There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. I have 4-5 in my house. They below to my grandfather. Now could I shot someone with them? Yes I could. Will I do it? No, because a normal person. The people holding the guns are killers not the guns.
I think it should be re-written based on today's society. Those "great political minds" were indeed great, but they couldn't see the future of the world. In other words, they never could make it flexible enough to last forever, else people wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I know they're the words that founded America, but it needs to be adjusted to fit today's society. Try looking at it from a non-American non-patriotic point of view. I know it's hard, but try.
The very nature of the Constitution is not permanent. We're talking about the Second Amendment, after all. The Constitution is supposed to be amended. Not only that, it's supposed to be completely rewritten. Directly from one of those great political minds, Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
I'm not, I'm looking at it from a factual standpoint. Argue as you will, but a 1/50000people per capita gun-related murder is not bad at all, especially considering the fact that America is one of the most heterogenous societies in the world, which is proven to lead to an increase in violence as compared to homogenous societies. Remember, 50 people die from smoking for every one person killed by a gun, should we make smoking completely illegal as well? Should we make cars illegal as they are one of the leading causes of death in America?
There's not as many as you think, and also the moment that stolen gun is reported, it is red-tagged, meaning that that weapon cannot be legally sold, and the person found with it is subject to immediate arrest.
well it's their own fault if they die of smoking. there a warnings for a reason. as for the ones who inhale second-hand smoke i am truly sorry for.
i know that but what i mean is there are cases where the gun was stolen and then used for the crime. then the person ditches the gun so it would lead the cops to the owner of it instead of them.
And then they use DNA from the crime scene and also interrogate the owner, which would pretty quickly show that they weren't responsible. Our law enforcement isn't as near as incompetent as you seem to think they are. Which brings me to my point, there is no data that is comparable to the US's situation that shows that the illegalizing of guns has any affect on the gun-related deaths. (this has been fun, but I gotta sleep, see y'all later!)
People choose to smoke. People don't choose to get shot by someone's gun. fun-fact: Smoking is illegal in public places here in Belgium. What do you think our stance on weapons would be? Belgian police officers aren't even allowed to take their guns home with them. Even when on patrol, they're not allowed to have their guns loaded until they need them. They're not allowed to need them until the culprit FIRES a gun first. Aside from hunting rifles, citizens aren't allowed to own guns here at all. And even for a hunting rifle, you'd have to go through a load of trouble. That's the ideology I grew up with. That's what I'm trying to make you understand. There are plenty of countries in the world with this ideology. All other countries in the world do fine, maybe even better, with such an amount of gun control. Why not America?
Hold up, before I go to bed, check out this site filled with state-by-state info on gun murders an such, and you'll see quite a strange trend, not gonna say it directly, but you'll see yourself: http://www.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
well my towns police are stupid even though i am with tighter gun control my towns police are stupid if there was a school shooting here and the shooter didn't kill himself they would not be able to do anything the reason why is THEY DONT HAVE FIREARMS heck they don't even have tazers
I did Mike, and I'll admit that my source that I got tht 4,000 figure from was wrong. I provided a link on the 2011 breakdown of it.
Because it is an inalienable right given to us by our own Bill of Rights. Changing the constitution will change the very principles the nation was founded upon. Want to know the real reason we have the right to bear arms? To rebel against an oppressive and tyrannical government should the need arise. Getting rid of this portion of the Bill of Rights is basically opening the gateway for some random jerkwad to come into office and start something he shouldn't. Then what will the people do? Sit and mope? I'd rather be able to defend myself with a gun than be shot by one with nothing to defend myself besides my untrained fists. I dunno how it is in Belgium, but the one thing I'm actually glad I live in America for is the ability to own a concealed handgun. I am also a huge advocate for Castle Laws. In Texas, it's legal to shoot someone who trespasses on your property if it is clear they have an intent to harm or kill.
I'm referring to the people who think any and all firearms should be illegal. I think that extensive background checks are needed for any and all firearms. Also make them go through a psychological evaluation before even considering them. People with mental disabilities that influence suicidal or homicidal thoughts (Which likely means I wouldn't be able to get a gun, regardless, due to Bipolar Disorder) or just plain nutjobs shouldn't be able to get them. Stricter regulation, yes. Not like it'll do much good though.
Ah, so you did. Well anyway I'm pro-gun. I hunt and am a sportsman and all of that, but I feel that the US can do better in terms of gun control. People always point the blame on illegal weapons, and while that's fine, illegal weapons will never be irradiated and frankly in my opinion, is a lost cause. Take a look at this shooting and the past ones, the guns were obtained or purchased legally. Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Colorado shooting, and this one were all done with legally obtained weapons. Increased background checks alone (while I would like that to happen) won't fully cover it considering the people responsible for Newton, and the Colorado shootings had essentially clean records. To start I think that all documented mentally unstable people need to be denied of ownership of a guns, as well as the parents/guardians of unstable children. People with certain lifestyles or occupations need to be denied guns as well, or at least questioned more thoroughly - the Bushmaster AR-15s, Glock pistols, and shotguns were all registered to the mother, a mother who is a kindergarten teacher. In what way is it necessary for her to own these weapons? I think our gun-activists need to quit pulling the video game argument, the "violent" television argument, and look at what's directly in front of them.
We need more thorough background checks into legal weapons being purchased. We need a much bigger crackdown on illegal firearms. I couldn't tell you how, but it needs to happen sometime. Ramza makes a good point about being able to defend himself, but considering the government has the only legal fully automatic assault rifles, unmanned drones, nukes/bombs and more, I don't think any of us have a chance of fighting them in any scenario. That was an idea from past years, back when rag-tag groups of civilians could repel large armies whose intent was to kill. If our government wanted us dead or gone, it would happen immediately and there would be nothing we could do.
