Why isn't Europe as crazy about guns as US?

[Venix]

Different supreme courts interpret the constitution differently. As it is written, guns apply to a "well regulated militia" - but you never hear gun nuts bring that up.

The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment to apply only to muskets. Nor will it ever, since such an interpretation is profoundly ignorant and illogical.

DC v. Heller investigated and discussed the intent of the prefatory clause in great detail, and the Court's conclusions drastically differ from your own. But you clearly have no interest in educating yourself, so I see little point in discussing it any further.

 

[Tango]

That's interesting, but that's what I am trying to get at. Why do the European people feel the way they do and why do we feel the way we do?

Well, the United States was a settler's country. The frontier was not too long ago in historic sense, and certainly that created at the time a need for personal weapons in the western territories.

But this was true of many other places. Somehow in the US guns were romanticized and made part of the cultural esthetics of the country. This made it esthetically normal for people to have one, thus not socially penalizing.

Why and how was it made into a significant piece of national esthetics, I do not know.

 

[HAL9000]

It's because it's ingrained into American society from the outset, that everyone should be able to legally own weapons. That's not the case over here, we've never seen to make it that way, and as a result, we don't really care about guns. I guarantee if it was in the American constitution that everyone had the right to own a washing machine everyone in america would be fixated on washing machine technology.

I would also like to at this point shotgun the term "Washington Machine" as a patriotic American Washing machine brand.

 

[cyclohexane]

The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment to apply only to muskets. Nor will it ever, since such an interpretation is profoundly ignorant and illogical.

DC v. Heller investigated and discussed the intent of the prefatory clause in great detail, and the Court's conclusions drastically differ from your own. But you clearly have no interest in educating yourself, so I see little point in discussing it any further.

The constitution can and has changed many times over the 200 years. What made sense generations ago, no longer make sense. With any luck, the 2nd amendment can be gotten to of.

I see all the gun nuts cry about their gun rights being infringed - but no one complaining about their 4th amendment rights being violated on a daily basis.

 

[mrrman]

they have a life, thats why

 

[lxskllr]

I see all the gun nuts cry about their gun rights being infringed - but no one complaining about their 4th amendment rights being violated on a daily basis.

That's because you aren't paying attention. That's what happens when you get your news and world event coverage from MSNBC. You don't get any news or world event coverage.

 

[cyclohexane]

That's because you aren't paying attention. That's what happens when you get your news and world event coverage from MSNBC. You don't get any news or world event coverage.

Please, even on Fox News tons of right wing guys were defending government surveillance and crucifying "librul" Snowden even as recently as a few weeks ago.

 

[lxskllr]

Please, even on Fox News tons of right wing guys were defending government surveillance and crucifying "librul" Snowden even as recently as a few weeks ago.

I wouldn't know. I've never seen Fox news, but I frequently have the misfortune of seeing MSNBC at my mother's house. It amazes me they can find enough trash to fill a 24 hour day, while simultaneously avoiding all useful information. They should be congratulated on that achievement.

 

[pontifex]

Different supreme courts interpret the constitution differently. As it is written, guns apply to a "well regulated militia" - but you never hear gun nuts bring that up.

no it doesn't. read the 2nd amendment.

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.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A militia is necessary to keep the state free, so therefore the people need the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with guns applying to a militia. it's completely about guns applying to the people.

 

[Venix]

The constitution can and has changed many times over the 200 years. What made sense generations ago, no longer make sense. With any luck, the 2nd amendment can be gotten to of.

I see all the gun nuts cry about their gun rights being infringed - but no one complaining about their 4th amendment rights being violated on a daily basis.

None of this makes your "founding founders enshrined the right to bear a few muskets" statement any less incorrect. Is it really that hard to admit that you were wrong, and that you maybe learned an interesting new fact about firearm history?

