Interpreting the 2nd Amendment: Literalism and Intent in Gun Laws

  • News
  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Gun Laws
In summary: Suffice it to say that while the second clause may be independent, it still relies on the first for its meaning.
  • #36


vertices said:
The psychological and physical damage that normalising gun ownership causes far outweigh any perceived benefits. Just take gun related deaths (a solid indicator of societal damage).
Give the trolling a break, go attend to some knife crime, then get back to us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37


TubbaBlubba said:
And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you?

If we hide the guns when we're not using them, blend into the general population when we're not fighting, and learn to make IEDs, then it would be as hard for the military to maintain order in the US as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harder even - not only are there over 200 million guns in the US, but there's over 285 million cell phones.

Okay, actually, people that keep guns for just in case they have to overthrow the US government scare me a little, but still...
 
  • #38


BobG said:
If we hide the guns when we're not using them, blend into the general population when we're not fighting, and learn to make IEDs, then it would be as hard for the military to maintain order in the US as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harder even - not only are there over 200 million guns in the US, but there's over 285 million cell phones.

Okay, actually, people that keep guns for just in case they have to overthrow the US government scare me a little, but still...

Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.
 
  • #39


TubbaBlubba said:
Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.

It's just one of the things Tubba. Most of us enjoy the right to bear arms in the US, you enjoy that they are completely illegal in the UK. We happily live in our respective countries. Cheers?

What was the point of this thread anyways?

I feel a lock coming on...
 
  • #40


drankin said:
It's just one of the things Tubba. Most of us enjoy the right to bear arms in the US, you enjoy that they are completely illegal in the UK. We happily live in our respective countries. Cheers?

What was the point of this thread anyways?

I feel a lock coming on...
I'm from Sweden. And I live happily knowing my neighbour doesn't have a .44 revolver in his drawer. I wouldn't feel very happy knowing he probably did in the US.
 
  • #41


TubbaBlubba said:
I'm from Sweden. And I live happily knowing my neighbour doesn't have a .44 revolver in his drawer. I wouldn't feel very happy knowing he probably did in the US.

My bad on your homeland.

I live happily knowing my neighbor does have a sidearm should either one of us be the victim of a break-in or otherwise. If I weren't neighborly, then I'd probably feel as you do.
 
  • #42


drankin said:
The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

The NRA (infact all lobbying in general) undermines democracy. They get the executive to 'influence' the judiciary, and I think that is a bad thing.
 
  • #43
All of my neighbors on this stretch of back road own guns. No need to feel unsafe about it, since we all get along really well and we can call each other in the event of trouble. The most common rural crime is B+E, usually in the search of money or prescription drugs, and gun-ownership deters that.
 
  • #44


drankin said:
My bad on your homeland.

I live happily knowing my neighbor does have a sidearm should either one of us be the victim of a break-in or otherwise. If I weren't neighborly, then I'd probably feel as you do.

And the one breaking in wouldn't be carrying a gun... ? I mean, he'd need it to protect himself if the guy in the house has one.
 
  • #45


vertices said:
The NRA (infact all lobbying in general) undermines democracy. They get the executive to 'influence' the judiciary, and I think that is a bad thing.

The point of lobbying is to influence law. The NRA is a non-profit organization funded mostly by private citizens who are concerned about their 2nd Amendment rights unlike corporate lobbys that typically have no regard for the rights of anyone.

I'm not promoting the NRA but they are more along the lines of what lobbying should be about.
 
  • #46


TubbaBlubba said:
And the one breaking in wouldn't be carrying a gun... ? I mean, he'd need it to protect himself if the guy in the house has one.

Here you go: http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/" . Thousands of true stories about just such scenerios. Knock yourself out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47


TubbaBlubba said:
And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

Not every mentally ill person is dangerous, and they are not more apt to commit violent crime than the general population...seems so obvious I can't believe I have to say it :rolleyes:. But people who *do* harm strangers randomly, e.g. mass shooting that vertices mentioned? Yes, I feel confident in saying that people who do that have mental issues that have apparently overwhelmed them.
 
  • #48


vertices said:
To be brutally honest, I'm troubled when you say that it's a cultural thing. No one should need guns to feel secure. As a proportion, I am sure the US has the same number of 'crazy people' as we do in the UK - I can assure you that it is extremely rare for mentally disturbed people to harm others.

I never said it was a cultural thing. Again, for the second time, go back and read my post and turbos. It is spelled out very clearly.

