The 2nd Amendment and criminals.

5.56X45mm said:
You may live in New Zealand and I hope you enjoy it there. I will stay in the United States of America and rely on myself for my safety and not someone else in a police station. I work in Law Enforcement and I 100% support the law abiding citizen to own and carry firearms for self defense for a very simple reason. It's their right to do so.
Click to expand...

Exactly the kind of input I was looking for when I started this thread.

I agree, firearms used legally either for protection in circumstances granted via state and federal law for self defense are a freedom set in motion by the founding father's from day one, and cemented into U.S. law during the lengthy debate and final ratification of the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution as a whole following little over years of reappearances in the debates of the Constitutional Convention and finally approved along with the other amendments of the Bill of Rights on September 17 1787. Of which I carry a pocket copy of as well the Articles of Confederation before just for questions like this.

For those who are still holding augment, it's sometimes beneficial to look at the print so, I will follow on to this with a familiar piece of legislation for a refresher.

"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"



As for those who wish to attempt to ban firearms from public use or possession, I agree with the words of another well known figure, you can google the quote to find out the author.

"The Constitution is the guide from which I will never abandon"

Approaching firearm control via a banning standpoint would require a overhaul or removal of the 2nd Amendment, amendments have been change before, but never on the bill of rights. I share the grounds with the speaker of the quote above as of how the Constitution even today garuntees legal ownership of regulated firearms for private citizens. To federally ban them would be voiding the constitution, and no politician in the U.S. today can legally do that, the highest court in the country alone must even bide by that. If we abandon the Bill of Rights and imply legislation based on an on the moment design, the legislative view of the U.S. Constitution could be turned upside down, the thought of changing the U.S. constitution for every little convenience would undermind it's importance as the supreme law of the land.

In short, the freedoms granted and secured by the Bill Of Rights, would also be endangered, begs the question of "what amendment is next for the *good*of society?

Sounds like something put into effect in the USSR, scary to think about a idea like that put into practice legislatively in the U.S.


Yo,
 
Last edited:
The problem is that no matter how stirring his comments may be to claim that he is solely responsible for his own safety and that the government has no role in his protection or security is completely inaccurate.

Everything we do in a day is regulated, we require divers licenses to get to work, most professions must meet a state set standard in order to practice, electricity, water quality, housing standards to name a few I dare you to go through your days activities and find an activity that is not regulated for your or others safety so the argument that the USA is some bastion of personal responsibility is misleading at best.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that no matter how stirring his comments may be to claim that he is solely responsible for his own safety and that the government has no role in his protection or security is completely inaccurate.

Everything we do in a day is regulated, we require divers licenses to get to work, most professions must meet a state set standard in order to practice, electricity, water quality, housing standards to name a few I dare you to go through your days activities and find an activity that is not regulated for your or others safety so the argument that the USA is some bastion on personal responsibility is misleading.
Click to expand...

Actually if you choose to live off the grid, not that I choose that way of life, allot of those regulations disapear, a luxury afforded in the U.S., yes you are still regulated to follow many laws. But its just an aspect of living in a industrialized country, not many countries offer the nature of rights to every individual citizen, and not many actually have political debate in that same nature, and legistration in place to protect them.

Yes, some of the things you listed such as housing standards, electricity and water quality are regulated, but 90% of those are company imposed such as developers and construciton firms in the housing industry are the ones underneath those laws and guidelines primarly,and city water control is run through a level of goverment anyway so that answers that question, not laws imposed directly on private citizens, same can be said for qaulity control on every day products, and ironicly domestic firearms believe it or not,I rely on as well as many families around here use ground water.

Claiming that the facts of society in the industrialized world are stringent rules that require great personal sacfrice is not even valid towards gun control, I believe that you can use regulation and actual common sense to help decrease at least firearm related crime.

Easier said than done, very very much the case, but I for one do not wish to see a cession of personal freedom that is granted in the U.S., there are a lot worse places to be in the world, yet I had the fortune to be born here, so seeing a exchange for that sense of "saftey" means that you have just forfitted your personal protection to an governing body, therefor you are in a sense regulating yourself and placing your personal security towards even more goverment guidlines and control.

If I took you correctly , you just described to me a paradox you just created.

