Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? I might have found you some allies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

Seems you're not alone in disliking parts of the Bill of Rights. These folks don't dig the "no test of religion" part of
the First Amendment, and for the same reason you don't like the Second- it's 'unsafe'. Great minds think alike, eh?:


http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147489388

"It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military."

Muslims in the military = threat to public safety.
Guns in the hands of civilians = threat to public safety.

Time for a quid pro quo. Allow them to impose a religious test, in exchange for rejection of the Second Amendment

IOW: Give up the First to get rid of the Second. You did say the 2A was "outmoded", did you not? This would
put guns ONLY in the hands of government employees and well-regulated militias like you wanted.

Yeah, yeah, I know you are saying: "Those wingers set a lot of store on the Second Amendment. They'd never
go for this!"

They might, if you pointed out that while it would disarm *all* save cops, soldiers and militia members, it would also
disarm atheists, leftists, Communists, black people, brown people, feminists, Muslims, liberals, pagans, Hindus, animists,
socialists, and all that sort of non God-fearing riff-raff.

Of course, the Talibornagain would be busy arranging things so that somehow, the only suitable candidate members of the "well regulated militias" would turn out to be white males of impeccable religious credentials.

But it would be a small price to pay to rid America of the scourge of guns, amirite?

[depakid]

1. Mostly, my thoughs are that if we could just do away with dumb fucks and mentally ill folks

But that's not going to happen, so the next best thing is to keep guns out of their hands.

[TheWraith]

17. Serious mental illness is already a grounds for not being able to own a weapon.

And you can't legally prevent dumbfucks from doing anything potentially dangerous without executing them all.

[depakid]

18. With increasing gun proliferation in the US- it's damn hard to keep guns away from the mentally ill

The Portland mass shooting last January showed us that;

3 dead- 7 other shot and injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Portland_nightclub_shooting

[TheWraith]

26. Do you think that mentally ill people without guns are incapable of killing?

Shall we look up "axe murderers" on Wikipedia?

[depakid]

27. dupe

[depakid]

28. No- it's just easier- and they kill more and more often

So we can dispense with the red axe herring.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Would you prefer we ignored this, then?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/suspect-resented-father-and-sister-20091112-icfx.html

Or are the victims of American crazies with guns somehow deader than the victims of Australian crazies with knives?

[PavePusher]

33. Ummm, except the murder rate is [i]dropping[/i]. Whatever... n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I would guess

he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm, due to his suicide attempt. Doesn't look like anyone knows how he got it. If we assume contraband, your "it's damn hard to keep guns away from the mentally ill" is pretty moot. Hard to keep ANYTHING away from the mentally ill, or anyone else, considering we have hundreds of tons of pot coming in through our borders every year. Not to mention other contraband, such as firearms.

[paulsby]

2. just one clarification

if cops are still allowed to carry, as you say, then there would still be atheist, leftists, communists, black people, brown people, feminists, muslims, liberals, pagans, hindus, animists, socialists etc. that were armed.

it's a pretty diverse profession ime

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Well, that's where the reimposition of religious tests come in.

I don't think that the AFA and other like-minded, ahem, Good Christian Organizations(TM) would hesitate for a nanosecond
to arrange the departure of such "undesirables" from the ranks of law enforcement.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Who would you send to my front door to take my guns? Beuller? Beuller?

Do you think my neighbors would let you get to my front door? Or whomever you decided was expendable in order to take them?

"Give up the First in order to get rid of the Second". Why do DU'ers ask the dumbest questions in the fucking world?

[MrModerate]

4. I realize the OP neglected to use the sarcasm icon, but you might have picked up the intent . . .

from the tone alone.

[depakid]

6. Are you really so sure about that?

Getting kind of hard to tell these days.

[MrModerate]

7. Not sarcasm in a good way, but to twit those who think not dying from gun violence is a good thing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. But what gun violence that remained would be 'official' gun violence

Which would be a great comfort to the survivors and the families of those killed, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, the civilians would still be able to get their murder and mayhem on with fists, feet, knives, clubs,
garottes, swords, or whatever else came to hand. The AFA being what they are, nerve agents and/or Zyklon B would
also soon be in style for the dispatch of civilians.

None of which make someone as dead as they would be if a gun was used to kill them. So there is that to console
you...

[MrModerate]

37. Gun-vs-knife comparison is piffle. See respons #35. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. The question I was trying to raise was "Is the game worth the candle?"

Nobody I'm aware of denies that guns are used in crime, or that Americans do each other in (both with and without guns)
at a higher rate than some other countries.

