To me, the really ludicrous thing about our 2nd amendment in the U.S. is that it was, in large part, originally intended to allow the populace to defend itself against a tyrannical government. Should it come to that at some point in the future, the idea that citizens equipped with automatic and semi-automatic weaponry could hope to survive against a professionally trained, highly mobile force of unfathomable power over land, sea, and air, all guided by satellite surveillance, is completely laughable. What are you gonna do, empty your Glock at the drone bearing down on you? Ridiculous.
The idea that they couldn't is laughable. Remember the Iraq War? All the techno wonder weapons in the world and in the end we still got drove out, and now it's all falling back into the hands of the same Islamists we've been fighting for years.
Without the Second Amendment, the other amendments are just suggestions. The reason that reasonable gun control laws don't get put into place is because everything that gets proposed is just part of a salami-slice strategy whose ultimate aim is to wipe out the right completely - the legislation's intent is not to actually work with law-abiding, responsible gun owners and enthusiasts to assist them, but imposed on them to control them. This doesn't become anywhere more evident where the definition for "assault rifles" just focuses on what looks scary but doesn't actually consider what the weapon does or is capable of. Think of the last time you saw legislation to restrict the sale of violent video games - when has it ever looked like a good idea, or that anyone from the industry was consulted with prior to drafting it?
As well, the fact is that, like gamers, gun owners are a misunderstood and persecuted minority, who are used as a scapegoat when something bad happens. Whenever you, as a gamer, give in and point the finger of blame at them, or when idiots like Wayne LaPierre point the finger at us, we're all just falling into the trap of divide-and-conquer.
As an American, I can sadly say with a great deal of confidence that our citizenry would prove decidedly less effective than most others on the planet in any form of guerrilla warfare. By and large, we are overweight, poorly educated, disorganized, apathetic, and worst of all, distracted.
I do agree about the slippery slope that is the alteration of other amendments becoming too easy in the aftermath of any kind of change to the 2nd one.
Though to be honest, I don't know if they hold much weight any longer. The 4th amendment is now essentially nonexistent, we don't have a free press, and our right to peaceably assemble has been curtailed for years. I could go on, but you see what I'm getting at.
So your solution to the erosion of our rights is to let it all fall apart? Then I guess we shouldn't feel bad about burning fossil fuels with abandon and accelerating climate change, either.
You either care about the future, or you don't, in my view. And if you don't, why ruin things for others in the present?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that what you think is a possible future is in fact the present reality, and we are being placated by things like gun rights.
Or video games, for that matter. Or movies, or fantasy novels. You can take your pick of what constitutes the opiate of the masses and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Does that mean they need to be taken? It worked so well in the 20s with Prohibition, after all, or the War on Drugs, right?
As an American, I can sadly say with a great deal of confidence that our citizenry would prove decidedly less effective than most others on the planet in any form of guerrilla warfare. By and large, we are overweight, poorly educated, disorganized, apathetic, and worst of all, distracted.
Guns didn't cause that, nor did video games. This happens because of the failure of our education, health, and mental health systems, and gun violence is one of a myriad of the symptoms of those failures. Get rid of guns, or video games, or drugs, and you still have overweight, poorly educated, disorganized, apathetic, and distracted Americans. Nothing has changed on that front, except you've added "utterly helpless" to the list.
As an American, I can sadly say with a great deal of confidence that our citizenry would prove decidedly less effective than most others on the planet in any form of guerrilla warfare. By and large, we are overweight, poorly educated, disorganized, apathetic, and worst of all, distracted.
Guns didn't cause that, nor did video games. This happens because of the failure of our education, health, and mental health systems, and gun violence is one of a myriad of the symptoms of those failures. Get rid of guns, or video games, or drugs, and you still have overweight, poorly educated, disorganized, apathetic, and distracted Americans.
Agreed. To be clear, I don't advocate changing or repealing the 2nd amendment, but I do see considering it a practically useful right in its primarily intended context as misguided and dangerous. I'm not saying we should lose our rights, I'm saying we are losing our rights. And the majority of us don't seem to notice or care, precisely because of the reasons stated in the emboldened portion of my post.
On gun control: Not being allowed to own guns will not make your population utterly helpless. A lot of the problems with violence stem from the fact it's legal to own weapons in the first place. You don't need to "Take the law into your own hands" it will only get you killed. As a former member of my nations defence forces I can tell you that in no way would you pose any serious threat to an invading force. You'd be a pain in the arse to be dealt with. Against tanks, aircraft and trained personal a fat, half educated american with a HK-416 is nothing that can't be dealt with. Let's take Russia for example, your old Cold War nemesis. Russians at war can be one of the most determined, brutal and ruthless forces you'll ever see. In Afghanistan they dealt with the militias hiding among the people by killing everyone they found and razing the towns with attack helicopters. They would have no qualms about doing it again, if the situation required it. You'd only make it worse. They lost the war in Afghanistan in the 80's for political reasons, just as the U.S. and ourselves were forced to pull out in 2013/14. Because of public pressure on the government. Granted I wouldn't have fought it the way we did if I was in command, however, it's a war we will eventually win. Now that we are learning how to deal with it.
