News Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Art]

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

In the Vietnam war decade 1963-73 there were 46,752 americans killed in SE Asia. During the same time period there were 84,633 americans killed by firearms back in America.

 

[Cyrus]

So what art? Out of context that is meaningless. How many were illegal or stolen? You do know that the rate of violent crimes is actually going down right?

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

No, it does not. We have a constitution that says so. Just because a gun has a potential to kill does not make it a negative. By your logic hammers are bad, knives are bad, anything blunt that can be used to kill is bad. Therefore we should ban it all. I don't think so.

 

[Art]

So what art? Out of context that is meaningless.

I cited a comparison with the Vietnam war deliberately to put it in context. Most americans were horrified by the number of casualties suffered during the Vietnam war but I wonder how many realize nearly twice as many were killed on the 'homefront'.

How many were illegal or stolen?

Stolen from whom Cyrus? Wouldn't be from people who exercised their constitutional right to own a gun would it?

No, it does not. We have a constitution that says so.

It says what? Where does the constitution say the right to bear arms supercedes the right to life?

Just because a gun has a potential to kill does not make it a negative.

Yes it does.

By your logic hammers are bad, knives are bad, anything blunt that can be used to kill is bad. Therefore we should ban it all. I don't think so.

A rather silly strawman arguement. When this rather ridiculous preposition was posited by gun clubs in the UK I thought the then home secretary's response was very good, he pointed out that mass murder is never committed with a cricket bat, cricket bats are not deadly at a range of several hundred feet and cricket bats have other uses which guns do not.

 

[vanesch]

A better defense than guns is to increase your income.

And a good synthesis is then, to use your firearms to increase your income

 

[turbo]

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

Whose "right to life" should trump whose right to own a gun? The right to life of a rapist, home invader, or burgler? The right to life of an unstable person who has kidnapped someone and is threatening their life? Perhaps you mean the right to life of a person who chooses not to adequately provide for their own self-defense, then pleads for help when the aforementioned bad people attack them?

We do not live in an ideal world where everybody can be expected to behave nicely. It's better to be prepared to defend yourself, and it's best if you never have to do so. The more certain the bad guys are that you can defend yourself, the less likely they are to target you. There is a bumper sticker that I particularly like "Notice: the driver carries only $20 worth of ammunition."

 

[Art]

Whose "right to life" should trump whose right to own a gun? The right to life of a rapist, home invader, or burgler? The right to life of an unstable person who has kidnapped someone and is threatening their life? Perhaps you mean the right to life of a person who chooses not to adequately provide for their own self-defense, then pleads for help when the aforementioned bad people attack them?

We do not live in an ideal world where everybody can be expected to behave nicely. It's better to be prepared to defend yourself, and it's best if you never have to do so. The more certain the bad guys are that you can defend yourself, the less likely they are to target you. There is a bumper sticker that I particularly like "Notice: the driver carries only $20 worth of ammunition."

A few points;

With a well funded and well resourced police force you don't need vigilantes.

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished and so the need to defend oneself is also proportionately diminished.

How many of the people killed each year by firearms are criminals and how many are innocents?

 

[turbo]

We have a well-funded police force. I live in the country and if I called for help, I would be lucky to see an officer within 15 minutes at the minimum. "Oh please, Mr. Crazy Guy, just wait for 15 or 20 minutes before you smash the window and come into my house."

A person prepared to defend the lives in his or her home is hardly a vigilante - more like a pragmatist. Like I said, the best outcome is that you a fully prepared to defend yourself and never need to do so.

 

[Tarheel]

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished...

If the Right to Bear arms was removed from the Constitution I know all the criminals would happily return any firearms promptly to the authorities.

Why do people believe that changing the constitution would magically make all firearms *pop* out of existence?

Last I checked there was no "Right to own Cocaine" in the constitution, But I bet you I could get ahold of some before the sun sets tonight...

 

[Art]

If the Right to Bear arms was removed from the Constitution I know all the criminals would happily return any firearms promptly to the authorities.

Really ? Personally I wouldn't have thought so.

Why do people believe that changing the constitution would magically make all firearms *pop* out of existence?

