Against A Repressive Regime
- added October 10, 2007
- 16 responses
-
embed code
-
-
-
- bhavanadm
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Gun Control (201)
- BV2 (47)
-
You have the right to bear arms ONLY if you are a member of a well-regulated militia. Since when has a comma meant "please disregard the first part of this sentence"?
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 10/11/07
-
-
Maybe the Second Amendmednt needs to be seen as having about as much relevance to the daily lives of Americans as the Third Amendment. I don't know of any militias in my neighborhood or region of the country, much less any well-regulated ones. Therefore the so-called right to bear arms is not even triggered (no pun intended, of course). Guns are lethal weapons; of course they need to be regulated in the interest of the safety of the public.
-
If the point of having guns is protect against oppressive regimes LIKE THIS ONE, then it does not work, because we still have this oppressive regime and they are still being oppressive. Therefore, we can get rid of the guns and replace them with something that does the job.
If the point (as the 2nd addendment says) is protect the security of a free state then it is technologically out of date and we should be discussing the Right to Bear Tactical Nuclear Weapons, Cruise Missiles, and so on.
Why must the right to own a gun have to be defended by such obviously silly justifications?
Why not admit that people want to own guns because they just want to, and they have as much right to own a gun as they have to own a Humvee or a prius or a horse or a stamp-collection. But if they wish to own a potentially lethal object - such as a humvee or a prius or gun - the government, on behalf of those who are liable to get hurt - should be able require that the operator has demonstrated a level of competence in operating the object safely (and some kind of operator licence of enforce it), and the owner and manufacturer take financial responsibility (such as Insurance and product liability) for the consequence of the operation of that object. Why is it ok to have Driving Licences and mandatory insurance and manufacturing safety standards for a car, but not for a gun? -
NRA folks ALWAYS bring up the Constitution--but it was written regarding MILITIA--NOT CIVILIANS. Our country has some of the worst gun violence in the western world. Running around like cowboys saying we have the "right", is so very wrong as evidenced by children killed each year & school violence.
I liked the previous comments, particularly about updating our "rights" to include nuclear weapons! If the argument is true for guns, why not more techno weapons? Why not just obliterate ourselves? -
I see what you are saying and I agree with you. There does need to be much stricter regulations on guns... but wouldn't that also allow the government to regulate and stop any sort of revolution? It is a difficult problem. If only there were weapons that could only be used for revolution and nothing else. Our constitutional right allows people to much more easily lose their right to live. What do we do?
-
Jacoblp raises an interesting point - weapeons that could only be used for revolution -- there are such weapons. They are called IEDs and they are proving very effective against the US when used by people who considered themselves being repressed.
Interestingly, we want the US military to be able to over-power that population, but would would not want to them to be able to do so if WE were the population.
And in order to pretend to have that pipe-dream, we have an order of magnitude more deaths-per-captia than countries with more control over guns. -
I agree with your view on guns in this country ... the right to bear arms is a privilage that appears to be completely taken for granted and perhaps, even exagerated. Of course, we must keep in mind that gun ownership is not a totally bad thing, and guns are not necisarilly a danger to everone at any given moment, but your comments regarding shooting rampages highlight the need to add a little scrutiny for gun purchasing in an excellent sort of way. Firearm advocates proclaim that guns themselves do not create violence, but as a gun advocate myself, I agree that we should at the very least admit that the act of purchising a gun needs to be more methodical.
Pooger -
My goodness--we all have to take a driving test, register our cars and purchase insurance before we can drive, what is the big deal to have to register a gun and take lessons on how to use it?
One of the biggest NRA farces is that liberals want to take away guns--rubbish! We simply ask that if you own a fire arm, learn how to properly use it, take care of it, and register it.
