because it keeps goverment in check and prevents tyranny when you have politicians calling for gun control and wanting to take away your gun it will lead to tyranny but not only that but criminals perfer unarmed civilians

But just wondering, why you americans are so obsessed with the guns and security?

You want to know why, look at a little thing called the second amendment of our constitution. Look at what our founding fathers said on how liberty involved armed citizens, and how some even recommended a revolution every few generations to keep America free. They knew all governments go corrupt and if not stopped, tyrannical. Ask yourself this: What would've happened if German citizens would have had guns in the 1930's? What would've happened if Russians had guns in the 1920's? What would've happened if the Chinese had guns in the 1950's? Whenever a tyrannical government pops up, one of the first things they do is restrict gun ownership. Ask yourself why a dictator would have something against armed citizens. In the end, at the very least those guns would be a deterrent from plans that are too crazy being committed by our leaders.

You want to know why, look at a little thing called the second amendment of our constitution.

You don't need to be confrontational. Not everyone knows the US Constitution, because not everyone is from the US.

Well I don't think you have to be a criminal who spends the day in the court for going throught a hard period and taking a gun and shot your boss, your wife or even the first three random person you find... that could happen even to the most ''Ned Flanders'ed'' guy of the world. The most unsuspected person can go mad and take one of his completely legaly owned guns and kill someone..

So I think, for logic, less guns = less risk of tragedies

But just wondering, why you americans are so obsessed with the guns and security?

All goes back to the American revolution, the UK invaded us, the US said, fuck them every one get guns and defeat are enemies and that's we did.

Your missing the point, when someone wants to kill someone they will do every thing in there power to do so. Legal or not, they will get there hands on a gun and start shooting. In the UK there is a black market there are guns in it. All you have to do is find the right person and get one. Its like that in every country. 9.9 times out of 10 guns used in crime are gotten of the black market

I'm not from the UK (so I don't really know), but aren't murders in the UK much more likely a result of stabbing than shooting?

You don't need to be confrontational. Not everyone knows the US Constitution, because not everyone is from the US.

Sorry, I tend to get a bit defensive when my right that guarantees my other rights gets questioned.

I'm not from the UK (so I don't really know), but aren't murders in the UK much more likely a result of stabbing than shooting?

And this proves the point that murderers will still murder if they are not legally given access to firearms. However, if the victim would've been armed (or in Britain's case, allowed to fight back), then the criminal would be less likely to attack

Yep. I wasn't saying the second amendment isn't worth defending, I was just saying that there's no inherent reason a non-American should have known about it.

Tragedy about the mass-shooting, not sure how an argument (not looking like a discussion from the politics involved) pertains to the shooting discussion but have fun all.

Aussie.

You want to know why, look at a little thing called the second amendment of our constitution. Look at what our founding fathers said on how liberty involved armed citizens, and how some even recommended a revolution every few generations to keep America free. They knew all governments go corrupt and if not stopped, tyrannical. Ask yourself this: What would've happened if German citizens would have had guns in the 1930's? What would've happened if Russians had guns in the 1920's? What would've happened if the Chinese had guns in the 1950's? Whenever a tyrannical government pops up, one of the first things they do is restrict gun ownership. Ask yourself why a dictator would have something against armed citizens. In the end, at the very least those guns would be a deterrent from plans that are too crazy being committed by our leaders.

That all sounds like a thing of the 1700s-800s, the tyranical thing, that all. The tyrannical term would be something of the idology, what if a part of that armed population consider a goverment tyranical, and start a revolution, or a putsch? That all can develope in civil wars, armed actions against civils, etc. Besides, freedom? Come on, I just have a broken airsoft pistol, and I have more freedoms than an american with 30 guns.

I don't think the Germans would have done anything if they had have guns back then, remember the Nazi party reached at a democratical way the government, that means a big part of the population would follow them even when it became a dictatorship.

About the Russians, they came from a worst tyranny, even thought the USSR was also a dictatorship it was that of going back to the Tsar era. And the Chineses, if had guns in the 50s they would have continued in a bloody civil war...

And what if talibans, aka former armed Afghan civilians, had gave up their weapons after defeating Soviets? It could have been avoided that country became a shithole controled by armed radicals.

And what if all these countries of Africa immersed in pointless and endless civil wars hadn't got weapons?

Maybe they could have developed better their politics and democracies..

If you look back at the history, most of these armed revolutions against tyrants had developed into other tyrannies, even when done by civils or military, or into long civil wars.

I've been looking at the second amendent, who speaks about having a militia. A militia has to be very disciplined and organized, and that's very difficult with just civilians; for a close example you can look at Libya, how they tried to get rid of a tyrant, and now they have tons of armed militias, who don't want to give their guns, and try to make their own law in their territories, instead of a democracy plenty of freedoms.

