Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

naa the definition hasnt changes its just people that dont know what an assault weapon is .. mis-labeling other weapons

 

I put no, because just like drugs, when something is illegal the criminals will still be able to get them. Think about it, Marijuana is illegal, but we all get it pretty easy and smoke don't we? If we made guns illegal, I GUARANTEE you that a bunch of gun factories would sprout up in Mexico right across the border and those guns would begin flowing into the USA, because Obama refuses to secure the border. Then only the criminals and gangs would have guns. And cops, of course. But the criminals would be running around with something like a Tech 9 or a AK-47 and the cops are there with a semi automatic 9 mm. Who is going to win that battle. Actually, I could probably use my friends boat to go over to Nassau and purchase my arsenal to protect myself from the war that will erupt if guns were made illegal.

 

i love it!!! Lol!!

 

Using gun crime as a statistic for or against guns, americans need to be more aware of some things. For instance, Sweden has a ton of guns. Almost literally every household has military grade weapons in it, and many have small stockpiles of ammunition and supplies.

Gun crime there is amazingly low. There are more guns per capita, and less gun crime. hmmm...

I don't believe that in the United States an over-proliferation of guns causes the gun crime. It's the crime itself! The US has one of the worst crime rates of all western countries, it seems to me that gun crimes are more prominant here, because it is a tool that is able to be used by the very high number of people who choose to commit crimes. Not because there are a lot of guns, but because there are a lot of criminals.

Go to the source. cut crime. Not guns

 

Go deeper than that. take care of our citizens with living wage jobs. Especially those that have been neglected forever ,as has been the case with ghettoes. Force the american companies that are overseas to make their products here, stop the wars, stop all foreign aid except humantitarian, and remove all money from elections and get and enforce term limits. That'll be a start.

 

Taking everything you say here to be true, I wonder how many more US laws you think should be based on how Sweden operates. I am asking because I've heard this argument before (though usually with Switzerland rather than Sweden as the base country) and I can't recall anyone who holds that country up as being the model America should follow in this matter to be similarly enthused about the other aspects of its political culture.

Definitionally true - of course. It's the matter of lethal degree that differentiates between say an assault with a club and an automatic firearm. Having the right to own a gun is a symbolic gesture - flying a flag with teeth. So I would vote 'No' on the matter of whether firearms should be banned. The public doesn't support it and thus the occassional mass slayings are not a sufficient reason to ask people to step out of the sand box. Still, I think the matter of registration, background checks, training and so on could be areas that could stand some firming up.

Couldn't this argument be applied with equal validity to say the right to own a functional M1A1 Abrams?

 

They'll have to pry my cold dead body outta' my tank! Alright--just jackin' around. Anyone remember Luby's cafeteria in Texas? McDonalds in Chula Vista? The postal shootings. The College shootings? The air force shootings the other day? The Cia shootings? If one person had had a permit to carry(or not) and had a gun when this crap happened-- lives would have been saved. I have 0 sympathy for those that shoot innocent people. Guns are not going to be banned,so it's a dead issue,as it were.

 

We cannot follow other countries in their politics, because we have an almost entirely different society, and completely different cultures. For example, Norway, Finland, And Sweden pretty much have some of the highest standards of living. But, they are taxed insanely high from the American standpoint. This country wont take it.

same with guns... different cultures need a different system

 

And I am of the opinion that I should have the right to own a functional M1A1 Abrams.

There's a line where there is no reason anyone should have it, and VERY large explosives, ie. nuclear, should not be privately ownable. But a tank? Bitch please.

 

+1 Charlton Heston. Ever seen the inside of Mr Heston's armory?? It is something to behold!!:sunny:

 

There was a gal with her folks that day at Luby's. She had her pistol with her. But because of some bogus Texas law she had to leave the pistol in her truck while she was in the restaurant with her folks. She lost her folks that day.