I was pointing out that getting rid of guns legally held by civilians would require quite a high price.

[MrModerate]

41. High price? Perhaps. Tossing in separation of church and state? Not applicable, IMO. n/t

[MrModerate]

5. I don't see any need to eliminate the Second Amendment . . .

or compromise any of the other amendments, for that matter.

Just interpret it reasonably and in line with centuries of precedent that allow for substantially heightened gun control.

[Will E Orwontee]

8. That precedent you speak of isn't . . . .

centuries old; it's genesis was 1942 in the lower federal courts.

US v Tot began the "state's right" and "collective right" nonsense and Heller's unanimous "individual right" opinion invalidated the reasoning of those lower court decisions.

SCOTUS has never wavered from the "individual right independent of militia status" interpretation and will, when McDonald v Chicago is decided, finally expound on the fundamental status of the right to arms and incorporate the 2nd under the 14th as applicable upon state law.

Liberty is going to be expanded by casting off illegitimate and unconstitutional restrictions on the citizen and that is always something to welcome and celebrate.

[MrModerate]

9. Enjoy your expanded liberty when some whacko offs you for fun . . .

Or some criminal offs you for the change in your front pocket. Or some kid accidentally shoots from the living room of the next house and plugs you. Your guns are really going to help then. Maybe you can be buried with 'em -- they'll make a shiny accent to the suit and tie you'd never be caught dead in, in real life.

This crap (plus a number of other things, mostly arising from the wingnutariat) is why I left the US. And why I don't come back very often.

[slackmaster]

11. It sounds like you are afraid you might shoot someone for fun if you had a gun

Counseling can help with that.

[eqfan592]

16. Ummm..

...good riddance? Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Tejas]

20. Even though you left, enjoy your expanded liberty of speaking freely in this country

I'm sure you still have the same civil rights and can still do the exact same things in your new country that you used to do here.

:rofl:

[MrModerate]

32. The direct link between speaking freely and being able to blow away my fellow citizens . . .

Is somewhat obscure to me, but what the hell.

And while my civil rights here (as an expatriate) are not identical to a citizen's, they're pretty close. The government by and large stays out of one's face and the crazies per thousand count is way lower.

One thing that's not exactly the same is that the chance of being impacted by gun violence is almost nonexistent -- which I don't really miss.

[eqfan592]

34. Well, you can still get stabbed to death.

I'm just saying that if where ever you are living now has a lower crime rate, it's unlikely due to any gun control measures they have taken and more likely due to a lack of the socio-economic problems we have in the US, because if they did have those same problems, your likely hood of getting killed would likely be just as great, just instead of being shot you'd get stabbed, beaten to death, etc. These same problems are made more difficult to deal with by morons going after the 2nd Amendment as they distract from the issue.

Also, it's a direct link from speaking freely to the ability to keep your government in check so you can keep speaking freely, even if it doesn't like what it's hearing. It's also about self defense. Randomly blowing away fellow citizens without just cause is rightfully illegal.

Seriously, when all you can come up with to defend your position is a straw-man argument, how righteous is your position?

[MrModerate]

35. Regarding your final comment, I leave righteousness to the self-righteous, who are welcome to it.

On other matters, yes, Australia has a much less complicated socioeconomic landscape and (outside of the uberrich) a much more even distribution of wealth across the population generally. Lots of problems -- like all human societies -- but certainly less intense than in the States. It's one of the reasons I'm here.

More importantly, in Australia, guns are considered tools that one uses if necessary -- for civilians, primarily in rural settings where protection from dangerous and/or destructive animals is a concern. The concept of gun as an extension of your dick (or the door to your castle, if you prefer) never caught on.

The knife-vs-gun argument is totally contrafactual. Let's use a couple of real-world examples. Would the Ft. Hood shooter have been able to kill 13 and wound 30+ with a knife, in something like 5 minutes? No way. Martin Bryant -- Australia's most infamous mass murderer -- killed 12 of his 35 victims in the first 15 seconds of his 1996 rampage, and another 20 in one 90-second fusillade shortly thereafter. I think you could find hundreds of victims' relatives who devoutly wish he had been equipped with knives instead.

One problem with guns is they're too damned effective. As killing technologies, knives, rocks, fists, etc. don't come close. There will always be murders wherever human beings live. Guns just multiply the victims in number and seriousness by an order of magnitude (or more). Also, the ready availabilty of guns frequently elevates otherwise unremarkable conflict into murder. Keep in mind that when you're angry at someone and instinctively make a fist, nothing of any note has happened yet. Put a gun in your hand and by the time you've made a fist, you've already fired a shot. Big difference.

