Thought Problem - Guns and a New Nation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Imagine if you and a few million other people are given sovereignty over a new nation. In drafting a constitution, would you include the right to bear arms?

    If so, why? If not, why not? Any codified restrictions? Is it even suitable for inclusion in a constitution, or could it be covered through other laws?

    Time is present time. The nation's economy and technology are western industrial.

  2. nuckinfutz macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2002
    Middle Earth
    Yes I would. I would also do so with no fear because I'd craft my country to be based on the fundamentals of capitalism though there would be limits on excess.

    I don't think humans are motivated by money and at some point and individual or corporation can collect too much and become disaffected.

    By reducing the disparity between the "haves and have nots" I stand a great chance of reducing many of societies ailments.

    Education would be diverse and all pedagogical efforts would be reviewed for success and or modification. I would want my education infrastructure to be engaging and modern. More emphasis would be on working with hands than wrote memorization.

    Military service would be required but there would be levels. Every citizen would know basic firearm safety. Those banned from owning firearms would be those convicted of crimes of a violent nature or those with diagnosed medical issues that inhibit the ability to make rationale decisions (of course this would be up for debate)

    Every citizen would have access to a baseline of free counseling. This counseling would be private and available to all on an ongoing basis.

    Businesses would be expected to maintain constant evolution. Patents would be assigned on a scale of expected or reasonable payoff. Thus if billions were spent on a product it would get a longer patent period to offset the expenditure. Smaller patents would sunset far quicker.

    Sharing of data would be encouraged and even rewarded "for the greater good"

    much of this isn't about firearms because I don't think firearms are the issue in America. It's one of culture. When you look at Columbine and now Sandy Hook you see antagonists that are very similar in ways. Societal pressures are causing some to fracture and lash out and this rage and destruction can manifest itself through a variety of devices designed to kill. If I focus on the firearm i've lost the point and cannot prevent the next blow back event.
  3. ChristianVirtual, Dec 20, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012

    ChristianVirtual macrumors 601


    May 10, 2010
    No weapon in private homes; strict inbound border check for illegal goods, drugs and weapon. The only weapon allowed are for official security services.

    If weapons are required for individuals they would be technically equipped with GPS, RF tags to block the trigger if unauthorized person want to use ; and last time I heard Israel has a lifetime limited supply of ammunition (like 50 rounds); nice solution, too. But it would be very hard to get a weapon; and the owner need to agree to let police anytime check the storage and amount of stored ammunition.

    Country name would be Utopia ...
    Now I stop dreaming; baseline: no weapon in private home; exceptions (!) possible.

    Update: found the link to the process in Israel; that sounds ok to me
  4. iStudentUK macrumors 65816


    Mar 8, 2009
    I agree, sounds good. There are a couple more exceptions than security services, for example where I grew up (in the countryside) a few people were employed by government agencies to control wildlife populations, and they need guns. Obviously in my "new" country they'd be subject to background checks and would have to store their weapons securely at their place of work.

    I'd also add serial numbers (or something similar) to bullets. Whilst I'm not a big believer in prison, I would add harsh sentences for breaking the rules on guns. Basically I'd ensure that this new country doesn't develop a gun culture like the US has. My goal would be to be like the UK where even the police don't usually carry firearms.

    "The right to bear arms is only slightly less ludicrous than the right to arm bears."
  5. glocke12 macrumors 6502a


    Jan 7, 2008
    Id allow weapons. People would have to have background checks and first time gun buyers would have to go through a safety/orientation course.

    In return for allowing guns, I'd have strict penalties in place for crimes involving guns, no second chances in my world. I would also have a system in place for dealing with people who need mental health care. Something we currently lack here in the US.

