Should the 2nd Amendment be reinterpreted for modern times?

[drankin]

In what county and state if I might ask? Normally real cops aren't gung-ho on vigilantism. I have a couple of cops on my ex-wifes side, they emphatically agreed this is nutso advice.

What? Nutso advice to tell a threatened couple to carry a gun? How is that "Nutso" advice? I would love to meet these LEOs you speak of. That is not the attitude of LEOs that I know and have talked with. In most states a citizen (without a felony record) can be licensed to carry a concealed pistol. There are some basic Federal guidelines specified by ATF and then further requirements by each state but it is a protected right and not "Nutso" to advise someone that is threatened to exercise that right.

 

[drankin]

Defended against what. The odds of occupation by another country are close to nil. this is indisputable. So unless you're worried about the uppity niggers or anarchists, just who we defending against. Our greater concern should imo be about a rogue government that in an attempt to still civil unrest as it did in the sixties with the nat'l guard and real bullets, take aim on its own citizenry. That would be the only plausible argument, and as I mentoned a few posts ago perhaps one of the reasons the loophole was left in place.

A related but greater danger than shadow invaders is that Bush recently made it possible for the US military to assist in what heretofore was off limits--domestic matters. Thats scary!

Uh, you used the "N" word. You might get slapped by the forum police for that.

 

[mormonator_rm]

In what county and state if I might ask? Normally real cops aren't gung-ho on vigilantism. I have a couple of cops on my ex-wifes side, they emphatically agreed this is nutso advice.

Vigilantism? Well, I don't go around waving my gun in peoples faces or trying to enforce rules that I have no authority to enforce, if that's what you mean. I mostly keep it in a hidden lock box in case of emergency. Imagine if you saw or heard some thief or general intruder breaking into your home... wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend yourself? Wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend your family, your property, and your home in the face of a threat? What if the attacker also had a gun? Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that you have the ability to stop such a person, however probable or improbable their entry may be, from doing harm to your family and/or property? I consider myself prepared for any eventuality. I grew up in Boy Scouts, so I still go by the old motto.

There are times when the police cannot make it to you in time or cannot be contacted quietly enough to prevent the attacker from doing their worst. I know one family, close to my parents, who were in just such a situation and saved their own lives by being prepared with a gun at the right time to prevent their own murder from occurring. So I do not try to get guns out of the hands of families that have a right to own them, and I'm not giving up mine. You can call me a nut all you like and it won't change my mind or my experiences...

 

[denverdoc]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

 

[denverdoc]

Vigilantism? Well, I don't go around waving my gun in peoples faces or trying to enforce rules that I have no authority to enforce, if that's what you mean. I mostly keep it in a hidden lock box in case of emergency. Imagine if you saw or heard some thief or general intruder breaking into your home... wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend yourself? Wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend your family, your property, and your home in the face of a threat? What if the attacker also had a gun? Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that you have the ability to stop such a person, however probable or improbable their entry may be, from doing harm to your family and/or property? I consider myself prepared for any eventuality. I grew up in Boy Scouts, so I still go by the old motto.

There are times when the police cannot make it to you in time or cannot be contacted quietly enough to prevent the attacker from doing their worst. I know one family, close to my parents, who were in just such a situation and saved their own lives by being prepared with a gun at the right time to prevent their own murder from occurring. So I do not try to get guns out of the hands of families that have a right to own them, and I'm not giving up mine. You can call me a nut all you like and it won't change my mind or my experiences...

Actually, I have considered owning a Glock and almost bought one. I fired bigger hand guns and love rifles, rockets and golf. Theres a small riddle. In the end I took a more Eastern approach and determined that you reap what you sow, and a protective handgun was more likely to turn into a unanticipated casualty, my own or a family members. As opposed to defending my property, I took a different approach--have no property worth defending. Very liberating if u haven't tried it. Now family, sure I would defend with all my heart, but the likelihood of an attack on them randomly is pretty small. One can live in fear or just close the circle.

 

[drankin]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

Personally, I'm not offended because I understand your context. But, some people freak out when the word is used at all. It will be a long time before people can use that word without assuming it's an absolute racial slur.

 

[mormonator_rm]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

Well, I have never had any "mindless antipathy" towards any race. And my wife's crazy ex is the same race as me anyway, so I don't think that my gun ownership has anything to do with racial prejudices. And you know what, the finest professor I ever had in college was muslim, and I still talk to him and am good friends with him and his family. They are great Americans. So I would say I not a predjudiced person.

As for the vigilante remark, well, I had a funny thought cross my mind...

"... What do you think of my new gun case? Isn't it wonderful! Its made of mahogany and is well polished, so it looks great... What? What did you say you found in my gun case? A... A gun! Oh my gosh, I have a gun in my gun case? I must be a vigilante! Oh, no! I have just become a vigilante because I put a gun in my gun case... how horrible! The police are going to hate me now because I own a gun, and I stuffed it in my gun case."

