The Founding Fathers of the USA, in their wisdom, saw fit to enshrine the inalienable right of citizens to own firearms. Sadly, that has not stopped many fools in the US from trying to attack and abolish our 2nd Amendment. Good thing we have worthy organizations like the NRA and others who will fight tirelessly to defend out rights.
But what about other nations that call themselves "free"? Australia used to be a free nation, but then they went and gave up their right to own firearms. And the UK also, it's sad how far the Brits have fallen :(
2006-12-22 19:52:39 · 22 answers · asked by robertbdiver 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Most of Europe is like this too. Except Switzerland, where you will find a rifle in every household.
2006-12-22 19:54:05 · update #1
For one thing you answered your own question. You said, "They gave up the right to own firearms." They werent forced or taken away, they chose to do so.
Australia and the UK do not base their countries freedoms on the same Bill of Rights as we do either.
2006-12-22 19:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by tmills883 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
DADACOOLO, YOU ARE FULL OF IT, every nation, city , state or territory that has kept records show that by taking the peoples guns crime has increased,so where do you get your information?? statistics show that before any country is taken over , first the guns are all registered then they are confiscated, such as Poland, checx, Romania, Finland, just to name a few our forefathers wanted the gov, to fear the people , not the people fear the gov, that is the reason behind wanting the people to have arms and for the 2nd amendment, period, so don't come on with this ignorant B.S. YOU KNOW WHAT THE SCORE IS,
not any of our constitution is worth a damn unless we honor the 2nd so we can defend the rest of them, and no counry is free without its guns even then it becomes debateable,
ted t and melbourn you are both wossies, if you want to save lives do away with cars, they cost more lives than all things combined, what about bath tubs ? compare them with gun deaths, skate boards, bikes, swimming pools, how man other things should I mention to convince you , also how many lives did the guns save? during that time? I happen to agree with old Ben Franklin anyone who would give up a freedom for security deserves neither,
2006-12-22 20:28:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
What the hell does owning a firearm have to do with "being free?"
Hey, I could care less; go buy the biggest ordinance you can fit through the front door, Rambo.
Point is, very, very few people have the skill, the reflexes, the presence of mind or the opportunity to draw and use a weapon in a crunch situation. Hell, I know a bunch of hunters who couldn't hit a bull in the *** with a shotgun, and you want more people to own firearms?
Whatever.
Just leave the real police work to the professionals.
Besides, even if you're talking about owning a firearm out of fear of the government turning repressive and facsist, just remember places like Waco, TX. The government has got bigger and a lot more guns than your little pea-shooter.
2006-12-23 00:44:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I have read the 2nd amendment and I can't seem to find where it says "FIREARMS" . . . I believe it states "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." Now, I have no idea who it is that you are rambling about, but the true issue is not to abolish the second amendment, but to use common sense in choosing what "ARMS" should be left in the hands of our citizens.
Nuclear weapons are ARMS and I am sure we would not want our neighbor next door to have one hanging on their living room wall. . .On the other hand, a "Slingshot" may not be much protection. . . or a good tool to go hunting big game with. So, it is my guess that the issue is not to ban the 2nd amendment, but to realize, that a line must be drawn somewhere between the two when stating we can "BEAR ARMS".
This is where the "Debate" comes in and where the NRA (who is in it for the gold) meet those with a rational thought process and concern for the public's safety clash. I own guns, (small caliber for home protection, where if I fire it, it won't go through my house and kill my neighbor) and I think the NRA is totally concerned with just the cash end, and without any concern for the right of the people to feel safe, when guns can be easily obtained by uneducated idiots. And as unfortunate as it is, some of these idiots want really big guns with enormous power to make up where nature had short changed them. . . Their brains!
2006-12-22 20:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by zambranoray 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
When will Americans stop worshiping the Founding Fathers? I mean, after all they were human like all of us, and the laws they established where not timeless (a that time they have to defend themselves against imperialist powers as well as the Natives). Personally, I just think that firearms do not promote freedom in any kind of way; rather, what they promote is the American economy: the USA is among the biggest exporters of guns and overseas, no one besides cops, soldiers, and sometimes hunters - not a big economic market - is allowed to own weapons; however, since they have their own people who have been familiarized with firearms through their history and lifestyle, it becomes easy to promote the possession of guns by pretending that doing so expresses the American sense of freedom. But we all see the truth every morning on the news, in our streets, in statistics: guns kill and that's it.
