some weapon's question

[y7xzh1]

in our homeland(china) ,law do not allow anyone have a gun unless you are police or some army.
i want use my dumb english to ask you these question
why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?and what if someone use it to kill others?


&&&&&&&&

i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing .
the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime.
is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours ,
but they are all alive.


can u read it?or my english failed....

[Jack Batty]

in our homeland(china) ,law do not allow anyone have a gun unless you are police or some army.
i want use my dumb english to ask you these question
why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?and what if someone use it to kill others?




For good or for bad, it's expressly laid out in our Constitution's Second Amendment:

"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."

And if someone kills someone, with a gun or anything else, they generally go to prison ... if they're caught.

[Grey]

The basic idea is that a free person has a natural right to self defence both from others and from the state and that weapons are a means to that end. This English common law practice carried over to the United States and was formalized in their 2nd amendment but was more explicitly linked to guns.

Your next question "what happens if you kill someone with a gun" can be simply answered - If you kill someone you are given a trial and punished regardless of the method of killing. What difference does it make if I kill a person with a knife instead of a gun? The person is still dead.

Your final question is confusing. A nuclear weapon is not considered a personal weapon and so isn't a thing anyone is allowed to have. As for a weapon that can cause an entire city to faint - I have never heard of such a thing.

[Consensus]

Won't be a very effective weapon as it is, just going to leave you with a bunch of really angry ppl when they wake up.

[AndrewL]

We don't have a weapon that can reliably cause a single person to fall unconscious for hours yet be otherwise uninjured. We certainly don't have any weapon that can do that for an entire city, nor is there even any clear way such a thing would be possible.

[randomface]

There are some gas mixtures that can cause a wide area of people to be incapacitated, but that generally has a mix of some people that aren't subdued enough and some that suffer severe damage (think tear gas or other chemical irritants).

[control-z]

In the USA, citizens are allowed to own guns. The exact laws vary by state. Many states require background checks or some sort of registration. Many states allow you to openly carry a gun, but require a permit to carry a hidden gun. Often hand guns have different restrictions and rifles and shotguns. A fully automatic weapon (keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger) is subject to federal regulations and requires an expensive Class 3 permit and restrictions.

Yes, people can use a gun to shoot others. The big majority of gun owners do not, they use their guns for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. If you use a gun in a crime you are breaking additional laws. If you robbed a store with a gun you would probably get more time in jail than if you robbed it with just your fists. In many states killing someone with a gun can result in the death penalty. If you have been convicted of a serious crime (a felony) you are not allowed to own a gun.

There is plenty of information here if you want to read a long article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

[Gbro]

in our homeland(china) ,law do not allow anyone have a gun unless you are police or some army.
In your homeland you are a subject. What the Government declares you must do.

why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?
As stated we are a free people, A Government "FOR" the people, have "RIGHTS" in our Constitution. When our Country was founded the Founding Fathers saw with their own eye's how bad it is for subject people and founded this Nation Under God to be free "All are Created Equal" and the only way we can remain free is to have a means to protect ourselves.
Our Government can get out of hand, but they are replaced by US to do the job they are required to do by the Constitution.

and what if someone use it to kill others?
Firstly, there has to be "Just Cause" before someone kills another by whatever means that is used. We many times use a "Reasonable Man Rule" to find if the killing was "Reasonable" within the law.
A Gun is used many times and the biggest reason is it can allow a little frail 90 year old Grandmother to be able to overcome in the face of a threat of great bodily harm. Therefore a gun can be a "Equalizer"
In the event that a killing is not within the laws of the land, then that person will be penalized.
The use of Deadly force is a last resort and must always be viewed that way because no matter how justified one can be in the use of it (deadly force), one can still loose. By that I mean a court of law can find one not justified, or the use of deadly force can cause one to be placed in a position where their life can be lost.
The only thing I have to say about nuclear weapons is Our Almighty God IS Always in charge! We will not be annihilated unless it is HIS Will!

