Why Americans Love Guns

Right, so you do understand the sort of things that make you previous statement (the one I quoted) incorrect.

Personally I think that a person with a physical disability should have the same rights to protect themselves as anyone else. Whether they should be allowed the same rights regarding gun ownership depends on the degree to which they can safely use a gun without endangering themselves or other people as a result of their disability.

 

Yes, I understand the wording previously used (everyone) was incorrect, as the mental disability issue raises serious questions. Someone incapable of proper decision making should NOT own firearms, or for that matter have a driver's license.

What sort of physical disability do you think qualifies someone as being incapable of using a firearm without representing a threat against the general public?

 

Reading over the entire thread, I noticed two distinct aspects involved with the posts being made. First, there is A LOT of generalization. Look at the very title for the thread-"why Americans love guns". Some of us might actually "love" firearms for whatever reason. Maybe it's a part of heritage, appreciation for craftsmanship or whatever. Other American clearly hate firearms, they have a fear and ignorance of them, which I have never understood, maybe how they were raised? Yet the majority of people that I know have a more rational view of firearms. There's no love or hatred involved. We recognize that firearms are weapons that represent a level of force to be used only when necessary or perhaps for things like target shooting and hunting.

Also, the majority of posts here appear to be from people who neither live in the U.S. or understand our perspective, just as many Americans don't understand those of UK residents for example. American often DO know the reason behind our 2nd Amendment rights. We recognize that firearms ownership does afford us a measure of protection against a tyranny from our government and offers a level of protection against threats from bad people intent upon harming us and family.

We don't understand however why the British continue making snide comments after we kicked them out of the colonies and won our independence. Sore losers? Seriously, that was over 200 years ago, and we have grown into two different nations with entirely different cultures. You don't comprehend our 2nd Amendment, CCW permits, views on the right to protection of family and self, etc. By that same token, we don't understand why you are content in living that Orwellian society lifestyle. Having surveillance cameras for every square block, not allowed to own knives with a locking mechanism, virtually no gun ownership or hunting rights, all are foreign to us and represent the very form of tyranny we oppose.

 

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/uk-has-highest-violent-crime-rate-in-eu.html

 

Cause i have literally been in one fight outside of a ring in my life and despite living in a country that was a warzone less than 20 years ago, have never had a gun pulled on me, further more, i never studied a martial art, i competed in combat sports.

 

You have to really wonder how people can be so infirm about amending an amendment.

 

And children getting shot or shooting their friends or people going into schools and shooting them up or drug dealers doing drive-bys are foreign to us.
Pick your poison I suppose.

 

I watched that just yesterday and he is bang on.
Just admit you like guns!

 

You make a number of very fair points here, but as soon as you refer to British society as being 'Orwellian' or a 'tyranny' then you are making exactly the same mistake that you had previously argued against so well.

When Britsih people say that the US should have the same degree of gun control that we do, because it works for us, then they are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. And so are Americans who say that Britain is a 'tyranny' or whatever because we don't have widespread gun ownership. Using either the USA or the UK as a yardstick by which to measure the other one is utterly futile, and I think that you appreciate that really.

 

Because if we allow one amendment to be changed, then what reason can we argue for the alteration of the others? Liberals seem ok with the idea of changing the 2nd Amendment, not so much the 1st or 5th, etc.

 

So uhh... you do know that door has already been opened right? There've been quite a few amendments to the amendments. I'd look into 'slippery slope' fallacy if I were you.

 

^^^Shhhhhh!

 

Amendment XXI and XVI are the only ones I can see being reasonably considered "amendments to the amendments". How is that "quite a few"? 2/27 isn't a lot to me.

 

My point was more of language than anything else, saying you cannot amend an amendment is like saying you can't change the changeable, but as for the second amendment, quite frankly, if you are not a member of a militia, you own your firearms under false pretenses, further more, if you honestly think you and your mates would be able to overthrow a tyrannical government with personal firearms, in the face of tanks, drones and all manor of ordinance, you probably should seek professional help.

 

You know what they say, 3 out of 27 ain't bad.

 

So what you're saying to me is that changing a few amendments didn't result in the wholesale desecration of the constitution? Cool!

 

Well, XVI made tax slaves of most people...but did it desecrate the Constitution? Not really. (The whole document was a scam and power grab from the beginning...but that's a long discussion probably best saved for another thread) It just made it easier for the regime to steal from the poor/middle class (though the middle class didn't really exist until the early 20th century) and give to rich cronies.

 

That depends were you live in our green and pleasent land

 

Sort of reminds me of an aunt i had who'd wax lyrical about my grandfather growing up in the Lancashire countryside town of Cheetham.