I like it when people paraphrase very important statements or ideas. Does anyone know what goes before "right to bear arms"? Anyone?? 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.
Look at this statement. The right to bear arms was stated so that people as apart of a militia could protect our state. This does not mean one should have 2,000 rocket launchers to intentionally cause harm to one's neighbors in his state or country. This means one could keep arms with being apart of a regulated militia.
We should look at our gun laws and reexamine what these laws state. We have laws that state one can not have a firearm with a certain type of grip, or size of magazine, or rate of fire. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. And our representatives should put together crime/gun/law enforcement bills that make sense and have real impact on crime. These are not rights but entitlements we are given with responsibility to use them for good.
Remember columbine high school, what was the number one reason why those two boys killed and wounded their classmates? Their parents not paying attention to their children for they are responsible. NO. The school system for allowing cruelty and bullying on those who seem not like the norm and cause an atmosphere of hate. NO. The answer: Marilyn Manson. Ok, we blame a crappy entertainer, who puts out music not many people listen to, for causing 2 kids to open fire in a high school. Us as americans, human beings, do not like to look in the mirror for the cause or the real answers for any tragedy.
I am sorry to say this wait a couple of years you might see an example of carnage at a university or school that will make the Virginia Tech tragedy look like a picnic.
2007-04-17 09:48:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by greenlantern025 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolutely not. Some problems can't be legislated away, and the human propensity for violence is one of them. The right to bear arms is our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Should the worst happen, and the rest of our rights be revoked, an armed citizenry able to form a militia is the only thing that stands between America and dictatorship. That's why the framers wrote it in, and that's why it's important to keep. With our current President's mishandling and negligence toward constitutional matters, I'd think Democrats would value that second amendment now more than ever. I understand the emotional backlash against guns today- I just feel it's misplaced.
I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, but if handguns were unavailable, there are messier weapons he could have employed. Someone with a desire to cause harm will find a way. No governing body can protect you as well as you can protect yourself. Safety is illusory- complacency is more dangerous to the individual than any nutjob with a pistol.
2007-04-17 08:44:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beardog 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what happen yesterday, even though some will jump on the bandwagon and claim laws should be abolished. Why change the law, only one person is guilty of that tragedy at VT, not every citizen in the US. Criminals and killers will get guns, regardless. So, why should we be forced to change "our right to bear arms", just what the criminals , murders and some politicians want, this way, we can not protect our self in our homes and other places. If that killer at VT had broke into my house or tried to shoot me, he would have been stopped forever immediately. Armed citizens do help prevent a lot more crime than ever covered by the Media. I think if a person is born in the US, has all identification, fingerprinted and can be a hundred percent verified that the person is who they say they are, then they have the right to bear arms, (not anyone with a criminal record) .Any and all others should not. It is our right, not their right. Abolishing or modified regarding "right to bear arms" is exactly what criminals , some politicians and terrorist would love to see happen, so why play into their hands. I say, stand up for our "right to bear arms". A lot more protection for the citizens.
2007-04-17 09:01:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think that modifying or abolishing that right would make no difference at all, because they can be bought illegally, so... it would only be another way of wasting time and money.
But I think that the real problem here is the kind of mentality US society has. The pressure that goes on with the students it´s amazing, all that discrimination it´s what really causes these psicological issues, plus that professors and authorities don´t really pay enough attention to their students to notice that something is wrong with them; and, as we can apreciate, even if they notice something´s wrong, they don´t always do something about it.
Bye!
.
2007-04-18 15:18:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think we should have the right to bear arms, but modify it so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. I don't understand why these people don't want to change this law. America hasn't learned lessons from Columbine or the attack in Texas. "This is such a tragedy to be learned from" is the most popular quote from every single massacre that you'll hear, but this "tragedy" that keeps happening over and over again. In Europe and Canada common folk Have the right to carry hand guns and semi-automatics but under very strict gun laws. Thats why you don't hear some spree killing in those places.
2007-04-17 08:49:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by sonicdarkness 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Yesterday would have happened regardless of gun controls, someone that motivated would have found a way to get a weapon.
These sort of questions always bring out the extremists and you will no dounbt be called a Nazi and get the guns dont kill people etc spurious arguments.
The fact is that whilst your country seems to want to embroil itself in stupid unwinnable wars at monumental tax payer cost it doesnt have the funding to provide cheap or free mental health access so that people can get help and early intervention when they seemingly have no way out of crisis.
The American culture certainly contributes in that it portrays the use of a firearm as an acceptable resolution to issues, and has done so since the early cowboy flms.
Americans really need to ask themselves why they require so many weapons in the public arena. Why does the average Joe need to have access to a 50mm automatic weapon and why is it so available?
So your constituion gives you the right to "bear arms', perhaps your founding fathers were refering to the wearing of a sleeveless waistcoat.
2007-04-17 08:59:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Do you really think that if it were illegal to own guns that the criminals would comply???! There would still be plenty of guns for the criminals and people like the guy from yesterday!! The saying where there is a will there is a way - is 100% true. Taking a defense measure away as well as a deterrent for criminals away from law abiding citizens is UN-American as well as a very very dangerous for the innocent. The gun didn't go up to the person and say I want to go on a rampage just as baseball bats, metal pipes, fireplace pokers, kitchen knives and many everyday items did not do and are used in killings daily. Are we going to make them illegal????????
2007-04-17 08:46:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
No! My history teacher just discussed this with us this morning. The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government... Seriously if they tried changing this law... the innocent people the ones who wouldn't use them unless they needed to protect themselves would suffer. THe people WHO WANT TO KILL people are gonna figure out one way or the other to get the guns or whatever weapon they so chose... So we need the "right to bear arms" to protect us from those wackos... and if someone else carried a gun in there then they could have shot him down and the number would have never been so high!
2007-04-17 08:45:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by boomboombaby 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep a very small army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but not in Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map...
Now, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept... The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli...
I think it's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to TOLERANCE and RESPECT for others. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos. Sane, responsible, educated FREE people do not have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being ...
2007-04-17 08:42:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
How exactly does abolishing the right to bear arms deal with the facts of loonies and a US culture that tolerates gun violence?
Other countries have similar per capita ownership rates & they don't have the problems the US has: the problem doesn't lie with the laws or the gun. It lies with the culture itself. You'll never stop loonies and criminals getting guns so that line of reasoning is spurious.
2007-04-17 08:39:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by russ_in_mo 4
·
3⤊
1⤋