6 Answers
I think, change the gun laws. To many people have guns.
12 years ago. Rating: 10 | |
It worked in the old west and reality is, there were little gun related deaths back then when everyone carried a gun.
The right to bear arms is protected by the US Constitution. I think movies and media all together could stand to show less violence and nudity too, while we're at it.
12 years ago. Rating: 8 | |
Right to keep and bear arms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Right to bear arms (disambiguation).
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia.[1]
The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was first used in the text of the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States). Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.
As worded in the bill of rights (which again was made law in the US Constitution):
Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We have the right to a militia AND the right to personally keep and bear arms.
As worded in the US Constitution (2nd amendment):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" <<<
shall not be infringed!
Could you copy and paste these words to Doo in whatever question she posted to please?
BEARING ARMS
SECOND AMENDMENT
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
Personally, I'm having trouble finding where this amendment specifically tells an individual he shall have the right to bear and keep arms, but I also believe that when this was written (1791), the idea that an individual would NOT have a gun was absurd, and thus not something the authors thought needed to be protected.
It's an unfortunate fact, but society and values have changed, I think irreversibly, there are many contributing factors I am personally not in favour of the easy access of guns, however I doubt this, or the outlawing of violent movies or games would change the mentality of those that are intent on committing violent offence
12 years ago. Rating: 8 | |
Black markets abound all over the world. The US has it's share. It takes the CIA and law enforcement to shut them down. Here, we do have gun laws even though your media presents a different picture. All part of the brainwashing to keep you all believing you do not need guns.
" Colleen, why do we need guns, to shoot each other.!!!"
We do not shoot each other either. Nut jobs here get guns and shoot people. Law abiding citizens who have guns are not out gunning people down. I have a gun and I've never shot a person, not even an animal. I like the right to bear arms. I may never need to use my gun to defend myself but I like knowing I have it and have the right to use it. My government lets too many desperadoes into my country.
Population of USA 313,973,000
Population of Ireland 4,581,269
_____________________________
..................................309,391,731
Seeing the difference in our populations, can you now see why we would have more gun related deaths than Ireland?
Our gun deaths per capita, stands at about 14% per 100,00.
Ireland is at just under 1% per 100,00.
Add 309 million more people to your country to equal out the 100,00's and watch your gun deaths go up.
Dollybird.. You think that too many people have guns-- So, you would make it illegal to own a gun. Then as the old cleche' goes, 'only criminals would have guns' Remember, criminals are criminals because they don't pay attention to laws.. When will people understand this??? It's a no brainer. Should we take cars off the road because people get killed by them>> should we remove forks because people are fat?? Should we break the pencil that sends a nasty note? Removing a great American past-time is not the answer, its the people that have the problem, not the guns. We must get to the source of violence, be it with a knife, gun, fork, fertilizer or whatever weapon is used.. BTW, a rock is also an assault weapon. We must start with the home, the parents, the schools.. Also punishments must be stricter and current gunlaws enforced. Removing guns from law-abiding citizens is silly..
12 years ago. Rating: 8 | |
desperadoes, which just adds to American desperadoes.Such is life.
__________________________________________________
Dollybird: tabber, you are funny.
Just my personal opinion, the violence in movies, television, and games is excessive. See it enough and become numb. It's just a game or movie; the "victims" are up for another game or playing a different role in the next movie.
Too many people are getting their values from these sources. Like Vinny says, home (and community) need to step up and instill better morals. Shooting people isn't an acceptable answer to any problem, real or perceived.
Glamorizing or sensationalizing those mass murdering shooters is also a problem. The "human interest" aspects of these "defendants" doesn't belong in the news; it belongs in the courtroom. News media is a major problem. Keep the friends and family members out of the spotlight. Don't create public sympathy; report the NEWS and feature POSITIVE influences.
12 years ago. Rating: 4 | |
The thing is that most gun owners in America are law abiding people and never have the need to use them in desperate situations, but if you need to it's good to be able to protect yourself. It's the same with games; most people play violent games and exhibit no ill effects. If parents are worried about their effects on their children then by all means regulate their exposure to them, but others should have the right to decide for themselves.
These types of control laws are a slippery slope. They should be sensible, but not onerous. After all, it is constitutional to own weapons in American and while that doesn't preclude reasonable controls, it also doesn't mean that the government can ride roughshod all over the constitution.
12 years ago. Rating: 4 | |