On education and the fat lazy problem: That is something that is becoming more serious for the U.S. and it needs to be changed. Your education system is weird, schools are often violent, the structure is unusual, it needs better funding and better management. Better educations in school will lead to better motivated more aware and healthier citizens in the future, the current generation, is, more the likely lost. However, the future is not. It's just unfortunate for you the Chinese figured it out first and has been A LOT faster to react. Granted it has a lot less red tape and political bullcrap to deal with. (Sometimes there is something to be said for a one party state...)
On gun control: Not being allowed to own guns will not make your population utterly helpless. A lot of the problems with violence stem from the fact it's legal to own weapons in the first place. You don't need to "Take the law into your own hands" it will only get you killed. As a former member of my nations defence forces I can tell you that in no way would you pose any serious threat to an invading force. You'd be a pain in the arse to be dealt with. Against tanks, aircraft and trained personal a fat, half educated american with a HK-416 is nothing that can't be dealt with.
Considering the ominous noises that have been coming out of Australia with regards to the fact that your government even considered emulating the Great Firewall of China, with all the censorship that came with it, you'll excuse me if emulating your example is the last thing I want our country to do. I'm not saying that Australian gun control is the reason that happened, mind, but this idea that America is the only imperfect government in the world and everyone else does things better I find not only a little insulting but untrue. All governments are flawed because we live in an imperfect world, and demolishing our own to rebuild it in the image of another strikes me as folly.
As for the culture of violence, yes, it is a problem. American culture worships victory and despises defeat, and we have a very all-or-nothing, black and white approach to things, which twists and distorts everything else. It's most obvious in gun culture, where there is sometimes a little too much emphasis put on self-defense, over the far more worthy causes of our collective guard against tyranny or recreational use of guns, and the enormous responsibility they represent. It's also a problem in gaming, and what feeds the constant stream of FPSes in the marketplace and the poisonous culture underpinning the MOBA genre. But again, guns didn't cause that culture and removing them doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
You make some good points. Speaking of the great firewall of China, the U.S. has it's wonderful NSA and FBI spying programs that are off grabbing the ENTIRE planets internet usage, personal information and even spying on people like the German Chancellor. Not to mention the wonderful idea coming from the States of SOPA...
Never the less, your right in that removing the guns would not fix the issue, it needs to be fixed from the root. However, it's a good stop gap while measures are taken to fix it at the root. However you are correct in that America suffers from the same problems every other government does. Corruption, dumb laws, stifled creativity with regards to change. It's just the U.S. tends to be in the public spot light a lot more then other countries.
America is probably still top dog, as far as it's ability to make it's will felt goes. It has a fleet of powerful Aircraft carriers, massive heavy airlift capability and a well trained well equipped and capably led military to back up it's political clout. However, it's not going to be alone at the top forever. China is a rapidly rising power, it commissioned it's first aircraft carrier and has begun building a massive fleet of what look a lot like knock off american C-17 Globemasters... As well as the rising India... I would probably throw the E.U. as a super power as well, when they can actually get along. All of the EU working together would be a force to be reckoned with. That's why they formed that little Union in the first place, to compete with the U.S.
And no you don't want to be the sheep following everyone elses lead, but you can be the tip of the spear, pioneering reform. Who knows the rest of the world may one day follow your example a lot more closely.
I do apologize if I caused offence by the way. Politics is always a fiery and unstable topic to deal with but I love the insight it provides and I thank you VERY much for indulging me.
Quite. It's not to say America doesn't need to learn anything from the examples of others, but all too often it seems to be less about that and more "grass is greener" syndrome rearing its ugly head, and failing to take into account the factors leading to other countries succeeding at something where we have a deficiency. Ours is not a perfect nation or a perfect people but on the whole we seem far too ready to just wallow in self-hatred than analyze why things are going wrong or how it is that others are succeeding where we are failing.
But yes, I also hate what the NSA and FBI are doing. It hasn't lead to censorship yet but obviously something to that effect is around the corner.
