Constitutional Laws?

No, the world won't nuke us, because we're the biggest consumer country. As in, we buy all their stuff! We give them business! They would lose a lot of money if they nuked us.

(us can mean the U.S. or just plain us, depending on where you're from :P)

Originally Posted by donut3.5

Most of the basic amendments are pretty general, such as freedom of speech and the press, however, some like the right to bear arms (which was written to prevent the redcoats from attacking) aren't really important anymore.

Tell hell it isn't. Guns are the most abundant and deadly weapon. Taking away my right to a gun is taking away my greatest right to protect myself. If you take away my right to guns, I am to assume my right to more advanced weapons is already gone, and what's left is weapons of less advancement than firearms. I cannot reasonably protect myself with any lesser weapon against people who have firearms. Taking away my right to keep and bear arms inevitably makes me a target for domination. Governments, slave owners, invaders, you name it, there are threats to me and taking away my right to a gun revokes my right to protect myself form those malicious forces.


Hell, I need guns to protect myself from wild animals.

---

Find me the situation that cannot be resolved by,
"If a form of harm has been dealt to you, punish in a fair manner."


Note that many things written in the constitution have be rewritten when they didn't need to be. For example:

• All the equality laws.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Taking away my right to a gun is taking away my greatest right to protect myself.

Taking away your right to a gun may also mean saving the life of a guy who took your parking place or a guy who pushed ahead of you in the grocery store. That is a very paranoid and unnecessary statement. Imo, when you give a gun to someone, you tempt him to use it and that is never a good thing.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Tell hell it isn't. Guns are the most abundant and deadly weapon. Taking away my right to a gun is taking away my greatest right to protect myself. If you take away my right to guns, I am to assume my right to more advanced weapons is already gone, and what's left is weapons of less advancement than firearms. I cannot reasonably protect myself with any lesser weapon against people who have firearms. Taking away my right to keep and bear arms inevitably makes me a target for domination. Governments, slave owners, invaders, you name it, there are threats to me and taking away my right to a gun revokes my right to protect myself form those malicious forces.

Is this sarcastic? I can't really tell.

I think this is not a matter of should we: it's a matter of how. Two-hundred fifty years can bring about a lot of change, but the fact of the matter is that we would have no capacity to rewrite the Constitution if we wanted to preserve any semblance of order. The U.S. Constitution was written by revolutionary, inspired men united behind a cause of Freedom: today, what have we to rally around? Shall we unite behind the Golden Arches or shall we follow the heroes of High School Musical? America these days is a farce, and the concepts of Liberty or Equality care not to grace the minds of the American populace. How then would you propose coming to a consensus about what is really important to Americans, and would those things that rested so dearly in our hearts be enough to preserve the nation and unite the people? Nope, sorry.

Even in the times of the Founding Fathers, despite intense contest between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, there still remained a certain oneness between the people of America. Modernly, America has fallen to that same factionalism that Thomas Jefferson said would ruin America and corrupt its true intent.

America lacks the understanding of Liberty to be able to even attempt to revise or rewrite the Constitution, and even if this was otherwise, we would lack the men of influence to do so. The politicians of today are self-serving individuals that drown the ideals of the past in the superficialities of modern-day America, and corruption has spread to such a degree among the higher-ranking officials that it seems impossible to make any change at all.

But this change won't come from revising the Constitution. True, meaningful change is something that must come in the hearts of the people. The populace of America must resolve to embrace change if they wish to it to come. For me, however, I see the Constitution as a document inspired by men of God (here's my religious jaunt), and I feel that we could do little to produce anything of such high quality and sound reasoning, something so devoted to the ideals that America has now abandoned. If anything, I think we need to retrench, to go back to the Constitution. It has allowed for reasonable alteration, and we can bring about whatever change we need to within those strictures.

The Constitution has survived the test of time, and the fact that it has been able to remain intact and applicable for near two-hundred-fifty years is a testament to me that it will last for a lot longer...

Originally Posted by Gilles

Is this sarcastic? I can't really tell.

If you were in the woods and a bear was coming at you, would you want a gun or not?

Originally Posted by Volvox

Taking away your right to a gun may also mean saving the life of a guy who took your parking place or a guy who pushed ahead of you in the grocery store.

Guns can hurt people?
Hmm. I am going to have to take this into consideration.

In either of those situations, the problem is not that I have a gun, it's that I'm using it for a crime. If I shoot you because you took my parking spot, or because you cut me off with a shopping cart, you'll wish somebody else had a gun so that you would have been protected from my gun. I draw my gun in crowded place, and if someone else there has a gun, you can bet I'll get shot. Outlawing guns doesn't stop criminals from obtaining guns, it stops good people from obtaining guns.

Does a criminal care about laws against owning firearms? No.
Does a stand-up individual, who follows the law and pays taxes, care about laws against owning firearms? I daresay they do.

