+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Rubik's Cube (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Thread: Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? (/showthread.php?tid=17396)
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Matt - 2009-10-08
Personally I think that the second amendment needs to be brought into the 21st century. There are good and bad aspects of it, but in general, I don't think it relates to society today.
For the arguments about the 'revolt' and the amendment protecting our rights to guns, I don't think it will help. If there'll be a revolt in a modernized state, it's going to be by an army armed with weapons way more deadly than a handgun. It will have explosives and items not protected by the second amendment.
Then again, it's certainly situational, but police are not a service for preventing crime - they are a service for capturing criminals and providing security in some situations and they certainly cannot be there to protect everyone and everyone has the right to protect themselves. I just don't think guns should be the way they need to protect themselves with.
Another argument is that mere guns are not sufficient. So should citizens be allowed to own tanks? It is essentially equivalent to a rifle in 1776. Or, maybe not a TANK, but perhaps a bomb. Should citizens be allowed to own bombs? For the sole purpose of possibly using it against the US government.
It sounds absurd but that's exactly what the 2nd amendment is. It says: Hey, look US Government. Don't mess up because we've got a whole country of people with guns watching you. But I just don't see how that holds true today. I don't see government legitimately fearing uprising from the citizens if they mess up.
Thoughts?
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - TøbiasBlack - 2009-10-08
the right to bear arms enables one to keep and possess a weapon to defend their homes and property, essentially. guns is taken out of that by the word arms, obviously. what is instead needed is not to teach children that guns are bad, but that they are dangerous tools which need to be learned about at an earlier age so these incidents of accidental gun-related deaths can be avoided.
OT: IMO it already is in the 21'st century. though state legislature limits that, and it varies state by state, everyone in america has the right to own a firearm, anything more is excess and not protected by the bill of rights. a vehicle cannot be a firearm, because it is obvously a vehicle. that would alleviate the notion of bombs, an explosive device, and tanks. though, there also exists the rights to a peaceful protest, which is also in the bill of rights. if one feels that the government is wrong about an issue, you have every right to stand at the front gates of the white house and hold a sign up that contains a peaceful yet protestful message. so long as you do not make a ruccus by shouting, jumping up and down, or running around, the government cannot legally make you leave a public place.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Matt - 2009-10-09
The intent of the second amendment was TO be able to be able to violently overthrow the government if, and only if, it become oppresive.As I stated before, a gun will not help in this scenario, although it did in 1776.
Being able to own a gun and only being able to peacefully protest are two different things. The second amendment was not intended to allow you to own a gun and only peacefully protest.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Kurtle - 2009-10-09
TobiasBlack Wrote:the right to bear arms enables one to keep and possess a weapon to defend their homes and property, essentially. guns is taken out of that by the word arms, obviously. what is instead needed is not to teach children that guns are bad, but that they are dangerous tools which need to be learned about at an earlier age so these incidents of accidental gun-related deaths can be avoided.
OT: IMO it already is in the 21'st century. though state legislature limits that, and it varies state by state, everyone in america has the right to own a firearm, anything more is excess and not protected by the bill of rights. a vehicle cannot be a firearm, because it is obvously a vehicle. that would alleviate the notion of bombs, an explosive device, and tanks. though, there also exists the rights to a peaceful protest, which is also in the bill of rights. if one feels that the government is wrong about an issue, you have every right to stand at the front gates of the white house and hold a sign up that contains a peaceful yet protestful message. so long as you do not make a ruccus by shouting, jumping up and down, or running around, the government cannot legally make you leave a public place.
You are mistaken. In the 14th Amendment the rule of incorporation was applied. All states are forced to comply with all, and any, governmental legislature. One can argue that the government grants us the ability to bear arms, but states can limit that by placing requirements. The NRA is also willing to appeal to the Supreme Court at any minute to reinforce the 2nd Amendment.
In regards to the OP, the 2nd Amendment is necessary. It allows citizens the ability to protect themselves. However, there is a laundry list of flaws that come with the right to bear arms that will some day be dealt with.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Berzerk - 2009-10-09
It's our government, we have the right to overthrow it. That's why the 2nd amendment is in place.
What do you think the Civil War was? The south didn't like what was going on, so they seceded from the union, bringing upon the Civil War. If the 2nd amendment wasn't in place, do you think the south would have had a chance?
Quite frankly, it also doesn't apply to today. I would expect us to do jack-squat if the Government pineapples up. But, the 2nd amendment was put there to give us the right to overthrow it, because it is a Democracy.
People shouldn't fear their Government, the Government should fear it's people.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Russt - 2009-10-15
Guns are not the way.
And I don't even see how the constitutionality of overthrowing the government is even relevant. If we get to the point where that kind of action is necessary, I doubt anyone will care much whether what they're doing is constitutional anyway.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Blaine - 2009-10-15
Russt Wrote:If we get to the point where that kind of action is necessary, I doubt anyone will care much whether what they're doing is constitutional anyway.
