The Right To Bear Arms

[westwall]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand. My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best. Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none. You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.

Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged". This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal. It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.

 

[Flash]

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
.

For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand. My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best. Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none. You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.

Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged". This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal. It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.

No, your comment was not succinct. LOL Not at all. You are not making any sense.

The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying. And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept.

Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective. My position on gun control is not reactionary. However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.

In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people...

Funny then how you refuse to engage them on the substance of their posts.
Especially me, and mine..

 

[Esmeralda]

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
.

For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.

I suspect that to someone who is not able to understand a post, it might seem 'dumbass.' I have noticed that the most uninformed and untelligent right wing posters on this board regularly identify at least two (not referring to myself) of the most highly intelligent liberal posters on this board as 'stupid.' It's quite amusing, as those people are running circles around you all, intellectually speaking, and you don't even know it. So, the point is, as I probably need to spell it out, is that you are in no position to assess who is smart and who isn't.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.

 

[deltex1]

Rontavis be's daid........yo






Taco Bell Thief Demands Victim Drop Pants Victim Kills Him

 

[westwall]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand. My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best. Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none. You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.

Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged". This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal. It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.

No, your comment was not succinct. LOL Not at all. You are not making any sense.

The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying. And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept.

Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective. My position on gun control is not reactionary. However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.

In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.

This post of yours further demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on pretty much any subject you address.

I have to say, your claims of a great education are not substantiated by your posts.

 

[Ernie S.]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

Why don't you call his wife names while you're at it you arrogant ignoramus? Talk about inarticulate! Your second paragraph is indecipherable.

"Fucked up" is completely subjective. We would all like to think that those we disagree with are fucked up lunatics. Sane people do their best not to criticize the opposition and become a poster child for the same deficiency we see in them, lest we prove just how fucked up we are.

 

[Ernie S.]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be. This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all. In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.

No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand. My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best. Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none. You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.

Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged". This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal. It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.

No, your comment was not succinct. LOL Not at all. You are not making any sense.

The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying. And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept.

Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective. My position on gun control is not reactionary. However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.

In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.

 

[Ernie S.]

First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
.

For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.

I suspect that to someone who is not able to understand a post, it might seem 'dumbass.' I have noticed that the most uninformed and untelligent right wing posters on this board regularly identify at least two (not referring to myself) of the most highly intelligent liberal posters on this board as 'stupid.' It's quite amusing, as those people are running circles around you all, intellectually speaking, and you don't even know it. So, the point is, as I probably need to spell it out, is that you are in no position to assess who is smart and who isn't.

Why don't you tell us who these two are? It's been years since I was completely in awe of another human being.

 

[ChrisL]

[

Exactly. The government is not to be trusted. They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."

That is the problem.

People in power will interpret the laws and in a way so they or their special interest groups can benefit from it.

A Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper (or parchment) it is written on unless the people are willing to enforce compliance and that is why we need the right to keep and bear arms.

We may not have the courage to use the arms when government is abusive, like we are seeing nowadays, but at least we have the option.

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant.

 

[ChrisL]

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

 

[Brain357]

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

 

[ChrisL]

You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

 

[turtledude]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

People who think like you are why all freedom loving Americans should remain well armed

 

[Brain357]

No we have his very clear quote. Most are criminals.

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

 

[ChrisL]

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

 

[Brain357]

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have to disagree in that I believe a fair reading clearly produces a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms. And I believe that can only change by constitutional amendment.

Case law keeps the document current but the document also lays out some core principles that were not meant to be easily altered. And explains the high standard for amending the Constitution. MHO