NationStates Jolt Archive

...if it is written into the Constitution that firearm ownership is, from here on out, a state issue and that the federal government can no longer regulate the sale or possession of firearms (with some obvious excpetions, such as weapons of mass destruction.) States with high rates of gun ownership, an attitude of anti-federalism, or a desire to ban or restrict guns can't really argue with this.

States in the Midwest that have high rates of gun ownership but prefer to keep the federal government out of their affairs can't really argue with it, since it indicates that these laws are now entirely in their hands.

States with a high number of anti-gun advocates can't really argue against it either, since they would then be able to restrict gun ownership or sale in any way they see fit without the Constitution getting in the way.

The sticking point I see with something like this is definitely the South. Now that they control the U.S., they can throw their weight around and might just block something like this. After all, it's virtually impossible for a non-Southerner to get elected President these days, and I hardly count Reagan because he was a "moral values" Republican with a hard-line foreign policy and conservative economic policies. Other than him, the last non-Southerner elected President was Nixon, and he ended up resigning and hardly had any competition (George McGovern? Hubert Humphrey? Besides, both were Northerners.)

By the way, I am well aware that no amendment is before the Congress right now, but this hypothetical.

...if it is written into the Constitution that firearm ownership is, from here on out, a state issue and that the federal government can no longer regulate the sale or possession of firearms (with some obvious excpetions, such as weapons of mass destruction.) States with high rates of gun ownership, an attitude of anti-federalism, or a desire to ban or restrict guns can't really argue with this.

States in the Midwest that have high rates of gun ownership but prefer to keep the federal government out of their affairs can't really argue with it, since it indicates that these laws are now entirely in their hands.

States with a high number of anti-gun advocates can't really argue against it either, since they would then be able to restrict gun ownership or sale in any way they see fit without the Constitution getting in the way.

The sticking point I see with something like this is definitely the South. Now that they control the U.S., they can throw their weight around and might just block something like this. After all, it's virtually impossible for a non-Southerner to get elected President these days, and I hardly count Reagan because he was a "moral values" Republican with a hard-line foreign policy and conservative economic policies. Other than him, the last non-Southerner elected President was Nixon, and he ended up resigning and hardly had any competition (George McGovern? Hubert Humphrey? Besides, both were Northerners.)

By the way, I am well aware that no amendment is before the Congress right now, but this hypothetical.
Not a state issue, an individual issue.

Not a state issue, an individual issue.

I am well aware that it's an individual choice, but I don't believe people should be forced to carry guns for defense. There's no law on the books requiring gun ownership (well, in some cities there is) but if you choose not to own a gun, you're out of luck defending yourself in a world where all governments are forced to allow them.

If I try to defend myself from an armed intruder, I can't do so because I don't have a gun. Why the hell should I have to carry a gun just to defend against other people who have them, and frankly, at that point I wouldn't have much of a chance anyway because I can't shoot one to save my life? This is why I believe state and local governments should have the authority to ban guns. Plenty of people just don't want guns around, myself included, and that should be our right.

I am well aware that it's an individual choice, but I don't believe people should be forced to carry guns for defense. There's no law on the books requiring gun ownership (well, in some cities there is) but if you choose not to own a gun, you're out of luck defending yourself in a world where all governments are forced to allow them.

If I try to defend myself from an armed intruder, I can't do so because I don't have a gun. Why the hell should I have to carry a gun just to defend against other people who have them, and frankly, at that point I wouldn't have much of a chance anyway because I can't shoot one to save my life? This is why I believe state and local governments should have the authority to ban guns. Plenty of people just don't want guns around, myself included, and that should be our right.
State & local governments do have that right. Try buying a gun legally in NYC.

...if it is written into the Constitution that firearm ownership is, from here on out, a state issue and that the federal government can no longer regulate the sale or possession of firearms (with some obvious excpetions, such as weapons of mass destruction.) States with high rates of gun ownership, an attitude of anti-federalism, or a desire to ban or restrict guns can't really argue with this.

States in the Midwest that have high rates of gun ownership but prefer to keep the federal government out of their affairs can't really argue with it, since it indicates that these laws are now entirely in their hands.

States with a high number of anti-gun advocates can't really argue against it either, since they would then be able to restrict gun ownership or sale in any way they see fit without the Constitution getting in the way.

