Should Laws Regarding Gun Ownership Be Tightened Up?

[RootsBooster 24]

How many times do I have to keep telling you? Guns are part of the culture. Close down Colt, Smith and Wesson, empty the gun stores and people would still get them smuggled in from Mexico because people want them. Christ they cant completely stop illegal drugs crossing the border or even illegal immigrants so why would it work any better with firearms?

 

That's the status quo, which is exactly what we're talking about changing.

You do realise that the status quo isn't an argument for not changing the status quo, right?

It's like a guy with a lit stick of dynamite saying he can't throw it away because he already has the lit stick of dynamite.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Does the amendment need amending? It just mentions the right to bear arms. Currently the American public cannot access all the arms available so a restriction is already in place, all that needs to happen is for that restriction to be increased.

 

Although a conscious decision for American to turn their back on universal gun ownership by changing the constitution would be far less divisive.

 

Nearly but not quite.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The first part is the interesting part because it shows that the 2nd Amendment is a historic reference that has no relevance in 2015. The USA in 2015 is a free state with a standing army. There is no need of a separate militia, especially when the standing army has nuclear weapons at its disposal.

 

The 2nd Amendment could just be dispensed with.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2015 at 15:50 ----------

 

How many times do I have to keep telling you? Guns are part of the culture. Close down Colt, Smith and Wesson, empty the gun stores and people would still get them smuggled in from Mexico because people want them. Christ they cant completely stop illegal drugs crossing the border or even illegal immigrants so why would it work any better with firearms?

 

Have you not got any backbone? Do you really give up that easily? Is that the attitude that built a great nation?

 

You're a quitter. You're a scaredy cat quitter just like all those other people who say that you need guns. You're a bunch of lily-livered quitters who can't get to first base because you're quitters.

 

Britain was rammed full of guns in 1946. We got rid of them because we're grown ups, not a load of scaredy cat quitters.

 

[WageSlave 10]

Like I posted earlier, it seems a classroom full of dead 6 & 7 years olds has become acceptable in America. Guns are part of the culture and people like Harleyman nothings going to change.

 

I wonder what event tragedy needs to take place for America to finally wake up and say enoughs enoughs.

 

Although no doubt according to the big and powerful NRA the answer is more guns.

[Obelix 11]

Remember the Constitution mentions arms, not guns. So either there is a restriction as to what arms an American can buy or it is a free-for-all. I don't believe that it is permissible to buy a flame thrower or a M252 mortar to reign down death onto any unsuspecting boar. So the sale of arms are already restricted in America.

 

All that needs to happen is for that restriction to be expanded.

 

Although, using a flamethrower to hunt wild boar would cut out lots of messing around and give your an instant BBQ!

 

It's perfectly legal to buy a flame thrower in the USA - I got one from Home Depot.

 

It was for brush clearance but it'd do a dandy job on a pillbox or bunker. Proper jelled gasoline and everything.

[RootsBooster 24]

It's perfectly legal to buy a flame thrower in the USA - I got one from Home Depot.

 

It was for brush clearance but it'd do a dandy job on a pillbox or bunker. Proper jelled gasoline and everything.

 

It's not legal to buy a brand new fully automatic AK-47 though.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

It's perfectly legal to buy a flame thrower in the USA - I got one from Home Depot.

 

It was for brush clearance but it'd do a dandy job on a pillbox or bunker. Proper jelled gasoline and everything.

 

Ok, I stand corrected, but you get the point of the post. If you headed of into the country side to go hunting with a Bazooka or riding a fully functioning M47 tank, I don't think that 2nd Amendment would be accepted as a defence.

 

As RootsBooster has said, even the sale of guns are restricted. The only thing that stopping even tighter restrictions is the lack of will to do so. Not the Constitution.

[sgtkate 10]

The thing I don't understand about all this, is that it cannot SIMPLY just be the number of guns. There has to be something fundamentally wrong about American culture or psyche. As has been said many times, Canada has only very partially restricted gun laws but doesn't seem to have many massacres, Switzerland has more guns than people and again doesn't seem to suffer massacres. America appears to have a great deal more in common with countries it likes to invade or bomb than then rest of the world...

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Nearly but not quite.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The first part is the interesting part because it shows that the 2nd Amendment is a historic reference that has no relevance in 2015. The USA in 2015 is a free state with a standing army. There is no need of a separate militia, especially when the standing army has nuclear weapons at its disposal.

 

The 2nd Amendment could just be dispensed with.

 

I agree, but I'm countering the argument that it's unconstitutional to restrict the sale of guns to Americans.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Nearly but not quite.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The first part is the interesting part because it shows that the 2nd Amendment is a historic reference that has no relevance in 2015. The USA in 2015 is a free state with a standing army. There is no need of a separate militia, especially when the standing army has nuclear weapons at its disposal.

 

I always thought the right to keep and bear arms was included in the bill so that Americans could defend themselves against a tyrannical government rather than invaders or military enemies (which the army would typically take responsibility for).

[Obelix 11]

Ok, I stand corrected, but you get the point of the post. If you headed of into the country side to go hunting with a Bazooka or riding a fully functioning M47 tank, I don't think that 2nd Amendment would be accepted as a defence.

 

As RootsBooster has said, even the sale of guns are restricted. The only thing that stopping even tighter restrictions is the lack of will to do so. Not the Constitution.

 

Well no, because they are not "arms" in the sense that a militia would carry. The context is clear that it means personal small arms and not howitzers for example...

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2015 at 16:32 ----------

 

Sky news just reports a college in Philadelphia is in lockdown and a gunman is on campus.

 

Nerves? Or another shooting about to unfold?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Well no, because they are not "arms" in the sense that a militia would carry. The context is clear that it means personal small arms and not howitzers for example...

 

I'm sure that that is an often used argument, but it's not an insurmountable argument. If we're going to stick to the context of protecting the population from a tyrannical government, then what good would personal small arms do against a tyrannical government nowadays?

 

An alternative argument would be - if argument you put forward is accepted, then only allow similar weaponry to the militias of the day. Single shot, slow loading, low power weapons to people that train and meet up like a community militia.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2015 at 16:37 ----------

 

Sky news just reports a college in Philadelphia is in lockdown and a gunman is on campus.

 

Nerves? Or another shooting about to unfold?

 

Lets hope that it's just an over reaction to something entirely innocent.

Edited October 6, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[RootsBooster 24]

Sky news just reports a college in Philadelphia is in lockdown and a gunman is on campus.

 

Nerves? Or another shooting about to unfold?

 

Either way, nowt anyone can do about these things

 

(Hopefully it'll end without any deaths)

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2015 at 16:40 ----------

 

Ok, I stand corrected, but you get the point of the post. If you headed of into the country side to go hunting with a Bazooka or riding a fully functioning M47 tank, I don't think that 2nd Amendment would be accepted as a defence.

 

As RootsBooster has said, even the sale of guns are restricted. The only thing that stopping even tighter restrictions is the lack of will to do so. Not the Constitution.

 

If I remember correctly, you're allowed to buy a bazooka (in the US) as long as you don't keep the ammunition within a certain distance of the weapon. Or something like that.