The right to bear arms

[prendrelemick]

Will someone please explain to me why this is so important.

[E.A Rumfield]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[prendrelemick]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

For shooting policemen then.

[E.A Rumfield]

For shooting policemen then.

Clearly you are no revolutionist. As the saying goes "Who will guard the guards themselves?".

[billl]

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.

[E.A Rumfield]

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?
.

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.

[prendrelemick]

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.

[billl]

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.

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?

[Varenne Rodin]

I hate guns. I would rather be killed than kill. <3

[Volya]

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.

[Emil Miller]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

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.
However, in ultra-liberal societies, where the mindset is that criminals deserve sympathy, the question of the right to bear arms becomes somewhat rhetorical.

[cafolini]

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.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

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

[prendrelemick]

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