Why Guns?

[Andy B]

Fortunately, we're still a republic, not a democracy. Of course, who knows what we'll be in another decade or so.

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people) have impact on its government.

A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Nor mutually exclusive.

 

[Andy B]

As this has gone on to become a discussion about the rights (of both kinds and wrongs) of gun ownership where in the 2nd amendment does it say that gun ownership is allowed for personal protection, hunting or sport? And for those who say it is to combat tyranny do you belong to a well regulated militia?

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.

 

[poohandwendy]

As this has gone on to become a discussion about the rights (of both kinds and wrongs) of gun ownership where in the 2nd amendment does it say that gun ownership is allowed for personal protection, hunting or sport? And for those who say it is to combat tyranny do you belong to a well regulated militia?

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.

LOL, where does it say gun ownership isn't allowed for personal protection, hunting or sport?

Do you really think our forefathers intended gun ownership to mean ONLY for militia use? It wouldn't have made any sense for them to make a law like that, as guns were a part of their everyday living- for protection and for hunting and sport. They guaranteed our right to not have our guns taken AWAY by the government because they recognized our need to protect ourselves from our government.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

LOL, where does it say gun ownership isn't allowed for personal protection, hunting or sport?

Do you really think our forefathers intended gun ownership to mean ONLY for militia use? It wouldn't have made any sense for them to make a law like that, as guns were a part of their everyday living- for protection and for hunting and sport. They guaranteed our right to not have our guns taken AWAY by the government because they recognized our need to protect ourselves from our government.

Not unlike some people in our country today. Try to survive in parts of Alaska without a gun. There is a good percentage of this state where these people can't drive to the grocery store for a pound of ground chuck.

 

[Andy B]

LOL, where does it say gun ownership isn't allowed for personal protection, hunting or sport?

Do you really think our forefathers intended gun ownership to mean ONLY for militia use? It wouldn't have made any sense for them to make a law like that, as guns were a part of their everyday living- for protection and for hunting and sport. They guaranteed our right to not have our guns taken AWAY by the government because they recognized our need to protect ourselves from our government.

And where does it say it is to protect yourselves from your own government.

 

[poohandwendy]

And where does it say it is to protect yourselves from your own government.

Given the fact that so many died back then to procure this right out from under the thumb of our own tyrannical government, we are all very aware what "being necessary to the security of a free State" means.

The cool thing is that they didn't limit our right to bear arms to the use of protection alone.

 

[Andy B]

Given the fact that so many died back then to procure this right out from under the thumb of our own tyrannical government, we are all very aware what "being necessary to the security of a free State" means.

The cool thing is that they didn't limit our right to bear arms to the use of protection alone.

The revolution was not about this right, it was mainly about your high ups wanting to rule rather than our high ups, and you then in your last sentence seem to turn the main point of the 2nd Amendment to protection rather than that being a side issue to a well regulated militia.

 

[poohandwendy]

The revolution was not about this right, it was mainly about your high ups wanting to rule rather than our high ups, and you then in your last sentence seem to turn the main point of the 2nd Amendment to protection rather than that being a side issue to a well regulated militia.

I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you on the issues of why our nation insisted on independence and what our Constitution guarantees for each individual, as there is a vast chasm of difference of opinion on the most basic points.

But, I will say this for clarification: I never said our revolution was about this right alone. Many died for all of our rights, not just one.

 

[Art Vandalay]

The revolution was not about this right, it was mainly about your high ups wanting to rule rather than our high ups, and you then in your last sentence seem to turn the main point of the 2nd Amendment to protection rather than that being a side issue to a well regulated militia.

The revolution was, indeed, about this right, in part. It was about rejecting a government that imposed its will on the governed. The right to bear arms (not the right to form a well-regulated militia) goes hand in hand with the ideals of the American Revolution.

Note that the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the right to bear arms. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sure, there is a justification provided in the previous clause, but the fundamental right does not depend on that previous clause. The main point of the amendment remains that government ought to be dependent on the people, not the other way around.

 

[Galahad]

And where does it say it is to protect yourselves from your own government.

Federalist papers Nos. 28 and 46, among others.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Federalist papers Nos. 28 and 46, among others.

Along with the fact that the right to bear arms is an amendment in the Bill of Rights. And since the Bill of Rights was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government and protect the rights of it's citizens from said Government...

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Along with the fact that the right to bear arms is an amendment in the Bill of Rights. And since the Bill of Rights was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government and protect the rights of it's citizens from said Government...

I think it's difficult for someone whose country was a nation-builder rather than a country that formed out of a revolution to understand some of these concepts.

 

[fey_spirit]

Don't forget the number of people shot with their own guns, in their won homes by home invaders.

I don't own a gun and wouldn't own a gun. We don't have hunters in our household and as for protection, more people are injured in their own home with their own guns than by home invasions.

 

[fey_spirit]

Unless you can pull the trigger and risk taking another human life with the same lack of hesitation as criminals, you aren't evenly matched even with a gun.

If you are the type who wont be able to pull the trigger when it comes down to it - you're only osculating the situation.

For protection. The criminals are never going to get rid of their weapons and I want to be equally matched.

 

[fey_spirit]

On the other hand I can also show you statistics that state that America with it's second amendment has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

Sad, but true. I can't find the email, but I have seen the stats that show countries who have "taken away" the public's guns and crime goes up. The law abiding citizens give them up, but the evil keep theirs.
We own them for hunting (we eat every bit of the elk) and protection.

 

[fey_spirit]

I think my opinion on this depends upon what you mean by stricter laws.
I am all for supporting the right of every American to own firearms if they so choose. Provided the go through a rigorous set of tests first. I think those test should include everything from psych (are the whacko, and could they use the gun if they had to or would they just be presenting a weapon to an assailant?) What is their criminal record? Have they taken a class on gun safety?

This is why stricter gun laws are a bad thing, or will never work.

 

[Christopher Robin]

For those "don't own guns, never will, no one should be allowed to own them, yadda yadda yadda" types...

Would you be willing to put a sign on your front door stating that there are no guns in your house?

PS This is a question for US Citizens only.

 

[fey_spirit]

Ok we can't just start deciding we don't need constitutional rights. That's a slippery slope straight to a hot place I don't believe in. I mean what next? We've come a long way and we don't need the freedom of religion? Or of Expression?

We've come a long way since our founding fathers saw the need for the right of individuals to bear arms. I think it's a right we don't need.

 

[fey_spirit]

Yeah - this is the kind of thing that makes some folks think some people shouldn't have guns...

Then you're more than welcome come and try to take my guns from me.

 

[poohandwendy]

Yeah - this is the kind of thing that makes some folks think some people shouldn't have guns...

Why? Why is it a problem that an American says they will fight for their rights? You wouldn't fight for your rights? You would just hand them over?

I am not afraid to state that I absolutely would fight for my rights, with violence if necessary. That does not mean I am a homicidal maniac or that I would harm an innocent person. Or that I am bloodthirsty. I would die for my country, I would die for my rights. I would use a gun, a hammer, my hands if need be. This isn't a new American concept. And it's certainly not an exclusively American sentiment.

It's your kind of thinking, IMO, that makes some of us folks feel that our rights need protection now more than ever. It scares the hell out of me that so many would hand over their rights without a fight.