Most Helpful Guy
Take the favorite toy away from a kid its basicly the same reaction.2
Take the favorite toy away from a kid its basicly the same reaction.
I 100% agree. I'm from the UK and although most guns are illegal to buy here, rifles are not, but the process to get one, store it in your home and even the security checks are insane!
Americans use there guns, or want to have a gun to protect themselves and their families. If the American government take it off them then it would cause havoc because surely they'd kick up a fuss about having no defence in case of an attack.
Omfg I'm Bangladeshi and always said this to the Americans that they need to make gun laws more strict, with the aid of example as well (Japan). And they still didn't listen I was like oh ok. Talking to them is useless.
Also Australian & agree 100%
Because we have a right to do so granted to us by our constitution. Our history is rooted in a revolution against tyranny. Why wouldn't we have gun rights? Not only that, guns save far, far more lives than they take.
Also, the 2nd amendment isn't about a government organized militia. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the government give itself gun rights in the bill of rights? That's ridiculous.
Besides that, people point to mass shootings as some sort of justification for stricter gun control, when the only reason those nutjobs had weapons was because the system failed to enforce the laws that they already had.
"the government is huge and ineffective. Instead of making it even bigger and even less effective with more and more power, we should be reducing it and making it more effective at actually doing its job"
Gun control doesn't get rid of guns, it just puts them in the sole possession of the state. A government which has no fear of repurcussions for oppressing a defenseless people. If you could magically press a button to erase all guns from existence, I'd press it myself. But if even one officer of the state has one we better have the right to bear one too
Wow. your ignorance is incredible. Let me fix that.
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." The second part is the definitive statement. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first phrase is the REASON for the second. The US, since it's inception, has primarily staffed its armed forces with citizen-soldiers. In order to ensure that these folks can shoot, we let them have guns in their daily lives. That way, if we DO have to call up the "militia" (which, by the way, is every man or boy between the ages of 18 and 65, not just those currently under arms), they're already trained ("well regulated", in colonial parlance). Switzerland does the same thing but makes it mandatory. So does Israel. Both nations can field a strong, disciplined fighting force very quickly, to defend their nations, much like the US.
Yamamoto, Japans Naval commander in chief, once said "Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices." He knew that any army invading the US would have to fight a constant guerilla war across the entire continent. Not one invader would survive, because Americans treasure their freedom from foreign oppression above life itself. And we have the arms to make sure of it. It is that will to freedom that makes us citizens, and not subjects.
As for suicides, the number of other methods used in Austrailia has gone up as the number of gun suicides has gone down. So people are still killing themselves, just using different means. The gun ban had almost no effect, there.
Dude shut up I'm so tired of hearing all these kids who have no clue what the are talking about, who aren't even from America!!! Try to have an opinion on guns in a country that they don't belong to. Especially Austraslia where the traded shootings for stabbings you homicide rate never changed kid! It's actually not a stupid argument to legalize all drugs... it would save tax payers a ton of money imprisoning people! We should let people do drugs but fight to keep them out and also teach kids not to do them at a young age. The way i see it just because they are illegal doesn't stop people from doing them just like guns... just because some one has one doesn't mean they are going on a killing spree... if that was the case it would be a war zone here... there are only 360 some odd million people here and a hell of a lot more guns... Your argument that the constitution was written durring colonialism holds no weight as well considering the government can have advanced weapons so if the government gets to big as its been doing how can we protect ourselves if it decides to go tyrannical? We will have break barrel air rifles and they will have fully automatic 50cal machine guns... You think the founders were stupid... they knew that technology was going to change thats with that clearly stated that we could basically have anything we wanted even a tank technically!
PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THIS VIDEO BELOW:
Basically, the US has much more guns than Australia. You live on an ISLAND (same with England). We are bordered by Central and by extension, South America, which is full of violent gangs. What works for your country, simply won't work for us, even if we didn't care about defending ourselves in case of a tyranny. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is made for an IN CASE situation, where people have the right to defend themselves and their property even from their own government.
To start with the 2nd amendment does give the right to bare arms to militias as in the actual militia that was supposed to replace all Americas military needs. USA was envisioned to not need a military because it would supposedly never engage in offensive wars (laugh with me) so having an armed section of the population was thought to be the most efficient defense since they did not think you could win against the peoples spirit.
Basically imagine locally mobilized irregular forces training and operating all over USA under the command of the government and you get the idea. It is to those forces the 2nd amendment was supposed to provide a right to bare arms.
That said, there is a reason why Americans seams to be on the wrong side of basically every issue. Because it is so powerful and wealthy they are also the main focus for corruption and its population is just filled with people who believe in false information. The whole "fake news" outburst right now is a perfect example of them rejecting more credible sources and defending propaganda.
As long as they dont accept fact, they will keep buying guns because that very same propaganda tells them its the solution and vitally important for America.
Not from USA but from Latvia, well having guns deals with problems as it creates ones. Look at France or UK some crazy ise cars insted of guns, should we ban cars? I think you fail to understand that if someone will want to kill, he or she will find a way how to do it. And at that moment trust me, you will want gun at your side... Im pro gun and honestly why you care about americans having guns?
