Yay! I was worried you were going to stop posting on political issues after you started up MoA.

Ahoy. So yeah, first comment ever - I’m Australian, despite what the friggin’ german flag reckons, and I use this site to keep up with the American news. There’s still CNN, but I also want the news of the people. I figure Micheal Moore’s a good anti-thesis to you (the irony is amazing), and given that we get enough of that, a good slice of the right wing rounds out my yankee diet.

So. Why is there such a vehement protection of the constitutional right to bear arms? The statistics as I remember them (yes, thus unsourced) show that most gun deaths in incidents involving home invaders are as a result of the owners being shot with their own guns. As such, surely it’s better just to train up in MMA or something..?

I am all for people living their lives as they see fit. The First Amendment in particular, and the vigorous defense of it by (almost) every American I’ve spoken to, heard, or read of; is something I admire. However, I really can’t understand the Second Amendment as it is interpreted by the right wing. As I understand it, the right to bear arms is the right to defend your country. Whether I’m right or not, the fact that I can come up with a plausible definition, while being in another country, means there should’ve been more lawyers around at the time :P

Anyways. Why the massive standpoint over this amendment? I’ll ask about the abortion issue at some point in time as well, but now’s not the time, and I wager the answer won’t be all that surprising :P

And that comment illustrates the problems we faced over the last 30 years.

1. You can’t depend on hand-to-hand combat for *EVERYONE*.  That’s just stupid.  Two 20 year old thugs break into the home of an 80 year old and he’s supposed to what, knrav maga their asses?  Guns equalize disparity of force.

2. People are NOT more often killed with their own guns, that is a lie perpetuated by the anti-gun lobby.

3. As evidenced by the Heller decision, the Second is not and NEVER WAS *just* about defending the country.  It always was an individual right that can conveniently be collective if necessary.

I love my Aussie and UK brethren, but I thank my lucky stars I don’t live is such unrestrained nanny states.  I like that my government trusts me to defend myself with a tool, and fears me a little because I own said tool.

Can we NOT make this about left versus right? Politically, I’m a Socialist, but when it comes to issues, i’m split to both sides, Yes, I believe in a strong central government; Yes, I believe in universal health care; But yes, I do believe that we as citizens have the right to own firearms to defend “mine and my own”, even if that means taking up arms against our government.

The Next case worries me.  We came within 1 vote of having all guns banned. This court has shown no respect for precedent (see the Gitmo decision) and if the next Justice is picked by a liberal POTUS we will have quite a bit in common with the people living under Uncle Hugo and El Presidente Castro.

The K is slowly being placed in the word America. We are in serious trouble now......

For our Aussie friend

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The pre-amble to the Declaration of Independence. Those of us who still believe in this founding document as written understand the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights was to protect the populous from foreign invaders AND from corrupt government. This serves as a 4th check, if you will, of the checks and balances of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

This part is what socialist politicians fear the most, so their only recourse is to unarm the populous for its own good. Homey don’t play dat, and I am not alone.

Thanks, I’ve never seen that bit before - it’s amazing what context does! So, it’s about arming yourself against both the invader and the government. Okie.

Jim: The MMA was tongue in cheek. If I believed in mass-training of a martial art, I’d probably believe in carrying weapons anyway :P - the argument of arming yourself vs home invasions is circular (arm yourself, arm your enemy), so I guess it comes down to whatever you’ve been brought up with. When I’m 80 I’d probably like a gun, thanks :P

the argument of arming yourself vs home invasions is circular (arm yourself, arm your enemy),

I’m not clear on this.  Are you saying the because I am armed, then therefore my “enemy” will arm himself due to my arming?

If that is what you are saying please let me know so I know how much I should laugh in your face.

Nope. I’m saying that they’ll probably steal your gun (or someone else’s).

Don’t worry. You’ll laugh in my face anyway. ./shrug

Nope. I’m saying that they’ll probably steal your gun (or someone else’s).

And that’s retarded.  If I’m a crook and I want to try and gain an advantage in order to steal, I don’t want to break into a house and steal someone elses gun.  I want to already have a gun.  I’m going to obtain it by other methods.  I also can’t guarrantee that the home I’m breaking into has a gun, and in fact if its in a city like chicago its almost guarranteed to not have a gun so I’m not going to go break into a place that allows guns just to get one.

You do deserve to be laughed at.

