Does government have the right to suspend civil rights?

Remove all ads!

Regarding what the founder thought about the Second Amendment, yes Ragusa, I think there is strong evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended for protection internally as well as externally:

 

Don't you think that in the last, let's say, 200 years, a few changes in circumstances have taken place? The americans no longer live in the wilderness, surrounded by dangerous indians. The war with britain is over too. Mexico and Canada are friendly neighbours. In the end the only enemy you'll find to use the arms against is the common street thug - and not the government.

This could be a reason to re-think if the second amandment, and the right to bear a firearm, still make sense. Even though the availability of guns may have an impact on the way crimes are carried out, they aren't the actual reasons. The reasons for crimes are social and are to be adressed politically (maybe by creating something as left as a social system) and by the police - just arming up the civvies, constitutional right or not, to win the arms race with the thugs is use- and pointless, a waste of resources.
So argumenting with crime to justify the constitutional right for any (type of) gun hardly makes sense.

And considering the US are a democracy, with elections and a ballance of power between the congress and president, the right to have a gun "when all else fails" is just as questionable. I pointed out why exactly earlier.

Times are changing and traditions are not a value in itself, that you have done something for and since 200 years doesn't mean it is still useful today. Perhaps it causes more trouble than that it helps. One of the few other countries, except switzerland, where it is still a perceived right to own a gun is afganistan. Just a thought.

[ December 14, 2002, 12:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, I don't have time to debate much right now but earlier you were skeptical about the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd Amendment. I was responding to this. The "times have changed" argument is different than what I was responding to.

 

I know, no pun intended.

 

Ragusa,

You are just encouraging this. The next arguement that will come out is that handguns in America save vastly more lives every year than the cost.

But please stop. This is so far off topic that it is stupid! I am sorry contributed to the whole thing. Ragusa, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Everyone else, you are entitled to yours. No one here is going to convince anyone to switch their side on this one.

America is quite a bit different socially than just about anyplace else. Anyone can say anything they want to about this topic, but I am done with it. I would enjoy reading arguements about the suspension of civil rights, but no more gun control debate! It has all already been said.

 

How would suspension of the civil, constitutional right to hold certain arms sound to you? I'll give you an example you surely won't like to read:

IIRC gun control is one of the things the current right wing, non socialist, government has thought of - for weapons like .50 BMG rifles (available unrestricted and afaik not under the regulation of the National Firearms Act) - in a response to the situation after 9/11 - even more after the recent sniper drama (you may have noticed that).

Considering the potential of the .50 BMG these guns are dangerous enough in the hands of a civilian - but they would be absolutely lethal in the hands of a determined terrorist. When a civilian can get it a terrorist will get it too if he wants it. Costs have never been a hindrance for terrorists.

And the possibilities are infinite: Think about shooting a starting, standing or taxiing Jumbo on fire - with 50.000l kerosene in its tanks and 400 passengers on board, or an industry gas tank in a populated area - from a safe distance of aprox 1800 yards (all large targets, easy to hit - and no longer a need for suicide) - or perhaps killing someone through a brick wall in his house - and so on. Heartwarming.

Of course there are other means to wreak similar havoc, but a heavy sniper rifle is a comparably easy and safe way for a terrorist. This is not utopic: IRA terrorists have used .50 cal rifles (likely from US sources btw) to assassinate british soldiers who were wearing heavy bulletproof vests - from a car. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Don't you think this could justify, in face of a very real maniac and terrorist threat, the restriction of the civil right to hold *certain* arms? After 9/11 you have to face it that gun control could be included in the restriction of *civil rights* - even if this would mean shortening the horns of your holy cow.

[ December 14, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

In World War 1 and 2, the govt. established censureship. It worked, and those damn "wobblies" needed shutting up. Regardless, in times of National Crisis(war or not, not necessarily war, b/c desert storm was not that big a deal) some rights must be suspended for the betterment of the nation. Mostly because of the damn liberal press(ever see "we were soldiers"?) always ****s stuff up, excuse my french. Only if we were fighting for our way of life, although the suspension of rights in that case would be ironic, somewhat.