I have no idea. Who are these naive people you refer to?

Last I checked there was no "Right to own Cocaine" in the constitution, But I bet you I could get ahold of some before the sun sets tonight...

Indubitably.

So apart from stating the obvious that changing the constitution will not make all guns magically disappear what exactly is your point??

First a society must desire to remove guns from it's culture and then it can be discussed as to how. Saying it is difficult is not a persuasive argument to do nothing.

England for example was awash with weaponry after WW2 but in a very short space of time through legislation coupled with general amnestys guns were once again removed from society.

 

[Tarheel]

Really ? Personally I wouldn't have thought so.

I should have prefaced that statement with [SARCASM]...
But I think you knew that.

So apart from stating the obvious that changing the constitution will not make all guns magically disappear what exactly is your point??

Quite simply my point is... The people that would abide by a Constitutional change are the honest, law abiding citizens of this country.

Therefore making the statement...

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished...

Impractical.

The net effect would then be... Honest, Law abiding citizens UNAMRED, Criminals ARMED.

I guess it's okay though, we can all follow Entropy's advice and just "Give the criminals whatever they want."

 

[Tarheel]

First a society must desire to remove guns from it's culture and then it can be discussed as to how.

I don't think this society has much desire to remove guns from it's culture.

If it were put to a vote I doubt it would be even remotely close.

 

[Cyrus]

A few points;

With a well funded and well resourced police force you don't need vigilantes.

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished and so the need to defend oneself is also proportionately diminished.

How many of the people killed each year by firearms are criminals and how many are innocents?

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Do you realize that the MAJORITY of crimes go unpunished? So basically you will unarm the population, sending a clear messsage to all the criminals that they can get away with their crimes because there is no longer a threat from an armed citizen.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is Illegal to own a gun in the UK, yet the data shows no reduction in crime. Please explain how that proves your logic?

 

[Art]

Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Ah Ah No need to be rude.

Do you realize that the MAJORITY of crimes go unpunished? So basically you will unarm the population, sending a clear messsage to all the criminals that they can get away with their crimes because there is no longer a threat from an armed citizen.

I've already addressed this - read my posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is Illegal to own a gun in the UK, yet the data shows no reduction in crime. Please explain how that proves your logic?

Gun deaths for 2002; UK 82 - USA 30,242. You stand corrected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636102.stm

 

[Cyrus]

No, you have not given a reasonable solution in any of your posts. Simply saying 'take away all the guns' and throw money at the police is NOT a solution. So you are basically saying turn the country into a police state, because that would be the only possible way to achieve what you propose. Nonsense. Maybe you guys in Ireland find that acceptable, we do not. PS Sorry to be rude

Also, for your statistic, how many were illegal or stolen guns? Stop putting up data if it does not distinguish between those types of crimes.

 

[daveb]

What I'd like to see are studies of homicides committed with a gun while in the performance of another crime versus deaths where it was an accident and other homicides with a gun where the homicide was the only crime. I tried searching with google but found nada. And no, I don't want studies by groups that have agendas, such as the NRA or the Brady Bill folks. They have a bias and I wouldn't necessarily trust their interpretation of statsistics.

 

[Art]

No, you have not given a reasonable solution in any of your posts. Simply saying 'take away all the guns' and throw money at the police is NOT a solution.

What I said was that first the citizens of the US must decide their society would be better off without guns. How you then set about removing the existing 200 million weapons is a different discussion in it's own right.

As far as interesting statistics go did you know that in 1973 during the height of the IRA campaign in N.I. with open warfare on the streets making international news there were 250 gun related homicides. During the same year in Detroit there were 751 gun related homicides and by 1977 with the IRA campaign still in full swing that ratio had increased from 3:1 to 5:1.

It's hard to see how anybody can argue against the fact that guns far from being part of the solution are in fact a major part of the problem.

So you are basically saying turn the country into a police state, because that would be the only possible way to achieve what you propose. Nonsense. Maybe you guys in Ireland find that acceptable, we do not.

Applying the rule of law through due process makes one a police state? Oh come on... Lynch gangs and shootouts at the OK corral are just a tad out of fashion these days.

