Forum Post: no guns please - a plea to repeal the 2nd amendment
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 4, 2011, 12:20 a.m. EST by satan
(2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
dear folks,
i know what you're thinking; what does gun ownership have to do with the OWS movement? the answer; sweet f$%^ all.
but while we're in a mind frame to make demands to drive change in this country, i would like to push a personal agenda of my own to outlaw gun ownership with the exception of police, armed forces and farmers who have need for pest control. and not only outlaw, but enforce with criminal sentencing for people carrying weapons and heavy fines for people who own firearms without proper cause. i don't pretend that guns are the sole cause of violent crimes but they are hardly helping the situation.
while we're protesting why not request something that only risks a sense of safety, the increase in the average lifespans, and makes common sense?
just saying, D.B.
Outlawing guns is a bad bad idea. Let me tell you why.
I am from the UK, I married an American a few short years ago and moved the the USA, and do you know what i found? I found I feel safer here in Texas than I did in London. You know why? Because people are armed and criminals know that, that equals less break-ins and muggings. If you take guns away from the common person, all you do is arm the criminals. This is what happened in England, and it actually got so bad at one point that Fed-EX and UPS refused to deliver mail into central London claiming it was less safe than Central Baghdad, and this was in 2008 (one of the deadliest years for Iraq on record).
Now try this idea on for size: Instead of outlawing guns, we should instead actively encourage gun safety. I mean to even suggest teaching the basics of gun safety to children in school. I do not suggest teaching them to shoot, or anything like that (that should be left to professionals at licensed gun ranges), but simply teach a child "this is a weapon, if you find one, get an adult. this is a bullet, if you find one get an adult, do not touch, do not play with, do nothing with it but find a responsible adult." If you teach a child to be safe with a weapon, they will be safe all their lives, however if you ignore safety lessons someone will get hurt.
that 2nd paragraph is key, when I was about 10 years old my folks brought out their unloaded handguns and put them on the table with some of my toy guns.
They told me to pick out the real ones, then talked about gun safety and to find them if I ever found a gun anywhere. I always knew where the guns were in the house, I learned to respect the tool that a firearm is.
Education is key.
Your lack of understanding of the impetus behind the passage of the second amendment is mind-boggling. The second amendment provides for a check on federal and state governments. The second amendment exists to guarantee that there is an armed populace that can (if need be, and let's hope that this need never arises) forcibly prevent an abusive government from placing citizens at risk of life or limb without due-process or fair representation in government. Remember Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to James Madison in which he states that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing"? That idea, which permeated liberal political thought in the eighteenth century, was made manifest in the second amendment which you foolishly denounced.
The government must be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
you posted twice (congrats on your discovery of cut and paste) see http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-guns-please-a-plea-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-12858
and http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-guns-please-a-plea-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-12859
i have to admit i do commend your point of view that perhaps peaceful protest is the wrong way to go. why have we not started firing on the white house and begun the process of overturning the government to meet the demands being thrown around in these forums? probably cause that ideas crazy.
why is it that the government cannot be afraid of the people voting them out of there place of power? <this ones a serious question>
I do not believe that peaceful protest is the wrong way to go. I was merely commenting on your ignorance.
Additionally, if you take the time to research you will see that (adjusted for purchasing power) the period in American history referred to as the Industrial Revolution (where regulations on banks and corporations was at an all-time minimum) the income disparity between the wealthy and the poor was narrowing at the fastest rate ever recorded. It wasn't until the great depression and FDR's New Deal that the income gap began to widen again.
Corporations have made such monumental gains in manufacturing and distribution efficiency. So much of this profit they pass on to you. Imagine trying to buy a car without the innovations of greedy capitalists like Ford et. al.. Not only would the poor be unable to drive from A to B, but buying a car would have been out of reach for even the upper rungs of the middle class.
then narrow my focus on the second amendment to encapsulate only removing the right to bear arms (im happy for my request to be bastardized if the ultimate goal is reached).
Why have we not started an armed revolution yet?
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order.
We are working on jury right now.
then i am very nervous about the next part.
well we have tried telling the government what we want, voting in new blood has not worked, time to put the system on trial. hopefully we will not need to use that last box.
Others on this thread have made excellent comments on the merits of the 2nd Amendment and on gun ownership, so I don't need to go there. However, I'd like to attack this issue from a slightly different angle.
During the 2nd WW, any plans that Germany or Japan had for invading the US mainland were not given serious consideration for several reasons. Most were logistical in nature, but the fact that we are an armed people was also factored into the equation. To add credence, consider Switzerland. That (relatively) tiny country, nestled in between many countries fully involved in the war in Europe, was never even threatened with invasion by Hitler. Yet, Hitler invaded virtually every other country on its border. Why not the Swiss? There are many reasons generally given, however one of the primary reasons is because they have the “2nd Amendment” on steroids.
