Should U.S. citizens continue to be able to have guns (assuming they carry a permit)? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so. There are several sides to this argument. One consideration should be that certain people need guns in the course of their jobs such as law enforcement (a given), but others may not be as obvious (farmers use guns more than you may think). Wouldn't taking guns away also create a black market for them? In addition, wouldn't the government taking your guns away violate another Constitutional right- illegal search and seizure?
I think the suggestion that guns make us in any respect safer is mistaken. They make us less safe. Our gun culture promotes the existence of guns on our streets...requiring us to arm our police forces and the streets become battlefields. The statistics of accidental gun-related deaths...these people that claim they were raised with guns and know how to use them properly...are pretty staggering. People that keep guns in their homes to protect themselves are more likely to shoot their children. It would be safer not to be armed...or better yet have a government that interdicts, as best as possible, guns from being in anyone's hands. It may not be perfect at first, but if we outlawed all guns over time over the next two decades we could move to a safer society. Another issue of serious concern is are various militias and para military groups that have amassed assault rifles and other weapons. There may be some voices of freedom but some of them may also be a little insane.
All of this being said, there is a difference between what is good for our society and what our constitution requires. There is a right to bear arms under our Constitution. People say that this is a right to own personal arms for hunting and such, but historically this is only part of the picture. The concern that animated this amendment was the practice of the British government to disarm citizens. There was a desire to preserve two rights: 1) the right of an individual to arm himself against the government (state, federal, city, whatever); and 2) the right of the state government to arm itself (presumably against the federal government). People have argued that the right to bear arms only applies to state militias, and isn't an individual right. If that were so, then you might only be able to keep your guns in a state armory. But I do not think that is historically accurate. People also argue that the modern assault rifle has nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't. But the right to bear arms has always been the tool of armed resistance. People argue that the modern nation state has evolved so much, that it is also not feasible to resist the state with guns. That is probably true to some extent...although an armed populace would still be a major pain in the ass. People also argue that the concerns that animated people at the time of the constitution do not animate them now. I think that is true with a large portion of our population. But the remedy is a constitutional amendment. In short, I think the Second Amendment is a terrible thing for our modern society and makes us less safe. But that does not change what it requires.
It has been proven repeatedly, in study after study, that more guns = safer people. More guns = less crime. More guns = less violence. Why? The answer is self evident. Guns are not crime. They are not violence. Crime and violence are evils unto themselves. They are only stopped by SUPERIOR FORCE.
It's amazing that in this day of internet and open information flow, you'll still cling to myths and post them as facts.
Where did you get this bu***it from ! It is so patently ridiculous that I almost did not bother to comment, but it is a slow day here in gun-less the rest of the real world. Where guns are allowed on strict permits that require no criminal record, some referees for your sanity and some actual use other than for small people to waggle it around to feel big.
I guess on these rules you might not get one, but plenty of others would and the mountains of 'other' guns, after collection, would be unable to kill people at random.
It is established fact. A multitude of scientific studies here in the US have proven that when the people are given the right to keep and bear arms, crime falls dramatically. It did in my state, and has in every other state which enacts laws which empower the citizen to bear arms.
It is established fact that you are a Lithuanian Tupperware salesman who collects Argentinian chicken beaks. A multitude of scientific studies here in the US have proven that.
(No insult intended; but saying "it is established fact" with no evidence is the same thing as "because I said so." Have a wonderful day cycle.)
I think as a citizen we should be able to bear arms. I also think that to bears arms is a responsiblity, in this I feel that all gunowners should learn to use them properly. And not only the owner but all members of the family should take a class on gun safety.
Isn't this a big point also - you talk about citizen and responsible in the same breath - how many American citizens would you class as resposnsible - and then what about those who are not ? The simplest way to keep guns out of the hands of morons is to make them hard to get and illegal to carry around, gun control of some kind.
Why not just jail everyone? After all, someone might commit a crime. Have preventative incarceration, and we let people out during the day to work - supervised, of course.
No, your vision of totalitarian states as being utopia is pure hell. We free and happy people want nothing to do with your vision of hell.
"I think as a citizen we should be able to bear arms. I also think that to bears arms is a responsiblity, in this I feel that all gunowners should learn to use them properly. And not only the owner but all members of the family should take a class on gun safety."
Agreed. If you have a gun, make sure a gun safely class is on the curriculum for your 1-year-old.
Gerber, by all means we should keep that right.
The only way a law like this will be of value is if the people who want to use guns for crime, comply with it. And the whole reason for the law is because people are not complying with rules of gun usage.
Society is already in possession of guns, and we can't pretend otherwise. You may be able to make it really difficult to obtain a gun, but you can't stop the fact that 1. there are already guns out there to get one's hands on, and 2. NObody is going to stop making guns. There'll be a blackmarket.
If all of society complied with this law, this law would be ideal. But that's just it. The reason for the introduction of the law is that society doesn't comply with the law. This is just another example of trying to force people to not be violent by taking away the tools they use to do it. You can't. You never will. People will kill each other whether with guns or crossbows or bombs. Laws like this sound pretty on paper, but will end up causing more death in practice.
If this law were actually practical, I'd be all for it. But the reality is, the world isn't like that. If there was a way to ABSOLUTELY assure that black markets would not arise, and there was a way to make ABSOLUTELY sure that ALL guns were confiscated, this might work. But then you have the problem of: government has all our guns. Well that's comforting.
All this law would do is make the gun market less accessible to those wishing to protect themselves and more accessible to criminals who know how to get things on a black market already. No matter what you do, you'll never stop people from making and getting what they want to make and get.
I don't own a gun and never will, but laws like this are just blind to reality, in my opinion.
Yes we should keep our right to bear arms...even without the permit. The Constitution I have read does not say if I have an approved permit!
Ms Clinton should lose her bodyguards and see how she would feel without protection. She might reconsider her position if she had to defend herself.
