Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered, page 1

Ahhh... I finally get to read the thread you put so much time and work into. Forgive me on the format if it seems odd for a reply but I'm replying in the same way you wrote it for ease of reading on my end. You wrote a book!

(hunts for table of contents...lol) Actually..I do enough of this myself, I better cork it and get on with my reply.

First, seeing as how your not American and so, didn't go through all the American Civics and Government classes...there is one HUGE thing to note right off the top. The Constitution is not the ultimate authority on law in the U.S.. I'd repeat for dramatic effect..but that's kinda silly in present company. Anyway.... The Constitution is merely the guidelines and structure our nation is run by. The final authority on what IS and IS NOT said in the Constitution is the Supreme Court and their word is the FINAL word. People underestimate that Branch or tend to forget it's there at all sometimes....but they entirely OVER-RIDE the White House AND Capital Hill on what is legal, what isn't and how something is either of those two things.

^^^ Thats critical to your first point.

#1 It's in the Constitution.

You're absolutely correct. That is among the shorter items in the entire document. They didn't figure it needed to say very much as it was self evident for meaning at the time. Yet...they said enough and fully supported it in the related documents and personal writings of the founders themselves. Still, it's been a major point of fighting and debate ......until 2009. In 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on The District of Columbia vs. Heller et al.

In the first reference, it's plain language and easy to understand...it's also over-simplified:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.p

Source

This is a more formal reference.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Source

There is more to both, so it's worth visiting the links. I put real time and space for this because it all but makes every other argument moot for real effect. The President and Congress CANNOT over-rule this. There IS NO way that can be done. The ONLY option is for Congress to pass new laws, hope the court agrees they pass muster, and see when they are brought by suit to the Court to review again.....assuming the laws don't violate the ruling on the face of it, of course.

(This reply edit is driving me nuts w/o a character counter. I'll finish replying to the other points in a new message down thread.

edit on 17-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

1) Its in our constitution

2) We need them to defend ourselves against the government

3)Its not just the US that has this problem

4)Its part of our culture/ its a tradition

5) If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns

6) Then why not ban knives, cars, alcohol etc etc they kill people too!!!

7) Guns dont kill people, people kill people

8) I need it to keep my family safe

9) Guns aren’t the issue, we need to help mental people

10) But look at what happened in the UK after guns were taken away

11) Look at how little crime there is in Kennesaw where guns are mandatory

12)I use it for hunting

13) Most gun crimes happen in gun free zones

14) America isn’t the worst by far when it comes to gun deaths

15) I don’t care Im keeping my guns