4 ms·

That's just sad then. The right for a private citizen to bear arms is completely ridiculous.

by te_chris 14y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Many argue the 2nd Amendment is for ensuring states can bear arms, which makes more sense to me.
- heretohelp 14y ago
  That's not what the courts have found, I'm afraid. The misconception about it being for states only is from the clause concerning well-armed militias being good for security, that wasn't a scoped restriction concerning that right. During the time following the articles and the constitutional convention, most eligible civilian men were obligated to keep arms, not just ones in a militia or the military. To believe the same people who legislated this had just gotten done signing a constitution that obviated all civilian gun ownership save for those in a militia is ludicrous and painfully unaware of the history. So the wording goes, >the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed If you don't like it, get the constitution amended. At least the anti-alcohol prohibitioners had enough self-respect not to try to sneak through the back-door. Otherwise, suck it up. It's the law of the land. Also, McDonald restricted localities and states from infringing on the individual right to bear arms as much as the Federal gov't had previously been restricted, so it's no longer possible to stuff a city council to get guns banned.
- tsotha 14y ago
  It's certainly not worded that way.
nitrogen 14y ago
This sounds like a good way to start a heated, off-topic argument that goes nowhere. Please allow me to preempt this by pointing it out here.
- vhf 14y ago
  Not sure about the "heated argument". Off-topic, yes. But heated ? Is it really possible to deny the statistical links established, the correlations, existing between (# of weapons in given country) and (# of violent death), or better (# of death by gunfire), or better (# of shootings) ? Hmmm. Well. You're probably right. If someone can deny evolution, he can deny this just as well. So let's not troll here. :)
  - PostOnce 14y ago
    Canned response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun... Anyway, the debate will become irrelevant in a few years when they're printable (I suppose they'll try ammunition control instead). So will a lot of other things. The economy is about to change again, probably as large as a change as the internet has brought.
    - vhf 14y ago
      That's not a response... http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_rec... Switzerland holds the European record for rate of gun suicide, and record of guns per capita. Suicide is the leading cause of death for people younger than 35. There's clearly a problem with the Swiss legal obligation of having a gun at home. (Mandatory for every conscript soldier, i.e. almost every swiss man, including me.) I do believe that if I was not obligated to have a gun at home, I would not willfully buy one and thus would not have access to one.
      - tlear 14y ago
        Just so you don't randomly decide to kill yourself? If you want to kill yourself you will lack of a gun is not an issue.
      - PostOnce 14y ago
        Conversely, South Korea has absurdly strict gun laws (i.e., even hunters must keep their rifles at the police station and not at home during the off-season) and almost no-one owns a gun. Despite that, South Korea has possibly the highest suicide rate in the world. see also: Lithuania
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tsotha 14y ago
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Personally, I think it's ridiculous for a government to presume to outlaw the means by which you can defend yourself.

That's just sad then. The right for a private citizen to bear arms is completely ridiculous.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Many argue the 2nd Amendment is for ensuring states can bear arms, which makes more sense to me.

heretohelp 14y ago
That's not what the courts have found, I'm afraid. The misconception about it being for states only is from the clause concerning well-armed militias being good for security, that wasn't a scoped restriction concerning that right. During the time following the articles and the constitutional convention, most eligible civilian men were obligated to keep arms, not just ones in a militia or the military. To believe the same people who legislated this had just gotten done signing a constitution that obviated all civilian gun ownership save for those in a militia is ludicrous and painfully unaware of the history. So the wording goes, >the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed If you don't like it, get the constitution amended. At least the anti-alcohol prohibitioners had enough self-respect not to try to sneak through the back-door. Otherwise, suck it up. It's the law of the land. Also, McDonald restricted localities and states from infringing on the individual right to bear arms as much as the Federal gov't had previously been restricted, so it's no longer possible to stuff a city council to get guns banned.
tsotha 14y ago
It's certainly not worded that way.

nitrogen 14y ago

This sounds like a good way to start a heated, off-topic argument that goes nowhere. Please allow me to preempt this by pointing it out here.

vhf 14y ago
Not sure about the "heated argument". Off-topic, yes. But heated ? Is it really possible to deny the statistical links established, the correlations, existing between (# of weapons in given country) and (# of violent death), or better (# of death by gunfire), or better (# of shootings) ? Hmmm. Well. You're probably right. If someone can deny evolution, he can deny this just as well. So let's not troll here. :)
- PostOnce 14y ago
  Canned response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun... Anyway, the debate will become irrelevant in a few years when they're printable (I suppose they'll try ammunition control instead). So will a lot of other things. The economy is about to change again, probably as large as a change as the internet has brought.
  - vhf 14y ago
    That's not a response... http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_rec... Switzerland holds the European record for rate of gun suicide, and record of guns per capita. Suicide is the leading cause of death for people younger than 35. There's clearly a problem with the Swiss legal obligation of having a gun at home. (Mandatory for every conscript soldier, i.e. almost every swiss man, including me.) I do believe that if I was not obligated to have a gun at home, I would not willfully buy one and thus would not have access to one.
    - tlear 14y ago
      Just so you don't randomly decide to kill yourself? If you want to kill yourself you will lack of a gun is not an issue.
    - PostOnce 14y ago
      Conversely, South Korea has absurdly strict gun laws (i.e., even hunters must keep their rifles at the police station and not at home during the off-season) and almost no-one owns a gun. Despite that, South Korea has possibly the highest suicide rate in the world. see also: Lithuania

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tsotha 14y ago

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Personally, I think it's ridiculous for a government to presume to outlaw the means by which you can defend yourself.