View Single Post
Old 01-28-2013, 02:49 PM   #43
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.
You actually have a higher violent crime rate(per capita) than we do. Sure, if you eliminate guns, gun crime should go down. But that doesn't mean the crime stops. In fact according to your own government, rapes have gone up since the ban. Yes, gun crime went down. But you already had a lower gun crime rate than we did in the US. How many school shootings did you have BEFORE your ban. And guess what. Your gun crime went town 30% since your ban. OUR gun crime went down by 30% in the same time period. Your "Violent crime" went up during that time. Ours went down.


Oh and you are misinterpreting the meaning of the second. Read our supreme court ruling DC V Heller. It holds that the opening portion of the second was not a requisite for the second part. The second was put in for the same reason the third was put in. At the time the British government was preventing those persons from arming themselves, and forcing citizens in the colonies to quarter troops in their homes(and give up their crops, food, daughters etc.). King George was not very nice to the colonies. And the people there decided they had had enough and voiced their opinions. Keep in mind that the cannons used were also owned by private citizens, not connected with the military. So it was NOT specifically requiring militias, and DID cover for self defense... Oh and if you think a shotgun works for everyone, You're a fool. Smaller framed persons have a harder time with a big bore firearm such as a shotgun.

And we do have over 20000 laws on the book regarding firearms. Nost of them are useless feel good bans like the ones in CT that did not stop the shooting. Automatic weapons have been illegal to sell any new ones since the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 which put a stop to new tax stamps being issued for firearms listed on the National Firearms Act of 1934(which included machine guns and automatic firearms, as well as rocket launchers, grenades, and a few other destructive devices). The only ones available for sale are too expensive for criminals to use. They instead use illegally modified firearms like the AK-47's that were used during the North Hollywood Shootout that happened DURING the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban." The ones used in crimes are the illegally obtained ones. Generally stolen from Law Enforcement and the military.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-28-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,