US 2nd Amendment Thoughts?

Press_Start

What you guys feel about the section of the US constitution where you can legally own firearms?

For context about what the actual point of it; the constition states that the people of the US must be similarly armed to the US military, to prevent an injustice between the people and the government. Therefor if the US government were ever tyrannical or totalitarian against the people, the people have a means to sieze back the government. It dates back to 1777 and the old British rules.

Do you think the US is correct, or does it provide more problems that it prevents?

Do you think other countries should adopt the same regulations?

What do we think?

tomwaterford

The way the police there can shoot people with what seems like relative impunity

I couldn't blame anyone for not wanting to give up their guns unless the police do

Boom_Bap

This explains my position.

Dr Crayfish

Meh... leave them to it. We barely bat an eyelid when a mass shooting comes along now as they're all the time. I've met lots of Americans who are pro-gun so it's hard to feel any sympathy for us and it's none of our business really.

uch

I think I'll drink Beer tonight

Donald Trump

Duuuuuhhhhhhhh

The only way to stop a nutcase with 30 modified automatic weapons in a hotel is to insist that all good hotel guests check in with a minimum of 30 automatic weapons

Sure what could go wrong?

valoren

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.

Always thought that it was included to mean that if the 'United' states having won it's independence was to be attacked by a foreign or domestic power that the general populace (the militia) had the right to not only keep arms for that purpose but to also take up arms if necessary and use them in an engagement without fear of prosecution for using those weapons to defend the country i.e. you would have a license to kill. Kind of like how ambulances and guards can break the speed limit doing their duty just as the US military can use firearms doing their duty, that anyone else not involved in that line of work in an actual emergency would not be getting a speeding ticket for exceeding the limit or shooting dead an enemy of the state. That's my understanding of it.

However, the fact is that the US is in all probability never going to experience an invasion of any kind realistically so it is practically invalid today. That was written in a time when 'arms' meant muskets or some such and certainly not semi-automatic machine guns.

The issue today is that gun ownership is now a given in the US, it might be considered strange to not have a gun kind of thing. The original intent and meaning to the amendment is no longer actually valid. There is a lot of vested interests now in the gun industry. It's worth a lot of money. Many businesses have been initiated based on them and to somehow tackle it today will just result in going around in circles. To scrap the amendment and declare arms illegal would now potentially destroy society there.

To compare guns in the US, I'd liken it to alcohol in Ireland. While it is consumed by most, it is dangerous and has serious implications for people's health and society. Not that it's ever going to go away. The government make a lot of money from taxing it so like guns in the US, the issue will be kicked down the road from generation to generation regardless of the negative elements.

joe stodge

needs moar guns.

Caliden

The current interpretation has me scratching my head:

"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."


I've bolded the bit that most people forget.
There's nothing well regulated about it at the minute when someone can buy a gun without any training.

yesto24

My thoughts on gun ownership.

Do you think the crap that is in Spain recently would have happened with the citizens having a right to owning firearms?
Do you think our government and politicians would behave as they do if they thought they might be shot? Which would no doubt happen if we had the right to own guns.
Guns owned by citizens put manners on the government and politicians. That is a good thing.
But like all things, it can go too far. Like in America. Or Ireland which has gone too far the other way.
Where is the right position. I don't know exactly but it not what we have here.

Omackeral

All a misunderstanding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrNj3t6Vxo

I prefer the right to arm bears.

lazybones32

We can legally own them here too.

A Supt. signed off for a guy, i know to see, to legally own and possess a handgun. This guy also has a rifle and was considering shooting crows that were perched on a wire. It had to be pointed out to him that beyond the wire, in the direction he would be firing, is a golf course.

All other gun owners i know seem responsible.

I'm in favour of gun ownership and would like to have more choice, like America. A minigun to cut down trees and write your name on walls would be cool. The discussion of the 2nd is, well, pointless. If you don't want a gun, don't have one.

Walter Bishop

No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Press_Start

Caliden wrote: »

The current interpretation has me scratching my head:

"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."


I've bolded the bit that most people forget.
There's nothing well regulated about it at the minute when someone can buy a gun without any training.

