Stance on gun control

[Excalibur]

No offense to Canadian gun owners, but there is a distinction between the "gun culture" of America compared to Canada. I don't believe the mentalities are the same on a fundamental level. With the US, its very founding was partly over the problems of government oversight without representation, and even involving confiscation of arms from the people. A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

To a lot of people, having guns is mostly a hobby, but people tend to forget that your right to own guns is guaranteed by the Constitution and shouldn't be taken for granted. The protection of our rights has to be loud and aggressive because the opposition are just as loud and aggressive in how they want to paint guns being evil things and think that somehow they can just be wished away with fairy dust. The people who seek more strict gun controls don't know guns, don't own guns, nor do they want to understand guns. They just see "Oh that looks scary", let's ban it.


Also to compare western countries like the US and Canada to the Stan and Iraq is like comparing the Ming Dynasty to the Zulu. We're talking about completely different environments, cultures, history and people with almost nothing alike. We're talking about a people that's still heavily influenced by their ass backwards religion that it goes deep into any form of government.

The middle east has mostly been a shit hole for a long time. Sure, spots of civilization and great culture has popped up in the ancient past, but other than the Persian Empire and the following golden age that has brought things like coffee and the number ZERO, the middle east never been a place of evolving moral standards and civilization.

It's not gun control that solves the crime problems of America. If it does work, LA, Chicago and New York City would be some of the safest cities in America, but they are not. Just this passed week, over 50 people were killed as a result of crime in Chicago and that city has some of the strictest gun laws in America.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

The problem that I have with the 2nd amendment, is that it is really not very clear cut at all. In fact, to me at least, it is very ambiguous to whom the right is being bestowed. To me the wording "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" would seem that the right to bear arms is only protected if you are part of a regulated Militia. This was also the opinion of the US Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled that it also applied to individuals (in a split 5-4 decision).

Having said this I am against any additional forms of gun control in the US. This isn't because I think gun control is in and of itself a bad thing, but it just wouldn't work due to the history/culture of the USA and the huge amount of firearms that are already in circulation.

[Excalibur]

Most of the people of the period went into great details on what the 2A actually meant and all of them say it's the people's rights to protect themselves, be it from anyone who wish you harm or a government that wishes to oppress you.

The 2A is in 2 parts. The first is establishment of a militia which is different from an actual state controlled military and it needs to be regulated to protect a free state. The second part specifically mentions people, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To keep, meaning to have - to own, possess.
To bear, meaning to carry around, open or otherwise.


I think that is the point established that whoever is the people is, they have the right to keep and bear arms.

That seems pretty clear to me.


What I think should be set into law is harsh consequences for being irresponsible.