    In addition, I would probably also strict controls in place in terms of what material (movies, video games, etc) young people are allowed to have exposure to. I find it incredibly ironic that parents go to great lengths to protect their kids from porn, yet have no problems allowing pre-teens and teens to play ultra-violent, graphic video games.
  6. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 4, 2010
    My official position on the issue of gun ownership is people should have the right to owns guns as a hedge against bad government or the total collapse of government. If the United States Dollar was to totally collapse, which it could very well do any day now, the U.S. government would declare martial law initially until they could no longer control the rioting or the looting. Eventually, the national guard soldiers and the local police would abandon their posts to go home to protect their family. With no more government and no more active police force to protect its citizens, how are you going to protect yourself and your family? You'll need a gun.
  7. Dagless Suspended


    Jan 18, 2005
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    Go get em cowboy!
  8. ChristianVirtual macrumors 601


    May 10, 2010
    I would not need a gun but some flight or train tickets and run away as quick as possible.

    But actually your answer is bit off. The question is not about USA today. The question is how YOU would do it in your OWN new country. You could write the constitution. Talking about blue-sky-vision. We all hope you wouldn't design a bad government.
  9. 725032 Guest


    Aug 5, 2012
    Yeeee Haaaar... Welcome to the wild wild west!

    I won't be living in any country that you're in
  10. copykris Suspended


    Sep 25, 2009
    thanks for the laugh
  11. boomhower macrumors 68000


    Oct 21, 2011
    Yes I would. When only those in power have weapons it's going to be a dictatorship at some point.
  12. prostuff1 macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2005
    Don't step into the kawoosh...
    Yes, with proper controls in place and mandatory certification/training required for all firearms when purchased. Also, "continuing education" hours would be required; sort of like having to renew your drivers license every 4 years.

    For all the people that say no, or with more strict regulations:
    What about those people that would like a firearm for recreational hunting purposes?
  13. copykris Suspended


    Sep 25, 2009
    what about them?

    what about people who like to go 100 on the freeway for recreational purposes?

    there's rules and regulations in every society and unfortunately, law abiding citizens, more often than not, are 'victims' of these laws and regulations on account of a minority of irresponsible douchebags
  14. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Aug 19, 2010
    I'd add the separate storage of guns and ammo in private homes and the ban of selling high-capacity clips or magazines to civilians. The rest is common sense.
  15. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Can you point to an example where this has occurred?
  16. rmwebs macrumors 68040

    Apr 6, 2007
    No. I'd outlaw them simply because statistics prove that not only does this lower murder and suicide rates, but it would also lower the rate of people having mental issues about having the right to retain a tool that has the sole intention of causing death.

    Having had reasoned, thought out discussions with both people from the US (no gun control) and the UK (gun-controlled) there is clearly a difference in psyche. The 'pro gun' people are a lot more agressive, and I'd go as far to say that a large number of them are unstable when it comes to a debate.

    Whilst those in a gun-controlled environment may not always be correct, most seem to be able to have a logical discussion about the pros and cons, without resorting to slagging matches.

    There's also the fact that a large number of gun owners use the reason "its to protect me when the government try to control me" - its scary that some people feel thats a normal thing to say, and dont get why that's a sign of major psychological problems.

    So no. My fictitious nation would not allow weapons. We would have a strong police force. Does this make it a 'prison state'? Not at all. It's simply doing what any government wants to achieve - no violence and everyone getting along.

    Finally, even if the country did allow weapons it would be under strict rules. I.e no shop may sell weapons or ammo, you must apply for a license, and have numerous interviews prior to owning the weapon, you must provide a secure means of storing it, you may not remove it from your property, etc.

    In fact. I retract something. My country would allow 1 kind of weapon. A stun gun. These are a lot more stable to use.
  17. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    The ironic thing is that the United States is both the "gun state" and the "prison state" with the moist guns in private hands of any nation on Earth and the highest incarceration rate of any nation on the Earth.

    But hey ... we invented Disneyland.
  18. CalWizrd Suspended


    Jun 21, 2011
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    Most people are familiar with the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". The original quote, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." is attributed to Edmund Burke, a British statesman and philosopher. The statement was later slightly modified by George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher and essayist, as "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.", and famously, Winston Churchill also modified it as "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it". These were all wise men, and I am certainly in agreement with the sentiment.

