Yes, I'm sure there are lots of reasons. You could use a gun to smack hit your kids or something. I'm talking about reasonable reasons. The kind of reasons that make having 300 million killing machines in the hands of general people worthwhile. I'm sure if America is invaded, having guns would be pretty useful. But that's why you have an army, IDK if people have been playing too much COD campaigns but an invasion is pretty unlikely with the nuclear consequences it would have.
Well, that's what I was trying to establish. If it's a "living document" that can be modified, then the argument of "we need to protect the 2nd amendment because it's there and shouldn't be changed, the constitution is sacred etc" is invalid.
You have the right to stand up to your government... do you really think that it would go any further than those protests a year or two ago? If you go marching on the government/law armed, you're going to be killed. Which is another thing, not necessarily a problem that police are armed in an armed nation, but they can get trigger happy.
I don't know about how laws are made exactly, or if a citizen can write one. But I know that the people can influence laws. I think it's similar to the one you have in the USA, you can create petitions and if they reach over 100,000 they must be discussed in parliament. You can also write to or meet your local representative. Can't really ask for much more. Citizens make laws happen in that they elect people to represent what they want. I'm sure if a law written by a citizen was perfectly worded and was something parliament could agree on and thought was appropriate, then there's no reason why it wouldn't be made so.
A good example is that lots of people in the UK want a referundum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. This is only happening because of public pressure. You don't need guns to make that happen, any party in power that doesn't make this happen instantly becomes unpopular and loses votes to other parties. If parties care more about anything than it's own people, it's the parties popularity. - Though personally, I don't want a referundum, I don't trust uneducated ignorants and leaving the EU would be bad for us, despite any negatives.
Really?... to name but a few obvious things that have changed. Slavery, segregation, women's rights, worker's rights... what you can/can't be killed for. Everything has changed, the world is different.... ridiculous.
Last edited by Lux; 3 Feb 2013 at 09:56am.
Lux, all of those things are rights already established that had previously been taken away from certain people. This was corrected and those people given the same rights as everyone else. In what way does that mean people's rights were any different back then just that they were being opressed. EVERYONE has the same rights as a human being no matter what their government says. So how is liberating a group of people who were oppressed at the time of the writing of the constitution precidence for restricting people's rights now? I fail to see how if people have the inherent right to freedom of speech one day it could ever been gone the next. They have the right and that right is not dependent on the culture of the time. Such things are absolutes. Inherent rights are non-conditional and not granted by any earthy power. If they were given out by the government they would be privelages but the founding father's of this nation and I agree that certain freedoms are the people's right and not to be tampered with. You may not share these beliefs and thats fine but consider this, is your ability to state your oppinion something you inherently have or is it just granded to you by the government? The constitution does not grant anyone any rights it simply protects the ones that were already there and those never change.
"The right to bear arms" is not "the right to have a gun". You're not restricting anybody's rights by having gun control. Who said you have a right to have a gun? It's not some above all governments, above everything, god bestowed right for you to have a gun. People are not allowed to do everything and anything they want. That is not oppression, that's just society making sure that things work. I'm glad my government "oppresses" me by not allowing everyone to walk around with guns.
Please, allow me the right to have a nuke. Do not oppress me, who cares about the rights of others to be safe.
Dam, back in the day I could duel someone if they insulted me. The oppression these days, I should have the right to kill people! I could walk around a sword back in the day... a "human right".. why not now? OPPRESSION. For the thousands of years before guns existed, everyone was oppressed... because there was no right to have a gun! Or maybe... they had the right, but just didn't know it yet?
I give up, it's hopeless.
Last edited by Lux; 4 Feb 2013 at 08:55am.
I wasn't referring to guns in specific just saying that some things never change with time. When you said its crazy to follow a 300 year old document (actually more like 240 my bad) because things change I was trying to convey that some things never change. And the right to bear arms comes from the right to self defense which is always constant. Also, a nuclear device is a completely different thing as its mere existence let alone use puts others in danger. Ownership of a firearm kept properly secured does not endanger other people. I do agree that people who mishandle guns and don't secure them are endangering the public but I think they should be dealt with by taking measures against them instead of a sweeping measure to disarm the entire public. It appears we both agree that people who threaten the safety of others should be stopped from doing so but we disagree in what puts others at risk. So yes we ban drunk drivers and we ban people from unsafe use of firearms but we don't ban cars and alcohol or gun we just ban their abuse.
People that think guns shouldn't be banned obviously don't watch the news in America :x
Lux you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.
Again take the time to read the actual research done: A great starting point would be this research done at Harvard.
Use that as a "starting point" look at the references and where they obtained the data. Start looking for current data sources and compare. Guess what? You'll end up finding what you don't want to find! More guns ≠ more violent crime or murder and the precious gun control that so many people tout as saving lives actually promotes an environment that welcomes violent crimes.
So before you continue to argue for gun bans look into the actual cost of those bans.
That being said I'm not opposed to gun laws that make sense. Things like background checks and making States within the U.S. share mental health and criminal information when performing background checks. I do believe that you should have to prove yourself capable of handling a firearm before you can purchase and carry one. But that's not what the currently proposed anti-gun legislation is all about.
Frag the weak, hurdle the dead!