Why do you think guns rights have been restricted in the recent years? (generations, illegal aliens)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Immigrants were virtually always discriminated against, always railed at because they didn't speak English, and frequently confined to ghettos, but this xenophobic reaction to "illegal" immigrants is really new and disturbing.

Not to Europe, see WWII and Nazi Germany and the Jews.
I guess having been an eyewitness to the endlosung of the Nazis for their Jewish problem has caused that we as a nation have a 0 tolerance for racism and / or populist politics.

[melinuxfool]

As a wise individual once told me,

The only reason for congress not to trust its constituents with firearms is that they all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are so corrupt as to deserve to be shot.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by melinuxfool

As a wise individual once told me,

The only reason for congress not to trust its constituents with firearms is that they all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are so corrupt as to deserve to be shot.

Corruption could be part of the reason to restrict gun access. A government scared of a revolution will take measures to prevent it. One measure is restricting gun access to the common population.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Greatday Obviously only to you and other people who hold the same ideas like you (read: people who blame their problems on immigration, while America a priori is a nation of settlers otherwise known as foreign immigrants).
Or do you also distinguish between European immigrants and non-European immigrants?

the post referred to illegal immigrants, no matter the origin. but that screws up your tangential, fabricational strategies, so please, continue.

for the rest of you, i think it is safe to say that no one here has claimed that america is perfect (though there is one here claiming that holland is perfect, but whatever; hopefully the rest of us can see the logical fallacies that are so prolific in his mentality). no one here on either side of the argument has claimed that america has done all that it can to promote peace and order among its populace.

there is still much to be done, as evidenced by our rising crime rates, our broken families, and our growing lack of moral and social decency.

again, on behalf of the 2nd amendment supporters here, none of us are denying that in the least (if any of you feel differently, feel free to correct me).

but there is only one side of the argument here that is trying to pin all of society's ills on inanimate objects. there is only one side of the argument here that is trying to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens in response to the universal problems that society has.

so, hypothetically, what are you going to do when you take all of the guns away from the law-abiding, and the problem does not disappear? what are you going to do when gun violence is still rampant, and you've already disarmed those that follow the rules any way? what are you going to do when knife violence rises to fill the gap?

is banning knives the next step?

hammers after that?

cars after that?

soon, we'll all be living in windowless rooms with padded walls, because anything else could be used as a means of agression.

do you not see that taking the guns away from anybody, much less law-abiding citizens, is just putting a bandaid on an injury instead of treating the infection underneath. sadly, you'd be putting the bandaid on the wrong limb even, since it is not the law-abiding gun owners that are the problem.

in order to combat the infection, we need to get back to the social problems that we all agree are here. banning guns is not going to fix racism. it won't bring about an end to greed and envy. it won't stop irrational fear of different religions or cultures. it won't sway the amount of those who chemically feel the need to fight, as opposed to those who feel the need to flight, and it won't change at all the difference between those people whose need to fight comes out in senseless violence as opposed to those whose fight comes out in rational, much-needed social reform.

it will change none of that. all it will do is take guns away from the people that are currently following the gun laws already on the books.

you can't fight the syptoms and expect the problem to go away.


aaron out.

[Noahma]

Are there fewer gun deaths in countries that ban guns? International Gun Law Comparisons (Legal: Gun Laws) (http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/international-gun-law-comparisons-3/are-there-fewer-gun-deaths-in-countries-that-ban-guns - broken link)

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Noahma

Are there fewer gun deaths in countries that ban guns? International Gun Law Comparisons (Legal: Gun Laws) (http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/international-gun-law-comparisons-3/are-there-fewer-gun-deaths-in-countries-that-ban-guns - broken link)

Well on the other hand, Noahma, this just can't be right. I mean, it's wrong. I mean, you're wrong. I mean, you're an idiot. A wrong-headed idiot! All Americans are ignorant idiots. Yeah, that's it! Yeah!

(I win. Right? Admit it, d$mn it!)

[melinuxfool]

Originally Posted by Noahma

Are there fewer gun deaths in countries that ban guns? International Gun Law Comparisons (Legal: Gun Laws) (http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/international-gun-law-comparisons-3/are-there-fewer-gun-deaths-in-countries-that-ban-guns - broken link)

The amount of gun deaths is a statistic I care not about. Because in the lack of the availability of firearms, the criminal element will simply select a different weapon for use in a crime.

Statistics like that are completely irrelevant in the United States, however, because regardless of what the statistics may say, they cannot change the fact that firearms ownership within the borders of the United States is a right guaranteed the individual by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and affirmed recently as such by the Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Individual rights are not subject to change based on statistics, and are not subject to removal because the paranoid are fearful. In fact, the presence of the Second Amendment was intended to make some people very fearful; fearful of the population that they have been elected to represent. The reason the right to bear arms is so important to this Republic is not simply for the individual's ability to defend himself against home invasion; not simply to defend his country from foreign invaders; but also, to defend the principles of the Republic from the blackguards that we elect. For even the founding fathers knew that people should not be trusted with political power. The Second Amendment was one last part of the constitutional system of checks and balances, by ensuring that the people have the ability to rebel should the government ever become as tyrannical as the British Empire.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by melinuxfool

The amount of gun deaths is a statistic I care not about. Because in the lack of the availability of firearms, the criminal element will simply select a different weapon for use in a crime.

Statistics like that are completely irrelevant in the United States, however, because regardless of what the statistics may say, the cannot change the fact that firearms ownership within the borders of the United States is a right guaranteed the individual by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and affirmed recently as such by the Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Individual rights are not subject to change based on statistics, and are not subject to removal because the paranoid are fearful. In fact, the presence of the Second Amendment was intended to make some people very fearful; fearful of the population that they have been elected to represent.

The reason the right to bear arms is so important to this Republic is not simply for the individual's ability to defend himself against home invasion; not simply to defend his country from foreign invaders; but also, to defend the principles of the Republic from the blackguards that we elect. For even the founding fathers knew that people should not be trusted with political power.

The Second Amendment was one last part of the constitutional system of checks and balances, by ensuring that the people have the ability to rebel should the government ever become as tyrannical as the British Empire.

Very well put, irrefutible and unassailable! The honest efforts of several authors on this forum to explain and defend this guaranteed right has failed to convert them because the gun-haters are of that cohort that abhore the ability of the citizenry to actively resist tyranny. Statistics, factually reported situations and testimonials by honest public officials including our FBI fall on deaf ears, thus one must of needs conclude they have some future plans and motivations they'd propably not want us to know about! Be always wary!

Congrats!

[rlchurch]

We can and have amended our Constitution.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

We can and have amended our Constitution.

You are correct

I do not see any proposed amendments regarding restrictions of firearms on the horizon. And, if there were, I doubt VERY seriously any change to make firearm ownership more restrictive would be DOA.