PS Sorry to be rude

Forgiven

Also, for your statistic, how many were illegal or stolen guns? Stop putting up data if it does not distinguish between those types of crimes.

I already addressed this. From whom were the guns stolen?

 

[Tarheel]

...in 1973 during the height of the IRA campaign in N.I. with open warfare on the streets making international news there were 250 gun related homicides. During the same year in Detroit there were 751 gun related homicides

All that prooves is that the Irish are too drunk to aim properly.

Seriously though, I'm all for giving up my guns, as long as everyone else gives theirs up first...

 

[Anttech]

All that prooves is that the Irish are too drunk to aim properly.

Talk about stereotypes.. You know Ireland has the best ecconomy in Europe right now

 

[Cyrus]

What I said was that first the citizens of the US must decide their society would be better off without guns. How you then set about removing the existing 200 million weapons is a different discussion in it's own right.

You don't quite seem to get my point. Guns ARE part of american society. It always has been since the onset of this country and always will be. This is why your argment makes no sense. Thats like me asking the irish to give up beer. We do not want to give up guns.

It's hard to see how anybody can argue against the fact that guns far from being part of the solution are in fact a major part of the problem.

No,no,no,no,no......no. The problem is people with not enough education and living in poverty conditions. THAT's how you get rid of gun violence. Let's not fool ourselves by thinking that getting rid of guns will magically get rid of all this violence.

I already addressed this. From whom were the guns stolen?

Why do you keep asking me this? Do you think that if all the guns are gone that does not mean people will still smuggle them into this country and find their way into the hands of would be criminals? Please, I don't buy that. Look the UK is NOT the US. The UK does not have nearly the same population, and it does not have nearly the same class and race distributions as the US. So your comparing apples and oranges.

 

[moose]

A few points;

With a well funded and well resourced police force you don't need vigilantes.

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished and so the need to defend oneself is also proportionately diminished.

How many of the people killed each year by firearms are criminals and how many are innocents?

Even if there were police everywhere, it still wouldn't solve the problem. If someone attacks you, you have no time to get the police. You can't just say "hold on... let me call the police or shout out" or whatever...

 

[Anttech]

No,no,no,no,no......no. The problem is people with not enough education and living in poverty conditions. THAT's how you get rid of gun violence. Let's not fool ourselves by thinking that getting rid of guns will magically get rid of all this violence.

So by this reasoning you are saying that Americans are just uneducated and poor?

Usings Arts figures:

Gun deaths for 2002; UK 82 - USA 30,242.

And assuming there is a direct corilation between education & poverty and Gun crime,

The UK is (in 2002) 369* more educated and wealthier?

I don't think so...

It won't get rid of all the violence, but it will reduce it vastly..

 

[daveb]

Even though I'm in favor of realistic and practical controls on firearms, you can't compare absolute numbers of crimes involving firearms - you need to compare rates. Otherwise, Liechtenstein is probably the safest place since it has the fewest number of crimes involving firearms.

 

[Orefa]

you can't compare absolute numbers of crimes involving firearms - you need to compare rates.

Per capita statistics are available. These are interesting if you want to compare the US and the UK:

Assaults per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_percap )
US: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
UK: 7.45959 per 1,000 people

Murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap )
US: 0.043 per 1,000 people
UK: 0.014 per 1,000 people

In spite of comparable rates of assault in both countries, the prevalence of guns in the US seems to make a big difference where actual murders are considered. So maybe guns don't kill people but assailants do if they carry guns.

 

[daveb]

Telling statistics, especially since murders invloving firearms (same source) per capita is:

#8 United States 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

#32 United Kingdom 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

 

[turbo]

This may be OT, but does the lack of freedom to own fireams for self-defense lead to any feeling of helplessnes or any sense that one might be helpless in the face of an unexpected assault?

