Understanding guns in the USA: A fresh look

[Observe]

Most of our gun violence is criminals killing criminals.

That kind of erroneous statement, is why it is a waste of time presenting facts for you. Actually, criminals killing criminals is barely a blip on the radar of gun violence.

[Observe]

Two issues. First, you would be denying legal adults a natural right the government is barred from infringing under our Constitution.

Um, the right to bear arms is itself an amendment to the original Constitution? The US government has every right to change the Constitution as it sees fit, and has done so many times. With sufficient support they could introduce an amendment that would alter or even remove the Second. I doubt that'll ever happen, but to assume that it simply cannot is simply not borne out by the facts.

That is not a road you or I want to walk down and that is a fact. Put it out of your mind.

Removing the second amendment is precisely the road you will find yourself walking unless 'reasonable' solutions can be found. The Constitution is a 'living document' subject to changing times and changing public sentiment. Just as the current batch of false Republicans have seized absurdity, so will the axe swing in the opposite extreme in equal or greater measure.

Get rid of the Second, and Americas gun problem will significantly vanish over time.

[Masterbagger]

Removing the second amendment is precisely the road you will find yourself walking unless 'reasonable' solutions can be found. The Constitution is a 'living document' subject to changing times and changing public sentiment. Just as the current batch of false Republicans have seized absurdity, so will the axe swing in the opposite extreme in equal or greater measure.

Get rid of the Second, and Americas gun problem will significantly vanish over time.

You can't make something go away with a law. You'll have to go and take them. That won't go peacefully. This is a very unhealthy fantasy for all parties.

[Observe]

You can't make something go away with a law.

Yet, you maintain it is a law that entitles you to guns? Illogical at best.

[Masterbagger]

You can't make something go away with a law.

Yet, you maintain it is a law that entitles you to guns? Illogical at best.

The right to bear arms wasn't granted by our government. It was recognized as something the people already had.

[pjknibbs]

The right to bear arms wasn't granted by our government. It was recognized as something the people already had.

No, it was granted to you by your government in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Just because that happened more than 200 years ago doesn't somehow make it something outside of the normal legal framework. Heck, in 1791 I'm pretty sure firearms were legal to hold in the UK as well, but we changed that once we realised it wasn't a good idea.

[Usenko]

It is interesting to note that one important difference between Americans and others is that the right to bear arms is seen as default, and assumed to have been removed by other governments than their own. It's the reverse to the view everywhere else (i.e. being armed being an aberration rather than the norm).

[Retiredman]

Latest school shooting puts people up in arms! (pun intended)
Yet no one yells about the death rate in Chicago. (30 times as much)
And it is a issue.. Not the weapon but the one who commits the act.
What is being done about that??
You ban all guns in the US.. People will get creative...
Bows and arrows , crossbows, high pressure air , explosive materials,
toxins/poisons, knives and swords are readily available to people who do
their homework. It's fact, history has proven it.
So the problem isn't the firearm.. it's people. People who want to force their way upon those who don't want it.
Time to ban people....


What this planet needs is a good Enema.

[Masterbagger]

The right to bear arms wasn't granted by our government. It was recognized as something the people already had.

No, it was granted to you by your government in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Just because that happened more than 200 years ago doesn't somehow make it something outside of the normal legal framework. Heck, in 1791 I'm pretty sure firearms were legal to hold in the UK as well, but we changed that once we realised it wasn't a good idea.

The only thing the second amendment does is restrain government. It did not create the right. The founders built the framework of government around what they considered to be natural rights of all men.

[Morkonan]

The right to bear arms wasn't granted by our government. It was recognized as something the people already had.

No, it was granted to you by your government in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Just because that happened more than 200 years ago doesn't somehow make it something outside of the normal legal framework. Heck, in 1791 I'm pretty sure firearms were legal to hold in the UK as well, but we changed that once we realised it wasn't a good idea.

That is incorrect.

The US Constitution grants no rights to anyone. None. That is one of the most significant differences between our Constitution and similar founding documents of other countries.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In every Amendment that comprises what we generally call "The Bill of Rights" (First ten Amendments) this is the sort of wording that is used. The Constitution only recognizes Rights that are affirmed to already exist. These are intrinsic, unalienable, rights that can not be separated from the state of being a human being. They can not be given away. They are not "granted" by any government. They already exist and the Constitution only asserts that the government will not infringe upon them nor seek to act against them.

IIRC, this is one of the principle differences between the US Constitution and the laws of the U.K. (Obviously, I'm no expert on whatever documents can be equitably compared as a "Constitution" in the UK.) In the US, nothing is granted to citizens, only guaranteed as previously existing Rights that will not be hazarded against. In the UK, such Rights are presumed to be granted by the government to its citizens. (AFAIK. Would appreciate any corrections.)

This may be one reason why it is difficult for those outside of the US to fully comprehend the situation. These "Rights" are not "granted" by the US government. The Constitution says that they already exist. For the entirety of the existence of the United States, the guiding principle for every action weighed against the requirements of the Constitution has been that these things already exist and that the Constitution is not a document that grants Rights but a document that limits the powers of the government.

It's a "limiting" document, one that constrains the government, not one that grants "Rights."

