Originally posted by kevinunknown
The argument is always that it’s for self defence, that way if someone pulls a gun on a knife on you, you can protect yourself. It’s a hard one to
argue against, but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of
firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the
odds would fall further. In any case you can never be sure it’s going to help your odds, if two gun men mug you or break into your house you’re
already on the losing side. Now baring in mind that there are almost enough firearms America for every citizen the robbers are going to know you have
a gun in your house, they are going to be prepared and have the element of surprise on their side.
Ok let's tackle this statement first. The argument that regulation and the outlawing of guns reduces guns is only true for law abiding citizens, i.e.
those individuals who are unlikely to use guns for any purpose other than self defense, hunting, or recreational shooting. I have yet to have someone
explain to me what makes them believe that the criminal elements that are responsible for crime would give up their guns. As a matter of fact, I have
seen several stories done where criminals were interviewed and asked about gun control. Guess what, they were in favor of it because it created a
safer and more conducive environment for their less than legal activities. What gun control laws would accomplish would be to simply take guns out of
the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals, who are not going to suddenly become safety conscious citizens.
Now, as for the second amendment, you obviously have no understanding as to what the Constitution's role is. The second amendment, while providing for
individual protection, is primarily a vehicle to ensure that the people are not put into a position where they cannot defend themselves from their own
government should it become a danger the the liberties and freedoms cited in the Declaration of Independence. That in essence sums up the
Constitution. It is not a document which grants rights. It is a document meant to limit the power and scope of government to within a very narrow
framework. While, this has obviously been usurped in many ways, it does not change the fact that is its purpose.
I do not disagree with the basic premise that the world would be a much beautiful rainbow filled paradisaical utopia without guns. Oh wait before
guns, we killed each other with swords. Ok, without guns and swords. But wait, then there were sharp pointy sticks... Ok, no guns, swords, or sharp
pointy sticks. Crap, forgot about wooden clubs. Ok, not guns, swords, sharp pointy sticks, or blunt objects. Hmmm, wait a minute what about rocks, can
definitely do serious damage with a rock. Ok, I have it now. We just outlaw all guns, knives, swords, sharp pointy sticks, blunts objects, and rocks.
That will surely solve the problem...
Obviously, the problem is not the weapons used. Violence is not a new phenomenon which suddenly materialized with the advent of guns. It has been
around as long as people have walked the Earth. What do we do to stop it? Well now that is a question for the ages and I am not so arrogant as to
assume I have the answer. I do know that leaving myself and my family vulnerable to those in our society who do not share my sense of civic duty and
compassion for my fellow man is not the answer. It simply makes me a poor protector of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
edit on 14-12-2010 by Talvar because: (no reason given)