NRA Blames Violent Video Games and Everyone Else

[Graeblyn]

The Right to Bear Arms isn't in place for sport shooting, deer hunting or to deter criminals from breaking into your house or to prevent rapes/muggings. The second amendment is in place to keep the citizenry armed against the government. If our military and police is going to have assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, then so too do it's citizens need to have those weapons. The greatest problem with all this debate is that people forget that it doesn't matter if video games inspire violence. it doesn't matter if rabid deer are threatening to break into your home and you need a fully automatic grenade launcher to fend it off. We have a second amendment to ensure that each and every one of the other amendments are adhered to by our government.

That is why we need to be allowed to have them.

Whenever armed groups in recent history, whether they be cultists, survivalists, right-wing militias, or whatever, feel their their freedoms are being threatened by the US Government, their pursuit of their second amendment rights in the collection of and use of arms has done nothing to further pursuit of those freedoms, and in every case I can think of has only resulted in tragedy for the deluded souls involved. The Federal Government has never to my knowledge been effectively threatened by individuals with arms.

So, how exactly does the second amendment ensure our rights are adhered to?

[Gromgor]

Whenever armed groups in recent history, whether they be cultists, survivalists, right-wing militias, or whatever, feel their their freedoms are being threatened by the US Government, their pursuit of their second amendment rights in the collection of and use of arms has done nothing to further pursuit of those freedoms, and in every case I can think of has only resulted in tragedy for the deluded souls involved. The Federal Government has never to my knowledge been effectively threatened by individuals with arms.

So, how exactly does the second amendment ensure our rights are adhered to?

Because the government and others with their own agendas have made it so people who have guns tend to be viewed as psychos, and that what I'm about to say is interpreted in a knee-jerk reaction as some sort of treason: "The government doesn't fear guns, because we've not used them enough against that government."

The Founding Fathers knew that no government can exist without stripping away the rights of the people it's meant to represent. So, they ensured we CAN do what they DID, and rise up against our governors. That we have the weapons needed to do so. We're supposed to have revolutions periodically. Just to keep things in check - or at least the option.

Now, I know that's going to sound like I'm some right-leaning, gun-toting redneck that hides in a bunker and stockpiles ammo and canned beans. I'm not though. I'm just accepting of the history and the intent behind the Second Amendment. Instead of a second amendment right, we really are meant to have a second amendment responsibility and if we think our elected officials are behaving in a way we disapprove of, we have nobody but our own selves to blame.

[Xywalan]

I'm a bit confused about some interpretations of the second amendment though. If it is interpreted as "anyone has the right to own firearms" then how is it possible to put any regulations on it, even for those with criminal records or with mental issues? As far as I know, the right to religion is not infringed even if you have a long list of criminal records.

[Jyn]

I'm a bit confused about some interpretations of the second amendment though. If it is interpreted as "anyone has the right to own firearms" then how is it possible to put any regulations on it, even for those with criminal records or with mental issues? As far as I know, the right to religion is not infringed even if you have a long list of criminal records.

Take a Constitutional Law class (or use Wikipedia). None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute or "inalienable". The government can essentially make any law it wants to and infringe any right. It's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the other branches overstepped their authority or not. To do this, the Court has different levels of scrutiny it applies depending on the type of case and right involved. The application of one type of scrutiny or another can be outcome determinative. This why the makeup of the Supreme Court and the appointment of a new Justice is so critical to issues like this.

The 2nd Amendment is there for when all 3 branches of the Government are working in tandem with each other to deprive people of their rights and/or fail at protecting them. The people then have no choice but to protect their rights themselves.

[Graeblyn]

Because the government and others with their own agendas have made it so people who have guns tend to be viewed as psychos, and that what I'm about to say is interpreted in a knee-jerk reaction as some sort of treason: "The government doesn't fear guns, because we've not used them enough against that government."

The Founding Fathers knew that no government can exist without stripping away the rights of the people it's meant to represent. So, they ensured we CAN do what they DID, and rise up against our governors. That we have the weapons needed to do so. We're supposed to have revolutions periodically. Just to keep things in check - or at least the option.

Now, I know that's going to sound like I'm some right-leaning, gun-toting redneck that hides in a bunker and stockpiles ammo and canned beans. I'm not though. I'm just accepting of the history and the intent behind the Second Amendment. Instead of a second amendment right, we really are meant to have a second amendment responsibility and if we think our elected officials are behaving in a way we disapprove of, we have nobody but our own selves to blame.