The psychological and physical damage that normalising gun ownership causes far outweigh any perceived benefits. Just take gun related deaths (a solid indicator of societal damage).

This is nonsense, you're talking out of your rear. And, it's irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. This 'normaliziation' process has not been a problem in the last 234 years. Stretching the imagination, are we?
 
Last edited:
  • #49


TubbaBlubba said:
And the government will enforce these "things you do not want" how? With the military? You don't really think that citizens with arms have any change against the military, do you? I also thought America was at least somewhat democratic - If one party becomes "what Americans do not want" then vote for the other. If they all cooperate against you, including the military, then there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how many .50s you keep under your head. If they CAN'T get the military to cooperate with them, then how are they going to enforce any of these things that "Americans do not want"? Maybe most people will play along? Well, in that case, it's what Americans want, since they do not oppose it, no?

The idea that you would need guns to protect yourself against a democratic government in modern times is preposterous.

And lisa, I find you characterization of those who would harm others as "crazy" somewhat strange. I know many people with mental disorders that would be no more likely to harm anyone else than a perfectly healthy person. Most of the time, and I don't think anyone would disagree of this, people harming each other are criminals harming criminals. Criminals aren't neccesarily mentally ill (well, they usually have somewhat poor impulse control, at least the violent ones) but rather misadjusted.

It doesn't matter what you think the odds are about a popular uprising agaisnt the government, that is not mentioned anywhere in th 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
TubbaBlubba said:
Uhm, yes, but most (or at least sufficiently many) Germans LIKED Hitler, they didn't have any real incentive to rise up against him.



"The constitution says so" isn't a very strong arguments against a non-American; Most of us are used to constitution protecting the very basic things like free speech. I think a "right to bear arms" rings false in most non-American's ears; I at least don't see it as something that is so strong that it needs constitutional protection. There ARE negative aspects to guns as well - Children finding them and playing with them, suicide (trust me, shooting yourself is much easier than many other methods, and yes, it makes a difference), accidentally shooting someone thinking it's a criminal, shooting someone in a fit of rage... Guns are tremendously dangerous.

Please note, comparisons to Hitler are pathetically weak here :rolleyes:. We americans don't care what nonamericans think about our constitutional rights. Don't like it? Simple. Stay out of our country.

I think this is something you'll understand as you get older.
 
Last edited:
  • #51


drankin said:
The bottom line is, we have guns, we've always had guns, and our Constitution reinforces our right to be armed. And once a population is armed, they don't want to be forcibly, by law or otherwise, disarmed. There are 200 million guns in circulation in the US. The NRA is one of if not the most influential lobbying group because of this. And, as far as most of us are concerned, it's not a bad thing.

I really need to stop being lazy and fill out my NRA membership form. :biggrin:
 
  • #52


TubbaBlubba said:
Uhm... And in that case you would be a terrorist group, not the American population fighting against the evil oppressive government.

In that case, the American Revolutionary War was fought by terrorists.

There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists. Insurgents generally avoid blatant violations of the laws of warfare, even if the violations wind up being much more common than the number of violations a more disciplined army would commit. Terrorists generally include violations of the laws of warfare as part of their conscious strategy.

Even in Iraq, there's a distinction - one that actually fractured the Sunni opposition to US troops to the point that many Sunni groups used US assistance to drive out many of the foreign Al-Qaeda in the Sunni regions. The drawback to using terrorism in your own backyard is that the local population starts to hate you worse than the enemy.

I guess you could say many otherwise insurgent groups routinely violate the laws of warfare by not identifying themselves as combatants in the war, therefore turning themselves into unlawful combatants, but that usually doesn't earn quite the same venom as attacks on civilians that have no other purpose than to enflame emotions.
 
Last edited:
  • #53


BobG said:
In that case, the American Revolutionary War was fought by terrorists.

There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists. Insurgents generally avoid blatant violations of the laws of warfare, even if the violations wind up being much more common than the number of violations a more disciplined army would commit. Terrorists generally include violations of the laws of warfare as part of their conscious strategy.

The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub
 
  • #54


Office_Shredder said:
The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub

An army made up of citizens gathered together with their arms. They would hide in the woods and snipe off British soldiers, i.e. unconventional warfare.
 
  • #55


Office_Shredder said:
The Revolutionary war was fought with an army, not blending into the population and assassinating soldiers at the pub

The American federal army consisted of about 20,000 men once it became organized (which it wasn't at the beginning of the war). Local militias accounted for about 250,000 men, except they usually wouldn't fight for long or very far from home, so the total size of the American army never exceeded about 90,000 at any given time.