[JoelUpchurch]

I would like to point out that even pointing a firearm at another person can be a serious crime in some states if there isn't legal justification.

[Grey]

The only thing I have to say about nuclear weapons is Our Almighty God IS Always in charge! We will not be annihilated unless it is HIS Will!Oh for fuck sakes.

As an aside the US constitution's 2nd amendment came out of the English common law - it wasn't as if it popped into existence solely because the 13 colonies rebelled.

[Colibri]

I think this is probably best handled in Great Debates than General Questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Chessic Sense]

why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?

America was formed by a rebellion. When we first formed our highest laws, we decided that citizens might need to form militias in the future, so people would need guns to do that. Also, if the newly formed government ever became corrupt or oppressive, our founders wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government and form a new one. If the government could take away your weapons, then it would be hard to fight against it.

Now, over 200 years later, we aren't worried about the government becoming that evil and we now have a professional army to fight wars, so we don't need many guns anymore. But the law still exists, and probably will forever.

founded this Nation Under God

No. No, they didn't. Not a single founding father used that phrase.

[TriPolar]

i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing .
the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime.
is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours ,
but they are all alive.


You may want to resubmit this question to General Questions under the heading "Non-Lethal weapons". I don't think it's being addressed here, and it is a factual matter.


In regards to gun ownership in the US, it is ingrained in our culture, as well as the law. This would be similar to the Chinese culture of martial arts. We see attempts to weaken our right to own guns as attempting the political control of the populace seen in Mao's attempt to subjugate Kung Fu.

And since you are still learning English, please feel free to ask for clarification of this or any other post.

[robert_columbia]

American here.

As others have said, it's part of our law and culture for people to have weapons. Commonly, people have pistols, rifles, and shotguns for personal use or protection. Not everyone has one, but having one is normally socially and legally acceptable.

Other weapons that people could have are knives, swords, axes, and pretty much any melee weapon. Some people have bows and arrows.

Nuclear weapons, of course, are hugely expensive and normally only possessed by governments. The weapons that general Americans have are the small ones - small firearms like pistols and rifles, and melee weapons (knives, swords, clubs, etc.)

And the answer to the question as to what happens if you use the weapon against someone in an inappropriate way - the answer is you go to jail.

[Der Trihs]

For good or for bad, it's expressly laid out in our Constitution's Second Amendment:

"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."Except that we completely ignore the well regulated militia part. The Second Amendment is just an excuse, not the reason everyone is allowed guns. And at this point, it's more a distraction; it is a useless Amendment, and by getting so many people focused on gun ownership like it actually protected them their useful rights can be taken away without them complaining. Many people will cheerfully give up every other right and principle they have so they can clutch their little chunk of metal and tell themselves it makes them safe.

[YogSosoth]

For better or worse, in America, its generally regarded that the right of self-defense through firearms weighs more than the possibility that that right may be abused.

[Redwing]

And at this point, it's more a distraction; it is a useless Amendment, and by getting so many people focused on gun ownership like it actually protected them their useful rights can be taken away without them complaining. Many people will cheerfully give up every other right and principle they have so they can clutch their little chunk of metal and tell themselves it makes them safe.

Well, not so much. The idea is rather that we don't cede all rights to the use of force to the government. We're a free people (what ever that means this week), and part of that freedom is the right to defend ourselves.

To some people the right of self defense is the most useful right, without that right how can we have any rights to our person? The right to posses arms is seen as the practical part of that right. If I don't have the ability to enforce my right to my person, do I really have that right? If I don't have a right to my person, do any other rights matter?

[Argent Towers]

it is a useless Amendment, and by getting so many people focused on gun ownership like it actually protected them their useful rights can be taken away without them complaining.

This is true. A few years ago, I was really involved in 2nd Amendment causes, and spent a lot of time on gun related activities. And then one day, all of a sudden, I noticed that a bunch of rights had been taken from me. It was really weird - the rights just disappeared, and I was so obsessed with the guns that I didn't even notice. Now I have been stripped of so many rights...I barely have any freedoms at all. Oh well. At least I have my penis guns.

