Can I just take a second to point out the huge difference between assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns and rifles? There are different kinds of guns with different purposes. Keep that in mind.

 

Yes, there are several different kinds of guns but the bottom line is that they all do the same thing and that is KILL! I am not against guns. A gun is only dangerous in the hands of a dangerously stupid person. And, as said before in this thread it our constitutional right to bare arms.

 

They don't all do the same thing.

Fully automatic weapons are designed to fire multiple bullets at a target, with very little effort on the part of the user.

Semi automatic weapons are designed to enable the user to fire repeatedly without having to cock the weapon.

A hunting shotgun, like my father's twelve-gague double barrell doesn't do that. It has a permanent choke built into both barrells, meaning the only thing he can possibly shoot through the gun would be bird shot. If you've ever hunted, you know that bird shot would not make an effective weapon. It's designed to kill small birds. Yes, it could injure or kill a human, but the truth is it would make a terrible weapon. It fires a spray of tiny pellets that barely break the skin at distances, and is much too large to be manuvered in anything like a close-range firefight.

Keep that in mind before you make a claim like banning all guns.




For that matter, if you're banning all guns, why not ban other "weapons" as well, like chainsaws, saws, knives (including kitchen knives), chains, baseball bats, golf clubs, rope, and so on?

No, I don't think people need 0.50 caliber armor piercing ammunition, but at the same time, I think it's just silly to assume that banning ALL guns in America is even remotely possible.

And I say this even though I HATE guns.

 

as much as I hate violence (cept in video games)I don't think we should ban guns cause it does go against constitutional rights, just make it more strict. Harder licenses, full backround check, I.Q tests, the whole nine yards

 

Oh, and I have a HUGE problem with concealed carry laws. In the town I just moved away from, it was legal if you had a permit (which costs no more than ten dollars and an hour-long class) you could legally carry your firearm with you, keeping it concealed and on your person.

 

Well trumpet, this thread would have been a lot easier if you had not painted with such broad strokes. You started with banning handguns and ended with guns=bad, no guns=good. Which is it?
Because apparently there is a ban on the sale of handguns where you live,but I don't think private ownership of handguns, rifles and shotguns is illegal, is it?
If not and people are allowed to own guns where you live and yet there is nowhere near the amount of gun violence as in the USA, factors other than guns must be at play. And here are the real differences (I think).
First your country was homoginized into a single people about 500 years before Columbus sailed. Our country has never had that advantage and differences create conflict and conflicts often lead to violence.
Secondly our nation was taken, settled and sustained through the use of violence. True, guns made that a lot easier, but I think but I think we'd have still done it even if we would have had to use rocks, clubs or our bear hands. I'm pretty sure you guys did the same but it happened to be before guns were invented.
This resulted in violence being imprented in our cultural psychie and guns became a handy tool for achieving that end, not the cause of it.
Once imprinted our culture not only embraced violence we came to glorify it in our games, entertainment and sports.
We also embraced the concept that it is OK to kill someone if you have a good enough reason, which is what the death penalty says if you reduce it to it's most basic level. The problem with that is a majority of our society can support it as a deterrent to crime, but once the concept is sanctioned, it also allows the individual to decide what is a good enough reason to kill someone.
One individual may believe a heinous crime is a good enough reason to kill human being, while another individual might think that something that happened in his childhood is a good enough reason to kill defensless children and then inflict the death penalty on himself.
So no, I guess I don't think banning guns will do much to stop either the violence or the insanity you're refering to. But check on us in 500 years and maybe we will be as civilized as you.
But also keep in mind that it was this same violent, insane, gun toting country that saved your civilized asses a couple times in the past 100 years.

 

I believe he had several guns with him with some being legitimate hunting weapons. And considering the way it went down, I suspect a 12" kitchen knife would have worked just as well. I personally favor some firearms restrictions, but I don't think that even a complete ban would have helped those porr Amish girls.

 

I think you misunderstood what i was saying. I for one think its a trade worth making but i'm afraid american culture would make the trade. We all say we would cause thats what we'er suppose to say. But if it came down to it i don't think that kind of bill would never pass. If you went around and took a poll i'm sure 99% of the people would say yes, i would make that trade. Put it on the ballot and yea it would not even come close to passing.

I'm not a lawyer and i have not studied law in depth or anything but when i read the part of the 2nd ammendment everyone loves to quote, it never convinces me that it gives the people the right to bear arms. It says for a militia and in my mind our well maintained militia is our army. I've always taken that lil quote to mean that we should have an armed militia or now a days armed army. We can agree to disagree or i can be confused and not know where to take a stand haha.

But yea, in my mind the trade-off would be worth it but since i'm a minority i always like the saying "majority rules minority rights." Even tho banning guns would reduce murders i think theres a way of balancing it. At my school they had a ballot to ban smoking. There was a student vote and we could vote for banning cigarettes completely, have smoking zones, or leave it how it was now (no smoking within 15 ft of a building). In that kind of situation you want to respect smokers right to kill themselves but we also want to stop having to walk through campus surronded by smokers. Having smoking zones was a reasonable compramise in my opinion.

SO yea i just think theres a way we can balance this whole mess. Or we could ban guns, not give-in during the very rough first few years then maybe after a while it'll be back to business as usual.

 

When it comes to the second amendment to our constitution it often boils down to what was our fouding fathers intent when they wrote it? Did they intend to allow private individuals to have an absolute right to own guns or just malitias? I can answer that question with another question. Were they armed when they wrote it? You bet they were and few if any were members of a malitia.

 

My understanding, limited though I'll admit it to be, is that the intention was to allow armed militias to be raised to prevent rebellions, and to avoid the need for an expensive standing army.

I'm not sure how that intention translates into 2006 American society. Perhaps you could explain?

 

However unlikely it may be, What happens if our army fails us? How will we defend ourselves? It's my belief that we should have the right to protect ourselves and our families.

 

Not meaning to be picky but I didn't say that. TimDuncan said that. I didn't argue with him on that point but it wasn't me that raised it in the first place.

 

Sorry...used the quote thing wrong.

 

No worries.

 

Nope. The intention was exactly the opposite as a matter of fact -- to give the people the ability to pursue armed rebellion against the government militia if it was needed.

 

But at the time the amendment was passed there was no standing army, was there? The idea was surely that the militia was supposed to protect the nation from enemies, without or within.

 

Incorrect on several levels. While the Army of the Republic was officially disbanded after the revolutionary war, the same organization continued in the state militias, which were professional, standing organizations at the time the Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789. Most importantly, the militia of the time were state organizations, not popular ones. The language of the Bill of Rights makes clear distinctions between the United States, the states, and the people. Taken with the language used these facts make it clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights were attempting to make it impossible to deny the people the ability to attempt armed rebellion against the federal goverment.

This does bring up the whole issue of state vs. federal authority. That is, the constitution does not necessesarily prohibit the prevention of armed rebellion against the states. Unfortunately, my understanding of that part of the issue is highly limited.

In any case, the purpose of the amendment is clearly to support the possibility of armed rebellion against the federal government, whether by the states or by the general populace.

 

Thanks, JAW. I was not aware of that. :shock:

 

okay well I would like to add one thing here. trumpet, you are correct that there was no standing army as in a paid army that is always in service but that is for a reason. The original government, the Constitutional Congress, did not have any power, especially not power to tax, which back then was the only way to pay for armies. The Articles of Confederation was mainly focused on states-rights and because of that, the Federal government had zero power, again esepcially to tax to be able to pay for soldiers. The new Constitution gave the Federal Government the right to tax because the Founding Fathers realized it was a necessary evil to have a Federal Government in place.