And the reason they didn't assassinate British soldiers at the pub is that the British soldiers had a hard time reaching the pub. Local militia would shoot at them all along the road from behind rocks and trees as the troops marched to a town to search out the militiamen and then conduct urban sniper warfare as the British marched through the town.

At least at the beginning. Once there actually was a federal army, even if small, and once the Revolutionary War became absorbed into what was essentially a world war between the French, Spanish, and Dutch against the British and Germans, the battles started to become more traditional, but that insurgent flavor never left the war completely.
 
  • #56


Cyrus said:
I never said it was a cultural thing. Again, for the second time, go back and read my post and turbos. It is spelled out very clearly.

Ofcourse there is a remote possibility that a tyrannical dictatorship may take control in America - and for sure, everyone should rise up against them.

However, any rational government must assess policies (or lack thereof) in terms of their likely consequences - ideals are all well and good, but if adhering to them causes the (largely avoidable) death of a hundred people each day, they should, quite frankly, be dispensed with.

This is nonsense, you're talking out of your rear. And, it's irrelevant to the 2nd amendment.

No but it is relevant. The tendency to romanticise about the circumstances that lead to enshrinement the 2nd Amendment distracts people from real consequences of weak gun laws.

This 'normaliziation' process has not been a problem in the last 234 years. Stretching the imagination, are we?

Sure, if you think that having the 4th highest homocide rate in the world isn't a problem?

Someone on this thread talked about UK being the knife 'capital' of the world - just imagine if the perpetrators of such violence had access to guns - we'd have massacres in London on a daily basis.
 
  • #58


vertices said:
Someone on this thread talked about UK being the knife 'capital' of the world - just imagine if the perpetrators of such violence had access to guns - we'd have massacres in London on a daily basis.

Are you saying that the UK citizens more violent than the US citizens? Because we here in the US have great access to guns and we don't have massacres on a daily basis. I don't get your logic.
 
  • #61


Cyrus said:
An army made up of citizens gathered together with their arms. They would hide in the woods and snipe off British soldiers, i.e. unconventional warfare.
Some could snipe quite effectively - those that owned rifles. Unfortunately, rifles were VERY slow to load, as you had to push patched balls down a really long barrel after charging. Muskets load a lot faster - they are smooth-bore and don't require a lot of ramming. The lucky (or wealthy) colonials had nice rifles and could shoot accurately at long distances. The rest of them had to rely on British muskets "liberated" from militia armories, foreign muskets purchased from friendly governments, and big ungainly fowling pieces. Fowling pieces could not stand a whole lot of breech pressure, but they could throw a lot of lead balls (like a shotgun) and in those days, if you managed to produce wounds in foot-soldiers, they would often succumb to infections, gangrene, etc.
 
  • #62


drankin said:
Are you saying that the UK citizens more violent than the US citizens? Because we here in the US have great access to guns and we don't have massacres on a daily basis. I don't get your logic.

No I am not. Someone else linked to an article which suggested that.

You still have the fourth highest firearm related death rate. You're up there with Brazil - does that not worry you?
 
  • #64
Could we get a point straight please, guns do not kill people, they are a tool used by human beings to kill other people. If your concern is that people are killing other people then don't go after the tool because that doesn't solve the problem.

If I really wanted to kill some one there is bows, compound bows, or crossbows. Plenty of broad head arrows that will do the job, knifes also work. Zip guns are very easy to make. Cars and trucks to run people over. Explosives are easy to make, and plenty of other easy ways to kill someone.

Frankly also if you don't live in the USA how dose it harm you if our gun control laws are in you option lax? If I were to bring my, let's say .45 APC Tommy gun with several 100 round drum mags into the UK I'd be breaking the law in the UK and my property would be up for seizure. Back in the USA it is perfectly legal. If you don't like the laws of a certain country don't visit or do business with that country. However don't go enforcing your morality on that country (BTW isn't that why the world hated the US and GWB because we were enforcing our will on another country).
 
  • #65


vertices said:
No I am not. Someone else linked to an article which suggested that.

You still have the fourth highest firearm related death rate. You're up there with Brazil - does that not worry you?

Again, disregarding suicides and accidents, we have a lower rate than the rest of the world combined while having the most access to firearms. Coming from the same link Office_Shredder shared.

Aren't we more concerned about the intentional use of a firearm on another person anyhow? Not accidents and suicides. If you want to go down those rabbit holes, there is plenty of things in our daily life to compare to that are more dangerous, statistically.
 
