Gun Control: Controlling Guns or Controlling People?

Published on November 5, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

Call me crazy, but I often wonder if Americans really understand the intention behind the second amendment. The exact wording of this amendment reads:

Amendment II

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.

All historical documents are inherently open to wide interpretation, and this amendment has seen many vast incarnations. Another blogger interpreted it to mean the right for target shooting and hunting; harmless enough. Of course the wackos in the world think it means they can stockpile weapons for their racist, religous causes; not so harmless.

In order to understand the true intention behind this amendment, one must look back, like all historical documents, to the climate in which it was written. We had just waged a revolutionary war against England. King George called us 'rabble in arms.' We were citizens in arms against tyranny and taxation without representation. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the peoples' guns.

To this day, whether you choose to own a gun or not, you have this inalienable right. It is a safety net to protect us from oppression. It provides us with a way of rising up against our government should we feel oppressed. If the leaders took away our right to bear arms, we would have no recourse for fighting a corrupt government. There's been no shortage of dictators, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people. The German people could not stage a coupe and fight Hitler with sticks.

Will this amendment be abused by evildoers and serial killers? Of course, but no law would stop them. There will always be evil in this world. Evil men do not follow rules. And if one should become our leader, we have the right to bear arms.""

Comments (Page 2)

coffee is overrated

on Nov 05, 2004

It provides us with a way of rising up against our government should we feel oppressed. If the leaders took away our right to bear arms, we would have no recourse for fighting a corrupt government.

I don't understand your point, but maybe that's because I came from a country where gun is heavily regulated. What is the current gun control system of America? Is it completely uncontrolled or is it controlled to a certain point?

My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 05, 2004

controlled to a certain point

That one depending on the state but every state I have lived in requires a Gun Safety course be attended and graduated from prior to applying for purchasing any firearm, damn I wish I had my big brother's knowledge of the subject. Than fully automatic weapons are banned and have been banned since the Gangland Act of the 1930s, though you can get around it if and only if you have the permission from your local police department directly.

Most states require a separate Gun carrier I.D. like Texas, whenever a Police Officer asks for ID you must present both your driver's license and gun carrier ID always, other states are different. There is a lot of info on this subject, with there being 50 different laws for each of the 50 states on what kind of procedures are put in place for Gun control, but the biggest issue is between those who think the 2nd Amendment has something to do with National Guard units and actual gun ownership, the latter being the correct answer if phrased in a Founding Fathers era concept.

My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

Well, this is never the case, after all if it was Ireland would never have achieved it's equality (minus Northern Ireland), America would never achieved its Freedom (US and Mexico), plus there are many more cases. It is easier to fight back with a small gun than NO gun at all.

Plinko for the people who love Starbucks!!

drmiler

on Nov 05, 2004

Reply #17 By: Grim Xiozan - 11/5/2004 4:53:40 PM
controlled to a certain point

That one depending on the state but every state I have lived in requires a Gun Safety course be attended and graduated from prior to applying for purchasing any firearm, damn I wish I had my big brother's knowledge of the subject. Than fully automatic weapons are banned and have been banned since the Gangland Act of the 1930s, though you can get around it if and only if you have the permission from your local police department directly.

Most states require a separate Gun carrier I.D. like Texas, whenever a Police Officer asks for ID you must present both your driver's license and gun carrier ID always

Neither one in PA my friend. Did you know that if stopped by PD in PA you are NOT required to even tell the officer that your carrying? Not that I would recomend that procedure. Nor are we required to take a safty test before purchasing any firearm. Having come here from CA this is like someone opening th iron maiden and letting me out.

The ones who want gun control seem to think that EVERY amendment but the 2nd cover individual rights.

drmiler

on Nov 05, 2004

Reply #16 By: coffee is overrated - 11/5/2004 12:52:47 PM
It provides us with a way of rising up against our government should we feel oppressed. If the leaders took away our right to bear arms, we would have no recourse for fighting a corrupt government.

I don't understand your point, but maybe that's because I came from a country where gun is heavily regulated. What is the current gun control system of America? Is it completely uncontrolled or is it controlled to a certain point?

My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

This does not always assure victory.

Texas Wahine

on Nov 23, 2004

This is a good article, iamheather.

I think it would be foolish to claim that we do not have the right to own weapons (though some people might argue that).

Personally, I hate guns. I would never own one. Too many children have died because they had access to daddy's gun and either intentionally or accidentally killed themselves or a friend or family member. I don't understand the appeal of hunting. I personally think it's sick to derive pleasure from killing something. However, I have the right to not own a gun. I don't intend to push my feelings about guns on others.

I support laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those without the capacity to understand how to safely use a gun. I support background checks and registration. I support wait time on purchasing a weapon (this makes me think of that Simpsons episode where he's buying a gun, and as he goes through the mandatory waiting period, all kinds of great shooting targets go past him).