The black market would feed the criminals and crime would rise. If we citizens could not protect ourselves the criminals would take over. Hell, the police or government could control every aspect of our lives and we could not defend ourselves.
If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people without guns, so if everyone has a gun, no one has to die.
To carry a gun means you are prepared to kill another human being. Civilization is a process of improvement to higher levels of behaviour in society, living with a gun to hand is not a higher function, it is regressive.
By feeding violence you just create more violence, little people with big guns just fuels aggression.
Should US citizens give up the right to bear arms? - they will not escape their dark age until they do.
Alternat poet , you are not correct in that the humans will continue to higher levels of anything, only that we attempt to...... Simply put , if we cannot take a life in defense to improve humanity , then we will not improve. The US constitution justifies mans possesion and use of weapons . Only the misuse....... of the constitution and the million ammendments to it ...... can change this right.
I did not say humans will continue on . . . I said that civilisation is the name of that process and improvement is civilisation.
You say "Simply put , if we cannot take a life in defense to improve humanity , then we will not improve" It is so ridiculous that I assume you meant to say something else?
Your Constution was written when there were still bears and wolves around the houses and there would not likely be dozens of people in the vicinity when you fired your gun.
It is time the US grew up into the modern world and grew up to the idea that killing anybody else is simply wrong. If there are less guns then less people get killed - it really is as simple as that.
"Your Constution was written when there were still bears and wolves around the houses" While there are no bears or wolves there are far worse - animals pretending to be humans.
If I come home and find someone raping my little girl that animal will die or I will. One or the other, and if I have a gun it is most likely to be the animal. Nor will it be somehow wrong in an ethical sense no matter what the law says.
Amazing or strong coincidence that you use "wolves" in your reasoning!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing that vote." - Ben Franklin
I think the wolves in his statement were figurative.
This is also like your so called 'elections' (like most 'democratic' elections in modern societies), only more accurate than Franklin's -=
'Turkeys voting for Christmas'
or which billionaire do you want to run the business of your country.
"Your Constution was written when there were still bears and wolves around the houses and there would not likely be dozens of people in the vicinity when you fired your gun."
I live in a very rural area of New York where there still are large numbers of coyotes and bears, and they still attack people and our farm animals. (Not to mention the rabid fox we had to shoot in our yard this spring). For this reason I believe that we should still have the right to bear arms and protect our livelihoods. This gun issue isn't simply about people who live in cities and may use guns to kill each other. There are other groups of people including farmers and the Amish who use guns in the daily course of their lives, which doesn't include committing crimes.
It is an incorrect assumption to believe that the U.S. is now totally developed. There are still large wilderness areas and yes, there is plenty of wildlife ready and willing to eat the occasional passerby (take the grizzly attacks in Yellowstone and big cat attacks in California).
Alternate Poet, yes we had bears and wolves too, and tyrants , colonial dictators and many other enemies in and out of America., Many outside of the usa do not understand the freedoms of the American constitution , nor could they . The freedoms of our constiution are being attacked from all sides , I would suggest you worry about the Chinese constitution oh , thats right you didn't create your own , did you?
Well as a British citizen I would say we created all our own 'freedoms' long before you did. If you mean the Chinese, then they did create their own freedoms, it was called The Revolution; they were a bit late, coming in a few years after your own, but then theirs empowered the people, not the owners. Before you cite your freedoms you might like to have another look at how many you don't have. You might then like to pop over here and look at how the Chinese are no better off, and no worse off.
That's not necessarily true. I wouldn't want to kill someone. You can render an attacker helpless with a gun without actually killing him.
In answer to the OP, YES!
The right to bear arms protects all other rights. unlike my friend "alternate poet" I do not believe that governments are benevolent entities to be trusted.
Try to take my guns, you will have to take my life and the next revolution will begin.
Thank GOD the Founding Fathers were realists and didn't live in liberal fantasy land.
Hi friend I have little faith in governments but you carrying a gun will not protect you from them or anyone else. The ballot box does that, strong society does that.
Maybe the question should be - when will American society be stable enough, safe enough and civilised enough to be able to live without death and destruction in their pockets, a failing that they also export around the world.
"Hi friend big_smile I have little faith in governments but you carrying a gun will not protect you from them or anyone else. The ballot box does that, strong society does that."
I can get to my gun much quicker than I can a ballot box, my pistol is lighter too.
Carrying a gun, like a huge car or excessive bling, has been attributed to man's anxiety about sex. You being quicker to the draw with your lighter equipment does not surprise me in the least
Its not true at all.
Its just psychobabble from the minds of the easily entertained.
Jim: "hey alternate poet: guns are a great protection against governmental tyranny"
AP: "that just means you constantly think, and are worried about, sex"
... ... ... ...
Ron...you're slipping...where's the pic?
"Civilization is a process of improvement to higher levels of behaviour in society"
Don't worry, I'll only shoot the ones who haven't improved their behavior.
"Should US citizens give up the right to bear arms? - they will not escape their dark age until they do."
Not all humans are on the same path towards an ethereal sense of being. To deny those that are a sense and real means of protection I think the equation would devolve into chaos and more baser elements.
Yes, US Citizens should retain the right to bear arms. Guns are very capable of killing when in the hands of a killer, but so are hands, fingers, and arms when a killer wants to kill. Guns are useful for self-defense and for hunting.
Even though I don't hunt or eat wild game, I still believe in the right to gun ownership.
Nobody, not even Hillary Clinton, is proposing the wholesale relinquishment of all guns to the government. That's a right-wing overreaction and simplification. So what else is new?
There already is a black market for guns. "Ordinary citizens" purchase and use their guns responsibly. And that is their right.
We have an extremely high rate of violence in this country.
But it's not because we have guns.
It's because of an economic system that feeds on and perpetuates gross disparity.
