BF2S Forums Second Amendment

Now, to answer your question now that I've had time to wake up...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

- Has the Supreme Court taken an even remotely correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as written?

- Wouldn’t weapons depots around the country controlled at the State level or lower be a more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment?

- Should the Second Amendment be rewritten? Should it be to make guns for self-defense explicitly legal, to make individually owned civilian weapons illegal, or for some other purpose?

The Supreme Court has done a fine job upholding the spirit of the law in interpreting it as a defense against seizure of arms and upholding the rights of the citizen to maintain private weapons.

Weapons depots would put all weapons under the jurisdiction of the State. Maintenance and upgrade of the weapons located within would also fall upon the State. Round the clock security would need to be provided to prevent pilferage. They would also be a major target in the case of invasion making them moot. Switching to a depot system would require massive outlays in new spending by the State in order to maintain, upgrade and protect these weapons. This can not be justified when private ownership within homes has proven to be a much more cost effective and efficient way of carrying out the same policy.

I've already stated my case against the third point.


And with that I'm off to bed. Enjoy writing your paper

Surely, the National Guard IS your militia and the 2nd amendment had fuck all to do with individuals owning guns like all the gun nuts over there think so? That's how I would read it anyway. So no, according to the 2nd Amendment indivs shouldn't have guns. Pretty obvious really and a good example of people using lofty goals to pursue their own narrow objectives imo.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The Supreme Court has done a fine job upholding the spirit of the law in interpreting it as a defense against seizure of arms and upholding the rights of the citizen to maintain private weapons.

No, because there is no right of the citizen to possess personal weapons. Where does it say that? 2nd amendment has f-all to do with individuals and firearms, but to do with the maintenance of a militia to protect America from invasion, for example. Not some dumbass to own a military arsenal. An inividual can only own arms in relation to the upholding of a militia/National Guard. Which YOU HAVE ALREADY. So again, thrice no, indivs have no right to own guns according to the 2nd amendment.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-12 00:04:13)

Cybargs wrote:

You missed the part about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" You do realize the second amendment was inspired by the minutemen right?

No,you missed the part about "“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, which comes before the bit about indivs owning weapons, which logically and literally leads anyone with a brain to conclude that the second part is only in order to maintain the first.

Yeah I know about the minutemen. IMO the writers of the constitution wnated to ensure that there would be at least the possibility of having an armed militia in case of uprising/invasion or whatever. An organised force, like the minutemen perhaps. NOT thousands of individuals carrying military-grade weapons shooting each other. That has nothing to do with the security of the state.

Cybargs wrote:

Minutemen, organized? BAHAHAHAHAHAAH.

Yes, they were. Why are you being such a prick?

They often weren't very good shots but they received training, equipment, they were organised into groups, some units became extremely succesful fighters.

BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA yerself ya knob.

I'm not against gun ownership in the US, but I think the law should be updated to better reflect today's personal freedoms and right to bear arms and remove the "well regulated militia" bs from wording.

Varegg wrote:

The lack of gun control in the US helps keeping the poor population at a lowest possible level since it's mainly black unemployed "thugs" and latinos that kill eachother, that the occasional white child blows his head off by accident is clearly worth the price ...

Now get the fuck off my lawn!

They get their guns through illegal means.

And poverty isn't an excuse for gang violence. Gangs will exist no matter how rich or poor. Just look at Vancouver, mostly upper middle class Asian and Iranian kids forming gangs.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-02-12 01:58:03)

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The lack of gun control in the US helps keeping the poor population at a lowest possible level since it's mainly black unemployed "thugs" and latinos that kill eachother, that the occasional white child blows his head off by accident is clearly worth the price ...

Now get the fuck off my lawn!

They get their guns through illegal means.

Define illegal because I do believe every illegal gun in the hands of a criminal was once legal ... or?

Either smuggled or stolen weapons. Plus, they don't have firearm licenses in the first place. I'm pretty sure a gang banger wouldn't buy a $400 dollar glock. Sometimes they get smuggled from Army weapons depot, that's how fully auto weapons get on the streets.

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Define illegal because I do believe every illegal gun in the hands of a criminal was once legal ... or?

Either smuggled or stolen weapons. Plus, they don't have firearm licenses in the first place. I'm pretty sure a gang banger wouldn't buy a $400 dollar glock. Sometimes they get smuggled from Army weapons depot, that's how fully auto weapons get on the streets.

So you indirectly are saying that if there is fewer weapons in circulation the chance of them getting into the wrong hands are lesser or greater?

And full automatic weapons are not the norm, handguns are ...

Registration of firearms go through background checks etc... But I personally believe that an armed society is a polite society. Lots of gangs in the US are armed with AK's and shit that were smuggled in.

Varegg wrote:

You personally believe?

Great argument!

How do you then explain that the Japanese population are the least armed population in the world and have the least cases of blind violence, robberies etc etc ...

Purely culture.

AussieReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You personally believe?

Great argument!

How do you then explain that the Japanese population are the least armed population in the world and have the least cases of blind violence, robberies etc etc ...

Purely culture.

Yeah I mean, it's not like Japan has ever had any history of war, civil war, tribal war, clan war - oh, wait.

You can still have honour in war.

Varegg wrote:

You personally believe?

Great argument!

How do you then explain that the Japanese population are the least armed population in the world and have the least cases of blind violence, robberies etc etc ...

Never heard of the Yakuza have you?

And they do have a strong culture of "honor" as well. Suicide rates are pretty high there as well.

Spark wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Yeah I mean, it's not like Japan has ever had any history of war, civil war, tribal war, clan war - oh, wait.

You can still have honour in war.

Given what we've seen of their concept of 'honour in war' as of last century I think we'll pass on such 'honour'.

And it is besides the point entirely anyway ...

I got the responce I was aiming for from Cybargs

So we have established that both Japan and the US have a violent history and that is one of the arguments used to defend US gun culture amongst others but still Japanese people doesn't gun down eachother in the same rate ... why is that?

Japanese mafia ... hm, better but still not valid ... the US also have mafia and in both countries they pretty much shoot eachother and not uninvolved people so that doesn't explain it either ...

Suicide rates in Japan are amongst the highest in the world, roughly 30.000 people in Japan does this every year ... but still that has little or nothing to do with the issue ...

So please try again Cybargs!

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Spark wrote:

Given what we've seen of their concept of 'honour in war' as of last century I think we'll pass on such 'honour'.

And it is besides the point entirely anyway ...

I got the responce I was aiming for from Cybargs

So we have established that both Japan and the US have a violent history and that is one of the arguments used to defend US gun culture amongst others but still Japanese people doesn't gun down eachother in the same rate ... why is that?

Japanese mafia ... hm, better but still not valid ... the US also have mafia and in both countries they pretty much shoot eachother and not uninvolved people so that doesn't explain it either ...

Suicide rates in Japan are amongst the highest in the world, roughly 30.000 people in Japan does this every year ... but still that has little or nothing to do with the issue ...

So please try again Cybargs!

You can still argue that most gun crimes in the US are amongst gangs as well. Gangs will still exist in the US no matter what.

So we are to ignore the reasons for gangs to appear and ignore the reasons for them shooting eachother up, if that's your final stand on the issue I will return to my previous statement ...

Varegg wrote:

The lack of gun control in the US helps keeping the poor population at a lowest possible level since it's mainly black unemployed "thugs" and latinos that kill eachother, that the occasional white child blows his head off by accident is clearly worth the price ...

Now get the fuck off my lawn!