Renzatic on 20/5/2016 at 05:04
That is the contentious part of the 2nd Amendment, which is, by and far, the most imprecisely worded amendment in the otherwise clear and concise Bill of Rights.
Do we allow private citizens access to own and bear arms, because we may need to call upon them to form a well regulated militia in times of peril, or do we allow citizens arms if they're in a well regulated militia? You could make an argument for either/or.
TheDarkOne93 on 20/5/2016 at 05:06
If you want go on youtube and listen to the oral arguements on the DC v Heller case.
Renzatic on 20/5/2016 at 05:16
The problem with the DC v Heller case is that the verdict was reached on an assumption of the spirit of the law, but not the terms defined within the 2nd amendment itself. It's a safe assumption, considering our rights don't always have to be specifically enumerated within the Constitution itself to be granted and enjoyed, but nowhere does the 2nd mention anything of the right to self defense.
TheDarkOne93 on 20/5/2016 at 05:27
If you look at the case it was Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia that looked at the construction of the Amendment and looked at the clauses on what the Founding Fathers intended.
Renzatic on 20/5/2016 at 05:42
Funny that Scalia would do that, since he tended to be a Constitutional literalist.
See, we don't really know yee olde founding fathers would've intended, especially when you consider that firearms are SO much more powerful and accurate today than they were during the writing of the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief in some circle, they weren't a group singularly united and always in agreement, and didn't necessarily tend towards freedom at all costs, damn the consequences.
Keep in mind I'm not saying the justices were wrong, but when it comes to interpretations such as that, especially when the verdict is divided so neatly along party lines, they're almost always open for reinterpretation later.
Renault on 20/5/2016 at 05:58
Not a big fan of guns, but I don't blame anyone who owns one. Having one under your bed or in the closet to defend yourself is fine. But walking around in public with a handgun on your belt? That just seems insane. Where are people living where you regularly have shootouts at the local mall? I think gun fanatics severely overstate their need to have a gun on them at all times to "protect themselves." This isn't the wild west. If you live in such a dangerous area where you think something like this is really necessary, then you need to get out. Because eventually your own gun will be turned on you and used against you.
And why bring up the whole argument about local militias and armies? It's not exactly a looming concern these days, and we're extremely far from being in that state of affairs. So, non-issue.
Then there's the whole topic of automatic weapons and assault rifles. Do any NRA members want to try and convince me that these types of weapons are essential for self defense?
Sorry, I know it's a little hippy 60s Woodstock-esque, but I really believe the world (and specifically the U.S.) would be a far better place if there were less guns in it. Maybe it's because while some people are smart gun users, there's way too many idiots and evil people out there who outnumber them.
TheDarkOne93 on 20/5/2016 at 06:01
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Funny that Scalia would do that, since he tended to be a Constitutional literalist.
See, we don't really know yee olde founding fathers would've intended, especially when you consider that firearms are SO much more powerful and accurate today than they were during the writing of the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief in some circle, they weren't a group singularly united and always in agreement, and didn't necessarily tend towards freedom at all costs, damn the consequences.
Keep in mind I'm not saying the justices were wrong, but when it comes to interpretations such as that, especially when the verdict is divided so neatly along party lines, they're almost always open for reinterpretation later.
Absolutely, you are very correct on that standpoint.
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 07:13
I am a firearm owner.
I own a few. A handgun, a couple of shotguns, a few hunting rifles, and an SBR AR15 that it ironically more illegal in the USA than it is in Canada where I live.
This is where somebody talks about my penis, like already happened in this thread, as though me owning multiple firearms is somehow different than me owning multiple guitars.
I'm a member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, and while I have strongly held opinions on the matter, I tend to be very matter of fact about it and I try to have empathy for those who don't agree with me. By and large I've found that a majority of non-gun owners who are against people owning any, are far more violent and bigger bullies than any gun owners I know.