Owning guns, being taught to use them, and how to defend home and family were all things I was taught growing up along with gun safety and when and where to use one along with an understand of the intent behind the use.
Should were retain the right to bear arms? Most definitely. I personally do not like guns and when my children were little I refused to have them in my home. Now my oldest carries one (he's in the Army) and my youngest aspires to carry one ( he is in training to become a cop). My husband owns one, my father owned several, as does my step-mother.
I'm farm girl through and through and there are some places you should never be without a shotgun.
Consider the precipice the U.S. is sitting on, I would rather be prepared. It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Sure, we have the right to bear arms! There are other ways to kill a human being, you know! What would be next on the list? Knives? Do you wish to cut your cheese with a wooden knife? Bows and arrows? Baseball bats? And what about the many future deaths caused by people overeating? Ban cheeseburgers and pizza?
It is possible to kill folks with a car too! Ban the cars? Where do you draw the line?
Plus, Wilderness, there are still plenty of venomous snakes in South GA!
I am the eldest of 5, and was taught how to hunt, gut, and butcher game at 8. This was necessary for the house to have meat. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is used for a specific purpose, and when done, its cleaned, then put away. We, as 8, 6, and 3.5 year old children, knew exactly what a gun was, just like we knew what a fork was, or a hammer. The right to bear arms is for survival, for protection. If that right is taken away then the only people that would have guns would be the police and criminals.
Oh yeah. That would be ideal, now wouldn't it?
Regrettably, the criminals have more guns than the police. If a certain Supreme Court Justice has her way the police will be without guns also.
I agree with this post. Hunting and using guns for protection is much different than using them for criminal activities. It is usually those unaccustomed to handling firearms who are so against them being legal.
Except you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that even as demonstrated here in this thread most 'liberals' support the right to bear arms. Frankly it's a nonissue, like most of the offerings from the right.
Noone's trying to take away our guns, and nearly nobody supports the idea, in America, other than a few emotional mothers whose children have met tragedy, not due to a gun, but due to some gun owner's irresponsibility.
I don't want to sound flippant about that, it is horrifying, but the reality of the world we live in offers way too many horrors for this horror to trump all others.
True, PB! The right keeps trying to make this issue about political differences, but this will not fly. Many of us from the left own guns and wish to keep it that way. But they will no doubt keep throwing the idea out there with the intent of causing strife between the parties!
What about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty? How do you believe it will impact U.S. gun owners? If we want to want to strip gun ownership from other countries' citizens, we must apply it to our own citizens, since we're U.N. members.
If you try to take mine, you'd better bring a lot of help, cause there will be a lot more of us than you!
That's right,Randy! I'm a leftie and I'm packin'.
Earth to teatards: No one is trying to take your guns away!!! They are trying to keep certain types of guns out of the hands of certain people who only use said guns in the commission of crimes including cold-blooded murders.
Show me where any politician or Supreme Court Justice has suggested police not have guns?!!!
Or as some people here prefer to spell it, rediculous.
Surely there are other non-issues we could be discussing.
All you need to know about the right to bear arms is that for every murder the police are able to stop, they investigate a thousand.
Taking away the citizens right to bear arms would not take the guns out of the criminals hands, they would still find a way to get them.
So then what criminals would still have guns, and the law abiding citizen would not be able to defend themselves.
Better questions might be--
Under what circumstances should Americans be allowed to bear arms?
Where should they be allowed to bear arms?
What type of arms should they be allowed to bear?
Who should be allowed to bear arms?
Who should not be allowed to bear arms?
Who should be allowed to sell arms and under what regulations wrt background checks, record keeping etc.?
Well, it seems as though most US citizens believe that the right to carry a gun should stay. However, I can't help but disagree - guns are horrible things and should not be legal, in my opinion. Ultimately, guns always end up in the wrong hands, no matter whether they are legal or not, yet surely this happens more when anyone has the right to own one? It only takes one crazy person after all...
"ultimately guns always end up in the wrong hands"
Not true, of course! And how do you keep the criminals from buying them on the black market? I have yet to see an anti-gun advocate give a realistic answer to this question. You have the opportunity to be the first to do so!
It is hard for me to imagine anyone not wishing they had a firearm to protect their family if criminals were attempting to break into their home. Would you merely give in to them?
In my area almost everyone has a firearm of some sort, mostly for hunting but also for for protection. Break-ins are almost non-existent and accidental shootings are extremely rare.
You misunderstood me, what I mean is that whether or not guns are illegal, the 'wrong' people will always have access to them, be it legally or on the black market. You cannot keep criminals from buying them - but when guns are illegal it means that one crazy person committing a violent act on a whim, with premeditation, will not have instant access to a gun. Of course, premeditated crime from criminals will still occur.
I think that the differences in opinion probably come from the fact that guns have always been legal in the US, whereas citizens in countries where that is not the case will have a totally different mindset. I cannot really imagine guns being legal, and would not have the remotest desire to own one. I think even the prospect of having a gun inside my house would make me nervous, because it is not the way things are here. It's just a cultural difference.
I think this goes back to my previous statement about those unfamiliar with handling firearms being afraid of them. Do you have knives in your home? Do you get a chill every time you wield a knife for cooking purposes? Of course not! You have grown up using knives and probably was taught at an early age how to use them safely.
The same is true for our children here! They learn about firearm safety at a very early age and are not fascinated by guns like those children who are not familiar with them and only see them used in the movies. These are the children who see the guns as something exciting and therefore are thrilled to hold one which is the cause of so many accidental shootings.
It all depends on the way one is reared and the things one is exposed to. Education about firearms does much to make a difference in the way guns are realistically viewed. Children down here will not give a firearm a second look if they are reared around them, especially in a hunter's home!
I think that people who want to own or carry guns should be licensed and tested for competence. We do it for cars, why not for guns?