With regard to keeping the government honest, do you really think civilian firearms would constitute a serious impediment to any future US government determined to oppress its people militarily? An inconvenience, which would cost an unfortunate number of soldiers/national guardsmen, but a bar to the effective imposition of government military rule? Not hardly. You want to resist a government, learn how to make IEDs.

[eqfan592]

38. I'll address your final two paragraphs, first.

Your argument rests on the premise that a person who has made a fist in anger would take that to the next level and be willing to kill somebody if they had a gun in hand, but otherwise might not. This is simply not factually correct. Guns by themselves do NOT turn people into cold-blooded killers. A person willing to punch somebody does not equate to a person willing to kill somebody.

As to your last paragraph, you are simply underscoring your lack of knowledge in the area of gorilla warfare. As has been discovered time and time again in reality, and armed civilian populace is more than capable of resisting against a smaller but much better equipped foe, especially if they are fighting for their homes and families, as would be the situation in such a happenstance.

But everything else aside, the simple fact is that you can't uninvent the firearm. Even restricting access only works to keep the law-abiding virtually defenseless in the face of those who would be armed with firearms (or at all) in spite of the law. A person armed with a firearm stands a much better chance against a criminal who is also armed than a person who is without a firearm who is facing a criminal armed even only with a knife. The firearm is a great equalizer, and is a far more effective means of self defense than anything else.

Yes, you like to speak on how it's an effective means of killing, but it's also an effective means of defending. More effective than anything else available. You then also factor in that the police do not have a responsibility to insure your personal safety, and you have to ask yourself how it is even morally acceptable to deprive the population of their most effective means of self defense.

Sure, guns are better at mass killings than knives (we are ignoring the sword rampage in Japan that killed and maimed a lot of people for the moment). But mass killings are not the biggest problem, are they? Killings such as the Fort Hood incident would be much more difficult without a firearm. But they are also very rare. Smaller multiple homicides are comparatively very doable with other tools than firearms. So basically, we would be looking at disarmament of the entire populace simply to put a stop to a very small fraction of the homicides in the nation (and there's not promise that it would actually put an end to them)(and we aren't even bringing up the idea that an armed person may have put an end to the Fort Hood and other incidents before so many people were killed).

And mind you, I managed to get through this entire post without pointing out your pants-on-head retarded statement about guns being "an extension" of ones "dick." Ooops, guess I didn't. Seriously, if you want to debate an issue, leave this bullshit at home. And don't even attempt to justify it. There is no justification. It's bullshit, pure and simple.

[MrModerate]

40. OK, just so you don't get agitated, I won't talk about the obsession with guns . . .

that runs through American history like a greasy stain and *of course* has no sexual element at all.

I will, however, point out that gun laws in Australia are comparable to those in the US, and yet gun violence is statistically less common here. (Gun deaths per 100,000, US/Australia: Total 11.66/2.94, Homicide 3.72/0.44, Suicide 7.35/2.35, Unintentional 0.59/0.11) That's because, IMAO, Aussies consider their fists to be extentions of their dicks and use them instead. And using fists means fewer deaths. (OK, sometimes they think that glasses of beer can serve the same purpose, but that comes under the "lots of problems -- like all human societies" of my previous post.)

With regard to your first two paragraphs, let's look at some recent history. The Iraqi opposition to the American invasion wasn't able to do shit against said US military until they adopted bombing tactics, both roadside and suicide. The resistance put up by individual armed fighters only got the fighters dead and their neighborhoods razed. Armed civilians (even paramilitaries) cannot prevail in slugging matches with a professional military. Period. They can outlast them, and in fact generally do, but it's not the firearms that make that possible.

You are right that the firearm can't be uninvented. But many developed countries have controlled them more effectively than the US does, and without imposition of totalitarian strictures. Partly it's sensible lawmaking, partly it's sensible enforcement, and partly it's cultural factors. Too many Americans -- criminals and good citizens alike -- love guns to a creepy and unhealthy degree. Those of us who don't, often pay the price. Or take steps to avoid the problem.

With regard to the fist argument (which is not original with me), you are right that there are many other ways we humans kill each other. But you ignored the fact that the presence of guns in a conflict automatically raises the danger of a lethal outcome, simply because guns are more immediately lethal that other killing technologies. It's also notable that 65% of US homicides are via firearm vs 16% in Australia. And sword-murder campaigns are even more rare than mass murders à la Ft. Hood and Port Arthur. It's probably cultural differences coming into play.

