If gun ownership deters crime, why do criminals who own guns commit crimes?
I can see it now…criminals driving around looking for the big sign that says…“unlocked firearms inside” Hurry no one is home. I’m sure most of the time when a scum bag steals a firearm from a home its just luck. Responsible owners should have their firearms secured.
yah they should ban then and only let cops us them
lots more people are died cause guns they need to ban them from the streets
Welcome to the forum WWIIfreak…
If firearms are banned…WHY would the cops need guns? If guns are not an effective means of self-defense, why would the police carry them?
I dunno, because they are stupid? and usually, they employ their weapons against other criminals when making deals of the sort criminals make.
And police having guns is not too comforting either, in many large metro areas, the cops are at least in part, as crooked as the goons.
This is another unanswerable thread, there will never be a conclusion to it, Each country has their way, and they are blessed,and welcome to what they choose for themselves. That goes for us here in the U.S. as well. we have it our way, and believe that free people must take the down side of freedom along with the up side of it. Which is why the majority of laws governing civil behavior act upon those who violate the laws, not those who are in harmony with it. We would rather allow a guilty person to go free, than to wrongly convict an innocent person. Now, off i go, I have to gas up my tank,
So if large numbers of people die due to others’ use of an inanimate object, the objects concerned should be banned, right ?
yes. Look at Japan for example.
I don’t think I will change any minds here about firearms ownership and really dont want to but maybe these videos will enlighten some of you to the way the average American thinks about their guns. Take a 1/2 hour and watch this and in my opinion it will give you an insight into the American experience of firearm ownership.
I miss Charles…RIP
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULr1p4DZh8
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFRx-QoIKBM&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwH4oZOA8YY&feature=related
NO,it means that those people who misuse inanimate objects, what ever they may be, knives, cars, crowbars (or the favorite murder weapon of Chicago, the claw hammer) to commit crimes, particularly crimes involving violence will be "Banned"as they are the weapon, the object is just an end effector. And to have them placed in an appropriate facility for many years to enjoy the company of many others who feel as they do.
Well guys, I just spent a few minutes with my firearms, and spoke to them in a most unflattering manner, questioned their parentage, called them all manner of foul names, they didnt do anything, just sat there, like a reasonable person would expect inanimate objects to do (or not do) . So, I guess that leaves only the the human who took up the firearm to blame for whatever mayhem would ensue.
People need to stop blaming things for the actions created by other people.
and in case there is a problem in translation, it is not now legal (in most places in the U.S. ) to carry a concealed weapon in public without a license or permit issued by their local authorities. So to clarify, guns are in most all cases, already banned from the streets in the U.S. (no matter what the media, and old tv shows may picture.)
Just to clarify, The text of the second amendment says," 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." This means, that since any state of our grand Republic wishing to retain its freedom against any enemy foreign, or domestic, may need to raise a militia in order to protect itself, that its citizens will need to personally possess weapons with which to repel any incursion. This goes further to the point that the citizenry must be able to possess such weaponry as makes them equal,if not superior to any foreseeable threat.
Since the national Guard, is supplied, and equipped by the Federal Gov’t. the States may not be able to depend on it for help, should the threat arise from within the Federal Gov’t. The State(s) would be on their own to mobilize a citizen militia to protect itself. (themselves).
The term well regulated has been misinterpreted to mean “controlled” ie, rules, and regulations, but it really means to be well equipped and able to be organized sufficiently to get the job done.
The National Guard is not the militia referred to in this amendment, as the National Guard may be co-opted by the Federal Gov’t. And because there was no National Guard when the second amendment was written. It was assumed that in dire circumstances, the States citizens would have to fend for themselves, with whatever equipment they may individually possess.
Not getting into whether or not firearms should be legal, but the whole concept of a popular militia being able to meaningfully contribute to the security of a modern state is rubbish.
The only people to make this halfway work are the Swiss, and even then everyone does a fairly substantial amount of initial training, annual refresher training, and the Swiss war plan is essentially to abandon 90% of the country and defend a few passes which are essentially all anyone will want from Switzerland anyway. In the case of the US, it’s a rather pernicious myth dating back to the idea that the Minutemen were actually an effective military force.
The need for guns to protect themselves against their own national government is often put forward by Americans opposed to gun control.