2006-12-23 14:24:48 · answer #5 · answered by cocaisawmd 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A nation cannot be free if they don't allow citizens to defend their lives and property from criminals... using the most effective tool for the job. Quite frankly, focusing on firearms is a red herring, because usually it is just a symptom of a society that says "the average citizen can't be trusted to make good decisions on their own".
I haven't researched the issue, but it occurs to me that the degree of "government health care" and "firearm restrictions" tend to be closely related. I lived in Florida for some time and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon - and in 3 years never used that gun for anything other than target practice. I also had to buy my own health insurance.
Now I'm back in Canada, where I'm not allowed to even own a handgun, let alone carry it. And I'm also not allowed to buy my own health insurance - I have to subscribe to the crummy government version or do without entirely. (I have chosen to do without - I don't knowingly receive stolen property).
Anyone that rants about no legitimate need for firearms should ask the next cop he sees why he carrys one.
The purpose of firearms restrictions are either to immediately reduce the chance of resistance to a dictatorship, or to further reduce the citizenry into a state of dependency on the government - similiar to publicly funded health care.
If a person can be trusted to drive a car, he can be trusted to properly handle a firearm. And if he can't be trusted to properly handle a firearm, then why the hell isn't he in prison where he belongs - because he'll just use whatever's available, maybe even his car, which is much more dangerous.
Similarly, the distinctive feature about the Canadian government's attitute to firearms is not that they are restricted - or prohibited in many cases - but that self-defense itself is SEVERLY restricted. There was a fairly recent case in London, Ontario where three men broke into an apartment with intent to rob. The sole occupant grabbed an ordinary kitchen knife and stabbed one of the assailants, driving all three off. He was charged with murder.
How dare you defend yourself, you belong to us, so that's our job.
In the recent Montreal shootings, everyone had to scramble to hide from the shooter until a cop with a gun showed up and put an end to the spree. How many lives would have been saved if an ordinary citizen with a gun had been present... And would the yahoo even showed up if he thought there MIGHT have been someone with a gun to stop him.
One of the most surprising things about owning and carrying a firearm was the sense of responsibility that that created. But only free societies have any use for responsible people.
It must be terrible to live in such fear of your fellow citizens that you can't bear the thought of any of them owning a gun.
2006-12-22 21:45:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Simple fact: the states and cities with the strictest gun laws and lowest LEGAL ownership of firearms are the same states and cities with the highest crime rates, see Washington D. C. and New York City. The states with carry concealed laws have all had a drop in violent crime rates. Simple facts to look up
Comparing Countries like Canada and Australia with the US is not comparing Apples to Apples. Their population is approx the size of a couple of our states. If we are going to compare then you would have to isolate which states you were going to compare. Compare NY and California and we still have a lot more crime. Sorry their the ones with the strict gun laws aren't they? Compare Most Mid Western states and they have a very similar crime rate. And they allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. Maybe it is the people that live there?
2006-12-22 20:43:30 · answer #7 · answered by mark g 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
People you are a ignorant fool if you think owning a firearm is 'penile envy'.
Owning a gun for self protection has saved my own life twice, and has saved my families life multiple times. (In 3 cases it resulted in the death of the person breaking into my home).
In other cases it scared them off or made them give up.
One of the deaths resulted from the burgler trying to get the gun from me (he had a rifle), Fortunately I was a better shot than he was.
Those of you that think its wrong will proabbly change your mind when your loved ones (or u) are either robbed or raped or family members killed by a burgler.
2006-12-25 03:08:25 · answer #8 · answered by pcreamer2000 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your right to carry arms has cost, and still does, many innocent lives. I believe the figure for children accidentally killed by firearms is pretty staggering and that can be attributed to this crazy idea that you can protect yourselves and your country by everybody carrying a gun.
In Australia the figure for deaths from firearms has dropped by 6% per annum since the restrictions were introduced.
If you look at the most recent figures for deaths from firearms America is at least 8 times worse than anywhere else in the developed world.
Get rid of your guns and let more of your people live.
2006-12-22 20:17:17 · answer #9 · answered by Ted T 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
People harm or kill people, not firearms. Firearms, ownership should not be alterated or done away with in America. NRA is a great organization because it protects a right been around for over 200 years.
UK crime gone up with less firearms, and criminals do not give up firearms.
2006-12-22 20:25:01 · answer #10 · answered by ram456456 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