GUNS! Why can't people just respect the constitution, peoples RIGHTS and FREEDOMS?

Question

Now it's easy to get emotional and I know I have my own views on guns, but trying to not get heated up while brain neutral, trying to be logical, I have some simple, harmless (depending on your perspective) questions:

Firstly the business of "rights" and the second amendment. Is the American constitution sacrosanct? Because there is a piece of paper stating that individuals have the RIGHT to bear arms, does that automatically make it RIGHT or moral? Can the constitution be questioned or is it similar to the Quran?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." Who regulates this militia? The State? Those authorised to do so by the State? Genuinely don't know. Anyone with an insight, please enlighten me.

Is a "well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a free state?" What's a "well regulated" militia? Surely in the 21st century they should at the least have a few panzers, spitfires and U-boats if they are to have a fighting chance?

If it's for the protection of property or family/life etc. why isn't everyone allowed tazers? If it's because they are inferior to guns then why aren't people allowed grenades, rocket launchers or mines around their property?

What is a "free" state? States are "United" aren't they, therefore not exactly "free?" They are certainly not "free" as far as this constitution goes. It seems to be quite autocratic.

The terms "freedoms" and "rights," for me, tend to be used too liberally and without much thought. Same with things like "Justice." Obviously people hear these words and think, POSITIVE, we want more of these, agree, nod along, don't need to think here, no need to query. These words have automatic POSITIVE connotations. Nobody tends to argue in favour of taking away peoples "Rights," "Freedoms," or "Right to Justice."

I just think it would be nice if people could think impartially, without their prejudices, without being a die hard gun lover or gun hater. Look at the situation. The constitution. Sort out something more modern, more applicable to the 21st century. If that includes guns then great. Just try not to be chained to the past or something which was written in the 1700's. Just seems a bit backwards, pathetic and the opposite of free.

If it's people who kill people not guns, then equally, it's people who kill slaves not slaves. Why just use guns to protect yourselves and your families livelihood from others when you could at the same time use slaves to protect yourselves and your families livelihood. Cheap labour. Provide for your kids. Maybe people just go along with the legal. Electric chair. Stoning to death. Water boarding. If it aint illegal it must be right. Docility.

Think I've raised some important questions. Anyone got the minerals to have a stab at a response?

Answer 1

the biggest problem I believe is that most people are willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms to fell safe, while it is a false perception because the govt cant guarantee any ones safety but if you put on a big enough show like the patriot act and the TSA which give the illusion of being safe.

people especially the 20 and 30 somethings believe that they are safe because the government tells them they are.

The result is this if someone wants to kill they will regardless of the weapon and if you tell American people we now have stricter gun control they will send their kids to school and believe what they are told until it happens again.

If there were no guns people would still kill like they do in the UK,China,Japan,Australia ,etc, they use knives and swords, you cant stop crazy no matter how hard you try

Answer 2

Our founding Father's fought and died for this country. They knew exactly what it took to fight an oppressive, tyrannical Government. One of those things was the people's rights to bear arms. That's why when you swear into the Military you say "Against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Who's Domestic? Tyrannical Government.



A Militia is any man willing to pick up a rifle and fight. Well regulated meaning being large in numbers and having plans, weaponry, tactics, and being able to do so without any relation to the Government. Free State being the State's ability to operate freely from the Government, with it's own laws. Sadly, our bastardized so-called leaders have ****** that up, too.



We're not all allowed tazers because there's a nice pretty law for that too. And because, again, laws.



At the time, they were free to operate on their own laws and leaders. So if our main Government got to corrupt, we'd all be separated to be able to properly defend each state. Hence the need for a Militia. Again, too many laws are in place for any of this to go on now. We'd all be forced to bend our knees now.



Your point? The original rights and freedoms were nothing bad. Right to bear arms is the best. Don't think so? Mexico has a nice little arms ban. And the highest crime rate in the world. "An armed society is a polite society"



LOL! How do guns not apply to our current age? We still need protection. Why should we change it based on someone who would illegally acquire the weapon regardless? Why should we hand over the only protecting us against the Government? Why? It doesn't affect you if we keep guns. We didn't shoot anyone. There are school knivings in China. They have arms bans. Take a crazy man's gun away and he'll either just acquire one illegally or use something else. Might as well ban fists, too.

Answer 3

I'll simplify this for you.



A well regulated militia is necessary to a free State, but the RIGHT to own weapons belongs to the PEOPLE.



Regulate the militia all you want. But the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



That old piece of paper written in the 1700s has done more to make the USA the most prosperous nation in the world, and done more to expand human freedom around the world, than anything else. Let's consider that before we willingly seek to give up those rights it guarantees us, for something more modern.

Answer 4

The Political left hates the Constitution of The United States of America because it limits the power of the Federal Government and delegates too much power to The States from the point of view of the Political left.



The Second Amendment is the easiest amendment for the Political left to attack.



If the Political left is successful with their attack on the second amendment, that will set a precedent that will make it much easier to attack other parts of the Constitution.

.. .

Answer 5

Just what important questions do you think you raised?



Most people who say they support the second amendment forget all about most of it. They think (or pretend) that the last part is all of it. In fact, the way it is written, the first part is the basis for the last part.



And, by the way, we are allowed tazers. Again, I don't know whether those stating otherwise are lying or ignorant, but they are one or the other.

Answer 6

The Constitution was not written by Gods, it was designed to be altered to keep up with the times.

Otherwise the only voters would be white, male landowners as the founding fathers originally wrote.