Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 492699 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s May 24 - 04:56am EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Off Topic /
 

 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Dr. Peaceful Dec 17, 2012, 05:35pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Aug 27, 2013, 02:34pm EDT

Replies: 20 - Views: 5643
The second amendment in the U.S. constitution says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Reference: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html
(Note, the 2nd amendment was originally the 4th proposed article. Only because the first two articles were rejected, then it became the 2nd. So look at the forth article in the bill of rights picture.)

It's simple English, word by word. In the beginning of the sentence it sets the two prerequisites required for the statement in the second half of the sentence. The two prerequisites are: one, a well regulated militia; two, necessary for the security of a free state. Only when these requirements are met, then the people's right to bear arms should not be infringed.

At the time when the bill of rights were written (1789):
- There were no well organized / regulated and multiple branches of military forces that we have today.
- There were no well organized / regulated law enforcement departments and agencies that we have today.
- The country's just formed, there were still a lot of uncertainties, still a lot of concerns of a central power, and still some lawlessness. So the right to bear arms was written to ensure the security of the state, to facilitate the formation of militia, and for self defense.
- Of course, there were no super markets back then for convenient purchase of meats and processed food items. So hunting was necessary to acquire food in some areas.
- Firearms back then were much inferior compare to today's. Muskets with bayonet were the personal weapon of choice in the independence war. One could only fire a few shots in a minute with a musket and it's quite inaccurate. That's why they need soldiers in formations and to fire volleys.

Today, we have well regulated police and emergency services easily accessible by dialing 911. Today, we have well regulated military branches to protect the country. Today, we have abundant food supply, that hunting is only a sport. So, the need to have personal firearms today is far less a necessity than before. Nowadays, a lot of people own guns merely for sports and for satisfying his/her own fascination for guns.

Today, we have firearms that provide much higher rate of fire, much better accuracy, and far more deadly than before. Having an assault rifle that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds, at one's home in peace time, is more of a security threat (to self, family and others) than a necessity of security. In fact, it's excessive! Even if the gun owner is well trained for handling of firearms and a very responsible individual, he/she would never able to guarantee if the weapon would not fall into the wrong hands, or would not be used at the wrong time, at the wrong place.

Today, we have youths that are far more desensitized about violence than before, because of influence from TV media, movies, games, and the internet. After all, they didn't have video games and youtube back in 1789, did they?! Back then probably youths had much healthier activities and better respect for firearms. Today, there are a lot more societal pressure for youths as well. Kids grew up mentally way to early than used to be. Hence, the younger generation is a lot more susceptible to mental illness. That accompany with easy accessibility to guns, had been proved too many times a huge threat to our society.

Do we need to see any more tragedies and senseless loss of innocent lives to realize that the second amendment no longer applies things had changed in present times?! Do we need to see the next Guinness world record for school shooting here, before we realize that easy access to guns is a threat to our security, and an individual is not a regulated militia?! If the original writers of the amendment are still alive today, they would have scratched it in no time!

Should we give up some of our "rights" desires to own deadly weapons, so that we would take our kids to school only to worry about their grades in studies, instead of worrying that they would get shot and killed! F**k yeah!!

For those who worry (and paranoid) about the unlikely event that our country is invaded by foreign forces or attacked from within by rogue domestic forces, and that law enforcement and military are incapacitated, in that situation anyone loving this country would find a gun to fight the enemy as much as we can, even if we don't own one now, and even if we don't stand a chance using guns (what's called small arms) against airplanes, missiles, etc. Only in that situation, it is justified to bear as much arms as possible, including stealing them from the enemy. But we shouldn't be worrying about that now at peace time, the priority is to protect our children from guns in their everyday life.

The old saying, don't bring gun to an argument. Guns don't solve problems, it's an instrument to kill. It should be used in a last resort. Only here in U.S. would bring an assault rifle before an argument even started. And only here in U.S., a parent would put a 3 year old kid behind the firing handles of a 6 barrels mini-gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNbBYwD472w

Shameful, really shameful...


