More people own guns in the United States than in any other country on Earth, by some estimates as many as 80 million. People purchase firearms for a myriad of reasons, but what are the larger implications? Beyond the shooting ranges and hunting trails, what lies at the heart of American gun ownership?
WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share.extra wait . ?
Buspar magnetize Erectalis safety regimentation Effexor XR chordomesoderm Does zanaflex cause weight gain reversibility
I find it funny, because in America where all you guys are from if, to obtain a firearm, you needed a license you would all shout and give a hissy fit but in New Zealand, where I am from, you need a firearms license to own a firearm, and no-one gives a toss!
The problem with guns isn't the people who use them for sport, hunting, etc. it is with the people who use them for nonsensical violence. I personally don't care about guns but if someone infringes on MY rights (the Preamble, stating that I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) that were given to me even before the Bill of Rights, that is when I have a problem. Ironically those aforementioned rights are the inalienable ones that "God" bestowed upon me so no man made law should trump that eh? The American public has become enamored with guns and the power they feel when using them. But along with that the American media is fueling the absurd violence associated with the guns. The media rarely covers any meaningful stories anymore, it's all about celebrities doing drugs or some football player getting arrested. The media; which includes but not limited to Hollywood, music, TV, video games, journalists, internet, etc. idolizes the gang bangers and criminals that are the underbelly of society. I don't see why killing another person should be viewed as "cool" by children, nor why being shot nine times gains "respect." I associate with those two things, stupidity and immaturity. For the law abiding citizens who use guns responsibly, I applaud you. I think education is the only way to live peacefully with guns.
I knew a little guy from Louisiana, a cousin of my friend. We spoke of LA Calif, my home town. He said he was in Hollywood CA prob in the 1970s. as a tourist. He did carry a small handgun at all times. In Hollywood off of Hollywood Blvd in an alley or side street, 2 black thugs came at him saying " I'm gonna cut you, give me your money etc." They had a knife or knives. Little guy takes out his gun, shoots but does not kill one robber. Other robber runs away. Wounded robber crawls for help on nearby Hollywood blvd, thousands of tourists to help him. No one dies and no one goes to the police. This is a happy ending I can live with. Craig Wilson age 59 Los Angeles CA
The “militia” is clearly defined right in the Second Amendment itself…and in the other rights presented in the same document.
The Second uses ‘the PEOPLE”, as do other parts of these rights and documents, and when it does so it MEANS the PEOPLE…the general populace.
*IF* it MEANT anything OTHER THAN the PEOPLE, then the document itself is entire worthless as while it would be acknowledging (rather then ‘giving’ as some erroneously suppose) these rights it would be for NO ONE.no one that matters anyway.
The PEOPLE in this document means the PEOPLE.
Where these ‘rights’ are acknowledged by this document it is clearly the rights of the PEOPLE it IS recognizing.
Thus the 2A’s usage of ‘the PEOPLE’ unequivocally intends to ACKNOWLEDGE that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.
The aforementioned ‘militia’ then, by default, is very easily and very clearly intended and understood, except by all but the blind and play acting Brady spies, to BE ‘the PEOPLE’ of whom are being reference concerning this RIGHT to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
And just WHO did we see bearing arms coming to the defense of this young country ? The PEOPLE!
Common sense.
There…see how easy that was?
The ability to say "No, you will not rape me right now. Or take the fruits of my labor, or injure or kill my child or the innocent person standing behind me." A gun says "Though you are larger, younger, stronger or more numerous, or healthy where I am handicapped, you will not dominate me." A gun is human dignity and the badge of a free human being.
An armed populace has the ability to check the power of government. The first thing dictators do when they take over a nation is disarm the populace to make them easier to control.
Government can call the restrictions they want to put on us safety reasons if they want to, but it's really about safety for them, not for us.
I wish more people would see it that way.I well never back down from the grovernment.
Freedom is what made the USA great.And I will not give up my freedoms lightly.
Absolutely. We'll fight to the end. In our homes, in our offices, in the trenches if need be!
You got that right.Fight to the end!Never back down!
The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Never back down Your right on Silverfang838!keep up the fight!