I’ve discussed that with plenty of people down here. Like me, most are current or former gun owners and sports shooters who aren’t opposed to gun ownership per se, but who support our governments’ attempts to regulate gun ownership to minimise gun homicides. We are all mystified by the prevalence of the belief among Americans that they are at risk from their own national government and need to be armed to respond to it.
My knowledge of American history is limited to the major events, but I can’t think of any occasion where the national government engaged in anything that could justify its citizens taking up arms against it. Was there such an event?
How do you get around the problem that citizens taking up arms against a lawfully constituted national government would normally be regarded as a rebellion entitling the government to use armed force against the rebels?
What sort of situations, of a realistic rather than fanciful nature, could arise that would make it lawful for citizens to take up arms against the federal government?
Isn’t there a risk that a group of citizens or a state aligned to particular political or economic interests could take up arms against the federal government to pursue their sectional interests, rather than responding to a genuine threat to all Americans? An example could be people who were opposed to FDR’s New Deal.
What about a situation which could result in the sort of people many gun owners dislike taking up arms against a federal government which turned on them? A perfect example would be the anti-war movement taking up arms after the federal government used armed force against unarmed citizens at Kent State University during the Vietnam War.
That’s true, but it doesn’t mean that armed citizens can’t respond with some effect to national forces in an effort to gain their objectives, as happened in, for example, Northern Ireland.
Still, the best any popular movement could do against the forces of any modern state like America or Britain would be a guerrilla war, with no prospect of success as long as the armed forces remained loyal to the national government.
Well, though others may disagree, its not Rubbish to us,and since it is our land, and the States hold the power over the Fed, the States decide when and if ever to organize a militia. The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, having a foundation of laws that no one is above. (including the Federal gov’t) The Federal Gov’t is constituted with only so much power, and is the servant of the States, not the boss of them. (though they sometimes forget that.) It is our claim of right to own firearms, not a boon granted by any potentate on a whimsical day. The Gov’t of the U.S. is not the supreme dicision maker, it is the people, citizens of the U.S. not politicians, who are the true boss. If at some point the people of the U.S. decide to forcibly oppose the Federal Gov’t they can, as they are the gov’t, and will as they can protect themselves. This is a strange idea to those not citizens, but it is our way, our chosen way, our rightful way. No one else has to agree, or do as we do, thats your own business. But do leave us to ours.
It is not anyones thought that there will be a time when it will happen, but the founding Fathers provided for the possibility of it happening, and this is the reason why We the People are rightfully able if needed, to act against a rouge Federal gov’t.
Those men who signed the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution of the United States, were for the most part born in other places. They had seen for themselves the things a gov’t can be capable of, so it was with this in mind that the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution were painstakingly crafted to ensure that it was not possible to enslave the nation, and should the attempt be made, that the citizens had the means to resist.
As a people, Americans are bluntly unconcerned with what others think of us, and our way of life.
isnt it much easier to change objeckts than people?
Nope, Lock em’ up, let em’ rot.
<shrugs> I have no objection to gun ownership (they are rather fun after all). I just think the idea that any number of gun-owning citizens have a prayer of standing up to any armed forces or even a moderately well armed/organised police force is risible. Loads of terrorist groups have tried it (from Northern Ireland to Southern Thailand by way of Iraq and Columbia) and all have given up as they suffer unacceptably high casualties for very little success. Now, if the US Constitution were to make car bombs, improvised heavy mortars and the like legal I might believe that they’re serious about it (because these are what just about every terrorist group in such circumstances ends up using - they are what works for acceptable casualties to the group). Until such a time I remain convinced that the idea of a citizen militia being able to successfully oppose a government is an illusion.
Some of the most successful popular resistance movements have been unarmed, such as Ghandi et al in India and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, precisely because they were truly popular movements unlike the often small minorities reflected by armed revolutionaries.
I can’t see a citizen militia working in America or in any other developed country at the level of command, control and logistics required to even begin to put a force in the field capable of facing a brigade of regular federal forces with artillery, armoured and air support in anything approaching conventional warfare, and less so for any sustained effort, even if the militia has a solid core of people with military training.
Nonetheless, there’s no shortage of people ready to rock and roll in citizens’ militias as they feel the draconian noose of their federal government tightening around their oppressed necks, e.g. http://www.arizonamilitia.com/ http://www.indianamilitia.org/links.html