So what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Before you say it, here's the answer I expect to receive:

"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."

The meaning has numerous interpretations today, as well as the past. While it is a constitutional right, and the idea of restricting rights is blasphemous, we do have restrictions on the first amendment, namely laws protecting people from threats, coercion, and libel. And obviously, we do have some restrictions with the second amendment with bans - or at least intense regulations - on fully automatic weapons.

But that's not the issue. The issue is, why is the second amendment important? It's been suggested that more guns equals less crime which the stats are murky at best with that, but that has nothing to do with the 2nd. Gun ownership isn't synonymous with gun rights. You can own a gun in any or most countries of the world, even Germany, France, Italy, and so on. Even then, if it's a matter of protection, a hobby, or recreation, again, what does it have to do with the 2nd?

Because it says so in the Constitution! Well, the Constitution also stated that white property owning males over 21 were allowed to vote. That changed. Blacks were 3/5th human. That changed. The Constitution itself has been labeled as an imperfect document, which is not an issue. The founders knew it was never perfect which is why they added paths to amend the Constitution; or get rid of parts that make it contradictory to the Constitution itself.

Another is to fight against tyranny. Did gun owners fight against the tyrannical southern government as they imposed Jim Crow on African-Americans? Did gun owners fight against the police at Kent University during the 1970s? Did gun owners fight against the government as they passed the PATRIOT Act? Did gun owners fight against the police as they brutalized peaceful protesters? Where were gun owners when green-card citizens were suddenly denied access to this country simply because of their national origin?

And while many like to cite Nazi Germany as an example of gun control allowing the rise of tyranny, the reality is that German citizens saw loosened restrictions on gun ownership. Jews weren't lucky but did the Germans fight for their Jewish brethren? Not most, some did. If Jews were allowed to own guns, when was it the right time to assemble and fight? Even then, statistically speaking, violent revolutions rarely succeed compared to non-violent revolutions.

This is a long rant and the reason is my frustration with our gun culture. I don't oppose gun ownership but what is the purpose of the 2nd nowadays? In fact, does the 2nd even have any relevance?

Without it the king of England could walk in whenever he wanted and push you around. You wouldn't want that, would you?

Great episode and sadly very relevant.

My favourite bit is the process of Homer getting his gun.

You are asking a very good question and I don´t think anyone actually knows why the 2nd amendment is important to some people.

But I think it´s important because having a gun is as a "murican" as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July or having a hotdog at the ballgames.

As to some other parts of your post, you are confusing your own opinion with the "absolute truth" So your list of what you think gun owners should fight against is meaningless since that is your personal opinions.

Other than that I agree 100% with you being tired of our gun culture because I am so tired of hearing about another mass-shooting and especially tired of hearing the same old story each time. It should not be this hard in a country that is supposed to be civilised and the best in the world to do something about the ease people can get guns.

@Jacanuk: Australia just proved that gun control doesn't work.

@npiet1: How? Are you seriously suggesting that if gun control doesn't completely eliminate gun crime then it would be better to do nothing?

From the actual text alone it sounds like it ensures that people in the US are allowed to form armed groups (militia/Gangs?) and you can't tell them to not be armed.

That said it is vague in a modern day setting.

It's not vague. And states currently have the right to form their own militias which conforms to the amendment. Many do not and that is their choice. However, it's not about everyone owning guns for themselves. And the sooner we realize that........the better.

that we just had a mass shooting, that gun crime was declining defore the ban and only 1/3 handed in there guns. no doing nothing fixes nothing but why not try to fix the social problems, like bullying, and black on black crimes etc

@npiet1: and where's your proof that gun control doesn't work?

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

murder stats showing (go to the end for guns) that it was decreasing before 96 when they became illegal was already going down. Finding gun stats before 96 is hard for some reason which was the port Arthur shooting. Not to mention 7 just died in a mass shooting, you can google that one for yourself.

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ This one speaks for itself.

So what's wrong with trying to fix the social problems instead? take a look at Europe right now and the crime due to mass immigration. No guns (apparently) but crime is still way up. Its a social problem not a gun problem.