Exactly! America also has had to learn lessons other countries learned long ago because you've only been independent for a couple hundred years. Australia and New Zealand adopted the British system of government then tweaked it to suit our own ends. It works well enough for us but could do with a fair but of revision now. The U.S. went for something totally new and has had to learn it's lessons. However, I don't know if the constitution is holding you back or preserving your values? It could certainly use an update. Maybe a law that means it can be reformed once every 100 years? SOMETHING that allows updates and amendments from experiences!
I don't get one thing though. People act as though guns are the only weapons ever, and if we take away the guns, then everybody will be left completely defensless. Really? Get a knife. A club. A hand crossbow. Whatever. Ok, maybe a little to much fantasy is seeping in there, but my point is there are other means of self defense than firearms. Most situations will not call for a gun. Also, I do want to bring up one thing that I don't think many people on a(decidedly left swinging) videogame forum will consider, and that's hunting. I guess most of this discussion is about handguns, but there is a call for having shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes. Our family goes hunting occasionally(extended family far more than us; fewer kids) and we hunt for food, not sport. I can hardly condone hunting for sport. We eat a lot of venison, and sometimes it's a nice financial boost. It's nice not to have to pay for beef for a while. So that's a legitimate reason to have a gun or yow, but having an assault rife, or a semiautomatic something, those only do one thing, and really. How often do you have to shoot down an angry mob, even if you're a republican?
@CaloNord - The EU could be a superpower if it were united. But the only things currently uniting it are geography and history. Each individual country has relative wealth and power, but they all pull in slightly different directions. Some nations are trying to join, others are clamoring to leave. If people thought of the constituent countries like the US thinks of States it might work, but everywhere still looks to their own localised government and the leadership of the whole is a joke. A couple of charismatic, multilingual leaders could add some centralised credibility. If not, it's an argument at a dinner party on a continental scale.
As for the guns, as I understand it the second amendment exists to safeguard the US populace from invasion and tyrannical government. So if a government were to routinely use torture, wage illegal war, deliberately deceive voters, use surveillence on its own citizens with no probable cause or judicial approval - that would be fairly tyrannical, right? I'm not advocating revolution, don't worry, just trying to show that the reasons for *permitting* a heavily armed populace are flawed. Evidence shows that tighter gun control works, while still allowing civilian gun ownership for hunting (and sport in some countries).
NB The US is not the sole target of my anti-government torture/war/spying tirade either, the government of my own country is equally culpable.
The violence you see here in the US is absolutely linked to guns. I deleted my Facebook account when I got into an argument with some of my friend's friends when I was trying to make the point (after Newtown) that while guns don't kill people by themselves, they absolutely make it EASIER to kill people than by any other method, for a myriad of reasons. I grew up in a fairly rural area, so most people resort to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" retort. Or the nearly as frequent "if he didn't have a gun he would have found some other way to kill those kids", which I immediately pointed out was, of course, lunacy. What was he going to do, poison the snack-time Kool-Aid or run around the classroom knocking them all on the head with a mallet?? It was incredibly ironic that the very day we had the elementary school shooting, a man in China attempted to do the same thing, but was only armed with a knife. Many injuries in that case, but not ONE death, a more stark and timely contrast I have rarely seen.
However, it's not just the guns. There is a sickness deep down in the culture here that can't be rooted out or extracted, nor really pinpointed, and one only has to look at our reaction to the massacre of over 20 six and seven year old children. When a similar incident happened in Australia they said ENOUGH and enacted what many over here would call draconian gun laws. And they haven't had a mass shooting since, possibly because their citizenry values the lives of children more than someones right to own a deadly phallic symbol.
How often do you have to shoot down an angry mob, even if you're a republican?
I ain't a Republican, but can we not senselessly mud-sling like this?
Ooh, I'm sorry. My sense of humor has bitten me in the rear again. I meant this as a joke or at least a unseries comment, not an insult or generization. (In regrettably bad taste.) my apologies.
Maybe a law that means it can be reformed once every 100 years? SOMETHING that allows updates and amendments from experiences!
It can be reformed at *any* time, requiring a super majority. It would require 2/3rds of the states or a 2/3 vote of congress.
It is there for a reason, and that reason is to safeguard people's individual liberties against an overreaching government and the ills of mob-rule democracy that you yourself have highlighted. The US Constitution is supposed to be difficult to amend. Otherwise people will adapt horrible laws in response to every crisis without thinking of long term consequences.
It seems that people only want to amend the Constitution to allow for their preferred laws, but don't seem to think about what that means for the liberties that they enjoy. You willing to give up freedom of speech or your right to legal representation and a fair trial of your peers?
Oftentimes this rigidness doesn't even work. Just look at the torture and warrant-less surveillance that goes on.
If anything, perhaps the Constitution should be followed even more rigidly.
Every time I hear about the "rights and liberties" of companies I die a little inside. For some reason the US Supreme Court keeps treating companies as if they were people for the purposes of freedoms and it makes me sad. In these situations the companies are not some downtrodden underdog being persecuted. They're almost always trying to foist the beliefs of their founders or board on employees, or worse to avoid a duty of care to them, and the US government helps them under the banner of "religious freedom".
In the case @Nonnahwriter links maybe they need the Wisdom and don't-give-a-****ness of Solomon: "You may avoid paying for employee contraceptives, but only if you have a truly world-beating set of maternity leave and benefits..."
It is not the "companies" whose liberties are being protected it is the owners and the people who run them.
If you choose to run your business in a certain way you do not all of the sudden lose your right to be treated like a human being with the same protections as anyone else.
The violence you see here in the US is absolutely linked to guns. I deleted my Facebook account when I got into an argument with some of my friend's friends when I was trying to make the point (after Newtown) that while guns don't kill people by themselves, they absolutely make it EASIER to kill people than by any other method, for a myriad of reasons. I grew up in a fairly rural area, so most people resort to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" retort. Or the nearly as frequent "if he didn't have a gun he would have found some other way to kill those kids", which I immediately pointed out was, of course, lunacy. What was he going to do, poison the snack-time Kool-Aid or run around the classroom knocking them all on the head with a mallet?? It was incredibly ironic that the very day we had the elementary school shooting, a man in China attempted to do the same thing, but was only armed with a knife. Many injuries in that case, but not ONE death, a more stark and timely contrast I have rarely seen.
However, it's not just the guns. There is a sickness deep down in the culture here that can't be rooted out or extracted, nor really pinpointed, and one only has to look at our reaction to the massacre of over 20 six and seven year old children. When a similar incident happened in Australia they said ENOUGH and enacted what many over here would call draconian gun laws. And they haven't had a mass shooting since, possibly because their citizenry values the lives of children more than someones right to own a deadly phallic symbol.
Deleting your Facebook was a good idea regardless of the argument, actually.
Again, if you realize that the real problem is cultural, then why are you going after the guns owned by responsible citizens? Guns don't have a monopoly on the potential to murder - get rid of them, and the psychotic and unhinged turn to knives (as you see in China, more and more frequently) or bombs, or something we haven't even thought of yet. Taking guns doesn't address the fundamental problem, and agitating for it only increases the polarization in politics, making any reform anywhere that much more difficult to achieve.
Simply put, gun bans are political cowardice or laziness - a body politic too afraid of actually tackling the core problems in their society simply grabbing the lowest hanging fruit, whatever subcultures are hurt in the process be damned.
@booinyoureyes I can understand that, I can also understand the significance it hold to a lot of Americans and why they don't want it to be amended. It's perfectly understandable. But that being said there are civil liberties, like free speech (Which these days gets your phone hacked and emails monitored by the NSA and Homeland Security) and your right to public assembly. Then there are things that need to change for a safer and more stable society. "Don't infringe on our liberties" is one thing, totally another to outlaw something that is causing children to get shot at school because there are SO many guns I could probably break into a house while it's owners at work and the chances are I'd find a firearm... You only need one to protect yourself because EVVVVVERYONE else has one.. 'To protect themselves'...
But I agree that there is a deep rooted obsession with owning and being allowed to own guns. I'll never understand it, while yes they are fun, I've used a great many my self. Feels good to have one around when your in a dangerous situation, however, I don't see my home as dangerous enough to warrant one. If someone came at me with a knife, I could disarm them without to much trouble... the gun on the other hand presents a few issues. If they are illegal, you can train in the basics of self defence fairly easily, a lot of places here offer the first lesson free, seniors can do whole courses for nothing. It's a much better idea as far as I can see it.
@booinyoureyes I would agree, except that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as human beings, (Citizens United), in addition to the rights they already had. That's the real issue that the mainstream media is eagerly trying to deflect attention away from. Things like Birth Control, Gun Control, LGBT Rights, etc. are wedge issues—important yes, but, more relevantly, divisive and distracting from problems that are more universal, in that they directly effect, well, 99% of us.
@booinyoureyes I would agree, except that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as human beings, (Citizens United), in addition to the rights they already had. That's the real issue that the mainstream media is eagerly trying to deflect attention away from. Things like Birth Control, Gun Control, LGBT Rights, etc. are wedge issues—important yes, but, more relevantly, divisive and distracting from problems that are more universal, in that they directly effect, well, 99% of us.
On this we 100% agree. "Corporate rights" are running slipshod over individual rights and it's just as bad, if not worse, than an oppressive government.
The important part: "By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited."
In other words, freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, now applies to corporations as well as people. The precedent this ruling set will haunt us, perhaps forever. Groundbreaking, to say the least.
