Repealing the Second Amendment would dispense of the national guard (militia). The amount of powerful guns stored up there could be devastating since the members of the national guard would just become citizens with a large arsenal of deadly weapons. Repealing it would just make things worse because more weapons would be circulated into the public if even for a short time. You could make a separate amendment restricting citizens' use of guns and it be much easier.

Cops will shoot at anything they think is a threat. People holding cell phones, reaching for an empty pocket, people moving away from police officers, … these have all been reported as victims of police shootings. You can even get attacked for complying with a police officer if it isn't exactly the way he thinks you should, but he didn't say in his order.

"Cops have guns in America because criminals have guns in America. If you want criminals to not have guns, you need to repeal the Second Amendment."

I disagree. By some estimates, there are over 300 million firearms in the United States. You could disarm law-abiding citizens, but you cannot disarm criminals when there are 300 million firearms floating around. Look at Mexico. There is *one* gun shop in the entire country, yet I have seen images of cartel members running around with military-grade weapons that wouldn't even be legal for a civilian in the United States to own. You cannot wish away (or legislate away) that quantity of firearms. Furthermore, any attempt to control or ban firearms in the United States would be political suicide, and for good reason. A well-armed populace is good for national defense.

'If anything, I blame pop culture and mass media, not governance. No
government law or set of laws would have prevented this child's death.'

Yes, that is entirely fair - and i agree with you, a piece-meal law which was not enforcable would make no difference.

There are examples of anti-rape laws in India, or worse laws which prohibit certain punishments by rural village elders can decide to chop your hand off for stealing - so law without a cultural backing is not a solution.

So for 'whether it should be the parents or the government' if we are already agreeing then it should not be one or the other. It should be both, together taking collective responcibility (along with communities - which should support families, and larger social groups... and local government, state government, and especialy those before federal government)

"If you
want criminals to not have guns, you need to repeal the Second Amendment."

I have read the second admendment and so would disagree, mainly because you could argue that a 'well regulated militia' would have, um regulations - that could include a specific list of acceptable guns (for whatever the milita's needs were) a membership list (so anyone not in a militia can't have a firearm) and strict training and background requirements (before full membership is allowed)

That would be difficult as it would require over-turning case law; and a supreme court reinterpretation. But as hard as this would be, a petition to revoke tue 2nd would be even harder (things which aren't contraversial have failed to be passed, and the last change to the US constitution was in 1992 and had taken 202 years from proposal to passing; while the most recent proposal which became an amendment was 1971.

That said, hardness should not be seen as a problem - if you want to change things in the US it will be hard, and will require a change of culture - of peoples minds, of politica, of law, of cop culture. No-one is suggesting that these things are easy. (NB: Roe vs Wade was an example of an interpretation of the constitution as opposed to an admendment which changed the law without changing the culture, and it is still contraversial today - not really an ideal solution imho)

'A well-armed populace is good for national defense' - that might a valid point if the national defence was in question. Ignoring for a moment military spending (unless you are arguing for a complete removal of all 'defence' spending, apart from nuclear weapons and a 'well armed militia' - at which point it might actually contribute to national defence) This conversation is about the killng of innocent US ctizens BY the government employees, the protection of those employees by the legal system and a culture which supports these facts.CRYING 'national defence' is a great distraction - "oh no, we're not the problem, the imaginary enemies beyond our borders are the actual problem" (maybe that is why Obama 'needs a military victory' because he's unpopular right now for losing ths imagined war; oh and congress said he couldn't invade Syria when he wanted to... Gotta make more enemies abroad or the people might start worring about whats going on at home, Yay patriotism!)

@ orathaic

"A well-armed populace is good for national defense"

I said that in response to Invictus' sweeping suggestion that gun crime would be reduced by a repeal of the Second Amendment.

If you are asserting that we have an overly brutal and militarized civilian police force that gets away with way too many unjustified shootings, than I completely agree. While the Brown shooting, despite being a racial flashpoint, is not a good example of either brutality or militarization, the response to the riots is an excellent example of police militarization. Why do civilian police departments have armored vehicles?