[robert_columbia]

Except that we completely ignore the well regulated militia part. The Second Amendment is just an excuse, not the reason everyone is allowed guns. And at this point, it's more a distraction; it is a useless Amendment, and by getting so many people focused on gun ownership like it actually protected them their useful rights can be taken away without them complaining. Many people will cheerfully give up every other right and principle they have so they can clutch their little chunk of metal and tell themselves it makes them safe.

And the way the amendment is worded seems to indicate that the Right to Bear Arms was one that was respected at the time and that was considered a fundamental right, or else it might have been written in such a way as to GRANT the right to bear arms, rather than saying that Congress cannot restrict the right (which, by implication, already existed). So, in a sense, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect what The People already respected and wanted in order to make sure that the Government couldn't take it away later when they felt like it.

[Der Trihs]

To some people the right of self defense is the most useful right, without that right how can we have any rights to our person? The right to posses arms is seen as the practical part of that right. If I don't have the ability to enforce my right to my person, do I really have that right? If I don't have a right to my person, do any other rights matter?Guns do not give you the ability to defend yourself. Firearm ownership under Saddam Hussein was extremely common, and he did nothing about it because he knew it didn't matter.

This is true. A few years ago, I was really involved in 2nd Amendment causes, and spent a lot of time on gun related activities. And then one day, all of a sudden, I noticed that a bunch of rights had been taken from me. It was really weird - the rights just disappeared, and I was so obsessed with the guns that I didn't even notice. Now I have been stripped of so many rights...I barely have any freedoms at all. Oh well. At least I have my penis guns.:rolleyes: The Second Amendment nuts nuts have been cooperating with the stripping of our rights for many years.They support people who oppose free speech, civil rights, and democracy in general because they promise them that they'll get to keep their guns. On this very forum I recall people saying that they opposed everything else about the Republican party, but were going to vote for McCain because Obama was a "gun grabber". These people have no principles, they have no loyalties beyond "Guns!" They regard the lives of their friends and family as less important than "Guns!" If some invader conquered the country they'd collaborate ecstatically if the invaders just said they could keep their guns.

[miss elizabeth]

in our homeland(china) ,law do not allow anyone have a gun unless you are police or some army.
i want use my dumb english to ask you these question
why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?and what if someone use it to kill others?


&&&&&&&&

i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing .
the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime.
is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours ,
but they are all alive.


can u read it?or my english failed....

Firstly, your English isn't dumb. You are doing great.

So, in the USA we have The Constitution, which is basically the Most Important Laws. Any other law we pass cannot go against what the Constitution says, and, while it is possible to change The Constitution, it's very hard to do, and it rarely happens.

In The Constitution there is a law written to allow people to have guns. In large part, this is because society was very different when it was written. But, we haven't changed the law. As I said, that's very hard to do, and in the USA there is an attitude that you have to really have a very important reason to change The Constitution. In some ways, it is almost treated as a religious document here.

It is illegal for people who are criminals to buy a gun, though, and there are lots of other restrictions too. Most people support those restrictions, and many people would like to see there be more restrictions. A very few people would like to see guns be outlawed in this country, much as they are in China. And another very few people would like it if anyone could have any gun at any time. But most people here are ok with civilians (people who aren't police or military) having guns, as long as they are safe about it. There is a lot of discussion in the USA about what restrictions are good, and which go too far, so there will be lots of people arguing about that here too. It's a topic that people get very angry about.

If anyone in this country uses a gun and hurts or kills another person, or even threatens them, they get into a lot of trouble. Despite what you see on TV, everyone doesn't have guns and runs around shooting them.

I don't know much about nuclear weapons like you mentioned, and I'm not sure they exist, but people here would not be allowed to have something like that. Mostly the USA is pretty safe, and you really don't have to worry about the guns, even though it comes up a lot on TV and in discussions.