No constitutional violation there. -
Obviously you people and the poster are ignorant on the whole subject at hand. WE ALREADY HAVE HANDGUN CONTROL! One to legally obtain a pistol one must fill out an ATF Form 4473 requiring you to give your name, address, residency, social security number as well as many other things. Then you have a little Q&A asking if you are a felon, are mentally insane, undergone treatment, currently under indictment, etc. If you lie anywhere on that form including the Q&A you automatically committed a felony and are subject to a 10 year sentence/$250,000 fine in a federal prison. The dealer then calls the National Instant Checking System relaying this information you gave. If you pass then you must undergo a federal waiting period of 3-5 days plus anymore your state has tacked on. Even after you buy the pistol you are not allowed to carry one around (that is a huge felony) unless you undergo a Concealed Carry Licensed program. You pay a fee, go through a FBI background check, submit your fingerprints, and then undergo a program similar to driving school. You are taught foremost to NEVER draw your firearm unless you know the situation at hand, know the perp, and only then are you allowed to defend yourself. You have range time like road time in driving school to undergo and are held to more rigorous standards than your average cop. Criminals do not go through these processes as law-abiding citizens do. They never do because they are criminals. Criminals go to the local drug dealer or steal one to obtain their firearms. Cho would have been stopped from purchasing his firearms "legally" had the school released his psychological information to NICS. Even then that probably would not have stopped him because he would drive to the bad part of Richmond to get what he needs. He was bent on killing pure and simple whatever the cost and no gun control would have stopped them. To maggzilla, law-abiding citizens already know how to properly use our firearms it is the criminals who misuse them. Your laws that you create to supposedly make a difference make things worse. Criminals will have weapons either way whether you like it or not. Oh, and I am not a member of the NRA, hunt, a fan of Bush, or a neo-con. I believe in common sense and the right to defend myself without these burdens that criminals do not bother going through.
-
Also for those who believe gun ownership is a privilege it is not it is a God-given RIGHT protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to protect it from people like you. Do not like it?? Tough! You can try to get it changed with a 2/3 majority of Congress but I doubt you will see that happen because you will see 80 million responsible gun owners protest it and if necessary walk on Congress.
-
I agree.
VERY young people are getting caught up with gun violence and people are constantly being killed because of this. If we installed some sort of control over it (like raising the age or limiting the amount of guns, or only giving it to people who ABSOLOUTLY need it for their safety), we might have a much safer world, although such a big change would take forever to be out in affect.-
-
-
-
- oliveMADNESS
- 9 months ago
-
-
He HAD phyc evals... Again, the CURRENT LAWS were not enforced.. We do not need any new laws. Our current ones will work with enforcement. If you think everyone who wishes to purchase a gun must first get approval from a Psychiatrist. Then I also believe all people should get approval from a Psychiatrist to Vlog or to buy a webcam.
-
I don't get it. Every week I read about some horrible killing done by a criminal or by a family member. It seems that the gun that is there to supposedly protect is used to kill someone who is innocent. Yet these gun- defenders keep trying to get us to believe we need to have guns to protect ourselves. What irony and madness. If guns were being readily used to fend off people who were threatening our person or property I would expect to hear about it from the NRA types but all I ever here is that someone used a gun to kill an innocent.
-
Scott brought up the same point I was going to make - the laws only affect law-abiding citizens... school shootings wouldn't happen if criminals expected at least a quarter of their potential victims to be holding. Same goes for bank robberies, too... And as for 2part2's comments, the same applies - there have been many cases where teachers have retrieved a gun from the trunk of their car and stopped school shootings... the reason you don't hear about that is because the media feeds off of horrific news, not every single case. Besides, it is not a question of protecting our safety until people feel that it's the government's job to regulate gun ownership - federal laws and psychiatric tests don't take guns away from criminals, they take the fighting chance away from the innocent victims!
-
-
-
-
- NeogenesisFortuna
- 6 months ago
-
-
Try not to mention race in your opinions. Let's not offend anyone.
-
-
-
-
- Cutie_Cadaver
- 6 months ago
-
-
2part2 - you are getting the media brainwash, have you ever hear a story on the news that in anyway supported gun ownership? Those events (protecting self/family) happen often - 2+million/yr (as shown in scientific studies).
The second amendment may make a reference to militias but that doesn't mean "the people" is a state/militia right. Interpreting it that way would mean only state governments have the right to free speech, religion etc. It's ridiculous to argue that "the people" in the second amendment means something different from "the people" in the other amendments.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
