Credit to Oleg Volk
olegvolk.livejournal.com/
Images:
1- Freedom of the press, freedom of armament for the public … both important, both have evolved since the Constitution was written.
2- Is your right to arms limited to antiques? (Bonus points for figuring out the props)
3- If it is limited to older technology, where is the cutoff, and who makes that decision?
4- The most likely result of oppressive gun laws, any auto-body shop could churn these out by the thousands.
Those are all really cool looking guns.
If you make the argument that the 2nd amendment should extend to modern firearms, then where do we draw the upper limit. Should people be allowed to own 50 caliber machine guns? Tanks? Missiles? Nuclear weapons?
When the Constitution was written, people were allowed to own the most powerful weapons of their day. Why shouldn’t the 2nd amendment to be extended to the most powerful weapons of today?
Back then, the average citizen could afford to arm themselves with a rifle (or long gun prior to rifling technology), and it had uses beyond defending one’s own person and property, such as hunting. Not everyone could just afford to go out and buy a cannon, or hire a standing personal army (only equivalent destructive force to a cruise missle I can think of), nor would it make much sense to.
If you could afford to just march right out and buy a tank/missile/nuke, and could expressly justify the need for defending your person and property with them, then your opinion would probably be different on your right to own them. I mean, maybe you could pick up girls with the tank, the rest wouldn’t do much to deter a home invasion.
So the limit is what an average person can afford to buy? I don’t see that in the Constitution. I also don’t see anything about “justify the need for defending your person and property”. It does mention a well regulated militia. A militia is a military force, so we should be able to have military weapons. I have a right to own weaponized anthrax… for hunting.
Actually, in the 1700’s “militia” meant anyone with a gun who was NOT in the military, but could be expected to assist the military (under military command) in time of war.
“well regulated militia” meant the government should keep track of who owns guns and who doesn’t and what their training is so they could be called to serve. I think this is a good idea.
Regulating what TYPE of gun people could own didn’t happen until prohibition, when rum runners began using Thompson submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Care to bring back the glory days of Al Capone?
I believe it was Socrates that first proposed that recognizing sarcasm was the one true test of intelligence.
If you have nukes, the constitution won’t really apply to you.
When it was written, almost every State and Commonwealth required all men of military age to serve (or have a good reason, such as the Amish that have a moral prohibition about killing). In addtion they required those persons to furnish their own weapons, in recognition that it is too damned expensive for the State to buy everything.
people are permitted to own 50 caliber weapons.
But not 50 caliber machine guns.
Hard to believe that there are people who consider this argument cohesive.
Worst strawman argument ever
“If…then” usually have no causative correlation
Fuck that, I want a ray gun.
It’s the old “all or nothing” argument, the idea that outlawing even the most high powered weapons is the same as outlawing ALL weapons.
I’m less worried about my rights to own a pistol than I am that the guy down the street might get a grenade launcher. And I’m concerned that he wants one.
This
This, etc…
gun laws in UK are very strict, and violent crimes are MUCH lover then in US, actually USA has biggest crime ratio in all western coutrys. probably becouse any jerkoff can buy a 9mm gun, you can buy ammo in a freaking wallmart. that’s just insane.
Is it insane? Or is it that we’re just SO sane that any any jerkoff can buy a 9mm gun?
Actually, the UK has a HIGHER violent crime rate than the US…
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
What does that mean exactly?
I think there was a curfew before. And bars closed at 11.
And ya railbumas is exactly wrong. England is far more violent than the US.
Hell ratio wise gun ownership is higher in Canada than in the US but you guys think we don’t have any. They made the laws stricter here so you can’t own hand guns that are small enough to conceal easily and went on a witch hunt for gun owners. Then gun crime went up as per usual.
Gun crime is the same as any crime. Its the result of quite a few social factors and economic factors. Gun crime can be pretty well measured against rises in poverty and cultural degeneration.
Not sure what you mean by ratio wise…
Old figures from the 1996 suggest 22% of households in Canada had a firearm. At the same time 49% of US households had a firearm.
This suggests more than twice the number of households in the US have a gun than Canada.