[Sitnam]

As an aside the US constitution's 2nd amendment came out of the English common law - it wasn't as if it popped into existence solely because the 13 colonies rebelled.
Actually quite a bit of our Constitution is the exact opposite of English Common Law because of the rebellion.

Whens the last time you were legally required to quarter soldiers?

[Bryan Ekers]

Just musing on what would have happened in the Tienanmen protesters had all been carrying firearms...

Something awesome, no doubt.

[aruvqan]

Actually quite a bit of our Constitution is the exact opposite of English Common Law because of the rebellion.

Whens the last time you were legally required to quarter soldiers?
I'm married to one, so I guess I have to let him into the house :D

[River Hippie]

I believe the Constitution clearly allows for all citizens to own "arms" for the purpose of opposing a tyrannical government. The authors of the Constitution clearly did not imagine the technology that would be available to the citizen at this point.
Even though I completely support the right of the individual citizen to own military type weapons, I now fear that citizens fighting on behalf of a tyrannical government is the true threat.

[YogSosoth]

Just musing on what would have happened in the Tienanmen protesters had all been carrying firearms...

Something awesome, no doubt.

I imagine the government would have come down even harder on the protesters, taken more of them to jail or the morgue, and enacted even stricter laws on movement and assembly. Anyone who thinks that having guns is going to make any kind of a difference if the government really wants you dead is delusional.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, throw in some Michael Bay-ish explosions...

[Sitnam]

I imagine the government would have come down even harder on the protesters, taken more of them to jail or the morgue, and enacted even stricter laws on movement and assembly. Anyone who thinks that having guns is going to make any kind of a difference if the government really wants you dead is delusional.
Is this a Gaddafi quote?

[Der Trihs]

Is this a Gaddafi quote?Probably not but he would have been right. Without the drones and air strikes the rebels would have lost.

[pkbites]

Anyone who has done even a little bit of research will come to the truth about the 2nd Amendment: It is absolutely an individual right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with self defense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two old: First, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National Guard) the right to own arms so the governor or the President could call on us in a time of emergency. Second, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National guard) the means to repel tyranny if need be.

And a tyrannical government doesn't have to be the feds. It could be the state, or even a rogue county sheriff.

Pitty that when ever this subject comes up few if any mention the state constitutions. Most states have the right to bear arms in their constitutions. And most of them are clearly spelled out as an individual right with the purpose of self defense. There have been far, FAR more pro-gun rights court rulings based on state constitutions that there will ever be based on the 2nd Amendment.

I am always suspect that many of these threads are started by a foreigner who is questioning (often in a disapproving manner) our rights, freedoms, and ways. Don't like it? Don't come here!

[cmyk]

Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't going to stop violent criminals from acquiring guns if they want them. I do believe in the principle idea behind this right, but am quite indifferent to it. I don't even own a gun (however I have been considering it).

Lethal force in self-defense should always be honored as a last resort, so knowing I can obtain a gun, for my own well-being, goes toward evening the playing field of deadly force for anyone who would see to invade my home and/or do me or my family personal harm.

[BrainGlutton]

why are you american people be allowed have a gun with legitimacy?and what if someone use it to kill others?

Then, there is great huge throbbing swollen excitement of penis-member and nipple-tips.

[BrainGlutton]

Second, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National guard) the means to repel tyranny if need be.

And how does that work exactly?

[CutterJohn]

They support people who oppose free speech, civil rights, and democracy in general because they promise them that they'll get to keep their guns. On this very forum I recall people saying that they opposed everything else about the Republican party, but were going to vote for McCain because Obama was a "gun grabber". These people have no principles, they have no loyalties beyond "Guns!" They regard the lives of their friends and family as less important than "Guns!" If some invader conquered the country they'd collaborate ecstatically if the invaders just said they could keep their guns.

Then perhaps another party, to remain nameless, should have made this a non issue by becoming the pro gun party and stealing this vote. It would seem sensible. Party A favors guns, and has Bad People. Party B does not favor guns, and presumable Good People(based on the argument). So. What sense to continue disfavoring guns if it works against your parties goals? They aren't that big of a deal. Just bits of metal.

