The Iraqi highway of death and the American right to bear arms?

Question

With the sophistication of modern ordinance, as demonstrated by the Iraqi highway of death, how can the right to bear arms and huge social cost that it causes be justified?
After the British forces defeated the American ones in 1815 and burnt the American white house, I guess they don’t have to prove a thing. I cant see Canada invading again, and Mexico seems to have given up on getting California and Texas back. So who exactly are the guns to defend against?
Is it that American’s are so conservative that they regard the American constitution as a perfect document and can’t be change?

The reality is that if you take away legal guns the pool of illegal guns reduces, it has happened else where it would happen in the usa

Answer 1

First of all, there is no relationship between the right to keep and bear arms, and the "Highway of Death" during the 1991 Gulf War.

The entire basis of the U.S. Constitution is this: The Government does not grant rights to the people. The people are endowed with rights from birth, and no government may take them away. The people grant powers to the government. The government is a servant of the people, not the other way around.

If the Government should become corrupt, the people have the right to take back the powers granted, and the right to bear arms is the ultimate guarantee that the people have the ability to enforce their will.

This was all laid out in one on the Federalist Papers. THe Federalist Papers were published in newspapers during the time that ratification of the new constitution was being debated. Most were written by Alexander Hamilton himself. They are the untimate authority as to the intentions of the founding fathers. The relavant document for this discussion is Federalist #29.

The Constitution is by no means a perfect document. The founding fathers anticipated the need for occasional adjustments, and included a means to amend the constitution. Don't expect the United States to EVER abandon the Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms.

Answer 2

I guess the theory is that the guns are to protect us from the government if it "gets out of hand". (But I can't imagine anyone being able to stand up to this government [other than the citizens of OTHER countries when their equilibium is disturbed by the United States trying to cram its version of democracy down their throats]--just figuring out who or what is running things would stymie most folks; our government is a tangle of bureacracy.)
Oh yeah, I forgot--the guns are also to defend against those who would try to take things from the survivors of a nuclear war--things that they've been hoarding for years.
You know, the drafters of our Constitution realized that many things could change in the future, and they built in all sorts of safeguards, like the ability to pass amendments, to change the laws, to change the very Constitution if need be. And many times the people of this country have seen fit to change things--usually for the better. (Even tho' we couldn't get an Equal Rights Amendment passed....oh well, read other people's comments about Mrs. Clinton and you'll see that we don't think too highly of women here----unless you're an idiot like Ann Coulter.)
If you've read any of the questions and answers in the section on Immigration, you will have seen that California and Texas DO fear a take-over by Mexico---oooppss, no that's wrong; they fear a take-over by Mexicans!
Thanks again for a well thought out question. Maybe someday we will stop being so immature and self-centered in this country...but I'm not holding my breath waiting.

edit: I agree that the guns WERE meant to insure the people's control over the government, but, seriously folks, what good would they do now? We can't even agree on the simplest matters, let alone gather enough people to overthrow the government. (which, by the way, IS already corrupt!!!!) The only way we can "change" things is at the ballot box, and I'm afraid that that has become a toss-up between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber every four years. (I really like the systems in countries where, if you lose confidence in the govt., you call for an election-be it 1 year or ten since the last election.)
If guns were illegal, and the law was actually enforced, eventually most guns would be gone; other countries have done it, but Americans are too stubborn and childish to try.

Answer 3

Let's be pragmatic for a moment. If guns were now outlawed, would they suddenly disappear? Clearly not. Perhaps the country would have been better had they never been so widely and freely distributed, perhaps not, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I have no problem with registering guns, particularly handguns, but banning them is a ridiculous fantasy that would accomplish precisely nothing. Reality trumps fantasy every time.

And I agree - I don't see any connection between the the gun issue and the highway of death.

Answer 4

I am a liberal who supports conservatives in their view to maintain and respect the Second Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and for exactly the same reason they do: it is one of the very few controls the citizenry has on Big Government. Big Government has run amok with power and laws and prisons and punishment and overturning the Bill of Rights--the gun in the closet is a silent reminder to all that real power really does reside in the people.

Answer 5

Because the bill of rights had nothing to do with protecting us from other countries.

Please read the preamble. It is specifically to protect us FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Also, there is no such thing as reducing the pool of illegal guns by reducing the pool of legal ones. By making guns illegal you have increased the pool of ILLEGAL guns by that very logic.

You have to realize that our own government is more dangerous than any foreign enemy ever has been.

Germany, the Jews were German....So were the retarded people, and the people who opposed Hitler... Look how it turned out for them to give up their guns.