To be fair, the majority of gun owners are responsible, vetted and are quite well trained with their weapons.

the FBI actually handle all the background checks on all applicants, and they are vetted for a number of criteria:


Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921

The problem is that it's hard to judge once someone is legally required to own a weapon, whether or not they are a responsible gun owner. Most shootings in the US occur wither with an illegal firearm, which are easier to get than anywhere else, or by someone who shouldnt have access to the legal weapons.

Mass shootings are typically the latter, and often due to careless gun ownership and allowing those who are unstable to get their hands on it.
I think it should be expanded to make sure that people who live with mentally unstable people should be restricted form buying weapons, as its the leading factor with mass shootings.

Look at the recent guy running around Dublin, grabbing cars and waving a machine pistol. The days of telling people that they can't have firearms is fast disappearing. Sure, the mainstream population has no need or desire for such weapons, but that will likely change over time since the criminals themselves have access.

Leave the US to their system, because in another 20-30 years, we'll likely be looking for handguns for our own safety.

Sonics2k

yesto24 wrote: »

My thoughts on gun ownership.

Do you think the crap that is in Spain recently would have happened with the citizens having a right to owning firearms?
Do you think our government and politicians would behave as they do if they thought they might be shot? Which would no doubt happen if we had the right to own guns.
Guns owned by citizens put manners on the government and politicians. That is a good thing.
But like all things, it can go too far. Like in America. Or Ireland which has gone too far the other way.
Where is the right position. I don't know exactly but it not what we have here.

That's just... no. All of this. No.

The Yanks are gun made and their Government is currently bending them over a barrel as they bring in more tax cuts for the rich, gut healthcare and lower most budgets except the Military.

Zebra3

Press_Start wrote: »

What you guys feel about the section of the US constitution where you can legally own firearms?

For context about what the actual point of it; the constition states that the people of the US must be similarly armed to the US military, to prevent an injustice between the people and the government. Therefor if the US government were ever tyrannical or totalitarian against the people, the people have a means to sieze back the government. It dates back to 1777 and the old British rules.

Do you think the US is correct, or does it provide more problems that it prevents?

Do you think other countries should adopt the same regulations?

What do we think?

The original idea of “the right to bear arms” was from a time of the Europeans enslaving blanks and ethnicity cleansing Native Americans.

Now, the politicians are bought off (bribed) by the gun lobby (death industry).

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

The original idea of “the right to bear arms” was from a time of the Europeans enslaving blanks and ethnicity cleansing Native Americans.

Now, the politicians are bought off (bribed) by the gun lobby (death industry).

Try to take the guns away from the people who own and are proud of their gun ownership, and you'll be facing a civil war. It really is that simple. Removing the gun from the American public is impossible, and frankly, stupid considering the number of unlicensed firearms floating around.

It's not going to happen.

Manic Moran

Caliden wrote: »

The current interpretation has me scratching my head:

"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."


I've bolded the bit that most people forget.
There's nothing well regulated about it at the minute when someone can buy a gun without any training.

Three things worth observing.

1) “Well regulated” in 1780 had a different meaning to today. It means “functioning”, not “regulatory environment.” That said, even by today’s meaning, it is still regulated, determining who is in the militia (basically all able bodied males) is clearly defined in US law, and it is enforced. Those who fail to follow regulatory compliance are blacklisted from various federal programs and jobs, and those who fail to show up for duty face jail.

2) The controlling interpretation is that of The US Supreme Court. The opinion of “Heller vs DC” is easily found online, and the court spent a fair bit of time going over the lines. If you have spare time, go find the briefs in support filed before oral arguments, some are quite interesting.

3) The Federal Constitution is not the only one on the issue. All but six States have it as well, and many of them are very explicit. For example, Delaware:, Article 1,Section 20. “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use”.
Pennsylvania’s is the oldest unchanged, since 1790. “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” Art 1, Section 21

See https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140703/guarantees-of-the-right-to-arms-in-stat

Wompa1

Been living in Arizona for 6 years. The gun culture is crazy but then America is a crazy place. The rest of the world is kind of crazy too, to keep enabling this behavior. People should boycott US products, tv, music etc. Countries should stop buying dollars to trade with. The UN should put sanctions on the US.

This is as somebody who was once very supportive of the US. I moved here to try living here, expecting to love it.

