Guns dont creat violence. Do you think the drug addict high school drop out racest would have attacked GZ if he knew he was armed…no… TM an unarmed drug addict attacked some one for what reason we dont know and isn’t important. …keep in mind GZ was leaving the sene when attacked and he was at the sene doing his job…people if your going to have an opinion get facts. GZ was part of the neighborhood watch and thsre was a string of crime around this time. …a gun saved an upstanding citizen and killed clearly one of the people causing issies. This is a big win for gun laws…
Guns don’t create violence or disagreements that turn violent… They do however escalate violent situations to a lethal level.
People get in fistfights all the time that turn into murders when a gun appears. It’s too easy to escalate. If you’re in a fistfight, and you have a gun handy, the temptation is too great to use it to get the upper hand. A la zimmerman. The kid didn’t really attack him. He out himself in the kids face. That was kinda dumb. He did so emboldened by the knowledge that if it got heavy, he could pull his gun out. Which he did to great effect and killed the kid. I am not saying trayvon is right by the way (read my posts in the thread). He created the situation initially by cutting through a private neighbourhood after hopping a six foot high fence.
You seem to be saying that if there were more guns less people would get shot. Reality is that there are more guns then people in America already and you’re doing a great job of shooting each other despite this. It’s just not true that guns create safety or reduce violence, when the country is full of morons.
Really couldn’t agree more ^
Nobody is willing to just hand out or take a beat down anymore. And if by chance they do, the next logical step is go get a gun and pop a cap in their ass later on…civility and common decency is a long forgotten notion in many parts of the world. Its such a cut throat, gotta gets mine, fuck the rest mentality everywhere. Nobody wants or can accept being pointed out you’re acting like an ass. No personal accountability for actions.
Very interesting. I’ve heard two Americans comment on the 2nd amendment in the last couple of months. Yourself and an 86 year old man. Both of you stand behind the amendment in a complete and unwavering manner. The old dude I can see, but you? Aren’t you young and fresh-minded enough to see that the 2nd amendment is so old and out of touch it’s a wonder it can even be spoken of? The 2nd amendment is 15 years younger than the USA. Meaning yes it was signed in 1791. When there were muskets around. Not guns that you can pretty much cut down oak trees with. So in 1791, do you figure the powers that prevailed at the time envisioned the state of guns in the country to be what it is today? Of course not, the amendment is so out of touch and has been so blatantly perverted over time it’s a farce to even make reference to it. My advice would be to not even speak of the 2nd amendment. Do what you will with your own personal guns but sheesh that 2nd amendment solidarity thing is completely ridiculous.
I think the problem is Americans who trumpet the 2nd ammendment around have inherited that over generations.
It used to be that the public needed the right to arm itself against an oppressive government, a.k.a. the British. That doesn’t exist anymore. The British are gone. You have your own government now, and they’re not coming to take over your house. That’s such an antiquated notion that hasn’t been a real concern for law abiding citizens for 200 years.
If people are so concerned about their government coming to kill them…they need to find a new government, or somewhere else to live. Either start a militia and fight government, or GTFO of the country. Staying and being angry and paranoid…and armed…and killing each other as a result…is no way to live.
All of a sudden I’m reminded of the unions thread.
Unions and the 2nd amendment - two devices created long ago for similar purposes that no longer exist in any shape or form whatsoever in the areas of the world that created them. Zero keeping up with the times applied to these antiquated concepts opens the door for the chaos they bring today.
A teacher I know got a cheque for $5500 in the mail from the school board the other day. Why?
Because she hadn’t been sick in a few years. Part of her union negotiated contract was that she gets X sick days per year. She never used them, so the school board was obligated to give her EXTRA MONEY for the value of the days she didn’t take off work.
They gave her a bonus because she went to work. Incredible.
Ontario will be in credit trouble within the next 4 years. Mark my words.
Soo much misinformation in this entire thread - where to begin??
I’ll start with Sak’s comment. Americans most certainly have a tradition of respecting the second amendment, and it is highly likely that tradition has been passed down through the generations. Outside of the apparent “problem” that this creates (which I don’t buy into) so what? A traditional respect for the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about the text of the amendment, or, more importantly, how it should be interpreted.
So let’s go to the text. The 2nd amendment reads: “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.”
Interestingly, it took over two centuries for the US Supreme Court to actually decide the age-old question of whether the second amendment protects an “individual right” to bear arms, or whether the amendment only protected militias to organize and arm themselves. You can see the obvious implications: choose the latter, and you essentially gut the 2nd amendment from the constitution, as no one would argue that there are significant militias alive and well in this country. They died off centuries ago. But adopt the former rationale, and you have a constitutional right to own a handgun that is every bit as valid as our sacred right of free speech anchored in the first amendment.
Now I’m a bit of a constitutional law nerd, but I won’t bore you with the details. In short, Justice Scalia’s heroic opinion (joined by four other justies) in D.C. v. Heller held that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms according to the original public meaning of amendment at the time it was enacted. (As an aside, originalism is the ONLY proper method of constitutional interpretation. Scalia was on his A-game in this case.)
I’ll quote his final paragraph, because it is so eloquently written:
We are aware of the handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
The whole opinion is here (including the various dissents): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
My point is that it while it may be fun to lodge rhetorical attacks about a nation full of morons armed with guns (a premise to which I do not subscribe), that is still a discussion far ahead of itself.
