How ridiculous is it that our country and our country’s highest court just upheld a law that is centuries out of date? I move to repeal the right to bear arms from the U.S. Constitution because it is outdated, dangerous and a threat to the future of this country.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that it was a bad decision for the Supreme Court to rule against handguns bans. The job of the court is to uphold the Constitution and the Second Amendment can be interpreted for the individual to have a right to own a gun, but I believe that our governing body should move to remove this unsafe amendment from the Constitution.
When the Bill of Rights was written, the country was completely different in almost every single way. The country had just split off of Great Britain and was trying to do everything in almost the exact opposite way that the Brits had done it in the past. Knowing this, after the Brits had highly monitored gun possession, our Founding Fathers wanted to allow the general population to have the freedom to own guns for hunting and protective measures. Probably not a bad call, but remember the context.
Another context of the time period that is so utterly different is warfare. Warfare today would not even seem like warfare to those from 300 years ago. Back in the 18th century, war consisted of an attack on foot from another country invading your land. Not to mention that the colonial militia was seen as barbaric because they would hide themselves from oncoming bullets. With this as the war scene, what better way would there be to protect your country then to keep a rifle in the house in case the Red Coasts came walking down the street. Mine as well take a couple of lobster backs for the red, white and blue.
But this is so different from today. There is almost no chance that you would ever have the chance to shoot down an enemy in the country with your personal gun. And even if you would, the places where you would encounter them (airports, public buildings) would not allow the handgun to be loaded and concealed there.
So why is this amendment still upheld? We do need guns for hunting purposes to keep the deer population and other animal populations under control, but that could be heavily monitored by the state. But if you look at this as a positive and all of the gang fights, school shootings and murders all over the country as negatives, the scale is leaning heavily towards the negatives.
The only other argument would be self-defense. If you don’t think that you can handle yourself against an attack (mind you that the attack would not be with a gun, as they would be basically outlawed), then the government would reimburse you for a self defense course, or something along those lines in order to better protect you. Also, you can always do the right thing and not put yourself into the situation where you could be attacked, but attacks can happen anywhere and everyone should be ready.
If the second amendment were repealed, drastic effects would take place all over the country. As people were dutifully getting rid of their firearms, crime would highly go down. There would not be as many homicides in the country, and the level of crimes would also go down, as no one would be able to shoot someone else. Gangs would only be able to battle with knives, fists and other weapons, but not guns. This means that the little kid walking down the street would not be hit with a stray bullet and have his life taken from him as it was just beginning. The possibilities are endless with such a great decision, but way too many people in this country get power trips from handling guns so it will never happen. But we can always think progressive and try to change as much as possible. Thanks for reading and please comment/rate.
Here is the majority/dissenting opinion as well as the NY Times Article that led me to it:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23memo.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slog...
Many people feel more secure with guns in their home, they feel that they are protecting their property. Many victims of crimes may purchase a gun and take shooting lessons for the sense of safety they may feel having it around.
The NRA would never allow that amendment to be repealed.
Well I have to admit it is a well written blog but I pretty much think your crazy now.
I think part of the context of the founders was that if the government took to much control in the future the peope would need the right to bare arms. If they go so far as to decide that a person must be part of a militia to own a fire arm then I would join one and purchase weapon of choice. I see this need for revolt coming up fast with this election.
I think the biggest problem is not the guns but the lack of education about them. The problem is the control there is the more its the idiots that do the shooting. Guns are not bad.
The state can control animal population??? Well with all those unemployeed people from gun manufactures and bullet distributors there should be plenty of people to get a job.
I can just imagine all the expense there would be trying to send military members overseas just so they could qualify every year.
... I had this whole comment for you but it got lost in the land of the 'can not find server'. I was trying to remember all the neat things I said and now I realize that maybe I miss understood. Guns will be legal in your ideal just not for the people?
Sounds like a police state to me.
*Sigh* Thats what I get for not typing it in word first. Like I said (or maybe I didn't) This is a well written blog and thorough.
