Second Amendment Reinstated in Washington

[Raggit]

In all situations, resolving the conflict or just escaping to call the cops is always the best course of action.

But having a weapon onhand is insurance against a situation where you can't make peace or run away.

Let me cite a specific example.  A year or so back I posted a thread about a very insecure and clingy girl who became certain within a staggeringly short amount of time that we were soulmates and should be married.  

She had a pysco boyfriend who was possessive to the point of making her check in and out with him before she went anywhere, and as soon as he found out that we (me and her) had been talking, he promptly made a trip to see me at school one day.

I stepped out in the hall to speak with him, and he immediately came up in my face and was making threats and so on.  After I managed to explain that it was HER who was coming onto me, and that I wasn't interested anymore, he seemed remotely satisfied, but made a threat along the lines of, "if I even so much as THINK that there's anything going on, I'll be back."  Fortunately, that confrontation resolved without any real problems.

But after that, I started carrying a bat in the backseat of my car.  The reason is because you cannot predict the behavior of these kinds of people.  Things happen faster than you can imagine, and before you know it, he might have a group of his buddies there to beat the crap out of me if he invented some reason in his drugged-out mind to do so.  If could talk my way out, great.  If I could escape better.  But if it came down to me versus a group of trailer trash punks, I'd rather have a bat or a gun than nothing at all.

This guy is in prison for meth now, and I haven't seen or spoken to her in a long, long time, but I still keep the bat in the car.

The moral of the story is that, in a world (or nation) full of crazy people who have nothing to lose, you never know WHO you're going to inadvertantly piss off, or how far they'll go.  

Disco,

I'm hardly wealthy-looking, and I don't drive a nice car.  I said a GUN is for intimidation purposes.  A bat is useless agaisnt a gun for ANYTHING. 

And further more, I don't worry about being robbed at all.  If all they want is a TV or some other gizmo in my house, no worries.  I can get another.  I'm worried about people who come after ME.

[Snarky]

Recently, two young girls were shot to death along a lonely country road in Oklahoma.  In 2005, a co-worker of my dad's got drunk and went to his ex-wife's house and shot her in the throat with a shotgun.  A couple weeks ago, there was a gunfight in a neighboring town that's even smaller than mine where a man was shot dead in his apartment.   These are all things that are happening around me in what is supposed to be a small community rural area.  This is why I figure that if everybody else out there is going nuts with their gun, I should have one just to at least FEEL safer around these crazies.

A lot of people from other parts of the world say "in my country we don't have guns and it's better and safer that way," but in America, if you suddenly impose strict gun control laws (stricter than they already are,) people won't know how to cope with that or adjust.  Yes, guns are really that important to Americans, and they are the first thing that come to mind when you say self-defense.  I agree, a gun's only purpose is to kill, but I wouldn't use mine in that manner unless I had to.

I've also considered becoming registered to carry a concealed handgun.  Why?  Because of protection.  Do I need it?  Who knows.  But there are a lot of crazy mofos running loose in America, and as I've stated before, I've become less and less at ease.

I don't understand the American love affair with guns and ammo, but it has always been here and it'd be a major shock if all of a sudden they disappeared.  Would it be for the better?  Who knows.  It's one thing I can't imagine. 

But Raggit, how can you be sure that you're not one of those crazy mofos? Or to put it another way, don't you think that a lot of the guns that end up killing people (excluding inter-gang violence) were originally bought to make their owners feel safe against the crazies? This assumption that you have the criminals' guns and the citizens' guns, while having some basis in fact (there is certainly a group of people--gang members, drug addicts, grifters and psychos--who commit a majority of serious crimes, while most of the population is generally law-abiding), assumes incorrectly that only pre-identified bad guys ever shoot anyone for any reason other than self-defense.

I am also not convinced that US crime is all that different from European crime. Yes, there is more of it, and more fatalities (almost certainly directly attributable to the easier availability of firearms). But the impression of anarchy in the streets is driven more by sensationalistic, anecdotal media portrayal across a huge country with a vast population. In fact, society as a whole has become statistically safer (especially if you don't live in the ghetto) when looking at pretty much any time-scale of more than ten years (the Bush administration hasn't been a great period for public safety). It's not like there aren't criminal gangs in Europe too.

Gun control could only work if it was able to stem the flood of guns. Which local laws like that in Washington DC could never hope to achieve. And the second amendment, under the current politically-driven interpretation (not that the opposing view isn't equally politically motivated) ensures that there won't be a federal gun control law with bite. Repealing the second amendment is obviously unrealistic for the foreseeable future, and probably forever. So for now, it doesn't look like there's any way out.

[Raggit]

Snarky,

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

I'm not saying guns should be available in every corner shop and Wal-Mart, as they are right now.

I don't have a solution for the violence and gun issues, but I do know that I will exercise my right to own one, so that if I ever need it, I have it.

If you don't feel right about owning a gun, don't own one.  There are self-defense classes and other techniques for defending yourself.

