jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (27 posts)

A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the found

  1. Mr. Happy profile image82
    Mr. Happyposted 5 years ago

    A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrote

    that the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind of thinking, should Italy return to Roman laws and should Egypt re-enact the laws during Cleopatra's time? Do some Americans really think that societies do not change, evolve and grow and is holding on to the past not contradictory to evolution and our amazing human ability to adapt to changes?

  2. peeples profile image93
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    Honestly the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with my opinion on guns. I am pro gun ownership because law abiding people should not be punished because of people who don't respect law. I don't understand the idea of taking guns from good people when there is no way to get guns away from bad people. I'm also pro guns because I have been in a situation where my life was saved because of one. I have a CWP, I know how to shoot, I practice gun safety. So why should my guns be taken from me?

    1. Diana Lee profile image84
      Diana Leeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you.

    2. Craig Suits profile image77
      Craig Suitsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I know of no one that wants to take your gun away provided you abide by the laws and are responcible. It's the other 200 milluion we need to get rid of right now. And that includes all semi-automatic killing machines.

  3. Diana Lee profile image84
    Diana Leeposted 5 years ago

    The average citizen will not abuse the right to bear arms. Criminals will have guns or anything else they want and it won't matter what new laws are being enforced. People kill people, not guns.  We need to focus more on mental heath and anger management.

    1. Craig Suits profile image77
      Craig Suitsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your right...people do kill people WITH GUNS.
      While your focusing on mental health and anger management our children are being murdered every day. Get rid of 200 million unwanted and illegal guns for starters and nail the people that break gun laws.

  4. Lisa HW profile image73
    Lisa HWposted 5 years ago

    I'm not against SOME changes/better gun laws, but I'm not at all comfortable with out-and-out banning guns; so I don't know if I'm among those people you have in mind with your question.

    Yes, societies change.  But, human nature does not change.  (There's a reason things like classic literature become classic, and that reason is most often that there are elements of human nature to which even modern-day readers can very much relate.)  It's because human nature doesn't change that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of completely banning guns (even though I wouldn't have one myself, at least as of this writing - but if I change my mind I'd like the option to do that).

    Also, though. societies don't always change for better.  A lot of things in our society have changed for the better (and the more caring, compassionate, peaceful, respectful, etc. etc.), but a lot has changed for the worse.  Children aren't just allowed to grow up too fast.  They're encouraged to, and they're brains and emotional stability aren't even matured when they are.  Children or adults, there's often an edgier element in society, and there's a whole lot of misguided ego and aggressive thinking that makes nurturing a healthier, less aggressive, culture that much harder.  With "worship" of technology and/or "straight academics" and a move away from common sense and less black-and-white human warmth, relating and understanding; there's a lot that makes for a colder society that has just that much less conscience than it sometimes did in the past.

    The Constitution is a "living document" and focuses on principles and human nature - not specifics about any historical era.   It's not a "set of laws".  It's a set of safeguards that express principles.   Preserving The Constitution (and amendments) isn't holding onto the past.  Actually, Americans threw out a lot of babies with bathwater from, say, the 1960's to now; as so many "old ways" were discarded and replaced with "new ways"/thinking; and I think if you think about a lot of people born after the 1970's you may notice that a lot of "chickens are coming home to roost" as a result.

    Just as with classic literature, there's a reason The Constitution has held up and served us well for this long.  A lot of the evolution of human thinking/understanding started being de-railed around the 60's (even with some of the positive changes).  If that hadn't happened we wouldn't even need to think about gun laws today.  But, it did so we do.

  5. d.william profile image76
    d.williamposted 5 years ago

    Everyone has their own personal views on ''gun control'', but they tend to make comments that are not logical.  There has never been any legislature introduced to totally ban guns in this country.  There SHOULD be, however, greater restrictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own and use. 
    Since the unfortunate shooting in Connecticut and all the rhetoric regarding gun issues, the gun manufacturers have had record breaking sales of 'assault rifles'.  There is absolutely no need for any citizen in this country to own assault rifles, grenades,or anything other than "one" gun to protect themselves, their families, and their homes in the event intruders threaten their lives. 
    Those who enjoy hunting do not need an assault rifle to kill their prey, unless they plan on mass murdering the prey they are after (assuming that prey is not human). 
    Those who go "hunting" for animals that they have no intention of using for food, need to have some psychiatric evaluation done.  Killing anything without a purpose is certainly a sign of some kind of mental disturbance.
    When the NRA suggests putting armed guards in every school in America, there is something wrong with that picture as well.  People who shoot innocent children, or adults en masse, have deep rooted mental problems.  And those issues should be addressed before any others. 
    We tend to hide our heads in the sand and are afraid to face the underlying issues of how our children are being brainwashed on a massive scale to hate anyone who is different from them - in the name of their gods.  That is mass insanity more so than the few who go over the edge with their brainwashed ideas.

  6. LandmarkWealth profile image79
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    One thing that has never changed is the ability of Gov't to opress it's citizens.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizens from the Gov't.  Not the other way around.  The founders wanted the Gov't to be forced to take pause before they ever attempted to implement a tyrannical regime.  They understood that an armed population is difficult to enslave.  Long before guns were ever invented the political class has attempted to disarm the citizens.  The British for example would forbid the Irish and the Scottish to have swords or bow 'n' arrows.  The results eventually are horrific.