Well it is our right and no one should try to take it away from us.Now I know there are many many idiot's out there who misuse them,but you can't punish everbody cause some guy got shot by some idiot.Guns are a responsibity that should be taken serious, and when not then THE GUITY PERSON SHOULD BE DEALT WITH HARSHLY not everone esle,and folk's this is coming from a guy who has lost someone to a firearm killing!!!!
I find it so absurd to think that we need to have 10 times more guns and rifles than the rest of the world! Where did this fanaticism to own so many guns originally start? Why do people need an AK-47 rifle or machine gun to go hunting for deer? Its absurd! The NRA is so far outside the mainstream now and cares nothing about being more reasonable and pragmatic! They are so extreme in their thinking, that Pres George Herbert Walker Bush, a life-long member of the NRA, terminated his membership when they refused to agree to any sensible gun control measure including the Brady Bill! We need to place strong controls on how many weapons can be manufactured and ration the number that anyone person can have! Nobody needs more than 2 guns! Fines should be stiffened if not obeyed and if these fanatical gun owners don't like it who cares! The government knows whats best for the American people when it comes to owning guns!
My grandfather hunted and he had a lot more then two guns . You need a different gun depending on what you are hunting . Just as the people are the government, when this country was founded the people were the militia. Somewhere along the way the people forgot they were the government and the government took the militia away from the people. This was one of the causes of the Civil War. If a few people want to stockpile guns that is there right. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.
I thought state rights and slavery were the primary causes of the Civil War-not the abolishment of a militia! You got me there! I thought militias were replaced over time by the state national guard? The people were encouraged during the Revolutionary War to volunteer and help fight against the British. The congress which is the people's house, made a decision after we won our independence to abolish the militia! You conservatives are always railing against the government-but if any of your cherished benefits are cut you people are the first to complain! The government has done an incredible job in taking care of us over the years! The Tennessee Valley Authority brought jobs and electricity to the south during the Depression and helped improve these people's standard of living! Worker's safety, food safety, the National Cancer Institute, the US Post Office, AMTRACK, and The Deal, during Roosevelt's time, are just few examples that government got it right! I was probably overboard in my comments about gun control but I get so fed up by all these lunatics on the right who always criticize the government but never have any feasible alternatives! I'm not calling you a lunatic mike1948! I guess guns are a unique, sacred right here and nowhere else!
I am a pacifist, never owned a gun in my life. But I have always stood up for other peoples rights. After the lower south seceded, Lincoln nationalized the state militias. Rather then fight against their fellow Americans the upper south seceded.
I'll assume for arguements sake, that you are correct that Lincoln nationalized the state militias-I would to when these states are about to go to war against the union! Virginia succeeded just as quickly as the rest of the south except in the western area of Virginia which was anti-slavery and becamed West Virginia in 1863. Not sure what your point was other that you think people have the right to own guns ! As a true pacifist, I would be horrified at huge numbers of guns that are sold to people and the carnage from these guns perpetrated onto socieity! Drive by shootings, school shootings where kids are senselessly murdered. Go to any urban hospital and talk to doctors in the emergency rooms, and they will tell you about victims who were shot! Urban warfare exists in many of our cities due in part, to the proliferation of guns and the easy access to get them. But the NRA has always been against background checks, or any common sense measures to make sure that guns don't get in the wrong hands! The 2 kids at Columbine High School stole their guns from one of the gunmen's grandfather and then massacred all those innocent people! Hunters and sportsmen are fine as long as they keep their arsenal secured and out of the reach of minors! Of course, I still don't think you need a machine gun or a AK-47 to go out and kill bambi either!
Murder is already illegal. Without guns , there would be drive-OVER killings. Many of the hospitals you cite are in cities where guns are completely prohibited. Prohibition doesn't work.
Background checks are a presumption of GUILT, which is unAmerican. The records of such checks cannot be kept on file, but are, illegally, by law ENFORCEMENT agencies. Most of the 90 million American gun owners ARE responsible, but that never gets on the news. Neither do the 300,000 annual crime preventions using a gun without needing to shoot anyone.