[Andail]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

[Raggit]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

Hmm, I didn't think I had suggested that people are either born good or bad.  My apologies if I insinuated such a stupid thing.

I do see your point, but like I said before, I don't really have a solution for the problem.

[Moox]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

Point one is completely bogus. There are many, many, criminals with an extensive record prior to performing a crime involving a firearm.

[Nacho]

I basically agree with all the arguments told by the "no for guns" group. Whereas freedom to have guns doesn' t necesarilly mean "crime" (Switzerland) in the US, in the way the situation is now, it is. An intensive program of education should be made, IMHO.

I also agree that there are not "natural born criminals" (except some exceptional cases of psychos), but I am not happy about the way some people describe the "path to crime".

A sane person distinguises between good and evil (In fact, not being able to distinguish between one and the another is one of the ways to be declared insane).

All that "We, the society, the capitalist rotten west world pushes the poor opressed minorities to crime" is, IMHO, totally uncorrect. People have allways the opportunity to chose. Of course, if you are poor you' ll have less options, you can even have less "licit" options than "criminal" ones, but still, it is YOU who decide the path you take.

[Damien]

Remember, guns don't kill people, video games do.

[Nacho]

Oh, shit... we won???

[Moox]

Germany was playing garbage. Schweinsteiger missed almost everyone of his free kicks.

[Nacho]

I think I will have to wait till everybody passes the doping control and all that... Those bastards never win... I am genetically preppaired for not seeing them win... 

[Ozzie]

Well, as a German I have to admit, Spain was much better.
Hm, I'm not such a football fan anyway, so I don't care too much.

[DGMacphee]

Just a bit of context because I don't think it's been mentioned yet...

A lot of people have cited that the law is constitutional, making it part of the foundation of American culture. From what I understand though, the right to bear arms came about partially to justify gun ownership for military service. i.e. as an American soldier, you have the right to bear arms. Likewise, the amendment was further justified in case small towns needed to raise a quick reservist army. The amendment was also borrowed from very old English law where people were required to keep and maintain arms in case they were called for military service.

The amendment was never meant for civilians/personal use but civilians basically interpreted as, "I am an American citizen and have the right to bear arms for personal use."

And even though the law was borrowed from English law, the UK has tightened civilian gun ownership through four seperate acts during the 20th Century.

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century. Basically the amendment needs amending.

[evenwolf]

A lot of people have cited that the law is constitutional, making it part of the foundation of American culture. From what I understand though, the right to bear arms came about partially to justify gun ownership for military service..

This is the fundamental confusion over the right to bear arms.  The constitution is ambiguous about the word "militia".   But most Americans take to interpret the militia NOT as a particular organization which may at some point overthrow a rogue government.  But the militia instead is usually interpreted as each individual with a potential to start his/her own militia... since an organization called "The Militia" could just as easily be corrupted as the government they needed to overthrow.   

Its all very ambiguous and not going anywhere any time soon.   The amendment was actually ratified WITHOUT changing any words and altered the entire meaning:

"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."

"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."

[DGMacphee]

The constitution is ambiguous about the word "militia".

Exactly, which is why I think the amendment needs amending. You're right though, it's not going to happen any time soon.

But the militia instead is usually interpreted as each individual with a potential to start his/her own militia

Which is interesting because the only reason for a US civilians to start his or her own militia is to overthrow the US government, and my guess is the number one issue a US civilian militia would do this is if the government enforced restrictions on gun rights.

[evenwolf]

the number one issue a US civilian militia would do this is if the government enforced restrictions on gun rights.

Exactly.   

I think the amendment needs amending. You're right though, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Most U.S laws started fairly ambiguous, and they've been whittled down by the judicial system.    Picking apart the language and making calls based on the language itself and precedents set in the past.

In general - you write a rule and have NO IDEA what exceptions will arise.   So you have to keep whittling it down.    But as for this issue, the government usually keeps its hands off since the language has been scrutinized by eagles' eyes all these years.   Simply touching one word would be seen as treason by these "militias."

Gun rights factor into the fabric of America and there ain't no way to just pluck them out without a full scale revolution.

[evenwolf]

I'm such a goddamn topic killer.

How could those posts get NO replies?   

[Nacho]

I'm such a goddamn topic killer.

How could those posts get NO replies?   

REPLY!!!

To be honest, Evenwolf... I am not sure if this discussion needs to go any further, too many people agrees in one side. It' s just not funny! ^_^

[evenwolf]

Consensus was formed eh?   Call me when you guys write up the papers for the U.N. meeting.


Until then I'll be watching all these western films about Americans made by europeans. Great movies.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century.

100% disagree.  There's nothing antiquated with a right to self-defensive measures that include gun ownership.  I also don't agree that the language needs re-working.  Most people in the US generally agree with what evenwolf has said, that the term 'militia' was used as a broad, non-federal military term to represent the people of the Republic, who should have the right to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.  Yes, this includes an out of control government no longer run by and for the people .