Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ewlandon]

I'm not a gun nut. I see the benifits of outlawing guns and I would never own one but.. I also wanted to post this for those who think America is "behind" because it still allows citizens to have gun rights.

In Australia this woman would have most likely been murdered, or at the very least raped. She protected herself when not having a gun would have meant she could not protect herself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html

[ghostrider]

[comm]

[Kimbop]

[visitorq]

[ttompatz]

[Captain Corea]

[weso1]

"You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" -Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Admiral



^ That's why we have guns.

[UknowsI]

[Kuros]

[duke of new york]

I'd like to add my thoughts while you are on the topic. Some people think Americans are behind the times on gun rights. Kuros said that is in the Bill of Rights, so unless the Bill of Rights is behind the times, neither is the right to bear arms. Well, I would say that yes, the Bill of Rights is a little "behind the times."

That's a pretty bold thing to say, but why? The Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. It wasn't handed down by God; it was written by men. They were very wise men, but they weren't perfect, and neither is the Constitution.

There are rights and there are inalienable rights. The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right. You don't have the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. So why did the founding fathers guarantee this right in the Constitution? It's pretty clear from the wording of the Second Amendment that the point is not so that people can defend themselves against criminals, or so American citizens can defend the country from an invasion. It's meant to let the American people keep the government in check. The American Revolution was possible because people owned guns. That allowed them to go to war with the British. The point of the Second Amendment is to let the people go to war with the government again, if the government was no longer fit to rule.

I think that's a legitimate reason to guarantee the right to bear arms--in the eighteenth century. The US government could still become so tyrannical that we would need to overthrow it. The Patriot Act and the new NDAA are steps in that direction.

The problem is still there, even more so than ever, but the right to bear arms doesn't make sense anymore because wars are not fought in the same way they were 200 years ago. In the American Revolution, the American side was made up of everyday folks, and they were fighting a national military, but the two sides were not all that differently advantaged. The British army was better trained and had better quality equipment, but at the end of the day it was just guys with rifles shooting at other guys with rifles. On the other hand, if Americans went to war with their government today, it would be guys with rifles against guys with fully automatic assault weapons, missiles with targeting systems, grenade launchers, fighter jets, armored vehicles, GPS (which the government can choose to restrict from common use), and all kinds of other sophisticated technology that James Madison could never have imagined. In short, it would be literally impossible for citizens to fight the US Armed Forces in this era.

Changes in military technology and warfare have made the purpose of the Second Amendment obsolete. The problem is still there, but the right to bear arms is no longer a solution to the problem.


Finally, I can think of far too many examples of people in my life (no one very close to me, thankfully) who have been killed or seriously injured by guns, but I have never met a single person who was saved by one. They're obviously out there, like this woman, but guns destroy a lot more lives than they save. Besides, couldn't she have used a taser, pepper spray or something else non-lethal? Guns aren't the only way to protect yourself.

[duke of new york]

Also, the article says she was on the phone with 911 for 21 minutes. Where in the world were the cops? She should not have even needed to defend herself. Obviously, in a world with no police, we need guns to keep us safe. Maybe the moral here isn't "everyone needs to own a gun;" maybe it's "we need competent law enforcement."

[weso1]

[comm]

[duke of new york]