You clearly don't know any "gun nuts." Firearm owners typically won't shut the fuck up about Fourth Amendment violations, police militarization, censorship, and so on. They're not all "right wing," and many of the ones who are only vote that way because they see the Republicans as slightly less disastrous than the Democrats.

 

[Albatross]

I doubt that if it were legal to buy guns tomorrow, many people would get one,in any European country.We like our conflicts between countries,in huge massacres.

 

[WelshBloke]

no it doesn't. read the 2nd amendment.

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.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A militia is necessary to keep the state free, so therefore the people need the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with guns applying to a militia. it's completely about guns applying to the people.

TBH that sentence could be read either way, especially given that it was written quite awhile ago.

Not that I think it matters either way. Your laws are what they are now, not what they were two hundred and a bit years age.

 

[_Rick_]

As it is written, it appears to be a conditional:
Because a militia is necessary, we need to arm the populace.

If the initial condition no longer holds, why should the required consequence still be a general requirement?

And I think we can show, that today, the USA does not require a militia to ascertain its freedom. Therefore, the right og the people to keep and bear arms no longer stands upon its founding principle and has to be reassessed under the changed conditions.

To get back to the original topic:
Guns were never really needed by private persons in Europe. Therefore a market for guns never developed. There is no conservative basis in the people's gun ownership. Also, where the US had few wars actually happening inside its borders in the last century, at the end of WW2, the last century saw a number of large scale wars happening in Europe, in places where people lived. Guns were often the symbol of the oppressor. Even during the French revolution, it wasn't the guns that made the difference, but rather the people's momentum and the economic situation. Guns are an aristocrat's toy and a soldier's killing tool, not a symbol of freedom.

Add to that, that Europe is mostly densely settled, which leads to more potential social problems, where guns would only worsen the situation.

Also, Europeans have different existential fears, that remain cultivated by conservative media. Personal security just isn't much of an issue, that anyone talks about, but social issues are more en vogue. Furthermore, because guns were never widespread, there's much less criminal gun ownership, and people are less confrontational about many situations, because they don't feel like they can just shoot their way out. Because criminals know this, even if they have a gun, they are less likely to use it in a preventative manner, and a simple robbery doesn't turn into a more brutal crime because of a sudden escalation of the issue.

 

[HTFOff]

I always feel warm and fuzzy inside when these squabbles come up on the internet.

I think it's because people more educated and passionate, on both sides, have made their arguments before the courts and well...we're at the point we find ourselves now. The right to bear arms is an indelible, fundamental right.

 

[CPA]

The founding founders enshrined the right to bear a few muskets - to deter British soldiers. They did not enshrine Ak-47s, sniper rifles, and other modern weapons capable of massacring a town full of people.

lol. This is one the stupidest things I've read in a while.

 

[CPA]

TBH that sentence could be read either way, especially given that it was written quite awhile ago.

Not that I think it matters either way. Your laws are what they are now, not what they were two hundred and a bit years age.

No it can't. The comma means everything in that statement.

And you're wrong on the second point as well. Laws cannot infringe on the what was written in the 2nd Amendment 200 years ago. That's why we have Supreme Court. Law after law has been thrown out because it infringed on the 2nd Amendment. Most recently: Chicago gun restrictions.

 

[CPA]

As it is written, it appears to be a conditional:
Because a militia is necessary, we need to arm the populace.

If the initial condition no longer holds, why should the required consequence still be a general requirement?

And I think we can show, that today, the USA does not require a militia to ascertain its freedom. Therefore, the right og the people to keep and bear arms no longer stands upon its founding principle and has to be reassessed under the changed conditions.

Please explain why the US does not require a militia? And second, does that mean that all militias should be outlawed?

 

[WelshBloke]

No it can't. The comma means everything in that statement.

Yeah it can. Its one sentence for a start. You need an armed population to have a militia, so we'll give the population the right to bear arms. Ergo if your not in a militia you dont need arms.