The sticking point I see with something like this is definitely the South. Now that they control the U.S., they can throw their weight around and might just block something like this. After all, it's virtually impossible for a non-Southerner to get elected President these days, and I hardly count Reagan because he was a "moral values" Republican with a hard-line foreign policy and conservative economic policies. Other than him, the last non-Southerner elected President was Nixon, and he ended up resigning and hardly had any competition (George McGovern? Hubert Humphrey? Besides, both were Northerners.)

By the way, I am well aware that no amendment is before the Congress right now, but this hypothetical.

Well, first off, Carter was the first President from the South since the Civil War, so I wouldn't get too worried about the Southerners suddenly showing up.

But why do I support the Second Amendment? It has to do with the fourth branch of the government, which the Constitution call "We the people." The idea is that if, at some time in the future, the government should attempt to take away personal freedoms and rights to a huge extent (think Hitler), then we will have the power and right to overthrow the government and set up a new one.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

If I try to defend myself from an armed intruder, I can't do so because I don't have a gun. Why the hell should I have to carry a gun just to defend against other people who have them, and frankly, at that point I wouldn't have much of a chance anyway because I can't shoot one to save my life? This is why I believe state and local governments should have the authority to ban guns. Plenty of people just don't want guns around, myself included, and that should be our right.
Because criminals don't really give a shit if they're carrying illegally. Ergo, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. You do not have the right to take away someone else's means of defense.

State & local governments do have that right. Try buying a gun legally in NYC.
It's unconstitutional, but nothings gone to the supreme court directly.

Why the hell should I have to carry a gun just to defend against other people who have them, and frankly, at that point I wouldn't have much of a chance anyway because I can't shoot one to save my life?
You aren't aware of why guns were so revolutionary, are you? It is because pretty much anyone can use them. They are extremely easy to use, and though you might not be able to hunt deer, you can sure as hell hit someone breaking into your house with a .22 without any training except for how to load the gun.

Can any American really dispute a repeal of the Second Amendment...

Naw, I can't.

But my pair o' forty-fives and my Remington 30.06 can.

...if it is written into the Constitution that firearm ownership is, from here on out, a state issue and that the federal government can no longer regulate the sale or possession of firearms (with some obvious excpetions, such as weapons of mass destruction.) States with high rates of gun ownership, an attitude of anti-federalism, or a desire to ban or restrict guns can't really argue with this.

States in the Midwest that have high rates of gun ownership but prefer to keep the federal government out of their affairs can't really argue with it, since it indicates that these laws are now entirely in their hands.

States with a high number of anti-gun advocates can't really argue against it either, since they would then be able to restrict gun ownership or sale in any way they see fit without the Constitution getting in the way.

The sticking point I see with something like this is definitely the South. Now that they control the U.S., they can throw their weight around and might just block something like this. After all, it's virtually impossible for a non-Southerner to get elected President these days, and I hardly count Reagan because he was a "moral values" Republican with a hard-line foreign policy and conservative economic policies. Other than him, the last non-Southerner elected President was Nixon, and he ended up resigning and hardly had any competition (George McGovern? Hubert Humphrey? Besides, both were Northerners.)

By the way, I am well aware that no amendment is before the Congress right now, but this hypothetical.
It'll never happen. Any amendment to the Constitution must be passed by 2/3 of both houses, and be passed by 3/4 of all state legislatures. Besides, while regulation of gun ownership is allowed, and even forbidden under certain instances, by the states, the forbidding of ordinary citizens of owning a gun is, and should be, a federal issue, which is why it was written into the Constitution in the first place. The Founding Fathers obviously saw the right to bear arms as a fundamental civil right in preventing the tyranny of government.

Why would you want to? If gun ownership were illegal, then the criminals would just have them. The law abiding person would not.

Why would you want to? If gun ownership were illegal, then the criminals would just have them. The law abiding person would not.

I hear that argument by people who are paranoid about giving up their guns, but I don't see that it's really the case. If done right, rates of gun-related crime not only decreases but becomes minimal. Besides, people are more likely to shoot a friend or relative than a criminal, so the "self-defense" argument falls through.

Okay first, the last President not from the south or california was Kennedy. Carter was definetly not the first southerner to be elected since the civil war (ie johnson and a bunch of other guys.)

