So, freedom of speech, the first amendment, just as old might need another look, based on that logic as do the other 8 amendments.
Much as I detest idiotmouse, his thinking here is sound for once. You should be able to justify (or re-justify) the amendments based solely on their merits rather than simply the fact that they're there. It's concievable that some of them might warrant removal, and others not.
Well, lets see - a lot of criminals manage to mess up things for the rest of the law abiding citizens so therefore guns must go. Criminals also tie up law enforcement hands so therefore the 4th and 5th should go so we can stop them. Right?
Maybe. Just making the point. Screaming "but it's in the constitution!!!!111" whenever someone questions something isn't a good defense.
And don't forget that certain whacko jobs abuse the freedom of religion. Maybe it's time that we had a state religion to stop that
in other news, in manchester a gang has popped up who steal cars from women drivers alone in their cars. how fortunate for these robbers they can feel quite happy to punch pregnant women, and stab middle-aged women with screwdrivers, with wild abandon, as in the UK we trust our criminals won't hurt us whilst divesting us of our hard-earned goods.
Uhh thats a twisted view of reality. Given the very very tiny percentage of law abiding britons who actualy want to become gun-carriers, i doubt legalising them would protect almost anyone from knife/screwdriver wielding smack addicts trying to steal cars. All you will do is vastly increase the usage of guns instead of knives during the attacks
No, but it would give the law-abiding citizen the option of doing something more than just being a victim.
And I would agree with that, but there are something that are fundamental human rights, like the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to redress of grievence in government, right to keep and bear arms, that had to be codified in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew that otherwise those same rights could and would be legislated away. In the case of the Bill of Rights, those same rights are so sacrosanct that they don't get questioned and when they do, people get very passionate in their defense.
its an accurate view of reality - we take the stance of trusting the lawbreaker rather than the law abider. you yourself do it here, you assume that otherwise law abiding people will suddenly take it upon themselves to go postal. its the reefer madness of self-defence. there is a definite argument against a sudden free-for-all legalizing of guns, just as there is for doing the same with drugs, but simply assuming a majority will turn into killers is ludicrous.
Ignoring the fact that not everyone agrees with the same defintiion of "fundamental human rights", if that's what they are, they should be defended as such. That they are in the constituion is a secondary issue. As the "libertarians" of the board are so fond of saying, rights exist independantly of the state providing for them.
Its not that the majority will become killers, its that the vast minority of law abiders will become gun owners. Legalising guns amognst a population that has little interest in them and doesnt want to own them isn't a smart move in general
If there's no interest in guns among the vast majority, what's the problem then? Most people who don't want them won't get them, the minority that does want them will have that option, and criminals will still be criminals, only now when they attack with a knife they won't know for a fact that they won't get their head blown off for thier troubles.
Everyone has a right to defend himself. And look at the atmosphere of 1787. The Founding Fathers just fought a war against a nation that prided itself on its natural liberties, yet oppressed the colonists. The Founding Fathers knew the rights exist independantly of the State, but they also knew that the State often times won't hesitate to oppress its citizens and the people had to have a way to fight back. The Founding Fathers were very cognizent of politics in the real world and of power. They weren't building a government in the hopes it would be responsible to the people. They built one where the people had the means to hold the government responsible.
Against a population with access to the same weapons. Criminals don't want prey that can fight back. They prefer to know that their prey is helpless. Taking guns from the law abiding does just that because although it might be harder for criminals to get guns, they will always be able to get them.
Spare me the propaganda. The apotheosis of "founding fathers" is also tiresome. Their decisions and values ought to be open to as much criticism as anything else.
I'm not saying they aren't open to criticism, just that they understood the realities of political power and that states can and will oppress their citizens unless the citizens have a way to keep them in check.
That's a conclusion, and you're entitled to it if you think it's so. What I'm saying is that too many people use it as an axiom on which to base their aguments. They have things the wrong way around.
Seems to me that the areas where gun control is the strictest have the criminals able to get guns as easily as in areas where guns are obtainable by the law abiding citizens. New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, to name a few cities where it is damned hard - if not illegal for a law abiding citizen to own a gun still have armed and dangerous criminals. And I doubt if the criminal is going broke getting those weapons either.
We never really had them, they have been restricted further in recent decades, but that only really affected gun club members, gun collectors (who can still collect them if they are made safe) and farmers. But britain at no point has ever been a gun owning country. Guns simply are not important or an issue here
I think it was somewhere around the 12th century when the king (Richard? Or John during Richard's absence?) declared that all deer in England belonged to the king. It then became punishable by death to hunt "The King's Deer." Any serf caught with a bow was immediately assumed to be using it to hunt deer (which was often the case, since they needed to eat), and hanged on the spot. An early example of the government creating a law designed to make criminals out of otherwise peaceable people.
That might be partially true, but between the 13-16th century (ish) it was against the law for english males NOT to do at least 2 hours of archery practise per week. At the drop of a hat england could muster an army of tens of thousands of archers, one reason we did so well at that time was the quality of our bows and archers