Yeah... I'm a vigilante because I own a gun, even though I was told it was a good idea for my protection and I still don't carry it anywhere (except to Freedom Armory for practice... oooh, they must be vigilantes too). And the county judge said I should get one too. Wow, maybe he's a vigilante, too... lolololol...!

So:

1) if you own a gun and keep it anywhere in your house, you are a vigilante...

2) if you own a gun, you must be racist because racists are the only ones who are scared enough to think they need a gun...

Woohoo! I'm a vigilante!

Sorry, I got carried away with my sarcasm... but it was soooo fun...

 

[drankin]

Actually, I have considered owning a Glock and almost bought one. I fired bigger hand guns and love rifles, rockets and golf. Theres a small riddle. In the end I took a more Eastern approach and determined that you reap what you sow, and a protective handgun was more likely to turn into a unanticipated casualty, my own or a family members. As opposed to defending my property, I took a different approach--have no property worth defending. Very liberating if u haven't tried it. Now family, sure I would defend with all my heart, but the likelihood of an attack on them randomly is pretty small. One can live in fear or just close the circle.

It's my honest opinion that if you purchased a pistol (even if it were a Glock ) and became familiar with it, maybe went to a range a couple of times a month for fun, took a safety class or had some instruction, your attitude would be much different about gun ownership. It's not a fear thing for most people, it's a preparedness thing. In the statistically highly unlikely event that it was ever required to defend yourself or another you would be prepared for the worst. I'll look for some stats but responsible, licensed, armed people find themselves in those life and death situations every day. 9 out of 10 people (so I've been told) never have to pull the trigger to defend themselves. Simply drawing the weapon and being prepared to fire has ended the attackers assault.

 

[denverdoc]

Well it is soohoo to defend against. IF you believe America would be more safe by having everyone slap a holster to their side, enjoy the fantasy and wish the consequences don't bite you on the butt. The stats are pretty clear on this issue. One can always engage n some fantasy warplay. Wish you well. Have you tried negotiaiation of any type?
\

 

[mormonator_rm]

Well it is soohoo to defend against. IF you believe America would be more safe by having everyone slap a holster to their side, enjoy the fantasy and wish the consequences don't bite you on the butt. The stats are pretty clear on this issue. One can always engage n some fantasy warplay. Wish you well. Have you tried negotiaiation of any type?
\

I tried negotiation already... I was nearly strangulated by the guy in my own car, and I escaped death by pulling the clip out of HIS gun and spreading HIS bullets all over the place in the back seat of my car... My comprehensive coverage covered the repair of bullet holes in the ceiling of my car, fortunately, so I didn't have to pay anything out in cash to fix my baby, my '97 Mazda 626 LX. So, um, negotiating with madmen doesn't work. And I don't like the idea of negotiating with terrortists, theives, rapists, or anyone else of that sort.

 

[mormonator_rm]

Well, I'm off to bed. I wish I could stay up and debate with you all about this, its been fun. Gotta catch some shut-eye. Have a nice night you all, and watch the roads all you east coasters... its a slippery one out there.

 

[denverdoc]

better in bed than trying to figure out why a criminal assault left both the police and victim suggesting he take up arms. Absurd BS.

 

[Anttech]

What an amusing thread, we have argued about gun ownership here before. IIRC the conclusion was that it makes you less safe from being attacked with a firearm, the data is there for everyone to use as they wish, but you can't really spin the huge murder rate by firearms you have in the states compared to other western countries.

As I said before its just an extension of capitalism, the selfish right of 1 to endanger everyone else. There is no good, or sensible argument for allowing people to have firearms, apart from *I want I want I want*. So be it.

America is a Nuclear nation, with MAD on its side, there is absolutely no possibilities that it will be invaded, it a moot point.

I do however understand that there is no way back for America now, this bed can't be unmade, it will appease the extreme capitalists, and they can continue "protecting there property" and just live with a high murder rate.

 

[drankin]

What an amusing thread, we have argued about gun ownership here before. IIRC the conclusion was that it makes you less safe from being attacked with a firearm, the data is there for everyone to use as they wish, but you can't really spin the huge murder rate by firearms you have in the states compared to other western countries.

As I said before its just an extension of capitalism, the selfish right of 1 to endanger everyone else. There is no good, or sensible argument for allowing people to have firearms, apart from *I want I want I want*. So be it.

America is a Nuclear nation, with MAD on its side, there is absolutely no possibilities that it will be invaded, it a moot point.

I do however understand that there is no way back for America now, this bed can't be unmade, it will appease the extreme capitalists, and they can continue "protecting there property" and just live with a high murder rate.

You are right about one thing, there is no way back. Because there never was a "back". There is a relatioinship between the our people being armed and the fact that the US is a world super power.

