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.

[Puddlewhite]

You know, you're right. That was my point, and i agree it was wrong. You have won this debate.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Erm, no. Population doesn't affect the number, because statisticians are competent people and know that if you want to compare two countries crime rates, you correct for population, and measure the crime rate per 1000 people.

[Eystein,]

Also, the UK is a much more cramped place than the US, which means there should be a higher statistical chance per person of harming people there, but somehow in reality it isn't.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Its obvious that there needs to be some system thats between total disarmament and being able to own attack aircraft.

Erm... why is that obvious? The UK has a total disarmerment system, and it's doing much much better than the US. Why is total disarmerment not an option.

[Hutch Hogan]

Erm... why is that obvious? The UK has a total disarmerment[sic] system, and it's doing much much better than the US. Why is total disarmerment[sic] not an option.

I assume he's talking about TOTAL disarmament.  Your police and military still carry firearms.  

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

Nope, other than the army, the police force is near enough completely disarmed other than dealing with fire arm incidents or terrorist incidents. Meaning police on the beat don't carry weapons. It's only in a race case will you ever see a Brit officer with a weapon. 

[Puddlewhite]

Are you saying that people should not own/use things that can hurt them or other people? Or maybe they shouldn't own things that don't help them in any way and have the potential to hurt them?

[Linnea who lives by Hippie Hill]

My take on the meaning of the second amendment was that citizens have the right to arm themselves if it becomes necessary or the local militia is dissolved or no longer effective. For example, if the country falls under siege and the army can't do anything about it, then we have the right to arm ourselves.

This would mean that if the federal or state congresses decide that there is a need to be armed, they will not prevent you from doing so, but in all other cases they can restrict the use of arms. 

[John Eric Tiessen]

You aren't from the United States so I will let you in on a little secret about our culture.

For a long time the United States was a frontier nation and it was reasonable for everyone to own firearms. There was poor security and it was not safe to travel without some sort of weapon with you. In many ways this is still part of our culture. For some people owning a gun is a symbol of there personal freedom and their commitment to protect their family. Also, having a gun means that if you really hate the government there is always a plan B if you and your buddies can't get your way on capital hill. If you don't believe me just look at the history of the United States, we have had one civil war in our 200+ year history and have had many more violent confrontations between the citizens of this country and the government in general.

I do not like the second amendment, it has been misused and misinterpreted for close to 100 years now. However, in many ways it has become ingrained in the culture of the United States that both protection and power grow from the barrel of a gun. Probably the best way to make the most of an unpleasant situation would simply be for the United States to tax both guns and ammunition like they do cigarettes.

[Alix Laya]

I'm from the Sportsman's Paradise, so I'm biased.  Apart from extremes, having guns isn't always so bad.  My sister got a gun for her seventh birthday.  Personally, I don't like shooting guns.  Too loud.  To take away the right to bear arms, though, would take away something tons of people around here enjoy.  Extremes are bad, but it's hard to get rid of them.  Someone will always find away around it.  You can't take away a right because of extremists, though.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

To take away the right to bear arms, though, would take away something tons of people around here enjoy.

Or you could just remove the rights of individuals to bear arms and pass laws that allow gun clubs etc to own guns, but only exceptionally securely.

Extremes are bad, but it's hard to get rid of them.

So how come so much of Europe has managed it so well? Gun crime is significantly lower here.

[Tyler]

Yes, lets take guns away from law abiding citizens so that criminals who already get their guns illegally will know that they have nothing to fear by when they break into my home.

So how come so much of Europe has managed it so well? Gun crime is significantly lower here.

It's true that Europe has less gun crime, but are you aware that there are significantly more stabbings in Europe than the US?

Guns are not to blame for violent crime, people are.