[SeaCanary]

Second, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National guard) the means to repel tyranny if need be.

And how does that work exactly?
The armed militia shoots at, or threatens to shoot at, the forces of tyranny.

And now you ask...

[Kevbo]

Then perhaps another party, to remain nameless, should have made this a non issue by becoming the pro gun party and stealing this vote. It would seem sensible. Party A favors guns, and has Bad People. Party B does not favor guns, and presumable Good People(based on the argument). So. What sense to continue disfavoring guns if it works against your parties goals? They aren't that big of a deal. Just bits of metal.

Democratic pols have largely dropped gun control as an issue, post 1996. It is one reason I was able to start voting for them...that and the republicans started going off the rails about then. The base still has a lot of gun grabbers. AG Holder made some noises early in this president's term, but nothing came of it. Obama signed CC in national parks.

2nd amendment voters don't notice, and republicans are happy to feed their fears.

[Bricker]

No. No, they didn't. Not a single founding father used that phrase.

But some of them used similar phrases, so that the inference is not manifestly wrong.

John Adams:


The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.


Alexander Hamilton:

In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banner bona fide must we combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provided for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated "The Christian Constitutional Society," its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States.

[brittekland]

y7xzh1, there you go. Did the answers thus far help you understand the guns in America issue?

[griffin1977]

i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing .
the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime.
is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours ,
but they are all alive.


I think what you are saying here amounts to: is there a "non-lethal" equivalent of a nuclear weapon (ala Goldfinger's Delta Nine (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=goldfinger%20%20%20delta%20nine&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0058150%2Fsynopsis&ei=LaWkTr2VGqWoiAKCwoibCg&usg=AFQjCNFLHf5XsKIu0zfNEjd0p3VPfAfX3w&sig2=DqDKK-8mvW_nfb-WJ_dIPw&cad=rja))

Many governments have researched this (a lot of the military research in LSD was to this end). But the reality is its very hard to put someone to sleep and have confidence in them coming back to life when required. The profession of Anesthesiology exists for this reason and even with modern science that bit is usually the most dangerous part of any surgery. Witness the Russian Thearte siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis) to see what happens when this kind of thing is tried.

[Lord Mondegreen]

But the reality is its very hard to put someone to sleep and have confidence in them coming back to life when required.

Well there was that time when everyone blacked out for 2 minutes and 17 seconds. There is even a documentary about it: FlashForward (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441135/).










;)

[BrainGlutton]

The armed militia shoots at, or threatens to shoot at, the forces of tyranny.

And now you ask...

And now I ask, how does that work, exactly? This ain't Libya. Popular armed revolt or resistance here is only gonna work if majority enthusiasm is so near-unanimous that even a rigged political system will make it unnecessary.

[thelabdude]

The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Anyone who has done even a little bit of research will come to the truth about the 2nd Amendment: It is absolutely an individual right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with self defense.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two old: First, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National Guard) the right to own arms so the governor or the President could call on us in a time of emergency. Second, it gave the militia (that's us, not the National guard) the means to repel tyranny if need be.
Anyone who has done a little bit of research would be awfully confused, because our Supreme Court thinks it has a lot to do with self-defense (http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/).

[Chimera]

Part of it is the basic idea of Citizen vs. Subject. Most old world governments consider their people to be subjects, which means that the State has absolute authority over them. The USA was founded on the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms that preclude the absolute authority of the State.

"Allowed" to have guns? Nope, when we set up shop, we told the Government that we were keeping our guns.

[BrainGlutton]

The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible.

So the Second Amendment was a bad idea, then?

[Little Nemo]

So the Second Amendment was a bad idea, then?I'd say that if there are enough people in the armed revolution for it to succeed then it's a sign that the government has lost the support of the people and deserves to be overthrown.

But realistically it's a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force.

