Why are Americans not willing gun control laws?

Question

We seem to accept other laws that violate the Consitution. For example, the Patriot Act and Military Commisions Act violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. We seem to give these away freely. Why are we not protecting all 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, instead of just one?

Answer 1

I believe this will answer you question...
Five Reasons To Deny
911 Was An Inside Job
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
2-25-7


1.Comfort.

Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.

Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice

Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction

Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion

A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.
Aging iconoclast, antiwar leftist, touchy-feely environmentalist and admirer of pioneers, eccentrics and free thinkers, Douglas Herman wrote the slow-moving crime novel, The Guns of Dallas, available at www.amazon.com.

Answer 2

The point of the second amendment was the England originally did come for the colonist armories.

Americans want their guns because they feel safer with them. Also it is a HUGE deterrent for a thief if they know there is a gun already in the home they are about to break in. They will look for the easiest target not the ones that will get them shot.

Reasonable restrictions on obtaining guns isn't an issue for most people. There should be background checks, but they could say the same thing about cars they can be a lethal weapon too.

As far as the Patriot Act and the Military commissions act, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" but Ben Franklin didn't know what a Nuclear weapon was. If there is a chance that I could save potentially millions of lives by depriving a suspected terrorist of his liberties. I am sorry it is in the good interest of the nation. If I am wrong then, I will gladly take my punishment.

The Patriot Act doesn't cover monitoring civilians unless they have contacts with known/suspected terrorist.

That is probable cause. It is like if the police see you talking to a known drug dealer on the streets and they watch and see if you continue or if you were just someone who didn't know what they were doing.

Answer 3

I agree to a point. But the Patriot Act does not go against the constitution... The government has to obtain a warrant to search and seize, The president got his warrant to search... And the constitution has loop holes that they can use to their advantage. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that when they wrote it to leave things for future interpretation to adjust with the changes and needs of the time. Sometimes you have to find away around things to protect other rights. And that is what was done for instance with the Patriot Act. It looks like they want to "Spy" on the American citizens, But when it stops a major terrorist attack against this country then you won't be looking at it as such a bad thing will you? Don't worry they aren't looking for people who have something bad to say about their boyfriend or boss. And you can say President Bush is Stupid, A murder or that he went into Iraq for the wrong reasons 100 x a day and they won't care one bit... Just don't say you are going to blow up government buildings or start a jihad against the country and you will have nothing to worry about.

Answer 4

The American people are way too trusting of the government, and sometimes ignorant to what this legislation can do. They seem to have "I'm not doing anything wrong so let the government spy on me." The government says that it needs this power to "protect" us from the enemy, so we give it to them, and then they expand their "emergency powers" to the point to where they are in complete and total control. Because once the government gains these "emergency powers" very rarely will they go away. We tend to forget this is how Hitler came to power. Sadly we as Americans have the attitude that it will never happen here, when it is happening right in front of our noses. As far as guns, they think they will have a way to fight back against the government. Which for the most part is true, however when the government can come into your house whenever it wants and declare you an enemy combatant then lock you up, then what good are the guns? If a majority of the people choose to remain ignorant and let the government eradicate their rights, then what good are guns going to be? We give these rights up because of fear. In my opinion, we have already surrendered too many of our rights up to and including gun rights.

Answer 5

If you are against violating any of the Bill of Rights, you certainly must stand against gun control laws too.

We do not accept the Patriot Act freely. It is small beans compared to what was done during WWII to protect national security against internal enemies. We must understand that government's first priority is to defend the Right to Life, just as it says in our founding document. In an emergency, we grant temporary powers outside the Constitution in order to survive.

Answer 6

Not honestly antagonistic to "gun manage" legislation nonetheless the FACT of the problem is that right here within the United States we have already got legislation at the books that cope with EVERY imaginable crime that may be dedicated with a firearm and the powers that be comfortably fail to put into effect them. For illustration for the duration of President Clinton's time period in workplace his Attorney General Janet Reno got here out and instructed the general public that they (Clinton Administration) had stopped over 250,000 convicted felons from obtaining firearms. Now that is all good and well in view that it is a violation of Federal legislation for a felon to even try to acquire a gun BUT whilst you regarded into the details of the problem fewer than one thousand of the ones 250,000 convicted felons have been prosecuted for that crime. Why hassle passing extra legislation whilst you do not use the equipment already to be had to you ? I'm fifty two years historic, I've been a gun proprietor in view that I was once 12 years historic. I possess dozens of firearms and but within the forty years I've owned them I've certainly not as soon as dedicated against the law with them. All the brand new gun legislation being proposed right here within the US do definitely NOTHING to deal with the crook use of firearms so one has to invite why are they seeking to move legislation as a way to do NOTHING to lessen crime. I have got to query the highbrow potential of individuals who blame firearms for crime. When we've a inebriated motive force will we blame the alcohol or the vehicle? No, we maintain the individual responsible. When I misspell a phrase on Y/A do I blame the laptop or am I in charge? If you consume an excessive amount of and placed on weight do you blame the spoon or do you admit that YOU ate an excessive amount of?

Answer 7

why don't we care about those other rights? Many of us do care however the majority simply don't pay much attention. The Patriot Act was pushed through congress because of it's creative name and the fear of the times. It's a perfect example of why you should never give in to fear and pass more laws giving away your freedoms. Once the government gets a little bit of your freedom it tends to try to take more and more. Look at income tax for example. Hopefully in the future American citizens will become more aware of the political situation and look at what is going on with their liberties.

Answer 8

If we give up our guns, then only the criminals will have the guns. A small town near me had many home invasions, (the crime rate prior to that only amounted to traffic violations)when the Mayor suggested that all homeowners buy guns.It was posted in the newspaper that most homes had guns, there were no home invasions. That was 7 years ago!

Answer 9

Becuase our rights are not being violated!
no one is listening to my phone calls, Because I don't call anyone in one of the countries known for Terrorist activities, and because the gun control laws we have should be enough, any more would make it more difficult for lawabiding people to own guns, while criminals would still have guns and aren't affected at all by the new proposals

Answer 10

maybe because every society during recorded history that removed their rights to keep and bear arms was followed by governmental total control and take over of the citizenry

Answer 11

I accept gun control (hitting what I am at) means I have great gun control, and don't need stupid laws for that