Will someone please explain to me why this is so important.
Printable View
Will someone please explain to me why this is so important.
For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.
That's a pretty 20th century interpretation of it though. Generally, as in all former British colonies, the right to bear arms comes out of the generally recognized common law principle that people have a right to weapons for the purposes of defence or sport. I don't think many people will disagree that people have the right to weapons (given they are mentally sound adults). I think many reasonable people could argue that the availability of certain weapons is harmful to the public good. Thus, why you can not legally own certain very dangerous weapons, like nuclear bombs. The US could probably benefit from more gun regulation and further negotiation of what constitutes reasonable access to weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
For shooting policemen then.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
Clearly you are no revolutionist. As the saying goes "Who will guard the guards themselves?".Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
In the U.S., when was the last time citizens successfully used weapons to keep U.S. Armed Forces or local law enforcement from treating them unfairly?
The amendment came from out of a situation of occupation, a long time ago--and I think it still stands as an excellent example of the primacy of the rights of the individual, in a society--this powerful right itself being explicitly sanctioned by the society's founding documents. Next to guns, for example, it gets pretty hard to argue against alcohol, marijuana, gay marriage, and so on. Hooray for gun rights, I say.
I think the real reason for it, though, to the often extreme-seeming extent that it exists in a great many areas here is that there's a sort of culture around it, and people don't want to let it go. And many times, it can be a culture they absolutely shouldn't let go. So, in a lot of cases, they end up picking a side, even when they shouldn't be worried about their personal traditions, and letting those go. It's a big political issue now, and so there's a tribal mindset operating at a pretty large scale, and many people are ready to believe that any particular regulation under consideration at one time or another would just be a wavering step down a slippery slope. Tighter bans on assault rifles and/or the expansion of government oversight of purchases, or whatever the latest measure might be, are easily spun (to perfectly normal and good people--and their politicians) as signs that shotguns and hunting rifles and the colt revolver just like your dad's dad had are all going to soon be taken away by Liberal Security Forces.
But if the question is, "Why have guns at all?" or "Why not have severe regulation, and make it so only a few percent in the country-side have hunting rifles?" or whatever, then I think the answer is something like this: For the vast majority of individuals, while the need to possess weapons explicitly designed to kill large numbers during combat is not really present (in my opinion), the possession of a firearm isn't so impossibly dangerous that people can't be trusted to have them. And so people think they should be able to have them. (And the right to buy liquor, for example, even though drunk-driving, etc.)
I'm for some more regulation than we have most places, probably, and some limits and so on. (I've never owned a gun myself, despite sometimes living in areas where other people I know felt they needed a gun "for protection"--one area where I regularly heard gunshots at night, in fact, back in the 90's). The real story, to me, is that there's a big mess of political machinery, lobbyists, media blow-hard king-makers, and no room for compromise. I think a lot of people who don't own an assault rifle, for example, and who aren't shopping for one, end up defending the right to buy one as if it represented the sort of gun ownership they've grown up with.
Anybody who thinks they can buy enough weapons to keep the U.S. Army or the ATF off of their backs is a fool. And a person who just wants to collect the exotic and more mega-killer and military stuff really ought to make a bit of a concession to the concerned and agree to spend a bit more time on paperwork, at the very least--it'd only make their collections more special.
And that is why we are being trampled on now. This may be off topic but until the recent past America's military was largely made up of volunteer militia groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I am Not a violent Revolutionist - because violent revolutions don't work - they usually leave the country f-----d and the Elite (old or new) in firmer control. Has the Arab Spring made any Arab better off?
"Who will guard the guards themselves?".
A better question is "who decides what's fair?" Some punk with an assult rifle usually.
Trampled on by who? Local law enforcement? We should have a militia to fight the sheriff or the county police? Or, without a U.S. military to back them up, the State Police would have to back down to citizens banding together with assault rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
I hate guns. I would rather be killed than kill. <3
I would say that it's there so that
A: The weak can defend themselves against the strong (For example, if some men broke into an old mans house, he would be helpless unless he had a means to defend himself)
and B: Like Rumfield said, in the case that the government tries to overstep it's authority or it gains too much power, the people can fight back.
However I do agree that in some places the laws are too relaxed. The fact that there are lunatics that can easily legally get hold of a gun is quite disturbing.
The operative word here is 'intelligent' and how one defines it. There will always be some who are likely to crack under certain circumstances and go on a rampage and in an ideal society it might be argued that a ban on publicly held weapons would go some way to preventing such killings.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
However, in ultra-liberal societies, where the mindset is that criminals deserve sympathy, the question of the right to bear arms becomes somewhat rhetorical.
