Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The Constitution was designed to be re-interpreted and amended as society (and its problems) changed. The 4th Amendment is no exception. For example, if you go into most public places, no one can search your person without probable cause. But, if you go into an airport (a public place), the government has every right to search you. The development of the airplane was something the Founding Fathers didn't envision and which the Supreme Court addressed, thereby changing the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Moreover, the government has a right to use all sorts of electronic surveillance equipment on people and places (e.g., airplane "flybys" over property to see what people are doing) without a search warrant and without violating the 4th Amendment.

IMO, the gun control issue and the 2nd Amendment is no different. Today's weapons are far more lethal than muskets and the need for militias to prevent against the "King's men" is far less great than it was in the 18th Century. Gun violence is a major problem that requires a serious and dramatic solution. I don't know exactly what that solution is, but I do know that the status quo is not working.

Beemnseven

So it is you who gets to decide what other people's needs are?

Suppose someone started dictating to you what you do and do not need?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Interesting, I never even thought of that point. There are a lot of criminals who use guns in crimes but who have no intention of using them. Maybe, if they thought they'd get shot at, they'd just ambush people so as to avoid the risk of a "fair" shootout.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

They tell me I need seatbelts. They tell me I don't need a surface to air missile. They tell me I can't plant mines in my front yard to deter robbers. They tell me I don't need a nuclear device. I'm being sarcastic, but the government has, does, and always will tell me what I need and don't need. It's just a matter of degree and IMO I don't need an AK-47.

TheMalcolmConnection

I think that's being a little too selective though. I'm talking deaths in general. I think that would even be marginal because say someone ends up in a shootout, there's no guarantee they still walk away.

__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Beemnseven

Short of a majority of Americans, there is nothing stopping anyone from attempting to lobby their representatives to repeal the 2nd amendment.

When the people are prohibited from using firearms to defend themselves, the crime rate will go up. Guns will be a black market item, we will repeat the mistakes we made with the prohibition of alcohol and drugs, and the individuals who have no intention of following the law, who mean to cause harm upon others will have no disincentive to try it, since they will have free reign over helpless victims.

There will never be a police force large enough to handle such an unprecedented onslaught.

What's "not working" is the understanding that there will always be crime, there will always be maniacs who thwart the law, and there will always be victims. No amount of legislation will change the capability of evil in human beings. But to deny the people their most basic ability to defend themselves against an armed attacker, would be to make the problem much, much worse.

TheMalcolmConnection

I read this quote and became severely heated:

"It is a big loss for the American people and I think that this is a message from Allah to them to stop and think of what is happening in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis lost their sons or fathers and all of this was because of the so-called American democracy being exported to Third World countries."

__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Supposing, for argument's sake, that crime does spike. At some point, would it not decrease as guns age, the supply of ammo dwindles, etc.? Even if we don't reap the benefits of a relatively gun free society for another 100 years, I think it makes sense to get rid of guns.

Beemnseven

Those are not examples of the government telling you what your needs are, they are telling you what you can and cannot do. There is a distinction.

Beemnseven

And how many helpless victims have to wait out this type of deterioration?

Do you have the right to defend yourself SSG?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

#1. I doubt that the country would become the Mad Max World that you are predicting it would be.

#2. I have the right to defend myself, but I should not have the right to possess a weapon that can kill dozens of people should I decide to flip out.

Bushead

All though misguided, it is very important to understand how other countries think, so we can all come to a better understanding and remove the misconceptions we have of each other.

In my opinion, its going to be VERY VERY easy for other countries to make the connection with the Iraq war, to Bush, to this event, even though they aren't that connected...or are they?

Beemnseven

See, I don't think this is really a rational scenario. It's like saying, "what if there were no disease" ?

The horse is out of the barn as far as guns go. Weaponry for defense was a natural creation among human beings since the dawn of time.

I mean what are we going to do? Send SWAT teams out to raid every home in America to confiscate all firearms? Come on, that's never going to happen.