I think "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Guns make it possible to kill people from a further distance, they make it possible to kill more people more quickly and efficiently. Since you read up on murder and serial killers, iamheather, I'm sure you are aware of the significance of someone killing another person via gun versus via knife or other up-close weapon. Guns themselves do not kill people, but they make killing light work.

They are a dangerous tool that must be wielded by a cautious and responsible hand.

I have no problem with the average person responsibly owning a gun and using it for hunting, shooting cans off a fence, or making a sunroof in his trailer house (wit bit of humor, no offense intended guys), because it's our right as Americans to own weapons.

Let's just keep them out of the hands of people like the guy in the news right now.

dharmagrl

on Nov 23, 2004

I have a gun. My husband has a gun. Our kids have a gun. We go shooting together (used to, anyway). My husband carries a gun at work, as did I. We were both trained by police departments, and we pass on that knowledge to our children.

There are a lot of responsible gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, there are some irresponsible ones too. The guy in the news today was an irresponsible gun owner. Those are the ones that make the news. You don't hear about us responsible ones, because we don't go around brandishing our firearms as some kind of threat or shooting people who smoke our last cigarette.

Tex, the 'people kill people' statement....that's really pretty close to the mark. People are the ones who choose to aim and pull the trigger, just as people are the ones who choose to slash and stab with knives. If you look at the crime rate in a country where guns are banned, like the UK, you'll see that the crime isn't any less, it's just a different type of crime. There are more stabbings and knife related crimes there, simply because people don't have firearms. If they had guns, there'd be more shootings.

We do need to start controlling who gets to own a gun. We have plenty of legislation on the books already; we now need to start enforcing it.

Daniel Ruoss

on Nov 23, 2004

Daniel Ruoss

on Nov 23, 2004

I remember a comedian that once said, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

dharmagrl

on Nov 23, 2004

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

Exactly!!!!

Texas Wahine

on Nov 23, 2004

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

Larry the Cable Guy.

It can also be flipped around. Cyanide doesn't kill people . . . it can't get into your system by itself. Heroin doesn't kill people . . . someone has to push the needle into the vein.

Guns are weapons. They are tools. When not in the hands of a human being they are just like any other object, however, unlike yogurt or a couch, they are designed to do damage to other things. They are dangerous in their nature.

That doesn't make the right to own a gun any less valid. It's just being realistic about what a gun is.

Genghis Hank

on Nov 23, 2004

I remember a comedian that once said, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.

Anybody know where I can get a better keyboard? This one misspells a lot!

Texas Wahine

on Nov 23, 2004

wit bit of humor

meant "wee bit of humor" *blushes*

iamheather

on Nov 23, 2004

Reply By: Texas This is a good article, iamheather

Thanks Tex.

Personally, I hate guns. I would never own one. Too many children have died because they had access to daddy's gun and either intentionally or accidentally killed themselves or a friend or family member. I don't understand the appeal of hunting. I personally think it's sick to derive pleasure from killing something. However, I have the right to not own a gun. I don't intend to push my feelings about guns on others.

Same here, Tex. Guns make me nervous. I should never own a gun and do not plan to. My father-in-law is a deputy sheriff, so my husband grew up around guns. Still, he won't have a gun in the house either. The cons far outweigh the pros for us at this point. But, I could forsee a time under certain circumstances as sited in my artlcle, that a gun could be a necessary evil.

Since you read up on murder and serial killers, iamheather, I'm sure you are aware of the significance of someone killing another person via gun versus via knife or other up-close weapon. Guns themselves do not kill people, but they make killing light work

Interestingly enough, guns are not the preferred method of serial killers. The sadistic mind prefers a more sadistic weapon. Dahmer and Bundy, the Zodiac Killer, Manson, the Green River Killer, Jack the Ripper, all used knives, drugs or bludgeoning instruments.

Reply By: dharmagrl
People are the ones who choose to aim and pull the trigger, just as people are the ones who choose to slash and stab with knives.

Could it be said, "Knives don't kill people; people kill people?"

We do need to start controlling who gets to own a gun. We have plenty of legislation on the books already; we now need to start enforcing it.

And this is the point! Thank you dharmagrl.

Reply By: Genghis Hank
[Anybody know where I can get a better keyboard? This one misspells a lot

Texas Wahine

on Nov 23, 2004

That's the thing that is so striking to me -- up close and with knives and bludgeoning instruments indicates a true killer who does not mind getting covered in gore, and this is supported by crime research. On the otherhand, guns tend to be used in spur of the moment crimes of passion. That's what's scary. Many a heated family argument has turned deadly because a gun was readily accessible.

BTW -- this is not an argument for not allowing people to own guns, just another reason why I personally don't own one.

iamheather

on Nov 23, 2004

Many a heated family argument has turned deadly because a gun was readily accessible.

I agree completely, Tex. Very insightful observation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!