(I know that might seem like a D bag comment, but I am not trying confront , just debate. Somtimes its just difficult to word things in an non provocative way, much apologies)

Yo,
 
Last edited:
I notice that as usual the whole debate has been vigorously steered away from the subject of, "the Second Amendment and Criminals"

There will never be an answer so long as people are not willing,... no that's not right,... terrified, to honestly assess the visible evidence in relationship to the subject.

As for it being an inalienable right to keep amd bear arms, I think that if the government ever had the guts to bite the bullet, you would find that your famous "rights" are only rights so long as the goverment want them to be. Do some research on the present fuss going on over unreasonable and unwarranted searches being implemented by the Department of Homeland security at this time. Is that not a breach of the fourth amendment?
 
Yet the paradox goes on, the best all can hope for is comprise. For in the end comprise is whats its going to take.
 
My argument was a counter to 5.56's "the government plays no role in my safety" comments which are patently and obviously inaccurate as you and I have pointed out there are city, state and national laws specifically to provide security and because of this the comment
The United States Government cannot do an outright ban on firearms. It is a Constitutional Right that has been stated in the highest court in the land not once but twice that the Right for people to keep and bear arms is something that cannot be stripped.
Click to expand...

is also inaccurate simply because in the end the Constitution can be amended so in the end the your rights are just words on paper that can be rubbed out at the whim of politicians and the fact that none have chosen to do so should in no way indicate there permanence.

There is no real paradox, we are micro-managed by authority from cradle to grave for our own "security".

As for the rest I will agree with Spike in order to prevent repetition.
 
Last edited:
Maybe people in the U.S feels too strongly about independence and freedom, that they won't apply enough logic to know when a law is flawed?

The point is, the 2nd amendment allows much more illegal gun circulation in the country. It is a flawed law in todays society. It was created 200+ years ago and should be amended. It is no different from changing limited freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

I have a hard time understanding what seems to be selfish statements. What I am trying to argue is that with more restrictions on guns or a complete ban (former is most likely), we can save lives.

People still have a chance of defending themselves from a knife and such other melee weapons, but a guy five meters away shooting at you is pretty difficult to escape unless they have horrible aim lol. Most people that are killed by guns aren't carrying a weapon at the time of the situation (excluding store owners, etc.)

This arguement is all about DECREASING gun-related deaths. I am sorry, but I find movies, music, and games hard to blame things on if the parent and school is doing their job.

2nd amendment = 200 year old flawed law. Needs to be edited.
 
RayManKiller3 said:
This arguement is all about DECREASING gun-related deaths. I am sorry, but I find movies, music, and games hard to blame things on if the parent and school is doing their job.

QUOTE]

Read the books I mentioned and look at the data before coming to a conclusion. You wouldn't let your children smoke, drink, or do drugs. Yet it's perfectly acceptable for them to play first person shooter video games without regulation. Essentially they are getting the same type of conditioning to "kill" with ease that the military and law enforcement agencies get WITHOUT the safe guards in place to manage it. Every place on earth that recieved television en masse, 15 years later there was an explosion in the rate of violence in the population. 50 years ago, there was still about 1 gun for every household, yet the violent crime rate and murder from guns was 5 times lower than it is today. The OVERWHELMING evidence points in the direction of violence within the media. I was skeptical about this at first, after seeing the results though, it's makes a helluva lot of sense and it's scary how much worse it's going to get unless something is done about it.
Click to expand...
 
RayManKiller3 said:
Maybe people in the U.S feels too strongly about independence and freedom, that they won't apply enough logic to know when a law is flawed?

The point is, the 2nd amendment allows much more illegal gun circulation in the country. It is a flawed law in todays society. It was created 200+ years ago and should be amended. It is no different from changing limited freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

I have a hard time understanding what seems to be selfish statements. What I am trying to argue is that with more restrictions on guns or a complete ban (former is most likely), we can save lives.

People still have a chance of defending themselves from a knife and such other melee weapons, but a guy five meters away shooting at you is pretty difficult to escape unless they have horrible aim lol. Most people that are killed by guns aren't carrying a weapon at the time of the situation (excluding store owners, etc.)

This arguement is all about DECREASING gun-related deaths. I am sorry, but I find movies, music, and games hard to blame things on if the parent and school is doing their job.

2nd amendment = 200 year old flawed law. Needs to be edited.
Click to expand...
It's already illegal for criminals to commit crimes or posses guns, they still do. D.C. had the most stringent gun ban Laws around, yet they have the highest crime rates. The ban didn't work because criminals don't obey the law. In the War on Crime, you are proposing unilateral disarmament, the law abiding would disarm & the criminals wouldn't.
 