Fact; the second amendment DOES NOT forbid federal control of firearms. The amendment states that the militia of not state can be prevented from existing by the federal government.

Can Congress make a law about banning guns? As said, the second ammendment does is not applicable. However the Constitution gives no power to Congress directly, however congress could use its other powers potentially, such as regulation of interstate commerce...I am not sure.

----------------
Join the Democratic Alliance region
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~y0259802/

Well, first off, Carter was the first President from the South since the Civil War, so I wouldn't get too worried about the Southerners suddenly showing up.

But why do I support the Second Amendment? It has to do with the fourth branch of the government, which the Constitution call "We the people." The idea is that if, at some time in the future, the government should attempt to take away personal freedoms and rights to a huge extent (think Hitler), then we will have the power and right to overthrow the government and set up a new one.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
What about Lyndon Johnson? He was from Texas I recall.

Look at bombs. Bombs are arms, and they are illegal. Therefore, only outlaws have bombs. That's why the citizenry of the USA are in danger and can't overthrow the government if needed.

i know about 20 people who own illegal guns and only 2 or 3 of them use their guns for anything other than self defense, my mother owns 3 legal guns, but it took her 18 months to get her handgun permit and her licence to carry a concealed weapon (we live in upstate ny), i don't/can't own a legal gun and don't really want to risk the 5 years if i get caught with an illegal gun, but i believe that every american over the age of 16 should be allowed to own a gun, save for VIOLENT fellons (i have 2 white collar fellonies)

I love Alaska. A law was passed recently which allows concealed weapons without a permit.

...if it is written into the Constitution that firearm ownership is, from here on out, a state issue and that the federal government can no longer regulate the sale or possession of firearms (with some obvious excpetions, such as weapons of mass destruction.) States with high rates of gun ownership, an attitude of anti-federalism, or a desire to ban or restrict guns can't really argue with this.

Constitution or not, I'll be damned if I'll beg permission from any man to carry a weapon for my defense. Whether it's a pistol, a sword, a hammer, or even a set of brass knuckles, I consider my right to bear arms absolute, because if my life is my own, then it is my responsibility to preserve my life.

This isn't necessarily intended for you, unless you are anti-weapon, but who are you to ask others (the police and military) to risk their lives defending you if you're not willing to take up the sword in your own defense?

Well, first off, Carter was the first President from the South since the Civil War, so I wouldn't get too worried about the Southerners suddenly showing up.

But why do I support the Second Amendment? It has to do with the fourth branch of the government, which the Constitution call "We the people." The idea is that if, at some time in the future, the government should attempt to take away personal freedoms and rights to a huge extent (think Hitler), then we will have the power and right to overthrow the government and set up a new one.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
A few points.
- Texas is generally considered part of the south so you should have counted in LBJ.
- The government has incrementally taken away many of the rights of the people or managed to sidestep them so as to make them irrelevant. This has been going on since the governments inception and continues to this day. If you take all the incremental changes you'll see it adds up to "a huge extent".
- Armed resistence against the government is laughable.

It's unconstitutional, but nothings gone to the supreme court directly.
As has often been pointed out on this forum, and in life, a law is a law until it is declared unconstitutional by competent bodies (i.e. - the federal courts). So, as it stands, State & local governments have the right to forbid the possession of arms.

i dont see the point of such an ammendment. if new york banned all guns, new yorkers would just drive over to connecticut where they are legal and buy them.

its sorta like having the states regulate the age when a person can get married (which of course they can and do) if an underage couple want to get married, they just go to a state where their ages are legal and they get married. (which of course they can and do)

i dont see the point of such an ammendment. if new york banned all guns, new yorkers would just drive over to connecticut where they are legal and buy them.

its sorta like having the states regulate the age when a person can get married (which of course they can and do) if an underage couple want to get married, they just go to a state where their ages are legal and they get married. (which of course they can and do)
And so they can. They just aren't allowed to possess it in NYS.

Let's do a theoretical exercise. A person has a residence in Pennsylvannia. Say in PA there is nothing to hinder them from gun ownership whatsoever. They purchace a handgun and carry it at all times.

They are called to New York for a meeting at the home office. The person then goes to New York and carries his gun as is his custom.

They are subject to arrest and prosecution under NY law.

