Another reason to support the right to arms...?

To completely stop gun killings seems quite utopic just as making everyone good people (whatever that may be) does too. Do you think we will get anything done if such extremes become regular guidelines?

There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the 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.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

Court Cases Tied into the Second Amendment

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.

Controversy

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic.

The original intention of the Founding Fathers in regards to the right to bear arms may not be clear due to their wording of the Second Amendment, but hey, at least they took a shot at it. You have to admit, that's pretty disarming, even if it doesn't trigger a barrel of laughs.

iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

FraterDavid wrote: The original intention of the Founding Fathers in regards to the right to bear arms may not be clear due to their wording of the Second Amendment, but hey, at least they took a shot at it. You have to admit, that's pretty disarming, even if it doesn't trigger a barrel of laughs.

Desolous wrote: iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

Yeah, well, you know... sometimes, if you can't find a way to laugh about something, what can you do? Did you link to an actual picture? If so, it didn't show up as a link...

But, ok. To give my own serious opinion on the matter:

We can talk all we want about how good or bad gun rights are, but the fact remains they are here to stay for the foreseeable future in America. Revoking gun rights is not like revoking other rights. Trying to enforce revocation of a long-standing gun ownership right, in a country that was founded by rebels needing to use guns to secure their freedom from tyranny, is a good way to get shot. Repeatedly.

V-Tog and Glisteron:
Sometimes in life there prove to be necessary evils. I agree that guns are brutal devices, the sole intention of which is to kill, destroy, or maim things. But the results of falling off a steep cliff are brutal too. Should we ban all cliffs? I agree that if people themselves weren't violent, greedy, or aggressively opportunistic, that the world would be a better place without guns in it.

And without missiles, nukes, chemical and biological weapons, etc for that matter. But we hopefully all know how violent, greedy, and opportunistic that real human nature can be. We are not unwise to take personal measures to protect ourselves from it. One day, humanity may evolve to the point where guns are unnecessary and even laughable. But that day is not yet here.

Guns are tools just like anything else. It is the use to which we put them that determines positive or negative outcome. Guns can be just as useful as deterrents as they can for anything else. Glisteron: I live in Texas, which is notorious for its citizens' ownership of multiple guns each. And yet, I do not fear going out in public, even if I knew everyone there was packing heat. Or maybe especially not if I knew everyone was.

I like the expression that "an armed society is a polite society." The only people who have anything to fear are the crazies who might try to do something rash. You have a tendency not to flash a gun around if you know it will result in your immediate perforation by 20-30 large holes. The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners have ample training, restraint, and respect for human life, and they teach their children to be the same way. Otherwise Texas would have annihilated itself a long time ago.

We cannot even reasonably wish that guns had never been invented (or say that the world would be better off without them). All human endeavor has value and impact. V-Tog, try reading the book, Guns, Germs, and Steel some time. It explains the positive relationship between the invention of guns and the formation of strong, centralized governments (i.e. the end of mob and clan rule) and the progress of industry and security.

You may say, "ok that's great, but that only applies to governments." And I suppose to an extent that would be correct. As for individual citizens owning guns or not... Police cannot be everywhere, all the time. They also do not have a zero second response time. Criminals and crazies will always be able to get their hands on guns regardless of laws regulating or prohibiting them.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Money talks and BS walks. To further the strength of this point, I would add that Britain is an island country. Its imports and trade are much more easily regulated than the United States', which shares lengthy, physically contiguous borders with two huge countries.

V-Tog: Being able to kill people is not a right, and even if it somehow were, that is not the issue at hand here. What makes killing someone in self-defense legal is the self-defense against death part, not the killing part. It's about life and liberty. The right of being able to defend oneself and one's family against any and all aggressors is the issue. That includes our own government if need be, or invading governments.

I sincerely hope you're right, that guns don't need to be owned by independent citizenry any more. But if one day you prove not to be right, and America or Britain gets invaded or suffers a government takeover, such that it becomes necessary for civilians to fight back on their own, I know which country will stand a much better chance of restoring its freedoms, and which country won't.