90% of the time, you will not be able to use your gun for home defense - not unless you have planned your actions well in advance and taken steps to make your gun accessible. More guns are used to commit suicides or kill a family member than to fend off violent attackers.
Then if you what you say is right, there is not a lot of benefit in owning a gun?
You got it. At least there's not much benefit for self-protection for most people. There's plenty of benefit from gun ownership for hunting, target competition and the like. I'm not aware of any proposals to take rifles and shotguns away from hunters.
For most people it's not a benefit, except that they get to feel big and bad when they hold it and play with it. If you train properly and prepare, it could be useful - *if* you ever have to use it, and *if* you can get to it in time.
Well, my gun came in handy when I had a rabid fox in my front yard a few months ago. One of us had to go, and it wasn't going to be me.
Just to give you an idea of response time from the DEC or Sheriff's office- when I had a break-in last summer, which oddly enough involved both the DEC and Sheriff, it took 2 weeks for them to show up and investigate it. They just didn't have the manpower. Without a gun, I guess I would have had to just patiently wait for it to eat my chickens and family pets and pray that it couldn't catch me when I made a break for my car. Maybe I could have plinked it with a slingshot...
Maybe you could learn from a Welsh farmer of my acquaintance who called the police when a gang of sheep rustlers (yes they have them in Wales !) came for asecond go at stealing his sheep from his holding pen. It was 2 in the morning and when he called the police they said that they had no units in that area and would attend in about 2 hours. He put down the phone then rang back ten minutes later and told them not to bother coming now as he had captured them, shot two of them and locked the rest in his barn - they could come any time in the morning after breakfast to collect them. Within five minutes he had three patrol cars AND a helicopter at his farm
We welcome your well-stated and reasoned comments even those with which we don't completely agree. You help raise the level of discourse in the HubPages forums.
Agree. Handgun sales and ownership should be strictly regulated. Hunting and target weapons less so. Military type and large magazine weapons should be illegal. Weapons of any kind should not be allowed in public buildings, workplaces, parks, sports events and other public places.
Several communities in Michigan are currently having issues over the open carry nuts who want to bring their guns to family fairs, art in the park shows and the like.
I love my arms! I work hard on my triceps to keep them firm. I hate floppy triceps!
No. keep doing things from laws made 200+ years ago and what do you think will happen. It was made to defend from the native Americans and your fellow American. Is society just not that civilized that you need own a firearm. Problem is the current blackmarket will always exist so it is very debatable to keep the right to bear arms.
Should we do away with all of the laws made over 200 years ago? Or just the right to bear arms? I personally think we still need these arms to prevent our government, or any government for that matter, from having total control over us.
Conditions have changed a lot from 200 years ago. Some of the laws passed 200 years ago need to be deleted, modified or reinterpreted to fit current conditions. The wild, wild west ain't as wild as it used to be. Nothing is engraved in stone.
I agree that we must guard against a tyrannical, oligarchic government, but guns aren't the way to do it. That's a romantic notion without foundation in the real world. The way to do it is for everyone to vote and support the candidates that stand for what we all believe in.
What about people who hunt for food- i.e. deer, turkey? The Amish where I live hunt for their food. Since they don't use freezers, they have to eat their meat fresh. Should we take away their guns too, or should we make exceptions for certain groups of people?
if "the conditions have changed since 200 years ago", then amend the Constitution.
"That's a romantic notion without foundation in the real world."
The American revolution didn't happen?
Weird history classes you attended.
The romantic notion without foundation in the real world, as I said, is that guns would be a helpful, practical or successful way of dealing with a tyrannical government. Only you and Sharron Angle and survivalists out in the woods believe that guns would offer protection against the government.
And only you and those like you believe voting will stop a tyrannical government.
How do you vote a tyrant out?
Lets look at recent history.
Did voting work in Iran?
How about Iraq?
Did voting in Afghanistan remove the Taliban?
I bet if this country were taken over by a tyrant you would want me, Sharron Angle and some survivalists fighting for your freedom.
I mean shucks, you'll be busy voting
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Deeds,
Who protects the person in their home while a crime is being committed? Most of us who carry are more than willing to defend ourselves rather than wait for police that may take hours to show up and by then the damage is done.
The average home invasion has a completion time of under five minutes. That means that the people inside the home barely have time to register that there is someone there who shouldn't be. Most home invaders that carry guns with them have already determined their actions should they encounter any resistance. I would rather act on my own than wait to be rescued from an overworked police department that is not going to get there in time.
Don't underestimate the extremes a criminal will go and certainly do not underestimate the human capacity to defend themselves.
Well, I read every day in my morning paper of gun robberies, drive by shootings, suicide shootings, drug gang shootings, accidental shootings, road rage shootings, and I can't recall the last time I read about a case where someone successfully used a gun to prevent a robbery or assault. I'm sure it does happen, but not often enough to offset the downside of more and more people walking around with guns.
There is a hot debate on this subject going on right now in several communities in Michigan--
http://www.freep.com/article/20100817/N … E-festival
Gun owners will be able to openly carry their weapons at next month's Ford Arts, Beats & Eats festival in downtown Royal Oak.
Officials lifted the gun ban after hours of public comment on Monday night.
On one side were gun-rights activists who pointed to state law that allows them to openly carry their guns. On the other side were residents and families worried about safety.
• COMMENTARY: Royal Oak man to bear banana, not gun, at fest
The festival, expected to draw tens of thousands to Royal Oak over Labor Day weekend, is now ground zero for the gun debate in Michigan.
"I know a lot of people who are not going to attend the festival," said Jack Hoolehan, a retired GM employee from Royal Oak. "If people insist on bringing their arms, we're just not coming."
Douglas Holloway of Westland said he would leave his gun at home if his safety and that of his family could be guaranteed at the event.
"I don't think anyone can do that," he told Royal Oak city commissioners. "You can't stop criminals."