I agree, but seeing as nobody did jack pomegranate when George W. Bush was president, apparently it'd take a pretty damn big f[COLOR="red"]uck up to make people that angry...[/COLOR]
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Stereo - 2009-10-15
I'm fine with the 2nd amendment, I don't like the way it's interpreted.
I don't mind people having guns on private property (they can be responsible for their own safety - really the policy is up to the owner) - but concealed carry in public I do not want. If you're transporting a gun it should be visibly unable to fire (hammer out, whatever it takes for the particular weapon), or packaged in such a way that it is not visible and not readily accessible. Any gun seen in public failing this to be confiscated and relevant licenses revoked where possible. If it comes to the point of revolution, and militias being formed, these really can't be enforced anyway, and owning it on your own property is okay.
An exception I can think of is apartments or other attached living - if your weapon is still lethal after going through the typical wall or two, you must inform anyone within that range and obtain their consent to have it armed. If they don't agree you can still own it but again it must be in a state where it cannot be fired.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - TøbiasBlack - 2009-10-16
Berzerk Wrote:It's our government, we have the right to overthrow it. That's why the 2nd amendment is in place.
What do you think the Civil War was? The south didn't like what was going on, so they seceded from the union, bringing upon the Civil War. If the 2nd amendment wasn't in place, do you think the south would have had a chance?
Quite frankly, it also doesn't apply to today. I would expect us to do jack-squat if the Government pineapples up. But, the 2nd amendment was put there to give us the right to overthrow it, because it is a Democracy.
People shouldn't fear their Government, the Government should fear it's people.
1) not really related to the topic, as who would want to rise up and revolt actually?
2) like stated, if the nation survived bush, then we can survive obama. itd take an act of pure evil to insight a revolt.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - revansithasasin - 2009-10-16
it was put in place for the people to be able to defend themselves against an oppressive government that is true, but that is not the only reason it was put in place. the founders realized that by default man is an inherently evil beast that will prey on others for its own benefit given the opportunity. the ability to defend oneself in such a situation can be the difference between someone leaving you alone and going on their merry way, you not getting hurt, or you winding up dead in an alley over the two dollars in your wallet the thief did not believe was all you had. the general consensus is that if the gun becomes necessary the situation has escalated out of control anyway and it is either irrelevant or among the only viable options.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Huggablehobo - 2009-10-16
My personal thoughts on it all was that this ammendment was established, but was never truely allowed. It has always been debated on what the true meaning of it is, and to what extent is it considered an exception. Like with todays technology, many people are arguing that it should be legal to carry high powered, automatic weapons. But it was made back in colonial days, when guns were very basic.
Not to mention the fact that social life nowadays has changed, and people are waaay more out of control. If it were as life was back in the late 1700's-early 1800's, i'd say keep this ammendment. But as of now, with life as it is, i'd say get rid of this ammendment. What has guns ever done for us that has been GOOD (i mean in our community, not on battle fields, or hunting grounds) Today, we dont have to worry about them Brits coming onto our land by surprise and shooting and causing rampage, so we dont really have to be ready for war. High security and military personel are there for a reason.
idk, its just my personal opinion
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - Matt - 2009-10-16
1) not really related to the topic, as who would want to rise up and revolt actually?
For example, the people who started this nation.
Is the Second Amendment necessary in today's society? - revansithasasin - 2009-10-17
Huggablehobo Wrote:My personal thoughts on it all was that this ammendment was established, but was never truely allowed. It has always been debated on what the true meaning of it is, and to what extent is it considered an exception. Like with todays technology, many people are arguing that it should be legal to carry high powered, automatic weapons. But it was made back in colonial days, when guns were very basic.
Not to mention the fact that social life nowadays has changed, and people are waaay more out of control. If it were as life was back in the late 1700's-early 1800's, i'd say keep this ammendment. But as of now, with life as it is, i'd say get rid of this ammendment. What has guns ever done for us that has been GOOD (i mean in our community, not on battle fields, or hunting grounds) Today, we dont have to worry about them Brits coming onto our land by surprise and shooting and causing rampage, so we dont really have to be ready for war. High security and military personel are there for a reason.
idk, its just my personal opinion
the one problem i see here is that, even you say that people now are way more out of control. if i am wrong in the way im about to describe the way you meant it correct me, but it seems to me you are pretty much saying that you don't trust people to have guns. while it is true that many people who have guns do not need them, or should not have them due to their mentality regarding one, people are going to be unpredictable with or without them. if you give a good man a gun he may never use it, give a not so good man a gun and he may take from you everything else. guns are always going to be available even if they are ever outlawed, that much should be clear. look at britain and other anti-gun societies, they still have significant gun violence issues. in my opinion, just leaving the amendment in place allows for additional safety just by itself. simply because if someone looking to come into your house and rob you thinks you might be armed, he may stay away, but if he knows like any good citizen, you dont have a gun, he is more likely to come on in, whether he has a gun or not.
police often rely on just their gun being visible and the person in question knowing of its existence to diffuse an otherwise hostile situation without ever having to use it. likewise, just having one, or having someone think you have one makes them much less likely to try and commit crimes against you.