You cannot have captured my thoughts better, I have thrown similar comments around on this thread before.

Criminals do not care about firearms bans, as Chief Bones has mentioned, if they want guns, God help us, they will get some d#mn guns, and they will assault each other, civilians and even law enforcement, even in our nation's capital, gun crime does happen, with people who are not supposed to have firearms, even MINORS.

Criminals do not care about a firearm ban, and regulating those who obey the law to disarm will only as a whole make crime more tempting and open a whole lot more targets for armed criminals.

I do not, and will not ever feel comfortable in a public enviroment that is not without arms in the presence of criminals now bearing them,

And this nonsense about better chances with knife attacks and beatings is ridiculous, let it be a butterfly knife, or a gang beating with a aluminum bat, crime is crime, and victims are victims, banning firearms will in no way decrease gang violence towards each other, or domestic violence from occurring, especially in the presence of a controlled substance, or especially alcohol, as in many cases are. Getting beat to a pulp with a blunt object, or stabbed through the ribcage in no way SHOULD be mistaken as a lesser form of violent crime compared to shootings, often the ways and methods of such occurrences are more violent than a typical shooting.

Then the law in that effect, is not on society's side. And if I were a thug looking for a lucrative opening underground market, then guns would be were I turn to trafficking, as well as the opportunities now available me, home invasion, car theft and store robbery now gets a hell of allot easier, especially in urban areas.

No more 2nd Amendment: rest in peace our current standard of public safety, and I feel would for law enforcement, cause a huge load of more safety worries would then be dumped on their shoulders.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately now you are falling into the category that can not distinguish between what is being said and what isn't, you have jumped from regulating efficiently who can and can not own a firearm to "they want a gun ban". The two things are vastly different.

What I don't understand is how I can have lived for 7+ years (7 years + 3 months per year since 1998) in the USA and never felt like the need for any more protection than a home alarm (which came with the house) yet you start shaking at the knees at the thought of being unarmed in public?

I tend to believe there is a level of paranoia about firearms and the the need for one that drives Americans rather than rational thought, the fact is that intelligence will get you out trouble far quicker and safer than any weapon will.
 
MontyB said:
Unfortunately now you are falling into the category that can not distinguish between what is being said and what isn't, you have jumped from regulating efficiently who can and can not own a firearm to "they want a gun ban". The two things are vastly different.

What I don't understand is how I can have lived for 7+ years (7 years + 3 months per year since 1998) in the USA and never felt like the need for any more protection than a home alarm (which came with the house) yet you start shaking at the knees at the thought of being unarmed in public?

I tend to believe there is a level of paranoia about firearms and the the need for one that drives Americans rather than rational thought, the fact is that intelligence will get you out trouble far quicker and safer than any weapon will.
Click to expand...
There are people in the Govmt, Senators Shumer & Fienstien are two, who'd ban guns if they could. As far as having guns....my Dad, who was a USAF pilot, said that guns are like a parachute, something you will probably never need but if you need it, you need it real bad, & you can't go & get one @ that point.
 
Yes well I hope you pointed out to your dad that scuba kits in cars would reduce your chance of drowning if you car is submerged in water with you trapped inside and using the same reasoning "you can't go and get one at that point" it must be a valid argument.
 
As hard as if maybe for you to accept this , I would rather have in the state of Georgia for instance, a legal concealed firearm permit, and in the rare instance I get stuck up on St. Patrick's' day in Savannah in a back alley on River Street, I pull out a handgun, which by you, is an equalizer and dissuade an attack of even multiple thugs until I can legally contact law enforcement, then the need for the preservation of the 2nd Amendment become incredibly real.

The allowance of firearms is and American Phenomenon and I will legally to my up most ability support it, to give a citizen that right to equalize themselves in the defense of their well being, and preservation of their personally pursuit of happiness by holding multiple would be attackers at bay, is something I will always stand behind.

Legal support of personal safety, and preservation of such, is as American as apple pie, 4th of July and economic problems in the auto industry. If it does not have mixed opinion and mixed impact, than I guess you can call it unpatriotic.

( In no way do I intend this as a personal attack, and do encourage your counter statements. Thanks, Yo.)
 
MontyB said:
Yes well I hope you pointed out to your dad that scuba kits in cars would reduce your chance of drowning if you car is submerged in water with you trapped inside and using the same reasoning "you can't go and get one at that point" it must be a valid argument.
Click to expand...