City officials had little choice but to allow guns
City commissioners really had no legal choice but to comply with state law and amend a contract that would allow people to openly carry guns at next month's Ford Arts, Beats & Eats in downtown Royal Oak.
But they -- and dozens of others -- wanted to be heard on the issue before the vote.
"Nobody's disputing their rights to bear arms," said Jack Hoolehan, 74, a retired GM employee. "It's just that you have to use common sense in a festival like this. You're going to have thousands of people, and you're going to have alcohol."
The ban on openly carrying guns at the event caught the attention of Michigan Open Carry, a gun-rights activist group that is working its way across the region to force communities to comply with state law, despite their own local preferences.
After hours of public comment Monday night, Royal Oak commissioners voted 4-3 to lift the ban during the festival. They also approved a resolution urging state legislators to modify Michigan gun laws so communities could prohibit guns from being openly carried at festivals and other locations.
Read more: Royal Oak to allow guns at Ford Arts, Beats & Eats festival | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100817/N … z0wro8eSNe
We should definitely eliminate the right to free speech at the same time.
Cuz alot of people will be bitching about giving up their guns.
the 2nd amendment says "yes"
all of history shows that we need a way to protect ourselves from tyranny...
many handguns used to kill people are illegally acquired...
even if we lost the right to bare arms, people would still have them...
the vast vast vast majority of people who own guns have never attacked anyone...
taking away rights is always tyrannical no matter what the right is...
... So ... Undeniably "yes": keep the right. Only tyrants want to take that right away (or any right, for that matter).
You would have the right to own nuclear weapons if the "tyrannical" government didn't take it from you.
It's a question of degree, not absolutes. The founding fathers could no more imagine modern weaponry than they could an electronic meeting place where people with nothing better to do would discuss their work.
i do have the right to own a nuke: i just can't afford one!...
...nor do i want one...
Anyway, a nuke isn't that hard to make if you have the materials, and believe you me, those mats are hard to come by!
Your entire argument has a gaping loophole. If they founders couldn't imagine something, and that thing needs to be taken into account... then... Just amend the constitution if you want to deprive people of their rights. It shouldn't be too hard if people agree that they want to be stripped of their rights.
After hearing the opinions of some Americans I am not sure I would trust you guys with a butter knife
Seriously though, Gun control should be strictly limited, and cracked down upon.
Too many criminals have the wrong types of weapons.
Background checks, big fines if a gun goes missing, and the like would help make sure that the people who have the guns are not the ones who are using them for ill intent.
"big fines if a gun goes missing"
So I have to pay a fine if my home is burglarized and my weapon is stolen?
Cars kill people at a much higher rate than guns, will the same logic apply?
I think you miss the entire point of why Americans think the way we do.
Less government is ideal to us not more.
In England if you own a gun you have to keep it locked in a safe which has certain levels of security and weighs over a certain amount. If you have taken the proper precautions then obviosly a fine then would not be an issue.
Anyone has the right to own a gun, however their right is forfeit if they abuse their freedoms by commiting crimes etc.
You are right when it comes to government control though, you guys go crazy over any attempt at government initiatives, even when they stand to benefit you as a country, which is kind of strange to me.
I would suggest you research every government initiative in the history of this country then you may understand our reluctance to give them any more power than they already have.
No offense, but I don't care how they do it in England.
Quite frankly not many Americans do.
I think it stems from that whole revolution thingymajig.
"In England if you own a gun you have to keep it locked in a safe which has certain levels of security and weighs over a certain amount. If you have taken the proper precautions then obviosly a fine then would not be an issue."
Which would work fine normally, except many thieves steal the safe when they can't get it open easily. (My personal fave, the guys who wrap a chain around ATM's and drag them away with their pickup trucks).
I suppose, if it were a small safe and your life were in danger, you could simply beat an intruder over the head with it if you couldn't get it open fast enough.
if I were a criminal, and I wanted a gun...
would i get one from wal-mart and do things legally?
or would i buy one - easily - off the black market for unregistered guns?
Things were a lot easier in the times of the wild west. You checked your gun with the Sheriff before entering town. Ah, the good old days.
Don't get me wrong about this issue, I've been on both sides of the fence- in law enforcement and now, happily far away from the throng of nuts in the city.
However, I believe that there will always be a black market for guns and thus, we can never completely eliminate them. As others have suggested, there are many other ways to kill someone too. Criminals will just get more creative (i.e. baseball bats, ice picks, rope, piano wire, knives, sharpened toothbrushes, cross bows, homemade explosives... need I go on?). The legal system would go nuts trying to legislate everything that could potentially kill someone.
Absolutely true! Besides, the honest gun owners are not the problem! I suppose it takes being a gun owner or hunter to see my side of the debate.
There are already laws in place to check the background of a firearms purchaser. I go through this each time I buy anew shotgun or rifle and do not mind the wait for clearance.
Criminals may buy their weapons on the black market with no checks at all, of course. Almost anyone can find an illegally imported Uzi-type weapon if they want to spend the money, just as finding illegal drugs on the streets is no burden if you want them.
In an ideal world banning all firearms might work. But then, in an ideal world we wouldn't need them anyway!
I saw the show Mythbusters make a cannon from matchheads a bowling ball and an improvised air tank. It worked pretty good too.
From the picture you all paint it sees that you all need to be armed just to be safe in your own house or walk down the street. And when the trained and efficient US army comes to sort you out because some Bush descendant decides to be Emporer you'all gonna come out with your pop guns and stop em. Yeah right.
Gun control is a mishmash of b****hit affecting good honest farmers, responsible hunters, irresponsible kids, armed militias patrolling the Mexican border and a sizeable segment of total morons and criminals. Gun control in almost every other country is either able to rely on the integrity of its population or it has some kind of workeable rules that make it possible to own a gun if you have reason and very hard to get one if you don't.
