<p>are you kidding me? the uk and japan are definately less free. First Japan is practically a U.S. puppet government, and they have little civil liberties. They only let a choice few, very few, own guns. Same with UK.</p>
<p>
You did not respond to my previous question. If this is the intent of the second amendment, then limiting permitted weapons to rifles, shotguns, and handguns is not justified, as those tools would be insufficient to protect ourselves. Yes?</p>
<p>esmitty,</p>
<p>Having lived in Japan, I can assure you that this is not, in fact, true.</p>
<p>I know that this is an appeal to authority, but let me tell you a bit about myself: I’m a graduate student at a top 10 program in the US focusing on Japan. Trust me, Japan is very very free. </p>
<p>And no, it’s not a “puppet government.” The 90s demonstrated that Japan is willing to ruffle US feathers. The only thing the Japanese listen to us on is defense, simply because it benefits them. Trade policy friction with the Japanese (thanks to policies we don’t like there) has been problematic for decades.</p>
<p>how would a rifle shotgun or handgun be insufficient?
Also, it is not the sole intent (but main), also home protection, hunting and sporting.
Lets say 20 percent of america owned a rifle shotgun or handgun. assuming america is 300 million (estimate) it would be pretty difficult to fight a force of 60 million people armed, regardless of exactly what they are armed with. Even if you had an airforce, navy, etc. You can’t bomb the whole country, and there are 60 million people armed who are using guerrilla warfare tactics to degenerate your tyrannical government.</p>
<p>also… uclari in the first place, those are constitutional monarchies. the king is a figurehead. I know i went off on a tangent, and apparently got burned on that one (although i know japan has strict gun control, which i consider no freedom) but i meant a king with full power.</p>
<p>Then by your definition, the only “free” societies are…hmm… The US, Canada (to a lesser extent) and Switzerland.</p>
<p>I don’t think so.</p>
<p>well i have my opinion…how can you be free without the right to be able to defend your freedom? doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
btw drb did i answer ur question?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, technically it is an enumeration of rights - the BoR does not “grant” rights to the people, but rather lays them out so that government may be limited from infringing on them. This is why the BoR is seen as so important to our society and government.</p>
<p>Icarus, good call man.</p>
<p>esmitty,</p>
<p>How about through jurisgenerative processes? Does protection of liberty have to always come from the barrel of a gun?</p>
<p>Icarus,</p>
<p>Depends on how much of an objectivist you are. ;)</p>
<p>If all my philosophy classes have taught me anything, it’s that objectivism is generally the way to go :D</p>
<p>I tend to believe that there is, at least to an extent, a certain inherent right to liberty and property. However, do guns necessarily fall under a penumbra of liberty-based rights? I don’t know. I know the argument is based on the notion of “just in case,” but I don’t see my counterparts in the UK, Japan, France, and Germany as any less free than me. If anything, the Japanese may even live “freer” lives, if you consider their absolute safety as an indication of being free.</p>
<p>
I don’t believe there is anything in the second amendment that protects your right to shoot squirrels.