[Observe]

So, according to the Constitution, American citizens have the right to bear nuclear weapons and the government must not interfere with us having them for self defense, or in case Joe Blow decides to overthrow a tyrannical government?

I can see it now, the highest selling vehicle in the USA is the Abrams tank and most popular gift for the five year old is a Bazooka (to use against the parents tank).

Some would say there has to be an age limit on buying "arms", but we all know the government has no "rights" to place such restrictions. Is the government already in violation by imposing existing restrictions and does this make the government "tyrannical" in need of overthrowing. I suspect some think so.

[Morkonan]

So, according to the Constitution, American citizens have the right to bear nuclear weapons and the government must not interfere with us having them for self defense, or in case Joe Blow decides to overthrow a tyrannical government?...

An appeal to absurdity won't work. No, of course nuclear-personal-self-defense is not a viable option.

[clakclak]

Latest school shooting puts people up in arms! (pun intended)
Yet no one yells about the death rate in Chicago. (30 times as much)
And it is a issue.. Not the weapon but the one who commits the act.
What is being done about that??
You ban all guns in the US.. People will get creative...
Bows and arrows , crossbows, high pressure air , explosive materials,
toxins/poisons, knives and swords are readily available to people who do
their homework. It's fact, history has proven it.
So the problem isn't the firearm.. it's people. People who want to force their way upon those who don't want it.
Time to ban people....


What this planet needs is a good Enema.

The point of your post is that guns are not the problem, people are. So why not make sure that the people who are a problem can't get guns?

[Observe]

The point of your post is that guns are not the problem, people are. So why not make sure that the people who are a problem can't get guns?

Because the government has no right to impose restrictions and the most sane approach is to arm everyone to the teeth, so we can have perpetual reenactment of Wyatt Earp wannabe's at the OK Corral. Anything short of that, is tyranny.

[Olterin]

A question that comes to mind with regards to "unalienable rights" then, for me, is this: is it at all possible that these change over time? Not by simply saying "nope, that's not your right", that'd be somewhat absurd, but after some philosophical debate? The reason I ask is that perceptions change, philosophies change, and what you may now hold to be the "ultimate truth" might turn out to be no longer fully applicable.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the US Constitution and the country itself will exist long enough for humanity as a whole to change, so much so that bearing arms is no longer considered natural whatsoever. How would you, present-day you, go about changing the Constitution?

[Masterbagger]

The point of your post is that guns are not the problem, people are. So why not make sure that the people who are a problem can't get guns?

Criminals have circumvented every gun law we have. Take our drug epidemic for example. We have a more universal support among the law abiding for not tolerating some of the drugs people are using and yet they won't go away. We can't change people's behavior with a law. We can only punish the ones we catch.

[Graaf]

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.

I have a few questions regarding the 2nd Amendment, but I will only ask one:
Where does is say gun, rifle or firearm?

[pjknibbs]

More to the point, where are these "well regulated militias" that are apparently the primary reason for people to have guns?

[Golden_Gonads]

So, according to the Constitution, American citizens have the right to bear nuclear weapons and the government must not interfere with us having them for self defense, or in case Joe Blow decides to overthrow a tyrannical government?...

An appeal to absurdity won't work. No, of course nuclear-personal-self-defense is not a viable option.

So at what point does a weapon become too powerful for your interpretation of this? You are yourself adding extra limits beyond those proclaimed by the second ammendment.

[The Q]

The right to bear arms wasn't granted by our government. It was recognized as something the people already had.

No, it was granted to you by your government in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Just because that happened more than 200 years ago doesn't somehow make it something outside of the normal legal framework. Heck, in 1791 I'm pretty sure firearms were legal to hold in the UK as well, but we changed that once we realised it wasn't a good idea.

That is incorrect.

The US Constitution grants no rights to anyone. None. That is one of the most significant differences between our Constitution and similar founding documents of other countries.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Also what we shouldn't forget is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by god to all Americans as their American birthright. So even if you would be able to change the Constitution / amend the Second Amendment, and you are not, there's still god's word you can't change.

Spoiler

Show

Sorry, I could not resist.

So, according to the Constitution, American citizens have the right to bear nuclear weapons and the government must not interfere with us having them for self defense, or in case Joe Blow decides to overthrow a tyrannical government?...

An appeal to absurdity won't work. No, of course nuclear-personal-self-defense is not a viable option.

So at what point does a weapon become too powerful for your interpretation of this? You are yourself adding extra limits beyond those proclaimed by the second ammendment.

I'm pretty sure that's the usual discussion gun lobbyists and people who want to impose stricter restrictions on gun ownership in the USA lead. The funny thing, however, is that it's simply a matter of interpretation. You only have a single sentence, and as we all know from discussions on the internet, a single sentence without further context can be interpreted in many ways.
Now, as for the nuclear weapons, you could ask whether a nuclear weapon (a bomb or a missile) can be carried by a single person ("bear arms")? Then you could also ask whether nuclear weapons are too powerful to give into the hands of a militia? Nuclear weapons being a powerful weapon only to be handled by professionals while a militia usually consists of non-professionals. (I.e. you wouldn't give a militia the same weaponry as an actual army.) Also according to the second amendment the right to keep and bear arms is a means to secure a free state. You could argue that using such powerful weapons will not lead to the security of the state, but will almost certainly be considered a hostile attack.