Gun Control?

Question

John Adams spoke in favor of “arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” (a) Which side of the gun control debate is more likely to cite this quote? (b) How might individuals on the other side respond?

Answer 1

The framers of the constitution intended that the private citizen should be able to buy any and all weapons owned by the government. Of course they never dreamed of the weapon systems available today. I am not sure they would allow the US Military to have some of them. NBC comes to mind!

Answer 2

There is a mountain of researchable writings by the Framers regarding their feelings about the citizenry having arms. It is all strongly in favor of such. Only in modern times do we have people in government who argue vociferously against the People having the right to keep and bear arms. Some even make the specious claim that the Second Amendment is there to protect the government's ability to keep guns! (How ludicrous would it be for such a thing to be found in the Bill of Rights, which exists to protect the rights of individual citizens?)

A) Clearly, this is an argument that would be used by those favoring the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

B) Those on the other side (the wrongheaded anti-gunners) would claim that the 2nd Amendment is outdated because the Framers knew nothing about AR-15s and Glocks and such. They would claim, falsely, that the wording of the amendment attaches the right to keep and bear arms to service in the National Guard (which did not exist until like a hundred years after the amendment was written). They would claim that there is no longer any need for citizens to keep arms for the purpose of opposing a tyrannical government. Why? Because that battle is already lost, since the government has tanks, F-15s, B-1s, nukes, etc. So what they're actually saying is that nothing can ever stop the U.S. government from becoming totalitarian, not even a population of 300,000,000 in which 80,000,000 own guns and many are ex-military with training and familiarity with weapons and tactics.

The fact is that while many say that we couldn't possibly go up against our own government, our own government's military is made up of citizens. Would those citizens drop bombs on Main Street, USA just because some whacko president or Congress said to? Can the military live inside their tanks and planes, or would they have to come out sometime and be vulnerable to guerrilla warfare? How long would the government maintain support by the citizenry after it started to wage war against average Americans?

We can't even get rid of the insurgents in Iraq, who are far fewer in number than the 80M+ gun owners in the U.S.A., in a country smaller than Texas. And you people think that the U.S. military would vanquish an armed popular insurrection?! You must be crazy.

Answer 3

people who want gun control aren't going to use this quote because they are all for the totally defenseless citizen. who can't even begin to fight back against gov. control. or any other kind of aggression like the guy with the knife who wants your money and will probably stick you even if you give it to him.i personally feel that guns can stop . this case right there by pulling a gun the odds are the guy with the knife runs away and if not gets shot and therefore prevents him from doing it again. and saves the person from getting stabbed . police aren't there when it's happening so how can they do anything? you could possibly call them after the incident but to what effect?they're not going to find the guy unless you shot him in the leg and he ran away then they will probably catch up with him at the hospital.which you will be going to as well. if you let him stab you you 'll be going to the morgue. the right to carry lets the outlaws wonder who is and who isn't carrying a gun and just that in itself is enough to deter lots of crime .and say you're eating at Mcdonald's and some nut comes in with a gun and starts shooting people. won't it make your day when someone who's got the right to carry shoots him and stops him before he turns the gun on you or your kids ? as far as the other side goes i feel they are just after total control. they don't feel we're responsible enough to defend ourselves.they haven't been to england where people are killed every day because their gov. dosen't trust them with a gun so the only people there with guns are the criminals .look at england and see what gun control gets you. gun control. i believe is being able to hit your target and not an innocent bystander. besides that if i want to kill someone a gun is just the fastest way maybe you'd rather get the butter knife ? maybe we could outlaw the use of steel . then the killers in society would be coming at you with baseball bats .Id rather be shot at least its quicker.killers should be hung by the neck until dead as long as there's no question of their being guilty. thats also quite a effective deterent.

Answer 4

gun control

Answer 5

a. The side that is opposed to gun control.

b. Murmer, Mutter, MUTTER, murmer, murmer, murmer. Okay, we have decided that the statement of Mr. Adams is in fact irrelevent, since Mr. Adams was clearly referring to the arms of the offender, held in the hands of the citizens, not guns or other weapons. Next topic!

Answer 6

The whole "right to bear arms" and "militia" bit has no relevance in the gun control argument. The only way any individual could stand up to a modern army is if they were armed with tanks, and fight-bombers, and nuclear missiles. That is beyond the means of individuals.. and should be kept that way.

Answer 7

(b)How might individuals on the other side respond? I guess you are referring to the socialist democrats with a communist agenda. They will put thier hands over thier ears, go to screaming, try to out shout you, or revert to yelling obscenitys and name calling to keep from facing the truth, thats how they respond.

Answer 8

right to bear arms, who would argue with?
Even if you did take everyones guns away, then knives would be the weapon of choice. Still have the very same issue,which people attacking other people with a different weapon.

Guns dont kill people, peoples intentions kill people.

Answer 9

Your damned if you do and damned if you don't, regardless of which side you take on this topic.