After that terrible tragedy she worked tirelessly to get Texas law changed so that law abiding Texans could carry concealed pistols. Had she of had her pistol on her person that fateful day she may have been able to thwart that madman.

McDonalds supports gun control due (I think) in large part to the rash acts of a crazed lone gunman. I WON'T give them any of my fast food business.

 

As I understand the basic concept of the 2nd Amendment I may own similar arms as those of the Armed Forces of the USA. That could include fully automatic weapons provided I lived in a Class III state. Unfortunately I do not. The right to bear arms includes small arms; rifles, pistols, revolvers. Not anti aircraft guns, missile launchers, 105mm howitzers, TOW rockets or the M1A1 Abrams Tank.

Even if you were allowed to own an M1A1 I doubt you could afford the purchase price, maintenance upkeep, repair parts or fuel costs. Not to mention the cost of 120mm cannon ammunition or .50calBMG ammo.


On the other hand if you were serious about owning an armored fighting vehicle they ARE AVAILABLE. Last I heard you could find completely restored WWII Sherman tanks starting at $50,000. There are clubs scattered across America and Europe dedicated to the restoration and ownership of vintage military vehicles. They are lots of fun to drive in parades or attend Independence Day Celebrations.

 

The only answer to this question is to hold a referendum to repeal the 2nd amendment from the Constitution. It was put in there by changing the original constitution and can be removed as such, if the people want.

 

My point was just that the military should be composed of the people, and the people should possess it's weapons, IMO.

I wouldn't really care to have an abhrams, though shermans are pretty cool.

 

Actually no . . .

For a couple different reasons.

First, those first eight amendments exist because the original social contract, the Constitution depended upon those provisions being there. The provisions were debated and 'refined' by Congress but the proposals came from the states and they would have rescinded their ratification (and NC and Vermont IIRC refused to sign) unless a Bill of Rights was added.

Second, the right is not given, granted, created or established by the 2nd Amendment. The citizen has the right to arms not because we think the 2nd gives it to us -- we have the right because no power was ever granted to government to impact in any manner the per-existing individual right of the citizen to keep and bear arms.

Altering, deleting or completely removing the words of the 2nd Amendment would not empower government to act -- it would be a event that would trigger the people's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and to make the real intent of the 2nd Amendment actionable.

 

Any part of a constitution can be amended, otherwise it isn't really a constitution. It is unlikely the fathers you worship would have locked you into a permanent and mandatory situation with no escape.

 

The escape is abolishing the present Constitution and establishing a new one if the present one no longer serves the needs of the people.

Unfortunately for you in this discussion short of that, the fundamental principles are deemed unchangeable and the general militia principle of an armed citizenry is a inseparable component of the republic the Constitution established and promises to forever provide.

The mechanism of amendment can not be legitimately used to alter that from which the Constitution springs . . . Principles are decided first, then the Constitution was established.

It is a settled point of law that because the powers are conferred through the Constitution are limited there is no power to retroactively change the foundation of the Constitution's authority.

Here the Supreme Court, over 200 years ago, explained it better than I ever could:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

I especially like this one from 1943:

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

​

I know it seems impossible but there could be an 'unconstitutional amendment', even if the actual process of Article V is followed with precision. The rights of the people are not at the mercy of the will of the majority or subject to a vote, even if a constitutional amendment is demanded by them.

So, again, if you could amass enough people to demand that the right to arms should be abolished, the proper thing to do is dismantle the present Constitution and establish a new one based upon those new principles . . . Perverting and mutating the present one into abolishing what it sought to preserve is not legitimate.

 

Well there you go!
USA... the only country where 200 year old dead people tell you what to do.

 

Yes and we love it. For me, that it bothers so many people so far away both geographically and philosophically is just an added benefit.

With people like "them" so stridently against it, how can any thinking person not be for it!!!!

 

It doesn't bother me. Why would it? The idea that it bothers someone else obviously give you a lot of pleasure though, and that's the main thing. What are constitutions for but making you feel good?