Klebold and Harris rigged BOMBS from backyard grill propane tanks, which fortunately did not work. Killers will kill, regardless. The police waited outside for the shooting to stop, just like they did at Virginia Tech.
I got beaten up for being different. Nerd, bookworm.
A friend took me shooting one day. I bought a gun and started to learn about gun laws so as not to break them and go to prison, which leads to learning about the Bill of Rights and how much of it has been taken away. About the 120 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th Century after they surrendered their guns in the name of " crime prevention."
It all comes down to, do you own yourself, or does the government?
{The government knows whats best for the american people when it comes to owning guns }
How can you be so wrong.The government would like every one to think like you.So they can take all your freedoms away!
[Nobody needs more than 2 guns]
Where do you get those numbers?You dont know much about guns do you?To some it is a sport.Like sex or cars .
Should a person be able to own more than 2 cars or have sex with more than 2 people,in you own little world? Cars kill more people than guns?In your little world why dont you outlaw people so no person can get killed?
You must be a card carrying member of the NRA because thats the line they always use that if there is any type of gun control whatsoever, than other freedoms will be lost! How absurd! The government is the people and I stand by my facts which comes from published sources! We have by far, my guns than anybody else! Our founding fathers never intended for us to own so many weapons-it was for a militia in the states! There should be restrictions, background checks, and a major tax on all weapons sold here to discourage the sale of firearms -like cigarettes ! When guns get too expensive for these people, that will have the desired effect!
[we have by far,my guns than anybody else}OK than.You need to try some freedom!You might like it!
I live I thought in the same country as you-I experience alot of freedom everyday including giving my opinions openly! I know my views are definately in the minority but that doesn't bother! I like a good and civil debate on just about any issue! I do take back what I said earlier about the government restricting the sales of guns to 2 per family! Hunters and sportsmen in general, are law obedient, responsible gun owners-I don't really have a problem with them at all!
I count you as one of them because I realize I struck a raw nerve with you especially, and I'm sure your an avid hunter and responsible!
Sorry but I have never ran across any one as left as you.Why would any one want to give up any of there freedoms.Freedom is what made this country Great!When someone trys to take any freedoms from any America that is when there on the fighting side of me.
Americas have died so you can have your freedoms! So why would you wont to take other Americas freedoms away?
You know I grew up with guns and guess what not once did I play with them. The were under my Dad's bed or in his night stand by the bed. Why do kids find it facinating to play with something that can hurt them. Easy their parents haven't taken them out to show them how a gun works and what it's used for. Once a child is educated and taught respect for things that aren't theirs to play with we would be a lot better off in society .
Freedom and child education ?
I'm for guns , but your logic on this is strange at best.
My Grandfather grew up around guns . They would take there rifles to school so they could hunt on the way home. Children that grow-up around guns and are taught about guns have a different attitude about guns then children that think of them as toys.
I grew up around guns . I leaned to take them apart and put them back together like you see in war movies. I have a great respect for them and love owning them.
I still don't know what this has to do with what guns mean to Americans .
What if tomorrow the government restricted your right to own your guns ?
They didn't? I'm betting they wont.
I would blame the special needs people that took guns to a president's speech.
I would blame all the gun owners that make the rest of us look bad.
I would protest right at the steps of the white house.
This is what they are talking about when they talk about what guns mean to America. The right to own guns and the responsibility that goes with it.
Good post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQqYj-pbdg&NR=1
Guns mean to Americans......."My government says I am a free citizen with rights and that I can own a piece of power and protection from the sick and predator infested society that surrounds me, my neighborhood, and family. Guns mean to Americans......"It is my right to kill food for sport or pleasure so I can fill my freezer with game that I like to eat". Guns also mean that people enjoy sport shooting and it is a classic past time of fun for a family. However you wanna look at it, "Guns mean Power" to ones self through a number of different uses. Guns are Power, America is Power.