I don't carry scuba in my vehicle but I do carry a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, road flares, traffic vest, Stanley Fubar, Dead On Annihilator, and a emergency window punch / seat belt cutter. I have use all three items in the last three months. And no... I'm not talking about using it in the course of my duties. I'm talking about using it when I was off duty in my personal truck minding my own business.

Oh... what does my first aid kit contain? CPR mask, gauze bandaging, chest seals, israeli bandages, antihemorrhagic agents, bolt cutters, leg and arm compress, splints, IV bag, butterfly bandages, anti burn wrappings, and other little goodies.

Why do I carry that? Because I might need or someone else might. Last month while traveling south bound on State Road 826. I came upon a car accident in which the driver lost control and slammed the vehicle into a concrete wall; causing the vehicle to roll over. The estimated speeds for said accident was about 70 MPH. Driver was trapped in the vehicle and the vehicle was smoking and leaking fuel.

I stopped and assisted. Got my Dead On Annihilator and smashed the windshield. Pulled the driver out by cutting the seat belt with my auto opening knife. Stablized by hold her head and neck straight. Had another good samaritan call 911 and go to my truck and grab my first aid kit. Used the splints to keep her head straight, and bandages up her left arm which was bleeding. Checked her breathing and pulse and kept her awake in case of a concussion. Once Fire Rescue arrived they took over. I got my fire extinguisher and attempted to put out the fire that was starting from the vehicle. Victim was air lifted to the hospital.

People ask why I carry all of that equipment in my truck..... that's why. Some ask why I carry a gun. Same reason.

A off duty cop that was concealed carrying in a mall stopped a cold blooded killer from shooting up the place. That officer was carrying a firearm off duty not because he was a cop but because he knows that the S can HTF any time at any place.

The law abiding public can carry and do for the very same reason. It's not just their lives that are protected by carrying.... it's the lives of others.

Tis better to have and not need then to need and not have.

A good friend of mine (who happened to be a Active Duty Urban Warfare for the USMC) was moving from Miami, FL to 29 Palms, USMC. He stopped off to get gas in Texas. While there two people accosted him at the pump. The subjects tried to pin him between his truck and the gas pump. Both guys were armed with knives and were going to stick him. He was carrying his personal GLOCK 23 under the authority of a Florida issued carry permit. He drew his GLOCK 23 and both subject simply stopped their attack and fled the area ASAP. He contacted the local PD (Dallas I believe) and filed a report. No shot was fired, no one had their blood spilled, and a crime was prevented from happening. He didn't get mugged or stabbed because he had his gun on him. Something that the military does not give him the right to do. He was carrying because I told him to get his Florida CCW, which he did and it saved his life and property.

Another good friend of mine was walking in Margate, FL with his girlfriend. He was not carrying. He was accosted by four teenagers. They threatened him that if he didn't turn over his wallet that him and his girlfriend were going to get beaten. He gave them his wallet. His girlfriend Jenny was still attacked and so was he. In the end he told me that if he had a CCW he would have had the Smith & Wesson 642 that he uses for home defense in his back pocket. The same place where he keeps his wallet. If he had his CCW he would have been able to draw his S&W and his girlfriend and him would not have gotten mugged and beaten. He now carries and has a CCW permit.
 
And how much of that will save you underwater, like you said "Tis better to have and not need then to need and not have." so better start installing that scuba kit in the truck, of course you could argue that the potential threat of needing a scuba kit in your truck is so minuscule that it isn't really a threat but then so is the reality of you actually needing a firearm for protection.

Back in 1998 the wife decided I should see the USA so over the space of two months we drove from Phoenix to Dallas from there to Green Bay then on to Detroit and a across to Niagara Falls and down the East Coast to Miami then along the bottom of the US back to Phoenix, we purchased a lot of gas and spent a lot of evenings wandering around towns and cities we knew nothing about and not once did we run into anything even remotely like the incidents you describe.

Now I am not saying the events you described have never happened, we all know crime happens and for the most part it is random but what I am saying is that an ounce of intelligence and good helping of situational awareness goes a hell of a lot further to making you safe than a S&W ever will.
 
Guys, how many lives is saved a by regular people containing a firearm? Now tell me how many lives is lost by firearms (not in defense).

