Should The 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

When the 2nd Amendment was written, we were a country of about 3 million people and mostly rural dwellers. Today, we are a country of 300 million people and mostly urban dwellers. The 2nd Amendment is the current law of the land but should it be? Are guns really necessary in modern urban society or do they just create a market for more guns? The claim is that law biding citizens need guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns. The reality is that a gun is an offensive weapon not a defensive weapon. A gun can’t stop a bullet from another gun and your only hope is that the guy shooting at you is a bad shot and you are able to draw your gun and you hope that you are a better shot. That sounds uncannily like the Wild West mentality of the 19th century. Do we really need to cling to our guns just because we once had a need for the protection they afforded us while settling this country or have guns outlived their necessity? In other words, how would you vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment if given the chance and why would you vote that way?

 

I read this post several times before commenting & I think it is very telling of the elite liberal mindset, not necessarily democrats or every day liberals but the hardcore liberal elite who are threatening our country. These people think they know what's best for us & they think they know better than our Founding Fathers. Notice in his diseration dr moen believes he knows what the framers were thinking when they wrote the amendment & what is best for us now.

 

When posting what I hope are thought provoking questions for discussion and seeing some of the people who seem to live in this forum respond, I am reminded of times in my life when I have set out on a fishing trip on a quest for walleye and have only managed to catch eelpout. *Sigh!*

 

Moen,

Your position that guns are no longer necessary is predicated on the assumption that the government won't ever become a dictatorship. The second amendment goes a long way to ensure nobody ever tries to take over this country. Furthermore, you are assuming that we will never be invaded by a foreign power simply because it has not happened yet. If we are invaded, the presence of guns within communities will be essential to the formation of civilian militias in defense of the invading forces.

I know you think these scenarios are impossible, but you don't know what the state of this country or the world will look like 50 to 100 years from now. I don't know about you, but I am not willing to sacrifice the future freedom of this country in order to accomplish..... Wait, what is the purpose of banning guns again?

BTW, I don't ever recall the reason for the second amendment having anything to do with the protection against criminals. In answer to your question, I would never repeal the second amendment.

 

Notice again, dr moen is pouting that his self-described "thought provoking" post doesn't make everyone chime in with "your right dr moen" or "that's a stroke of brilliance, dr moen". At some point the liberal elitists are going to have to realize that we don't want them dictating our lives, they really don't know better than we do

 

Problem is that removing guns from the Honest law abiding citizen still leaves them in the hands of the criminals (this is why they are criminals LOL) over here we do not have much gun crime but there again we have never realy been a nation of gun owners (well not for a hundred years or so) but even with our very strict gun laws they still get used in the persuit of a crime.
I have allways said that if you are caught commiting a offence using a fierarm then you should face a automatic death penelty.

 

Another thing to consider is that in GB you haven't had a 230+ year Constitutional right as we have had here.

 

Yes, we should continues to be allowed to own guns. Both as defense against criminals and as a potential defense of our liberties.

Guns are an offensive weapon that can be used for defense. I spent 20 years in the military and, even when I carried a weapon, I was never allowed to use it in an offensive manner under any circumstances. However, I was authorized to use it to defend myself, or even patients, if the need arose. It didn't do much good against constant mortar and rocket attacks but we still carried them in case things ever got more personal. .

Truthfully, if someone breaks into your home with a gun, it is the so-called 'wild west'. The warm fuzzy theory and veneer of a 'modern society' will break down rather quickly when someone is on the receiving end of an attempted violent crime. And, while you can't stop a bullet with your gun but you may be able to stop the shooter. It does happen and more often than is ever reported in the media.

Outlawing guns would only ensure that law abiding people don't use them. The criminals would still smuggle them, sell them and use them to other criminals. Just like drugs. Drugs are illegal but there are plenty of them around.

I am not a huge fan of conceal and carry even open carry but the right to own a gun and have it in your own home is a right that I do not believe has outlived its usefulness. And, as long as humans are humans, I think it probably never will.

 

Have to agree that I am not too keen on the carrying of fierarms in public other than by Law enforcement officers but for home protection certainly. The unfortunate thing is some folks can and will get trigger happy in certain situations and if all were to openly carry guns you could end up with a OK Corral type gunfight

 

" The beauty of the second admendment is that it will not be needed until the try to take it away" - Thomas Jefferson

 

I never suggested we ban guns nor would I. I suggested that we might want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. I believe that gun ownership and access has to be re-evaluated but with an Amendment like the 2nd, there is no room for alternatives. It just gives everyone the right to own a gun...Period! That is stupid and too encompassing to actually work in a modern urban society. It doesn't allow us to ban guns even in the most violent neighborhoods plagued with guns. If we eliminated the 2nd, we could move forward on sane gun ownership laws rather than having any reasonable gun restrictions struck down by the 2nd Amendment.