More recently in 2006 there were 26,000 private firearms per 100,000 people in Canada. In the US it is very hard to estimate due to reporting requirements, but most estimates suggest between 260 million and 350 million firearms in the US. Taking the low figure of 260 million, that is about 85,000 private firearms per 100,000 people in the US.
This suggests between 3 and 4 times the number of guns per person in the US than in Canada.
Murder rate in the US: 5.0 per 100,000. (2009)
Murder rate in Canada: 1.8 per 100,000. (2009)
This suggests the there are nearly 3 times as many murders in the US as in Canada. This is a similar ratio to the number of firearms or number of households owning a firearm.
Disclaimer: I am a Canadian citizen living in the US. I own 3 long guns and a handgun.
49%? That seems a very high number. Where does that stat come from?
The percentages of households with a firearm data was taken from “Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey” available from Canada Firearms Centre. Unfortunately, they have taken the link to the original down due to the age of the data not representing current trends (which is why I highlighted that it was old data).
Results:
If you’re citing the Daily Mail then you’re obviously not from the UK.
The Daily Mail is a joke. One of those really bad racist jokes. They hate everything and only perpetuate their existence through spreading lies and fear.
Violent crime might be high here but I’d wager homicide is a lot lower here than it is stateside.
The UK violent crime figures will soon see a massive drop as the new conservative government is relaxing rules regarding reporting of crime. This way they can be seen to lower crime rates by merely fiddling the figures.
It doesn’t work very well to compare “violent crime” from country to country. Different countries have different definitions of violent crimes. In addition to wide variations in reporting , what might be considered a felonious assault in one country might be classed as harassment or public intoxication in another. Murder and armed robbery are perhaps the best comparators as they have relatively consistent definitions and very consistent reporting rates (in the western world). Murder rate is probably the most applicable to gun laws.
UK: 1.6 murders per 100,000 people. (2009) Src: UK Home Office
US: 5.0 murders per 100,000 people. (2009) Src: US DoJ
You are of course, wrong about the violent crime.
We are also much better at catching people here 🙂
lulz bill of rights, i’m pretty sure the government revoked that a while ago
For all the hand wringing, the 2nd is the only one the government won’t touch. Primarily because the populace is so concerned with it.
The others are on their way out though. Does the 4th even count for anything anymore, other than nostalgia?
How many laws did the Columbine shooters break, and would any more laws have made a difference ??
Criminals by nature ignore laws that are inconvenient to them, gun control laws are no different.
So if I understand you, gun control laws don’t prevent crime.
SO by your logic, there should be equal gun crime in counties with stricter gun control.
Right?
Don’t get me wrong, I support gun rights, but some gun control isn’t a bad thing. I don’t need a Howitzer.
Also, do me and other gun owners a favor. Don’t make crappy arguments like this.
When you make some gross generalization based on your opinion that ignores facts, it makes it harder for gun owners who are trying to make a rational argument on the subject.
Well you could argue that South Africa has stricter gun laws that the United States but they still have considerably more gun crimes.
Well, reality is much more complex than generalizations on message boards can adequately describe.
Saying “Gun Control Fixes Nothing” is as asinine as saying “Gun Control Fixes Everything”.
BTW, didn’t know about South Africa. Good point.
You can own a howitzer.
One of my co-workers owns 5, one gun short of a full battery of Confederate artillery. They to re-enacting…and shooting competitions. And I know any one of those howitzers would destroy a Humvee.
Damn.
Well, yes, but those are muzzle loaders. Granted, while the paperwork is a PITA, civilians CAN legally purchase new rocket launchers, grenade launchers and howitzers. Take a browse through the Class III NFA section on Gunbroker.com. Such weapons are classified as “Destructive Devices” and are subject to a $200 tax stamp. If the projectiles themselves are explosive, those projectiles are ALSO destructive devices and each one is itself subject to its own $200 tax stamp. Thats $200 of tax -per shot-. I’m sure this cuts down on recreational shooting. ; )
It might also be noted that “personal defensive arms” are not mentioned in the Constitution OR the bill of rights. The second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security OF A FREE STATE”. So it says you have a right to defend THE STATE, not your own person or personal property.
Also, the Minié ball was invented in 1847, so a revolutionary soldier as shown would have been long dead before they even existed. They were mostly used in the Civil War.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That means the right to defend myself, my property, and my person.
