And how the hell are you supposed to shoot yourself with a rifle?
Kept, this is an awkward situation, thats why it made the news. So I talked about a regular situation considering that what Gun Control was erroneously designed for.
Gun control saves lives. I find it ridiculously rude that you would call me stupid.
If you want to compare the death rates in the UK vs. the US then go ahead.
To bear arms is a right of Americans, not human beings.
If it was a fundamental right, we would be born holding guns.
And it was set in place to allow the common citizen to band together and overthrow their government, if necessary. It's an antiquated custom from when we feared England's hold on the colonies.
Guns are one of the main contributors to violent death. Abortions and drugs do not belong in the same category.
While I understand that my choice to be unarmed allows be to be subject to that timebombs of people like you, I hardly find it necessary.
To bear arms is a right of Americans, not human beings.
If it was a fundamental right, we would be born holding guns. Is it not a fundamental right to be able to have your own opinions? We aren't born with those though. There are many things that human beings deserve as rights, but we are not born with.
And it was set in place to allow the common citizen to band together and overthrow their government, if necessary. It's an antiquated custom from when we feared England's hold on the colonies. Being old and being antiquated are not the same thing. You must not keep up with current politics if you think that the mere threat of citizens with guns has not kept the government from doing a lot of things that it would have otherwise.
Guns are one of the main contributors to violent death. Abortions and drugs do not belong in the same category. This depends on your definition of violence. Do you think dismemberment is violent? If yes, abortion belongs, if not, something is wrong with you. Do you think having your own body becoming a toxin to itself is violent, so that your very blood becomes a poison? If yes, drugs belong, if not....
While I understand that my choice to be unarmed allows be to be subject to that timebombs of people like you, I hardly find it necessary.
The right to bear arms was officially set up in America AFTER the British were defeated, so clearly, the purpose of the second amendment was not to fight the British. Here is the 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." First of all, there is no mention of the British!
Secondly the purpose of the right to bear arms is made clear, that it is for the security of a FREE state. You see, in a truly free country, an overpowered police force/martial law cannot be tolerated, as such, a militia, or a band of armed citizens are the main peacekeepers. I am deeply disturbed that you think such a concept is outdated.
While I think that the second amendment is definitely necessary, I do think that the accessibility of guns should be reduced. We don't need violent individuals or organizations having access to firearms.
They had a rifle so I was thinking, 'What should I do? 'What if they shoot me?'" Gutierrez said.
There is something called the War of 1812, so it's not like the British just poofed after the Revolutionary War concluded. You also have to take into account when the Second Amendment was written. The US did not have a strong army at the time, so most of the fighting was done by militias. Much of the US was still a frontier, and there were hostile Native Americans ready to fight Americans that tried to settle their lands. Although the French allied with the US during the Revolutionary War, the French were eager to undermine the US and egg on hostile Native Americans, and the British, who still retained territory in America, were keen to do the same. Under these circumstances, it would be very logical to carry a gun around, especially in the frontier.
On the same token, if the US was a truly free country, we wouldn't need people to represent us, e.g. House of Representatives, the President, etc. The US army and police forces are much more powerful than they were back when the Second Amendment was written, so I think it is safe to say that we don't need a body of armed citizens to keep the peace. There are such things called Neighborhood Watches that report to the police when something is fishy. Whether or not they are effective depends on how eager residents are to cooperate.
Of course gun-related homicides went way down after the UK banned guns, but knife-related homicides went up. With that said, it's still way harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun, and gun control may reduce the number of robbery-related homicides.
That would depend on your definition of true freedom. Does true freedom mean being represented by someone who may or may not share your beliefs? I hear plenty of people complaining about all the things the fed does wrong, but they seem to be happy with their level of freedom.
Some criminal organizations may obtain their firearms from friends or family members of age that have no criminal record.
Would armed citizens be better alternatives than the police? Some might carry out vigilante justice, and some may turn rogue. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you'll be able to get a shot off against criminals, since they oftentimes use the element of surprise.
There are other ways to protect your home than just using a gun. Prevention with window grilles, door locks, alarms, etc. can work as well. That should give you enough time to at least call the police and prepare yourself.
The question is where to draw the line.
I would like to see a small band of armed citizens go up against the army of a country the size of the US. I'm sure that a rifle or a shotgun would do well against tanks and bombs.
That would depend on your definition of true freedom. Does true freedom mean being represented by someone who may or may not share your beliefs? I hear plenty of people complaining about all the things the fed does wrong, but they seem to be happy with their level of freedom. Although the states can generate their own revenue, a lot of funds that the states use for specific tasks come from the fed, so it's not like the fed has no influence over the states.
Would armed citizens be better alternatives than the police? Some might carry out vigilante justice, and some may turn rogue. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you'll be able to get a shot off against criminals, since they oftentimes use the element of surprise.
There are other ways to protect your home than just using a gun. Prevention with window grilles, door locks, alarms, etc. can work as well. That should give you enough time to at least call the police and prepare yourself.
By now, I'm going to assume that you live in the States. If you are not being properly represented, then you didn't vote. Even the 30 other parties in the United States are represented to a degree due to lobbying efforts on their parts, and they still vote for those who would represent their objectives. The people who seem happy even though they feel they're injusticed by the system are not voting and are just not involved in politics.
Now you're talking what-if's and theoreticals. I would rather not use a number of deterrents that should give me enough time. I would much rather use methods that have worked, reliably and consistently. (Besides, who says I can't have window grilles, alarm systems, And guns?)
I'd also like to see a bunch of rag tag farmers stand up against the largest empire in the world... Oh wait, that already happened, and they won.
If the government suddenly turned totalitarian, would you seriously not stand up against it? Even if the chances of winning are low, would you seriously just stand by and endure the abuse and oppression?
The main purpose of the federal government is to maintain order, and protect the people and their rights...I also never said that guns are the only means of self defense.