I think Invictus is right, you can't just do one thing (like takes guns away from the police) and expect the problem to be solved...

Brutality as a matter of culture in the police force is a problem; and likely needs to be addressed on a massive scale. You can see racial profiling - but with a shoot first policy - being a multiplying factor for the social problems this causes. And perhaps the lack of fear (of the police) from some white people means less political pressure to change...

But i still don't understand your point about national defence... Sorry i seem to be missing something. I definitely think the point that repealing the second would just result in lots of illegally held guns; maybe lots of police shootouts to take those guns. But it is politically impossible to 'just repeal', so that's not a realistic plan.

Could you tax gun ownership to the brink of existance, and introduce gun controls and background checks, all to reduce the number of owned guns in circulation, you know as a prelude. (just guns in public, you know, you can keep your gun clubs, and private ownership, if it means police don't fear so much that they are forced to murder innocent citizens...)

SantaClausowitz is a liar -- it is ILLEGAL to sell an airsoft gun without the orange tip on it.

So if he had airsoft guns without the orange tip HE REMOVED THEM and is misrepresenting the situation.

"if he had airsoft guns without the orange tip HE REMOVED THEM"

Or the cops removed it after they shot the kid.

Either way, do you think that owning airsoft guns without the orange tip is a crime punishable by death without a trial?

I read half this thread and am shocked nobody knows what happened with the kid in the park. Firstly, the man who called the dispatcher explicitly said that the gun was probably fake. Second, the guy called 911 because the kid had been pointing the probably fake gun around at people without firing. Third, the kid neither threatened the responding police officer nor pointed the gun at the responding police officer: all he did was take the fake gun out of his belt (perhaps to leave it on the ground).

Read the rest of the thread – none of that was brought up.

JECE - is that a surprise? Why have details when we can generalise. I think most killings by Cops in america are unjustified and moralky wrong. I can't find any data on Irish cops killing suspects to contrast with it.

have you guys seen the released footage?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html

it completely changes my opinion of the situation imo. the kid was hanging out under a gazebo with his toy gun, and the cops that show up don't park in the street some safe distance away, they fucking DRIVE UP RIGHT NEXT TO THE KID, and the passenger side cop opens the door, tucks and fires immediately as he gets out.

this was an execution and cannot be justified IMO.

SantaClausowitz, you, SantaClausowitz and mendax spoke rather eloquently. I was referring to most others, who were definitely talking about the specifics of this case.

President Eden: Thanks for that. No, I didn't see it.

"Shots fired, male down, black male, maybe 20,” said the officer who called in the incident. (From http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/26/tamir-rice-video-shows-boy-shot-police-cleveland)

This is interesting to me, because I can't understand how Rice could be thought to be even close to 20. It follows a larger trend of young black men in the USA being denied any perception of childhood by law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and to a certain extent culture at large (e.g. Trayvon Martin).

Congratulations, PE, you brought the only part of the situation I didn't know about when posting this thread. It also may well be the most important piece of information relating to the issue.

@ orathaic

I hold the belief that the Second Amendment is vital to national defense because a well-armed populace can ruin an invasion force. A handful of guys with deer rifles and know-how can pin down an entire platoon.

@Gunfigther, you may be right about a well-armed populance. However, apart from not being relevant to this conversation - which is not about national defence, infact it's about killing your own citizens without needing a war. It is also not the reason the US is secure (despite their imperialism which tends to upset everyone you impose your economic weight on)

IF you were arguing that nukes plus a well-armed populance was all that the US needed for defence, then you might have a point. BUT it is a well known fact that the US spends more on military than the next 20 countries combined (and most of those countries are US allies) - the biggest airforce in the world is the US airforce, and you know who has the second biggest airforce in the world? Well that's the US navy.

It is a pointless fact, it does nothing to contribute to the defence of the US because anyone who would consider attacking is either detered by other things, OR trying to draw US forces out to fight them in the middle east OR is planning to use assymetric warfare to blow up US citizens at things like marathons.

You know what a handful of guys with deer rifles can't do? Stop any of these threats.

