Why the 2nd Amendment is so important

GarfieldJL · Sep 7, 2013

I came across an article that everyone should read:

I was born in Chengdu, China. When I was growing up, the Communist Party controlled everything. There were no choices of any sort. We were all poor except the elite. The local government rationed everything from pork to rice, sugar, and flour because there were not enough supplies. We were allowed only a kilogram of pork per month for our family of five. We lived in two rooms, without heat in the winter. I got impetigo during the cold, humid winters. There were eight families living around our courtyard, and we all had to share one bathroom (a hole in the ground) for males, one for females. We had only government-run medical clinics, where the conditions were filthy and services were horrible. I was afraid of going there because I might get some other infectious diseases.

As children, we were brainwashed in school every day. We chanted daily: Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Live the Communist Party. I loved Chairman Mao. I was so brainwashed that I could see Chairman Mao in the clouds and fire. He was like a god to me. The powerful government watched us very closely, from the Beijing central government to our Communist block committees and local police stations. We had no rights, even though our constitution said we did.
Guns Against Tyranny | National Review Online

It's a 2 page article, read and discuss.

Paradoxum · Sep 7, 2013

I personally don't have a strong opinion on guns. I see the benefits and the harms, and I'm not sure how to weigh them together. This article doesn't give me anything I haven't heard before.

Maybe guns would be helpful in some future bad society, but right now in the US they get innocent people killed. I also see how they would be good for self-defence now, but again, I don't know how to weigh that against the potential innocent people killed as a result too.

GarfieldJL · Sep 7, 2013

Paradoxum said:
I personally don't have a strong opinion on guns. I see the benefits and the harms, and I'm not sure how to weigh them together. This article doesn't give me anything I haven't heard before.

Maybe guns would be helpful in some future bad society, but right now in the US they get innocent people killed. I also see how they would be good for self-defence now, but again, I don't know how to weigh that against the potential innocent people killed as a result too.

Our founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for a reason, it is because they didn't trust Government, power corrupts, and they saw the need for an armed populace for that reason. It wasn't simply about hunting, and in-home self-defense.

As far as innocent people being killed, how are guns responsible? I'm serious, a gun is an inanimate object, it can be used for good or evil, the responsible party is always the person that pulls the trigger.

Joykins · Sep 7, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
I came across an article that everyone should read:

I was born in Chengdu, China. When I was growing up, the Communist Party controlled everything. There were no choices of any sort. We were all poor except the elite. The local government rationed everything from pork to rice, sugar, and flour because there were not enough supplies. We were allowed only a kilogram of pork per month for our family of five. We lived in two rooms, without heat in the winter. I got impetigo during the cold, humid winters. There were eight families living around our courtyard, and we all had to share one bathroom (a hole in the ground) for males, one for females. We had only government-run medical clinics, where the conditions were filthy and services were horrible. I was afraid of going there because I might get some other infectious diseases.

As children, we were brainwashed in school every day. We chanted daily: Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Live the Communist Party. I loved Chairman Mao. I was so brainwashed that I could see Chairman Mao in the clouds and fire. He was like a god to me. The powerful government watched us very closely, from the Beijing central government to our Communist block committees and local police stations. We had no rights, even though our constitution said we did.
Guns Against Tyranny | National Review Online

It's a 2 page article, read and discuss.

So if this guy did have a gun he would use it in the service of Chairman Mao?

GarfieldJL · Sep 7, 2013

Joykins said:
So if this guy did have a gun he would use it in the service of Chairman Mao?

I can tell you have not read the article...

I just quoted the first two paragraphs...
The author is a woman...
She was talking about her early childhood in the first 2 paragraphs or so, and it is a 2 page article.

OldWiseGuy · Sep 7, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
Our founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for a reason, it is because they didn't trust Government, power corrupts, and they saw the need for an armed populace for that reason. It wasn't simply about hunting, and in-home self-defense.

Click to expand...

This might explain the 'ambiguity' of the 2nd Amendment,

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

However, the author errs in that the amendment gave the slave states the unencumbered means to prevent or control slave uprisings, not 'preserve' slavery.

ZephyrWiccan · Sep 8, 2013

Paradoxum said:
I personally don't have a strong opinion on guns. I see the benefits and the harms, and I'm not sure how to weigh them together. This article doesn't give me anything I haven't heard before.

Maybe guns would be helpful in some future bad society, but right now in the US they get innocent people killed. I also see how they would be good for self-defence now, but again, I don't know how to weigh that against the potential innocent people killed as a result too.