A few points.
- Texas is generally considered part of the south so you should have counted in LBJ.
- The government has incrementally taken away many of the rights of the people or managed to sidestep them so as to make them irrelevant. This has been going on since the governments inception and continues to this day. If you take all the incremental changes you'll see it adds up to "a huge extent".
- Armed resistence against the government is laughable.

True, I forgot LBJ.

The government has been making itself bigger and more intrusive, but we still have not had large scale attempts to take away the freedoms in the first amendment (Patriot Act, maybe), plus we can still vote and whatnot. I wouldn't consider taking up arms until such events happen.

As for you last point, just ask teh British what happens when a significant portion of the population takes up arms. You get things like an independant America and Ireland.

"Can any American really dispute a repeal of the Second Amendment... "

Of course. I can and do. Thank God for the South!

Care to explain to me why you think the Second Amerndment should be repealed? I mean, other than the typical, mindless, liberal, knee-jerk "duh .... guns iz bad" idiocy?

I'd imagine that in places where gun ownersip is common, there'd be a dramatic decrease in theft related crimes, but a higher rate of manslaughter.

The funny thing is that you can point to countries like Britain and Japan, where guns are nearly completely illegal and have low crime rates. You can also point to places like Israel Switzerland, where almost everyone over 18 has an automatic or semi-automatic weapon at home and have low crime rates (ignore suicied bombers for now). Then there is the US where gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, and the high crime rate. Me thinks that there is something at work here besides the number of guns, high or low.

- Armed resistence against the government is laughable. The US Soldiers in Iraq aren't laughing.

I'd dispute that by saying that you shouldn't change the Constitution for such petty and transient reasons. (Why I'm against an amendment against gay marriage as well)

The funny thing is that you can point to countries like Britain and Japan, where guns are nearly completely illegal and have low crime rates.
Um, last time I checked, the crime rates in Britain weren't that low. Japan's crime rates are rising as well.

I think the government controls the guns too much. Places where the most controls on guns in the US also have the highest crime rate, example D.C. Highest homicide rate. As for not having to carry a gun in a home to protect yourself from an attacker with a gun, then train with a knife. It takes the same amout of time to cross something like 20 feet and stab them in the amount of time it takes to pull and shoot a gun. If its at the ready, then all you have to do is use the surprise attack, wait for them to cross near you and stab them. Pretty much any state will say if someone comes into your home with a gun, you have the right to defend yourself, here in Iowa its with equal force, other states it can be any force.

I am a trained sword fighter, though I don't currently own a sword due to a poor move to Las Vegas and back where I lost them cause I couldn't take them with me. I do have a training rod though, so if a person came into my home, I wouldn't need a gun to counter it, I would just bring them down with a few fluid motions and disarm them. If they fired off a round in the house with my daughters, I would probally never see them in court, just to their grave.

Any human has the right to defend themselves in their homes. I don't personally believe in killing someone that comes into the home, though I wouldn't blame any parent if they killed an intrueder coming into their home.

Guns don't make a person an unstoppable force, nothing does. I would say to those that don't like guns, don't own one. Train in some sort of Defensive art. Not only would it help with the national obesity rate, but it would lower crime.

Um, last time I checked, the crime rates in Britain weren't that low. Japan's crime rates are rising as well.

Sorry. I'm a little behind the times on that one.

The funny thing is that you can point to countries like Britain and Japan, where guns are nearly completely illegal and have low crime rates. You can also point to places like Israel Switzerland, where almost everyone over 18 has an automatic or semi-automatic weapon at home and have low crime rates (ignore suicied bombers for now). Then there is the US where gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, and the high crime rate. Me thinks that there is something at work here besides the number of guns, high or low.

Yes, in Switzerland many people have firearms. That is largely because they have militias comprising ordinary citizens, who actively participate in regular drills and musters to maintain their competence. It is a matter of national defense and not "I gotta right to have weapons to protect myself."

The second amendment to the US Constitution is based upon the necessity of a well-regulated militia. However, I've yet to read any posting by anyone advocating keeping and bearing arms who also advocates that those who do should be part of a well-regulated militia. The NRA's building in Washington, DC also prominently displays the second amendment on its façade, minus the well-regulated militia part.

Sorry. I'm a little behind the times on that one.

Not too behind. Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) and Japan have extremely low rates of murder and most other violent crime.