Most militia leaders were FBI agents who did not believe for a minute that the "right to bear arms" fools were ever going to protect anything with a few stupid grenades and elephant and grizzly killing rifles. The FBI was there for several purposes. Another one was to infiltrate synthetic drug laboratories and the planting of maryjuana.
Hi Mick,
I have three guns inherited from my now deceased father. Two of them are vintage American WW II rifles the other is later model of a pistol developed for WW I.
As I was growing up, my father and older brother would take me out periodically for target shooting at the gun range or sometimes venture to a nearby trash dump and shoot refrigerators, cars, etc. The time spent target shooting with my father and brother were special to me, leaving fond memories that I will always cherish. A humorous event I recall was my first time to shoot a 12 gauge shotgun. I was about 10 years old, sitting on the ground with no back support. The recoil sent me rolling backwards, my brother saw it coming and casually grabbed the gun as I rolled past.
Today, my brother, sister, brother in law, niece’s, wife and son keep the barrels warm on those old guns taking down beer cans, pumpkins, watermelons, and of course shredding paper targets. To many reading this, particularly those outside the U.S., I realize it is difficult to grasp the concept of owning a gun much less finding enjoyment in shooting one, but it is. (I have difficulty understanding how one would enjoy leaping into a mosh pit or riding a skateboard down a handrail busting the family jewels.)
It should be mentioned, that beyond target shooting, whether for recreation or competition, hunting with firearms is also popular in the U.S.
I can’t honestly recall a time that the right to bear arms was ever discussed growing up or even today among the family. The guns were there legally, treated with utmost safety and we enjoyed them from a historical perspective and for shooting. For what it’s worth, I’m thankful we have the right to bear arms if for no other reason than the fond memories it has allowed from my youth, a means with which to bond with my son and the positive memories he will carry.
Sadly, if not with guns, then that which truly needs to be controlled will find other methods for killing:
Sarin Gas on a train - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_g...e_Tokyo_subway
Bombs in Norway, London, Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings
Bombs were used in 1927 that, to date, still stands as the deadliest mass killing at a school in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Knives in Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
--------------------
Regardless of how they were killed, yesterday’s event was horrible. I’m still in a funk like so many others and I pray /hope that peace may soon come to the families impacted by this tragic event.
Kyrie Eleison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aah_ITLw3R8
The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is entirely true, but evades the fact that guns make it easier, they bring the possibility of random killing to the ordinary man in the street. Guns are the problem.
I have 3 shotguns (my father's), but I don't have a right to own them, I possess them at the sufference of the licencing authority. This is fine by me. Every 5 years I have a police interview and inspection to renew my licence at a cost of around £100. To own a rifle I'd need a firearms certificate, a good reason to have one, several referees, a place to use it safely, a secure place to keep it, a record of any ammo and would have to comply with much more stringent checks. Hand guns are banned completely.
The result of all these rules has not been so much to prevent gun crime or murders, but I think has helped to establish a different culture. Our society barely tolerates them any more. People have more or less handed in all their Grandads' WW1 revolvers and their childhood .22s
I feel unfortunate to live in a country where guns are idolized play things. If this were a civilized place, my elected representatives would handle the security of the nation, not Joe-Bob neighbor jackass. Do I not have the right to avoid arms?
Three of my family members, and two kids I went to school with, were shot to death because of the ease of access to guns. If someone had approached them with knives, their odds of survival would have been much better. Knives aren't typically more dangerous than guns, people. That's quite a fantasy.
I saw posts all over facebook yesterday about some mass knife stabbing in China. "22 children injured in knife attack in China" vs. "20 children shot to death at a school in America." Let's see...which is a better phone call for a parent to get? Injured child? Dead child? O_o
My opinion is still and always that it is stupid to allow citizens to be armed against other citizens. Of course people are going to kill people with guns. A gun has one function.
These are the types of controls I would be comfortable with, but the states are full of crazy rednecks. Try speaking to them about this and they'll jam their fingers into their ears while screaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
61 mass shootings in USA since Columbine.
They have occurred in other countries, but other countries have responded by tightening the gun laws and it has generally worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
For shooting kindergarten children then
Hi Delta, Australia had 13 mass shootings in 16 years. Until 1998 when Semi automatics were banned - none since.
Lucky number 13. I'm thankful for the ban. Just out of interest, where did you get those figures from?
In many places in USA people hunt to eat. I know because I lived in places like that where the nearest supermarket is one hundred miles away. I used a 267 for my purposes. A well placed one of those bullets is enough. There should be gun control. Certified collectors should have a special license and some related degree implying responsibility. Of course you wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 267. But I never cared much for it, although a 30-06 should be enough for those who like the sausage. I think this gun control will not stop the killing, but at least will make it much more difficult and will promote a lot more sense.