Well, one weighing would be self defense uses of guns against the number of people killed by them.

Guns are used in self defense (that includes just the visible presence scaring someone off when they try to, say, break in, and doesn't even necessitate the gun being fired) many times more often than they are used to kill people (and that includes murders, self-defense justifiable homicides, and accidental shootings) each year. The benefits seem to far outweigh the costs.

basketballjohn · Sep 8, 2013

It is well documented that the founders viewed arms in the hands of the people as a way to combat government tyranny when all other honorable means have proved fruitless. Sadly most liberals aren't interested in the wisdom of our founders and like to pretend the second amendment was created only for hunting, sporting, and self defense.

"when the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny" Thomas Jefferson

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people and making it an offence to keep arms" Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

TemperateSeaIsland · Sep 8, 2013

I'm curious at what point you guys are going to use your guns to "protect your freedoms" because the way I see it your rights and freedoms are being eroded everyday and you're not doing a thing about it.

basketballjohn · Sep 8, 2013

TemperateSeaIsland said:
I'm curious at what point you guys are going to use your guns to "protect your freedoms" because the way I see it your rights and freedoms are being eroded everyday and you're not doing a thing about it.

I'd say the most likely occurrence would be when a situation similar to the events which led to the Battle of Athens in 1946 aka the McMinn County War takes place. If you are not familiar with this righteous rebellion against government tyranny I highly recommend you research it. Basically when there is distrust in the voting process on a local level

Another cause would be if the events that led to the Cristero War in the 1920s were to happen here I can see a similar armed rebellion taking place

Another likely cause would be a dispute over nullification. Historically there have been both very small and very large battles over federalism vs anti federalism and the rights of the states. The Missouri House recently passed a bill that would allow state troopers to arrest federal officers over the issue of gun rights

Paradoxum · Sep 8, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
Our founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for a reason, it is because they didn't trust Government, power corrupts, and they saw the need for an armed populace for that reason. It wasn't simply about hunting, and in-home self-defense.

I know that is one of the reasons people give, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Britain doesn't have the school killings, and nor has it turned into a tyranny.

As far as innocent people being killed, how are guns responsible? I'm serious, a gun is an inanimate object, it can be used for good or evil, the responsible party is always the person that pulls the trigger.

I never said the gun was morally responsible. I doubt anyone ever has, considering the gun is an object.

Guns allow people to kill more other people than they otherwise would have. That's why the army uses guns, not pointy sticks.

ZephyrWiccan said:
Well, one weighing would be self defense uses of guns against the number of people killed by them.

Guns are used in self defense (that includes just the visible presence scaring someone off when they try to, say, break in, and doesn't even necessitate the gun being fired) many times more often than they are used to kill people (and that includes murders, self-defense justifiable homicides, and accidental shootings) each year. The benefits seem to far outweigh the costs.

Why do you think they outweigh the cost? Isn't the homicide rate higher in the US than the UK, even though the US has guns. I guess you could argue that the US would just simply be terrible without guns.

Why does Britain (and other countries) without guns seem to have a decent crime rate, but the US has children murdered at school? Maybe it is helpful, but it doesn't to be obviously so.

ZephyrWiccan · Sep 8, 2013

Paradoxum said:
Why do you think they outweigh the cost?

Because they do.

Isn't the homicide rate higher in the US than the UK, even though the US has guns.

Correct, they do (though they have a much higher violent crime rate than the US). Problem is, the US homicide rate has been steadily declining even as the gun ownership rate in this country has steadily climbed.

The reason for our homicide rate in the US comes from our large inner-city metropolitan areas (250k or greater in population) and the cultures that develop there (gangs, etc.). We have far more of these areas than any other country, thus it is a no-brainer that we have more crime/homicide.

I guess you could argue that the US would just simply be terrible without guns.

Nope. The steady decrease in all crimes coinciding with the steady increase in gun ownership in the US shoots down your arguments there.

Why does Britain (and other countries) without guns seem to have a decent crime rate, but the US has children murdered at school? Maybe it is helpful, but it doesn't to be obviously so.

Decent homicide rate, but a much higher violent crime rate than the US has.

I suggest giving this a watch to learn a bit on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

TheQuietRiot · Sep 8, 2013

ZephyrWiccan said:
Decent homicide rate, but a much higher violent crime rate than the US has.

False.

That only seems so because we class more things as violent crime than in the US.

PolitiFact | Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States.

Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.