Well I do not know about you but when the majority of people read the second amendment, Supreme Court,President Obama,Eric Holder,all the Harvard Law reviews,Yale and etc. they all conclude it to an individual right not given by the second amendment but guarrenteed. Of course like most people who are blind to the truth, they will not be told otherwise even when the evidence is abundant. Let them live in their fairy tale,Those of us who know the truth and seek the truth should join with organizations that support our rights. The largest is the National Rifle Association, that will get a rise out of some, but think about it why do you really suppose the NRA is so successful, they try to deal with the facts, hence they are very susscesful.
the_car_man
Sorry but after reading your column which is fraught with a complete lack of facts, I have to wonder about your intelligence. First off it has been proven on many occasions that guns are not the problem and that more guns in the hands of Law Abiding citizens actually deters crime. You don't have to take my word for it, do your due diligence and go no further than the FBI crime statistics and right to carry states.
Your fear of guns stems from ignorance of facts which is readily displayed in your column. It would behoove you to actually do some research on the subject at hand before your write something that will be published for public scrutiny.
[B]Fact 1[/B]. People will still commit murder and rape, regardless if they have guns or not. People will still kill themselves even without guns.
[B]Fact 2[/B]. I refer to actual crime statistics and right to carry comparisons. Every state, county, city that has restrictive gun control has a higher violent crime rate than those that exercise right to carry. And again that is based on facts in evidence from the FBI, not some emotional knee jerk reaction.. as 99% of the anti-gun rhetoric is wont to be.
[B]Fact 3[/B]. Gun control does not solve the problem, education does.Watch these three clips and begin to understand your stance is one of ignorant fear.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw - John Stossel 20/20
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA - Canada's failed gun control
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec - England's failed gun control|
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A&NR=1 – Ask Ryan Lee Bergner what she
thinks of the idea of disarming the law abiding citizen.
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p - Suzanna Gratia Hupp this woman is dead on with her argument
[B]Fact 4[/B]. Over 2,000,000 crimes are deterred annually by legally armed citizens. Again these facts can be verified by FBI crime data.
I am not going to provide you with the links to the FBI crime data because you can easily find it yourself. Also because you won't pay attention to facts as they are presented. I can pretty much with a 99% certainty guarantee you won't even watch any of the videos provided either No you will continue to cower in fear due to ignorance while good honest law abiding citizens are out there protecting you by exercising their right to carry.
The bottom line is you and your agenda are not the solution, you are part of the problem. But you are incapable of admitting or seeing that since you use emotion instead of logic, reason and intelligence guide your through life. Too bad too, you are in a position to actually provide a solution through education, but you chose instead to use fear and ignorance. Just like the last administration did and so the current one will continue to do.
Sincerely a law abiding gun owner
What backs up LAW in general, is the force behind that law..Did you hear that ??The force..We the people MUST maintain the force, or we are of NO effect..Voice & reason mean nothing to some people ,& of late especially those in power..Those in power have arsenals of far more devistating potential, at their disposal..More power than anything I own..The U.S. Constitution was written by the people ,for the people & the Government is upon the peoples' heads, or in other words, of those representatives of the people..IF that head gets out of control it is the people who must defend their own LAW, as to when the head has breached the (peoples'LAW)..Basicly our fathers did not trust human nature in government or they would not have had to draft & impliment the Constitution..The very foundation & beliefs placed in trust to the citizens, are those presented to our government officials in the form of the U.S. CONSTITUTION..The peoples' intent & the formation of a NEW independant NATION founded on these premises, the right of the individual, sometimes supperceeds ,the right of the majority or that of the "STATE" ..IT is called a REPUBLIC..Pledge alliegence To the flag & to the REPUBLIC for which that flag stands..DO you hear me ????Yes voteing is one form of control but when "tyranny" takes over ,citizens must be in control, to reimpliment the RULE of law,that law being the U.S. CONSTITUTION...End of story
The most dangerous people are in Washington D. C. our Capitol..They have shown no mercy to other counties why should I trust them to protect my freedoms ??? I get called on the carpet just for using my rear yard as a work place ..Facing a 2 year possible jail sentence ,I had to plea bargain a lesser crime which I really was not guilty of either, in order to get away from excesive injustice at the District Justice, who imposed & advanced a large fine $$$, with an attached aggrivation statementattached to my lesser charge. After never having a former record & no physical threat or contact..I'm a model citizen all my life & raised a good family, married for 38 years to same woman, and raised 2 honor student girls, pay my taxes & bother no- one.Suddenly I am Criminal for telling a code officer to stay out of my back yard ..So , much for property owner respect & rights ..Yes I need a gun , not for foreign terrorist but my own terroristic neighbors and representatives who abuse their given powers..The police are no friend to me ,they proved themseles unworthy of my respect..I have been fingered for no reason other than They demand I respect a code that I deem ,illegal & unconstutional..PRIVATE property should mean what I think it means & what I was taught from little on up ..I don't need representation that pisses on me & says it's raining for my good..ONLY criminals will have gun if you take the citizens gun..
