I’m going to say something here which many will misunderstand.
You have the right to kill anyone, at anytime, for any reason. Where does this right come from? From the fact that, given the right circumstances, anyone can kill anyone else (more or less). Might makes right.
You don’t have the right to evade punishment for it.
However, this has major implications. Consider that of the US Presidents, nearly every one which has been attacked in office was by lone nutcases (or in two cases losers with delusions of grandeur). This means that, more or less, almost every American President has been able to evade death at the hands of the millions, half of which were immensely pissed off that the President became so.
Even the worst of presidents (yes, I know you all have your own canidates; leave it aside) has not been willing to trample on the basic Consturtional guarrantees of Americans. This is because, deep down, they were all saints or afraid to try and take absolute power. Because they all know that any fool with a gun can kill the most powerful man in the world, at almost any time. And a thousand such fools angry enough to die can drag him from the deepest hole in the country, if they wish.
Guns are part of it, maybe. But they are ultimately a symbol. A gun is one of the original American flags rolled up into a metal tube: “Don’t Tread on Me!” The knowledge that there are men with guns keeps the mighty and the strong afraid. They can kill a man. They can kill a million men. But can they kill the one man that might be willing to destroy them? Because… it only takes that one man.
America is the Death Star. “Fear will keep the politicians in line.” And it’s pointed at the White House, Congress, SCOTUS, the state capitols.
I see the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Where is my right to take those rights from another? Or for another to take those from me?
For the sake of this debate, may we agree to set aside self-defence, which courts will uphold (and which I uphold as well)?
While smiling bandit’s post is more eloquent and convincing than any respoonse I can make, to give a specific response:
The Second amendment guarantees gun rights.
Guns exist to take other people’s lives.
Civics courses generally cover at least the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second amendment.
Toad, I don’t think Kevbo was too venomous. He didn’t call the OP names or anything. The OP was asking for info, but he did it by posing a biased question. Kevbo just corrected him.
As for me, I own many guns. Many, many guns. What can I say? When you get locked into a collection, the tendency is to push it. My goal is to own a Mauser from every country that ever issued one as a military weapon.
Trite but true bumper sticker: If the government doesn’t trust me with my guns, why should I trust them with theirs?
I like this one. ‘Mixed bag’ is probably the most accurate (and reasonable) answer you will get using this unscientific polling method.
USA is a big place.
Personally, if I felt I lived in an area that required a gun, I would either:
Leave that area,
or barring that option,
Acquire or build my own gun, regardless of the laws in place (Does it make sense to petition a govt for the right to bear arms against it, should it fail to live up to constitutional expectations? I think not.)
It does trouble me that so many see guns as ‘fun’, rather than ‘a useful tool, in the right circumstances’. This is, I believe, the biggest point of contention between the so called ‘gun people’ and the ‘gun control people’. But no one will ever admit this when there are ‘principles’ ready to be invoked.
I’m sure there are many, many responsible gun owners, but I am also sure that my next-door-neighbor is not one of those people. How to reconcile that?
“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.”
Yep, looks like you may be correct there.
Well, according to a lot of the folks here, they exist in large part for:
-self defense (which I exempted above) and for
-target practice (which ain’t alive).
And at least one post stated that it was the sight of a gun that discouraged a mugger, so the existence of that gun alone was deterrence, not to take a life.
Seems to me that you and smiling bandit are so far the only ones suggesting that there is a right to take a life. And, specifically, you stated that assassination is my right (your previous disclaimer of advocacy accepted).
None at all, but does waiting 7 days hurt. It takes longer to get a passport?
This is in theory to give sufficient time to run a background check to ensure the buyer is not a felon.
Also maybe prevent an unstable individual from buying a gun while they are deranged. (yes, I know the second argument is extremely weak, its just that I’ve heard it used)
Besides I said I respect your right to own a gun as long as you’re not a felon.
For instance, a lady I know moved into what was supposed to be a decent neighborhood but found out the day after she moved in that there had been a couple of attacks of woment in the neighborhood and someone had attempted to break into her next door neighbors house the night before. She got a gun, and luckily they caught the guy before she had to use it. But it could have just as easily gone badly. Seven days could be too long
Another lady I know had her ex boyfriend snap and start stalking her. Her getting a gun and him finding out about it from her friends made him back off.