Originally Posted by Volvox

Imo, when you give a gun to someone, you tempt him to use it and that is never a good thing.

Never?

Originally Posted by Hakeem

If you were in the woods and a bear was coming at you, would you want a gun or not?

Yes I would. That sure was a roundabout way of answering my question. :P

I think guns should be legal with a license. If for example you lived in LA, why the heck would you need a gun? I figure the more guns there are, the more shooting that is going to happen, the more people get hurt. Just makes sense to me. Guns should only be owned by people with proper training and for a good reason like hunting or if you do have a dangerous job and need protection. The average person should not be allowed to own a gun.

You would need a gun in LA to protect you from the highest homi(thanksgilles)cide rate in the country?

"Hey, I think I'll drawn my gun and start shooting people in this crowded area where all the people around me have guns."

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Never?

Never.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

"Hey, I think I'll drawn my gun and start shooting people in this crowded area where all the people around me have guns."

By this logic it sounds like you think that if everyone owned a gun, then our world would be a safer place? To me less guns = less shooting. I don't see how that can't make sense.

Originally Posted by brad.dude03

You would need a gun in LA to protect you from the highest homocide rate in the country?

The killing of gay people? I think you meant homicide. :P

No, I would argue that having a gun actually makes you less safe. I've thought about it for a while, and and really can't think of a way of explaining myself clearly. Let me think on it, but I'll say that basically I think that having a gun only pushes others to violence. If that makes sense. Sorry, but I need to work on my communications skills more, I find it hard to explain myself in these debates.

As soon as I turn 21, I'm buying a gun. Probably the best law ever made, the right to shoot anyone trespassing your home. It's right next to the death penalty for panda poachers in China and the hand-chop for theft in some Muslim countries on the list of greatest laws.

If someone draws benefits at someone else's expense, not to mention the expense of the community as a whole, because he lacks the ability, the self-appreciation or the will to earn what he needs, he does not belong here. If my life would ever be in danger from a junkie, a murderer or a simple idiot, I would take his away gladly.

So yes, if social parasites can own a gun, and they would find a way to smuggle firearms anyway, no matter what the law states, it's only reasonable that I have one too. Not to pull it out at the parking lot, or at the grocery store, not to resolve my quarrels with it or to show it to my friends, but to keep it in a safe somewhere, locked away, for my own protection, just in case anyone with a gun ever puts a foot on my doorstep.

If by some magical power all firearms would dissipate, along with the knowledge on how to create them, I'd pick that. But since that is impossible, I'll have to go for not banning guns.

Originally Posted by Japut3h

As soon as I turn 21, I'm buying a gun. Probably the best law ever made, the right to shoot anyone trespassing your home. It's right next to the death penalty for panda poachers in China and the hand-chop for theft in some Muslim countries on the list of greatest laws.

If someone draws benefits at someone else's expense, not to mention the expense of the community as a whole, because he lacks the ability, the self-appreciation or the will to earn what he needs, he does not belong here. If my life would ever be in danger from a junkie, a murderer or a simple idiot, I would take his away gladly.

So yes, if social parasites can own a gun, and they would find a way to smuggle firearms anyway, no matter what the law states, it's only reasonable that I have one too. Not to pull it out at the parking lot, or at the grocery store, not to resolve my quarrels with it or to show it to my friends, but to keep it in a safe somewhere, locked away, for my own protection, just in case anyone with a gun ever puts a foot on my doorstep.

If by some magical power all firearms would dissipate, along with the knowledge on how to create them, I'd pick that. But since that is impossible, I'll have to go for not banning guns.

But by everyone having guns, you seriously think the world (or at least your neighborhood) would be safer?

Everyone would have a gun only if we had a law that ordered everyone to have a gun.

And even if every person without any overpowering homicidal tendencies would be given a gun and decided to keep it (which will never happen), I wouldn't see many problems with that, as long as they keep their firearms in their own homes. An average police station of a large city has approximately 50 - 100 people that carry firearms inside, and probably 100 - 200 additional weaponry stashed somewhere. I've never heard of an accidental or an intentional shooting in a police station.

Originally Posted by Japut3h

Everyone would have a gun only if we had a law that ordered everyone to have a gun.

And even if every person without any overpowering homicidal tendencies would be given a gun and decided to keep it (which will never happen), I wouldn't see many problems with that, as long as they keep their firearms in their own homes. An average police station of a large city has approximately 50 - 100 people that carry firearms inside, and probably 100 - 200 additional weaponry stashed somewhere. I've never heard of an accidental or an intentional shooting in a police station.

"As long as they keep them in their homes" relies on people using their property (the gun) properly, and in my experience that can be a problem. Also I reiterate that more guns = more shooting, less guns = less shooting, that's how I see it.