Guns aren't the problem necessarily, it is who has access to them that is the problem. You can't arm law abiding citizens without also arming criminals. Heck, I love hunting but does that mean I want inner-city gangs to be able to get access to the same weapons I use for hunting. Well according to the 2nd Amendment, there is no way to limit their access without limiting my access. The 2nd Amendment is arming criminals. You can't deny that. The Amendment is too broad and needs to be refined but you can't refine an Amendment, you must eliminate it and write a new one.

As far as the government going rogue or a foreign power invading us, what do you really think your peashooter is going to do against military hardware anyway? Unless you have a tank parked in your garage, you're screwed anyway.

 

Hmmm...kinda sounds like someone who is against the right to bear arms but just doesn't want to admit it, doesn't it?

 

Moen, if this is what you believe then go for it. Contact your Congreesman, go to your nearest street corner, spew this repeal idea in your indoctrination classes.....see were it gets you. Since you and your kind make up only 20% of the population and it takes 67% in Congress and 75% of the states to repeal........let the public shoot you down like you get shot down repeatily in this forum.

 

Did someone hijack your account. This does not sound like the writing of a member of academia. It is plagued with emotion and lacking in both logic and practicality.

You think that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment so that we can create a law that bans guns in urban areas mired by gang violence. For starters, that sounds a whole lot like racial profiling to me and I doubt that it would fly in the extreme PC enviroment of the modern age. You keep harping on the fact that you don't want criminals to have guns and that the second amendments guarantees them the right to own a gun. I have news for you. Criminals are people who have existing felonies on their records. Felony offenders are not permitted to own guns legally. Therefore you don't need to change any laws or amendments to accomplish your goal. You simply need better enforcement.

The problem is that criminals are not interested in following the law. Create all the laws you want banning guns and the criminals will still get them and use them. Why, because they are criminals. That is what criminals do. They break the law.

If you are really serious about reducing gun violence in this country then I suggest you fight it at the source. Instead of worrying about legislation that makes guns illegal, support legislation that makes drugs legal. The illegal drug trade is single biggest cause of violence in the United States. Whenever you ban the legal distribution of something with the demand equal to that of illegal drugs, you guarantee that a criminal enterprise will form in order to control the distribution. Legalize drugs and the watch the crime in this country plummet. In addition, you can tax the hell out of it and take a big bite out of our current deficit.

 

I grew up with guns in the house out in the country where I and my brothers regularly hunted. I don't have fear of guns. I fear idiots with guns. The problem is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't differentiate between idiots and responsible gun owners. The current laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are always struck down because of the broad language of the 2nd Amendment. All I'm suggesting to tightening it up.

Your point about criminals having police records is essentially untrue. Many criminals never get caught at least not the smart ones. We can both keep guns and add a level of responsibility to that ownership that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. For example, if you buy a gun, you own everything that is done with that gun both legally and illegally. For the right to bring a deadly weapon into society, you own the responsibly as well. Believe me guns wouldn't simply slip into criminals hands if the gun owner was sentenced right along side of the guy who used his gun to commit a crime. Imagine the security measures that a gun owner would take trying to keep his gun from being stolen. A gun isn't so much security, defense, a right, or a tool as much as it is a responsibility and we have to start treating it like one.

As far as racial profiling goes, when did I at any time at all mention race? I said inner-city and urban. That's a lot of different races last time I checked.

I do think legalizing drugs would help solve the gun violence problem but would we be exchanging a gun problem for a drug problem if we were to do that? No doubt liquor created organized crime and illegal drugs created drug lords. If it wasn't for the religious Right wing, liquor never would have been banned in this country. It was short-sight and stupid and prohibition was repealed in 1933 because the country needed the taxes more than it needed a temperance movement. The same could be said for legalizing drugs today.

 

Again, it won't matter what law you pass in order to prevent the criminals from getting them. If you close the legal avenue they will obtain them illegally. BTW, I would be willing to wager a significant amount of money that the majority of firearms used by gangs are illegal weapons. The gang members are usually in the business of drug dealing. In order to engage in that activity, they must have firearms. The firearms are obtained mostly via illegal arms sales.