~T
Security Alert
All truths are ea
Oh I just remembered one of the parts I forgot.
I can not believe it took them 32 long years to give the freedom back to D.C. Maybe now the crime rates there will go down and people can start taking control of their lives again instead of being at the mercies of those around them.
I fear however that the backlash will be used to take the right from all of us. People will go out and buy the guns they have want all this time without the proper training and with out education their children. A few tragedies will happen, the media will blow it out of proportion and put their spin on it in just the right way to rob us all.
~T
Security Alert
All truths are ea
Putting the right to own guns into a historical context is the only intelligent way to view that particular civil liberty. The whole reason the Second Amendment was created was so that the Average Joe joining the infantry brought his own weapon, saving the American government a pretty penny.
The main argument I have heard against modern gun bans are that if you take guns from your average citizen, only criminals will bear them. Criminals already flagrantly ignore the law, and being the only people with guns will cause crime to skyrocket. Food for thought.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
Gun control laws only hurt normal citizens. You can not even own a bb gun for instance in some cities.
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.
Okay, I promised to be good, I have taken a deep breath and so I will begin.
WHAT!!!!
Are you serious, you would like for the government to take away our rights!
Okay, first off, if you let them take away one of your rights to help you stay safe what will stop them from using that reason to take the rest of them away. I think I will quote Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” I think I will be quoting him more in this comment then any other time in my life. We were granted the right to bear arms for protection, not just from each other, but from tyrants and invaders. I am sure that the government would not stop at our guns, they would keep going.
They tried to stop freedom of speech with the fairness doctrine. They tried to take away our right to freedom of religion by trying to take under God out of the pledge.
But Tolkien those bills did not try to take away are rights. They were the first step to see if they could do it and it almost worked. They tried to pass a grassroots’ bill that would force religious organizations to give full detail report of money transfers and travel and ask permission before using them. Let them take your rights away. I will forever stand on my soap box against it clinging to my guns and religion. I love God and my country and I will not let the government force me into bondage because THEY or YOU think it is a good Idea.
“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” Benjamin Franklin. If we are all foolish enough to think that the government will stop with gun then we should all become ready for the United Communist States of America. Give them an inch and they will take it all. They would take freedom of speech away next to keep us safe. The ability to say what you want, whenever you want, could end up putting you into harms way and we all want to be safe a secure. “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin
“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Benjamin Franklin. The next right to fall to the waste side would be freedom of religion. To many fights start over religion and to keep you safe they are taking that away… you all must be agnostic now. And without freedom of speech what can you say against it. Nothing. Now why would you allow them to take away your rights and do you really think they will stop there.
“No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.” Benjamin Franklin. Who is to say that they will change the law to state that there will be no homosexuals allowed to shop at the same place as heterosexually. What if they then decide that women do not have the same rights as men and they remove from the list of right that we have. What if next they choose to bring back slavery? What will you do if you have nothing, you can say nothing, and you are force to obey what you know is wrong? As my wife said once “If you let the government trample your rights today, what will there be worth saving tomorrow?”
Now, some may think that I am blowing this out of proportion but ask yourselves, truly ask yourselves, what good can be done if you let the government know that they can start to take away the freedoms guaranteed to you by our constitution. You may believe that it is okay if they take away the right to bare arms. Just remember that someone else could think it just as justified to take away freedom of speech and religion. “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin
“When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny” Thomas Jefferson. Do you think the government fears us? I do not; they think that we are a joke. We have become their pets and beg for scraps from their table. The worst part is that we let them be our master and we are nothing more then slaves to their every whim. I am glad that we have the right to bare arms because that keeps the government from abusing us. I just wish that they feared/ respected us more again.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ~ The Preamble
Your self defense argument is flawed. You are working from the assumption that criminals are going to obey the law. The person who breaks into your house probably isn't going to go through legal channels to get a gun,. Think about it.
If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed...nothing shall be impossible unto you. - Matthew 17:20
Almost everybody seems to get it! Great responses!
