USA Politics

How's the quote? "The concept of freedom is reborn with each generation. Yet, only one generation wrote the US Constitution."

Like the US or not, that is a pretty amazing piece of work.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Do you need handguns & automatic weapons for hunting? The rest of the world seems to be able to hunt wild animals without these.
Click to expand...
While I generally agree (coming from a country where automatic weapons are banned and handguns very very restricted), you still can't get around the way the USA has their Constitution structured. What you want isn't relevant.
 
No point in changing what's not broken, eh? Look, I'm not saying you should actually ban guns. You're conflating practicality/reality & ideal. I'm just really surprised that, at a philosophical level, when the question is put to you, you guys genuinely think weapon ownership is fundamentally a good thing & a necessity --& that you trot out your constitution as somehow an argument for supporting/justifying this view. You don't seem to be able to provide any deeper explanation as to why you think this; possibly because you have none, which is fine.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Nothing you have said explains why the average American needs to own firearms.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are from, but why do people from any country "need" all the things they have. No American need a car that goes over 85MPH, but plenty exist. No one needs to go surfing, hang gliding, parachuting, play music over a certain volume level, and on and on of all kinds of things that can cause harm

Some people enjoy weapons and the vast majority of those that own these weapons legally do so with great caution and cause no harm to anyone else. Which is why we get back to the best thing to do is get rid of the illegal guns
 
Personally I think its a no-brainer for the U.S. to adopt background checks, but the Senate doesn't seem to think so. But I think the American people want it (was it something like 91% of the population approve of universal background checks?). And I don't think guns should be a right; to me that's very strange when something such as water, which is more necessary to our survival, is not. But then again, I'm not American. Then again, the constitution can always be amended...which these days is just wishful thinking.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
No point in changing what's not broken, eh? Look, I'm not saying you should actually ban guns. You're conflating practicality/reality & ideal. I'm just really surprised that, at a philosophical level, when the question is put to you, you guys genuinely think weapon ownership is fundamentally a good thing & a necessity --& that you trot out your constitution as somehow an argument for supporting/justifying this view. You don't seem to be able to provide any deeper explanation as to why you think this; possibly because you have none, which is fine.
Click to expand...

Again, not everything people do or own needs to be a necessity. The original point behind the second amendment was for the people o have the power to overthrow the government if they trampled on the rights of the people. As times have changed, this has manifested itself into state militias (National Guard) and private gun ownership.

If you do not accept recreation, protection, and hunting as valid reasons .. I guess that is fine. I am not sure why you do not get the point of legal versus illegal guns. It shows very clearly that the Constitution is not something blindly followed by the letter, if it was I could buy a tank and a cannon. I cannot. I cannot buy a gun right away, as there are waiting periods, there are all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership that have been deemed to be compatible with the Constitution.

The "problem" is not the Constitution, the problem is the poor enforcement of laws.
 
I think the distinction between activities/things which endanger other people (cars that allow the driver to break speed limits for example) & those that only really endanger the individual (e.g. literally everything else you mention bearfan) is pretty clear. As I said before, quite a lot of other countries seem to survive without general gun ownership --& I don't think we're missing out on anything you've so far mentioned e.g. hunting; protecting ourselves (funny how you don't really feel the need to own a gun when you know the likelihood of anyone else having one is literally zero!); etc.

Support ammending your constitution.
 
I didn't really make any attempt to address your legal vs. illegal point. I had wanted to examine what you actually thought at a fundamental/moral level.
 
Am I right in assuming that Americans are so touchy with the gun issue because it's part of the Bill of Rights? Believe it or not, I do understand the problem involved with making any changes to that.
 
Take booze for example, there is no valid reason for bars to exist. Tons of people drive home drunk and can harm others, get into brawls, etc. But people like bars and enjoy spending time in them and we accept that there are some bad apples and create strong laws to crack down on those who abuse the privilege. Smoking is another example, harms others, harms individuals, burdens health care. But it is allowed

Personally, I would not miss anything if guns disappeared, I do not own one, do not like hunting, etc. But, I am not going deprive those who responsibly handle guns of their rights. Like the drunk driver, we should crack down on those who buy and sell guns illegally.
 
Perun said:
Am I right in assuming that Americans are so touchy with the gun issue because it's part of the Bill of Rights? Believe it or not, I do understand the problem involved with making any changes to that.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it being in the Bill of Rights makes it more important or less than any other part of the Constitution or any other amendments in peoples minds. I guess it makes it older than the other amendments.
 
My question has always been, what do you do with the 350 million weapons that are already in hands?

Also, there is a rather large sport of competitive handgun firing. Tournaments, etc. There is also a huge industry that is behind just hand guns alone.

I understand where people think that it shouldn't be a right, yet it currently is. If we deny that right, amend the Constitution, what do we do? Seriously, there are so many aspects beyond just 'take this right away'.
 
The more one finds that guns should be in the right hands, the more the importance of screening is understood (valued). This is the core. It comes first. Next step is how to do it.
 
bearfan said:
I am not sure it being in the Bill of Rights makes it more important or less than any other part of the Constitution or any other amendments in peoples minds. I guess it makes it older than the other amendments.
Click to expand...

I was always under the impression that the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the US Constitution, and people are not willing to open the floodgates on that one.
 
Bearfan in case you haven't been following world news: quite a few countries have already put laws in place to prevent smokers from harming others i.e. by banning smoking in public places. You're perfectly entitled to damage your own health (--at the moment). Alcohol consumption endangers yourself in the main. The other things you cite (i.e. drink driving & brawls) are already illegal. However if you're going to cite numerous examples of things which are already nonsensical (i.e. alcohol & drug law) & hold these up as comparisons, then I'm afraid we could be here a while. I'm quite happy to accept that some of these are illogical.

I'm not asking you guys to say "ban 'em all". I'm saying ideally do you not think it would be better if you didn't have mass gun ownership? You don't have to believe this is possible. It's like saying "I don't support world piece because, let's face it, it ain't going to happen!" --so what? You don't then support peace for all? This is a nonsensical stance.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Bearfan in case you haven't been following world news: quite a few countries have already put laws in place to prevent smokers from harming others i.e. by banning smoking in public places.
Click to expand...

You're perfectly entitled to damage your own health (--at the moment). Alcohol consumption endangers yourself in the main. The other things you cite (i.e. drink driving & brawls) are already illegal. However if you're going to cite numerous examples of things which are already nonsensical (i.e. alcohol & drug law) & hold these up as comparisons, then I'm afraid we could be here a while. I'm quite happy to accept that some of these are illogical.

I'm not asking you guys to say "ban 'em all". I'm saying ideally do you not think it would be better if you didn't have mass gun ownership? You don't have to beleive this is possible. It's like saying "I don't support world piece because, let's face it, it ain't going to happen!" --so what: you don't then support piece for all? This is a nonsensical stance.[/quote]

It is the same thing as you mention with drunken driving and brawls... many guns are illegal and many people illegally own guns
 
Most people in the US (and that is all that really counts here since it is about our laws) disagree with you. No one of importance is suggesting any kind of gun ban and such a ban is illegal ... I think we will just have to disagree here, we are going in circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top