More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems the argument for guns making a safer society would apply then to arming all nations with nukes to make a safer world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although there might not be particularly good reason to expect this to hold true, to some extent this really has been the case. No nuclear powers have ever directly gone to war with each other -- this has resulted in the longest period of sustained peace between major European powers for centuries. On the other hand, if I have a gun, and some maniac who is explicitly threatening my life is reaching for a gun -- I certainly am not obligated to let him pick it up and carry out his threats. The analogy to current world politics is obvious.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The right to own firearms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of our country. There is no worldwide Constitution that guarantees every country the right to bear WMD's. This is not even close to being the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know how touchy a subject the Constitution is for Americans, but is it terrible to reconsider rules that were written some 220 years ago? Society has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of being the ultimate check and balance against tryanny. An armed population who does not want to be governed cannot be governed.

Now, think of things like the Patriot Act, the Japanese internment camps, the Vietnam drafts, etc., etc. These do not constitute tryanny (at least in most of our minds, the Austrians respectfully excluded), but these certainly mean that the risk of tryanny exists, even in today's America.

That said, there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
One more question though- if it is right to allow individuals to own firearms,

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of you allowing someone else to do something. This implies that they need your permission.

Governments have no rights, BTW.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, think of things like the Patriot Act, the Japanese internment camps, the Vietnam drafts, etc., etc. These do not constitute tryanny (at least in most of our minds, the Austrians respectfully excluded)

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I think these are condemned by a lot more than just us Austrians, in decreasing order from internment camps, Vietnam, and Pat act. What about slavery, do you condemn that as tyranny?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The right to own firearms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of our country. There is no worldwide Constitution that guarantees every country the right to bear WMD's. This is not even close to being the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know how touchy a subject the Constitution is for Americans, but is it terrible to reconsider rules that were written some 220 years ago? Society has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of being the ultimate check and balance against tryanny. An armed population who does not want to be governed cannot be governed.

Now, think of things like the Patriot Act, the Japanese internment camps, the Vietnam drafts, etc., etc. These do not constitute tryanny (at least in most of our minds, the Austrians respectfully excluded), but these certainly mean that the risk of tryanny exists, even in today's America.

That said, there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, morph. Agree with each of your points and think they are far too often ignored.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, think of things like the Patriot Act, the Japanese internment camps, the Vietnam drafts, etc., etc. These do not constitute tryanny (at least in most of our minds, the Austrians respectfully excluded)

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I think these are condemned by a lot more than just us Austrians, in decreasing order from internment camps, Vietnam, and Pat act. What about slavery, do you condemn that as tyranny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Brother man, none of that is tryanny... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't it have been written "the right of the states to keep and bear arms"...instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? I think the argument to which you are referring indeed claims that the right is contingent uponm militias, but does not further claim that those militias must be under the control of the state government. As above, if they wanted it to refer to the right of "states", they would have used that word instead of using the word "people".

edited:

It seems to me that if the text is referencing the right to bear arms solely for the purposes of a militia, it is still referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for such purpose: not the right of states to so keep and bear.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems the argument for guns making a safer society would apply then to arming all nations with nukes to make a safer world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although there might not be particularly good reason to expect this to hold true, to some extent this really has been the case. No nuclear powers have ever directly gone to war with each other -- this has resulted in the longest period of sustained peace between major European powers for centuries. On the other hand, if I have a gun, and some maniac who is explicitly threatening my life is reaching for a gun -- I certainly am not obligated to let him pick it up and carry out his threats. The analogy to current world politics is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Staying with the analogy, what do you do when the known maniac, who maybe has threatened you in the past, is tying to buy/maintain possession of a gun?

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That leaves us with morality. And it's pretty clear - you're either for violent intervention in other people's business or you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the crux to political discourse in general. Either you believe one side, or you believe the other, and rarely do the other side's arguments sway your opinion. Glad we spent all this time, though [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying you're for violent intervention in other people's business?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm... not quite sure how you draw this conclusion from my quote.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The right to own firearms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of our country. There is no worldwide Constitution that guarantees every country the right to bear WMD's. This is not even close to being the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know how touchy a subject the Constitution is for Americans, but is it terrible to reconsider rules that were written some 220 years ago? Society has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of being the ultimate check and balance against tryanny. An armed population who does not want to be governed cannot be governed.

Now, think of things like the Patriot Act, the Japanese internment camps, the Vietnam drafts, etc., etc. These do not constitute tryanny (at least in most of our minds, the Austrians respectfully excluded), but these certainly mean that the risk of tryanny exists, even in today's America.

That said, there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, morph. Agree with each of your points and think they are far too often ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that. Thought the post was well written.