Edit: Most of my view points 9 months ago still stays for this issue, as in this post and the posts below. With one exception, that after much debates and thoughts, I think the Second Amendment still applies today, and I was wrong to say it wasn't. It is being the second in the Bill of Rights for reinforcing the First Amendment and to protect the rest of the rights. As long as we follow its prerequisites (as I described above), it is a right to ensure we have the tools to fight for our freedom, when it's necessary. Corrections made above.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
~Vel Dec 18, 2012, 02:51pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 18, 2012, 03:04pm EST

 
>> 
Just wanted to stop in to say that I generally agree this perspective of reasoning on current gun "rights" being excessive. Gun owners need to be required to keep better security of their guns, having them in a locked safe when they're not being used. Mental health screenings should be required for legal purchasing/carrying of a gun in addition to safety courses and checked every 6-12 months; I truly don't see how anybody can reasonably disagree with this. The argument of not being able to fight against the government is completely moot at this point; if officials went rogue or the government underwent a coupe we'd be f**ked immediately because of the government's/military's access to chemical, atomic, and bio-hazardous weapons (Frankly, I think that's wrong for the government to have that access too, but the majority of NRA types ironically support government spending and access for that kind ofs**t). Furthermore, I think that you can't talk about the news of the week also without calling attention to a greater need for offering more public mental health services in general. This wouldn't just help prevent violence, but homelessness and drug addiction as well (thus subsequently other various street crimes). Yet, there's still a significant part of the population that doesn't believe that it's the "government's job" to care for people's health - another irony, they support the army protecting their safety [read: health] but oppose taxes for the public sector offering that, wtf?

A few side comments about the youth under 25: I hesitate to say that we're "more" habituated to violence than ever before. I assume majority of youth in this country (myself included) have never speared, knifed, or shot an animal and torn their guts out; whereas this was a necessary skill for any human pre-industrialization. I'm also struggling to understand whether you're saying this generation is growing up faster or slower, and why that is. I don't know that it's just faster or slower for sure, but it is different; perhaps it has just move horizontally. Let's not forget that kids were easily exploited for labor at a way younger age even 100 years ago. Also be careful of what you notice in terms of growth, perhaps the amount of habituated youth is growing, but by percentage it's still falling because it's outpaced by the growth of those who aren't. There's still a lot of psychological research going on about this and no doubt even more to come following the increase of mass shootings this year.

Dr. Peaceful Dec 19, 2012, 11:30am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
~Vel said:
...The argument of not being able to fight against the government is completely moot at this point; if officials went rogue or the government underwent a coupe we'd be f**ked immediately because of the government's/military's access to chemical, atomic, and bio-hazardous weapons...

Agree, completely moot. Don't even need to go to that extend, just send in the Apache helicopter. It can take targets out 4 - 5 miles away, that's outside the range of any gun able to be carried by a single person. Not to even mention the drones... We're dead before we even able to pull the trigger! It takes a lot more than a stock piles of guns / ammo in ones homes to fight an enemy with military grade weapons. In a war situation like that, It takes organization (we're not John Rambo can't fight a war by oneself), cooperation (must work together, otherwise if everyone's self centered, we will end up killing each other), courage, sacrifice (lots), perseverance, fate, luck, time, and still assistance from good military forces. But again we should NOT be worrying about something like that now, the priority is that we need to make sure our children don't need to worry about getting shot when they go to school everyday!

...I'm also struggling to understand whether you're saying this generation is growing up faster or slower, and why that is. I don't know that it's just faster or slower for sure, but it is different; perhaps it has just move horizontally. Let's not forget that kids were easily exploited for labor at a way younger age even 100 years ago...

Perhaps it's not the right choice of wordings I used above, all I meant is that kids are maturing earlier than before (i.e. faster mental growth). Kids get exposed to things such as sexuality, violence, drugs, money / materials, in earlier ages than say 30 years ago. The advance in technology, especially the internet and mobile communications, has only leverage the amount of exposure of these things to kids. I forgot about child labor exploitation in the past, thanks for bringing that up. Nowadays kids are spoiled (over spoiled for some) rather than exploited, just as bad in some cases.