Does a criminal care about the law? Obviously not. If anyone advocating gun control laws, and/or
complete anti-fun prohibition could understand that no matter how many laws you pass, you will
not stop a criminal from getting what they want, we might not even be having this debate. Go to a
"ghetto" talk to some people, I can assure you, that before the day is over, you will have acquired
a weapon for between 100 and 400 dollars. A criminal doesn't care what laws they are breaking,
all they need to do, is find a source that will supply them with weapons, be it internally from the US
or externally from another country. A person can acquire any type of weapon they want to without
notice, aside from nuclear weapons, and even those are starting to become more widely
accessible.
So should you own a gun? In my opinion yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. No matter
what kind of reasoning you try to support it with, a gun is nothing by a tool, a means to an end. A
person provides the intent. Without the person, you have a tool that serves no purpose. The only
way to remove the intent is to remove the person, not the tool. A weapon comes in many forms,
from a butter knife, to a span of rope used for a garrote, or a baseball bat used to bludgeon.
Should we ban anything and everything that resembles a weapon, or can be used as a weapon?
Might as well ban all forms of writing utensils, because a pen, and pencil can be used to kill
a person. Anything can become a weapon, as long as the person has the will and intent to make
it so.
Banning guns, only serves to prevent those who wish to arm themselves against forces unseen
from gaining access to said protection. A person, has the "right" to use an equal amount of force
as the aggressor is using. Aside from that, my personal belief is that a person should in the face
of danger to life, limb or eyesight, use whatever means of force of escalation within their means, be
it excessive or not, to retain their personage whole and complete. I will not, ever, capitulate to
a gun control law if I feel that, said law violates my personal motivations of protecting my family and
my valuables.
Suppose the CRIMINAL is your own Government ..Who would you fight against ???What is a Criminal ??? IT would be in the USA., anyone going against the U.S. Constitution ..IS there any of that going on ??? Only the citizens can answer that one ,as they are the final say in the matter.ERGO malitia..
I've read through many of the comments, and I thought I would add my own comments to the foray.
First of all, I want to establish that morality plays the primary role in this discussion. Morality is
subjective. What one believes is right, and wrong. These ideas may or may not coincide with what
you or I believe, however they deserve the chance to be voiced. Hitler was viewed as evil to the
majority of the world, though he himself, and his most dedicated of followers, believed that they
were right, and the only thing to prove that they were wrong, was escalation of force. Hitler was
overthrown during WW2 and committed suicide, the only thing that this proved was that we as part
of the Allies, had the might and motivation to prove that our moral standpoint was the right one.
Osama Bin Laden, believes that his actions against the U.S.A. and any supporter of our country, as well as the majority of the countries who do not follow his beliefs, are evil. These are moral
standpoints, and really cannot be argued to totality except through escalation of force.
Having stated such, I currently serve in the U.S. Army, as a soldier, I am required, and proud to
be able to defend my country, and the rights they believe in. Now, defending a person(s) or
countries "rights" is not just a defensive measure. In times of need, when required OFFENSIVE
strategies are required to ensure that a person(s) or entities "rights" are thereby preserved through
the course of time. If we would have known beyond a reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was going to
happen, and stopped the course of events before the 9/11 tragedy occurred, would any of you
sit back a say "Well they didn't pull it off, let's let bygones be bygones."? no, we would not.
We would as we are today, be afraid that something like this would happen, might happen, and
something worse would happen. We would be obligated to go on the offensive and our actions
are justified by the reasoning that a person intends us harm.