I would be in favor of a license fee of about $100,000 per year per gun to compensate communities that have to pay for security at schools and malls because of the presence of guns. That might resolve the issue, but if it doesn't, one could also require each gun owner to purchase $500 million in liability insurance in case their gun is used improperly. Maybe $500 million is not enough.
Michael Moore on Twitter, I think I got them right. He also lists each of the USA 61 eventsQuote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Exactly, why does anyone need a semi-automatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
That's not the figures I have. 9 gun massacres since 1971. Port Arthur trumping the world in 1996. I remember the Hoddle St and Queen St massacres. Michael Moore's credibility is questionable.
I like the insurance idea. But ligitimate guns need to stay ligitimate and in the open. The licence fee should be affordable.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
To be fair to him he is re-tweeting someone else. That's the trouble with social media, things get repeated without being checked. (I'm guilty) I think this is the original source.
http://jeffsachs.org/2012/12/time-to...the-massacres/
:lol: That has got to be the understatement of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Mmmm that link took me nowhere. I looked up the history of massacres in Australia only because given the small population of this nation, 13 massacres in 16 years just doesn't add up. Prior to 1996 we were a relaxed nation in terms of gun laws - a naive one even but the killing of 35 people at Port Arthur changed all of that. The government not only banned semi's and tightened gun laws, they also spent $350m on a buy back program and as a result, over 640,000 guns were handed in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in
the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the
reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but
not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution
effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm
homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws
This is the gist^ of the article I found.
640,000 that's amazing. In our country a gun amnesty had about 150,000 guns handed in.
Lol. Somebody has to shoot those bloody kangaroos! There's alot of ground to cover here.
I wish the right to bear arms is about mounting arms of bears on walls.
Americans are frightened of each other. Are they so nasty? Guess their own answer's yes
At this time of year in Oz we have the right to bare armsQuote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
The right to bear arms is fundamental, part of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. However, citing that sacred document requires that we consider the historic background in which it was enacted.
The former American colonies had just fought and successfully won a war in which they achieved independence from the British crown. There remained a lingering fear that the British might soon try again to reclaim the country-- which turned out to be prophetic with the War of 1812. Hence, the right of the people to form a well-regulated militia was embedded in America's founding document, in case the nation would be placed in a position where it needed to defend itself.
Also, private citizens were assured that they'd be able to hunt
responsibly as well as defend the lives and property of their families. No one denied them this right then; no one really does now.
What's different is that somehow there is a misconception among some that the right to bear arms means ANY kind of
weapon, acquired by ANYONE. Somehow common sense and public safety has been forgotten.
The "right to bear arms" as envisioned by the founding fathers grew out of a knowledge of the kind of weaponry available during the late eighteenth century. The common firearm of the time was the musket,a single-shot weapon requiring a time consuming process between shots. There was no way the framers of the Constitution could have envisioned a world in which a person can easily obtain a type of assault weapon capable of firing rapid and successive deadly shots.
That is why we as a nation should take a look at the proliferation of high-tech weapons in the hands of people who have been so inured by a culture of violence, promulgated --unwittingly or deliberately-- by popular media, movies, music,video games-- that there has developed a deep-seated belief that the way to solve personal problems or even instantly perceived "threats" is with a gun, the bigger and more deadly the gun, the better.
For more information, "Google" wearebetterthanthis.org, or better yet, take a look at Ezra Klein's article in which he examines the facts about gun violence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-united-states
I'm biased. The American Constitution sounds as sacred as the Ten Commandments to me. While Australians have fought and died in a never ending war for them and never has the US gone to bat for another country under the same conditions, I'm apathetic on whether Americans kill each other over constitutional rights and freedoms in their own backyard.
The American Constitution is subject to amendment, but whether the right to bear arms is changed is a question for them to decide: outside interference should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
You're absolutely right Emil. I'll just throw another shrimp on the barbie....Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Mostly rednecks defend gun laws because they are anti-social anyway, and they don't give a hoot about society, their neighbors, or the welfare of our kids or our future.. look how they raise their kids. I say we need gun control... any decent person with enough common sense would understand that, and I don't give a **** who I offend. I'm so tired of tip toeing around what's the honest truth here.
Let me also say that my husband is a retired police officer and detective, and we both agree there needs to be control. Point blank.
This is why we need a democrat in office, because this will never be resolved if our country was run by a republican.
Your opinion is not fact. Point blank!Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
So what you're saying is there are currently more rednecks in America than decent people with common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
To be honest with you, it seems that way.