Bungle Dec 19, 2012, 05:34pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 19, 2012, 05:37pm EST

 
>> 

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Dr. Peaceful Dec 20, 2012, 06:04pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 20, 2012, 06:21pm EST

 
>> 

Jon Bailey Dec 20, 2012, 08:27pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
Being British I'm not going to get involved in the ol' gun control argument with americans so I'll just address this:

but I would start arming teachers


seriously?? So, where would these weapons be kept? How could you ensure that a teachers side arm couldn't fall into the hands of children? what happens when a teacher who's wife has left him and taken his kids decides it may be fun to blow away the first annoying student in his class? What makes you think that a teacher would even have a chance against someone armed with a high power rifle, especially now that they are the first target when a killer enters a school? Even with training you can't impart experience in dangerous and tense situations on a person, how do you think a scene where multiple teachers panic firing would play out?

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 21, 2012, 12:46pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 21, 2012, 01:00pm EST

 
>> 

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
~Vel Dec 23, 2012, 12:30am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
Schools are an easy target because they're unarmed? Columbine had an armed guard, VT had its own police department, and Fort Hood was a f**king military base; none of that stopped anything.

...

Public. Funding. Of. Mental. Health.

Jon Bailey Dec 24, 2012, 06:20am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 25, 2012, 02:53pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Bungle Dec 25, 2012, 02:57pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
~Vel said:
Schools are an easy target because they're unarmed? Columbine had an armed guard, VT had its own police department, and Fort Hood was a f**king military base; none of that stopped anything.


The Fort hood shooting happened in a "Gun Free Zone", VT was a "Gun Free Campus" and would not allow concealed carry permit holder to carry.


Public. Funding. Of. Mental. Health.


Definitely something that should be looked into.


Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 26, 2012, 06:33pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
IDK a few seconds.


Plus reaction time, plus time to get to the safe, and you've got a dead teacher before they've even obtained their weapon, a side arm locked away is not a side arm. Who's to even say that these inexperienced teachers first reaction would be to go for the weapon in this, what most experienced, hardened if you will, soldiers term a nightmare/no-win situation. If these teachers wanted to be forces, they would have applied to the army, if they wanted to be armed security they would have applied for that job, I in my opinion as an ex forces would suggest that someone who is in the mental position where they've taken on the role to teach children is not someone you could rely on to draw a weapon and cause possible fatal wounds to another person, even in defence.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 27, 2012, 05:38pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 27, 2012, 05:39pm EST

 
>> 
Jon Bailey said:
IDK a few seconds.


Plus reaction time, plus time to get to the safe, and you've got a dead teacher before they've even obtained their weapon, a side arm locked away is not a side arm. Who's to even say that these inexperienced teachers first reaction would be to go for the weapon in this, what most experienced, hardened if you will, soldiers term a nightmare/no-win situation. If these teachers wanted to be forces, they would have applied to the army, if they wanted to be armed security they would have applied for that job, I in my opinion as an ex forces would suggest that someone who is in the mental position where they've taken on the role to teach children is not someone you could rely on to draw a weapon and cause possible fatal wounds to another person, even in defence.


I'm not denying that the teachers are a poor subsitute for a SWAT team, or that the element of surprise is likely going to result in a few dead innocents. What I am trying to say is that instead of having a situation where you have 25 teachers and 400 students that have no chance what so ever against a crazed gunman, you can have 25 or so people on scene that have some chance of defending themselves. This is going to 1. slow the gunman down because now he/she has to be far more careful while combing the hallways emptying their clips at people trying to get away. 2. could very well end up with the gunman being shot by one of said teahers defending themselves or someone else.

If this means that 3 or 4 less people die, its worth it. If it means that the gunman chooses a different target it had its inteneded effect.

Utah and Texas allow exactly what I am proposing and they aren't erupting into gun fights over every personal dispute. Many people in the US have concealed carry permits (myself included) and can carry a firearm pretty much where ever (with a few exceptions) the thing is, most of these shootings have been happening in places where the carrying of firearms is restricted.

These gunmen have a "bully mentality" if you will, they pick on people that can't or wont defend themselves, they will not pick a target that is capable of fighting back.

Pacifism is going to result in more people dying in these cases.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 28, 2012, 08:26am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
or... what we could do is ban guns, as there is already a licencing system in the US, there will be records of the majority of gun owners and as such the police have a good starting point. obviously some guns will the net, but with a ban on the ammo, parts and professional cleaning and repair many of these weapons would fall into total disservice over a relatively short period of time.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 29, 2012, 02:55pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
Jon Bailey said:
or... what we could do is ban guns, as there is already a licencing system in the US, there will be records of the majority of gun owners and as such the police have a good starting point. obviously some guns will the net, but with a ban on the ammo, parts and professional cleaning and repair many of these weapons would fall into total disservice over a relatively short period of time.