Just by being a soldier, I am doing something that less that 1% of the total of the U.S. population
cannot, or will not do. However, against all odds, I hope and pray, that when the day comes, that
a foreign entity decides that they have the audacity to invade the U.S.A., that I will have my fellow
countrymen take up whatever arms they can acquire, be it fully automatic rifles, pistols, grenades,
dynamite, nitroglycerin, or C4 explosive, and help me and my comrades defend what we believe
is right and just. Saying that this will never happen is like saying that 9/11 will never happen. Well,
it happened, and the only thing one needs to do is take an interest in history to notice that the
only thing another country needs to invade another country is greed, envy of what another country
has, that they want for themselves.
My father was military for the majority of my adolescence. He taught me a respect for guns, and
weapons of all nature. I've had, or used a weapon of some type since I was 5 years old. I am now
32 years old. What would I do, if our country decided that a person did not have the "right" to
keep and bear arms? I know what I would do, I would hide my weapons against any search and
seizure, and continue to keep them for purposes of protection, be it defensive or offensive
protection. I will not ever, capitulate to any aggressive entity that will threaten the lives of my family,
or myself, not the property that we have worked hard for.
The question of what they mean to Americans is simple in my experience. It is a matter of taking care of yourself. I do not rely on the government to feed me, drive me to work, tell me what to believe, what to read or what to say so why should I rely on them to protect me? I grew up in the Long Beach and Los Angeles area and I was in college there during the Rodney King Riots and I can tell you that the people who fared the best were the ones who were armed and made sure the looters knew it! I grew up in a household that had many firearms (some of which were fully automatic as my father was with the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement for 30 years). Not once were they ever misused. When the night fell and we could see the fires we readied our arms and kept vigil through the night in case the rioters came near. The police could not help us if someone showed up (the police did a valiant job but were horribly outnumbered). It was up to us and we all knew it. The only restriction I agree with is that automatics should be licensed because in the hands of the unskilled they can have unintended consequence. I do not have a problem with hi-cap mags though as they level the playing field when a civilian comes up against full auto firing felons. I do not believe the police should use full auto either as you should only shoot as quickly as you can aim. Criminals do not have to account for every shot they fire but police do. Give them hi-cap semis just like we civilians have. I have had extensive experience with full auto but would prefer a semi in a fire fight. I worry when the government starts telling me what I can and can not have. They say they want to get guns out of the hands of the criminals, well so do I! But how is limiting the rights of law abiding people going to do that? Criminals break the law - that is why they are called criminals. I would rather have everyone in a room be armed than only have the criminals have weapons.
I'm fine with making it harder for people with criminal records to obtain a waepon, I actually think that's an okay idea; however, banning guns altogether is against the US Constitution. The 2nd amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms and that this right shall never be infringed. The fact that this debate is astonishing to me.
Take the peaceful country of Switzerland for example; they boast one of the lowest crime rates in the world (if not the lowest) due to the fact that everyone is armed. After serving a short term in the army (which I'm not recommending for the US), every man is given a weapon of their choice. So it's kind of hard to rob a convenience store when the clerk has an AK-47 or a M-16 behind the counter, maybe even a rocket launcher if they want.
Guns keep people safe, it's plain and simple. Like the Swiss have found, it's hard to overpower someone when they're packing a .45 on their hip or purse. You have the right to defend yourself and guns are one of the best ways to do that.
Just remember: 2nd amendment. Leave the guns alone.
..and I use it only for target practice. I dont shoot at anything anywhere that is living. Nor do I use it for self defense; after all, it is only a BB gun. I would be safe without it. The gun does give me some recreation; a hobby, if you will.
But I have another gun. This gun could easily kill a person. But I dont use it at all. You see, it was my fathers gun, and I remember him through it. Not that I shoot it; rather, it is a part of my memories of him that I will always remember. It stays in its case, oiled and well taken care of, no ammunition. I dont need to shoot it, but I do need to have it. Not to kill, or maim, or threaten, or even to make me feel safe.
I did learn, under my dads teaching, how to be safe with guns . It teaches you how easily human life could be taken away if you are not safe and careful with guns.
