And I'm not purposely ignoring you. If you want to know where to start, Federalist #29 speaks directly to the logic behind the 2nd Amendment. The fears about a standing army are painfully prescient. I wanted to give you a longer list so that you could see Hamilton's and Jay's fears of government oppression at all levels. I haven't had time to do the research, but I will post them as soon as I do.
So you think that only the government should have those killing devices? If a delusional maniac gets a gun, he can do a lot of damage. If a delusional maniac gets all the guns, he can ruin the entire country.
than you should be against guns. you can't protect everyone you love all the time. I've had a gun pointed at me, but never shot at, and never knew someone who had been shot. I'd like things to stay that way.
that's why we have separation of powers and check's and balances. Just so this stuff can't happen. It's why democracy is so stable. Yes - only the government or those empowered by the government should carry guns. You can't even carry a knife or chinese star legally in New York City. The martial arts school I attend doesn't even allow students with a criminal record, and they require people to undergo an interview to make sure they will only act in self-defense. And that's to learn martial arts. To get a gun, you just need some bucks. Truly scary.
So let's start over then. I assert that guns lead to more people getting shot than no guns. Thus the U.S. and Mexio - countries with lots of guns - have lots of gun shots. But Europe has less guns and a lot less shootings. We can start with that. And yes, this is a very emotional issue for me - because people lives are actually at stake. I may argue a lot of crazy things, but when it comes to the unnecessary pain and damage caused by guns - it's just such a waste of human life. If there's a net loss of human life of even 32 people - if gun laws might have prevent just those deaths - than it's worth giving up the 2nd amendment for just those 32 people alone. That's what I believe.
There are multiple examples of tyrannical dictators gaining control in stable Democracies. The United States are not exempt.
I am new to the gun debate, so please dont be so harsh on me hehe. I personally dont own a gun, and still undecided whether I want one or not. I actually have conflicting feelings on this issue. Well, after the V-Tech shooting, I am really scared of being an innocent victim of gun violence, but at the same time, I also understand that 'individual liberties' is one of our core values as an American, and gun-ownership happens to be one of those liberties. If the criminals only kill among themselves, if suicidal people only shoot themselves, if the gun only affects the individual but not others around them, then no one would care about gun control; Unfortunately, the guns that people own directly affect others around them in a big way, I am talking about life and death by simply pulling a trigger(for whatever reasons.) And that's why I think we should reconsider the right to own guns as our fundamental right. Also, our citizens are no longer fighting the red-coats, they are no longer fighting with Native Americans, and we have law and order in every city across America. Guns for recreational purposes, then I understand. But it seems ridiculous to me that we need guns to protect ourselves from each other. I know that there is no silver 'bullet' answer to this problem, but I think the first step should be to ban future ownership of guns, starting today, and then deal with hundreds of millions of guns that are currently out there. Also, I am not worried about an oppressive government having the rights to all weapons since we have a great system of checks and balances and oversight within our government.
That depends if both are armed. If both have guns then its likely both get shot too. My point is that if you are armed at close range with a gun there is a chance you get shot too. Again though I will emphasize both knives and guns are extremely dangerous and their is a risk to the users of both. That said IMO there is a less risk to yourself using a knife in close range than a gun. [EDIT]Just want state again I don't any of this from direct experience as I've never been in a gun or knife fight and hope never to be but mainly from training using plastic knives and talking to people having dealt with defending against knives and guns. [/EDIT]
Having personal arms is no guarentee of liberty though. As I noted earlier in Saddam's Iraq nearly everyone had a Kalishnikov. In fact right before the invasion he was giving them out. That didn't keep him from ruling with an iron fist.
Earlier, the discussion centered around self defense, stopping home invasion, protect against the criminals ... and people brought up the 2nd amendment as the document that grant them their right to bear arms. I said it did not: "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." Our forefathers claimed it to be their right to take up arms against the King of England. To me,the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable in today's society. We do not have to worry about any kings. You then told me to go read the Federalist papers, and it has nothing to do with the original discussion. If you want to discuss the merit of maintaining a militia, we can do so, but it was not the point.
No one expects it to be a guarantee of liberty. It's just one check against tyranny. They are wrong about the 2nd Amendment's main purpose. But it still states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Given the nature of mechanized warfare though its not much of a check. In that regard I would agree that the 2nd Ammendment is antiquated. My own feeling though is to not tamper with the Constitution and that due to tradition and legitimate recreation and self-defense needs it should be left as is. IMO the only way to do away with personal gun ownership would be another Constitutional Ammendment which I think would have zero chance of ratification.
you mean like Haiti? Cuba? Oh yeah, and one's America over-threw like in Nicarugua? How about Pakistan? Yeah - those are great examples.... When's the last time a western democracy was overthrown? U.S., Canada, UK. France, Swedan, Japan, Austrailia. Let's see, which one has a right to bear arms? Hmmm, I guess only one is safe from being a dictatorship.
I guess people wouldn't mind Walmart selling pipe bombs or extremely poisonous gas either. Maybe we can legitimize it with a license to carry concealed explosives. That's one step away from logic some people here are seeming to say.
after all, we need to be able to defend ourselves against our government!! if that's the concern, than i need nukes, personally, to be on even footing with the US government.
You can not take one sentence and use it by itself. The whole article has to be read , put it context, and the time period, along with the reason it was written to have meaning. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, is meant specifically for the forming of the "well regulated" militia, as a substitute for a standing army, to stand up against King George. Even during that time period, it was not meant for an individual to use his gun to go out and shoot the 1st englishman he saw either. He was to use it when he joined the militia and used it under the direction and regulation of an army unit. It was/ is not a right to keep and bear Arms, as an individual, to use against a robber, against your neighbor ...
I don't think I responded to you as well as I had hoped, so I'm going to take another stab at it. The discussion started because the pro-gun control posters wanted to use the Virginia Tech shooting to re-open the discussion about gun control. The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights so that if a tyrannical government were ever elected, the citizens would have opportunity to overthrow that government by force. To get me to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment, you must prove a benefit that out-weighs its check (however small) on tyranny. The pro-gun control posters keep making the claim that increasing gun control somehow reduces violent crime, when that's never been shown to be true. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be true more often than not. So the pro-gun control posters keep resorting to emotional arguements. The 2nd Amendment does nothing to protect your right to use deadly force in self-protection. (Or at least it was not originally intended to.) Posters making that claim are wrong. That is a legislative issue where State and local governments have typically made judgments. Again, the statistics say that protecting that right does not increase and sometimes reduces violent crime.