You might call that using an unfounded paranoia to justify an atrocious policy. But in this uncertain world, I'd rather be prepared while it's in my power to be than wake up to find myself a slave. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. And in today's world, guns are a fairly ubiquitous global reality, which means sometimes there will be a need.

I'm open to having my mind changed on this, though, if I were to see sufficient data or reasoning to the contrary. For me, this is one of those topics about which I have an, "It seems reasonable, but I don't derive my sense of identity from it" kind of opinion.

Why, why, why? Why do anti-gun advocates always seem to think that people who legally own a gun are murderers and psychopaths?

I'm sorry if this makes any members here think I'm less of a person or a bad person, but I am for people owning guns. Most of the people I know who do are extraordinarily responsible and kind. They're not criminals looking to "get ahead".


Just something I found online and thought was funny:

A The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
B Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
C Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
A The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
B The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
C The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

I know this is rambly, but take a look at the gun / murder statistics for each state. The states where there are more guns and less rigid laws have much, much, much lower crime rates and murders. It's not the guns that cause people to freak out. It's something else. Guns just make it "convenient" and without them people DO find another way to kill each other. I mean, we had wars and murder before guns were even invented.

This also brings to mind all the accidental deaths caused by games and energy drinks. Should those be banned as well? Because there will always be stupid people and tragic accidents no matter what’s legal or illegal.

This is new to me. Since when do anti gun advocates ALWAYS think legal gun owners are murderers or pychopaths? At the very least in the case of the first post in this thread the gentleman shot this small girl because he mistook her for a skunk. Does the difference in numbers of deaths make each death whether by fire arms or doctors or car accidents... more or less important? What is a human life worth? I am a little concerned how Jedi members here find such statistics as numbers of deaths as being "funny".

Surtr`Amun wrote: I am a little concerned how Jedi members here find such statistics as numbers of deaths as being "funny".

I think 'funny'=interesting/weird, not 'funny'=ha-ha...

I guess I never realized that Wescli, thank you for the info...

I dont own a single gun, no swords, I do have some knives, but thats all....

But, I believe in the right, David makes some excellent points, especially the 'landlock-ability'... Not that Canada and Mexico, or Cuba (just a floating bathtub away) will ever invade us, but, it is definetly less likely for sure...

We can the death rates of guns versus many things: trans fats, smoking, zombies, auto accidents, doctor slip ups, acts of stupidity (definetly cant outlaw this one, who would work for the government?), energy drinks (just on the radio 10 minutes ago)...

Pick an arguement....

I agree Surtr`Amun, each and every death (even injury) is worth a examination....

Look at automobiles... They can run us over, fall on us if we are working under them, kill us with carbon monoxide, kill us with a crash....

They ruin the environment with pollutants in the exhaust, spilt oil ruins water and kills plants and animals, rubber from the tires cant be burn, or disposed of easily, anti-freeze is a posion- a sweet tasting, poison animals love drinking...

And in 2010, over 30,000 US deaths resulted from automobile accidents... Still... Even with all the safety and training we get with them, the hours of 'practice' we get when we drive without having an accident...

Strangely, no one crys for the outlawing of cars...

Why?

Because we are so dependent on them... All of us...

But guns are seen as an option, not a necessity like an automobiles are...

It seems in places where cars are too expensive, or troublesome (thinking New York), people get along just fine...

We adapt...

We can discuss this till we are blue in the face, and I dont see a solution...

I say arm everyone...

V-Tog (just singling you out dear, there are others...) would say dispose of all guns...

Aint no answer....

Just have to agree to disagree...

If you look at those numbers (1,500 by accidental and 11,493 Homicides as of this year) then start comparing how many lived from the use of guns. I'm not going to try and figure out how many cops are in the US total, let alone how many of those are patrols that regularly carry. The presence of a firearm on a police officer makes people think twice about disobeying them. Officers pull their gun on people for a number of reasons to protect themselves and the public from aggressive offenders.

Are their idiots which own guns- yeah. But there are also idiots that own knives, a computer (cyber terrorism/bullying) and other "dangerous" tools.