I think the terror people have when they see a firearm is pretty misplaced most of the time, and it comes from a place of misunderstanding. I also undergo a criminal record check every single day as my name is run through the RCMP computers, since I have a firearms license, and my human rights are given less consideration in Canada than that of a convicted child molester.
Firearms can be a healthy, wholesome activity whether you're hunting, sport shooting, or just shooting pop cans on the farm. I also find the argument that the only argument for having guns is "I like them," is pretty immature and again, full of misunderstanding.
I think it makes no sense that our society will guard money and jewels with guns (and politicians) but not kids in school.
That about sums it up for me. I realize Canada is different than the USA, we have our own problems up here, but vetted, responsible, licensed individuals are not one of them. But the gun-control lobby seems to think we are, all the while advocating a catch-and-release style of judicial involvement when it comes to thugs and violent drug dealers.
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 07:27
Quote Posted by Brethren
Where are people living where you regularly have shootouts at the local mall? I think gun fanatics severely overstate their need to have a gun on them at all times to "protect themselves." This isn't the wild west. If you live in such a dangerous area where you think something like this is really necessary, then you need to get out. Because eventually your own gun will be turned on you and used against you.
Keep in mind, I'm from Canada as I said. But this argument, when not made by a complete fetishist makes a bit more sense with some context. Like when people actually learn how to use the thing from a certified instructor rather than just buy one because they can and carry it around with them.
The mentality is that you can carry that thing your entire life, and just be prepared to use it if the need ever arises. The guys in the military spend far less of their time actually shooting guns at people than they do everything else. They train hard for the 0.5% of the time they are shooting at somebody who is shooting at them, because that tiny percentage of time is the crux of the whole matter.
If I were to carry (I can't. it's illegal here) concealed for 50 years and never once pull it out, that's a good thing. I was prepared for something nutso to happen, but it never did. Mission accomplished. Maybe I carry it for 50 years and one day that 0.5% of the time I carry, somebody decides to do something awful and I was able to do something about it. Only once in my entire life. Well that one time was worth the 50 years of training, practice, upkeep of my skills, and carrying that heavy thing in my waist band.
Here is an excellent extension of that mentality from Travis Haley.
[video=youtube;mYJSYYWgYs0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJSYYWgYs0[/video]
There is another video somewhere that I can't find, where he tells his class that if they think they're ready to carry after one class that they're wrong. It takes more dedication than just going for a 2 day course on the matter. It really is a lifestyle, and one that only certain people who have the gumption and the self-control should pursue it. And Haley is a big 2nd amendment supporter.
You guys have a quagmire down there where you get into the right vs. privilege debate. I get pretty nervous around somebody who isn't safe handling a firearm, but if the constitution says they have a right, even without training and licensing, then I can see an issue. But I don't think anybody should be denied the right to get trained and prove they're worthy.
Some say if you're not a law enforcement officer, then why are you trying to pretend to be? I don't think that's the case, it's just wanting to be prepared for when the police can't be there in time. You're not even trying to kill anybody, you just need to make them stop what they are doing. And after all, we hand out first aid certifications to people who aren't paramedics, and nobody makes the same argument in their case.
faetal on 20/5/2016 at 09:15
I find the ideas of guns as a form of protection to be contentious. Crime never goes away - they don't all decide to straighten up because people have guns now, they just get guns too, to level the playing field. And if they assume you're armed, they'll probably shoot more readily. Unless there is some evidence that high gun ownership somehow reduces overall person on person crime? Switzerland / Finland don't count as those guns belong to the military and are kept under strict conditions - not the same cultural role at all (also, I don't think there has been any correlation between crime rates and gun ownership in those countries).
Guns as a form of fun I can get behind - I've fired guns in shooting ranges, it's pretty fun. What personally makes my skin crawl is the idea of guns as a form of personal empowerment. I don't think it is psychologically healthy to feel better if you have the option of destroying anyone you can see if necessary. These are tools whose design ethos is about the best way to terminate the life of something else. Forgive me for not seeing my guitars as equivalent.