Gunfighter seems to translate the word militia to mean populace. That job kind of falls to the National Guard as is, and they're better armed than the populace.

There's a difference between the Revolutionary War to Civil War militias that were armed civilian groups operating under rules to support the government controlled military in times of war and the current militias. Some current militias aren't following any rules and define themselves as anti-government except for all the benefits they want to get from the government.

You have groups that say they aren't under US government laws, but don't follow the laws for foreigners living the US or as US citizens. You can't claim sovereignty unless you are recognized by other countries.

"I said that in response to Invictus' sweeping suggestion that gun crime would be reduced by a repeal of the Second Amendment."

Repealing the Second Amendment is the only way to prevent Americans from owning guns. While virtually all the guns used in crime are illegally owned, the legal market is what maintains the supply of guns. If we were to ban guns of all kinds outright then, obviously, guns could become virtually impossible to get. You already see that in the types of firearms which are basically impossible for anyone to legally own, like new fully automatic machine guns.

I wouldn't support such a repeal because I support gun rights. But people who are serious about gun control really ought to focus their efforts there. Nothing else will achieve the results they want.

" You can't claim sovereignty unless you are recognized by other countries."

Not true. There are two main theories of when a state comes into existence: the declarative and the constitutive.

The constitutive is similar to waht you're arguing. It says that a state only becomes sovereign when other states recognize it as such. In a formal sense, that's obviously correct. For example, Somaliland de facto runs itself as if it were an independent state, but de jure is not because all other states regard it as a part of Somalia.

The declarative theory is the other one, and really the one more anchored in reality. If a supposed state meets certain criteria, it is a state regardless of whether others recognize it. The criteria are a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Thus Somaliland would be a state, as would the Islamic State, depending on how one interprets the last criteria.


But that little IR lesson from me is irrelevant, because these militias, to the extent that they even exist, are not claiming independence.

What kind of parents let their kid run around pointing a pellet gun at people?

Just goes to show, the world is full of idiots.

He deserved it. If the police tells you to put your hands up you do it.
Not put your hands up than pull out a fake gun that looks real and point it at the cop.
COMMON SENSE!!!!

''If we were to ban guns of all kinds outright then, obviously, guns could become virtually impossible to get.'' - 3 printing, that is all.

Arguing about what constitutes a state is rather less than productive (just like talking about whether the US is a democracy) Mostly because any definition of a state has to include the least state-like state (Vatican City) and exlucde the most most state-like non-state (Hong Kong)

As Vicy says, this point is rather irrelevant. Though i would claim that 'sovereignty' is a tricky little thing. Claiming that the federal government can't do certain things in your home, and shooting at law enforcement officers who try to enter your home (whether legally or illegally) is tantamount to claiming (partial) sovereignty of your property.

And this is something which a lot of gun advocates in the US are far closer to doing than anyone in europe (that i know of, counter examples would be great if you can point them out to me)

Further i think this kind of weakening of state power goes to show that 'militias' - or whatever you want to call them, as they actually exist in the US at the present - actually weaken the national defence rather than strengthening it. At least presenting a threat from within which the government must keep in check (there could be communist militias too you know)

Zach, Dirge, glad you came to join the innocent citizens deserve to die and blame their parents brigade. Please see my comments above.

"Dirge, glad you came to join the innocent citizens deserve to die and blame their parents brigade. Please see my comments above."

Considering the number of people, mostly children, with toy guns or pellet guns, killed by police over the last 100 years should have been enough for parents to know better. I would never have let my son go out with a gun that looks anything like a real gun until I knew he was mature enough to be responsible.

That is bad parenting. Yes.

Zach you're retarded lmfao. I wonder if you'd be so quick to say the same thing if it was your own 12 year old who got shot for not knowing any better. No matter how good a parenting a child can receive, they can and will make irrational decisions at times.

"He deserved it. If the police tells you to put your hands up you do it.
Not put your hands up than pull out a fake gun that looks real and point it at the cop."

Holy shit. A 12-year-old making a stupid decision equates to deserving to die? Hell, anyone making a stupid decision equates to deserving to die? Get a hold of yourself.