You miss the point – I’m not saying you don’t have the right to defend yourself, but that “Personal defensive arms” are not mentioned in the Bill of rights as stated in the OP.
The only arms mentioned in the bill of rights are arms necessary to the security of the state. The Tenth Amendment, which you cite, does not mention firearms at all.
The OP claims that personal defensive arms are listed in the Bill of Rights, which is not accurate.
The basic idea behind this is that there are no other countries in the world, and somehow what happens in those countries doesn’t set a precedent. “If we make guns illegal, then everyone will start making the most insanely powerful guns on the planet, and crime will skyrocket!” Yeah, except that’s the complete opposite of what happens in every other westernized nation that does that.
That’s to say nothing of the all or nothing approach.
American’s really need to accept that A) the British aren’t coming back, and B) Red Dawn is never going to happen.
People claim they have the right to own guns so they can defend themselves, but the only people they should justifiably be using them against are people with other guns. Which is kind of a gigantic circular problem, innit?
Everyone wants to shoot somebody, and no one wants to get shot.
Seems like the Constitution has become like the Bible — people interpret it however they want to need, to rationalize their behavior.
@... flintlocke: A: Do not be so sure. 50 years from now, the England we know may be gone, and it could very well be just another angry Moslem country.
B. Could always be China. Could be anybody. No country is immune to the threat of invasion, no mater how powerful. France was the 2nd largest Empire in the world and Germany was nothing after WW1. Things change.
C. There is always our government, which is one of the reasons that amendment was placed in there. The founders were terrified of a standing army, to the point they wanted to limit the maxim size of the Federal Army (read active duty). It was pointed out this would only be wise if one could ensure that other countries would do the same. Organisations like the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF/DHS would never have been allowed to exist.
Eleven Score and a bankers dozen of years ago is not that many. And we’ve already tore ourselves apart once, if you think it is so unconceivable that it could happen again, then you need to leave your bubble. It could be left vs right, it could be a race war, it could be religious (À la France)
Part 3: Not true. I can justifiably shoot anyone who is threating me, my wife, or my children. Especially in my own home. I’m 6’2″ 180 pounds; I’m didn’t wrestle in high school, I’m not a black-belt, and EVERYTIME I do combatives, I get my ass beat. If it came down to me having to put myself between a thug and my wife, I do not have any illusions about the outcome. She better be able to run faster then I think she can.
Do I want to shoot somebody? No. I didn’t in Iraq, and I would prefer to never have to.
Do I want to get shot? No, but then I do not go engaging in criminal behavior that might give someone to have justification. And if a criminal wants to shot me for “insert reason here,” I damn well should have the right to shoot back.
Meh, angry muslims, angry christians, same difference. All godfags are iherently irrational. If your country does get invaded I doubt the invaders will go knocking on every door.
Why do gun owners alwasy think somone is going to break into their house to fuck or kill their wife and kids? What kinda neighbourhood do you live in?
Perhaps instead of buying firearms you should just move out of Rapeypsychosville and move someplace where you don’t have to fear for your life and anal virginity every single day.
@GrandAdmiralThrawn –
If, in 50 or 100 years, the entire world is indeed against us and we need to arm the populace to supplement an overwhelmed military, all it would take is invocation of martial law by the President. We don’t need to preemptively legislate for a possibility that likely will never occur.
Trust me – Americans are essentially the only people on the planet who legitimately think anyone wants to invade America. It’s gun-lover fantasy.
Religious factions will never mobilize as an organized army. And any country of power wouldn’t invade in any traditional fashion where being a gun-owning citizen would matter. To what end would they? To inherit America’s failing infrastructure? And grotesquely overweight and under-educated population? What do Americans believe exists in your country that is so valuable that another country would be compelled to come in and take it over? Seriously?
I have little doubt that you and your family will face some kind of catastrophic event, whether local or global, in your lifetime. But I can say with 99.9% certainty that will not involve ever having to repel an invading force (or even a common criminal, for that matter).
Fantasy.
Katrina.
There were people who found themselves having to defend against bands of ‘Bad Guys” who were roaming around taking food and possessions and whatever else they wanted. Militias assembled because there was no other help.
But zombies.
Your argument is invalid.