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US. But people do not get murdered by gun toting licensed citizens everday. The mass murders that have occurred in the US, in our schools, in our workplaces (the US Post Office, hence the term "going postal") have been in "Gun Free Zones".
In our country, if our right to own a gun is restricted the murder rate goes thru the roof. Washington DC, California, New York are prime examples.

 

[denverdoc]

You are right about one thing, there is no way back. Because there never was a "back". There is a relatioinship between the our people being armed and the fact that the US is a world super power.

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US. But people do not get murdered by gun toting licensed citizens everday. The mass murders that have occurred in the US, in our schools, in our workplaces (the US Post Office, hence the term "going postal") have been in "Gun Free Zones".
In our country, if our right to own a gun is restricted the murder rate goes thru the roof. Washington DC, California, New York are prime examples.

Thats a new one--world superpower because we are armed?! If talking about the decimation of the indegenous people so we could take their land, maybe.
But I should think that part of the eqn involves a vast landmass with "weaker" neighbors on both sides, a brilliant constitution, unfettered capitalism, and abundant natural resources all combined with yankee ingenuity has more to do with matters now than winchester or colt.

 

[mormonator_rm]

better in bed than trying to figure out why a criminal assault left both the police and victim suggesting he take up arms. Absurd BS.

Good morning doc... the vigilante is back!

 

[Anttech]

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US.

Will you except that there is a direct correlation between the amount of firearms in the US, and the murder rate? Will you then accept that the reason for the amount of firearms is because of your pro-gun laws?

 

[drankin]

Will you except that there is a direct correlation between the amount of firearms in the US, and the murder rate? Will you then accept that the reason for the amount of firearms is because of your pro-gun laws?

Yes, Anttech, I accept that. The problem here is that we have always been an armed society for hundreds of years. Every other home in America has at least one firearm (I don't have actual stats but for the sake of argument). To now disarm everyday citizens simply puts us more at risk from criminals that will always have arms available on the black market. The UK on the other hand has always had gun control from the onset (as far as I know). So it works there.

To actually be invaded by another super power is not likely anytime in my lifetime. The odds that history shows us is are that it is an inevitability that it will happen someday. I would just as soon that our people are somewhat prepared or the fact that we are prepared be a deterent.

 

[Anttech]

Yes, Anttech, I accept that. The problem here is that we have always been an armed society for hundreds of years. Every other home in America has at least one firearm (I don't have actual stats but for the sake of argument). To now disarm everyday citizens simply puts us more at risk from criminals that will always have arms available on the black market. The UK on the other hand has always had gun control from the onset (as far as I know). So it works there.

Although you have different reasoning, you have come to the same conclusion, that its too late to disarm. That being said, will you now not attempt to use the "sensible persons" argument, because we know it isn't sensible to arm society because it increases violent crime in that society.

To actually be invaded by another super power is not likely anytime in my lifetime. The odds that history shows us is are that it is an inevitability that it will happen someday. I would just as soon that our people are somewhat prepared or the fact that we are prepared be a deterent.

That isn't a deterrent, nor will it ever be. Half of Afghanistan is armed, yet they continuously are being invaded.

The only argument that is water tight is the basic, *we want to have guns so we will have guns*

It isn't possible with the current data we have to use any other argument.

 

[drankin]

Although you have different reasoning, you have come to the same conclusion, that its too late to disarm. That being said, will you now not attempt to use the "sensible persons" argument, because we know it isn't sensible to arm society because it increases violent crime in that society.

That isn't a deterrent, nor will it ever be. Half of Afghanistan is armed, yet they continuously are being invaded.

The only argument that is water tight is the basic, *we want to have guns so we will have guns*

It isn't possible with the current data we have to use any other argument.

Now that we agree that it would not be practical to disarm US citizens what is the issue? What is the argument?

 

[drankin]

I would like to add that I would not feel like I needed to carry my firearm on the streets of any town in the UK. I'm pretty confident that most of the thugs over there are not armed with a firearm. But from what I've heard, knives are a common weapon of choice for the criminal type in the UK.

And I do want to go over there someday and get in touch with where my ancestors came from.

 

[tehfrr]

victory in DC! In the US, cops are not required to protect us. http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with BobG's views expressed in Post #57. I believe that guns should be treated like cars - that one needs to demonstrate responsibility and competence as part of owning and using guns.

The second amendment was written in a different time, when guns were necessary for hunting and defense. I suppose guns or 'arms' should be limited to single shot flintlock muskets or pistols, which were the arms in the context of the 1789. Or perhaps 'munitions' should be regulated and licensed, which would be like owning a car, but needing a license to put gasoline in it.

I have used pistols, rifles and shotguns in the past, mostly for target practice. I was pretty good at hitting small targets at long distances. However, I have no desire to own a gun nor have one in the house.

As for security, if one gets to the point of owning a gun in order to defend one's home, then one should consider additional security measures like a motion sensor which activates lights and extra locks on the doors and windows. Hopefully this would disuade on intruder or at least give one time to prepare.