Wait, let me understand this. You want to punish individuals who have not committed a crime by taking away their right to own a firearm because they live in an area dominated by criminal activity. Every single former drug dealer I know has a felony convicition on their record. I don't know about these brilliant criminals that you speak of who manage to evade the law indefinitely. I would however like to point out that the current prison populations do not support your claim that many criminals never get caught.

Your next point is the most ridiculous by far. Under your plan, a victim of a crime (robbery) becomes the criminal because his gun was stolen. Let's just throw out the rest of the consitituition in order to fix part of it that isn't broken to start.

Please name one inner city gang known for gun violence that is not predominantly a minority group?

Currently, we have both a drug addiction problem and a gang violence problem. I would gladly exchange less violent criminals for more drug addicted citizens. Just think, we could convert all of those overcrowded prisons into drug treatment facilities.

 

I think what dr moen is really hoping to accomplish is a defacto ban on all guns. If honest, legal gun owners are crucified when a gun they owned at one time is used in a crime then eventually we will all be afraid to make a purchase. What else could he be advocating. He wants it to be illegal for criminals to own guns? Isn't that the case in most places?
You really have to watch the rhetoric of these radical lefties...they are just looking for that initial foothold before they force their will.

 

Define an illegal weapon. Weapons are produced legally, sold to licensed gun dealers only, and sold to the eventual user. At what point do they become illegal weapons?

No, I didn't say that and you are paraphrasing me rather badly here. I said make the owner of a legal firearm responsible for how that gun is used. What is wrong with responsibility? Why should someone be able to bring a deadly weapon into society, lose control of that weapon or willingly sell it to unscrupulous characters and I have to get shot for his lack of responsibility?
How many drug dealers do you know? Would you know if they were drug dealers if they hadn't been convicted? Do you think every drug dealer you know is representative of the entire country? If they were smart, you'd never know that they were drug dealers. Am I nit-picking? No, just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

He doesn't become a criminal unless his gun is used in a crime. Then he is just as guilty because he failed to keep his gun properly secured and maybe not willingly but by default armed a criminal. There would be a lot less stolen guns and the judge would always have the final say anyway.

Italian organized crime in New York. Irish organized crime in Boston. Any number of white biker gangs in just about any city in the country. The Polish organized crime families in Chicago. Need I go on or have I sufficiently expanded your concept of gangs yet?

No argument from me.

 

If I have to explain this to you then you really have no business debating this issue. It is illegal to own fully automatic AK-47's in any state. These guns are used by drug cartels and gangs within the United States. Explain to me how they got them legally? The answer is they didn't, they were acquired via an illegal arms sale. BTW, you are very close to pulling a Craig on this issue as I beleive you already understood what I meant.

You said you wanted to ban guns in violent neighborhoods did you not? There is nothing wrong with responsibility, but unless you can prove that the person was negligent in their handling of the weapon, I will never support the future use of that weapon as a crime by the original owner.

I know many drug dealers, some active, some not. I certainly think the sample of dealers I know is more representative than the fiction that you have created since you don't know any. All of the hard core cocaine dealers from the 80's were caught and served long federal prison sentences. A good friend of mine was a meth dealer in California for years who was never caught dealing drugs. However, he does have a felony conviction for assualt. Both marijuana dealers I know have criminal records unrelated to drug dealing. BTW Moen, answer me this. If nobody knows they are drug dealers, how do they sell the drugs? And my statements are absurd.

The organized crime families could qualify as a gang although I think the majority of the people killed by the mafia gave the mafia a reason. I was not aware that biker gangs were known for gun violence?

 

I live in Arizona where anybody can carry openly. Recently we just passed legislation that anyone can conceal now if the gun is purchased legally and registered properly. I am against this for the following reasons.

I have a concealed carry permit, and during the classes, you learn every gun law in your state, as well as the federal laws. As a long time gun owner, I was stuned at what I DID NOT know about the laws.

I believe that to purchase a gun, you should be required to take the class.

It is proven by facts and statistics, that when gun sales go up, crime goes down. I'll start you with this one, since BO was elected, gun sales have gone up near 100%, yet FBI.GOV crime stats show that murder and gun crimes have dropped significantly. This happens in town after town, state after state, nationwide.

If you dont know whos packin a heater, you less likely to F with them........Here in AZ, nearly every gun crime is gang related with the gangsters killing gangsters and Im cool with that.

And, to answer Moens question, you cannot repeal our right to own guns. the government does not give us that right and cannot take it away. It is an unalienable right given to us by our creator.....read the Constitution