@npiet1: what do you mean by "instead"?

Typically those calling for gun control are also the ones calling for more funding to mental healthcare, tackling poverty, and building race relations.

It is more relevant today than ever. To keep the government from forcing its will on the general public. Just look at what happened to Germany, Russia and China when the people had no way to defend themselves. It might be noted it is not conservatives committing the mass shootings.

leave gun control stop wasting money on it and go to the social issues. Yeah but they are the snow flakes who tip toe around the issues, like blacks are minority in the streets but majority in prisons and its not because there innocent. You say this and you get deemed a racist.

@toast_burner: '@npiet1: what do you mean by "instead"?'

It's a diversion tactic that's been in use for decades. You can tell when it sees a periodoc rise in use among pundits because it starts popping up a lot in unrelated conversations.

Bottom line: The people who use it don't intend to do something about "the other thing" either. It's just an effort to distract and stall.

Was on Much last night. Crazy relevant episode despite being 21 years old.

It's time gun laws in the US change. They don't need to take away anyone's guns, they just need to stop mentally unstable people from buying them in the first place. I looked at the Sante Fe shooting without any sort of shock or emotional response. It's literally become normal for the US to have these shootings. And that's not right. People are needlessly dying because a bunch of rednecks think it's their "right" to own a firearm.

@drunk_pi: At this point the purpose of the second amendment is two fold. First it allows us to send thoughts and prayers to people every few days due to school shootings and mass shootings. Second, in turn this allows God to stay alive and well in the public zeitgeist keeping the United States sticking to its religious values.

It is vague though when people can do what you say it isn't for. Pick the line "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and go " This means everybody gets to have weaponry without exception. "

Which is pretty much the whole NRA stance on the subject.

The UK and the rest of Europe have proven that it does work.

Ever considered why America is pretty much the only place you see mass-shootings? or people turning to guns when they feel "mistreated"

Besides of course the obvious reason that allowing insane people to have guns, is well insane.

Doesn't the exception prove the rule?

They have strict gun control and they've just had their first mass shooting in a long, long time (one every couple years, it looks like). I'd say that shows it does, in fact, work.

Not like the US has grounds to criticize anyone else about gun control, seeing as how we have a few mass shootings each month.

Honest question, but what is insane to you? Do people with social anxiety or depression qualify as "insane" and should be put on the list? Or do we wait until they are schizophrenics and suffering hallucinations?

What is the process for determining sanity? Does every would-be gun owner need to have a psych eval by a qualified professional?

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be facetious, I think people should have guns in general and some people should not, it's just a tough thing to do if we want to limit people and not guns.

But I do feel it's the right thing to do, I mean if you propose some common sense rules like "Don't give guns to psychotics" and the NRA is like "No! Give them guns!" they sort of look crazy, too. But they would spin it, I'm sure.

This is exactly the type of non-thinking tripe spewed by the NRA and the indoctrinated gun culture advocates that makes me laugh.

Were Germany, Russia, China advanced democracies with pluralism, independent media, independent judiciary, enshrined rights, etc? Was the national gov'ts means of oppression comprised of an all volunteer force that is made up of a cross-section of society, and very well led and trained by an officer corps itself trained in rights, law, etc.?

You live in a made up world that doesn't reflect reality and repeat talking points without thinking. The group LEAST LIKELY to passively accept oppression of the general population in the US is the US military, ffs.

The US military is your family and friends and they grew up with the same general values as everyone else. And they live in a society that is generally free and open. Who exactly is the 'gov't' going to employ to suppress you?

This isn't an era of private armies of the King. Nor is it an era where militias are relevant except as a supplement to standing forces in the event of conflict with a foreign power.

Defend truth in media. Defend rights. Defend an open pluralist society. That is what keeps the gov't at bay. Not your stupid private arms which are only being used by citizen against citizen.

To protect ourselves from tyranny and foreign/domestic threats.

