my fam has several hand guns throught our house. las vegas is a crazy place, and our neighbors have been robbed, so we've up the anty on the whole protection thing lol
for all you gun owners, why is the second amendment important?
- Thread starter iloveoscars702
- Start date
- Status
The second amendment is a right which is important to this nation, not only for us LAW ABIDING, RESPONSIBLE, gun owners, but for the fact that if the government takes away/restricts my rights as a citizen of the United State of America, then whats next?
The amendment was written in different times, but stands true for the same purpose now as then. It was set to remind the people who are elected BY THE PEOPLE are not incharge of this country. We give them the chance to make decisions on our behalf. Sometimes this is forgotten.
I am a proud gun owner. I do have a NRA sticker on my vehicle and I have had many discussions with ignorant people over the matter. When these people say "Only police should carry guns!" i say, "Oh yeah thats going to make all of the criminals with UNREGISTERED firearms throw them away."
where possesion of handguns are illegal in city limits, like chicago (please correct me if i am mistaken), are their fewer illegal firearm shootings? ummm......
I once saw a bumper sticker that said something like this, "My young hunter and fisherman never mugged any old ladies"
The amendment was written in different times, but stands true for the same purpose now as then. It was set to remind the people who are elected BY THE PEOPLE are not incharge of this country. We give them the chance to make decisions on our behalf. Sometimes this is forgotten.
I am a proud gun owner. I do have a NRA sticker on my vehicle and I have had many discussions with ignorant people over the matter. When these people say "Only police should carry guns!" i say, "Oh yeah thats going to make all of the criminals with UNREGISTERED firearms throw them away."
where possesion of handguns are illegal in city limits, like chicago (please correct me if i am mistaken), are their fewer illegal firearm shootings? ummm......
I once saw a bumper sticker that said something like this, "My young hunter and fisherman never mugged any old ladies"
Fishman0;3536298; said:
if we keep losing rights whats next? australia...UK...
i like that last saying ha. and its very true. an armed society is a polite society. and yeah, chicago is such a greaaaat place to live in
jcardona1;3536384; said:if we keep losing rights whats next? australia...UK...
Australia is a prison
on the other hand, this kind of thing happens too often, even to responsible gun owners :
http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/man.shoots.fiancee.2.1243673.html
It is a statistical fact that a gun owner in the USA is more likely to shoot him/herself , either deliberately or accidentally , than to shoot an intruder, and I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers and writers of the US Constitution didn't have fully automatic assault weapons in mind either .
http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/man.shoots.fiancee.2.1243673.html
It is a statistical fact that a gun owner in the USA is more likely to shoot him/herself , either deliberately or accidentally , than to shoot an intruder, and I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers and writers of the US Constitution didn't have fully automatic assault weapons in mind either .
DavidW;3536958; said:
Yes but at the time muskets were the most technologically advanced weapons of the era. Kind of like how fully auto weapons are of today but you can't just go buy one these legally at some sporting goods store. You need a permit and then you have to deal with the ATF. If you ask me it's not worth it to own anything in full auto.
http://depression.about.com/b/2008/07/01/half-of-gun-deaths-are-suicides.htm
>>>>Research shows that surprisingly often gun deaths are self-inflicted.
In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicides accounted for 55% of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths.
In the same year, 40% of deaths were homicides, 3% were accidents and the remaining 2% were "legal killings", such as when police officers do the shooting in the course of duty.
Nor was there anything unique about that particular year. Gun-related have suicides outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years, according to CDC statistics.<<<<
If there were this many US military casualties in a war ( say Iraq or Afghanistan) all of the voting population would be screaming for the US to get out. The big problem is that too many gun owners don;t use their guns for home protection but as a way to resolve differences.
>>>>Research shows that surprisingly often gun deaths are self-inflicted.
In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicides accounted for 55% of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths.
In the same year, 40% of deaths were homicides, 3% were accidents and the remaining 2% were "legal killings", such as when police officers do the shooting in the course of duty.
