A basic right for weapons?
US-Citizens have a basic right for weapons!
Okay, before I start my rant, here are some facts about what actually happened:
Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
Washington Times
This just isn’t right to me. If you ask me, a basic right to arm is one of the most stupid things in this world. I mean, how can there be something like a BASIC RIGHT for WEAPONS?
There can’t be peace without a ban of weapons!
You may argue that in the USA there are so many riots and gangs and violence and that you need to defend yourself. I admit, I have never been there, and I don’t know how bad it maybe actually really is. But I seriously don’t think that the permission of guns for private use is helping much.
Who is there to judge that someone used the gun as self-defence? What is self-defence anyways? Imagine: a teacher takes a student’s cell phone away because he was on the phone during the lesson. The student shoots the teacher after school to get the cell phone back, saying it was self defence because he got robbed by the teacher.
I agree, the example may be stupid but I hope you get what I mean.
And what will happen to policemen and “women? They’ll be more faced with criminals with weapons in their hands than they already are. Shouldn’t the police be more “powerful” than the criminals?
To be honest, this whole “right” sounds like armament to me. But with arming, they don’t do anything against the problems that there are. I wouldn’t feel saver in a country where everyone is allowed to wear weapons. I would have a constant feeling of fear. The government should not give weapons to everyone to protect themselves against violence, they should do something to stop the violence!
Note: This is just my opinion. You may have different beliefs. I'd love to hear about them. Discuss away.
Okay, before I start my rant, here are some facts about what actually happened:
Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
Washington Times
This just isn’t right to me. If you ask me, a basic right to arm is one of the most stupid things in this world. I mean, how can there be something like a BASIC RIGHT for WEAPONS?
There can’t be peace without a ban of weapons!
You may argue that in the USA there are so many riots and gangs and violence and that you need to defend yourself. I admit, I have never been there, and I don’t know how bad it maybe actually really is. But I seriously don’t think that the permission of guns for private use is helping much.
Who is there to judge that someone used the gun as self-defence? What is self-defence anyways? Imagine: a teacher takes a student’s cell phone away because he was on the phone during the lesson. The student shoots the teacher after school to get the cell phone back, saying it was self defence because he got robbed by the teacher.
I agree, the example may be stupid but I hope you get what I mean.
And what will happen to policemen and “women? They’ll be more faced with criminals with weapons in their hands than they already are. Shouldn’t the police be more “powerful” than the criminals?
To be honest, this whole “right” sounds like armament to me. But with arming, they don’t do anything against the problems that there are. I wouldn’t feel saver in a country where everyone is allowed to wear weapons. I would have a constant feeling of fear. The government should not give weapons to everyone to protect themselves against violence, they should do something to stop the violence!
Note: This is just my opinion. You may have different beliefs. I'd love to hear about them. Discuss away.
omg we totally discussed this in U.S History yesterday!
okay anyways, in the constitution it does say that we have the right to bear arms. and the constitution is like, what we're made of.
anyways, i think allowing guns are horrible. but even if they ban them, people are going to find ways to get them, just like drugs. also with a ban, you're more likely to feel the need to break the rules and get a gun, like they do with drugs underage, which can cause a lot of problems everywhere.
i think they should be banned, or if you have the right to own a gun, keep the gun in a locked cabinent. but in a locked cabinent, some can argue that if one is in danger, the locked cabinent would take too much time to get and your life could be in danger. i'm basically contradicting myself but it's fun. also if the gun was just laying around, there have been a sh*tload of kids(like babies) finding these guns and shooting, which causes them to die.
sry if that made no sense mbby
~
like really if you were in my class yesterday, you would've had a blast!
we had an hour long discussion on this!
JEW., June 28th, 2008 at 10:40:06am
I understand what you mean.
I support the idea that in planes there could be means for defense, but not for everyone because alternatively, imagine terrorists with guns on planes. There should be NO Guns allowed on planes, except for maybe for stewardess
in terms of policemen: I was thinking more of for example whippings in clubs or something like that. Not every criminal is using a gun, but when they are legally allowed to, more criminals would use guns and therefore not just endanger civil lives but also the lives of policemen and -women.
In my opinion, no one should have a right to shoot, no criminals, and no one at all. Instead of giving people weapons they should go against illegal weapon possessions and such.
Thanks for your discussion points :D I think it's a very interesting and controversial issue, I'm happy someone's willing to discuss :D
Love, June 28th, 2008 at 08:03:19am
^__^ I love your blogs, even if I disagree with you on this one.
Firstly: Policemen and women won't be affected by this, any more than they already are. Criminals are people who don't tend to care about laws. A law against guns would only affect law-abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens USUALLY avoid crime.
And I am super-glad you said that next bit:
"Shouldn't police be more powerful than criminals?"
Because I don't think they should be. Granted, I'm not saying I don't want crime to be stopped. But if the police are more powerful than criminals, then they have more power than the average joe, also. And that's dangerous. The right to bear arms is NOT to protect the people from other people, or at least that's not how it began. The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government will not be able to take advantage of the people, its to defend us against our government. Our country was founded on a basis of equality, so that the government couldn't abuse power. That's why we have that amendment.
Also, guns can save lives, even in the hands of civilians. Imagine if, on 9/11, there had been a chance that any of the passengers had a weapon on any of those planes. First of all, that thought alone may have been enough to prevent the attack. It's a lot easier to hijack a plane of defenseless people. And even if they tried anyway, there would have been a lot fewer lives lost if the plane didn't make it to the destination. At least that's what I think.
banquo, June 28th, 2008 at 06:52:29am