To add on, say the American people do rise up, form militias and fight against the US government. This means fighting against the police and troops, people who have constantly been revered as heroes and public servants. The last time we've had a group of people arm themselves to fight against the police was the Black Panthers who decided to arm themselves because they feared the police. How'd that work out? California's governor Ronald Reagan passed gun control laws with the support of the NRA.

But, lets get back to the people deciding to fight. They're not a hive mind. People will have their own agendas, their own leaders, and their own ideology. This will be a repeat of Syria which has exacerbated the conflict because of differing ideologies and figuring out who's "right" or "wrong." But let us not forget that now we're vulnerable to foreign intervention so that their side wins and becomes a puppet.

You know what works better than violent revolutions? Nonviolent revolutions. Not pacifist, but non-violent. LINK Time and again, it has been proven: MLK's civil rights march. Gandhi's non-violent protests against the British Empire in India. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and just recently, the Velvet Revolution in Armenia. So, again, what's the purpose of the 2nd? If it's to fight against tyranny, so far, we're failing. We've elected Trump who has consistently disparaged the media, threaten candidates with jail time, and threaten the very foundation of democracy with encouraging violence at his rallies.

So by the logic of these revolutionary thumpers, why hasn't Trump been overthrown? Because, most likely, most gun owners support Trump, just as most of the populace supported Hitler, supported Stalin, supported dictators. Introduce the gun and it won't do jack shit when people support the person, regardless of how tyrannical they truly are. That's not how revolutions work. There has to be a legitimate grievance(s) as well as a mass movement to enact effective change.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4219210/us-school-shootings-combat-deaths-comparison/

Twice as many people have died in school shootings in the US in 2018 than in war.

The US has a problem, and action needs to be taken. "Thoughts and prayers" are no longer enough.

@foxhound_fox: That's in 2018, I've already said we should do more about the social problems.

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ Did it?

Plus Europe's had a rise in stabbing and murders with cars. Due to immigration which proves it's not a gun problem but a social one.

America's gun violence problem is directly to related to the number of guns.

"America as a whole refuses to even admit it has a serious problem with guns and gun violence. And more than that, lawmakers continue acting like the solutions are some sort of mystery, as if there aren’t years of research and experiences in other countries that show restrictions on firearms can save lives."

"Americans make up less than 5 percent of the world’s population yet own roughly 42 percent of all the world’s privately held firearms."

"...the US is not an outlier when it comes to overall crime."

"...the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns."

"On, average assaults in the US are 3 times more likely to involve guns..."

@foxhound_fox: Sauce? because its not what you linked and some of that is also speculation like "...the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns."

Plus if it was just a gun problem people in the military would just shoot each other instead of using it on the enemy. Its not its a social problem in peoples behaviour.

The stats and the people that formulated them are all there.

If it's a mental health problem, then why do so many other countries with an equal number of mentally ill people not have the same problem with gun violence?

They should throw out the entire bill of rights.

@sonicare: Why has your go to response lately been taken ng a stance to an extreme? Are you making legit arguments or just poking the bear?

Just poking the bear.

but in all seroiusness, Im ok with the right to bear arms as long as its reasonable. But it never will be, so we're stuck in limbo. I mean, i find no problem with making sure convicted felons, mentally ill people or others on watch lists are at least vetted. But that would be logical, and our system does not compute that.

@foxhound_fox: Where?

More people have died in school shootings in the U.S. than in combat-related deaths from American military campaigns around the world so far in 2018, according to data gleaned from U.S. military data and media reports of school shootings.

That was even before the latest school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, allegedly carried out by 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis.

Publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Defense website lists 11 combat-related casualties so far in 2018. Seven of them occurred in a single helicopter crash in Iraq in mid-March, which officials said was not believed to have been caused by enemy fire.

The U.S. Navy reports seven combat-related deaths, bringing the total number of combat-related military deaths this year to 18.

Nearly as many people — 17 — died in a single shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. in February.

Ten people died in Friday’s shooting in Texas, while nine others perished in various gunfire incidents at U.S. schools this year, according to data compiled by Global News.