There are black markets everywhere, but with a black market less people will own a gun that with a legal one.

That all sounds like a thing of the 1700s-800s, the tyranical thing, that all. The tyrannical term would be something of the idology, what if a part of that armed population consider a goverment tyranical, and start a revolution, or a putsch? That all can develope in civil wars, armed actions against civils, etc. Besides, freedom? Come on, I just have a broken airsoft pistol, and I have more freedoms than an american with 30 guns.

That tyrannical thing happens today, with laws like the patriot act, NDAA and HR 347. The population would probably not do anything until the gun's were attempted to be removed. That was the case during the American Revolution. A broken airsoft gun? What happens when your government tries to have a power grab and remove your freedoms, are you going to try to bash them in the head with a piece of plastic?

I don't think the Germans would have done anything if they had have guns back then, remember the Nazi party reached at a democratical way the government, that means a big part of the population would follow them even when it became a dictatorship.

About the Russians, they came from a worst tyranny, even thought the USSR was also a dictatorship it was that of going back to the Tsar era. And the Chineses, if had guns in the 50s they would have continued in a bloody civil war...

But the Jews and other groups that were attacked may have been willing to die fighting instead of going along to a concentration camp. Let's figuratively say you were a member of the SS, would you be more hesitant to kick down a door if the person you were after could be armed?

In Russia, let's again use the analogy of working with evil. If members of the KGB believed they weren't the only ones armed, they would be a lot more careful about arresting people.

In China, yes, the war would've continued. But it could've kept Mal Zedong from getting into office, and saved the lives of millions.

And what if talibans, aka former armed Afghan civilians, had gave up their weapons after defeating Soviets? It could have been avoided that country became a shithole controled by armed radicals.

And what if all these countries of Africa immersed in pointless and endless civil wars hadn't got weapons?

Maybe they could have developed better their politics and democracies..

But today, those weapons are allowing them to fight back against a foreign invasion, much like how our second amendment would if America were ever invaded (which it won't so we don't need trillion dollar defense budgets). The general of the Japanese Army during World War II even said it was a terrible idea to invade America because "there would be a shotgun behind every blade of grass."

What is going to make people give up their guns? A law? In most African nations, there are strict gun laws. For example, in South Africa you need a permit and you are not even allowed to defend yourself with one. Many other nations in Africa require a government issued permit, and most flat out ban guns.

Yeah, that's clearly working.

If you look back at the history, most of these armed revolutions against tyrants had developed into other tyrannies, even when done by civils or military, or into long civil wars.

I've been looking at the second amendent, who speaks about having a militia. A militia has to be very disciplined and organized, and that's very difficult with just civilians; for a close example you can look at Libya, how they tried to get rid of a tyrant, and now they have tons of armed militias, who don't want to give their guns, and try to make their own law in their territories, instead of a democracy plenty of freedoms.

But those times when it can be set up as a good government is why the founders put the second amendment there in the first place. The part about armed militias and right to bear arms is separated by a comma. In the English language, that makes them separate clauses, and makes them two separate points.

The funny thing about Libya is that it was actually pretty free, but as soon as Gaddafi tried to use gold instead of the US dollar to trade oil, America started funding Al-Qaeda affiliated groups to overthrow him.

There are black markets everywhere, but with a black market less people will own a gun that with a legal one.

But when people are legally allowed access to guns, the criminals are less likely to use them against possibly armed people. And also, most of Africa is a black market with guns. What has stopped all those genocides that have occurred?

Lets put it this way.

We have the 2nd Amendment for safety ya sure, maybe a few bag eggs get a gun and kill people (around 40,000 a year)

But it also saves thousand of lives a year to, if any country invaded us, we have more people armed than there entire country population. Plus when Americans get guns we tend to go to the shooting range and shoot them. Like c13 said, the Japanese would never invade America because "there would be a shotgun behind every blade of grass."

Now lets take the UK for a example, you guys maybe have a few thousand of people with guns. If you were a country that wants to invade either America or the UK what one would you pick

America were millions of people have guns.

Or the UK were only a few thousands of guns.

Just think if we didn't have that second Amendment, for all you know the Japanese could of invaded and killed millions. But are second Amendment stopped them.

No one will invade America not only because of its wild Military budget but also the millions of people who have guns...

In the end it saves lifes

I have a few pistols, coupel of rilfes and shot guns. Than also a AR-15 I wouldn't hesitate to shoot you if you tried to kill someone or do something whack like go on a shooting rampage...

Edited October 28, 201213 yr by Darkangel