Perhaps if the entire population wasn't so aggressive and in the daily habit of regardng human life (except their own) as expendable then perhpas the US would grow up as a nation internationally.
"Perhaps if the entire population wasn't so aggressive and in the daily habit of regardng human life (except their own) as expendable then perhpas the US would grow up as a nation internationally."
I sort of resent this statement, but not surprised at all. What makes me more aggressive than you, AP? Is it my gun ownership? I have a number of firearms, some for hunting, some antique collectors items, a black powder pistol, etc. I have never used any of these weapons to threaten anyone. My many hunter friends haven't either, as far as I know.
What happens in the cities I cannot say, but I can vouch for where I live here in the south.
You just "sort of" resent it?
That attitude is exactly why the opinions of other nations mean nothing.
It stems from a deep seated jealousy and insecurity issues.
They can't be the US so they complain about the US.
Kind of sad and funny all at the same time.
Especially when they deny it.
And they will.
As I mentioned in another similar forum thread, I sit patiently to the north of my American friends...
waiting for the last American to shoot the second last American, after which he himself will die of loneliness...
and then, quicker than you can say "Go West young man", all of the California coast line will belong to me!!
Technical point from the site usconstition.net.
The Second Amendment reads thus: "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."
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
So apparently we do NOT have the inherent right to own a nuclear weapon.
Greek One -- I sincerely hope that we are able to keep the California coastline free from oil rigs for ya!
I totally agree with Randy on this issue. I grew up with guns, since my dad was a gun dealer, gun collector, and hunter. I learned from an early age to respect firearms. I would no more have played with real guns that I would have cut off my right arm! I saw them as a mundane tool that held no fascination for me.
This thread needs more unfathomably massive fallacious arguments in it. No wonder stuff like this never gets to puts to rest.
I would rather own a gun and never use it than not own a gun and wish I had a gun when it was needed.
Another interesting point brought up in this forum- how would a potential change in the law affect those who owned antique firearms? Would these artifacts, even if they don't work, be confiscated?
It is important to note, also, that there are many older firearms in circulation that never had a permit associated with it. Those would be hard to trace, and likely, wouldn't be handed over (at least not without a search and seizure) by the current owners. What's to keep an owner from burying/hiding the firearms for later retrieval (ala Snow Falling on Cedars- hiding of the family swords).
I have many guns. I grew up on a ranch in Texas, and we all had guns. I know there are accounts of some gun owners that went koo koo and used a gun on a cheating spouse or the other man or woman, but if anyone is that enraged they will use their car, steak knife etc.... to do harm to a person that has triggered this mental condition.
But as a legal conceal carry citizen, I am concerned for the lack of mental, and physical evaluation before issuing a permit to carry, but then that could get rather complicated.
The one thing that I will always find humorous ,is the intellectual idealism of the anti gun world , "Lets just eliminate guns, that will end all crime as we know it" ,I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. I too could be a liberal and live happily ever after.....Oh ,there I go, and I said I would not get political on the hubs . Sometimes we're just better off to shake our heads in disbelief at niave comments and questions on such controvercial points. Guns do not kill , neither do butter knives , nor aluminum bats, vehicles do not kill either. No thing or object can kill , without the intent of a human being behind it. Will you also eliminate humanity?
A food mixer can also kill if handled correctly - but people do not go around with a food mixer in their pocket just in case someone tries to steal 10 bucks from them so they can blend the guy to death !
Guns kill people - they are not designed for anything else. People take umbrellas out with them, they do this because they intend to use them, in anger, when it rains. Having lethal toys is just that - you are playing with lethal toys - nothing else.
No, we understand they are NOT toys.
Thats the difference.
Millions of Americans in America and elsewhere use guns for a few reasons , sporting targets , collecting , hunting , and yes even defense. Already we are seeing the statistical misinformation of ,"no guns no crime ", in America , cities that have banned guns have seen no or little change in crime statistics, in America at least. Legalized sales of guns and legal checks of past and present offences go hand in hand. You should get to know someone with a gun or two it may help you to overcome your fears and misconceptions of something that can be a wonderful experience handed down from generation to generation. Just like a real constittion . I have known thousands of people with guns and not any of them, a murderer. By the way ,Just what isn't a lethal toy , anyway.
My RURAL family had guns, I learned to use mine as a kid, but those were the days when gun crime was rare because people respected each other and human life and safety. When we became a city family we got rid of the guns. Walking around the UK it is comforting to know that it is most unlilkely that the occasional angry macho moron is unlikely to have a gun in his pocket, it is nice to know that in any angry confrontation people are unlikely to start waving their penis, sorry I meant to say gun, around.
But this not the UK, AP! We obtained our freedom because the citizens did have guns. Without the militias we would have lost the Revolutionary War! Plus, we couldn't have saved your butts with the lend lease program when Hitler was paying you guys nightly visits!
And what would our western movies have been like if that had happened? "hand over the loot or I'll hit you with this stick" just don't cut it! LOL!
Oh yeah - I forgot, you still need to keep those flintlocks handy in case we come back and reclaim our colony.
And I forgot how you rushed to help after we had stopped Hitler and you could see we would be the winning side.
And I forgot about the crippling debt you loaned us that funded your excesses in the 50's and 60's.
And those movies where the white guys with big guns were always the victims of the half naked guys with bow andd arrow.
yeah - how could we forget
LOL! I don't think there's too much chance of you guys trying to invade us again! The Beatles had much more success than your army.
As far as you stopping Hitler before we came to help is concerned, my father was in England for a while before D-Day arrived. He spent some time in your "tubes" while the German bombers you had already stopped leveled the streets above him.
I sure hate to think his landing on Omaha Beach on D-Day was all for nothing.
Yes, I know the native Americans were treated badly here. The British were not too innocent in their world conquests either,if you want to use cruelty as a reason for our countries differences.
My uncle was there, too, Randy. Dang - just think, if we had known that Britain had already won the war, our men wouldn't have had to risk their lives!