    There is an old email which has circulated for years which attempts to create a cause and effect link between various countries enacting strict gun control and the subsequent murders/genocide of segments of the population. The examples listed include Turkey in 1911, the Soviet Union in 1929, Germany in 1938, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, etc.

    While I don't necessarily subscribe to any direct link in cause and effect from these examples, I do strongly believe that in all of these cases, an armed resistance summoned up from these populations would have, at the very least, made the intentions of these tyrannical governments a lot more difficult and costly to carry out, and perhaps saved some percentage of the victims.

    Of course, it is at this point that the expected "There is no way someone with a pistol or rifle can defend against a government with infinitely superior firepower" will be mentioned. One can only point to the numerous examples in history where a determined resistance population has effectively defeated a much larger, well equipped fighting force through small but meaningful attacking tactics (Indochina/France, Viet Nam/US, Afghanistan/Soviet Union, ...). While these were cases of foreign invading forces, I think the principle of the effectiveness of small guerrilla forces remains true to use against a native government as well.

    Over the course of the evolution of a nation, one can never know when a benign (?) democratic government can become, through reaction to currently unknown factors or simply through the actions of certain evil individuals in positions of power, an authoritative dictatorial entity. I am not implying that this will happen... simply that we can never assume for sure that it couldn't.

    Given that (personal) conclusion, coupled with all that has been mentioned above... YES, I would include a codified statement of the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Those that put together our constitution understood this principle, and I agree with it totally.

    The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Feb 2, 2009
    Toronto, Ontario
    Do I want to be able to control my subjects completely or do I want them to have freedom to choose who rules them, through armed revolt if pushed?
  20. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    So you're suggesting that in these cases there were no (or virtually no) guns in the civilian population.

    That's a good start.

    Can people here in the forum corroborate or refute those claims?


    I think we call that "voting".

    And yes, I'd include that right in the new constitution.
  21. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Oct 27, 2009
    I don't think the right to bear arms would be included if they had at their present time the type of weapons we have now, or if they foreseen what we have now.
  22. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Can members from other nations inform the forum whether they have a right to bear arms codified in their constitution?
  23. rmwebs macrumors 68040

    Apr 6, 2007
    It's a slightly silly notion "wars happened in these countries during gun control...that must mean its the cause of that war".

    WWII for example - to suggest that had bugger all to do with gun control would be complete insanity. The same applies to WWI.

    It's a silly as this argument:

    Wars by the USA, with no gun control:
    - Vietnam
    - Iraq
    - Afghanistan
    - Korea


    No other country has the same type of 'right to bear arms' no, as generally a country will amend its laws (regardless of who wrote them and when) as needed. For example in the UK, sure we have a lot of old laws in place, but if one of them is considered to be completely irrelevant in modern times, it's axed. There's none of this "But its written on the paper out country was founded on" nonsense. Whilst every country needs its history and principles, there comes a point where some historical rules are no longer relevant, and are a hindrance.

    The constitution is obviously something unique to the USA that outsiders will never full appreciate or understand. It has however given a false sense of freedom, with a fixed set of rights for the people. The fact is however that most of those rights no longer exist, and some should have never existed in the first place.
  24. CalWizrd Suspended


    Jun 21, 2011
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    I think you might be missing the point (if you are referring back to my post).

    I wasn't, by any imaginative stretch, implying that gun control is causative and precursor to war.

    That which I was referring to, rather, was the genocidal actions of a government. I presume you have some knowledge of the fate of Jews/Gypsies/etc. in 1930's-1940's Germany?
  25. rmwebs macrumors 68040

    Apr 6, 2007
    Ahh apologies, I misunderstood your post.

    (and yes, well aware of the atrocities in Germany)

Share This Page