What do you think about the Second Amendment ruling?

College Confidential Community
1

<p>I find that it's great. It would eventually allow more law abiding citizens to protect themselves from dangerous criminals. Contrary to what some liberals say, it won't still restrict legal gun ownership to felons, illegal immigrants, and mentally unstable people. Hopefully this would lead to allow more states to allow concealed carry weapons.</p>

<p>According to statistics, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
it will still restrict legal gun ownership to felons, illegal immigrants, and mentally unstable people

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So now I got to commit some crimes, eliminate my legal documentation, or feign a mental illness to own a gun? I hate this goddamn country.</p>

3

<p>Sorry, MAJOR typo there.</p>

<p>I edited that out.</p>

<p>Thanks for your wise ass remark :p</p>

4

<p>I have mixed feelings on this. What if a seemingly law abiding citizen decides to purchase a gun and make the transition to murderous felon in the middle of a crowd?</p>

5

<p>**** happens, this is reality.</p>

<p>Then again, if you have more people carrying in the crowd. That person can stop the law abiding citizen-turned felon.</p>

6

<p>The vast majority of crimes are committed with guns that are not registered to the legal user, i.e. smuggled or stolen.</p>

<p>Gun control should restrict the criminal's ability to get a gun, not the law abiding citizen's. Take Switzerland for example, where most households have an Sig 550 automatic rifle. Very, very low crime rates. Burglars are much less likely to break into your house if there is a good possibility that you have a firearm to defend yourself.</p>

7

<p>Good on the Supreme Court. Personally, I don't understand the dissent over handguns in relation to the 2nd Amendment; it's not a complicated amendment. I'm all for civilians being able to defend themselves (AND for civilians having the means to wield them against the government if and when the day arrives where it's necessary to do so) - and I'm a Democrat.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
how could anyone interpret the 2nd Amendment as NOT proclaiming civilian rights to own weapons? It's not a complicated amendment, but anti-gun groups try to make it seem that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Uh.. uh.. um... the right to bear arms could refer to the freedom to have arms that resemble those of a member of the family Ursidae. You've got to be more accepting of others' ways, you close-minded conservative!!!"</p>

9

<p>I would like to be able to find a statistic that shows how many crimes are committed with legally registered guns. If anyone knows where to find it please let me know.</p>

10

<p>I've heard arguments stating that the founding fathers were slightly biased on this due to the recent occupation by Britain, and that the amendment shouldn't apply to the present. (I don't agree with this, by the way)</p>

<p>I just have doubts on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of humanity. Some (normal) people aren't meant to carry. Imagine walking down a subway and a fight breaks out. Major riots (if there ever will be any)could get pretty crazy.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
I just have doubts on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of humanity. Some (normal) people aren't meant to carry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Replace "carry" with "reproduce" and I'd still agree.</p>

12

<p>Yeah, lets give guns to anyone and everyone......not. Would you really feel safe if everyone had a gun? I wouldn't. All we need is everyone to have one. Then instead of fist fights we'd have shootouts.</p>

<p>While studies may say that it will reduce those things you mentioned, don't you think it would actaully raise murder and accidental shooting rates? People are dumb with guns and there are reasons why certain people aren't allowed to have them.</p>

13

<p>the constitution is outdated. change it.</p>

14

<p>Who said everyone should have a gun? I don't recall anyone, here recently, suggesting that was a good idea.</p>

<p>The Constitution...pish-posh. We don't need that document anymore. The communist manifesto would look pretty good wouldn't it? That way we could pretty much outlaw anything we didn't like (I'm sorry...the ruling party could...what was I thinking? I wouldn't have a say) and take all of the rich (wait, there wouldn't be any rich except the ruling party. Keep forgetting that) people's money to redistribute. Since no one would have any individual rights it would be a blast! Who needs protection from their government.</p>

15

<p>Well since their job is to interpret the constitution, it's certainly good to hear that they're doing their jobs. Like someone said the 2nd Amendment isn't tricky.</p>

<p>Of course, I think the 2nd amendment should be removed from the constitution, but can't do much while it's in there :p</p>

16

<p>1) If gun are illegal, the same people who shouldn't have one, can still obtain one fairly easily...cough cough, it'll be as easy to find as marijuana.</p>

<p>2) This provides us sane people with guns to defend ourself from those people in number 1.</p>

17

<p>
[Quote]
"Uh.. uh.. um... the right to bear arms could refer to the freedom to have arms that resemble those of a member of the family Ursidae. You've got to be more accepting of others' ways, you close-minded conservative!!!"

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>"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." That definitely means having the arms of a member of the family Ursidae. You were probably being sarcastic, though.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I just have doubts on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of humanity. Some (normal) people aren't meant to carry. Imagine walking down a subway and a fight breaks out. Major riots (if there ever will be any)could get pretty crazy.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. It would be good to know that the vast majority of gun owners do not carry (and do not find it necessary to carry), but some people such as social workers or realtors who work in the inner city would probably need some protection. Unfortunately, cities including New York and Chicago do not even give you an option to carry.</p>

<p>The unintelligent people also have to take a course in Concealed Weapons before even getting the permit.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
The Constitution...pish-posh. We don't need that document anymore. The communist manifesto would look pretty good wouldn't it? That way we could pretty much outlaw anything we didn't like (I'm sorry...the ruling party could...what was I thinking? I wouldn't have a say) and take all of the rich (wait, there wouldn't be any rich except the ruling party. Keep forgetting that) people's money to redistribute. Since no one would have any individual rights it would be a blast! Who needs protection from their government.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Love your sarcastic humor.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
1) If gun are illegal, the same people who shouldn't have one, can still obtain one fairly easily...cough cough, it'll be as easy to find as marijuana.</p>

<p>2) This provides us sane people with guns to defend ourself from those people in number 1.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. There are tens of millions of AK-47s in the world, and they can be obtained for no more than a few hundred dollars, or even less in Africa. We should do more to crack down on illegal arms distributors than on legal gun owners. Arming the law abiding citizen also makes society much safer from such violent criminals.</p>

18

<p>i read the 2nd ammendment as the part about the well regulated militia being seperate to the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." I agree with the ruling, if only the founding fathers had put a . instead of a , this wouldnt be an issue.</p>

19

<p>It would be nice if the amendment could be cleaned up and made less ambiguous, one way or another. Unfortunately that isn't likely to happen. I thought this was an interesting way of putting it:</p>

<p>"The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't."</p>

20

<p>I generally agree with the ruling. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. Anyone reading the amendment, with at least a middle-school understanding of grammar should be able to figure out what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means. </p>

<p>I do wish the court would have incorporated the 2nd under the 14th Amendment and/or declared a standard of review (strict scrutiny was my hope).</p>