I would never call for a outright gun ban, because it will never, ever happen. It's a political impossibility. The NRA (which is nothing more than a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers) is one of the most powerful organizations in the body politic, for reasons that escape me, since even a large portion of their membership is for things (like expanded background checks) that the NRA is more than happy to equate to opening actions of the Third Reich.
As for the point of turning to other weapons, that is exactly the point I was trying to make in the argument. Yes, you CAN kill people by other methods, with other weapons, but my point is that guns make it immeasurably EASIER to kill people. There is no way anyone could commit these murders on the mass scale we see almost weekly (or sometimes DAILY depending on the week) with any other type of readily available weapon. A man who takes a knife into a mall and starts stabbing people isn't going to get very far, and those people would stand a decent chance of surviving. A man in the same situation with a semi-automatic rifle could kill dozens of people just by moving his finger and aiming. There is no comparison to other objects that can be used as weapons.
The important part: "By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited."
In other words, freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, now applies to corporations as well as people. The precedent this ruling set will haunt us, perhaps forever. Groundbreaking, to say the least.
Okay, so I completely 100% disagree on this issue.
The ruling overturned a part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. It banned expenditure on "electioneering communications" which it defined as any broadcast or communication released within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary that mentioned a candidate by corporations, union and non-profit organizations.
You are right about one thing. Corporations and unions are not people. They are groups of people. Why do these people not have the same rights as individuals not part of the group do, simply because they assemble to satisfy common interests? Why does the coal miner's union not have a right to speak about a candidate together, when none of the individuals are banned from paying for television spots on their own? Why can't the owners and managers of Whole Foods make their case for or against a candidates policies on food?
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances A you can see the right of assembly (what we normally refer to as freedom of association, is something that the Founding Fathers of the United States kind of fought an entire empire to ensure.
But never mind the idea of a corporation, union or non-profit organization peaceably assembling to petition their government. Let's take an example such as CNN. CNN is a corporation... that directly profits from its ability to spread information the same way that the aforementioned groups do. Ted Turner owns them and makes a profit from their activities. They don't have their freedom of speech infringed when they publish opinion pieces. Does the FCC get to decide what is a legitimate and approved source of information and what is not?
Again, what it boils down to is the claim that somehow people who have individual rights and liberties somehow forfeit them when they assemble in pursuit of a common interest. I don't see the logic behind this.
This all comes down to one thing: the legitimate fear of private interests using the government to fulfill their own needs and wants in opposition to those of the "public" (which, again, is just another group of individuals with their own interests). What is called "Corporate Welfare" or "Crony Capitalism" by people like Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist. This is a real concern, but rather than restricting peoples freedom to assemble, we should actually concentrate on weeding out occasions in which the government gives out favors to corporations (no bid contracts, anti-competitive preferential treatment in, protectionist trade policies) or to unions (. A good idea would actually be *following the Constitution*, in which there is NO mention of the government's right to take taxpayer money to subsidize banks that have suffered losses.
Fixing the tax-code to not allow preferential treatment, something both Norquist and even Nader of all people support, would also go a long ways, no?
Limiting the ability of people to state their minds might help make politicians less likely to sell out to private interests... except that half of former Senators and Representatives now become lobbyists after "retiring"https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z
Funniest part is the subject of Citizen United's controversial movie, Hillary Clinton, regularly makes paid speaking arrangements. She gets $200,000!!!!!!! for each session.
I'm sure the Carlysle Group (global asset management firm) and Fidelity (online trading brokerage) were*dying* to hear what she had to say...and that's it! I'm sure that the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Realtors Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the The Global Business Travel Association definitely had interest in paying her 200K other than to hang onto her every word.
Let's not get into her paid speaking arrangements with Goldman Sachs, of which she had *two*! I'm sure those 400,000 US dollars had nothing to do with the 11 billion they received from TARP. That she voted for. I mean, that would never influence her actions as president!
But yeah, I'm sure banning a movie about her will fix the problem.
She's not even the worst one! That HAS to go to New Gingrich, who seems to switch from policy maker to personal beneficiary of said policies every couple years. If they can just take any money they want from these arrangements after office, there is nothing that limiting free speech can stop. I think a better solution than regulating what the public can and can't do would be to regulate what politicians can and can't do, particularly when they are out of office.
@jackjack Umm what now? Corporations are human beings to? This is insane...