...and that would be why I didn’t bother asking questions before. What the fuck is the point of me asking anything, if I’m going to get derision over a subject I have CLEARLY iterated that I know little-to-nothing about?

Having not lived in that kind of area, I have absolutely no background information other than whatever the media spews out here. I guess that’s a valid reason to be laughed at.

/lurk.

Or you could try asking questions in a way that won’t result in derision.  Of course you didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement.  You claimed it was a circular argument.  You didn’t ask whether it was a circular argument or not.  The reason to laugh at you is because you lacked background information, but still chose to make a statement rather than ask for more clarification.

I think you’re looking at this the wrong way - you’re considering the householder in some “break in” type of crime.

Firstly, this isn’t the only kind of crime - if having a gun was a crime, then anyone with a crime could be convicted, you don’t need to prove anything else. So then if you’re a criminal, and you **need** a gun for your wrong doing, then that’s a risk in itself. Think about that for a minute; I want to hold up the local shop, getting the gun, possessing the gun are all things I can be convicted for, long before I ever get to point a gun at the store holder.

OK, back to the house holder about to be robbed (this seems to be the argument trotted out most often).

You always think about it from the house holder’s point of view. Now you’re the criminal. Firstly the argument above still stands, I might be arrested long before I get to the house. But lets look at it as it is today: the person in the house IS going to have a gun. I’m going to try and either surprise him (I’m an idiot) or I’m going to try and evade him (he’ll sleep through the whole thing). OK lets look at those options.

1) Surprise the householder. I know he/she has a gun, so what do I need? You guessed it. I have no idea how he/she will react. Then I must kill the householder, a wounded householder can still shoot me, I have no idea where they keep the gun or indeed how many they have. Could be under the bed, in the night-stand - anywhere. I must kill the householder. It’s simple. Does the gun make you feel safer now?

2) I’m going to evade the householder. I’m running the risk of being discovered, but a sleepy/drunk/annoyed householder - with a gun. I need a gun (to even the odds - your argument). So now I’m jumpy, and armed. Honestly, with this guy you’re better off hiding till he goes away. If you think you can shoot him first, in the dead of night, after you’ve just woken up - buddy it’s a lottery.

Now consider same situation, but the household probably doesn’t have a gun. I’m still breaking in, but the dynamics are now totally different. If I don’t take a gun I’m not breaking any laws until I actually break in (less risk). When I do break in, I’m pretty sure I can hold my own against the householder, even without a gun. Do I **need** a gun? OK say it all goes bad, the cops arrive - are they going to shoot an unarmed man? (No they’re not) So me carrying a gun could be a bad idea.

Now sure, there is always some yahoo that will always bring a gun - ALWAYS, I agree. But actually, most criminals aren’t stupid, they’ve figured out the logic of the situation, they want to get in, get something of value, get out. They don’t care about killing you, this isn’t why they are doing this. You are insignificant to them, just another risk factor. Trust me, you don’t want to look scary to a armed robber - if you do have a gun, don’t let him (more likely THEM) see it until you use it, and make it count (aim for the centre of mass, and disarm them as soon as possible). That’s if you must be a hero, personally I’d flee and try and lock the house on the way out (trap them INSIDE) call the cops (getting out of a strange house in the dead of night can be quite hard).

OK now a lot of people see guns as sport, that’s fine. I can see nothing wrong with that. Organise a “gun clubs”, disallow anyone with a criminal record, and keep the guns locked securely at the gun-club, use them within the gun-club, or at policed events. Happy shooting.

But the current “hell let everyone own a gun” is crazy. I don’t want to spoil your “gun fun”, but I don’t want to see you shot either.

Another problem you might not of thought of, a gun is a huge responsibility, you might well be up to that, but is your neighbour? (You know, the drunk, with 3 unruly kids) Does he know where his gun and ammo are at all times? Don’t his kids go to the same school as yours? Think about it. This isn’t just about YOUR right to have a gun, it’s THEIR right too.

Now onto the founding fathers. I can see why they drafted it that way, made a lot of sense. Aren’t things a little different in 2008? (No really, aren’t they?) If they were here now, can you honestly say they’d not change a word?

But the current “hell let everyone own a gun” is crazy.

Good thing no one is advocating that.  Not even the NRA.  Oops did I just destroy one of your beliefs?  That gun advocates want everyone to have a gun?  Sorry that’s just not true.  Maybe later I’ll address more of your ideas.