Slippery slopes and the 2nd Ammendment

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles.

Full story: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-right...

Okay, this is absurd. Seriously, how can people really defend the second amendment to the fullest extent if it's going to permit absurdities like this.

The fact is, the more guns you have within a country, the more danger you have. Whether you have them there illegally, or legally, more guns represent more danger. More potential to harm, more possible danger. It's exactly the same basic logic that stops us from wanting nuclear proliferation.

So how do people defend the second amendment, in the light of events like this? Plus I believe the full text of it is

"In keeping with the mainatence of a well regulated militia, the existence of which is necessary for the protection of the freedom of these United States, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

People are aware, are they not, that the right only exists in so far as it maintains the existence of a "well regulated militia". As far as I can see, allowing just anyone to have a gun isn't the same thing.

[Hutch Hogan]

I'm not an American, so I don't have to worry about the vagueness of the 2nd amendment's wording and the crazy interpretations that can be drawn from it. 

With that said, I am not interested in defending any results of a slippery slope slide.

The fact is, the more guns you have within a country, the more danger you have. Whether you have them there illegally, or legally, more guns represent more danger. More potential to harm, more possible danger. It's exactly the same basic logic that stops us from wanting nuclear proliferation.

As a pedestrian, more cars on the road present a much more real danger to me.  And not because I'm a jaywalker or something.  In fact, despite the legal, though regulated use of some types of fire arms (handguns, rifles and shotguns, requiring storage in a locked cabinet and trigger lock), I am much more likely to be struck and killed through the legal use of private cars, or the illegal use of private cars under the influence of regulated alcohol.  I'm not saying that death by fire arm is impossible, but the factor of danger is not only attached to fire arms, but other things that we can own and can operate. 

Now normally this a weak analogy since a thing like a car, though it presents a much higher danger factor for me, serves a   practical purpose. 

Though alcohol's consumption does not serve a practical purpose aside from recreational use. 

So if we provide that we are willing to accept a danger coefficient for the legal but recreational use of alcohol, we may make a case for similar laws regarding other activities (like hunting) or the ownership of firearms. 

Within my province, our current system is operating exceptionally well and I do not see a need for a change.  While this may not apply to other countries, i.e. ones with looser licensing laws, storage laws, police inspection, rate of education, incidence of violent crime, etc. it works here and there is no pressing need to change it. 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm not saying that death by fire arm is impossible, but the factor of danger is not only attached to fire arms, but other things that we can own and can operate.

 

Disagree. Firearms always present a potential danger. Certainly, far far more than cars do.

So if we provide that we are willing to accept a danger coefficient for the legal but recreational use of alcohol, we may make a case for similar laws regarding other activities (like hunting) or the ownership of firearms.

Disagree. The scale of potential damage from firearms is very very different. With alcohol, you need to add in more vairables. A gun is dangerous in any environment.

[Hutch Hogan]

Disagree. Firearms always present a potential danger. Certainly, far far more than cars do.

Cars also always present a potential danger. 

The regulations on firearms have put the rate of injury and death as a result of firearms in my province down to nearly nil. 

Disagree. The scale of potential damage from firearms is very very different. With alcohol, you need to add in more vairables [sic]. A gun is dangerous in any environment.

The point is that the gun is not in "any" environment, the use of a firearm is heavily regulated and their use has been working perfectly fine in our jurisdiction. There's no need to change it. 

[Chuck Rogers]

"I'm not an American,"

Good for you.

"so I don't have to worry about the vagueness of the 2nd amendment's wording and the crazy interpretations that can be drawn from it."

The second amendment isn't even remotely vague as Vertigo One pointed out. There are just many stupid people and organizations like the NRA that come up with crazy interpretations that don't actually exist.

"With that said, I am not interested in defending any results of a slippery slope slide."

Well that's what this thread is about so you might as well have not responded at all, seeing as your post really had nothing to do with the actual thread itself. *shrug*

 

I hate when people take one sentence in a statement and then base their entire response on that sentence.