Well certainly in the states they are moving toward being considered "people" just with very limited liability and responsibilities (and I have no doubt that other countries are experiencing this too). If they are failing as a business and are large enough the government may very well bail them out. If they know about a serious problem with their products (GM) for over a decade and do nothing to address it, no worries, they get a slap on the wrist from the government and will have to settle the lawsuits. Apparently in GM's case they are asking that any problems experienced before their 2009 bankruptcy be exempted, because they are now a different legal entity, but this is just a stark example of how far they will go to avoid taking responsibility for their products.
Comments
Without the Second Amendment, the other amendments are just suggestions. The reason that reasonable gun control laws don't get put into place is because everything that gets proposed is just part of a salami-slice strategy whose ultimate aim is to wipe out the right completely - the legislation's intent is not to actually work with law-abiding, responsible gun owners and enthusiasts to assist them, but imposed on them to control them. This doesn't become anywhere more evident where the definition for "assault rifles" just focuses on what looks scary but doesn't actually consider what the weapon does or is capable of. Think of the last time you saw legislation to restrict the sale of violent video games - when has it ever looked like a good idea, or that anyone from the industry was consulted with prior to drafting it?
As well, the fact is that, like gamers, gun owners are a misunderstood and persecuted minority, who are used as a scapegoat when something bad happens. Whenever you, as a gamer, give in and point the finger of blame at them, or when idiots like Wayne LaPierre point the finger at us, we're all just falling into the trap of divide-and-conquer.
I do agree about the slippery slope that is the alteration of other amendments becoming too easy in the aftermath of any kind of change to the 2nd one.
Though to be honest, I don't know if they hold much weight any longer. The 4th amendment is now essentially nonexistent, we don't have a free press, and our right to peaceably assemble has been curtailed for years. I could go on, but you see what I'm getting at.
You either care about the future, or you don't, in my view. And if you don't, why ruin things for others in the present?
To be clear, I don't advocate changing or repealing the 2nd amendment, but I do see considering it a practically useful right in its primarily intended context as misguided and dangerous.
I'm not saying we should lose our rights, I'm saying we are losing our rights. And the majority of us don't seem to notice or care, precisely because of the reasons stated in the emboldened portion of my post.
On gun control: Not being allowed to own guns will not make your population utterly helpless. A lot of the problems with violence stem from the fact it's legal to own weapons in the first place. You don't need to "Take the law into your own hands" it will only get you killed. As a former member of my nations defence forces I can tell you that in no way would you pose any serious threat to an invading force. You'd be a pain in the arse to be dealt with. Against tanks, aircraft and trained personal a fat, half educated american with a HK-416 is nothing that can't be dealt with.
Let's take Russia for example, your old Cold War nemesis. Russians at war can be one of the most determined, brutal and ruthless forces you'll ever see. In Afghanistan they dealt with the militias hiding among the people by killing everyone they found and razing the towns with attack helicopters. They would have no qualms about doing it again, if the situation required it. You'd only make it worse.
They lost the war in Afghanistan in the 80's for political reasons, just as the U.S. and ourselves were forced to pull out in 2013/14. Because of public pressure on the government. Granted I wouldn't have fought it the way we did if I was in command, however, it's a war we will eventually win. Now that we are learning how to deal with it.
On education and the fat lazy problem: That is something that is becoming more serious for the U.S. and it needs to be changed. Your education system is weird, schools are often violent, the structure is unusual, it needs better funding and better management. Better educations in school will lead to better motivated more aware and healthier citizens in the future, the current generation, is, more the likely lost. However, the future is not. It's just unfortunate for you the Chinese figured it out first and has been A LOT faster to react. Granted it has a lot less red tape and political bullcrap to deal with. (Sometimes there is something to be said for a one party state...)
As for the culture of violence, yes, it is a problem. American culture worships victory and despises defeat, and we have a very all-or-nothing, black and white approach to things, which twists and distorts everything else. It's most obvious in gun culture, where there is sometimes a little too much emphasis put on self-defense, over the far more worthy causes of our collective guard against tyranny or recreational use of guns, and the enormous responsibility they represent. It's also a problem in gaming, and what feeds the constant stream of FPSes in the marketplace and the poisonous culture underpinning the MOBA genre. But again, guns didn't cause that culture and removing them doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Never the less, your right in that removing the guns would not fix the issue, it needs to be fixed from the root. However, it's a good stop gap while measures are taken to fix it at the root. However you are correct in that America suffers from the same problems every other government does. Corruption, dumb laws, stifled creativity with regards to change. It's just the U.S. tends to be in the public spot light a lot more then other countries.
America is probably still top dog, as far as it's ability to make it's will felt goes. It has a fleet of powerful Aircraft carriers, massive heavy airlift capability and a well trained well equipped and capably led military to back up it's political clout. However, it's not going to be alone at the top forever. China is a rapidly rising power, it commissioned it's first aircraft carrier and has begun building a massive fleet of what look a lot like knock off american C-17 Globemasters... As well as the rising India... I would probably throw the E.U. as a super power as well, when they can actually get along. All of the EU working together would be a force to be reckoned with. That's why they formed that little Union in the first place, to compete with the U.S.
