It makes sense. People don't have to hunt for food - hunting in general is down over the last 50 years and will likely continue to decline. You also have the rise in equality for women who now are the head of their own household or are in more position to make decisions and women don't care for guns. And crime rates are down, so people feel safer.
And then there's just the general humanity of killing someone. The majority of Americans believe in God and don't believe killing is moral. I'm sure technology will improve in the future so you can protect yourself without having to kill someone in the process. And the religious zealots will eventually turn their attention to this issue and say every life is sacred and every life should be protected. It's kinda weird that they're so adamant about protecting babies today by trying to outlaw abortion, but a lot of these same folks are ok with killing someone to protect themselves. I'm sure that will eventually change as generations change. Most young people lean the opposite direction and I don't think guns are as important to them as the older crowd.
I looked up gun stats in case anyone is interested:
I thought this part was interesting/applicable to the self defense discussion:
Everytime a gun injures or kills in self-defense, one is used:
- 11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
- 7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
- 4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury
Based on these numbers, we'd be better off if 1 person got murdered/assaulted in a crime where they didn't have a gun to protect themselves than for 22 people to experience the gun violence. It makes the tradeoff pretty clear, you protect yourself at the cost of 22 other Americans. Those are horrible numbers if accurate and make it absolutely clear why gun ownership doesn't make a lot of logical sense.
Plus, when it's your life, or the life of your wife or kid, that's in danger, I don't think you're going to be thinking about trading off that life for 22 others.
And yes, I get that you and your family's life are more important than 22 other people to you. But collectively for the well being of society, the 22 people are more important than you unfortunately. So I think it could be in all of our best interests to sacrifice you or me for the better good. And those 22 probably are probably made up of us, our wives, and kids or someone's family because those 22 individuals have to have access to the gun from somewhere.
Plus the fact that random people have guns might have some impact on protecting all of us, so in that sense, I also like the idea of people being able to own guns. We'd all likely be safest with the possibility of everyone having a gun, but not having one in our individual households. I think that might somehow be the house odds, but again, I can't quantify it.
AK 47s for hunting, the "I'm a collector" explanation for the 500 firearms in the house … those things are just bogus, and the right of anybody to collect like that, or liquify their hunting targets IMO is *far* outweighed by the rights of the rest of us for the common good.
But I have a hard time countering the argument that there is one unassailable reason that gives any one of us the right to weaponize ourselves and our homes as much as we want to - to protect oneself and family against the tyrrany of the government when they come to take you away.
Now, I don't believe that is likely any time soon, but I have no good argument to counter the person who points out that recent history is full of examples of people saying just that before they disappear. And to be honest, that probably is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment - "Dear King George, please know if you come a calling, you should expect to be met by a lot of lead".
Some people may believe we need to protect ourselves like that against *this* government. I personally disagree, but can I tell that gun guy with certainty that we won't need to against the next one, or the one after that?
Like I said, I couldn't argue convincingly against that point of view. Anyone else able to?
Last edited by SanAntonioSteelerFan; 07-24-2013 at 11:32 PM.
We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!
HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!
The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in, primarily, so that we could have firearms for hunting deer, but as a safeguard against tyrannical government. Our forefathers saw this to be important because of what they had just been through to gain independence. Our history is unique to the histories of Canada and Australia in this regard.
Just because this fascinates me..
The Second Amendment states:
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.What did "militia" mean to the framers? Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation had required that:
every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.And the original Constitution, written just two years before the enactment of the Second Amendment (the Bill of Rights was passed by Congress in 1789, but not ratified until 1791) also provided for a "militia":
The Congress shall have the power . . .
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840). From the Texas Supreme Court:
The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872). And from the West Virginia supeme court:
In regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] Amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia.
I apologise. I hadn't realised there were so many trained, regulated militiamen on the website.
That said, it's a bit odd that there is no reference to owning a firearm in order to protect your own family..
Schiavone's Race Career:
1. To protect yourself from the gov't, you'd need a stockpile of nuclear weapons greater than the rest of the world combined. When this amendment was written, a bullet didn't even exist.
2. If you really tried to protect yourself today, it would be considered terrorism
3. The amendment protects the rights of "the people" to keep and bear arms without being infringed. However, in practice, certain subsets of the people are prevented from buying guns - mentally ill, criminals, children for example. We've essentially been enforcing this amendment randomly. So why not just say everyone falls into a subset of people considered "idiots" and selectively decide they can't have guns. This is supposed to protect all the people, but it doesn't. We decide some people can have guns and others cant.
4. The amendment is about a militia being necessary for the security of the free State. This is about state's rights vs the federal gov't. Again, my state isn't stockpiling nuclear weapons. Is yours? Do the States still need to protect themselves from the federal gov't by their own militias? It's not pragmatic and won't ever happen.
At the end of the day times change. Technology changes. People change. Things that had meaning for a particular people in a particular time period don't necessarily have meaning for people in a different time period. I think we should try and read the amendments through the lens of the people of the time period in which they were written and extract their meaning through those lenses. And if things are applicable today, great. If not, they're not.
I don't see how the 2nd Amendment makes much sense for us today really. It's nothing that the NRA and gun fans try to tell us it is. I doubt most people have read the Bill of Rights. Here's #2. This makes little sense to me in the context of current society.
"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."
And at the end of the day, even Thomas Jefferson said:
"Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."
So I would think that TJ might feel that gun ownership in today's society may not make sense or be the intention of the 2nd amendment. Again, these guys hadn't even seen bullets yet, let alone the stockpiles of weapons of the US military. It's actually quite laughable to consider the states could have their own militias to defend against the US military.
It's quite possible that TJ and others thought very similar to Chadman. And the intent was never what the 2nd amendment has been turned into by the marketing of the NRA. Guns, weapons, military, regulation are huge business in the US. This amendment doesnt protect the people, it protects the vested interests of people that make money selling guns. Fear is one of the best motivators for people to spend money. In a way, this fear has been used to control us all and enslave us to the system. It's become impossible to protect ourselves from the system which was the original point. But we have our guns. And we feel like we're in control. But nothing could be further from the truth. How can a man in fear ever truly live free? Tyranny owns us.