"As a pedestrian, more cars on the road present a much more real danger to me.  And not because I'm a jaywalker or something.  In fact, despite the legal, though regulated use of some types of fire arms (handguns, rifles and shotguns, requiring storage in a locked cabinet and trigger lock), I am much more likely to be struck and killed through the legal use of private cars, or the illegal use of private cars under the influence of regulated alcohol.  I'm not saying that death by fire arm is impossible, but the factor of danger is not only attached to fire arms, but other things that we can own and can operate."

You missed the point. He wasn't saying "ALL DANGER IN THE UNITED STATES COMES FROM FIRE ARMS". But fire arms do present an unnecessary danger to US society. We could argue over the extent of that danger all day but the fact is that it's unnecessary. The danger that cars present is considered a necessary risk by most people.  

"Now normally this a weak analogy since a thing like a car, though it presents a much higher danger factor for me, serves a  practical purpose. 

Though alcohol's consumption does not serve a practical purpose aside from recreational use. 

 

So if we provide that we are willing to accept a danger coefficient for the legal but recreational use of alcohol, we may make a case for similar laws regarding other activities (like hunting) or the ownership of firearms." 

 

People don't use anti-aircraft missiles for hunting. If that's not what you're talking about then you're pretty off topic.

 

"Within my province, our current system is operating exceptionally well and I do not see a need for a change.  While this may not apply to other countries, i.e. ones with looser licensing laws, storage laws, police inspection, rate of education, incidence of violent crime, etc. it works here and there is no pressing need to change it. "

 

Well this thread isn't about your province... It's about the second amendment... so if you don't have to worry about it don't you think your entire response is kind of off topic? You're talking about guns in general, he's talking about a specific case.

[Eystein,]

For such a critical thinking person you might as well have used the quotation function... Like this:

People don't use anti-aircraft missiles for hunting. If that's not what you're talking about then you're pretty off topic.

 

They do if they think they're hunting Bin Laden.

[Kieran Arthur Charles McDonald]

I'm not American, but I do study politics at college. Just before I began my summer holiday we started studying American politics and we studied most of the US constitution and some of the amendments (including the second amendment). Whilst reading the constitution and the bill of rights I noticed that the constitution and bill of rights are not vague but ambiguous. They can be read in multiple ways, the second one can be read as having a well regulated militia (which at the time was in order to defend from invasion), however most gun lobbies ignore the 'well regulated militia' bit, they concentrate on the right to bear arms, which when taken out of context and applied to modern times can mean that the people have the right to own guns.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Well, lets simply look at the facts.

• America = Over ten thousand killings
• Britain = A lot less than the above.

Do we really need to discuss slippery slopes when the facts are rather plain and simple. 

[Hutch Hogan]

Do we really need to discuss slippery slopes when the facts are rather plain and simple.

Unfortunately the facts are not as simple.  Canada has legal, though regulated firearms, and also significant fewer killings than the United States (about the same percentage as the UK I believe). 

Though there are considerable problems with the United States and guns. 

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Canada actually regulates their firearms, America not so much.
Thus solution = Regu-bloody-lation.

[Hutch Hogan]

Yeah, I said that. :p

[Puddlewhite]

Of cource, everyone knows that the number of people living in USA and the UK is exactly the same. It is also a fact that gun violence is the only thing we need to take into consideration.

It is also a fact that in life that there really never ANY slipery slopes, just ask Martin Niemoeler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

I think the OP has a extremely narrow point of view, just as the people that will flock to this thread to defend their right to own a tank. And if you think that the UK has dealt with their problems by outlawing bread knives, you are just as narrow minded as them.

Whats that thing that John always says? ''Truth resists simplicity.'' And thats just historical truth, not even political truth.

Its obvious that there needs to be some system thats between total disarmament and being able to own attack aircraft. No one's actually pushing for it, since both sides are guided by fear, not reason. One side (usually liberals) fear the guns, and the other (conservatives) fear what will happen when they take their guns away. As long as both sides are pushing for extremes, there can be no reasonable, well thought out middle, only a middle stance born of the two extremes failing to defeat each other. That just means that 50% of the laws and opinions and whatnot are wildly skewed in one direction, and the other 50% in the other.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

So.. because people will still use knifes and blades to harm others, you might as well let them have the guns? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got from what.