That's all very well, but didn't answer my question. If we accept your premise, that the second amendment is designed to give people the option you mention above, it clearly hasn't worked when disaffected people try this, has it?

So again, how exactly does the second amendment ensure our rights are adhered to?

Perhaps it would help to compare the effectiveness of some of the other "checks on power" in the bill of Rights, such as free press, religion, assembly, etc. We could find countless examples of these being used effectively to influence government. Can you name many examples of the 2nd amendment being used effectively in this way? I can't think of a single one, but I can think of many tragic failed examples. This is why I ask how you feel the 2nd amendment ensures our rights are adhered to, because I just don't see it.

[Tartun]

So again, how exactly does the second amendment ensure our rights are adhered to?
.

The simple answer is this. The rights of the people to keep an bear arms has DETERRED tyranny simply by existing. There are a few instances in our nations history (including this century) where armed citizens have legally and successfully risen up against corrupt local governments, or even individual agents of an otherwise uncorrupt government, but that's not really the glory of the Second Amendment. The fact that they are so few and far between is a testament to its power.

Sadly the second amendment lost some of its power the moment any high court decided that it doesn't mean what it says, and that the right to bear SOME arms, MAY be infringed. It is funny how governments will decide things aren't important if it helps them to attain more power, or further secures their power.

The cold hard truth is that gun control legislation is never in the interest of keeping people safe, and only in the interest in keeping the government safe from the people. It's just hard to sell it that way, but if you need proof, go to Dick's sporting goods and try to buy body armor. You'd think that if the government was really concerned about gun violence, it would be very easy to buy a bullet proof vest. Hell, you could even get a tax credit!

[Xywalan]

The cold hard truth is that gun control legislation is never in the interest of keeping people safe, and only in the interest in keeping the government safe from the people.

And on the other hand, the anti-gun control lobby does not care about the interest of the people, just the profits of gun industry.

[Tartun]

And on the other hand, the anti-gun control lobby does not care about the interest of the people, just the profits of gun industry.

Not true. The "anti-gun control lobby" is funded, in no small part by MY DONATIONS and those of people like me. Furthermore, the gun industry will always have military customers, and can charge what it needs to in order to survive, solely on government contracts- if need be.

If you think the anti-gun control lobby is working for the gun industry, how do you explain the NRA's steadfast defense of MY right to sell MY guns secondhand? It would be in the best interest of "big gun" to prohibit the exchange of used firearms. That way all firearm customers would be forced to purchase a new gun.

[Xywalan]

Not true. The "anti-gun control lobby" is funded, in no small part by MY DONATIONS and those of people like me.

Well, if you want to play that game, the "gun-control lobby" is also funded by people like you. Maybe not with the same political affiliation but surely by people like you.

Furthermore, the gun industry will always have military customers, and can charge what it needs to in order to survive, solely on government contracts- if need be.

That is inaccurate. You are basically saying that the gun industry will not suffer from shrinking of their market because they can sell stuff to military. That obviously goes against pretty much every economical principle. If you are making a product, you are always looking for ways to expand your market, be it advertisement or lobbying for legislation that would make your products more easily accessible.

If you think the anti-gun control lobby is working for the gun industry, how do you explain the NRA's steadfast defense of MY right to sell MY guns secondhand? It would be in the best interest of "big gun" to prohibit the exchange of used firearms. That way all firearm customers would be forced to purchase a new gun.

First, you still need to buy bullets for the secondhand gun that you are buying. And second, NRA opposes many regulations that deal with gun control. It would be difficult for them to push for some regulations and be against others. Also, limiting what customers can do with their purchased goods usually comes with a pushback from the customers. For example, look into the criticism of policies of iTunes Store that limits the freedom of the customers. So basically, I'm guessing it is more profitable for them to push for those rather than oppose them.

[Savaric]

If you want to talk about shadow industries, then look no further than big pharma. I have not seen a single peep raised about any medications the sandy hook shooter may have been taking. The most I've been able to find is that the toxicology reports will not (read: never) be released. Nobody knows what was in his system. But, you think the media would want to know this. For all we know he could have been snorting bath salts...

My take is this:
1) The American population is heavily (and in many instances unnecessarily) medicated.
2) Antidepressants have the potential for serious side effects.
3) Millions of kids routinely desensitized to violence through video games and movies, and have little human contact.
4) Unhappy, materialistic society and bad/no parenting.

Personally, I blame the meds. Perhaps one of the only things I will ever agree with Michael Moore on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04UqzYOdGNs

Also, on a side note, they're saying the shooter destroyed his hard drive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure ISPs keep history logs of every site you visit.