Nothing about your stats there. Plus this is only 5 months of Data, which is nothing buy a scientific means of looking at it when every other statistics are done by years. Maybe because the US mental health is a joke compared to other places. I also never said it was just a mental health issue I said it was a social issue. Not to mention that almost every school shooting the guns have been obtained in an illegal matter like the Texas shooting which just happened. You could at least provide a decent argument.

OK, that's what I figured, but I was starting to wonder if I should consider some of these as serious given their rise in frequency.

Poke away.

There are many reasons to own a gun, my reasons are recreational and safety. Hunting and Target practice. I also live in a shitty neighborhood. Criminals get their guns illegally, I get mine legally. I don't want to depend on calling a guy with a gun to come to my house to help me while getting robbed. I'd rather just have my gun.

Consider me, the stephen A of GS.

The founding fathers were very concerned with abuse of power and oppression when writing the constitution and its early ammendments. You can see it with all the checks and balances they place on executive power and other aspects of the government branches. There was an emphasis placed on individual rights and states rights as well.

As such, I think the second ammendment was simply designed to prevent the government from restricting the rights of individuals to own firearms. The idea being an armed populace is a check on an oppressive government. Whether that works is a philosophical debate.

I've never owned a weapon nor at this current point in my life, do I have any desire. Probably for the same reasons as you. I'm not sure what the solution to all this gun violence and culture is. We can ban assault weapons again, but that won't be enough or probably all that impactful. It may reduce the number of people killed in these senseless mass shootings, but the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not coming from those. They come from domestic violence, suicide, and crime. If you want to put a dent in those numbers, you're going to have to tackle handguns.

The big question is what is the endpoint of gun control? I see these kids marching and demanding action, but they don't have a specific measure in mind. Two of them were on Bill Maher's show and he asked them what they wanted. All they gave was the usual response, "common sense gun laws" But I fear that is not enough if you want to stop this stuff. But that's also what many gun owners fear, is that "common sense" gun laws are only the first step in taking away their right to own a firearm.

The arguments the NRA and gun enthusiasts make are obviously false. Guns dont make us safer and they don't reduce crime. The more gun owners you have, the more gun deaths and gun crime you will have. It's simple math and has easily been shown in past reviews. The true argument is about personal freedoms vs. what is best for society. Often, those two are at odds.

In a well regulated militia. You can't avoid words you don't agree with.

It was written during a time when British troops reserved the right to billet, or occupy a citizen's house and eat their food for an indefinite period of time. Often, these citizens' guns would be confiscated for fear of resentment leading to violence against the troops. I don't know about you, but I've never owned a gun and I've also never had any military personnel occupy my home and demand I feed them.

I've never owned a gun, but I have had to put up a few british soldier from time to time. It's not too bad, just don't skimp on the tea.

That seems to have absolutely no relevance to the heart of my post since i seem to be advocating more restriction, but Ok.

I support the second amendment despite having no real interest in owning a gun. It is interesting to me that we don’t have more rights than we do, though. A right to healthcare seems like a no-brainer to me.

They'll get coffee and like it. And no jammy dodgers either.

As would be a right to an education, healthy food and clean water. But the US struggles desperately in those areas.

@foxhound_fox: Yes, absolutely. Some states have established the right to adequately funded education, and I think having the courts as a check on legislative budgets is helpful.

that is not really the main question in my mind.

The last question he asked to me is this answer:

no..absolutely not.

When I read the 2nd word for word and apply my understanding of Militia in the historical context it is extremely clear to me what the 2nd is saying. It is saying, if you are joining a militia which is designed for the security of the State (meaning government) against foreign threats you should be able to buy a gun.

it does NOT mean, anyone should be able to buy a gun

keepin' the king of england out of your face

The reason as I understood it (as a non-American) is that it was to protect you from the government in case the government would ignore the balance of power between the people and the government?

'A government should fear its peoples' and all that. Seems like a bit of a lost cause these days? I've seen police departments with tanks. XD

But I've never read it so it's probably something completely different.