The bottom line is that we have a Constitution, and in that Constitution are rights guaranteed to all Americans, ranging from free speech, lawful gun ownership, the right not to incriminate yourself, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, inter alia.
THAT is the starting point for any debates. It is a GIVEN that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to lawful gun ownership. From that point, you can start arguing policy and propose certain laws and regulations that would supposedly cut down on unnecessary gun violence. But keep in mind that those very policy proposals are nonetheless subject to the Second Amendment. Just as in restrictions on free speech, a proposal to limit a 2nd amendment right in some way will be subject to the “strict scrutiny” test (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) when challenged in court. And as proposed limits on free speech nearly always fail strict scrutiny under the 1st Amendment, expect the same for the 2d Amendment.
Wow, this has gone on longer than I expected. But I’ll follow up with more thoughts on the actual statistics of gun violence. Hopefully soon.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure the debate is framed in the proper context. I quite like my Constitution - well, at least the parts that haven’t been ripped to shreds yet by certain loathsome justices over the past 85 years. But I digress . . .
There is a reason why it’s the second, and not the 10th.
If we started applying some of the same logic applied here to the first amendment, I think you would recognize the insanity.
“Free speech is so antiquated. It’s not like we have printing presses anymore, the Internet has freed us.”
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am not debating the legality or validity of zimmerman or whomever having a handgun (or 9). I’m simply examining why so many people die in America at the barrel of a gun, and the absurdity of saying “we can solve this with more guns”. The opinion/ruling you posted was interesting. What he wanted to say was ‘let congress eliminate the right to bear arms from the constitution… and until then let’s not make any waves’. Beneath that you could feel him wanting to say that something needs to be done. In any event the text of the second is definitely antiquated, and again, refers not to modern times, but refers to the early Americans wanting their own way of life, including the right to defend themselves from an oppressive government aka the Brits.
Seatbelt laws used to describe only lap belts. Then shoulder belts came along and Seatbelt laws had to evolve. So too should the 2nd.
It’s true what I said though. It is a nation full of morons (moronic with respect to guns). Someone with extensive training and a great respect for a gun’s power is not a moron. Unfortunately that is not a requirement to obtain a gun in America. Or to use one. Or to put yourself in situations where you may need to use one with lethal results. A signature and a couple of pieces of ID is all that many Americans require to obtain a gun. Therein lies the problem.
Access and ignorance equals deaths that in many cases were destined to be arguments, fistfights or knife fights.
We should limit who can write and talk aloud about their opinions.
There are so many morons with voices that we should silence.
You cannot cherry pick your favorite amendments and apply progressive thinking without committing serious error.
The founders wanted every law abiding citizen to have the right to bear arms. Who are you to deem competent? Wake up, the government cannot figure out health care let alone gun control.
The fundamental thing that people also need to realize is that the 2nd amendment is about personal defense from tyranny by your neighbor or criminals. Just because your iq is lower than average shouldn’t eliminate your right to defend yourself.
^^ um, was that directed at me? Lol - if so, you severely misread what I wrote. I gave a brief legal analysis. They don’t come more right-wing libertarian than me, bro. I can promise you that 
Saki
Words don’t typically kill anyone, and if they do (incite violence), then that individual can indeed be legally silenced.
Anyway, the Americans who claim there’s nothing wrong with guns in their country are either pretty blind to the hard numbers or just selfish and don’t mind innocent people losing their lives just so that they can keep their guns.
Meh, in the end I don’t live there and I sure am glad about that. It’s a screwed up country in terms of politics where it’s painfully obvious most politicians aren’t working to improve their own nation’s issues (cough congress cough senate). Let them kill themselves. It’s just a pity innocents have to die along the way. (I just wish less guns made it across the border into mine).
I am pretty sure words have killed more people in the history of mankind than anything else. We just use cannons or guns, nukes whatever, to get the job done.
That is besides the point that I am trying to convey. People against the 2nd amendment conveniently try and limit the definition to conform to their liking. But if we were to apply the same logic, or behavior, to another amendment (like the first amendment) – their would be war (which you would need guns to accomplish).
double post
To clarify:
It was directed at Saki, but it obviously wasn’t personal.
I was drawing an analogy of applying amendment changes from one amendment to another. Basically a pepsi challenge experiment. Take both the 1st and 2nd amendments, flip the language by stripping the subject lines, but impose the objective – people would understand the attack that people feel is happening with their right to gun ownership.
Edit, why am I getting negative Karma for entering into the Trayvon discussion? That is chicken shit whoever is doing that.
Exactly our point. If knives and clubs, etc. were used “to get the job done”, we wouldn’t have as many fatalities.
Thanks for confirming what we’re saying.
Again, kill yourselves all you want, just try and keep it contained. The gun spill-over into my neck of the woods is a PITA.
Maybe you got negative karma from something else? I can’t see anyone caring enough about this to -ve you
My point was that the 1st amendment should be tested by the country, and should evolve if necessary. Just as the 2nd should. All law. Happens everywhere.
Hell your rights and freedoms are very publicly being eliminated right now with no discussion or input from the country.
That’s ok, they’ll have their guns to fend off the government when they realise the “land of the free” isn’t quite so “free”. :