Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[StrangeSox]

So he breaks into it or knows the combination. This is a family that uses guns. He was 20 years old, not 6. And you've just curbed people's ability to protect themselves in their home in the case of an emergency over a random act of violence.

 

And capacity and rate of fire would have meant dick in this situation since he's an armed guy with multiple guns going up against children.

Oh I'm sorry, he's a safe-cracker now?

 

Yes, I've curbed peoples' ability to protect themselves in their homes (or accidentally shoot a family member, whatevs). I've also seriously curbed the ability of guns to be stolen or taken from Law Abiding Citizens and used against other citizens in random acts of violence. Like taking unsecured guns from the owner, shooting them in the face multiple times while they sleep, and then using the same unsecured weapons to kill 20 children and six adults.

 

Capacity and rate of fire would not have meant dick. An shooter can be stopped by unarmed adults, of which there were numerous in the building. But more to the point, these are restrictions that can solve not one specific incident but the larger epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

[Reddy]

More restrictions doesn't stop this from happening. I don't understand why people believe that. She did everything by the book (allegedly) and even with more difficult restrictions she still could have obtained guns. Shotguns, handsguns, rifles, whatever. A deranged, mentally unstable kid stole his mother's weapons and went on a pre-mediated murder spree. No new law you want to impose except an outright ban would have stopped him.

give. me. your. proof.

[Soxbadger]

Which is, frankly, all defenders of the 2nd Amendment have to go on.

 

Well historically I believe 2nd amendment supporters could point to the Civil War and the South using their weapons to protect themselves against the tyrannical North.

 

But otherwise I am not sure that there are any United States historical examples of where guns have aided a large group of people from protecting themselves against the govt. In fact those people are usually considered criminals and killed.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Unless someone went into her house and found them that way, that wouldn't have really stopped anything. Stacking up strawmen on this issue really doesn't do anything either honestly. It just makes it easier for the 2nd amendment advocates to win the day.

 

Strawmen? I'm sorry, that seems like a perfectly legitimate requirement for Law Abiding Citizens to follow, and one that could have prevented this massacre.

[GoSox05]

Most tyrannical governments take over with popular support.

[Soxbadger]

Most tyrannical governments take over with popular support.

 

The double edged sword of Democracy.

 

But the days where a group of people with guns are going to stand up against the King and his soldiers are the past. Unless I can buy a nuke, I really have no way of stopping the US.

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh I'm sorry, he's a safe-cracker now?

 

Yes, I've curbed peoples' ability to protect themselves in their homes (or accidentally shoot a family member, whatevs). I've also seriously curbed the ability of guns to be stolen or taken from Law Abiding Citizens and used against other citizens in random acts of violence. Like taking unsecured guns from the owner, shooting them in the face multiple times while they sleep, and then using the same unsecured weapons to kill 20 children and six adults.

 

Capacity and rate of fire would not have meant dick. An shooter can be stopped by unarmed adults, of which there were numerous in the building. But more to the point, these are restrictions that can solve not one specific incident but the larger epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

Why would he have to be a safe cracker? She took him shooting on multiple occasions. He's 20 years old. It's pretty reasonable to assume he would know the combination. Is the law going to be that only owners can know the combination? GMAB.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Strawmen? I'm sorry, that seems like a perfectly legitimate requirement for Law Abiding Citizens to follow, and one that could have prevented this massacre.

 

Most states probably have those laws to begin with, that doesn't mean people follow it, especially when everyone in the house is an adult.

[BigSqwert]

I'm just so sick of people defending guns as if they're are vital to someone's existence. "How dare you take guns away! I will literally shrivel up and die if I don't have one! They are more important than air, food, and water!!"

[StrangeSox]

Most states probably have those laws to begin with, that doesn't mean people follow it, especially when everyone in the house is an adult.

 

No, they don't.

[Steve9347]

This all relates to 2012 in so many ways.

 

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[90] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[90] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[90]

 

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

 

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[91]

 

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[91] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[92] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[93] None are mentioned in the legislation.[91]

 

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[94] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[95] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[95] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[95] Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[96] Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the White House being burned down in 1814.[93]

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm just so sick of people defending guns as if they're are vital to someone's existence. "How dare you take guns away! I will literally shrivel up and die if I don't have one! They are more important than air, food, and water!!"