A sufficiently ruthless and powerful force would have no difficulty wreaking havoc on a lightly armed populace. A shotgun will not deter the black NAFTA helicopter when it comes to appropriate your farm. So if the aim of the second amendment is to insure you have the tools to protect yourself, on what basis can any limitation on those tools be acceptable?</p>
<p>UCLAri, I think that **if **the second amendment provides for an individual right to own arms which is independent of any actual militia connection then that must be honored. The essence of a nation of laws is that you obey them while they exist; change them through the legally established procedures if they have ceased to do what we want them to do. The problem with the second amendment, to me, is that the specific context in which it was written no longer exists. Unlike other rights protected under other parts of the constitution which continue to guide what government can and cannot do with regard to personal liberties in pretty much the same way they did 200 years ago, the militia system of national defense, which was clearly and expressly the reason for the second amendment, no longer exists. Nobody is going to muster up with their neighbors and march off to war with their trusty musket - or AK-47, for that matter. How you deal with that fact of life in the context of the current politicized national debate, or the legal analysis the Supreme Court will be called upon to make, I don’t really know.</p>
<p>To get back to my straw poll, I asked my poker buddies tonight if any of them had witnessed a “defensive gun use” or knew of a close friend or family member who had. Nada. Three of them are gun owners - one an avid hunter (he brought homemade venison sausage to the game - yum!) another a collector; the third just had had a gun forever without thinking about it much. None of them live in gated communities or remote suburbs, so crime is not exactly unknown in their communities. But I’m still stuck on “0-fer” in terms of actual confirmed DGU’s within my circle of friends and family.</p>
<p>I find it comical that any person in the US would call societies like Japan, Canada and Germany less free than America. Many American civil liberties have been irrevocably eroded in the last number of years in the name of the war on terror, and yet there are still Americans bleating about various public health and safety initiatives in other countries as evidence that they are less free.</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>Now that I think about it more (see what you people make me do?), Japan may be one of the least free OECD countries, but only because of the oppressive nature of the culture. Plus, you have almost 3 million people (burakumin) who are ostensibly 2nd class citizens.</p>
<p>But it’s still a very very very free country compared to the vast majority of countries in the world.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>If I remember my founders’ readings correctly, there were two camps regarding guns: the “liberty from government” and “protection of property.” Madison, if I recall correctly, was more concerned with defense in general, while Webster largely concerned himself with defense from infringement upon liberty. It seems to me, however, that all of them saw the standing army as the single largest threat to liberty, so who knows?</p>
<p>As for honoring our laws, it’s tricky. Common law systems make life so much more complicated than pure Napoleonic code. As much as constructionists bemoan the so-called “legislative SCOTUS,” wasn’t that the point of setting up a supreme court with such broad powers? But I digress a wee bit. Then we get into issues of whether or not the 2nd amendment even applies to states. If I’m correct, the SCOTUS has never been clear on that issue. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, I tend to believe that responsible adults SHOULD be allowed to own guns, but I question the utility of, oh I dunno, owning an [M249</a> SAW](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_Squad_Automatic_Weapon]M249”>M249 light machine gun - Wikipedia).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IIRC, the 2nd has never officially been incorporated due to the 14th (obviously, since SCOTUS rarely rules on it). </p>
<p>As for the M249, why not? It would be fun - what more reason do you need 
As for the utility argument, I don’t have time at the moment to respond to that and besides, I think Kluge’s eyes might roll back into his head or maybe his head might explode at how “puerile” it is…</p>
<p>Icarus,</p>
<p>I think that the fun argument is pretty hard to justify. I mean, sure, I think it’d be fun to own a share in an F-22, but the state obviously has an interest in keeping that out of my hands.</p>
<p>Well, its not really meant to be an argument per se, but rather to imply that there should be no argument needed to own an M249 vs., say, an AR-15 or a .22 rifle. </p>
<p>Functionally, there is very little difference between my AR-15 and the M249. They both fire the .223 (5.56 NATO) cartidge, and there are much more powerful rounds legally available to the public already, so you can’t say it fires a “bigger bullet”. The main difference is that it fires full-auto, while my AR is semi-auto only. But there isn’t much argument here either, as civilians can own full auto rifles under current law as well. </p>
<p>So why is there compelling interest to keep you from owning a M249? It doesn’t give you any big advantage over any other currently available weapon. My guess is that its because it “looks” like a military weapon… but again, so does my AR - big deal. You can get an AR-15 that fires .22 rounds - but I would guess that if you showed it to people, they would say “OMG, its an ‘assault rifle’, you shouldn’t be allowed to own that!” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And Kluge, why can UCLAri compare guns to fighter jets but I can’t compare them to cars? :)</p>
<p>Here’s the difference: a fighter jet has ONE purpose, which is warfare.</p>
<p>Cars, on the other hand, have other purposes.</p>
<p>Your argument makes sense, but what’s the rate of fire on the SAW? If I recall correctly, something like 700 rounds/min. In terms of its ability to cause damage, the SAW is much more dangerous (potentially) than a semi-auto AR-15.</p>
<p>The point is this: the state has a vested interest in restricting you somewhat for the safety of many. Obviously, Ayn Rand will turn over in her grave now, but all government is a form of tyranny to an extent. The reason I never really liked Randian thought to begin with is that it assumes that people acting in their own self-interest will somehow lead to a better outcome than more moderated societies.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that the Western Sahara, which is self-interest at the extreme, is a better place to live than Japan, which is a highly regulated environment.</p>