Should America clamp down on gun rights?
What is it with America and guns? Why does the most advanced democracy, which prides itself on being a bastion of reason and civilization in a brutal and ugly world, put up with this carnage in its own back yard? Why does it tolerate 100,000 people killed or injured every year? Why does it accept an annual murder rate by guns that is 13 times that of Germany and 44 times that of England and Wales?
Do you think America should clamp down on gun rights?
Source: Guardian
Do you think America should clamp down on gun rights?
Source: Guardian
Tags: America, clamp, down, gun rights
Views: 33
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Martin on -
The gun control debate has raged for so long in the US it is difficult to see where legislation to limit gun ownership could start without inciting widespread rebellion.
Amending that troublesome part of the US Constitution would be a good start. Bearing arms should not be a 'right' in the 21st century.
Maybe what is needed is a widespread public education programme, just to let people know that 'Ok, gun ownership is legal, but you're an idiot if you think having a gun can protect you or anyone you care about.'
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Hendrickson on -
I am an idiot.
-
Permalink Reply by John Bannerman on -
Would you feel a gun less necessary if guns on the whole were less widespread?
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Hendrickson on
-
No sir. This is a long drawn out answer, but probably necessary to help you understand the deep rooted issues.
Here is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
"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."
Look at the wording, "..., being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". I believe that the founding fathers meant that one of the reasons that citizens have the right to bear arms is to protect them, if need be, from their own Federal Government!
If I wanted to control a people, one of the first things that I would do is disarm them!
Then there is also the personal protection side of this thorny issue. If I want to keep a weapon in my house to protect my family, and my property, by God I'm going to, and the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment means what it says. If I wanted to use a LAWS Rocket as my choice of weapon, then by God I'm going to.
Then there is the sporting side of this thorny issue. I love to go skeet shooting, and target shooting with my family. When the suggestion is made that I should give this up by the good folks on the opposite side of this issue, I get the same feeling about them as I do about the people who drive around hybrid cars with their smug looks on their faces implying that to be good, I should be just like them.
There is a lot to the issue of guns in the US. Discussion is always a good thing!
-
Permalink Reply by John Bannerman on
-
I am concerned by this referral to the 2nd Amendment. Your founding fathers thought guns were important for the public a long time ago, when the country was much less stable, when you had posses and vigilantes operating in places that law and order had not yet reached. But quoting them, no matter how important they are, isn't an actual argument- I'm asking what YOU think. I would say your country has changed so much since then that it is irrelevant. You describe a US that is hardly the land of the free but a place where the citizens are under attack from the government, as though its some terrible African nation where anyone speaking out against the regime disappears.
I used to have the right to carry a knife in certain cities but now I don't. I don't see this as some inalienable right taken away. The law changed for a practical reason.
For me, a gun is a weapon for sport or for the armed services. I cannot see a role for such an efficient killing weapon in society.
-
Permalink Reply by cathy gheatie on -
i disagree, a right to carry a gun is still an american right and it should be a right as a law, in some places and states
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Hendrickson on
-
More guns. More awareness of 2nd Amendment rights. NRA all the way.
Please read what the founding fathers had to say about citizen weaponry. My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson, "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."
Citizen's having guns not only allows them to protect themselves from other citizen's, but it also allows them individually or as a group to protect themselves should the need arise from an oppressive government.
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
One does not "clamp down on gun rights". One does "infringe on the human right of self-defense".
Murders occur because of a sickness in the soul of the murderer. The "solutions" to the symptom of violence offered up often resemble turning my country into an enormous prison (no weapons, heavy police presence, monitored and limited communications). If that were effective, why is a small town in the countryside (with high rates of gun ownership) safer than a prison? There are other theories that might be worth testing: Urbanization makes people more violent. Television in America would rather show 100 men being shot to death than a man naked in the embrace of his love. Prohibition increases violence.
I am curious, if you believe "...you're an idiot if you think having a gun can protect you or anyone you care about.", why do police officers carry guns?
-
Permalink Reply by Will on
-
"Wow, Kevin is naive."
Did you see how that was not a convincing argument? It might be better to say what was an unrealistic assertion and by whom if it is not obvious.
Have any bad governments done bad things to individuals? Have any good governments become bad governments? How might we prevent bad governments from doing bad things to people?
-
Permalink Reply by John Bannerman on
-
But seriously, for all you say about safety, can you attend to the argument that the murder rate is 13 time higher than Germany and 44 times that of the UK. If you didn't have so many guns to defend yourselves, would there be even more murders?? I think not. Your criminals should come to Europe to take advantage of all us unarmed people! Don't you ask yourself why Europe isn't swamped by criminals with guns taking advantage of all us unarmed citizens?
As for your second point, has armed resistance to a murderous government played a large part in US history? What bad things have bad governments tried to do to the US people, only you protected yourselves with your guns? Or is it that the bad government doesn't do these bad things because they know you are armed? This is paranoia my friend. Or perhaps "Wow, John is naive".
-
Permalink Reply by Will on
-
I do not know what would happen if we didn't have so many guns. I do suspect that things would get worse since bad people would still get them to do bad things. From my understanding guns are highly regulated in Mexico and they are having a civil war. I am sure you would agree that Guns are not the only difference between Europe and America.
Our country was started by an armed resistance to a murderous government. That is kind of a big part, LOL. I am guessing that you admit that sometimes good governments become bad, and that bad governments can do bad things to people. I do not believe the US has a bad government (elections are still held and honored), so there have only been rare occasions for resistance here.
I am not sure why you believe that the US should move forward unguided by the lamp of human experience. There are plenty of examples in other countries of bad countries disarming people and later massacring them.
© 2013 Created by alice.