 

[deckart]

More people are murdered in the US because guns are legal. That makes sense. But, that does not and should not limit my freedom to have one. I'm not a murderer. A murderer should not dictate what my rights are. A lot of my rights under the Constitution are already compromised because of actions of the irresponsible. The right to own guns is a right that Americans will not forfeit. No matter how much some of you socialist extremists whine and fret. And if in the distant future, an up and coming world superpower is in a position to invade the US, they will have more than our military to deal with. We can all say it would never happen but history shows us that governments, nations, and powers change in time.

 

[Cyrus]

More people are murdered in the US because guns are legal. That makes sense. But, that does not and should not limit my freedom to have one. I'm not a murderer. A murderer should not dictate what my rights are. A lot of my rights under the Constitution are already compromised because of actions of the irresponsible. The right to own guns is a right that Americans will not forfeit. No matter how much some of you socialist extremists whine and fret. And if in the distant future, an up and coming world superpower is in a position to invade the US, they will have more than our military to deal with. We can all say it would never happen but history shows us that governments, nations, and powers change in time.

Exactly, well said.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.[continued]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

During 2004, about 43000 people died in auto accidents in the US. Should we ban cars?

 

[Art]

Interesting


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

During 2004, about 43000 people died in auto accidents in the US. Should we ban cars?

To continue your logic, more people die from heart disease than from cancer, should doctors stop treating cancer patients?

Obviously the answer is no. Doctors tackle both problems and so likewise auto related deaths is an issue that needs to be addressed; however the problems with guns and cars are not mutually exclusive. Both are problems that need to be addressed and the solutions are likely to be very different.

And for Cyrus et al sorry to bust another myth but as you can see from the eu comparison table below the Irish reputation for drinking is somewhat exagerated. We come in at a lowly 7th place out of the original 15 eu members.

Recorded alcohol consumption

Country Litres 100% alcohol
France 14.7
Portugal 13.6
Austria 13.4
Denmark 12.4
Spain 12.2
Germany 12.1
Ireland 11.4
Belgium 11.3
Greece 10.6
Netherlands 10.0
UK 9.3
Italy 8.6
Finland 8.4
Sweden 6.6
Norway 4.9

http://www.sofi.su.se/EUPRES7.PDF

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well as an impartial non us citizen, I tend to think that well regulated gun ownership is not that big a deal, it does seem to be an important part of American culture. And I'm not sure banning guns would stop the acquisition of Illegally obtained fire arms anyway, in fact it would probably make it extremely lucrative.

I do however fail to see any need to own an AR-15 or any automatic weapon for that matter. I don't think the average gun situation (burglar at night say) require you to lay down surpressive fire, or to take out people at long range with a sniper sight. A shotgun or small arms is perfectly adequate I would of thought? even a rifle?

Just a small point.

I don't think there's much likelyhood of Americans bearing arms to overthrow their own government, or to defend against an invading force do you? Mind you with Bush in Power who knows how long before people snap sorry couldn't resist

 

[turbo]

I do however fail to see any need to own an AR-15 or any automatic weapon for that matter. I don't think the average gun situation (burglar at night say) require you to lay down surpressive fire, or to take out people at long range with a sniper sight. A shotgun or small arms is perfectly adequate I would of thought? even a rifle?

An essential clarification: an AR15 is not an automatic weapon, it is an auto-loading weapon that requires a separate trigger-pull for every shot. In that regard, it is no different from my venerable old WWII Walther P.38. In fact, my P.38 does the AR15 one better, since it is a double-action pistol that does not have to be cocked before firing the first shot.

The AR15 looks like an M16 (an automatic weapon), but it is not a machine gun, and in fact represents far less firepower than the venerable Remington 742 and other auto-loading hunting rifles that are usually chambered for rounds much heavier than the .223 used in the AR15.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ok what I meant was any fully automatic assault rifle or sub machine gun, since it was compared to an AK47 on an earlier thread I figured it was a copy of that weapon. I stand corrected. Probably said it a million times yourself anyway, but why assault rifles? You haven't got an underbarrel grenade launcher with that too?In case the burglar lives through a hail of automatic fire? I honestly can't envisage a situation where anyone would need a sub machine gun, short of the illegal?

