Sub Question
Was the right to bear arms a well thought out plan reflecting distrust of the government that was intended to mean what it does today? Or is it an outdated document with specific intent relative to the rebellion against England?
Answer:
Abolishing Guns will not solve the problem entirely. The problem (of violence) stems from a variety of societal ills. Mental health, absence of fathers in the home (this is esp. true, but not limited to the African American inner city community, where gun violence is epidemic), a narcissistic culture, and a sense of purposelessness in peoples lives.
It is true that countries who have strict gun control laws, have fewer incidents of gun violence. Of course in these countries fear of the government plays a powerful role in deterring all kinds of crimes. And besides all that, they are not free. America has always owned guns, it is only in the past 35 years that we have seen such a rise in gun violence, this tells us that the problem is not guns, the problem is in our soul.
No, stricter gun laws would not have prevented the killer in the VT tragedy from acquiring a weapon. If he was determined enough to actually perpetrate this heinous crime, he would have found a way to purchase one on the black market, the same way a dope fiend can always find their next blast, despite the fact that drugs are illegal and billions of dollars are spent on fighting them. Gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens because criminals can find them regardless.
No. If he really wanted a gun he could have gotten any how.
The Constitutionally protected right to bear arms has no relevance to the Virginia shootings. The campus had gun control already; read the link below.
Gun control caused the shooting to be worse than it should have been.
If every class had some guns available, he would have been shot sooner.
lmao what planet are you on?
we have gun control in the usa today. you have to be 21 to buy a gun then they do a back ground search on you. if you pass you get the gun if you dont then you dont get the gun. what kind of gun control you speaking on. well my rights as a us citizition is i have the right to bar arms. which means i can carry my gun.
Very well thought out.
Government can not protect you 24/7/365 ,not even locked up in jail.
Your first line of defense is yourself.
Gun control would not have stopped anything and the right to bear arms is just as viable to today as any time in our history. I am comfortable with the fact that we have a 300 million strong militia. Keeps everything even.
No. If it is as I heard, that the guns had the serial numbers scratched off, the owner did not acquire them thu legal channels. The stricter gun control laws wouldn't have any effect on the VT tragedy or others where people go outside of legal channels. Gun control laws would only limit the people who follow the laws anyway.
I hate guns and would never own one, but that's my thought.
The 2nd amendment was referring to Britian probably, but it is relevant today so that we keep ourselves in check and don't go back to that time.
no but that doesn't mean gun control shouldn't be stricter
Deranged people will harm others. No gun law will ever stop them. The only thing that will is getting them mental help.
No. The bad guys are going to get their hands on guns one way or the other. They don't care about laws. So what kind of situation does that put the law abiding citizens in? They don't have the adequate means of protecting themselves from the guys with guns.
In Texas one guy tried to rob a convenience store with a firearm. Immediately, 4 people pulled their guns on him! Without the means of protecting ourselves, the bad guys don't have anything to fear, except for the police, of course, IF they get there in time.
Might have prevented more deaths if the students were allowed to carry weapons.
America has the worst of both worlds when it comes to gun control. If we had an absolute ban on guns or if we had more freedom to carry them, it would deter more crime (imho). Personally I'm for the people should be allowed to carry weapons argument. It makes no sense to me that the people who flout the rules carry guns (which they have illegal but easy access to) while the good guys are hampered with miles of red tape.
I think that the second amendment reflected the founders' idea of a limited government. People have to be able to care for and protect themselves. The original government was extremely limited in it's power, especially compare with today. (I also think that every restraining order should come with a concealed-carry permit, a handgun, and training)
If you can't tell, I'm a libertarian :)
Ironically, a year ago, they put a law on that exact campus that prevented students and teachers the right to bear arms. (see the link below). So, if anyone is to blame, its the VA state politicians. If a student or teacher had a gun they could have stopped this nut job. I use to be liberal on gun control, now I've changed my opinion and I believe that all citizens have a right to bear arms. Criminals will always find guns. Gun control prohibits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and thus we are open target practice. It was once in our constitution, but that got crapped on like so many of other rights by our tyrannical government.
The simple fact is that while there will always be a black market, the more you restrict access to guns the more difficult it becomes to get them. In countries where handgun ownership is illegal, it is TERRIBLY difficult to get a handgun, and there are practically no handgun-related deaths as a result. Certainly a determined, savvy, experienced criminal with connections will be able to purchase a gun in a society where they are illegal, but a regular 23 year old South Korean student would most likely FAIL to find a gun anywhere, and the act of ATTEMPTING to find one might land him in jail.
Do you believe in statistics? Again. We have legal access to handguns and we have hundreds of handgun-related deaths per year. Countries with laws AGAINST handgun ownership have 0-10 handgun-related deaths per year. Do the math.
No stricter gun laws don't stop tragedies from happening. If there is a will, there is a way. If you are motivated to do harm to others, you will find a way to do so. Most illegal acts can't be controlled by limiting the sales of guns.
The original intent to bear arms arose during the Colonial Period. It gave citizens the right to protect themselves against all enemies, especially the British.
Although the Constitution is a living document and changes to fit the times, the right to bear arms has been prostituted by the media, gun advocates, and the criminal element. Today our worst enemies are not always in the open.
I'm not against the sale of handguns, but more powerful weapons like the semi-automatic machine gun, etc. have no place in society except to arm the military or police. Since gun laws differ from state to state, it would be difficult to have a universal ban on all weapons.
Possibly...as none of us are qualified psychiatrists that interviewed him we don't know his exact state of mind.
We all are convinced that laws in place do deter crime to an extent...that person that you really hate that just buggs you so much...a bad neighbor, the doctor who didn't save your mother, the lawyer who didn't do their job in representing you...there are plenty fo people some of us would want to harm...The laws against assault and murder prevent some murders.
It is possible that if the shooter did not have access to guns legally he would not have had them...but it is possible that if he had to go to the blackmarket to get guns he might have but he might not have...or maybe he didn't even know where to go.
Even if I wanted to smoke weed right now I wouldn't even know where to go begin to get some....unless we know about his mental state we can't make that assumption either way.
But if he were detered...then what? Maybe he gets a knife? Does he still kill 32 people?
banning thing in our society that people really want, is not the answer, look how well the war on drugs is going! and in any major city in the world you can find a prostitute, and that also is illegal, so really banning guns is not the answer because then only criminals will have guns. Law abiding citizens need to have the right to learn how to use and carry a firearm, there would be far less crime. but when you live in the desperate times that we live in and with so many people living on the streets and with a society that does not care for their own, and we don't, there is always going to be crime. But we don't all have to be waiting for our turn to be the next victim!
No this guy was sick. He had one intention and that was to kill. Even if there were no guns this massacre would have happened. He had planed to do what he did. He could have made a bomb. Did anyone think off that. Instead of 33 people being killed there could have been hundreds or thousands killed. This guy got two hand guns on school property, is it possible he could have gotten the materials to build a bomb on campus.
Guns do not kill people. It takes a humans actions and thoughts to kill. A person has to pick up the gun load it, aim, and pull the trigger. The gun can not do this itself.
My point is weather or not its a gun, a bomb, a plane, a car, or even a pencil there is always a human body standing behind the weapon.
Gun control will not stop crime, violence or killing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.