First, you have to ask, what is the purpose of government? The purpose of government is to retaliate against initiations of force. That means that, for the purpose of having a civilized society, individuals delegate to the government their right of defence, to the extent possible. In an emergency, relying on the government is not possible. Therefore, weapons should be available to individuals, albeit with strong restrictions. For example, weapons that are primarily offensive, rather than defensive, should not be available: weapons of mass destruction, tanks, machine guns, many kinds of explosives, etc.
In other words, yes, America should probably have stricter gun laws, but that should go together with a real commitment by the government to punishing criminals, so that people can be confident in the government's willingness to defend them from criminals.
Yes, the Second Amendment is outdated, in the sense that it is longer possible, really, for people to rebel successfully against a tyrannical government (one of the arguments used by supporters of the Second Amendment). Even back then, the rebels would have been defeated by the British, had it not been for the help of another great power (France) and had it not been for the fact that the British did not really care about retaining the American colonies.
That said, I take issue with the constant talk about gun murder rates. Murder is murder. We should consider murder rates in general, as well as the fact that guns are often used in defence.
Well I might add that mexico has banned guns and they have a huge problem with guns. Your country is smaller so it is easier to take away weapons from 30+ million people. Now compare that to the 300 something million of the United states. That is a huge difference in size. And also take into account that the supreme court of the united states has to deem if the ban on guns is unconstitutional or not. And since it is our second amendment right to own guns that are purchased legally, it most likely won't happen.
I’m from Canada, so many Americans feel like I have no place in this discussion...
Americans are given a false sense of security from a gun. They think the best way to fight violence is with violence... Canada has 10-20x lower gun related crime (depending on what state)... why? Because we actually have strict gun control. Americans cling onto the past, not wanting to change. (Like not wanting Universal Healthcare - which is a another topic for another day). Americans think it’s a right to own a firearm... no... it should be a privilege...
Here’s some points for Americans to consider::
- 99.999% of household invasions are property related. Would you kill someone for stealing your TV? Shootings that do occur inside homes are because the homeowner challenged/threatened them.
- Criminals will commit crime regardless of the circumstances... it’s wired in their brain like that... generally good people will stick to being good. Criminals know that people have guns to protect themselves in their homes... so they bring guns with them to protect themselves in case things go south for them. It’s very rare for criminals in Canada to do that because they aren’t afraid of homeowners having readily accessible firearms.
- Even the best people make poor judgement calls when they’re angry. You think good will result if a gun is at their fingertips? People won’t be tempted to use drugs when they hit crisis if they’re not available, so why should guns be treated any differently?
- One American said they would hate to see a crazy lunatic with a firearm go on a killing spree in Canada because no one would stop them... To which I thought... Kind of like Las Vegas?
How do I know some of this stuff? Because I work in law enforcement. I would never... ever... want to work in the States. You get paid less, it’s way more unsafe, and people treat the police as a “necessary evil”. What a sad set of circumstances for a country. I feel sorry for the people that live there.
Not a single other developed country’s has even close to the amount of mass/large shootings as the States. Surely people aren’t that much worse there. So perhaps it’s there laws/policies governing them?
There is more to add, but I’m sure no one will take these points seriously. No one likes change, and try to cling to their “forefather rights”.
Cause guns r awesome. I have 2 guns and i live in tbe south. Guns r so cheap and guess how much a gun licenses 70 dollars.. Thats cheap asf! And for rifles you don't even need a license. God bless America!
Actually the murder rate has been decreasing, until recently, but it will most likely start going back down. In 2015 we had a record low murder rate.
Also, during the time Australia murders declined, the US murder rate declined the same amount.
Cause we can thats why this world is crazy it makes me feel protected you would think some asshole with crocodiles and giant spiders in his backyard could relate you let your government control yous we do only to an extent
It's about $$$. Guns, drugs, and corruption of organized gangs "police", these are the leading $ revenue $ in the United states!
Australia doesn’t have fewer spree killings. Second, America is more violent because of diversity, not guns.
It's too emeded in their culture. Even if the government were to make stricter regulations there's too much after market value and support for guns.
It's just like cigarettes.
A gun ban won't work in America there are hundreds of millions of guns and most Americans won't give up their guns willingly. It would cause a civil war, and even if they did somehow manage to confiscate the guns without a war there would be a black market. Organized crime will thrive people will still have guns. Just look areas in America with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of violence. The American people do not like to be told what to do. The prohibition was a failure and so is the war on drugs. The reason why gun bans are successful in other countries is because gun ownership rates are nowhere near as high, and people are much more willing to give up their guns, and Americans also have the protection of the constitution and all of our laws are drafted based on the constitution as well so the banning of guns would be considered unconstitutional.
I only have time to address your comment about the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. It is true that for many, many years that amendment was subject to debate because of the reference to a "well-regulated militia." But about 10 years ago the U. S. Supreme Court ruled (for the first time) that the Amendment does protect an individual right to own firearms. They did not rule that the right was unlimited however, and under that decision some types of regulation have been upheld. No one would argue, for example, that the right as construed by the Supreme Court protects a right to own rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Your argument about the antiquity of the Second Amendment is also misplaced, as it must be if any of the other rights granted in the Bill of Rights are to be maintained. Because they too date from the time shortly after ratification of the Constitution.
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.