loading

The Right to Bear Arms

UPDATE! I FIXED THE VIDEO. SORRY!!!! The new link has the video I originally tried to link to. SORRY!

The U.S. Supreme Court recently passed a 5-4 ruling over turning D.C.'s handgun ban and delivered their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I've been waiting to link to this for a long time! Family Guy is awesome. The link takes you to a clip from Family Guy that expresses my view on the 2nd Amendment.

NEW, Not bad LINK


Picture of The Right to Bear Arms
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 138Next »
NATIVEBOY7 years ago
now obama wants to take our arms which give us protection and provides us food
Please explain how being "tooled-up" gives you food?

In terms of people being killed by guns (i.e. not protected) the USA is only better than dodgy-South American countries like Columbia, Honduras, El Salvador, with a few exceptions like South Africa.
After Argentina (safer) there's a real big drop-off...

L
.  Believe it or not, there are still a (very) few ppl in the US who depend on hunting for a large part of their meat. There are even a few who get all their meat from hunting and fishing. Granted, they are few and far between, even in rural Arkansas, but they do still exist.
 
> people being killed by guns
.  Is that number of deaths per year? Not a fair comparison when the US has ~310M ppl and Central American countries are closer to 5-50M.
.  Number of deaths/year/100K ppl? This would be a better.
I was more interested in the "provides us" bit - i.e what he was eating... as this is exceptionally rare where I live. Most people shoot things for sport / amusement / pest control.

What does Wkipedia say...
Per 100,000
Pretty high for a modern developed country. I can't remember what I had seen last year...)

L
.  Thanks!
.  If you look at the breakdown, it's not quite as bad as the 11.66 "Total firearm-related death rate" would lead you to believe. 7.35 were due to suicide (I'm assuming the majority of these would have found some other means if guns were not available) and "only" 3.72 were due to homicide.
.  But, 3.72 is still very high when compared to the <1 of most "developed" countries.
.
.  PS: I do agree that "provides us food" is a very poor argument nowadays. Just wanted to point out that there is still a small handful of ppl who hunt for the majority of their meat.
"7.35 were due to suicide (I'm assuming the majority of these would have found some other means if guns were not available)"

That is actually unclear to me.  Most suicides (assuming you believe the psychiatric community) are spontaneous, not planned.  Rapid intervention, as well as not having a trivially fatal means available, can and does prevent a significant (i.e., statistically significant) number of suicide attempts.
one scenario would be: if a bear or large animal was chasing out at you would u pick up a spear or an gun.

another scenario: if an foreign army came to take over your country. would you just let them or would you fight?
Having paid for the appropriate safety training and license to own a rifle, I'd probably pick it up.  I am also very unlikely to use that rifle to randomly shoot at my neighbors in order to achieve membership in a criminal organization.

Being a crack dealer in downtown L.A. with a stolen Saturday-night special hidden in my pocket, I am very unlikely to be attacked by a bear.  On the other hand...

You clearly are either unable to comprehend differences in environment and social milieu, or you are sufficiently disingenous as to silently ignore them in order to push your ideological agenda.
.  Ah yes. That's the crux of the modern day "problem" with guns.
.  As I've stated befor, where I live (rural S Arkansas) gun ownership and use is not usually a problem. In places with higher population densities (eg, NYC, most of SoCal) that doesn't seem to hold true.
.  But how do we Constitutionally treat them differently? The Second Amendment prohibits any restrictions such as registration, training, &c - right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. As far as I'm concerned, all state laws concerning arms are unconstitutional.
"A well-regulated militia".  That is an obvious Constitutional option for requiring training and registration.  Otherwise you have a large mob, not a well-regulated militia.

I fail to see the logic in being required to have training and registration to own one kind of deadly weapon and not another.
1-10 of 138Next »