I think you will find the latter overweighs the former. It is not easy picking how many you want to die emotionally, but logically it is much easier to choose 20 to die than 200, even if one of the 20 is someone you know personally.

It is about the unnecessary need of a gun to protect yourself. You will find more people is confident in commiting a crime when they have a weapon (particularly ranged weapons). Restrict the guns so much that so few is available and you have less crime involving guns.

The 2nd amendment is only flawed because it allows a HIGHLY uncontrolled circulation of firearm. This is why it needs more restriction or to be banned completely.

Even though the 2nd amendment allows people to obtain firearms quite easily, people will still go the illegal route, so I don't see much of a difference except an increase of illegal firearm trafficking (which like you said if they want it they will get it either way). Overall it will decrease the guns in circulation - that is what I am arguing about.

You guys sound like those who are for legalizing pot lol. Recall all of your arguements for keeping guns legal and those that fought for pot to be legal.

- They will get it either way (common arguement, but it ignores basic logic that if you have less available, actions with w.e it is will also be less.)
- Personal protection (This sounds too paranoid for my taste. It ignores the lives of those that are dying as a sacrifice for selfish reasons.)
- Crimes will not decrease (Not overall, but gun crime will. Restricting/banning guns will give off a ripple effect. Less deaths for more crime maybe?)

I hope you guys can come up with a better arguement where it don't sound like marijuana is the topic.
 
Where does it stop then? Once you start modifying the constitution, particularly on of the Bill of Rights, where does it stop. If the government decided that they were going to repeal the 2nd ammendment because it's outdated, for the greater good, and to save more lives. Who's to stop them from deciding that now they need to regulate freedom of speech for the "greater" good and our safety. Or now they can no longer give a trial judged by you peers because it's in the name of national security. "Big Brother Knows Best". We've basically lost the fourth ammendment to the Patriot Act and all it's fanfare. Once you start crossing all these lines, all of a sudden the lines get very blurred. Does it sound crazy and all conspiracy theoryish, yes, I know. As a student of History I know that this is how people become owned. This is how they give up their choices. It all starts with fear.

I'm not saying that I think we should have unresticted access to firearms. We shouldn't. What I am saying is that we need to be very careful about how we figure out what to take out and what to leave in regarding the constitution. I don't want to look back 50 years from now and see a country of sheep because they traded all their freedom for "protection".
 
brinktk said:
Where does it stop then? Once you start modifying the constitution, particularly on of the Bill of Rights, where does it stop. If the government decided that they were going to repeal the 2nd ammendment because it's outdated, for the greater good, and to save more lives. Who's to stop them from deciding that now they need to regulate freedom of speech for the "greater" good and our safety. Or now they can no longer give a trial judged by you peers because it's in the name of national security. "Big Brother Knows Best". We've basically lost the fourth ammendment to the Patriot Act and all it's fanfare. Once you start crossing all these lines, all of a sudden the lines get very blurred. Does it sound crazy and all conspiracy theoryish, yes, I know. As a student of History I know that this is how people become owned. This is how they give up their choices. It all starts with fear.

I'm not saying that I think we should have unresticted access to firearms. We shouldn't. What I am saying is that we need to be very careful about how we figure out what to take out and what to leave in regarding the constitution. I don't want to look back 50 years from now and see a country of sheep because they traded all their freedom for "protection".
Click to expand...


lol, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are already restricted to a certain degree. When someone realizes a law is broken, they should take it upon themselves to fix it.

If the government wanted, it could take your freedoms right now. Who is going to stop it? America is too developed for any real civil war to be successful against the government.

Just like the two things i mentioned up there being restricted, so should firearms. I am waiting for a good arguement for the points that I said above your post.


BTW: When I said it wasn't exactly the media's fault, I was talking about it is up to the education sector and parents/guardians to keep children in clear state of mind.

I do agree somewhat with what you said. Adult swim is on cartoon channel (A highly watched channel for children and teens). The media done that, knowing full well children and teens will be exposed to it so they can get higher ratings. Things like that should be regulated, but just like you said, where will it stop?

We blames this on the media, but tell me what is protecting the media from any attacks by the FCC? The Bill of Rights.... too much Freedom = ignorance while too much control also = ignorance. We must find the boundary inbetween these two factors. It is for the futures sake.

We can't call this the best country in the world to live if your chances to be killed/mugged/cheated is close to that of an undeveloped country.

I don't think we will get anywhere in this debate without going off-topic to show examples and comparisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top