And you're wrong on the second point as well. Laws cannot infringe on the what was written in the 2nd Amendment 200 years ago. That's why we have Supreme Court. Law after law has been thrown out because it infringed on the 2nd Amendment. Most recently: Chicago gun restrictions.

Really? Your constitution dosnt get interpreted to be relevant to modern times? Its just written and used to be relevant to the seventeen hundreds?

 

[Tango]

What I notice is that this kind of discussion usually quickly escalates into a constitutional debate.

It's the esthetics not the ethics. That is not the issue. In Europe people can buy guns, and people with a very, very good reason (such as routinely transporting diamonds in a suitcase attached to your arm, of which you have no key) do. They choose not to.

If Americans did not care about weapons, nobody would care about what's written about weapons in the constitution. It would be a constitutional right just the same, but people would not care about exercising it, just like they do not care in their daily life about hundreds of laws decided a couple of centuries ago on subject matter considered today largely irrelevant.

i.e. It is why in New York City I find most people's attitudes towards guns much more similar to those of the Europeans than, say, those of Kentuckians...

 

[madoka]

Yeah it can. Its one sentence for a start. You need an armed population to have a militia, so we'll give the population the right to bear arms. Ergo if your not in a militia you dont need arms.

George Mason AKA the "Father of the Bill of Rights," who helped write the 2nd Amendment said this:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."

while addressing the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788.

 

[OCGuy]

Are there really people who discuss topics like this who have no idea what SCOTUS rulings have determined, even recently?

Haha. As if ATOT armchair scholars will cover new ground and magically make 2A go away.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah it can. Its one sentence for a start. You need an armed population to have a militia, so we'll give the population the right to bear arms. Ergo if your not in a militia you dont need arms.



Really? Your constitution dosnt get interpreted to be relevant to modern times? Its just written and used to be relevant to the seventeen hundreds?

but you need to break the sentence down.

what is the single, complete thought in the sentence?

"the right shall not be infringed". you can throw every other part of the wording out, but you need these words to make a complete thought and full sentence.

now, let's ask some questions.

what right? to keep and bear arms.
whose right? the right of the people
why? the security of a free state.
how? a militia.

nowhere does it say that the right is contingent upon being in a militia.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

 

[OCGuy]

Jesus tapdancing Christ there are Americans fighting with Euros over things that have already been decided:

Mcdonald SCOTUS holding:

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago


Heller SCOTUS holding:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Now we have moved on to a guaranteed right outside the home, which one district court has already said 2A extends to.

Now go do something useful.

 

[_Rick_]

Please explain why the US does not require a militia? And second, does that mean that all militias should be outlawed?

First: Because it has the largest standing army in the world.
Second: This has nothing to do with the question, and is an entirely separate issue.
I merely argue, that due to the presence of a large industrialized military, there is no need for a popular militia. There isn't even conscription going on, which would make the armed forces a true people's army.

 

[Doppel]

What I notice is that this kind of discussion usually quickly escalates into a constitutional debate.

It's the esthetics not the ethics. That is not the issue. In Europe people can buy guns, and people with a very, very good reason (such as routinely transporting diamonds in a suitcase attached to your arm, of which you have no key) do. They choose not to.

If Americans did not care about weapons, nobody would care about what's written about weapons in the constitution. It would be a constitutional right just the same, but people would not care about exercising it, just like they do not care in their daily life about hundreds of laws decided a couple of centuries ago on subject matter considered today largely irrelevant.

i.e. It is why in New York City I find most people's attitudes towards guns much more similar to those of the Europeans than, say, those of Kentuckians...

You make some good points, but people in NYC are not good representations of the bulk of America. They liked to be coddled by government. Living on top of one another like so many sardines in a can shape's one's view of things.

America's love with guns frankly goes hand in hand with the sense of personal freedom. I realize most Western nations have similar laws to the US on most matters, but the US's freedom of speech goes further than most Western countries, as does its protections for self-defense. Simply, the rights of the individual are held to a higher regard.