 

I don't really feel that strongly, but I don't see a reason to curb someone's constitutional right over random acts of violence.

[Reddy]

This all relates to 2012 in so many ways.

 

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[90] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[90] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[90]

 

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

 

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[91]

 

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[91] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[92] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[93] None are mentioned in the legislation.[91]

 

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[94] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[95] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[95] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[95] Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[96] Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the White House being burned down in 1814.[93]

 

how dare you use historical fact to prove your points...

[StrangeSox]

Why would he have to be a safe cracker? She took him shooting on multiple occasions. He's 20 years old. It's pretty reasonable to assume he would know the combination. Is the law going to be that only owners can know the combination? GMAB.

 

Yes, only the legal, Law Abiding gun owners should have unlimited access to both the weapons and ammunition. Why do I need to give you a f***ing break since your solution seems to be "welp! that's life!"

[Steve9347]

The double edged sword of Democracy.

 

But the days where a group of people with guns are going to stand up against the King and his soldiers are the past. Unless I can buy a nuke, I really have no way of stopping the US.

It was nice knowing you, but after posting this on the interwebs, I fear you will disappear soon enough.

[StrangeSox]

a reason to curb someone's constitutional right: random-yet-frequent acts of violence.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Strawmen? I'm sorry, that seems like a perfectly legitimate requirement for Law Abiding Citizens to follow, and one that could have prevented this massacre.

 

How exactly would that law have been enforced in this case?

[Jenksismyhero]

No, they don't.

 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/b...ou-in-jail.html

 

27 states do.

[StrangeSox]

How exactly would that law have been enforced in this case?

 

People don't only follow the law based on enforcement.

[Soxbadger]

Why would he have to be a safe cracker? She took him shooting on multiple occasions. He's 20 years old. It's pretty reasonable to assume he would know the combination. Is the law going to be that only owners can know the combination? GMAB.

 

Well you bring up an interesting argument against the "law abiding" meme. I dont know the rules in every state, but at least in some you can not shoot or possess a firearm without a license. So if the owner of the gun was truly "law abiding" then they have a duty to ensure that only people who are properly licensed use their gun, correct?

 

So if they let other non-licensed people use their weapons, they are not law abiding, they are actually "criminals", which means that criminals are legally obtaining guns.

 

The only way to be "law abiding" is to follow every law. Good luck with that.

[StrangeSox]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/b...ou-in-jail.html

 

27 states do.

 

Those all only apply to households with minors, not a general requirement to keep guns locked and secured and separate from ammunition.

[Steve9347]

Commentary and reasoning for the 2nd Amendment (Joseph Story - Commentaries of the Constitution)

 

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

 

1833 that dude knocked it out of the ballpark. Yet almost 200 years later we're still clinging to 2nd Amendment rights that were out of date in 1833. It's 2012. Drones can blow any person off the map from the other side of the country, yet people cling to an Amendment written for militias to rise up and carry guns to defend our country - not to defend ourselves if someone wants to steal our Slurpee.

[Jenksismyhero]

a reason to curb someone's constitutional right: random-yet-frequent acts of violence.

 

Frequent is bulls*** and you know it. These events are increasing at an alarming rate, but generally violent crime is on the decline and the majority of gun crime is still being committed by gangbangers and other criminals. The heat of passion killings and random acts of violence are still rare.

 

[southsider2k5]

People don't only follow the law based on enforcement.

 

You can't be serious here. Speed limit laws? Drug laws?

[southsider2k5]

Commentary and reasoning for the 2nd Amendment (Joseph Story - Commentaries of the Constitution)

 

 

 

1833 that dude knocked it out of the ballpark. Yet almost 200 years later we're still clinging to 2nd Amendment rights that were out of date in 1833. It's 2012. Drones can blow any person off the map from the other side of the country, yet people cling to an Amendment written for militias to rise up and carry guns to defend our country - not to defend ourselves if someone wants to steal our Slurpee.

 

It is interesting how true most of the unbolded parts are.