Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFear restricts progression
The arguments in favor of the Second Amendment make perfect sense, after all. Guns should be readily accessible to anyone and everyone. Think about it. Why wouldn’t we want some immature 18-year old running around with a handgun in his hand? We would rather he didn’t drink a beer than play with guns. Makes perfect sense.
I’m sure I’m beating an old drum, as I have written similar gun related columns. But, the casual demeanor in which we approach the subject of guns is deplorable. Being a Valley native, I understand the hunting culture and the usefulness of guns in hunting cases. I would be mistaken if I did not fess up to my own use of guns for recreational use. In today’s world, however, there are proper uses for guns and improper uses of guns.
Let’s think about when the second amendment was authored for a moment – 1791. Not yet into the 19th Century, America was in its infancy. The Continental Army had just battled for its lands freedom from then enemy Great Britain, and George Washington was president for all of two years.
http://www.alamosanews.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=74&story_id=26737
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Feel free to stop debating any time.
"Gun rights activists and anti-gun rights activists routinely take aim at each other’s arguments without much reverberation."
Au contraire, mon frere ... unconstitutional restrictions on RKBA enacted by pandering legislatures in decades past are being kicked to the kerb all across the country. The gun rights debate IS being settle -- for the good.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)op ed I have read in years.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Wouldn't be prudent to have immature 18-year olds running around with guns, now would it?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Your family members had to break the law (commit a straw-purchase) in order for your brother to become an officer of the law.
My haemoglobin count just went off-scale high. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is how Sarah Brady explains buying her buying her kid a rifle when he was a minor.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or paid back to the legal purchaser.
For the record, either way, I don't care, since the end result was to get around a point of stupid law, not to commit further crimes. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of it all.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Then the writer of this screed should expect the same "beating of an old drum." His.
And yes, the same "hunting culture," "hunting cases [whatever that is]," and "recreational use." Missing, of course, is ANY discussion of self-defense. Which leads us to yet another favorite chestnut of his culture war:
"If people continue to argue that they own guns for protection, they are lying. Guns are owned in today’s world for recreation, for defiance, for power, and for fear."
__________________
We see only the writer's fear. And his continuous -- and intentional -- distortions. Yep, same "deplorable approach."
Makes you wonder what "progression" means, or why this typically undefined term is in the title.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)The truth is absolutely devastating to their cause. What choice do they have?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)but we get the same old tail-finned model from yesteryear. Few are fooled.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...as long as the person purchasing the gun is legally able to, and the gun is legally able to be sold to the person.
That means background check (criminal and mental health history), appropriate age (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), immigration status, and any reasonable waiting period the state may impose.
If it takes you 6 months to buy a gun, the system's broken.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)and is as responsible for his actions as I am, or he's not. If he is then he deserves to be able to buy a long arm like I did at 18. If not, then we need to rework when the system considers people adults. The rest is just his opinion and while he's entitled to it I disagree.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)why are they old enough to vote or potentially be drafted?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)long on opinion short on facts.
For those of you who wish to argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I retort, guns don’t protect people, people protect people. Gun laws are a thing of the future; it’s still politically unwise to push for progressive action on the protection of civility – which is why we still argue over whether or not the gun laws of 1791 are relevant to 2012.
Well we still allow people freedom of speech even though the medium has changed quite a bit. And we give people trials even though those proceedings (and the different kinds of evidence available) have changed quite a bit.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)And their technical and legal ignorance means they will never be a threat to the 2nd Amendment.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Common sense would help us roll back shitloads of shitty gun laws targeted at legal gun owners. We need to work for a true progressive movement within the 2A rights crowd. It's time we pushed back....enough of them destroying our rights so they can feel better.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)yet more lies and misinformation from the anti-second amendment crowd. Big surprise.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Fortunately the 2nd Amendment is more than mere law - that language added to the constitution in the Bill of Rights protects a civil liberty.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)you ought to know by now that you will find what ever it is you are looking for. Why not look for something that makes you happy.
Surely, this is frustrating for you. Post crap and Get Blasted, day in and day out.
Will you ever learn?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Right off the bat, we start off with a falsehood.
There are no 18-year-olds running around with handguns in their hand. Presumably, we are talking about concealed carry here, because the only place an 18-year-old can "run around with a handgun in his hand" would be at a shooting range. In nearly every state, if not every state, you have to be 21 to carry a concealed weapon.
I’m sure I’m beating an old drum, as I have written similar gun related columns. But, the casual demeanor in which we approach the subject of guns is deplorable. Being a Valley native, I understand the hunting culture and the usefulness of guns in hunting cases. I would be mistaken if I did not fess up to my own use of guns for recreational use. In today’s world, however, there are proper uses for guns and improper uses of guns.
Of course, the second amendment is not about either hunting nor recreational use.
Let’s think about when the second amendment was authored for a moment – 1791. Not yet into the 19th Century, America was in its infancy. The Continental Army had just battled for its lands freedom from then enemy Great Britain, and George Washington was president for all of two years.
There were no cars, only horse and buggy. There was no television, just books. There was no electricity, just candles. Women couldn’t vote and anyone who wasn’t white was probably a slave. Sprawling urban and suburban cultures did not exist. Farms and ranches were the major source of income for the majority people.
This wasn’t a world like today.
Guns weren’t like the guns of today. A well trained Union soldier (some 70 years after the Second Amendment was born) could fire two shots every minute. Revolutionary War muskets measure five feet in length and weighed nearly ten pounds. They shot a single lead ball that was propelled by gun powder that had to be poured into the weapon before every shot. Needless to say, the musket took a lot of time to use and was extremely inaccurate from beyond 100 yards.
This is the style of gun the Second Amendment was authored after.
The author is making the horrible, horrible mistake in suggesting that the second amendment is about means rather than about motivations.
The second amendment is about keeping state-of-the-art military-grade weapons in the hands of the people so that they can serve as infantry forces in an emergency. In 1776, this was a musket. In 2012, it is a semi-automatic rifle.
One need only look at all the other amendments to understand how true this is.
The first amendment is about protecting speech. It doesn't matter if that speech is published on a 18th-century printing press or on a computer.
The third amendment says you can't quarter troops in a private home. It doesn't matter if those soldiers are from 1776 or 1976.
The fourth amendment says you are secure in your person and free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Doesn't matter if you are in a horse and buggy or your automobile.
The eighth amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment. Doesn't matter if it's the rack or a cattle prod.
If we leave all the technological advances aside, there are some other major ideals that make the Second Amendment outdated. We must remember the United States was only two years old and still feared that Great Britain – our closest ally today – would invade us. Our defense and military relied heavily on the readiness of the general citizens of the country.
The exact reading of the firearms clause is, “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.” A militia has not been present in the United States since the 1800s. If the United States still has the idea that a militia may be a necessary part of our defense system, then maybe our civilization has not grown up as much as it should.
Actually, the militia system disappeared in 1903. But anyway.
It does not matter whether the second amendment is outdated or not. It does not matter if the people can or cannot succeed as emergency troops anymore.
The law provides for them the opportunity to try. And that is all that matters. If you don't like that, change the law.
We choose to argue for the right to bear arms for ignorant reasons. If people continue to argue that they own guns for protection, they are lying. Guns are owned in today’s world for recreation, for defiance, for power, and for fear. We will probably never have a militia again, which makes the Second Amendment argument archaic. In very rare cases do guns actually protect their civilian owners.
It doesn't matter how rarely I need my seat belt, or my fire extinguisher, or my smoke detector, or my firearms. I have the right to keep them if I so wish, so that I have them available in an emergency.
But yes, part of the reason I keep them is in defiance of people like this author.
