On one end, a lot of innocent people get harmed or killed by them.
More "innocent people" die from car accidents each year. Hell, more kids are injured/killed from swimming pools/bath tubs each year than fire arms.
Where are the gangs of activists asking for the ban on automobiles, pools and tubs?
Not only that, but in most home-invasion scenarios the homeowner gets shot by their own weapon because they don't really know how to use it.
Says you. I disagree. Just because the media reports is doesn't mean it's true. And just because the media doesn't report is doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Think I'm talking outta my ass? Ok, just HOW many news reports have you read in the past month regarding "defensive gun use" (as in homeowner shot someone intruding on property with or without malicious intent) ???
So on that note, they should be a bit more controlled than they are.
A. Why should they be more controlled than they are? Even assuming that 99% of gun owners are idiots and don't know how to handle their guns [which is laughably untrue - but let's assume it for argument's sake]; why punish the rest 1% of us? It's like saying: Of the ten of you, 9 people violated clean air law by driving filthy automobiles while 1 person didn't because he drove an advanced automobile with converters and other apparatus. Therefore, all ten of you are to be fined for violating the law.
B. Who should be the one doing the "bit more controlled than they are?" You? The County? The State? The Feds?
How about -- The Constitution?
But the main reason I support the right to bear arms is because of the original intention of the US government when enacted. It is not to protect oneself from one another or to so we can go hunting. It is the right to protect yourself from your government or any other government that tries to invade.
I agree to an extent. While that was ONE OF THE primary purposes of the IInd Amendment - it wasn't all. See, by claiming THAT reason as the ULTIMATE rationale, the IInd Amendment argued that "the right to self defence" (by keeping and bearing arms) was an
inalienable, individual right!
Militias played an important part during the early time of the US, so citizens needed to have easy access to guns.
Needed to have access to guns? No!!! Nooo! Sorry my friend, but 'the People' HAD guns. Always had. Always did. A "militia" was simply a grouping of the local folks - who were already ARMED. See?
The founders of the constitution gave us these rights because they just overthrew the government who controlled and oppressed them.
No. No. Noooo. NOOOO!
The Founders DID NOT GIVE ME THESE RIGHTS.
The CONSTITUTION does NOT GIVE ME THESE RIGHTS.
As the DECLERATION itself states and is furthur reinforced BY the Constitution - RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE! THAT means - NO ONE GIVES YOU RIGHTS! You have RIGHTS just by virtue of being BORN! END OF STORY! You are a human being - you have rights!
from wiki: [George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."]
(emphasis mine) "The Militia include the whole people!" Even the ENEMY said so! So WHY does our government today refuse to acknowledge and accept it?
So it is not really surprising that a majority of British people today do not support gun rights. Maybe because the British government has seen what happens when they let their people have guns. Remember, back then most Americans considered themselves British. So while it is good that there are less deaths by shootings in the UK, it is too bad they cannot have some means to defend themselves from their government if it becomes tyrannical.
I agree. I think that the vast majority of Britons have been lulled into a sense of false security - about their Crown, about their Parliament, about their economy ... and most of all, about their "money". Is a "Pound Sterling" STILL WORTH an
ACTUAL "POUND STERLING"???
