact is from FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997.

firearms do not make us safer,

firearms make us less safe

Want else would one expect from a gun grabber site.

Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.32 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.33

CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."9

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/bates050307.htm

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

[kuzadd]

Kuzad:

IMO, the founding fathers of the US understood why guns guaranteed freedom, IMO, it was largely, but not soley, for protection against tyranny, from their own government, as it had been alleged had been their experience with Britian.

The American founding fathers certainly did understand why guns guaranteed freedom. Guns of the 18th century being muskets. The most fabulously equipped European armies of the time were equiped with the best weaponry money could buy - muskets. Of course it wasn't all that difficult for lowly citizens to acquire the very same weaponry as any elite European army (excepting cannon, of course) - more muskets.

But things have changed. Anyone that thinks that their and thier fellow citizens 9mm Glocks, Smith and Westons, the odd kalishnikov and Ruger, are going to stand up to Tyranny's grenade launchers, rocket launchers, armoured vehicles, 25mm chain guns, mortars, medium MG's, 500lb bombs etc - is, simply, a fool.

Actually, the guerilla warfare vs traditional warfare concept still stands true today.

One need only look at Vietnam, Iraq, and IMO, the recent Israeli loss.

In all cases, the guerilla fighters, were underarmed, severely underarmed, and yet, Goliath was slain, in all three cases. I include Iraq, because it will never be "won".

One also can look at the occupation of Palestine by Israel, which, so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory, there will be guerilla warfare, despite all the rhetorical nonsense. It's classic guerilla warfare.

Therefore peterf, I would have to say, though outgunned, the guerilla fighter can most often outmaneuver, and has numerous other options.

Concluding, the American founding fathers were correct then, and there thinking still is now.

[Peter F]

Actually, the guerilla warfare vs traditional warfare concept still stands true today.

One need only look at Vietnam, Iraq, and IMO, the recent Israeli loss.

In all cases, the guerilla fighters, were underarmed, severely underarmed, and yet, Goliath was slain, in all three cases. I include Iraq, because it will never be "won".

One also can look at the occupation of Palestine by Israel, which, so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory, there will be guerilla warfare, despite all the rhetorical nonsense. It's classic guerilla warfare.

Therefore peterf, I would have to say, though outgunned, the guerilla fighter can most often outmaneuver, and has numerous other options.

Concluding, the American founding fathers were correct then, and there thinking still is now.

True, but then the freedom fighter will of necessity be adopting the methods of terrorism. Thats bad.

[kuzadd]

Actually, the guerilla warfare vs traditional warfare concept still stands true today.

One need only look at Vietnam, Iraq, and IMO, the recent Israeli loss.

In all cases, the guerilla fighters, were underarmed, severely underarmed, and yet, Goliath was slain, in all three cases. I include Iraq, because it will never be "won".

One also can look at the occupation of Palestine by Israel, which, so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory, there will be guerilla warfare, despite all the rhetorical nonsense. It's classic guerilla warfare.

Therefore peterf, I would have to say, though outgunned, the guerilla fighter can most often outmaneuver, and has numerous other options.

Concluding, the American founding fathers were correct then, and there thinking still is now.

True, but then the freedom fighter will of necessity be adopting the methods of terrorism. Thats bad.

all war is "terrorism" whether it is done, using conventional, or guerilla maneuvres or tactics.

looking at the most basic definition of "terrorism" The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change

we see that all warfare is the warfare of terrorism, despite the over the top, overblown rhetoric, of this present time, which I assure you will pass, all warfare is terrorism, as it is the systemic use of terror, to bring about political change.

I mean really what was "shock and awe" all about? The infliction of terror on the Iraqi people! To demoralize them, scare them, and to show that change was coming and it was going to be big and bad. Terrorism!

[Peter F]

all war is "terrorism" whether it is done, using conventional, or guerilla maneuvres or tactics.

looking at the most basic definition of "terrorism" The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change

we see that all warfare is the warfare of terrorism, despite the over the top, overblown rhetoric, of this present time, which I assure you will pass, all warfare is terrorism, as it is the systemic use of terror, to bring about political change.

I mean really what was "shock and awe" all about? The infliction of terror on the Iraqi people! To demoralize them, scare them, and to show that change was coming and it was going to be big and bad. Terrorism!

Well, if its justified then to use terrorism to overthrow tyranny, and terrorism is no different from war, then Bush et al are justified overthrowing Saddam via invasion.

Whats the dif?

[Wilber]

Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.32 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.33

I believe it. Problem is that if you have a society where anyone can get a handgun, you also create a society where everyone must have one to even the odds. It may be effective in some cases but not particularly desirable IMO.

[kuzadd]

all war is "terrorism" whether it is done, using conventional, or guerilla maneuvres or tactics.

looking at the most basic definition of "terrorism" The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change

we see that all warfare is the warfare of terrorism, despite the over the top, overblown rhetoric, of this present time, which I assure you will pass, all warfare is terrorism, as it is the systemic use of terror, to bring about political change.

I mean really what was "shock and awe" all about? The infliction of terror on the Iraqi people! To demoralize them, scare them, and to show that change was coming and it was going to be big and bad. Terrorism!

Well, if its justified then to use terrorism to overthrow tyranny, and terrorism is no different from war, then Bush et al are justified overthrowing Saddam via invasion.

Whats the dif?

ok, first of all I never said anything was justified, your assuming that is what I am saying,

I am speaking purely from fact that all warfare can be seen to be terrorism, guerilla or conventional.

Unless , you are claiming :

1: the Iraqis have not been terrorised by the US invasion?

2: that the intent of the creation of that terror, inclusive of the overthrow of Saddam in iraq, was not to" bring about political change"

clarify that for me, please and thanks?