 

[Moonbear]

Although this topic has heavily shifted to discussing carrying weapons for self-defense from common intruders, I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that requires arms be readily available for such a purpose. I don't see anything that says you should be allowed to carry them around in public either. What I see is a right to OWN them. That means there's nothing wrong with being told to keep them locked up in a gun safe, with trigger locks, and perhaps partially disassembled so they cannot be accidentally fired or quickly accessed and fired in the heat of passion. If it becomes necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government or defend the country from invading forces, you'll have time to get the key and unlock them and reassemble and ready them for use. The way I interpret it, you can keep a fully stocked armory in your basement if you so desire, but that does NOT give you the right to carry a machine gun down mainstreet, or absolve you of legal repercussions if you shoot an unarmed intruder.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That's the point though. The law's archaic? Why have an armoury stocked and ready for a situation that'll never happen?

That's what happens I supose when you have your laws written down in amendment form. The antequated ones hang around for longer than they should. You should just put a line through the second amendment and right a new law As it stands any old lunatic group can just build up massive stock piles of weapon, waiting for judgement day or the revolution or whatever?

 

[Tarheel]

As it stands any old lunatic group can just build up massive stock piles of weapon, waiting for judgement day or the revolution or whatever?

That doesn't work in America either... See David Koresh & the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas.

 

[Orefa]

That doesn't work in America either... See David Koresh & the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas.

It may be only one case of a bad situation, yet it remains an example of how a freedom is easily abused by one to the detriment of many.

 

[turbo]

If you want a model of just how dangerous it is to have your country saturated with fully-automatic weapons, take a look at Switzerland. Their army is a cross between a regular army and a militia. Men are conscripted at the age of 19 and those that don't fulfill their service all at once stay in the military for years, serving a few weeks at a time. The important thing to note is that they take their fully-automatic assault rifles (and ammo) home with them so they can be mobilized as quickly as possible if needed.

In the US, the violent crime rate is 713/100,000 people, and in Switzerland is is 86/100,000 from a UN study of crime rates published in Singapore.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q97/feat.pdf

Maybe we should all get machine guns to help get the US crime rate down.

 

[Orefa]

If you want a model of just how dangerous it is to have your country saturated with fully-automatic weapons, take a look at Switzerland. Their army is a cross between a regular army and a militia. Men are conscripted at the age of 19 and those that don't fulfill their service all at once stay in the military for years, serving a few weeks at a time. The important thing to note is that they take their fully-automatic assault rifles (and ammo) home with them so they can be mobilized as quickly as possible if needed.

In the US, the violent crime rate is 713/100,000 people, and in Switzerland is is 86/100,000 from a UN study of crime rates published in Singapore.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q97/feat.pdf

Maybe we should all get machine guns to help get the US crime rate down.

But this is a superficial comparison. If you want to see the significance of weapons in a different country then you must separate all other factors such as education, customs and lifestyle, density of population and so on. A relevant comparison would need to compare the incidence of various non-lethal crimes along with homicide so that you can cancel out other factors to see what role guns play. If the availability of guns fosters murders and if Switzerland has even more assault weapons than the US then you would expect the relative rate of homicides to be above the relative rate of other serious crimes.

I am looking at Table 1 (Major Offences) in your reference. The crime rate is overall much lower in Switzerland than in the US. Robbery is about 10% of what we see in the US. Rape is about 10% too. Assault is also about 10% of the US rate. Homicide is lower too but not to the same degree, at 26%. Swiss citizens seem better behaved quite evenly compared to Americans, but not so evenly regarging deadly crimes. All else being equal, the rate of homicides seem disproportionate.

I admit that this is not a rigorous study, but it does shows how just a cursory comparison may not be significant.

 

[turbo]

I realize fully that the comparison was not fair, but wanted to point out that guns are tools, and they do not cause otherwise nice people to want to do bad things, even if they are really scary (to some people around here) automatic weapons.

 

[Orefa]

Ok, point taken. Essentially the debate is "people kill - guns don't" versus "people without guns kill less".

 

[Tarheel]

Ok, point taken. Essentially the debate is "people kill - guns don't" versus "people without guns kill less".

I think that is a valid point.

In "Bowling for Columbine" Moore discovered that there are many more guns (per capita) in Canada than in The U.S.
Yet Gun violence in The U.S. is many many times worse than that of Canada...

