some weapon's question

[miss_elizabeth]

@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…

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]

@Grey

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]

@Sitnam

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

[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.

[YogSothoth]

@Bryan_Ekers

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]

@YogSosoth

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]

@Sitnam

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]

@y7xzh1

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]

@pkbites

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]

@Der_Trihs

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]

@BrainGlutton

@pkbites

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]

@CutterJohn

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]

@Chessic_Sense

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]

@y7xzh1

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)

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 theRussian Thearte siege to see what happens when this kind of thing is tried.

[Lord_Mondegreen]

@griffin1977

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.