TheQuietRiot · Sep 8, 2013

The right of civilians to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government may have been rational in 1789 when muskets and cannons were the biggest ordnance available but in the age of the F-22, AH-64 Apache and M1 Abrams its laughable.

stamperben · Sep 8, 2013

basketballjohn said:
I'd say the most likely occurrence would be when a situation similar to the events which led to the Battle of Athens in 1946 aka the McMinn County War takes place. If you are not familiar with this righteous rebellion against government tyranny I highly recommend you research it. Basically when there is distrust in the voting process on a local level

Another cause would be if the events that led to the Cristero War in the 1920s were to happen here I can see a similar armed rebellion taking place

Another likely cause would be a dispute over nullification. Historically there have been both very small and very large battles over federalism vs anti federalism and the rights of the states. The Missouri House recently passed a bill that would allow state troopers to arrest federal officers over the issue of gun rights

I would point you to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

lordbt · Sep 8, 2013

TheQuietRiot said:
The right of civilians to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government may have been rational in 1789 when muskets and cannons were the biggest ordnance available but in the age of the F-22, AH-64 Apache and M1 Abrams its laughable.

The principle behind private gun ownership is the right of self defense. In a free society we grant the state a monopoly on the use of force, but that does not mean we have surrendered that right. I might add that as powerful as the US military is, it is no match for an armed civilian public.

Bedford · Sep 8, 2013

Yes, the second amendment is very important. Without the second amendment, little girls probably would not be able to shoot themselves to death while camping in a national park. Yay for the second amendment.

OldWiseGuy · Sep 8, 2013

TheQuietRiot said:
The right of civilians to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government may have been rational in 1789 when muskets and cannons were the biggest ordnance available but in the age of the F-22, AH-64 Apache and M1 Abrams its laughable.

English Common Law was the 'parent' of our Constitution. Recall that violence was so rampant in 1600-1700 England that the King ordered people to arm themselves for their own protection as the government didn't have the means to protect everyone.

In colonial America private firearm ownership was common and expected. State militia's were composed of citizens that owned their own weapons and were formed for the general protection of the colony, mainly from the Indians, who were not always friendly.

Some historians hold that the 2nd Amendment insured the 'slave states' that they could 'regulate' their own militia's to defend against slave uprisings, rather than depend on Federally regulated militia's that might not come to their aid because of anti-slave sentiment.

That is why it is curious that the wording of the amendment addresses the 'security of a free state' and not the security of a slave state, for which the amendment was crafted in the first place. So the ambiguity continues.

So in fact the right of the people in general to keep and bear arms has almost nothing to do with the purpose of the amendment. Because of this individual gun rights could actually be on shaky ground. That the courts uphold the individual right time and again indicates that they are purposely turning a blind eye to the true history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps 'for the greater good' in the present time.

Paradoxum · Sep 8, 2013

ZephyrWiccan said:
Because they do.

But I was asking why.

Correct, they do (though they have a much higher violent crime rate than the US). Problem is, the US homicide rate has been steadily declining even as the gun ownership rate in this country has steadily climbed.

The reason for our homicide rate in the US comes from our large inner-city metropolitan areas (250k or greater in population) and the cultures that develop there (gangs, etc.). We have far more of these areas than any other country, thus it is a no-brainer that we have more crime/homicide.
Nope. The steady decrease in all crimes coinciding with the steady increase in gun ownership in the US shoots down your arguments there.

I thought that less people owned guns, but more guns are bought by fewer people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Crime in the UK has decreased too... without an increase in gun ownership. So perhaps the decrease is about modern culture and ways of tackling crime, rather than gun ownership.

Decent homicide rate, but a much higher violent crime rate than the US has.

I suggest giving this a watch to learn a bit on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Perhaps that is true, but the 'TheQuietRiot's post #13 seems to disagree with good reason.

Joykins · Sep 8, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
I can tell you have not read the article...

I just quoted the first two paragraphs...

The author is a woman...

She was talking about her early childhood in the first 2 paragraphs or so, and it is a 2 page article.

I went back and read it.

The problem with using privately owned guns to start revolutions is that you can easily end up putting someone like Mao in charge.

Why the 2nd Amendment is so important

Regular Member

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Regular Member

free Crazy Liz!

Regular Member

Wake me when it's soup.

ZephyrWiccan

Guest

Junior Member

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Junior Member

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

ZephyrWiccan

Guest

indomitable

indomitable

It's an old family tradition

$

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

free Crazy Liz!

Similar threads