Latest users (2): alimais, thekame, anonymous(17).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#4273 - herecomesjohnny (07/15/2012) [-]
Alright, fellas, why are Americans getting their panties in a bundle because of their guns? Why do you consider liberal gun ownership as a vital part of your freedom?

Not provoking, just neutrally asking.

inb4 because the Constitution started that way (old isn't good in law)
User avatar #4309 to #4273 - politicsarefun (07/16/2012) [-]
Because every genocide has involved an unarmed populous or one so under armed that they couldn't stop an army.

holocaust, the atrocities committed in the gulag, china WW2, china with pol pot.

It's our last resort to defend our families.

With guns we will have some localized tragedies, but they will always out weigh the tragedies of genocide and oppression which are certain when the body of the people cannot retain arms.
#4304 to #4273 - repostsrepost (07/15/2012) [-]
Is the right to bear arms any less vital than free speech, free practice of faith, protection against unnecessary search and seizure, or due process? They're natural rights under the Constitution that all people inherently have and liberty isn't any less relevant today than it was in 1789.
User avatar #4298 to #4273 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
I don't like guns myself very much, if at all, but I still think a government able to restrict its people from owning guns/defense is a government presiding over slaves. Or as Thomas Jefferson said:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
#4285 to #4273 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
People don't like their stuff being taken away. Simple as that.

The Constitution actually says that the right to bear arms is protected for those who are part of a well-regulated state militia, but only the latter half of the sentence, which goes "the right to bear arms will not be infringed", is ever used in the discussion.
#4303 to #4285 - repostsrepost (07/15/2012) [-]
because as far as the law is concerned, the latter part is the only part that matters. It says that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" it mentions that a well regulated militia is necessary but does not say anywhere that the right to bear arms only applies to the militia. Nor do the writings of the framers infer that the right to bear arms only belongs to the military. If that were the case, there would be no reason for the second amendment to exist at all. It would say in Article 1 of the Constitution where it enumerates powers given to Congress that Congress has the authority to restrict arms to anyone outside of the military if that were the original intent. The concept of a "right" is a protection given to all people equally, not to a government institution.
#4305 to #4303 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
Firstly, this is the US Constitution, there is not a single word that does not matter. If we can pick and choose which parts or sentences of the constitution are relevant, it defeats the point of having a constitution.

Well, since the federal government is not given the right to restrict the use of weapons, and it is not prohibited to the states, according to the 10th Amendment, it thus falls to the states to enforce gun control as they see fit.
#4306 to #4305 - repostsrepost (07/15/2012) [-]
I agree that we can't pick and choose words in the Constitution, but that wasn't what I was referring to. The language that says a well regulated militia being necessary doesn't enumerate any powers to the federal government, and therefore, the argument that the right to bear arms only applies to the militia doesn't apply here. And the language that says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed does prohibit the states from gun control in the same way that slavery, poll taxes, and disenfranchisement are. If it said that Congress may pass no law infringing the right to bear arms, you'd be right. But it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and due to the incorporation clause, it applies to the states as well.
User avatar #4299 to #4285 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
If you read the writings of the founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson (see the two quotes I just posted above), James Madison, George Mason, and of course George Washington. If you read their own individual interpretations they all mean the whole of America as the "militia".
#4300 to #4299 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
The point being that everybody is supposed to be a part of that well-regulated militia, but in modern America no one is.
#4291 to #4285 - anon (07/15/2012) [-]
But pay attention to the exact wording of that second half.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
#4296 to #4291 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
"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 citizens are supposed to form the militia. That's kind of the idea of the Amendment, to create a state militia that can raise itself to act in the national defense on a moment's notice to do away with the need for a standing army. The key here is a "well-regulated militia", which none of the private citizens with guns are in.

By the most logical interpretation of the Amendment, the right of people in the state militia, which is organized enough to be well-regulated, to won guns will not be infringed. The right to regulate the weaponry of individual citizens with no connection to the state militia is not delegated to the federal government, but neither is it prohibited to the states. Ergo, if you are not in a state militia that can be defined as well-regulated (i.e. not just your neighborhood watch), the State Government has full right to control your weaponry. At least according to the US Constitution.
#4274 to #4273 - anon (07/15/2012) [-]
If the government moves towards being tyrannical, the best way for the people to revolt is if they have their own guns.

Also, statistically areas with more gun ownership have considerably less crime. Besides, what right does the government have to take someone away from you if you aren't harming anyone? I mean, banning spoons won't stop obesity the same way banning guns will not stop crime.
User avatar #4289 to #4274 - mhorn (07/15/2012) [-]
that last part couldn't be more true
 Friends (0)