jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (8 posts)

What is your stance on Gun Control?

  1. Jimmy Bitner profile image59
    Jimmy Bitnerposted 5 years ago

    What is your stance on Gun Control?

  2. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    The Second Amendment states in a roundabout way that all US citizens have an un-infrangible right to keep and bear firearms under the assumption that they are to form private militia units that are well-regulated by either the federal or a state or local government. I take this to mean that gun-owners are not meant to be private vigilantes, but are supposed to organize themselves into clubs or units of irregular defense forces and that they are to be formally recognized by their state or local governments by applying for a charter. That charter would be granted by the governing authority as long as the militia unit meets various criteria or regulations laid out by the governing body that issues the charter. "Well-regulated", while not specifying whether the federal government or the state or local governments are responsible, implies that the governing authority may set standards of training or equipment when granting a charter to a private irregular militia. The irregular militia units can be subject to inspections to ensure compliance with the regulations. Noncompliance with regulations can result in a revoke of the unit’s charter.

    The purpose of this amendment was NOT in place with gun collectors and radical survivalists in mind. The purpose of this amendment was simply meant as a safety measure in case the US Armed Forces attempted an overthrow of the US government and attempted to establish a dictatorship. In that case, these private militias would assist the government in combating the rogue professional military. The Amendment was not meant to give enthusiasts a sense of carte blanche to hypothetically fight the Constitutional Republic led by Congress and the President. The founding fathers did not trust the people that much. They simply needed them because they did not trust their own standing army at the time.

    1. Jimmy Bitner profile image59
      Jimmy Bitnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer! I couldn't agree more.

  3. LandmarkWealth profile image79
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    Gun Control is not an issue at all.  The issue is the people behind the weapon.  Those who believe that you will stop criminals from commiting violent crimes through banning or further resticting weapons are kidding themselves.  There is no clear evidence that this will reduce violent crime.It will simply disarm law abiding citiens.  More importantly, the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people from the gov't.  The founders were well aware of the potential for Gov't imposed tyranny.  Their intent was to give the gov't pause before attempting tyrannical acts knowing that the population was armed.   The 2nd amendment clearly states...

    "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"

    Note the comma.  The statement does not imply that only militia can bear arms.  It simply notes that a militia is necessary to secure a free state. It does NOT state that the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

    Many people have attempted to read into this rather clear statement, that which fits their political views.  In numerous writings the founders further articulated their intent.  Thomas Jefferson who authenticated the ratification of the 2nd amendment famously said the following in his letter to William Smith in 1787.

    "The people can not 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 a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to 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 it's natural manure."

    The full text and copy of his letter can be seen here.  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co … recNum=513

    1. profile image0
      Old Empresarioposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Comma was needed; otherwise it would have been a run-on sentence. The founders were worried about the army; not themselves being tyrants. The 1786 Shays uprising terrified the founders, prompting the 1787 convention. TJ was in France when wrote that

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

      No the founders were worried about future gov't's and the danger of majorities.  There are numerous writings by Jefferson, Adams, Madison and several other founders that support this. You can't form a militia unless the people are armed in advance.

  4. ib radmasters profile image60
    ib radmastersposted 5 years ago

    The current gun control controversy is a major distraction and it has little beneficial results.

    Gun control won't protect you from the over 33,000 gangs with their over 1.4 million gang members that use their guns to protect their illegal businesses. These include selling illegal drugs to children, using children for prostitution, and human trafficking.

    The gun control issue is not productive but going after the gangs would reduce weapons and protect our children.

  5. profile image49
    veronicawilson41posted 4 years ago

    I totally disagree with that gun control. I can't see the point of government to interfere with gun production just because they are thinking that it would lessen the rate of violent crime in the country. I love shooting targets and it's my endeavor since I was young.