Nor was there anything unique about that particular year. Gun-related have suicides outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years, according to CDC statistics.<<<<
If there were this many US military casualties in a war ( say Iraq or Afghanistan) all of the voting population would be screaming for the US to get out. The big problem is that too many gun owners don;t use their guns for home protection but as a way to resolve differences.
i keep guns for a few reasons .. 1. its a hobby .. just like fish .. i love to shoot .. 2. i hunt .. i like to shoot things .. then eat them .. 3. jackassery (aka douchebaggery) ... like when that 350lb back guy pulled a 380 on me and i pulled out my 1911 45.cal .. diffuses the situation really fast ..
its a good thing when 9/10 cars get broken into at your apt .. yours is the only one that is not .. and its the only one with a NRA sticker on it..
its a good thing when 9/10 cars get broken into at your apt .. yours is the only one that is not .. and its the only one with a NRA sticker on it..
I don't think it's been brought up, but the major historical reason for the second and third amendments was the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774. These acts, passed by the British Parliament, required colonials to provide free housing and supplies for troops whenever it was demanded of them.
The First Congress considered these acts to have violated two rights guaranteed by the English Bill of Rights: freedom from taxation without representation and freedom from a standing army in times of peace except by act of parliament (and recall that the colonials were not represented in the British parliament and so denied its authority over them).
The second amendment to the US Constitution sought to prevent this situation from arising again by (A) ensuring that armed citizens would be available to form a militia when necessary, as an alternative to a standing army and (B) ensuring that citizens would be able to resist illegal occupation by a non-parliamentarily-approved army (such as the British army).
Obviously these historical issues have little to do with modern debates over the meaning and application of the second amendment. We have long since accepted a large and very well-equipped permanent standing army, and those citizens who stand ready to form a militia when circumstances demand it are generally considered yahoos. Times change.
The First Congress considered these acts to have violated two rights guaranteed by the English Bill of Rights: freedom from taxation without representation and freedom from a standing army in times of peace except by act of parliament (and recall that the colonials were not represented in the British parliament and so denied its authority over them).
The second amendment to the US Constitution sought to prevent this situation from arising again by (A) ensuring that armed citizens would be available to form a militia when necessary, as an alternative to a standing army and (B) ensuring that citizens would be able to resist illegal occupation by a non-parliamentarily-approved army (such as the British army).
Obviously these historical issues have little to do with modern debates over the meaning and application of the second amendment. We have long since accepted a large and very well-equipped permanent standing army, and those citizens who stand ready to form a militia when circumstances demand it are generally considered yahoos. Times change.
the bill of rights was enacted in 1791, including the 2nd amendment, which gives the right to bear arms "as part of a well regulated militia".
hmmmmm, I wonder how many gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? should this be taken literally? would gun owners be prepared to join perhaps the modern equivalent: the National Guard?
This is what the US looked like in 1791:
As you can see, the USA has changed radically since then, as has gun technology and society.
To paraphrase Spock: " logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and surely it is a guiding principle of the US that there should be one law for all, and no-one is above the law?
The US constitution is a changeable document, as the 2nd amendment itself proves, and the 2nd amendment only holds until 2/3rds congressional majority decides to change it. So it is incumbent on gun owners to act and speak responsibly or risk losing the right or having it severely curtailed.
I think gun rights will become a big political issue in the USA in the near future.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_1791-03-1791-09.png
hmmmmm, I wonder how many gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? should this be taken literally? would gun owners be prepared to join perhaps the modern equivalent: the National Guard?
This is what the US looked like in 1791:
As you can see, the USA has changed radically since then, as has gun technology and society.
To paraphrase Spock: " logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
and surely it is a guiding principle of the US that there should be one law for all, and no-one is above the law?The US constitution is a changeable document, as the 2nd amendment itself proves, and the 2nd amendment only holds until 2/3rds congressional majority decides to change it. So it is incumbent on gun owners to act and speak responsibly or risk losing the right or having it severely curtailed.
I think gun rights will become a big political issue in the USA in the near future.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_1791-03-1791-09.png
- Status
