0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yeah, it's a hard question. Considering that the 'Gun allowance' was thought to be one of the things defending the right of every individual to be able to defend himself and the constitution (namely USA) once when it was decided, it indeed is a 'right'.But considering that the same Government today can drop a real good fuel bomb on you as you wave your Kalashnikov defending your constitutional rights, I'm not that impressed over that argument. When it comes to food I tend to side with them pointing out that we have super markets taking care of that. Hunting is assuredly a 'kick' for those doing it, making them able to do one of the most sublime thing known, Snuffing someones life out. In a world where we all find ourselves increasingly marginalized, made into cogs in a machine, it's understandable that we want to keep those few things proving ourselves so much better than something else. and what better proof than to kill it?As for the argument of getting and being close to nature In a way sure. Like the cavemans huh? Fighting for ya wimma, but with that trusty Kalashnikov instead of a flint-axe. Still, we are killers, all of us are. And the food we find in the super store is killed too, although not by me personally.
"Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back."I don't think the statistics on fatal killings per capita bear you out on this. I'm glad that you appreciate the history of what was behind the amendment. Not everyone does so. The reasons for the granting of the right to bear arms was important at the time, but it did not actually mean it quite in the way it has turned out. I believe it was intended to allow the formation of organised militia independent of the state, which could indeed still be a feature of the current situation. I don't think it was thought necessary by the founding fathers as a tool for self protection against crimes by fellow citizens using those same weapons. I actually don't see it as a very likely scenario that Americans are likely to take a weapons' led revolutionary stance against their elected government. And I don't see this to be likely in any democratic state at the present time - and not because the democratic states are necessarily really representative, but mainly that the overall systems that have been developed tend to favour the status quo anyway. Revolutions do not tend to occur in democracies. Do you really think that this is anything close to a prime reason why many people in the US bear arms? If so, there are a lot of dangerous people out there who currently are not regarded as criminals. Is it not more likely that, if you think that you are the last line of defence against an invading army, that this might just be an "invented", if only slightly plausible, excuse. With all the defence power that the US has got, I don't really think anyone would get close. There are countries that can justify this (e.g. Israel), but not the US. Not all European countries forbid gun ownership by the way. Switzerland is an example and they have a relatively low crime rate, so I would agree gun ownership does not necessarily result in a high homicide rate, but it does in some places. The reasons can be complex. The UK has a rising problem with gun crime but it is still very low and there is general popular agreement about having tight gun laws. I don't see the need in the near future to rise up against the government either and, in any case, asymmetric wars do not tend to involve gun battles against professional, heavily armed, troops; it would be a lousy strategy.
So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.
Quote from: CGNFOREVER on 04/01/2011 00:00:23So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?
Futher anecdotal evidence:Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns. After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.
Quote from: Geezer on 04/01/2011 01:41:54Quote from: CGNFOREVER on 04/01/2011 00:00:23So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?What I mean by that is, is he a lawyer schooled in constitutional rights.But my guess is he's not because usually they fight to keep the constitution intact and not misinterpret it.