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…
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.
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.
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).
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.
In your homeland you are a subject. What the Government declares you must do.
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.
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!
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.
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.
No. No, they didn’t. Not a single founding father used that phrase.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 [del]penis[/del] guns.
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.
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.
: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.