Often, people buy guns because some cricumstances in their life make them feel threatened. If that is the case, they need the tools to defend themselves immediately, not a week later after they are dead or injured.
Of course they can be both - and I personally think they are.
Shooting at targets is fun. I don’t question that.
But that is not what is (or should be) in question when we debate gun control laws.
It is, after all, possible to have ‘fun guns’ for that purpose (i.e., entertainment). It is not the criteria for debate, but (IMO) it is exploited by the pro-gun factions for popular support. "Guns for fun’ is not a constitutional right, is it?
Do you disagree with that?
More specifically, I’d like you to tell me what use there is in petitioning a govt for the right to bear arms in the circumstances that it might someday be necessary to bear arms against it. That is what always amazes me. Do you really expect the govt to sanction that?
Sounds like extreme circumstances and just as weak as the the wait may prevent someone from buying a gun to kill someone.
I will happily compromise however. I think the waiting time should be the amount of time it takes to verify the person is not a felon. How long does this take now, way back in the 80’s when this was pushed through some states, a week was considered the required time. If you tell me they can do the check in an hour now, I would say that should be the waiting period.
Why? Or rather, why not? We are after all a nominally free society and should not have to justify ownership, possession, or usage of anything which is otherwise legal.
The Constitution of the United States applies no limitations on, or terms of, the use and possession of firearms. It does not say that guns may be owned only for certain purposes.
The check is done, in all but a vanishingly small percentage of the total, instantly. Meaning, I can go to a dealer, pick out a gun, complete the “yellow-form,” stand there while it is called into NICS, pay for my purchase and walk out of the store with my new gun, all in under 10 minutes. NICS is an acronym for the rather unwieldly “National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” NICS is the outcome of the so-called Brady Law. Initially, in 1998, the Brady Law mandated a five-day waiting period while the investigation was conducted. The technology has since matured to the point where the check can be performed instanteously.
Does the check include fingerprinting? It doesn’t sound like it.
What form of ID is required? If no fingerprinting, is it even as hard as renewing a license? In NJ this now consist of a Raised Seal Birth Certificate and old license or passport, Social Security Card and a utility bill showing residency.
Not quite. The US constitution is kind of fuzzy on that, is it not? There is that pesky qualifying clause. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to have this dialogue all these years later.
When I personally invoke ‘justify’, I am asking you to justify why you think there is a point in petitioning the govt for the right to bear arms - possibly against it - and expect to come out on the winning side in that argument.
Why on earth would you expect to win that argument? Do you really expect the govt to rule against itself? That is the main thrust of my argument here (although, if you have a good idea about how to deal with my crackpot neighbor who might legally have a gun, I am all ears).
Assuming those were the reason it was put in the bill of rights. But as a nation which had rebelled against an opressor government to establish itself, assuming that ~1790’s outlook on the use of a gun was more in it’s use to kill people than to go down to your local firing range for some fun, and the fact that it was the second bill of rights in one of the most intrinsically fundamental and core documents of the new government–it just doesn’t seem logical that they put it in there to guarantee that freesteaders could have one to scare off bears and bandits. Something like that could be decided at a local level.
I stated that it is your right to own a gun. That gun enables you assassinate, rebel, or do nothing. The legality of those will depend on what the government that exists after all is said and done decides to do with you. It is your right to have the ability to kill, not to kill.
Nope. No fingerprinting. Any currently valid state issued photo id is deemed sufficient to meet the federal rules. Each state may, or may not, impose additional requirements. For instance, some states require a purchaser to present an FOID (Firearms Owner Identification card) issued by that state. The requirements for obtaining one of these cards varies.
I guess I’m not sure what you mean when you say “petitioning the government for the right to bear arms.” No such thing is currently required, nor has it ever been required to own a gun here in the United States. At least not at the federal level; again, some states (and even smaller governmental authorities) have imposed their own restrictions. The Constitution permits such infringments at that level. However, a reading of The Federalist shows that that is exactly what the authors of the Constitution had in mind and sought to guarantee in the second amendment - that the federal government was prohibited from infringing upon the citizenry’s right to arms.
My goal is to own a Mauser from every country that ever issued one as a military weapon.