As for atrocities committed against Native Americans, I agree that they were terrible. But Britain has committed a plethora of atrocities in her long history - even against her own people. As part of my teaching career, I studied and taught British history. Beheadings, anyone? How about the rack? Drawing and quartering?
That didn't happen.
Germany never bombed Britain, they never had a chance against the French or the British.
We just went over their to do a little nation building and to enslave the Europeans.
How did you not know?
There aren't any countries I'm aware,of which haven't committed atrocities own its own people and of those they conquered. So we will get nowhere with this direction.
But it does make one wonder how things in the Old World would have been different if the peasants were able to have some protection against "their betters." I know it's different now, but I think America's success as an independent nation probably had something to do with the way the Old World is today! Both good and bad influences, I'm sure!
They're still mad because we killed of of their dentists in 1777.
"Oh yeah - I forgot, you still need to keep those flintlocks handy in case we come back and reclaim our colony."
You couldn't keep it with the greatest military of its time what makes you think you could take it now?
"And I forgot how you rushed to help after we had stopped Hitler and you could see we would be the winning side."
You stopped Hitler? Gee, why did we sacrifice so many American lives for people who aren't even a little grateful? Oh, because there are millions of Brits who are VERY grateful for our sacrifice.
"And I forgot about the crippling debt you loaned us that funded your excesses in the 50's and 60's."
Payback for taxing tea.
"And those movies where the white guys with big guns were always the victims of the half naked guys with bow andd arrow."
Well, the white guys weren't always victims of the half naked guys, but make no mistake there was savagery against whites/blacks/browns, even though conventional wisdom likes to change history.
big_smile yeah - how could we forget big_smile
Don't know, how could you forget?
I always find it quite interesting that so many none US Citizens in these forums love to tell us what we should do and what is right or wrong in our country. You know if you are not an American you have no legitimate voice to argue any point that involves our society or government.
They come from countries which are perfect and know whats best for Americans.
I see Americans criticizing other countries' governments all the time, especially socialist-leaning governments. It works both ways. Since when are people on the forums not allowed to have and express an opinion on whatever subject they want?
As an American I fully agree with you, PP! This forum is for all opinions, not just us Americans! Thank goodness we have other countries to look at as either good or bad examples, whichever the case may be.
We are different in our outlooks, but this doesn't have to be a bad thing!
Non-Americans have every right to comment on your country as you insist, as a country, on interfering in many other countries, usually to their detriment. Every time you spout off about 'rights' in other countries you are doing the same thing - you have to expect others to comment on your 'wrongs'.
If you don't like criticism don't read.
Usually we only interfere in another country if we're invited, Like in Iraq , being invited by the British. And yes , to thier detriment.......
This is the crux of the matter - you believe you were invited into Iraq along with your belief that guns make you safe. This is false. Iraq was attacked directly and without invite - and guns make you less safe, not more safe.
I should clarify my point, the "British Intellegence " invited us by misinformation......and guns do make and keep us safe.
So tell me, how does my right to bear arms as an American affect you or anyone outside of this nation?
What do you know of our concealed weapons or use of lethal force laws and how do our rights and laws affect your society?
As a non-American why do you think your opinion should be given any credence on our rights to protect lives and property?
Why do you expect anyone to respect the opinion of someone that is not a citizen?
On what basis or experience do you formulate an opinion that applies to this nation and its people?
Now if the forum were discussing the laws, politics or society of your nation, or any other I wouldn’t even bother entering, let alone have the gall to put forth an unqualified opinion as an attack. I’d not enter knowing and being respectful enough to be aware I could not offer anything valid to the conversation, and if I were to do so, you would not consider or tolerate it for one second.
You do not offer criticism; constructive or otherwise, you are only pushing personal agenda in an area that is not of your concern or purview.
AP, I have read many of your other posts in differing forums, and your comments are typically insightful and engaging. I suggest to you and others outside our country this is just not the type of forum you should be participating.
“Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
To others responding negatively,
I do not say that all cannot comment on anything American, for example our Government’s Foreign policies are surely wide open for discussion and targeting, but there are some subjects that are clearly American only. Our Right to Bear Arms would happen to be one of them, as is our illegal immigration problem, and our current President’s domestic agenda.
The rest have at it, but we as Americans deserve and demand respect. Do not be surprised if we do not care or want to hear what outsiders think when it comes to our rights and society nor should you be astonished by any negative response.
I could almost agree with most of your post, with a few reservations.
But I am free to comment on anything American I choose and will continue to do so for the same reason that I comment on religion. Both issues affect the world, including your internal situation that affects the way you think. You gave up the right for others NOT to comment with your constant criticism of the internal issues of every other country (while praising yourselves up).
Am I surprised, horrified, or astonished by negative response and comment - I would be surprised if it didn't come
For those who say my comments are 'bashing' America this is clearly not true as the only issue I am bashing is the gun thing. Claiming some kind of anti-america bias is just to fend off the criticism, as are Uncles at D Day etc etc - they are all admirable things but have nothing to do with the queastion.
To get back to the topic - it has been well established that people get killed by guns through hostile attacks, guns used in defence rarely kill anyone, and when they do it is frequently the wrong person.
To have a country flooded with guns is simply moronic - whatever personal reason each single person might have. But I guess the voice of the gun (manufacturing and sales) lobby will be shouting the loudest and paying the most politicians.
Sorry AP, but your statement about Britain having already stopped the attacks by Hitler before the U.S. entered the war has tainted your opinions on this thread. I agree with your views on many subjects but in this I cannot do so.
I am not backing any opinion but my own with my real life experiences concerning gun ownership. I am aware of shootings in the larger cities across the country but this is rare here in the countryside.
So, we will just have to agree to disagree. And my winkie is the same with or without the guns! LOL!