Yes, lets take rights away from 300 million people and destroy a $31.8B a year industry that employs 209,000 because of a handful lunatics. Could you come up with a more short sighted solution?

http://nssf.org/impact/

The issue isn't the gun, its the guy behind the trigger. Look at history, what did the alcohol ban in the 1920's do? It strenghened organized crime, created a thiving black market, increased costs for police departments, and made criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Here's what your gun ban will do...

A large number of gun owners will forfeit their weapons thinking they have no choice. Some will hide them, some will end up in a shoot out with the goverment agents when they go door to door collecting firearms. Gangs, criminals, etc... will not give up their guns but they will know that most of the pubic has been disarmed likely increasing crime in big cities. Over 200K people get added to the unemployment lines, and people in northern states now no longer have an method to effectively defend themselves from bears, cougars, and other wild animals which can be a very real threat depending on where you live. The good news is that some people will feel better knowing that there are less guns out there, the bad news is that there will be the same amount of guns in the hands of the people you don't want having them.

The lunatics who want to go out in a mass murder spree will resort to something a little less deadly but still manage to kill a bunch of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

You going to ban hammers and knives next?

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 29, 2012, 05:01pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
really? and just what are you basing that comment on?

It didn't happen in Australia, UK, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, India, Israel, Japan, Norway, Vietnam, and the rest of the EU has strict control over restricted weapons as well.

As for the jobs market, it would be ludicrous to believe that the gun industry would disappear in the US, as there is a large amount of manufacture for export as well as military and private security companies. In the UK severe restrictions are in place, however the gun industry since the turn of the century has only seen approximately 25% job losses, with many names remaining in manufacture, including Holland and Holland, Kynoch, Joseph Bently, Webley and Scott, Westly Richards, A A Brown and sons, Thomas Chambers, AJ Churchill and many others.

As for this annoying complaint you see from Americans of puniching law abiding people by taking away their guns. We're not talking about taking a lollipop from a child here, we're talking about taking away tools that's sole purpose is to kill and maim.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Dr. Peaceful Dec 31, 2012, 10:19pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 31, 2012, 11:42pm EST

 
>> 
Totally agree with you Jon.

By the way, I never say we should ban all guns completely and at once. With millions of guns already in possession and millions more to be purchased here in U.S., it's simply impossible. Especially impossible with millions of people who would believe to cling on to their guns with their life. There would be too many cold, dead hands to pry their guns from. ;) It would be f**king civil war all over again.

But let's face it, the increase in guns, Did increase the number of deaths from guns, and Did increase the number of senseless mass shootings. Guns are engineered for the sole purpose of killing people (or other living organisms) with a high speed projectile from a distance away, with minimum effort and high lethality. So stop using knife / sword for comparison, it's totally irrelevant, since guns can kill without even getting close to the other person. And stop saying "guns don't kill people, it's just metal", because they do. They provide the feasibility and capability for a mentally unstable individual to commit an atrocity with tremendous casualties, which otherwise would not be feasible with lesser weapons, or at least with lesser deaths.

Law abiding citizen? Most mass shooters are law abiding citizens, before they commit their terrible crimes. Not to mention a mentally ill person, even a normal person can not guarantee their state of mind when under high stress or being provoked for violence. The availability of a gun, will just make matters worst under those circumstances. So more guns is simply not a solution! It should every law abiding citizens' responsibility to secure their guns, and reduce their arms for public safety. Assault weapons are simply a high public safety risk in populated urban areas. Even in the rural, most assault weapons are ineffective for hunting big games. So, why can't we restrict and reduce those?!

Bungle Jan 01, 2013, 10:43pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 01, 2013, 10:45pm EST

 
>> 

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Dr. Peaceful Jan 03, 2013, 04:49pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 03, 2013, 05:36pm EST

 
>> 

Jon Bailey Jan 05, 2013, 10:31pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 
Don't waste you time, you'll never convince someone like him that guns are not the answer

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
~Vel Jan 10, 2013, 08:13am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> 


Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.