Originally posted by BlueSky:
Wow...reading about the racial situation in St. Louis, I thought Atlanta was bad. That was an eye-opener, kind of at odds with the wholesome image many hold of Midwesterners.
Turning to guns, I'm not against owning weapons, though I would agree that most normal people have no need or want for an assault weapon. I would also be interested to know - though it would be difficult if not impossible to calculate - how many guns kept for self-defense are ever needed and successfully used for that purpose. Very, very few would be my guess.
In this shooting, there were armed police officers there. Would an armed citizen have been able to stop the guy? Maybe, because obviously the guy knew the officers would be armed and acted accordingly. But this also sets up a situation where responding officers, not knowing the situation, could easily have shot a good samaritan by mistake. Cops get a little crazy when there are officers down.
Society's growing want for guns reminds me of my airline days, when obese people who smoke like chimneys and can't be bothered with wearing seatbelts would say, "I ain't gettin' on no airplane, that ain't safe!" :rolleyes:
If a thousand people die worldwide in commercial plane crashes, that's a bad year. About 1.3 million die annually worldwide from lung cancer; in the U.S., over 40,000 people die annually in car accidents and over 10,000 die in accidental falls. Where's the real danger?
Perception is everything, especially when it comes to risk. Usually people freak over things that really don't pose much of a threat while blowing off the real killers.
Many police officers go an entire career without ever firing their weapons. It may make people feel better to have a gun, but really, how likely is it that John Q. Public is ever really going to need one?
What's the chance of your home catching fire and burning to the ground? Do you own a fire extinguisher and fire alarms? You probably have auto, health, and life insurance just in case too?
Why not add the ability to at least try and defend yourself to that list? You'll spend much more on the various "in case shit happens" inurances in a year, than you'll ever spend on gun ownership, unless of course it becomes a hobby in addition to self defense.
Seriously, while your point about preventing the government from becoming too powerful may be valid, look at the amendment's exact wording:
"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."
It seems very clear to me that the intent was that the Federal government can not prevent individual states from keeping a militia. As you yourself pointed out, the concern was obviously that the Federal government could easily impose its will on the states if they had no means to resist. So the people whose right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" are those who belong to such a "well-regulated" state militia, not every John Q. Public in the country.
Why else would they make a point of saying "well-regulated", or mention a militia at all for that matter? If they were addressing individual rights, why wouldn't they have just written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Again, I'm not arguing the point of gun control, just the meaning and intent of the words that were written.
It doesn't say the "right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does it? How can the people defend themselves from a tyrannical government if they have to have permission from the government to have weapons? Can a State government not be tyrannical? What if the Fed is oppressing the people and the state and local governments agree with the Fed? What do the people do then?
No the SA makes it clear that a state has the right to keep a well regulated militia and the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
Previous Topic
Index