Very little has changed in the 200+ years since the Constitution was written. Americans still face threats to their homes and personal safety that justify the ownership and occasional use of firearms for purposes of self-defense. Not a day goes by where large numbers of Americans are not victimized. Some of these victims would not be victims if more decent people were armed.
And governments all over the world are still falling into evil hands and there is no guarantee whatsoever that our own government won't at some point become tyranical. One of the best guarantees of our continued freedom is the large number of firearms and ammunition in private hands.
The article argued that it should be repealed as written. As it is currently written, it doesn't mention anything about using a fire arm for home protection. It says, a member has a right to bear arms when part of an armed militia. When the minute men were dispatched against the red coats, they had to be trained as part of a militia (military group), to respond quickly, they didn't have a armory for storage, as current military units have, so they could have a gun at their residence. This is outdated just as the arthor stated. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court made the leap that this means having a fire arm to protect your home against criminals. That's not all all what the Second Amdendment states. Not saying we don't need fire arms to protect property/family. But as it is written, it does not address this at all. I don't know how 5 Justices reached this conclusion, I think it must be political. There is no way that a judge reading the Second Amendment could reach this conclusion without being influenced by the political tone of the day. The NRA certainly can't make laws. they are a lobbying firm. Remember Judges, interprete laws, they don't make them.
Perhaps the reason the Justices came to to this conclusion were because of the words:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
The clause that explains the reasoning of the founders, however outdated, is irrelevant, the Constitution clearly gives the people a right and states that the government will not infringe upon this right.
It is not at all clear to me that the need for militias is outdated. For most of our 200 year history the Federal Government has been pretty weak and not all that effective. For about a 50 year stretch we reached a zenith and became the world super-power. Now we are still powerful but it seems clear to me that our power is fading and it seems entirely within the realm of possibility that due to overspending and the debasement of our currency that the Federal Government could easily collapse. In the meantime, about 1 million people are crossing our borders illegally every year and our government appears either unwilling or unable to defend our borders. Protecting us from invasion is perhaps the most basic Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government and if they are unable to provide this protection then perhaps citizen militias still have a role to play in our future.
I think anybody who looks at our current slice in time and concludes the 2nd Amendment is outdated is lacking a sense of history and needs to adjust their perspective beyound the tiny slice of time that is represented by their own short lives.. Nothing lasts forever and the power and stability of the Federal Government WILL NOT prove to be an exception. I think the most likely scenario is that eventually, the people will elect a smooth-talking tyrant who will refuse to schedule future elections. An armed populace is the best hope to make the dream last a little longer.
There are still parts of this country where hunting is a common pastime, and often a useful source of food. Don't assume everywhere is like the place you live.
I'm all for guns, as long as the owner is responsible about the use, although I'm not entirely sure how I want that enforced. Hunting is more humane, healthier, and better for the enviroment than a lot of factory farms. And safety is always an issue. Of course, part of the law is that you can't trade for something less than the value. By this i mean if the robber is stealing jewels or a big screen tv shooting the guy dead isn't going to be justified according to the courts. For which I'm grateful. However, if your life or another's is in reasonable threat, you'll have a case.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
How ridiculous is it that our country and our country’s highest court just upheld a law that is centuries out of date?
I don't think its rediculous at all. It only takes a moment to look in the news and see that oppressive and tyrranical military regimes that abuse and kill their own people are still quite common all around the world. It would thus seem to me that the provision of the Second Amendment is not out of date, at all, and suggest that perhaps the reason that we (in the United States) have not found ourselves in the grips of such a regime is in large part BECAUSE of our right to bear arms in our own defense.
To quote Thomas Jefferson...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
***Edited for TOS Violation by Blackout, 11/20/2009*** ... i want you to look in to the countries that do no have fire arms, look at the hate crimes they still have. look at the violent weapon related crimes and see what they are using. they go to more brutal tactics and they still have firearms of sort. i think before you go spouting all this non-sense you need to do a little more home work about what you are preaching!!! all you are doing by banning fire arms is preventing ONLY the law abiding citizens from owning a weapon to defend them self!! think harder about preaching about stuff like this!!!