Now, there will always be those people that are not safe; some of them may even turn up in government . It will never be possible to legislate gun ownership such that these people could never own a gun but the rest of us could. Those of us that can handle guns safely should be allowed to do so, even if it is simply a matter of sport or hobby and the target is a beer can, a piece of paper, or a clay pigeon. Those of us that would actually need a gun for safety need to be able to do so without unreasonable intrusion by the government. Regardless, we all need to learn how to handle guns safely, whether we actually own one or not.
Actually, let's examine the second amendment, shall we?
" 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."
So the second amendment says nothing about citizens, but that the right to bear arms belongs to the State's militia. It's not a debate, that's what it says.
So if you want a gun, join the militia. Where you'll be trained in its use and keeping. Which, as you've so graciously pointed out, is exactly what Switzerland does (except they require it of its citizens.. which I would have a serious problem with).
The people have to have the arms for there to be a militia to respond to any enemy, domestic or otherwise.
Second part of the one sentence " The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why do you anti gun people leave out parts of the constitution that you choose to disagree with? A militia is all the males between 18 and what 50yrs? A large portion have been in the military and are trained in the care and use of firearms,to an even greater extent than the police you would depend on. You on the left consider a militia to be no better than terrorists and in the case of socialist countries you may be right. This isn't a socialist country yet, no matter how much you wish it to be unarmed so the left can take over, don't hold your breath waiting for Americans to turn in their guns .
which is it? the people or just all white, land owning males? that's what they meant when they meant "the people." any black people in this argument? you don't count. women? you don't count. not according to this "you're in the militia because you're a person." argument.
maybe you should try reading the rest of the argument - i mean, you appear to be able to read. maybe it's your comprehension skills that need work.
simply being born in the united states does not make you a member of the militia. sorry. it doesn't. not if you think you're free.
second. the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. it doesn't say your right as a non-militia member can't be infringed. it's protecting the right of the militia to maintain weapons.
apparently, your right to a weapon can be infringed. and should be infringed. i'm pretty sure you can think of at least 4 situations where a person should not be allowed to own a weapon. it's not that fucking hard. even you can do it.
third to all this: i have never said i was anti gun that you're own fucking assumption. get over it. not everyone who owns guns thinks they are the cat's meow. and if you really respected your weapon you would understand that the right to a gun doesn't come freely and it is necessary to infringe upon that "right" and place restrictions upon it (but not the militia).
fourth: if you would have read anything at all, you would know that i think you should have to a license to own a gun. be able to prove your trained in the care and use of your weapon. some think that automatically means i think the government should do this. if you would use your brains you would understand that that is not what it means. it actually opens up a whole new private industry sector. maybe that could be you: you train and certify that a person is compentent enough to own a gun, understands how to use it, and isn't a hot-headed bozo that turns red at the word "socialism."
by the way: next time you drive down the fucking road, you might want to reconsider your stance on socialism. also - this country was made collectively. a group of people collectively stood up the government. if it weren't for people joining together, we wouldn't even be here. put that in your gun and fire it.
The “militia” is clearly defined right in the Second Amendment itself…and in the other rights presented in the same document.
The Second uses ‘the PEOPLE”, as do other parts of these rights and documents, and when it does so it MEANS the PEOPLE…the general populace.
*IF* it MEANT anything OTHER THAN the PEOPLE, then the document itself is entire worthless as while it would be acknowledging (rather then ‘giving’ as some erroneously suppose) these rights it would be for NO ONE.no one that matters anyway.
The PEOPLE in this document means the PEOPLE.
Where these ‘rights’ are acknowledged by this document it is clearly the rights of the PEOPLE it IS recognizing.
Thus the 2A’s usage of ‘the PEOPLE’ unequivocally intends to ACKNOWLEDGE that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.
The aforementioned ‘militia’ then, by default, is very easily and very clearly intended and understood, except by all but the blind and play acting Brady spies, to BE ‘the PEOPLE’ of whom are being reference concerning this RIGHT to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
And just WHO did we see bearing arms coming to the defense of this young country ? The PEOPLE!
Common sense.
There…see how easy that was?