The Second Amendment

Appy61

'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' Following the unfortunate incident in Idaho - why do you need to carry a gun in your hand bag (purse) when shopping in Walmart? Discuss?

iuventus · Post edited by iuventus at 2014-12-31 06:48:55

The Second Amendment was not designed to protect one's right to carry a handgun in one's handbag. It was designed to protect the rights of οἱ πολλοἱ, not ὁ ἄτομος. It is exploited to allow simpletons to carry weapons into Walmart, the cinema, or McDonald's.

Appy61

Oh right!

Pet · Post edited by Pet at 2014-12-31 08:16:58

I believe that the Supreme Court is the body responsible for interpreting the American Constitution. Perhaps they should pay at least as much attention to A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, as to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. As far as I can gather, the resultant militia -- so far from being well regulated -- is scarcely regulated at all.

Urban_Tribesman

@iuventus
πολύ ωραίο

Whickwithy

America is owned by the lobbies and the corporations and industries that fund them. The gun manufacturers being among the most willing to spend, as well as having a huge contingent of people who love their guns and their "freedom". Funny that their freedom is eroding every day without the slightest realization. Frog in warm water.

Something that really disturbs me is, at least in the U.S., I have seen the use of email as a particularly pernicious and devious way in which to spread propoganda. The insidious email starts who knows where but is spread from friend to friend, making its vallidity, supportability, and acceptance very credible, no matter how incredulous the material. It's something to talk about the next time you get together and further cement the incoherent thought.

Pet

^ I don't think I've received email of that sort. A get a lot of phishing scams, and plenty of emails from companies from whom I bought stuff years ago, but nothing I can identify as insidious propaganda. I wonder what sort of things it concerns.

stevil

i'm not touching this one

Urban_Tribesman · Post edited by Urban_Tribesman at 2015-01-01 07:35:17

I think we can extend this thread out to encompass the right of an individual to protect themselves and their property from the action of others with malicious as their intention. Speaking as a Brit, I think we would all find it unthinkable to go to the shops with a firearm about our person, even if the intention was solely for our personal protection. What statement does that make about the rule of law in the area in which I live? The possibility of accident or misuse, as in this very sad case of the Mother and the 2 year old, is too great.
It also brings into being the other issue which continues to dominate the news from the USA with the
Police shooting dead young men; usually black or Hispanic, as they believe the person has a firearm and they obviously have the 'if in doubt, shoot first' backing of the authorities. I would be interested if we only hear of the incidents of this kind where they involve black/Hispanic men; because of its higher newsworthiness, and if there are equal incidents where the victims are white. If not, it would suggest that the Police do not, during that immediate threat assessment, view the likelihood of white men carrying firearms as high as black/Hispanic men. Either that or, statistically, white men do not find themselves in direct conflict with the Police as often.
In the UK, we have no right to bear arms and, because of that, neither do the Police generally, and, in that immediate threat assessment, the Police are not expecting to be confronted by them. I am sure these 'risk assessments' are quite thorough and the UK Police know in which areas/situations firearms are more likely to be an issue, and suitably equipped and trained officers are deployed and available if required.
What does annoy me in the UK is that we seem to have lost the right to defend our own homes and property. If someone breaks into your home and you confront them, and they are injured in the process ( a near certainty in our house) then I am liable to be arrested as well as the burglar. Speaking as a couple who were burgled many years ago, this annoys me and, in my view, only emboldens thieves to do this. People have too many human rights. How can you protest and claim your human rights have been violated if your injuries came whilst trying to deprive others of theirs?
Just who is the criminal here?

Whickwithy · Post edited by Whickwithy at 2015-01-01 08:46:43

Gotta say, UT, that's pretty crazy. So, if someone breaks into your house, you are supposed to stand aside and say, "take what you want"? Is there supposed to be any other recourse? I'm guessing it is call the police.

Whickwithy

Pet said:
^ I don't think I've received email of that sort.

That is another interesting thing about the phenomenon (though I'm guessing it's also just not used outside of the U.S.), the emails only get sent to those of similar views - again, friends. It does a great job of getting them all frothed up - just what the world needs.

Urban_Tribesman

Whickwithy said:
Gotta say, UT, that's pretty crazy. So, if someone breaks into your house, you are supposed to stand aside and say, "take what you want"? Is there supposed to be any other recourse? I'm guessing it is call the police.

I'm with you WW. If someone breaks into my house, I will defend it by whatever means I deem necessary and will deal with the consequences later. As long as your actions are viewed as 'appropriate' then the Courts will generally be ok with your actions but there have been cases where people have broken into property, then injured themselves in some way and have successfully sued the householder. Utter madness.

Mind you, then there is the case of the young couple who had an argument while in a MacDonalds and she threw her coffee at him. They continued their tiff and then she slipped in the coffee she had thrown and fell to the floor, hurting herself. She successfully sued MacDonalds for slipping in the coffee she was responsible for putting on the floor.
Morons. Shoot them, it is the only safe way to save the world !

Pet

Whickwithy said:

Pet said:
^ I don't think I've received email of that sort.

That is another interesting thing about the phenomenon (though I'm guessing it's also just not used outside of the U.S.), the emails only get sent to those of similar views - again, friends. It does a great job of getting them all frothed up - just what the world needs.

Ah! I don't think I have similar views. By which I mean that not many people would agree with me on many topics. I'm vaguely surprised when anyone agrees with me on anything.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories