Originally Posted by
David Rosado
Every household has a knife. So, why are there less knife related deaths? It has less to do with the instrument and more to do with the people. First, we have a higher populations. But also, Americans really are crazier bro.
Guns are a tool for defense. Cars are a tool for transportation, but people use them to kill maliciously. Guns are a tool for defense but people use them maliciously. It's not a fair comparison of functions, but it is a fair comparison. And sure, for many, guns are not a part of our daily lives. They weren't a part of the founding father's daily lives either...until one day they were. And had they not had their rifles, we wouldn't have our country. They knew how important it was to have citizens ready to defend themselves. So they made sure that the 2nd amendment....emphasis on 2nd amendment...meaning the number one is the most important...and the 2nd most important right for a free country is the right to bear arms. So, they're not a daily necessity now, but one day they might be.
Cute. But no. The original intent was to allow men the right to bear arms. In historical context the amendment didn't say we have the right to bear cannons. Put that into today's context and an RPG would be similar to a cannon. The amendment gives us the right to bear self defense weapons. Not major offensive weapons.
People really need to stop blaming the gun and start blaming the killer. When IED's go off, people blame terrorists, not shrapnel. In stabbings people don't call for knife bans.
the numbers I posted are per capita so higher populations is not a factor statistically.
The right to bear arms was seen as necessary because citizens need the ability to fight the government if it became oppressive. "Arms" is not defined strictly as guns so I think back then you could have cannons. Your wrong about the intent being to allow self defense weapons. I dont know how long its been since you took history but this is right off of wikipepdia,
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state”
I don't feel anyone is blaming gun laws in the sense that you would blame a person for their actions but knowing that people do go nuts sometimes should we have these things around? In term of the car analogy, I feel a non-auto shotgun or hunting rifle would be akin to a car and a handgun or auto would be like a car with spikes all over it and provisions that make it specifically more able to kill humans.
The supreme court in a a split derision decided "arms" meant weapon not specifically designed for military use but at the time of the drafting civilian rifles and military rifles were the same, No? None of the original language makes sense if we cant bear arms adequate to defend against a military force.
Reply With Quote
