What is the deal with Gun Control?

Question

I was wondering why gun control is supported so much today in America. From an etymological/syntactic approach to the Constitution (I am a linguist) you can't really get by saying the Constitution only permits miltitias to have guns. That clause is explanatory at best, and adds to the powers at worst (certainly not a restrictive clause.) Also I don't think that more gun control lowers gun-related crime rates (at least that's what I have heard/seen studyings concluding that.) Also it is your own responsibility to protect yourself (think New Orleans - no police force after Hurricane). Furthermore, what happens when somebody like Hitler takes over? He did it legally in Germany, and he openly admitted to restricting gun ownership rights in Germany to avoid an armed struggle related to his takeover. Could someone please expand the the prior issues from an objective (<== key world there) standpoint.

Hitler restricted private gun ownership, not military gun ownership. Also, I don't see where you're going with the "well-regulated militia" argument, we don't have militias any more. Also, of course deer rifles aren't going to defeat a modern army, that's the argument for legalizing machine guns/assault rifles.

Information_police, you make a good point, but I would argue that you should be allowed to own whatever you want as long as you don't use it to kill/hurt/intimidate someone.

coragryph, good argument. I might disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by invoking the 10th but I don't know if I can do that as I am not incredibly familiar with Constitution law. Good points though.

Answer 1

well you may think that less guns will not result in less gun related deaths, but you'd be wrong.

nations like the UK, canada and japan, have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths as the usa.

as a crazy coincidence, they also have far fewer guns.

but you 'think' what you want.

in the mean time, i'll just sit here and marvel at what passes for logic these days...

Answer 2

Philosophically -- the right to have firepower makes people feel safer -- because they think having guns gives them the ability to defend themselves.

Against other private citizens -- that may even be true. Against organized crime, let alone the federal govt -- there is now way the individual weapons of private citizens will ever be able to stand up against the military hardware. So, it's not really any protection against govt control.

As for the "militia" argument -- currently, all but two federal circuits use that collective rights interpretation. But more importantly, the 2nd Amendment (like the 7th) only applies to federal laws -- it was never incorporated against the states, so it doesn't limit state gun control.

But the legal arguments aside -- it's a matter of some people wanting to feel safe by having weapons -- and some people wanting to feel safe by limiting weapons.

Answer 3

While I agree with the fact the that gun control laws are rather arbitrary, after all most gun crimes other crimes of passion are commited using illegal firearms.

However i did want to point out that the nazi regime did not put the gun control laws in to place. This seems to be a common misconception. The law was put into place by the weimer republic in 1919 as they were trying to put down dissidents after the war. The law was later relaxed to something that is less than what we now see in america. Ther nazi regime did extend the gun control laws in 1938 but this was after they were firmly in power.

Now for a word of caution. The gun registry laws did allow the nazis to know who had guns, thus they knew who to disarm. A great help in pacifying a nation.

Answer 4

There are a lot of rights granted in the constitution and none of them come without restrictions and responsibilities.

You have freedom of speach but you can't use it to incite a riot, or to cause panic. If you slander someone you can be sued for damages.

You have freedom of religion, but you cannot refuse to let your child have a life-saving blood transfusion because it is against your religion. You can't perform human sacrifices because it is your religion, etc.

And so on with all rights.

Every reasonable person supports some restrictions on gun ownership. Pretty universally, people don't want insane people or conficted felons to own guns. The NRA lobbied for and got a background check system put in place.

Some extremists want all guns removed just as some other extremists would allow anyone to own anything they want, including artillery weapons. Everyone else is between there someone arguing fine points.

Answer 5

I don't see how you could interpret the 2nd amendment that way. A militia is a "well-regulated" body of men. That means officers, rifles secured at night, marching and discipline.

Hitler did not restrict guns. You go look at any picture of Hitler in a crowd and there are guns everywhere. How do you explain that? Germany had more guns than anyone.

Nobody with deer rifles and hand guns is going to defeat a modern army. That's a pretty silly argument.

Gun control is really about the TYPE of weapons people should own or not own. Nobody needs an assault rifle or a mortar or a machine gun---nobody.

Answer 6

I even have reported it till now, and that i incredibly mean it now - in the event that they ban weapons, the government would be overthrown or i visit die attempting. they gained't take them from me together as i provides up them - era! yet another concept for the gun administration supporters - I won't enable myself to be cornered too quickly, which skill it relatively is you i flow after first!

Answer 7

Gun control is supported by freedom haters and idiots.

Answer 8

Fear controls liberty.