[SeaCanary]

And now I ask, how does that work, exactly? This ain't Libya. Popular armed revolt or resistance here is only gonna work if majority enthusiasm is so near-unanimous that even a rigged political system will make it unnecessary.
Oh. You mean work as in succeed. Now I get you.

Armed revolt gets people locked up and/or hurt and/or dead. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. People take to the streets in protest. If force of arms is used to quell the protests, then force of arms will be used to emphasize the protesters position. Or not.

More people get locked up and/or get hurt and/or die. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. Things escalate. Or not. Etc.

Which is just the long way around the barn to say "It doesn't work" as in "It doesn't provide an immediate, painless solution." What does work is the choice each individual makes about how they want to live and die when opposing whatever they define "tyranny" to be. The extremes are, on one end, doing nothing; on the other end, violent opposition. (And lots of grey area in between.) Neither are "right." Neither are "wrong." They are choices with consequences.

In this country, we have an armed population that allows for the greater possibility of violent opposition. Maybe this also allows for a greater possibility of cooler heads prevailing sooner in the process. Maybe. (Though when I think about the national guard being sent in to enforce integration or criminal investigations being taken out of the hands of local law enforcement during the civil rights movement, I don't have a lot of hope.)

Is that a better answer to your question?

[griffin1977]

Another argument against the whole "armed populace as a defense against tyranny" thing is that an armed populace means a much more heavily armed, effectively paramilitary (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345), police force.

If the US government did turn into a tyranny overnight they would have at their disposal an extremely well armed instrument of repression in the regular police force (even in small towns), without ever having to bring the army onto the streets. In other countries where there is less proliferation of private arms, that would not be the case.

[thelabdude]

Part of it is the basic idea of Citizen vs. Subject. Most old world governments consider their people to be subjects, which means that the State has absolute authority over them. The USA was founded on the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms that preclude the absolute authority of the State.

"Allowed" to have guns? Nope, when we set up shop, we told the Government that we were keeping our guns.

Well put.

[SeaCanary]

I'd say that if there are enough people in the armed revolution for it to succeed then it's a sign that the government has lost the support of the people and deserves to be overthrown.

But realistically it's a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force.
This assumes that elements of the military aren't part of the armed revolution (as they were in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did).

[BrainGlutton]

Oh. You mean work as in succeed. Now I get you.

Armed revolt gets people locked up and/or hurt and/or dead. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. People take to the streets in protest. If force of arms is used to quell the protests, then force of arms will be used to emphasize the protesters position. Or not.

More people get locked up and/or get hurt and/or die. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. Things escalate. Or not. Etc.

Which is just the long way around the barn to say "It doesn't work" as in "It doesn't provide an immediate, painless solution." What does work is the choice each individual makes about how they want to live and die when opposing whatever they define "tyranny" to be. The extremes are, on one end, doing nothing; on the other end, violent opposition. (And lots of grey area in between.) Neither are "right." Neither are "wrong." They are choices with consequences.

In this country, we have an armed population that allows for the greater possibility of violent opposition. Maybe this also allows for a greater possibility of cooler heads prevailing sooner in the process. Maybe. (Though when I think about the national guard being sent in to enforce integration or criminal investigations being taken out of the hands of local law enforcement during the civil rights movement, I don't have a lot of hope.)

Is that a better answer to your question?

The question is whether preserving that state of affairs is, in and of itself, an appropriate matter for constitutional protection. Based on the above, if that's what the Second Amendment is all about, certainly it should be repealed.

[SeaCanary]

The question is whether preserving that state of affairs is, in and of itself, an appropriate matter for constitutional protection. Based on the above, if that's what the Second Amendment is all about, certainly it should be repealed.
How come?

[BrainGlutton]

How come?

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can't always."

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary."

One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!

[TheMightyAtlas]

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can't always."

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary."

One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary to protect my family."

[BrainGlutton]

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary to protect my family."

Rare circumstance, ain't it? Not even Randy Weaver could claim that honestly.