And no you don't want to be the sheep following everyone elses lead, but you can be the tip of the spear, pioneering reform. Who knows the rest of the world may one day follow your example a lot more closely.
I do apologize if I caused offence by the way. Politics is always a fiery and unstable topic to deal with but I love the insight it provides and I thank you VERY much for indulging me.
But yes, I also hate what the NSA and FBI are doing. It hasn't lead to censorship yet but obviously something to that effect is around the corner.
Ok, maybe a little to much fantasy is seeping in there, but my point is there are other means of self defense than firearms. Most situations will not call for a gun.
Also, I do want to bring up one thing that I don't think many people on a(decidedly left swinging) videogame forum will consider, and that's hunting. I guess most of this discussion is about handguns, but there is a call for having shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes. Our family goes hunting occasionally(extended family far more than us; fewer kids) and we hunt for food, not sport. I can hardly condone hunting for sport. We eat a lot of venison, and sometimes it's a nice financial boost. It's nice not to have to pay for beef for a while. So that's a legitimate reason to have a gun or yow, but having an assault rife, or a semiautomatic something, those only do one thing, and really. How often do you have to shoot down an angry mob, even if you're a republican?
As for the guns, as I understand it the second amendment exists to safeguard the US populace from invasion and tyrannical government. So if a government were to routinely use torture, wage illegal war, deliberately deceive voters, use surveillence on its own citizens with no probable cause or judicial approval - that would be fairly tyrannical, right? I'm not advocating revolution, don't worry, just trying to show that the reasons for *permitting* a heavily armed populace are flawed. Evidence shows that tighter gun control works, while still allowing civilian gun ownership for hunting (and sport in some countries).
NB The US is not the sole target of my anti-government torture/war/spying tirade either, the government of my own country is equally culpable.
However, it's not just the guns. There is a sickness deep down in the culture here that can't be rooted out or extracted, nor really pinpointed, and one only has to look at our reaction to the massacre of over 20 six and seven year old children. When a similar incident happened in Australia they said ENOUGH and enacted what many over here would call draconian gun laws. And they haven't had a mass shooting since, possibly because their citizenry values the lives of children more than someones right to own a deadly phallic symbol.
It is there for a reason, and that reason is to safeguard people's individual liberties against an overreaching government and the ills of mob-rule democracy that you yourself have highlighted. The US Constitution is supposed to be difficult to amend. Otherwise people will adapt horrible laws in response to every crisis without thinking of long term consequences.
It seems that people only want to amend the Constitution to allow for their preferred laws, but don't seem to think about what that means for the liberties that they enjoy. You willing to give up freedom of speech or your right to legal representation and a fair trial of your peers?
Oftentimes this rigidness doesn't even work. Just look at the torture and warrant-less surveillance that goes on.
If anything, perhaps the Constitution should be followed even more rigidly.
If you choose to run your business in a certain way you do not all of the sudden lose your right to be treated like a human being with the same protections as anyone else.
Again, if you realize that the real problem is cultural, then why are you going after the guns owned by responsible citizens? Guns don't have a monopoly on the potential to murder - get rid of them, and the psychotic and unhinged turn to knives (as you see in China, more and more frequently) or bombs, or something we haven't even thought of yet. Taking guns doesn't address the fundamental problem, and agitating for it only increases the polarization in politics, making any reform anywhere that much more difficult to achieve.
Simply put, gun bans are political cowardice or laziness - a body politic too afraid of actually tackling the core problems in their society simply grabbing the lowest hanging fruit, whatever subcultures are hurt in the process be damned.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
@booinyoureyes I can understand that, I can also understand the significance it hold to a lot of Americans and why they don't want it to be amended. It's perfectly understandable. But that being said there are civil liberties, like free speech (Which these days gets your phone hacked and emails monitored by the NSA and Homeland Security) and your right to public assembly. Then there are things that need to change for a safer and more stable society. "Don't infringe on our liberties" is one thing, totally another to outlaw something that is causing children to get shot at school because there are SO many guns I could probably break into a house while it's owners at work and the chances are I'd find a firearm... You only need one to protect yourself because EVVVVVERYONE else has one.. 'To protect themselves'...
