Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[DGFone]

These cases always make me wonder why does the USA are still authorizing to wear a weapon... I mean if people can't wear any weapon anymore, these tragedies will highly and clearly decrease and become very rare, won't they?

Because remember how the USA was formed. The second amendment, at its core, ensures that the least common citizen can fight against a dictator that might take charge of the government. Because when all else fails, and someone wants to oppress you with all their might, the last option is to fight back with the same weapons that the tyrant has.

Just as in the Revolutionary war versus the British. We would have gotten NOTHING if we calmly complained in Parliament.

[Biomac]

Yes, but now times has changed, and the wear of a weapon isn't necessary anymore.

Plus as I said before, a Constitution can be changed, and here is another great occasion to do it.

[DGFone]

Yes, but now times has changed, and the wear of a weapon isn't necessary anymore.

Plus as I said before, a Constitution can be changed, and here is another great occasion to do it.

Some things never change. At the end of the day, you have to leave a back door against tyranny: equal or greater firepower. It was the same then, and the same today: there is no guarantee that something won't cause governments to slip into anarchy or tyranny. And the gun is the only thing you will be able to use to survive if that happens.

Look: Guns are tools, not murder machines. If you really want to kill people, you'll use a home-made bomb or something you know... a bit more lethal. There's a great series made on guns, called Tales of the Gun, and each episode (you can see them on YouTube) starts with this great blurb:

The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention that has been praised and denounced... Served hero and villain alike... And carries with it a moral responsibility.

To better understand the gun is to better understand history.

The problem is not the gun itself, but people who acquire it (often in illegal means for automatic rifles) who lack the moral responsibility to use such a tool.

[Biomac]

I have to disagree. Take for example how did Ghandi lead his country to independance: in a way of total peace, with no guns.

As this tragedy proved us, that guns are tools but deadly tools, when they are used by mentally ill people. And because there are too many people and we can't know who would turn mad as I've been demonstrated, we simply have to make guns illegal.

And yeah guns have always been part of our history, but as far as I know, guns need a human to be used. I think we need yes to remember our past, but we must think to build our future, the best we can.

[Azdgari]

Yes, but now times has changed, and the wear of a weapon isn't necessary anymore.

Plus as I said before, a Constitution can be changed, and here is another great occasion to do it.

Some things never change. At the end of the day, you have to leave a back door against tyranny: equal or greater firepower. It was the same then, and the same today: there is no guarantee that something won't cause governments to slip into anarchy or tyranny. And the gun is the only thing you will be able to use to survive if that happens.

Look: Guns are tools, not murder machines. If you really want to kill people, you'll use a home-made bomb or something you know... a bit more lethal. There's a great series made on guns, called Tales of the Gun, and each episode (you can see them on YouTube) starts with this great blurb:

The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention that has been praised and denounced... Served hero and villain alike... And carries with it a moral responsibility.

To better understand the gun is to better understand history.

The problem is not the gun itself, but people who acquire it (often in illegal means for automatic rifles) who lack the moral responsibility to use such a tool.

Humm. "Guns are tools." You left out their purpose as a tool: "kill people." That whole paragraph strikes me as a bit goofy, no offense. Use something "a bit more lethal"? Um, than a gun? Isn't that what we use to kill each other in military combat? :3

Your argument about freedom against tyranny is a bit tired, methinks.

A) We do not have equal firepower: pistols vs. tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, etc.
B) Our ability to carry pistols and rifles does not empower us to resist our government. Citizens, armed with legally acquired guns, would have a real tough job resisting the most powerful, advanced, well trained military on the planet.
C) The prospect of our government going tyrannical against us in the near future is the stuff of paranoia.
D) The second amendment exists because we broke away from a tyrannical rule to birth our country, and were so naturally averse to centralized government power (so much so that our first "constitution", the articles of confederation, created so weak a federal government that it couldn't function) that we needed numerous failsafes to guard against tyranny. Some, like checks and balances, are intrinsic to our identity as a country and serve a valuable function. Others, such as the second amendment, are simply outdated and irrelevant in my opinion.

Do you really believe that the second amendment is still relevant and that owning a gun meaningfully checks the power of the government?



I do buy private ownership of (sensible) firearms for self defense reasons (with sensible restrictions), by the way. Just don't buy the whole militia thing.

[HasiraKali]

You want a small handgun to defend yourself and your home? Fine. But you do not need a military assault rifle. You just don't.

[Azdgari]

You want a small handgun to defend yourself and your home? Fine. But you do not need a military assault rifle. You just don't.

Military assault rifles are not legal for private ownership in America. ;3

[DGFone]

I have to disagree. Take for example how did Ghandi lead his country to independance: in a way of total peace, with no guns.

As this tragedy proved us, that guns are tools but deadly tools, when they are used by mentally ill people. And because there are too many people and we can't know who would turn mad as I've been demonstrated, we simply have to make guns illegal.

And yeah guns have always been part of our history, but as far as I know, guns need a human to be used. I think we need yes to remember our past, but we must think to build our future, the best we can.

Sorry to ruin your history, but peaceful rebellion was Ghandi's second choice, only after he realized that an armed rebellion would be swiftly crushed.

And you just proved my point: Guns are not the problem, but people are. It's like video game DRM: why punish the majority of the innocent, legal users just because of a small but very easy-to-point-at-minority? And using the DRM point even more: The harder you try to ban something, the harder people will go to acquire it. Why do you think Obama is credited as "Gun Salesman of the year?"

The more politicians try to ban guns, the worse gun problems will get for this simple reason: the more people will buy guns, and the easier it will be for some nutcase to get their hands on said guns. And banning them won't solve the problem either: look at Europe. It's filled head to toe with illigal firearms. And compared the the USA, the average European gun (being already illegal) tends to be more 'lethal'. After all, if you're already going to break the law in order to get a gun, what are you going to get? A measly 9mm pistol, or a 7.62x39mm AK-47?

And back to people are the problem: The USA is filled with guns. Europe banned guns, but is still filled with them. Why do we have a lot more trouble with guns? Europe is filled with Europeans, all similar people, with similar ideas, goals, culture, etc. It's easy for Europe to get along because everyone there are largely the same.

How do you define American? We are a country of many different cultures interacting on a daily basis. It's a miracle we get along as well as we do because historically, when cultures collide, they fight.

[Azdgari]

I have lots to say to that post too, but can you respond to mine first? <3

[DGFone]

(It took me a while to post my previous one, so I wrote this in response to you )

Az: A. The US military swore to protect the constitution, not the president. If it comes to civil war of citizens versus government, I highly doubt that the military will blindly attack their own homes. Look at Syria, and how many Syrian army troops defect to the rebellion.
B. Our ability to carry guns DOES in fact empower us over the government. You know the best way to remove Hitler? Shoot him. Britain thought of doing that in the start of WWII, but kept him alive, realizing that Hitler was going to lose the war for them.
C. Might be paranoia, but you will be surprised at how many people are preparing for it.
D. As I just explained: there is never a guarantee that we will never succumb to tyranny. The second amendment is by no means irrelevant today.

Hasira and Az: Depending on the state, you can in fact own military style small-arms. You won't be able to get a tank or anything like that, but M-16 and AR-15/AR-10 rifles are some of the best sellers in the nation. Even in California, the state infamous for its gun laws, allows you to buy an assault rifle under these conditions: 1. 10 round mag tops. 2. Semi-fire only. No full auto. 3. You need a reloading tool. No pushing a button to reload.