[Little Nemo]

This assumes that elements of the military aren't part of the armed revolution (as they were in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did).Yes but this doesn't change what I said. The issue of personal firearm ownership isn't a factor in determining how the military splits its allegiance.

[SeaCanary]

<snip>

But realistically it's a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force.

This assumes that elements of the military aren't part of the armed revolution (as they were in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did).

Yes but this doesn't change what I said. The issue of personal firearm ownership isn't a factor in determining how the military splits its allegiance.
OK. I misunderstood. I admit that it's tough for me to see how personal firearms ownership might correlate to how the military splits its allegiance. But do you think -- in light of the last two examples I gave -- that personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force?

[SeaCanary]

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can't always."

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary."

One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!
I do see the difference and the circumstances are relatively rare in the U.S.. I think it belongs in a constitution because that makes it harder to deny at both the local and national level. (In fact it is still denied but making it part of the constitution makes it harder.) I don't trust the local or national authorities to the degree I once did.

[thatguyjeff]

i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing .
the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime.
is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours ,
but they are all alive.


I think this question is about whether there is a weapon available (possibly for civilian use) that would incapacitate a large number of people in a given area. Or something to that effect...

Civilians may legally create an posses any weapon of any type so long as the materials used to create that weapon are legal to posses alone, were obtained legally, and not used in a prohibited manner. That being said, I'm not aware of any such weapon - to be used for mass incapacitation - that exists.

Government authorities have access to a variety of crowd control measures - tear gas comes to mind - but I don't think civilians are allowed to posses/use tear gas.

[Chimera]

Government authorities have access to a variety of crowd control measures - tear gas comes to mind - but I don't think civilians are allowed to posses/use tear gas.

I had Mace as a Security Officer, but you have to be really smart about when you use it. Two examples;

Me and another officer confronted by four punks OUTSIDE a restaurant. The leader of the punks trying to get into the other officer's face and provoke him to attack first (not a good idea, the other guy was ex-special forces). Gets very heavily sprayed directed in the face and then when he turns, all over the top and back of his head.

Me trying to get 18 drunken 20-somethings out of a restaurant when 4 of them are violent, throwing water glasses and dumping over the table. Cops come and say "we wouldn't have cared if you'd have maced the lot of them". Sure, if I had done that INSIDE, then they'd have had to close the (packed) restaurant, losing a lot of business until the place was cleaned enough to re-open.

[BrainGlutton]

Me trying to get 18 drunken 20-somethings out of a restaurant when 4 of them are violent, throwing water glasses and dumping over the table. Cops come and say "we wouldn't have cared if you'd have maced the lot of them". Sure, if I had done that INSIDE, then they'd have had to close the (packed) restaurant, losing a lot of business until the place was cleaned enough to re-open.

Eh? How long does Mace stick around?

[BrainGlutton]

I do see the difference and the circumstances are relatively rare in the U.S.. I think it belongs in a constitution because that makes it harder to deny at both the local and national level. (In fact it is still denied but making it part of the constitution makes it harder.) I don't trust the local or national authorities to the degree I once did.

[shrug] The Second Amendment is in there because (a significant number of) the Framers were small-d democrats in a rough-and-ready sort of way but they didn't really believe in democracy as distinct from liberty, they didn't trust it. By now we should have learned that their mistrust was wise in some respects but deeply unwise in most respects.

[SeaCanary]

[shrug] The Second Amendment is in there because (a significant number of) the Framers were small-d democrats in a rough-and-ready sort of way but they didn't really believe in democracy as distinct from liberty, they didn't trust it. By now we should have learned that their mistrust was wise in some respects but deeply unwise in most respects.
America is getting to be an old country with a past that contains both good deeds and mistakes. Some would say we are old enough to know better than to make the mistakes we are currently making.

I'm not one of them. If anything, the current state of the country -- and the world in general -- makes me believe that there are things that can be taught, but more things that have to be learned first hand. I don't like it, but I believe it.

[YogSosoth]

The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible.