But I agree that there is a deep rooted obsession with owning and being allowed to own guns. I'll never understand it, while yes they are fun, I've used a great many my self. Feels good to have one around when your in a dangerous situation, however, I don't see my home as dangerous enough to warrant one. If someone came at me with a knife, I could disarm them without to much trouble... the gun on the other hand presents a few issues. If they are illegal, you can train in the basics of self defence fairly easily, a lot of places here offer the first lesson free, seniors can do whole courses for nothing. It's a much better idea as far as I can see it.
I would agree, except that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as human beings, (Citizens United), in addition to the rights they already had. That's the real issue that the mainstream media is eagerly trying to deflect attention away from. Things like Birth Control, Gun Control, LGBT Rights, etc. are wedge issues—important yes, but, more relevantly, divisive and distracting from problems that are more universal, in that they directly effect, well, 99% of us.
The important part:
"By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited."
In other words, freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, now applies to corporations as well as people. The precedent this ruling set will haunt us, perhaps forever. Groundbreaking, to say the least.
As for the point of turning to other weapons, that is exactly the point I was trying to make in the argument. Yes, you CAN kill people by other methods, with other weapons, but my point is that guns make it immeasurably EASIER to kill people. There is no way anyone could commit these murders on the mass scale we see almost weekly (or sometimes DAILY depending on the week) with any other type of readily available weapon. A man who takes a knife into a mall and starts stabbing people isn't going to get very far, and those people would stand a decent chance of surviving. A man in the same situation with a semi-automatic rifle could kill dozens of people just by moving his finger and aiming. There is no comparison to other objects that can be used as weapons.
The ruling overturned a part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. It banned expenditure on "electioneering communications" which it defined as any broadcast or communication released within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary that mentioned a candidate by corporations, union and non-profit organizations.
You are right about one thing. Corporations and unions are not people. They are groups of people. Why do these people not have the same rights as individuals not part of the group do, simply because they assemble to satisfy common interests? Why does the coal miner's union not have a right to speak about a candidate together, when none of the individuals are banned from paying for television spots on their own? Why can't the owners and managers of Whole Foods make their case for or against a candidates policies on food?
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
A you can see the right of assembly (what we normally refer to as freedom of association, is something that the Founding Fathers of the United States kind of fought an entire empire to ensure.
But never mind the idea of a corporation, union or non-profit organization peaceably assembling to petition their government. Let's take an example such as CNN. CNN is a corporation... that directly profits from its ability to spread information the same way that the aforementioned groups do. Ted Turner owns them and makes a profit from their activities. They don't have their freedom of speech infringed when they publish opinion pieces. Does the FCC get to decide what is a legitimate and approved source of information and what is not?
Again, what it boils down to is the claim that somehow people who have individual rights and liberties somehow forfeit them when they assemble in pursuit of a common interest. I don't see the logic behind this.
This all comes down to one thing: the legitimate fear of private interests using the government to fulfill their own needs and wants in opposition to those of the "public" (which, again, is just another group of individuals with their own interests). What is called "Corporate Welfare" or "Crony Capitalism" by people like Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist.
This is a real concern, but rather than restricting peoples freedom to assemble, we should actually concentrate on weeding out occasions in which the government gives out favors to corporations (no bid contracts, anti-competitive preferential treatment in, protectionist trade policies) or to unions (. A good idea would actually be *following the Constitution*, in which there is NO mention of the government's right to take taxpayer money to subsidize banks that have suffered losses.
Fixing the tax-code to not allow preferential treatment, something both Norquist and even Nader of all people support, would also go a long ways, no?
Limiting the ability of people to state their minds might help make politicians less likely to sell out to private interests... except that half of former Senators and Representatives now become lobbyists after "retiring" https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z
Funniest part is the subject of Citizen United's controversial movie, Hillary Clinton, regularly makes paid speaking arrangements. She gets $200,000!!!!!!! for each session.
Here is a list of her appearances. From an actual left-wing news source, in case you doubt their legitimacy:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-private-equity-white-house-2016
I'm sure the Carlysle Group (global asset management firm) and Fidelity (online trading brokerage) were*dying* to hear what she had to say...and that's it! I'm sure that the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Realtors Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the The Global Business Travel Association definitely had interest in paying her 200K other than to hang onto her every word.
Let's not get into her paid speaking arrangements with Goldman Sachs, of which she had *two*! I'm sure those 400,000 US dollars had nothing to do with the 11 billion they received from TARP. That she voted for. I mean, that would never influence her actions as president!
But yeah, I'm sure banning a movie about her will fix the problem.
She's not even the worst one! That HAS to go to New Gingrich, who seems to switch from policy maker to personal beneficiary of said policies every couple years. If they can just take any money they want from these arrangements after office, there is nothing that limiting free speech can stop. I think a better solution than regulating what the public can and can't do would be to regulate what politicians can and can't do, particularly when they are out of office.