And with regard to defense against criminal activity, I've lived all over the world and the only place I've been seriously threatened by uncontrolled gun use has been Baghdad, which I think you'd agree is a special case. I often read on the Guns Forum of people who won't leave the house without a firearm, convinced that they're vulnerable to criminal assault at every turn, against which the only sensible defense is a gun. And while I'll acknowledge that crime is a problem, living your life as if you might be involved in a shoot-out on any given day is just plain unhealthy, and no reasonable person should live that way. IMO.

[eqfan592]

42. Ok, from the top then!

The problem with american gun violence isn't because people see it as an extension of their "dick." It's because of a shit-ton of socioeconomic issues, primarily being poverty, poor education, the failed war on drugs, etc.

Second, yes, in any gorilla situation firearms by themselves are not going to allow you to "win the day." But if you are honestly going to try and argue that firearms are not ever effectively employed in such a situation, then I'm afraid you're simply denying reality.

Ultimately, you seem to be of the opinion that the primary reason we have more gun crime in the US is because of this "unhealthy obsession." This is your opinion, but I don't really think it's based in reality. Do some people have an unhealthy obsession with guns? No doubt. But is that what's causing the actual crimes? If you believe this is so, then please present an argument with some scientific basis supporting this.

I personally think the problems stem much more from poverty and other similar issues (mentioned above) than "gun lust." Bringing up "gun lust" seems like a convienient way of painting a very large percentage of the nation in a negative light to score cheap political points by making law abiding citizens out to be the root of the problem.

And as for people who carry, simply taking precautions does not make somebody paranoid. The reality is that crimes can and do happen to people, and people should have the right to take well reasoned precautions to defend themselves should a criminal attempt to commit a crime against them. I've never been in a horrible car accident, but I always wear my seatbelt. I've never had a house fire, but I keep a fire extinguisher. Does taking these steps make me an obsessive paranoid? I doubt you would say yes. If so, then you are setting an obvious double standard when it comes to concealed carry.

This will have to be my final post on the issue for the night, so I invite you to present your final arguments and for us to bring this to a close. I think this has been a MOSTLY amiable discussion, and having these between people of differing viewpoints is the only way we'll ever solve the issues in our nation (well, my nation at least, as you don't appear to have any interest in living in the US again).

[spin]

23. That was a smart move...

I wish more people who feel like you would just pack up and leave.

I think I'll just tough it out.

You are right about the suit and tie. I hate wearing them. My daughter has instructions to bury me in the clothes I normally wear with one exception. I normally wear running shoes. I want to be buried wearing boots.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Well you *could* get some help disarming the public, like I've shown

The question for you is:

Is it worth the cost?

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Precedent is for the 2nd to be an individual right. N/T

[MrModerate]

36. Yeah. An idividual right -- with lots of reasonable restrictions . . .

"abridgements" you might even call them, if you consider absolutely unregulated civilian gun ownership to be the ideal. I just don't think those restrictions go far enough. (And, to be fair, many of the restrictions on the books are ineffective, unenforced, or unenforceable.)

[PavePusher]

13. I'd recommend applying those same rules to the rest of the Bill of Rights...

But the hypersonic screech of all the people who rant about violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments under Bush II is really unpleasant this early in the morning.

Me, I like the entire BoR to be interpreted as liberally (look that one up in the dictionary folks) as possible, erring to the side of freedom.

Freedom is risky, messy and dangerous. And it beats holy hell out of any alternatives.

[JonQ]

14. I don't see any reason to restrict voting rights

I'd just prefer to interpret it the classical way: white males who own land.

I mean, you can't have all these crazy peasants voting willy nilly, they will certainly get themselves in to trouble. And in choosing the government of a nuclear armed world power they could do a lot of damage if left unchecked.

[PavePusher]

15. Hee heee. I bet you bite your toungue a lot...

keeping it planted that deeply in your cheek!

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. I like the cut of your jib!

n/t

[SteveM]

10. Someone beat you to it...

Blacks were banned from owning guns well into the 20th Century. Certainly, no one is using those legal models. Not now. Really.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. I never claimed to be swift or clever. I'm too modest to make such a proposal.

Just trying to help bring together two like-minded groups who like to hysterically demonize whole groups of people and aren't too picky about the Constitution...

[spin]

21. Sounds like racism to me...

but then the roots of gun control is racism.

Gun control has been cleverly camouflaged and sold as a solution to violence in our nation. Still the bottom line is the rich and powerful want to be sure that those people find it impossible or extremely difficult to own firearms.

[depakid]

43. I'm impressed that this thread is still up