The times are so drastically different when the Constitution was written. I'm no gun expert but I don't believe our forefathers had automatic rifles and guns that could shoot so many rounds a second. Just asking the question...
2007-05-20 02:55:21 · 9 answers · asked by Splitters 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Wow..alot of great, cogent responses. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I think this issue, like right to life vs. right to choose, will be debated forever.
2007-05-20 03:44:45 · update #1
There is nothing wrong with the right to bear arms. Its the interpretation and omission of the rest of the phrase about the well regulated militia that has had the impact of every nut job in America packing and carrying. Recently a ten month old baby was granted a license. He must have been a genius. There is no point in retooling or rethinking gun control, too many people have access to them to ever think that only criminals will have them. Maybe its our history, but we are far more concerned with allowing arms than with the dozens of deaths and injuries that occur each day by accident, attempted suicides and criminal activity by gun, than we are with the rest of the people in the country who would rather not have them given to crazies and angry husbands. No, our forefathers did not have automatics, I guess they must have been better shots than those men who think they need an Uzi to bag their buck. Neither did we have the crime rates then that we do now. Or the nut jobs on the loose as we do now.
Times change, but the NRA doesn't, and they wield considerable influence, it doesn't seem that their safety program is as good as it should or could be. If they are going to insist on arming America then they should have more responisibility for insisting on gun locks or training.
2007-05-20 03:13:00 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the purpose of "the right to bear arms" is to allow the people to effectively resist oppression by the government.
In many foreign nations, owning a gun is strictly limited.
Example: in Honduras, only a citizen may own a gun. It is for adults only and they must pass a government mandated firearms safety course first. The government keeps records of who owns all (legal) guns.
Do you see the possibility here? Suppose a government comes to power that wishes to oppress the people [or some portion of them]. With a record of all guns owned, they could simply have the Army go around and collect all the guns and then would be free to impose whatever 'laws' they wish since the Army would then have a monopoly on all effective firepower.
By contrast, the US system is that all adults not legally prohibited may own guns and that only negative records are kept. Who legally owns the vast majority of US guns is unknown to anyone as there are no records. Aside from physically searching for 200 million guns, how could a potential dictator seize all the weapons to assure his continued monopoly (and abuse) of power?
2007-05-20 10:13:06 · answer #2 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
to the best of my understanding, when the forefathers wrote about the right to bear arms, they did mean "arms" as in "coat of arms". this is traditionally the "guns over the fireplace" thing. the guns could be used to kill and whatever. but it was set as a consititutional right because under british monarchy this was outlawed for the majority of people because of the threat of rebellion.
when the forefathers wrote about the right to bare arms, they did not refer to people having the right to carry around weapons with the intent and capacity for killing many people.
on a side note i do like the Family Guy take on it - the right to own the arms of a bear. grammatically it makes just as much sense.
2007-05-20 10:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by Sierra 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Remember Virginia Tech? Two semi-automatic handguns were used, not a 500 round per minute machine gun.
2007-05-20 10:01:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guns don't kill people without a disturbed person on the trigger. It isn't a gun "control" problem...Controlling guns will only limit access to those who own them legally. When a person chooses to take a life, they will take use what ever is at hand. Many have been killed before guns were invented.
2007-05-20 10:07:18 · answer #5 · answered by My Answer For What Its Worth 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i"m not a gun expert either, but I do think "the right to bear arms" is not being used in the manner it was written for. Since when do yu need a AK47 to hunt with?
2007-05-20 10:03:45 · answer #6 · answered by Tina G 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Taking our guns is the government saying they can protect us. well they cant, lets say Iran gets a nuclear weapon and attacks Israel, then Israel attacks them, nuclear war in the middle east, oil flow stops, the worlds economy stops, anarchy sets in, I will PROTECT my family with my GUNS. YOU will be a victim.
2007-05-20 10:01:36 · answer #7 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wise choice, pass the gun law then keep bars open an extra hour. were they looking for trouble
2007-05-20 10:04:56 · answer #8 · answered by arizonaprincess2 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it works quite well as it is.
2007-05-20 11:39:45 · answer #9 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