 

[Orefa]

In "Bowling for Columbine" Moore discovered that there are many more guns (per capita) in Canada than in The U.S.

Tables on http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm" contradict this.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sorry obviously this is all familliar territory to you so you ignored my point but why does the average american have to have the right to carry fully automatic machineguns? What's wrong with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms?

Good idea draft or your 19 year olds in america into the military and then give them a gun when they leave, that'll teach them how to use guns.

Bring back national service

my favourite quote on
guns don't kill people is:

Guns don't kill people rappers do, I saw it in a documentary on bbc2.

Seriously though your gun laws are antiquated, I really have no comprehension of why you tolerate a law that is so not applicable to US society today. As I'm not a US citizen you'll have to explain carefully why carrying huge arsenals of guns is a good idea?

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry obviously this is all familliar territory to you so you ignored my point but why does the average american have to have the right to carry fully automatic machineguns? What's wrong with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms?

The constitution of the United States of America gives us the right. It says we have the right to bear arms, key word arms. It says arms, which means ANY type of gun. The problem with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms is that you are taking away their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Now it would have to say, the right to bear whatever arms the government feels like letting you have. I'm sorry, this is now how it works in America.

Guns don't kill people rappers do

Thats a pretty ignorant comment by whoever said it.

Seriously though your gun laws are antiquated, I really have no comprehension of why you tolerate a law that is so not applicable to US society today.

Yes, it is very applicable to society since its onset. We tolerate it because its our right to. We don't have to explain or justify something that is our right. If you don't like it, you can (a) try to repeal the 2nd amendment (b) not own a gun, or (c) stay out of the United States.

Why are you so afraid of someone owning a machine gun? Do you think its bullets will kill you less than a hand gun or rifle?

The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. We are entitled to certain basic fundamental rights provided that we act according to the constitution. It is a legally binding contract. You can't change it just so it pleases you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Guns don't kill...

That's meant to be a joke btw n/m sorry taking the piss out of aerican gun culture is likely to be funny only to those who aren't American. I would Imagine

Your amendment system is serriously flawed then IMO.

If you can't change a law then it is cast in stone and that is dangerous.

I don't think your amendment system was meant to be abused in this manner I don't think that was the original idea behind it. Saying someone has the right to bear arms forever. Or the right to do anything in perpetuity is a pretty ignorant argument in the light of changing societies. This not meant to be insulting it just bemuses me that people can use such a system and pretend it's a fair one?

 

[Cyrus]

Your amendment system is serriously flawed then IMO.

Thats your opinion, not my countries opinion. We in America; however, do not find it flawed.

If you can't change a law then it is cast in stone and that is dangerous.

Do you know what the constitution is? Its a set of natural rights in a social contract. You can change it by amending or repealing an amendment. Your statement is incorrect.

I don't think your amendment system was meant to be abused in this manner I don't think that was the original idea behind it. Saying someone has the right to bear arms forever. Or the right to do anything in perpetuity is a pretty ignorant argument in the light of changing societies.

As you are not American, I don't think you can say what our constitution does and does not mean to Americans. If you don't like guns, then just don't buy one. If you can't stand the fact that your fellow citizens own guns, then just don't live in the United States. Just because you don't happen to like guns, does not mean that trumps other peoples rights to own guns. It is a very fair system indeed. It is in constant flux, perhaps as an outsider you don't get to appreciate this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We do have a thread on this already. They always seem to get so long and just go back and forth. Kinda moot dontya think?

My interpretation of the second amendment has always been that it's supposed to allow for the people to have a way fo defending themselves from their own government. Aside from the fact that it's pretty obvious your average citizen can not defend themselves from their government any longer there have also been a few instances such as Wako that illustrate this point rather well. This point is pretty much dead though in the face of this I still find it incredibly difficult to relinquish the idea of the right to defend myself from my government.

