I am not trying to argue, or to convince anybody.
I simply never felt the *need* to buy a high-power, high capacity gun, for self defence.
There would be good reasons to, and good reasons not.
I am just trying to understand the subtleties of your reasoning.
For instance, I still cannot understand how a Constitution can be good, while a government is potentially corrupt and tyrannical.
Constitution comes from men. Government is made up of men.
I must assume somewhere, somehow, men got worse, so they are currently sub-par, compared with their ancestors.
Either that, or you trust Constitution because it gives you what you want, and government would rather not.
I'd also like to define "gun control" better: most of you are armed already. You have ready access to firearms, and I read your only limit was on mazine capacity and rate of fire.
From what I could gather, those limits have been recently lifted, so you can buy and employ military or quasi-military lever equipment.
What are you asking for, exactly?
-> Ignatz.
For the record, our government and news media are not monolithic in their support of the war in Iraq, as you seem to assume.
I am not assuming, for the sake of objectivity.
I am *relating* what other users have posted so far.
I'll take notice of your remarks on this matter.
He defied the U.N. and the sanctions placed upon him after the first Gulf War and should have been taken out even if 9/11 had never happened. A democratic Iraq will emerge from all this strife and the Middle East and the world will be the better for it.
I hope your trust is well placed.
I think you could have used other ways to dispose of him.
Your army is paying the largest toll; you are paying, with taxes, the largest toll.
I hope it is really worth it - considering most American people I've spoken to, so far, couldn't care less for Iraqi citizens.
-> plumr.
Therefore we must trust our fellow Americans or give up our right to arms.
...
But while our leaders may change our constitution doesn't and that constant is the stabilising factor that glues us together as a nation.
That was my point.
You have to trust complete strangers, and call them a fellow Americans, so you can preserve your personal right to arm.
Yet, you consider your rulers, who are fellow Americans you get to choose, untrustworthy: you wouldn't give them power from any longer lease of time.
Finally, you consider Constitution a stable unifying factor - but you won't mention it was written by men: it was written by your older rulers, people you never met, and whom you would not probably trust if they lived today.
So, I am repeating myself, by asking: why do you consider your older rulers better than your present ones?
Why is an untested neighbour more trustworthy than a politician you get to vote?
Once a right was given to us in the constitution it should not be taken away and since you cannot separate the right to bear arms from gun control then geometric logic says you can't have gun control.
Allow me to object: this is specious.
The Second Amendment reads:
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.
Regulated means "controlled by principle of law".
I am not advocating extreme gun control, but hope you realise two possible shortcomings, in your reasoning.
First: Constitution is centuries old: it was signed in 1787 and took effect in 1789.
In late XVIII cent. they only had muskets. Machine guns appeared in late XIX, and self-loading guns about early XX.
This means the second amendment couldn't take into account full-auto guns, since they hadn't been invented yet!
😀
Second: by allowing *anybody* to get *any* kind of weapon, you might be arming potentially dangerous individuals.
Vlad is right about paranoia - which, incidentally, is the pathological lack of trust.
On one hand, in order to have a gun, you have to trust your fellow Americans. By principle, all men are created equal, so your neighbour is the same as you.
On the other hand, you fear your fellow Americans might be up to something, and you want a gun so you can defend yourself with no external help.
If you ask me, you are free to buy the largest gun you can mount on your HumVee.
But keep in mind, your "beloved" neighbour might be doing just the same, down the street.
So, what is this all about? Do you trust your neighbour, or don't you?