I think you have been watching too many American movies about how you won the war. Hitler was unable to invade Britain because he could not get across the Channel due to his inability to get air supremacy. This was achieved without the US. Also the idea that Britain was not in a position to fight back is faulty, the new machines and tactics that took Germany across Europe so fast were understood after the initial event. America getting into the war was fundamentally for the benefit of America, it was also gratefully received and acknowledged of course. But I stand by my statement that Britain had stopped Hitler's advance before the US took part.
I recently discussed this with an American who was telling me how the Air Battle of Britain that stopped the Germans invading all hinged on the 'American' pilots who took part. He also believed that an American submarine captured the Enigma code machine that gave the Allies such an advantage.
All of which is true, but as long as you people continue to call fries "chips" and soccer "football" we will always look upon your islands suspiciously.
Talking of which - are you still calling CHIPS or more correctly FRENCH FRIES , freedom fries ?? Or did that response to French criticism of the invasion of Iraq die a natural death
We like the French now. We sort of have this on again/off again relationship. Sarkozy has renounced Socialism and we hear they're even forming their own cafe au lait party. Plus they hate Muslims which really endears them to "real" Americans.
Change you ways now or feel the wrath of the mighty Franco-American alliance
"But I stand by my statement that Britain had stopped Hitler's advance before the US took part."
You can stand by it all you want, but had it not been for the US you would be singing "God save the konigin" and everyone would have to have a funny little mustache.
I am only going to address one of the comments in your response, since the rest of your reply simply demonstrates the point.
BACK TO THE TOPIC
“it has been well established that people get killed by guns through hostile attacks, guns used in defence rarely kill anyone, and when they do it is frequently the wrong person.”
This statement is flatly untrue. Actually, it is a partial truth and not the whole story. I will agree that most people killed by guns come as a result of a hostile and aggressive act; the majority of those are committed criminal upon criminal, and typically it is discovered in the following investigation the shooting was a result of a dispute over illegal drugs.
The statistics back up both your assertion and mine, however the huge gap in the theory and the rest of the story comes in the successful use of a firearm in defense. Thousands of incidents involving legal gun owners and criminals simply are not reported, because the altercation did not end with the discharge of the weapon, or a perpetrator’s injury or death. In many cases the police are not even called. And even if the police are called, no firearms incident report is filed because the weapon was not discharged.
I twice have been forced to pull my firearm in defense of attempted armed robberies.
Once an attempted car jacking, the other a strong-arm robbery attempt, in both cases just brandishing a .45 caliber semi auto handgun was enough the send them crying and running for their lives. This tactic worked because the ‘assailants” armed themselves with knives and I did not allow them to cross into what is tactically called “my zone of protection”.
For those that have not been trained, this is the distance of approximately 21ft or 7 yards or for those metric types 6.4 meters. It is also the average distance it takes a normal person to travel in two seconds, which by coincidence is also the about the amount of time it takes the normal person to react to movement.
Had either one of these assailants crossed into that zone, they would be dead today and there would be a record of the incidents. You would be amazed at the change of attitude, when one is staring straight down the barrel of a .45.
The question now becomes did these individuals change their ways and leave a life of crime due to this altercation? I doubt it. Will they perhaps choose weaker appearing targets next time? I’d say yes. Will they upgrade their weapons next time? Again probably yes.
To which the liberal opinion will be that this escalation in criminal behavior was my fault as the gun owner, because I taught the criminal to be better prepared, and therefore more crimes will be committed.
And maybe you’re right; perhaps I should have just shot them and ended their life of crime right then and there.
Had these “fellows” been carrying guns to commit their crimes, they would be dead.
I would have shot them the moment my gun cleared the holster. The zone of protection rules don’t apply when faced with a firearm and through years of ownership, practice and training I can draw, fire and hit a center mass target faster than the average person can react.
But there is one more thought, remember I didn’t start the crime, and had I not been armed, it very well may have been me bleeding in the parking lot with stab wounds.
That my friend will never happen.
I am an american by birth. You will take my guns off my dead body!
No , everyone deserves a voice , thats the beauty of America, And Alternate Poet has a couple of decent points , What so many don't realize is that we have the best system in the world , a democracy where you can speak your mind ,completely freely.Witout consequence . Unlike many places ! Many contries, and their people, are simply jealous of our feedoms. Nor do they understand the sacrifices that our freedom comes from.
A lot of Americans feel that because we have constitutional protections [second ammendment] that, thats the only reason we are so still the freest people in the world. That because we can bear arms and do, we haven't been invaded or threatened.
Altenate Poet might ty advising the chinese government and it's people of their wrongdoings......Oh, and the solutions for them.
The right to bear arms is one of those precious freedoms that Americans are unlikely to want to give up any time soon.
I can see both sides of the argument, but I still side with our right to gun ownership. I have no problem with heavily regulating it, though. Even with regulations, law abiding citizens should have no trouble owning guns.
Exactly, I have always said just obey the law , our biggest problem today is the misuse of prosecution , pleaing down offences etc. the system is broken. Of laws , we have enough.
Sorry, RD. Your wife is here and wants to know if Asahi is okay.
by The Truth2 years ago
Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people. I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL...
by cwoodman2075 years ago
Say we no longer have the right to bare arms. The government is doing a sweep collecting all registered firearms. Would you allow your right to go down the river or would you stand up to the regime and refuse? Either...
by aka-dj4 years ago
Here's a video telling us all about disarmament of US citizens in the near future.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkch … re=related
by Onusonus4 years ago
Lets not let the attorney general take away our constitutional rights."Attorney General Holder says, "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS IT ON.Guess they were not happy...
by leeberttea6 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by OLYHOOCH4 years ago
Morning. OK, Now. Before you Slam and Dunk me, allow me to lay out, TWO Scenario's.1. You are just coming home from a party. It is late, about 1:00 AM.As you pull into your driveway, you see two People taking your...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.