Another point is the feasability of getting rid of the guns and stopping gun trafficing. In the US it really doesn't seem very possible. As already mentioned it's likely a hell of a lot easier in smaller places like England and Ireland which are also completely surrounded by water to control your borders and what comes into your country. The US borders are very difficult to control and it would take quite a bit of money to do so. On top of that anyone wishing to place a strong control on the borders will also have to contend with the groups that decry border control as "racist". Just take a look at what happened to the Minute Men.

Last but not least there are still areas of this country that are quite spread out and where the police/sheriffs are not able to respond to problems in a timely fashion like they can in more urban areas. Someone once told me that where they live it takes an hour or more for a response where they live and they have to deal with bandits(yeah, I'm serious, bandits). People like this aren't too worried about shooting people in their house since they can see them coming and really most often just want to fire warning shots to scare them off.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well we can argue about whether your law system works or not 'til we're blue in the face I supose. I just find the term laws were made to be broken particualarly apt in this situation; if you live in a country where your rights or laws or whatever you want to call them can nver change then you are liable to run the risk of living under an antiquated system ad infinitum. In 3010 when guns arms as we know them no longer longer exist you will still have a law giving you the right to bear arms.

I'm really not meaning this to sound insulting but you have a crazy idea of what a law should be, if it is inflexible and unchanging over eaons then it's pointless. About as much point as saying I have the right to freedom from or of religion long after religions have been suplanted or ceased to exist

Well I'm lucky I live in a country where we can change our laws to suit the times we live in. I supose we will just have to shrug at you guys and look bemused.

Defending yourself from your government should not be done with guns, you should vote them out of power, in a straight fight between the american gov and any standing army you could care to raise you would lose and lose big.

As for the frighteningly bizarre notion that walking down the street with a machine gun is less dangerous than with a hand gun

Do you all try and justify these pre industrial laws in such a trite fashoin or is it just the NRA propoganda your talking about?

Honestly if that's the best you can come up with, I'd be surprised if your gun crime rate will ever come down.

No one argues with the rights of someone to defend themselves but A good semi automatic Assault rifle will do and that's about as far as I can see that reasoning being applied. allowing peole to carry fully automatic weaponry is a bit much don't you think?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, like whatever?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well I'm lucky I live in a country where we can change our laws to suit the times we live in. I supose we will just have to shrug at you guys and look bemused.

Ummm... did you miss the part about there being amendments to the US constitution? Did you miss the part where Cyrus stated that one who is against guns might try to repeal the second amendment? You're beating a dead strawman here I think.

Defending yourself from your government should not be done with guns, you should vote them out of power, in a straight fight between the american gov and any standing army you could care to raise you would lose and lose big.

I believe I pointed out myself that the idea of a US citizen protecting themself from the government would be pretty futile. I still wouldn't want to lose the protection though. I would think that considering the view that most people from other countries have of the US government and where it's going would have a bit more sympathy for people in the US that would liek to protect themselves from their government. Depending on how things fall out it's possible that people may not have the ability to challenge their government through voting.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah I did miss that, I seem to have skipped that bit? Even so I find it doubtful you can do anything about your murder rate or your gun laws. I think your stuck with them and I think your liable to be stuck with them for a very long time, especially if the sort of replies I see on this thread are any indication of your reasoning? It's a complicated issue made more complicated by the kind of irrational banter I've seen so far passed of as fair argument, guns don't kill people obviously ignorance does.

Personally I don't see any point to having a written constituation in most countries cases, it seems to be a rather pedantic way of running a country, far better to simply make it up as you go along works for the rest of the world.

You'll have to excuse my confrontational style, I have asthma at the moment and it tends to make me kranky. That aside feel free to get back on topic I think I've made my point if there was one.

I just had a thought too, when these laws were written your country had just thrown off the chains of a rutheless opressor, I.e My country. Surely you didn't need to write your right to overthrow yourr government in a law? I don't think many revolutions or coup detat's happen under legal circumstances, that's the point? Parliament acted against the Kings law to overthrow Charles II, I fail to see the need for us to then write into the constitution the rights of the citizenry to overthrow the government? If someone wants to get rid of there government badly enough then they will regardless of what any law says? Oddly obvious right really. It's kind of like giving you a right to vote in a democracy and to defend that right by force of arms.