The most worrying aspect of living here isn't the acts of mass shootings, a government going off the deep end threatening to wipe North Korea off the map, police harassing and killing black people and so on and so forth. It's the lack of empathy of the regular people here. Sure, people are nice and friendly but they just can't look past themselves. They don't care about others suffering or injustices for others as long as they are their families are doing well. That's why such bad things can be perpetrated in the name of their country.

I have always thought, what the American government does can't be held against the people but in fairness, it can be as they do nothing.

I look forward to moving home to Ireland.

pitifulgod

yesto24 wrote: »

My thoughts on gun ownership.

Do you think the crap that is in Spain recently would have happened with the citizens having a right to owning firearms?
Do you think our government and politicians would behave as they do if they thought they might be shot? Which would no doubt happen if we had the right to own guns.
Guns owned by citizens put manners on the government and politicians. That is a good thing.
But like all things, it can go too far. Like in America. Or Ireland which has gone too far the other way.
Where is the right position. I don't know exactly but it not what we have here.

First thought that came to mind is Kent State Massacre, so yep the crap that's happening in Spain can happen regardless of the second amendment...

It's often claimed that Nazi Germany made gun laws more strict. The reality was, it became stricter for Jews but all other citizens got loosened laws. The average German citizen didn't attempt to stop anything with their firearms.

2011

yesto24 wrote: »

Do you think our government and politicians would behave as they do if they thought they might be shot? Which would no doubt happen if we had the right to own guns.

Rubbish!
You are correct in that there is no "right" in Ireland to own a firearm. However your post suggests that you do not realise that there are over 200,000 legally licensed firearms in Ireland.

Lots of FAQ here.

Guns owned by citizens put manners on the government and politicians. That is a good thing.

Really? So what went wrong in Ireland???

Berserker

Deleted User wrote: »

Leave the US to their system, because in another 20-30 years, we'll likely be looking for handguns for our own safety.

Don't think it'll take that long. I think people here will be having that discussion within the next 10-15 years.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Been living in Arizona for 6 years. The gun culture is crazy but then America is a crazy place. The rest of the world is kind of crazy too, to keep enabling this behavior. People should boycott US products, tv, music etc. Countries should stop buying dollars to trade with. The UN should put sanctions on the US.

You are suggesting the the RoI should cease trading with the USA until it alters it's guns laws? Who should they trade with instead?

Dr Crayfish

It's not our problem, leave them to it

The_Valeyard

Their country, their laws, their concerns.

Ill be concerned about the state of the health sector in this country, the changes in education, upcoming referendums and the 2018 world cup.

CrabRevolution

yesto24 wrote: »

My thoughts on gun ownership.

Do you think the crap that is in Spain recently would have happened with the citizens having a right to owning firearms?
Do you think our government and politicians would behave as they do if they thought they might be shot? Which would no doubt happen if we had the right to own guns.
Guns owned by citizens put manners on the government and politicians. That is a good thing.
But like all things, it can go too far. Like in America. Or Ireland which has gone too far the other way.
Where is the right position. I don't know exactly but it not what we have here.

Are you trying to say the only way to keep politicians accountable is to have them constantly fear for their lives?

You're also making the assumption that there are 2 types of governance: "good"and "bad". In reality politics and governance are a spectrum, with one man's utopia being another man's hell.

Imagine we had your scenario where citizens are legally allowed kill politicians who they reckon have failed them. Trump could be killed by an environmentalist, Theresa May could be killed by a republican, or remainer, Leo could be shot by a socialist etc.

All of the above assassins would be following your train of thought that they were in the right to "put manners on" the politicians despite them being elected (more or less) democratically.

longshanks

The whole 2nd amendment thing is just a smokescreen the gun manufacturers promote and hide behind in order to keep making money. It's only about money, nothing else.
Also it should be noted that it is an amendment to the Constitution, which is a change, which means there could be another amendment, or change, it anyone had the balls to pursue it.

2011

longshanks wrote: »

The whole 2nd amendment thing is just a smokescreen the gun manufacturers promote and hide behind in order to keep making money. It's only about money, nothing else.

.....and extreme paranoia. Many Americans seem to believe that a Mad Max / apoplectic scenario will occur any day so they need to be ready for it.