  • #66
Argentum Vulpes said:
Could we get a point straight please, guns do not kill people, they are a tool used by human beings to kill other people. If your concern is that people are killing other people then don't go after the tool because that doesn't solve the problem.

If I really wanted to kill some one there is bows, compound bows, or crossbows. Plenty of broad head arrows that will do the job, knifes also work. Zip guns are very easy to make. Cars and trucks to run people over. Explosives are easy to make, and plenty of other easy ways to kill someone.

Frankly also if you don't live in the USA how dose it harm you if our gun control laws are in you option lax? If I were to bring my, let's say .45 APC Tommy gun with several 100 round drum mags into the UK I'd be breaking the law in the UK and my property would be up for seizure. Back in the USA it is perfectly legal. If you don't like the laws of a certain country don't visit or do business with that country. However don't go enforcing your morality on that country (BTW isn't that why the world hated the US and GWB because we were enforcing our will on another country).

I find this logic a little bit silly. Ofcourse people kill people, but guns make it so much easier to kill people.

Say, you've got a paranoid schizophrenic, malignant narcissist or psychopath hell bent on killing as many people he can. He could just walk into a shopping centre (aka 'mall') and mow down dozens of people within 20 seconds. How long would it take to kill the same number of people with crossbows? The person would likely be overpowered after killing the first person.

Guns are literally killing machines that can do way more damage than any other weapon.

And btw no one here is looking to enforce their morality on anyone:)
 
  • #67


drankin said:
Again, disregarding suicides and accidents, we have a lower rate than the rest of the world combined while having the most access to firearms. Coming from the same link Office_Shredder shared.

Aren't we more concerned about the intentional use of a firearm on another person anyhow? Not accidents and suicides. If you want to go down those rabbit holes, there is plenty of things in our daily life to compare to that are more dangerous, statistically.

Well it does stand to reason that it is much easier for people to commit suicide with a gun. What are the alternatives - hanging themselves? taking a paracetamol overdose?

A bit of perspective - the total suicide rate in America is 11.1 and the firearm related suicide rate is 7.35 - almost three quarters of the total. If you work it out, 65 people commit suicide by using a firearm each day. I would guess substantial number wouldn't commit suicide if they did not have access to a firearm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
 
  • #68
My interpretation is this: Technically, the "right to bear arms" is to be equal to the government. This is to prevent or mitigate government military overthrow of the populace.
 
  • #69
vertices said:
I find this logic a little bit silly. Ofcourse people kill people, but guns make it so much easier to kill people.

Say, you've got a paranoid schizophrenic, malignant narcissist or psychopath hell bent on killing as many people he can. He could just walk into a shopping centre (aka 'mall') and mow down dozens of people within 20 seconds. How long would it take to kill the same number of people with crossbows? The person would likely be overpowered after killing the first person.

Guns are literally killing machines that can do way more damage than any other weapon.

And btw no one here is looking to enforce their morality on anyone:)

That said mentally deficient person could still get into a large vehicle and go down to a local farmers market, or board walk and run over people. Should we ban everything with a GVW of more then a person? Also that same person could construct a very potent bomb out of stuff that is gotten off the shelf. Should we ban diesel fuel and fertilizer?

As for the mall shooting well look at the Trolley Square shooting of 2007. The off duty cop was breaking the rules of that mall when he entered the mall with a concealed gun. The mall was a gun free zone. Also look at how many other massacres happen in gun free zones, how many happen at NRA gun shows where almost everyone is packing concealed or open carry.

And finally please answer my earlier question how dose the lax, in your option, gun laws in the USA affect you in the UK?
 
  • #70


vertices said:
In anycase, how does that take away from the point I was making?

Well, quite frankly, you're not making any point here - only missing it. What you should be arguing is better enforcement of the gun laws we do have, and tougher sentences in the courts for violations.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Public opinion regarding US Gun laws.
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
News What are the legal limits and interpretations of the 2nd Amendment?
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
News Florida lawmakers pass take your guns to work law
3
Replies
89
Views
14K
News Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record
7
Replies
211
Views
25K
How science literate is the general public?
Replies
34
Views
4K
News Open and Concealed Carry: Firearms
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Countdown to Doom Release: Revisit the Original and Celebrate with Easter Eggs
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Does Releasing Petition Signers' Names Violate First Amendment Rights?
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Should There Be a 28th Consitutional Amendment re Health Care Choices
Replies
9
Views
2K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top