    Your question assumes that societies change for the better.  Are you really naive enough to believe that society is anywhere close to, or ever will be close to eliminating those who are capable of evil acts ??? How many tyrants have come to power just in recent history that have slaughtered literally millions of defenseless people ???  Many of them elected by naive citizens.  Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Milosivic, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, Hussein.  The list is endless and constantly expanding.  The US is one of the few nations in modern history not to live under a military dictatorship.  It is not a coincidence that we are also the only place on the planet that guarantees the right to defend your liberty.   The entire constitution is a worthless document if it can not be enforced.  And we the people are the only ones who can guard it.  Just because you may not think that your current Gov't doesn't plan to send you to the gas chambers, don't assume that your future gov't officials won't.   

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ...George Santayana

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.".....Thomas Jefferson

    1. d.william profile image76
      d.williamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your arguments do have some merit, but they do not take into account the threats from such groups as the KKK (& others) who would kill off many innocent people if not held in check. Always 2 sides of every coin, & neither side can be ignored.

    2. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      KKK/Black Panthers will be armed no matter what the law is.  Laws have never prevented criminals from breaking them.  If they did we would have stopped prostitution and drug abuse along time ago.

    3. d.william profile image76
      d.williamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      LW: this is true.  It seems there will never be a solution that will cover all problems associated with them.  I have never owned 1 but if i felt threatened i would want the option to get 1or 2. I don't believe they will ever be totally banned.

    4. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There is no perfect solution.  But I always choose to error on the side of liberty when possible.  I don't think a total ban will happen anytime soon. But I wouldn't say never.

  7. junkseller profile image87
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    Madison in one of his Federalist papers (number 46) wrote that the standing army should not "exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms." This proportion in his estimation would provide the necessary capabilities for a citizen militia to defend against any potential government tyranny. But this was back when the one-to-one relationship between a citizen militiaman and a soldier where somewhat comparable. Today's modern military capabilities are vastly superior to a citizen with a gun. It wouldn't surprise me if they are at least 20 times greater than at the country's founding. So, if we needed a 1:100 ratio then, we need a 1:2000 ratio now. That would mean our standing army should have around 150,000 personnel. Of course its actual size is ten times that. Kind of ironic that pro-gun types are also often pro-huge military.

    The other ironic element is that the 2nd Amendment was based on an ORGANIZED militia. Yet, today, the pro-2nd Amendment types often seem to have bunker mentalities (i.e. "I'll take care of my own"), which would seem to lack the communal spirit necessary for developing an organized cohesive resistance.

    In short, our military would annihilate a citizen militia without breaking a sweat. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, is a check against nothing and the only thing it really does is saturate our country with guns.

    If we really wanted the ability to resist the tyranny of the government, we would be hackers, to protect our digital information and systems, and we would work on bringing crucial systems (communications, energy, water, food, etc) under regional and local control rather than being based on massive national grids.

    1. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Are you sure the military would be so successful.  The soviet War Machine with armored tanks, jets and helicopters could not defeat the Afghans on horseback with rifles.  History shows you don't need to defeat an army to stop tyranny. Only rebel.

    2. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Establishing control over a foreign people in a foreign land is very difficult (we haven't been successful at it either). Here, they already control everything so it's an entirely different scenario.

    3. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      History is filled with a track record of minimally armed opressed people breaking the will of larger military powers through rebellion.  Both domestic and foreign forces.

    4. d.william profile image76
      d.williamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I must admit that although both of U R correct, j.s. has the best argument based on logic & reality in view of our current military strength.  Increasing guns amongst the people only adds 2 the problem.  They just need 2 B better controlled.

    5. Mr. Happy profile image82
      Mr. Happyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I do think this answer is based on logic and it is quite realistic. If people think the 2nd amendment will be of great help against the weapons the federal gov't has at its disposal then, watch this and think again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkk

    6. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image98
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The military would not fire upon US citizens, they are US citizens.

    7. d.william profile image76
      d.williamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Mr. H: My comments were not meant as a put down.  Your video link says: '' This video does not exist''  ?

    8. Mr. Happy profile image82
      Mr. Happyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I did not view your comment as a "put-down", Mr. Williams. And I am not sure why the video is not working. The link can be found if one types: "invisible tanks BEA Systems", in the Youtube search bar but I will try again: http://www.youtube.com/watch

    9. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      History has shown over an over again that you need not defeat an army in traditional combat. Only break their morale.Gorilla tactics have worked well regardless of your opponents superior tech.  Vietnam and Afghanistan are just a few recent examples.

    10. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I see the 2nd as being a check against the government ever trying tyranny, not a recipe to win a rebellion. Check was based on a strong organized militia relative to Gov army. That check is gone. No organized militia and nowhere near powerful enough.

    11. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      History tells precisely a different story.  The most advanced military regimes of their time have been repelled over and over again by highly motivated poorly armed people with a will to fight. Military outcome is determined by commitment not tech.

    12. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about killing the beast (a powerful federal standing army), but the point of the 2nd was to prevent the beast from existing. It has failed to do so.

  8. profile image0
    Deepes Mindposted 5 years ago

    I am not against Gun control. I disagree with Banning guns and making them illegal. Criminals do not obey the laws themselves, so making something illegal that people use for legal reasons (such as self defense) would only create more criminals (because not everyone is going to give up their guns) and make people that previously were able to defend themselves unable to do so