While only 5% of the population are “professional” military soldiers, every male 16-34 are “conscripts” who have gone through military training and are prepared to “go to war” on a moment’s notice. Each man is issued their complement of personal military equipment, to include firearms. In every other instance, Hitler and Mussolini knew that they only had to worry about the “professional soldiers”. In Switzerland, it would have been very easy to mobilize over 1 million conscripts to engage an invader. Hitler's army would not have stood a chance, and he knew it.
Sorry man, but when you illegalize something, it creates a black market for it. Case in point: drugs. The threat of heavy sentencing doesn't deter many people from doing drugs. You think the drug cartels in Mexico are bad now? Wait until half of their business is dealing in arms.
If you take away the guns from the law abiding owners, who's going to be there when one of the outlaw owners opens up a few rounds on you? There can't be a cop on every corner, you know. Not unless you're okay with living in a police state.
good point. we need more money to investigate and destroy this black market (which already exists, by the by) and for this police state of which you speak.
It does indeed exist, but give me a break. How many trillions in taxpayer money has gone to shut down the black market for drugs? Despite all of the money poured into it, the drug market has never thrived so wildly.
The black market for guns already exists, but the law abiding owners don't have anything to do with it. If you shut down the legal market, the good guys can no longer purchase guns, and the business of the bad guys goes on unaffected.
Now move along, troll.
why couldn't these funds against the war on drugs be diverted to a war on guns? i'm far less nervous about being held up with a joint than a glock.
as far as money goes this guy has also identified multi trillion dollar projects, how are my suggestions any worse?
signed an apparent troll :P
I think you are missing the point entirely, satan. No amount of money can shut down the black market. More regulation will only make it larger. The war on drugs is a perfect example of how not to close a black market. The more money you pour in, the more contraband comes back. The "throw money at it "approach doesn't work. I'm not sure that there is any approach you could take to remove guns from the world entirely. The best we can do is provide the ability to acquire firearms and extensive training to individuals that want to protect themselves and other members of society. The ones that het their guns legally use them for defense and protection of the innocent, and they are the ones that would lose that ability if guns were outlawed. The people that acquire their guns illegally are the ones that use them to harm innocent people, and they would not be affected by a change in policy.
So, to simplify thing: ban guns, good guys lose guns, bad guys have guns, you are screwed.
You know too much about simple economics to be lurking here.
Yes, this Country has all of the money in the world. We wave our economic magic wand, and good things happen. Guns gone? Hooray! Drugs gone? Hooray! Trillions of stolen dollars later, turns out we don't have any money left.
Great that would be one step closer to the occupation of Palestinians in Palestine by Israel then the US would just become, like Palestine, an open air prison.
You want to see your grandma and mom strong armed while your dad and brother is beaten at gunpoint while they bulldozed your 3rd generation farm while killing citizens of other countries that are trying to bring you aid? Start with that then study the history of our founding fathers and maybe a tad bit of some US history, then move to Oakland.
Fear of an armed group is the only thing giving the teabaggers any power.
Take their guns, every last one of them.
Then we will see real change.
I thought that every possible idiotic statement about the economy, politics, or law had already been made elsewhere on this website.
And then I saw your post, SpongeBobPrinterpants.
Thank you.
Amen cwb. This topic and the likes of spongebobwhateveryouwatchtorotyurbrain are an unbelievable wake up call at the problem with the sleeping, rotten brains of our citizens, holy mackerel!
Sorry I do not support. hunting (for food) and protection are also legitimate reasons to own a gun, Besides it would be virtually nonenforceable.
Sorry..NO WAY! Our founding fathers knew we should have the right to bare arms and we must keep that. If you don't want to own one, thats fine.
it's the right to "bear arms". "bare arms" implies the right to have naked uncovered arms. see the actual amendment ratified by the state:
"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"
as you don't know the difference between bearing arms and baring arms i at least figure you shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons.
Thanks for the spell check...
no sweat :)
Your lack of understanding of the impetus behind the passage of the second amendment is mind-boggling. The second amendment provides for a check on federal and state governments. The second amendment exists to guarantee that there is an armed populace that can (if need be, and let's hope that this need never arises) forcibly prevent an abusive government from placing citizens at risk of life or limb without due-process or fair representation in government. Remember Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to James Madison in which he states that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing"? That idea, which permeated liberal political thought in the eighteenth century, was made manifest in the second amendment which you foolishly denounced.
The government must be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
Sorry I do not support this, historically armed citizens are safer.
http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/thompson.htm