I've always found that oddly contradictory, as armed revolution is treasonous and illegal. There is no provision for legal armed revolution, yet that's often the foundation gun owners fall back on. Why not just have an amendment for radical governmental change? Like "If more than X% of the people vote a certain way, they get to replace Z amount of laws instantly, without Congressional oversight, with Z new laws, to be effectively immediately"? The guns thing seem unnecessarily complicated, like a James Bond villain's death chamber

[pkbites]

There is no provision for legal armed revolution,

Actually, a couple of states have the Right of Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Revolution) written into their constitutions.

New Hampshire
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And don't forget the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which basically says just because a right isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Tristan]

I've always found that oddly contradictory, as armed revolution is treasonous and illegal. There is no provision for legal armed revolution, yet that's often the foundation gun owners fall back on. Why not just have an amendment for radical governmental change? Like "If more than X% of the people vote a certain way, they get to replace Z amount of laws instantly, without Congressional oversight, with Z new laws, to be effectively immediately"? The guns thing seem unnecessarily complicated, like a James Bond villain's death chamber

It's my understanding that there were numerous attempts to redress the grievances that the colonists had with the Court. They were all spurned, or downplayed, and it was only finally when the colonists took up arms that they were treated seriously.

So the founding fathers had a clear concern that, in the future, attempts to redress grievances would similiarly be downplayed by a president/legislative body in the future.

Thus the enshrining of the one tool that (at that point) had never failed to gain the attention of the powers that be.... taking up arms.

IANA(P)H, however.

[robert_columbia]

y7xzh1, there you go. Did the answers thus far help you understand the guns in America issue?

y7xzh1, do you have any questions on our responses?

Anyway, the situation can also be summed up this way. It's a complex interplay of law, history, and culture. In a nutshell (with some exceptions, of course):

1) It is legal to have a gun in the United States.
2) People in the United States have always had personal guns.
3) It is socially acceptable in the United States to have a gun.

[villa]

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can't always."

"I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary."

One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!

It belongs in the constitution because it is symbolic and demonstrative of the flow of power which the constitution represents. It is indicative that limited power is granted by the citizenry to the state; and that the citizenry retains the power to overthrow that state.

It's very different to what preceded it - the British constitution, where the flow of power is significantly less clear. There are hints (such as in the Magna Carta) of government being by consent, it is made explicit in the US system of government. It makes complete sense to put such a consideration in a constitution.

[1010011010]

Widespread disarmament of the people only creates a situation where the strong may prey on the weak. People like to talk about "gun crime" (or the more weaselly "gun violence" which also includes defensive use of firearms to stop/prevent crime... think about that the next time you hear about "reductions in gun violence") as if getting rid of guns would get rid of crime.

Not at all. Criminals have the luxury of selecting victims that they expect to be able to overpower and control regardless of the level of force available to them. A 20-year-old street thug doesn't need a gun to attack a 80-year-old grandmother, but she might need that gun to defend herself.

Also, government agents are just people, too. When it comes to concerns about crime sprees or insane mass murderers, these concerns are equally valid and do not just go away because someone is wearing a soldier or policeman costume. Also, the departmental training for these organizations is often laughably abysmal and the individuals may have no personal interest in firearms and thus not get practice on their own time. Regular gun owning civilians are usually higher skilled and better trained than police in the United States.

Which brings us to the principles expressed in our 2nd Amendment's prohibition on infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It's part of the system of checks and balances. If a tyrant should threaten the security of our free state, we may regain it by force of arms if necessary. So a goodly number of would-be tyrants content themselves with petty corruption and abuses of authority because they know that if they tried anything more there would be push-back.

This has been so effective a system at keeping politicians responsive to the will of the people that I'm only aware of one example in the past 200 years of the US where the people have had to restore their government by such means. Knock on wood.

[thelabdude]

but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!

Many viewed the original constitution as fatally flawed and only supported its ratification due to the commitment to make some changes, thus the first 10 amendments. No guns, no constitution.