Recent landmark decisions by the courts didn't magically grant everyday citizens something they haven't already had for hundreds of years prior.
Seriously, you sound fairly young. That's not to insult. Read and study a little bit about your country.
It's so sad though; the Supreme Court has ruled that there is such a thing as "a militia of one."
The post to which I replied quoted a text which denoted the national guard a militia. This militia is well regulated, as they regularly exercise and demonstrate their ability to fire a weapon, without being in active military service.
"Every able bodied man above the age of 17" is not a well regulated militia. This group of people is neither equipped, nor generally capable of using a weapon. Nor are they organized in any way. A militia is always organized, even if only loosely. But to function, a chain of command is required even in militias, as is a supply and support structure. The latter may be more ad hoc, but that is what makes the difference between a militia and an armed mob.
The French Resistance's armed forces were a classical militia. But, these were a select group of people that were at least loosely organized, and had some amount of training.
All I wanted to say, was that the word militia used in the quoted text, is not identical to the idea of a well regulated militia, as used in the Second Amendment, in opposition to the link made by whoever posted that quote.
The founding founders enshrined the right to bear a few muskets - to deter British soldiers. They did not enshrine Ak-47s, sniper rifles, and other modern weapons capable of massacring a town full of people.
As someone who spends about 2 months a year in Germany, all I can say is that I feel great when I'm there and that I can walk at midnight through any German city and always feel safe. Conversely, a lot of Germans are afraid to visit the US because of the right/wrong perception about the ubiquity of weapons: in cars, homes, schools, etc.
The Germans have a higher standard of living than Americans and the lack of guns and overall feeling of safety certainly plays a part in this.
Germans also know they started two World Wars. There is an innate desire to simply avoid such violence. This also applies to TV and movie media; European films glorify love and sex whereas American films glorify violence and war.
this. This. THIS!
It's so sad though; the Supreme Court has ruled that there is such a thing as "a militia of one."
The National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group in the United States that advocates fewer gun controls, has been actively involved in trying to abolish Canada's long-gun registry for more than a decade, CBC News has learned.
I know it sounds silly to say but if there were no guns here there would be no gun violence. Duh.
But there are so many guns in the U.S. that we'll always have this problem, unless every gun owner suddenly became a responsible, law-abiding citizen. Crime exists. Guns make crime even more dangerous and deadly.
Even if we stopped manufacturing them now, they would still be easily available well beyond our lifetimes. But that's never going to happen.
It's too late for us, but Canada, save yourselves (from the NRA)!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nra-involved-in-gun-registry-debate-1.923766
Of course, you're wrong on this as well. If the mere existence/presence/saturation of firearms made more crime, or made existing crime more dangerous, this would be evidenced by high correlations between the two. Yet this is not the case. In fact, there is a slight NEGATIVE correlation between the two when reviewing data from 170+ countries. This is why the NAS, CDC, Harvard and various other studies by people who know more about these things than you refute your position.
Further, the NRA, while often stupid and wrong-headed, really has very little to do with anything. They have a reasonably small membership and other groups (SAF, CCRKBA, SCCC, etc) have far better track records with regards to firearm rights.
Sure if there were no guns, nor ability to make more, there'd be no more gun crime. However there'd also be no gun defense, making it a wash. There would still be crime, however...and war, and all the other negatives. It's merely the method that would shift. We'd go from being able to mount an equal defense to once again being at the mercy of the young and strong.
I know it sounds silly to say but if there were no guns here there would be no gun violence. Duh.
But there are so many guns in the U.S. that we'll always have this problem, unless every gun owner suddenly became a responsible, law-abiding citizen. Crime exists. Guns make crime even more dangerous and deadly.
Even if we stopped manufacturing them now, they would still be easily available well beyond our lifetimes. But that's never going to happen.
It's too late for us, but Canada, save yourselves (from the NRA)!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nra-involved-in-gun-registry-debate-1.923766
Guns also make crime MUCH easier to perpetrate.
If the government ever did try, it would be the Revolution all over again.
The gov would just flick a couple of switches and all your revolutionaries wouldn't be able to communicate, they would break down into thousands of separate groups who would fight each other for power. Then the gov would just do clean up
Our guns keep the government afraid of us.
Guns also make crime MUCH easier to perpetrate.
Canada dropped the gun registry two years ago, the data hasn't been destroyed for Quebec as it's still in courts
Good luck keeping a good job later on in life kid. It's going to be hard for you with your very slow rate of learning.
Thanks for that. Bringing down the gun registry is not all the NRA wants though. They represent manufacturers at their trade shows. They want guns out there in mass quantities.
Thanks for that. Bringing down the gun registry is not all the NRA wants though. They represent manufacturers at their trade shows. They want guns out there in mass quantities.
Is that what Jesus would have said?
Citizens being armed keeps the government afraid of us. Without that, we would have even fewer rights left than we already do. I can tell you from personal experience that there are lots of country boys waiting for the government to try and take their guns.
If the government ever did try, it would be the Revolution all over again.
A debate without end...
Recent landmark decisions by the courts didn't magically grant everyday citizens something they haven't already had for hundreds of years prior.
Seriously, you sound fairly young. That's not to insult. Read and study a little bit about your country.
On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court granted (PDF) the petition for certiorari. The Court framed the question for which it granted review as follows: Whether the following provisions D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The briefs on the merits by the District of Columbia and respondent Dick Anthony Heller, as well as amicus briefs by some 67 friends of the court, have been collected here.
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right