Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

Va. Shootings: What the World is Saying - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18181477/site/newsweek/)

As someone who is interested in International Relations, Reading this article just shows how other countries view our gun laws. Most of the stern ones come from France, no suprise there. I believe that the person from France does have a point though: people saying we need to let everyone have guns is just backwards thinking. I know too many hot headed people that don't need guns.

I'm for getting rid of them. So someone who wants your wallet might have second thoughts because you could be packing, or he might just shoot your ass and take it because he doesn't want to take that chance.

Let's apply that same argument to another individual right that our founders came up with -- the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Certainly they never envisioned the terrorist plots of the 21 century, "dirty bombs", cell phones, or other remote electrical detonation devices.

Would you say this guarantee is similarly 'outdated' and should be scrapped, since the world is a different place now and times have changed? Would you argue that their call for probable cause and search warrants issued by an objective third party to be the product of a primitive age and should be adjusted for modern times?

The Constitution was designed to be re-interpreted and amended as society (and its problems) changed. The 4th Amendment is no exception. For example, if you go into most public places, no one can search your person without probable cause. But, if you go into an airport (a public place), the government has every right to search you. The development of the airplane was something the Founding Fathers didn't envision and which the Supreme Court addressed, thereby changing the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Moreover, the government has a right to use all sorts of electronic surveillance equipment on people and places (e.g., airplane "flybys" over property to see what people are doing) without a search warrant and without violating the 4th Amendment.

IMO, the gun control issue and the 2nd Amendment is no different. Today's weapons are far more lethal than muskets and the need for militias to prevent against the "King's men" is far less great than it was in the 18th Century. Gun violence is a major problem that requires a serious and dramatic solution. I don't know exactly what that solution is, but I do know that the status quo is not working.

I believe that the person from France does have a point though: people saying we need to let everyone have guns is just backwards thinking. I know too many hot headed people that don't need guns.

So it is you who gets to decide what other people's needs are?

Suppose someone started dictating to you what you do and do not need?

So someone who wants your wallet might have second thoughts because you could be packing, or he might just shoot your ass and take it because he doesn't want to take that chance.

Interesting, I never even thought of that point. There are a lot of criminals who use guns in crimes but who have no intention of using them. Maybe, if they thought they'd get shot at, they'd just ambush people so as to avoid the risk of a "fair" shootout.

So it is you who gets to decide what other people's needs are?

Suppose someone started dictating to you what you do and do not need?

They tell me I need seatbelts. They tell me I don't need a surface to air missile. They tell me I can't plant mines in my front yard to deter robbers. They tell me I don't need a nuclear device. I'm being sarcastic, but the government has, does, and always will tell me what I need and don't need. It's just a matter of degree and IMO I don't need an AK-47.

The deaths of innocent, unarmed, helpless victims would certainly go up.

I think that's being a little too selective though. I'm talking deaths in general. I think that would even be marginal because say someone ends up in a shootout, there's no guarantee they still walk away.

The Constitution was designed to be re-interpreted and amended as society (and its problems) changed. The 4th Amendment is no exception. For example, if you go into most public places, no one can search your person without probable cause. But, if you go into an airport (a public place), the government has every right to search you. The development of the airplane was something the Founding Fathers didn't envision and which the Supreme Court addressed, thereby changing the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Moreover, the government has a right to use all sorts of electronic surveillance equipment on people and places (e.g., airplane "flybys" over property to see what people are doing) without a search warrant and without violating the 4th Amendment.

IMO, the gun control issue and the 2nd Amendment is no different. Today's weapons are far more lethal than muskets and the need for militias to prevent against the "King's men" is far less great than it was in the 18th Century. Gun violence is a major problem that requires a serious and dramatic solution. I don't know exactly what that solution is, but I do know that the status quo is not working.

Short of a majority of Americans, there is nothing stopping anyone from attempting to lobby their representatives to repeal the 2nd amendment.

When the people are prohibited from using firearms to defend themselves, the crime rate will go up. Guns will be a black market item, we will repeat the mistakes we made with the prohibition of alcohol and drugs, and the individuals who have no intention of following the law, who mean to cause harm upon others will have no disincentive to try it, since they will have free reign over helpless victims.

There will never be a police force large enough to handle such an unprecedented onslaught.

What's "not working" is the understanding that there will always be crime, there will always be maniacs who thwart the law, and there will always be victims. No amount of legislation will change the capability of evil in human beings. But to deny the people their most basic ability to defend themselves against an armed attacker, would be to make the problem much, much worse.

Va. Shootings: What the World is Saying - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18181477/site/newsweek/)

As someone who is interested in International Relations, Reading this article just shows how other countries view our gun laws. Most of the stern ones come from France, no suprise there. I believe that the person from France does have a point though: people saying we need to let everyone have guns is just backwards thinking. I know too many hot headed people that don't need guns.

I'm for getting rid of them. So someone who wants your wallet might have second thoughts because you could be packing, or he might just shoot your ass and take it because he doesn't want to take that chance.

I read this quote and became severely heated:

"It is a big loss for the American people and I think that this is a message from Allah to them to stop and think of what is happening in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis lost their sons or fathers and all of this was because of the so-called American democracy being exported to Third World countries."

Supposing, for argument's sake, that crime does spike. At some point, would it not decrease as guns age, the supply of ammo dwindles, etc.? Even if we don't reap the benefits of a relatively gun free society for another 100 years, I think it makes sense to get rid of guns.

They tell me I need seatbelts. They tell me I don't need a surface to air missile. They tell me I can't plant mines in my front yard to deter robbers. They tell me I don't need a nuclear device. I'm being sarcastic, but the government has, does, and always will tell me what I need and don't need. It's just a matter of degree and IMO I don't need an AK-47.

Those are not examples of the government telling you what your needs are, they are telling you what you can and cannot do. There is a distinction.