“It’s in our constitution”
This falls flat on its face at the first hurdle as this is in an “Amendment”. Any basic dictionary will tell you that means “a change to”. So arguing that a decision made in the late 1790s is somehow ‘set in stone’ or ‘sacred’ is ridiculous as the right to bear arms has already broken this rule to be there in the first place.
It is commonly accepted that the Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the English Bill Of Rights. This formed the basis of laws we have in the UK today and include things like the right to petition the King/Queen etc. However it also included these two: -
“Freedom for Protestants to carry arms for defence”
“Freedom from fines or forfeits without trial”
I’d like to see you try and carry a sawn-off shot gun around wearing a “Jesus Loves You” T-Shirt without a Police Gun Unit being called out to shoot your ass down. As for the second one, well you don’t seriously think that we don’t have fines in the UK do you?
It is also obvious that there were a lot of things that were legal in 1791 that aren’t today, most notably slavery but you wouldn't find anyone arguing we should bring that back because of its traditional value. As time goes on we learn more, adjust our morality, live in war and live in peace and so it follows that laws change to suit the current climate. This is quite simple, obvious logic but the Pro-Gun brigade would have you believe it doesn’t apply to “their” law...sorry “constitution”......sorry “amendment”.
It is for self-defence.
Pretty much the same as the first argument said in a different way. This comes from the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the second amendment from the constitution. Basically it says you can have them for defence but not for killing people.
“The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.
Here the good ol’ Americans invented the World’s first circular argument; because if the aggressor in a feud didn’t have the same right to bear arms then the victim wouldn’t need one to defend against it. It’s akin to saying you have the right to beat up your kid to prepare him for the bullying he’ll inevitably receive at school.
The bill's other purpose was to “keep a well-organised militia” in case the British and/or other nations tried to invade after the US’ independence. Apart from the fact that just giving people guns doesn’t make them “well-organised”, it is obvious today that: -
1) An invasion aint gonna happen any time soon.
2) If it did and the aggressor did enough to defeat the US army, I’m sure it would make light work of anyone with a handgun.
Finally it is incongruent with the government’s position (and usually the pro-gunners’ also I suspect) on the right of other countries to own nuclear arms. If they thought the way they do on this as they do on the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” that they religiously recite, then they should have no problem with Iran developing an A-Bomb for self-defence needs.
It isn’t easy getting guns/there are limits on automatics etc
Apart from this argument being different from state to state (Virginia’s being one of the most lax as we all now know), the one about autos being illegal is the same as me saying “make all illicit drugs legal except heroin”. Apart from being a fan of legalising cannabis I think most wouldn’t accept my suggestion. On a side note, the gun used in Virginia was a 9mm Pistol so you don’t need an automatic to go on mass killing sprees.
I’ve heard some pro-gunners complain in defence of their argument that where they live they had to wait a week before they could get their hands on a gun. A week? What a hardship that must have been having to wait a whole seven days. I have certainly held grudges longer than week in my life but luckily I’m not crazy and don't live in the US. I’d like the pro-gunners to compare their laws with the average developed country instead of whining about how tough they perceive their state’s to be vs (insert state with laxer laws here).
Would you legalise crack as long as there was a seven day waiting period? Didn’t think so and if you’ve noticed the drug comparisons here and want to tell me I shouldn’t be comparing the use of drugs with the right to own guns, I’ll leave you to ponder this statistic,
Causes of death in USA, 2000
Guns: 29,000
Illicit use of drugs 17,000
This falls flat on its face at the first hurdle as this is in an “Amendment”. Any basic dictionary will tell you that means “a change to”. So arguing that a decision made in the late 1790s is somehow ‘set in stone’ or ‘sacred’ is ridiculous as the right to bear arms has already broken this rule to be there in the first place.
It is commonly accepted that the Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the English Bill Of Rights. This formed the basis of laws we have in the UK today and include things like the right to petition the King/Queen etc. However it also included these two: -
“Freedom for Protestants to carry arms for defence”
“Freedom from fines or forfeits without trial”
I’d like to see you try and carry a sawn-off shot gun around wearing a “Jesus Loves You” T-Shirt without a Police Gun Unit being called out to shoot your ass down. As for the second one, well you don’t seriously think that we don’t have fines in the UK do you?
It is also obvious that there were a lot of things that were legal in 1791 that aren’t today, most notably slavery but you wouldn't find anyone arguing we should bring that back because of its traditional value. As time goes on we learn more, adjust our morality, live in war and live in peace and so it follows that laws change to suit the current climate. This is quite simple, obvious logic but the Pro-Gun brigade would have you believe it doesn’t apply to “their” law...sorry “constitution”......sorry “amendment”.
It is for self-defence.
Pretty much the same as the first argument said in a different way. This comes from the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the second amendment from the constitution. Basically it says you can have them for defence but not for killing people.
“The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.
Here the good ol’ Americans invented the World’s first circular argument; because if the aggressor in a feud didn’t have the same right to bear arms then the victim wouldn’t need one to defend against it. It’s akin to saying you have the right to beat up your kid to prepare him for the bullying he’ll inevitably receive at school.
The bill's other purpose was to “keep a well-organised militia” in case the British and/or other nations tried to invade after the US’ independence. Apart from the fact that just giving people guns doesn’t make them “well-organised”, it is obvious today that: -
1) An invasion aint gonna happen any time soon.
2) If it did and the aggressor did enough to defeat the US army, I’m sure it would make light work of anyone with a handgun.
Finally it is incongruent with the government’s position (and usually the pro-gunners’ also I suspect) on the right of other countries to own nuclear arms. If they thought the way they do on this as they do on the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” that they religiously recite, then they should have no problem with Iran developing an A-Bomb for self-defence needs.
It isn’t easy getting guns/there are limits on automatics etc
Apart from this argument being different from state to state (Virginia’s being one of the most lax as we all now know), the one about autos being illegal is the same as me saying “make all illicit drugs legal except heroin”. Apart from being a fan of legalising cannabis I think most wouldn’t accept my suggestion. On a side note, the gun used in Virginia was a 9mm Pistol so you don’t need an automatic to go on mass killing sprees.
I’ve heard some pro-gunners complain in defence of their argument that where they live they had to wait a week before they could get their hands on a gun. A week? What a hardship that must have been having to wait a whole seven days. I have certainly held grudges longer than week in my life but luckily I’m not crazy and don't live in the US. I’d like the pro-gunners to compare their laws with the average developed country instead of whining about how tough they perceive their state’s to be vs (insert state with laxer laws here).
Would you legalise crack as long as there was a seven day waiting period? Didn’t think so and if you’ve noticed the drug comparisons here and want to tell me I shouldn’t be comparing the use of drugs with the right to own guns, I’ll leave you to ponder this statistic,
Causes of death in USA, 2000
Guns: 29,000
Illicit use of drugs 17,000