Gun Control and the American Justice System

[Dumpy Dooby]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Simple and straightforward, the wording of this Amendment makes all forms of gun control unconstitutional.

Many modern gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be obsolete, a relic from a simpler time. But let's consider the very fact that it is the Second Amendment. Only the freedom of thought itself was deemed more important. The Framers of the Constitution had two very good reasons for this:

1) This is a nation founded through revolt; as such the Founding Fathers wished to enshrine the ability to revolt for posterity. They believed that, as so elegantly stated in V For Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Now, obviously, this is an obsolete ideal, now that the government and its armies are in possession of fighter jets, bombers, etc.. But there is another reason.

2) The Founding Fathers also believed that "It is better that a thousand guilty men go free, than a single innocent man be wrongfully imprisoned." This is why, in criminal trials the prosecution bears the burden of proof. This is why the bar for conviction is so high: that 12 unrelated citizens agree that the prosecution has proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this is why our police forces are almost helpless to PROTECT us.

The police were never intended to protect the citizens. The citizens were expected to protect themselves; the police are there to assist the courts in enacting justice when we fail.

It's the second point that the gun control movement so pointedly ignores.

I happen to agree with the Founding Fathers. I have a duty to protect my own. To do this effectively, I need the freedom to bear arms. I believe this to be an elegant and moral solution, but I admit that the situation has changed.

I don't need a fully automatic weapon, or high powered sniper rifle for self/home defense. Nobody does. Actually, I don't even like guns. All I want is one double-barrel shotgun in my closet for the middle of the night.

Should the Second Amendment be modified to suit the current times?

A few progressive options (I'm not actually a progressivist, but I'm just giving a few ideas for our progressive liberals):
My opinions in blue

1) The government, formally or not, ditches the 2nd Amendment without redesigning the justice system.

Bad idea, and absolutely immoral. This is what people are afraid of when they say "If guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns."

2) Common sense measures like waiting periods, background checks, registries, and bans on specific weapons like sniper rifles and M-16s.

Common sense, but it's been shown to be ineffective.

3) Ditch the 2nd Amendment, and rework the powers of the police to make them capable of actually protecting the citizenry.

SEEMS like the best option, but I honestly can't see how it could work without taking a huge stride toward totalitarianism.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

2) Common sense measures like waiting periods, background checks, registries, and bans on specific weapons like sniper rifles and M-16s.

Waiting periods dont do anything though. Damn near all gunowners own multiple weapons. If they wanted to kill someone, why would they go out and buy a new one ? Wouldnt they just grab a weapon out of their safe.

Registeries have never solved a single crime. And banning those types of weapons goes directly against the whole point of the 2nd Admendment, the people having military weapons.

3) Ditch the 2nd Amendment, and rework the powers of the police to make them capable of actually protecting the citizenry.

SEEMS like the best option, but I honestly can't see how it could work without taking a huge stride toward totalitarianism.

The police/govt are the biggest enemy. Even if you ignore that, the only way possible that could work would be if there was a cop for every citizen 24/7

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Waiting periods dont do anything though. Damn near all gunowners own multiple weapons. If they wanted to kill someone, why would they go out and buy a new one ? Wouldnt they just grab a weapon out of their safe.

Registeries have never solved a single crime. And banning those types of weapons goes directly against the whole point of the 2nd Admendment, the people having military weapons.


The police/govt are the biggest enemy. Even if you ignore that, the only way possible that could work would be if there was a cop for every citizen 24/7

I agree.


(Not sure if you actually caught which side of the fence I'm on here.)

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy DOB

(Not sure if you actually caught which side of the fence I'm on here.)

"seems the best option" made me a little weary

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

"seems the best option" made me a little weary

I was presenting progressive options (that is, options that would incite change). I don't agree with any of them, but on the surface, that one seemed like it was the best - the lesser of three wrongs, if you will.

[lew]

Dumpy, if you were a Christian, I'd love you.


Since you aren't though, you're damned to an eternity of hell.

[Diamond Cross]

What part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand?

Shall not be infringed means no firearm control in any way shape or form. That means allowing non military or law-enforcement personall access to things like assault rifles regardless of what the firearm was made for.

Shall not be infringed, regardless of the firearm-control advocates say, means that any kind of legidslation designed to control firearms whether taking away or requiring ownership, is forbidden.

Regardless of the circumstance.

It is a right, not a privaledge.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

Dumpy, if you were a Christian, I'd love you.


Since you aren't though, you're damned to an eternity of hell.

I've taken a recent liking to Robert Price. He describes himself as an atheistic Christian. Maybe one day that will be me, and then we can make babies.