Reply With Quotetake a look at this
genocide
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right ^was meaning to bring about that point. Gun ownership is legal here, but as blr_p said, it's just a matter of certain regulations and formalities. (If someone mroe knowledgeable can give a brief summary of what those are, it would be great!)
What the OP had posted was that the right to bear arms could have been a fundamental right available to all citizens. (Though like all fundamental rights, it wouldn't be absolute and would have had certain restrictions). For several reasons, fundamental rights of course are in a completely different category than ordinary statutory rights. One of them is that is is much much more difficult to alter/amend/remove a fundamental right than an statutory right.
On a side note, it's very interesting why the right to bear arms is part of the US Constitution. Apart from the argument that the apprehension of a potential victim of a crime having a gun is a great deterrent and/or equalizing factor, there is a broader argument made by pro-gun people. It's that the U.S. came into being a nation after a violent was with the British, and the people should have the means to overthrow the government should it no longer serve its purpose / being fascist / oppressive etc.
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment
People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch.
-Jack Nicholson
As Good as It Gets (1997)
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right take a look at this
genocide
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right 2 things for sheeple like you
1)those who give liberty for security neither deserve liberty nor security-benjamin franklin
2)tell this to the pity christens in orrisa who are being burnt alive by extremists.If they had guns then this would never happened.
think out of the box and not the media directed BS
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right Question still stands, gun ownership is legal in India, so what's the big deal ?
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right There's no "big deal" - just a couple of us people chatting it out. I just thought it was interesting that it was ever even considered to be made a fundamental right.
@warthog: Tone down the attitude. You will find that people are more receptive to your opinions. Take it from me - a certified IBF a**hole. :thumb:
People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch.
-Jack Nicholson
As Good as It Gets (1997)
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right oh ya, having a gun is the biggest liberty in the world.
What you think of as a liberty, I think of as dangerous, you have a right to your belief as much as I have a right to mine.
did you even read the last few posts, It not just the poor christian who would have a gun, but also the guys attacking him, right know as you could see from news reports most of these groups don't have guns, they are usually seen with sticks and knives, give them guns and all hell breaks loose.
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right ^ the point again being that getting guns through illicit means is fairly easy for anti-social elements. Should we not make it as easy (if not easier) for honest, law-abiding persons to get guns for self-defence?
To give you a slightly different example, I drive around Delhi with a hammer in my car. This is just in case some road-rage type person starts to act aggressively, and my personal safety is threatened, then at least I have some form of defence, which in the best-case-scenario deters the would-be assailant from actually inflicting any physical damage, and worst-case-scenario gives me a weapon to fend off the assailant. In 4 years of driving around in such manner, not once have I even come close to using it in any way to initiate any aggression. (However idiotic delhi drivers are - and they are supremely idiotic). But I am just slightly more comfortable and confident knowing that it is there should I even need it.
Similarly, taking this example of road-rage (or you can take an example of burgulary, car-jacking, rape etc.) would it not be a great deterrent to a would-be assailant not knowing whether his intended victim has a gun or not? (btw note that not only are people carrying guns benefitted, but also people who aren't).
Would there be cases of abuse of the liberty? For sure. But the abuse of a liberty by a very small amount of persons should not deprive the general public of its privileges/protection.
What we can reasonably disagree on is how much would it be abused and what could be the acceptable limit. Would 1 in 10 persons legitimately buying a gun use it criminally or would 9 out of 10? That is a question that warrants further study and thinking - that's my point.
People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch.
-Jack Nicholson
As Good as It Gets (1997)
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right As I have mentioned earlier, as of know most of these groups don't have guns, which means its probably harder to get guns through black markets than you think, if gun laws are changed it could become easier to get them for everybody, including the bad guys.
That's a good argument, but as blr_p pointed out, you could still get a gun if you thought you really needed it. You probably have to go through a lot of red tape but in the end you can get it. Also there are other weapons like tasers, that are non-lethal (in most cases) but are far more effective for self-defense than say a hammer or any other crude weapon would be.To give you a slightly different example, I drive around Delhi with a hammer in my car. This is just in case some road-rage type person starts to act aggressively, and my personal safety is threatened, then at least I have some form of defence, which in the best-case-scenario deters the would-be assailant from actually inflicting any physical damage, and worst-case-scenario gives me a weapon to fend off the assailant. In 4 years of driving around in such manner, not once have I even come close to using it in any way to initiate any aggression. (However idiotic delhi drivers are - and they are supremely idiotic). But I am just slightly more comfortable and confident knowing that it is there should I even need it.
Similarly, taking this example of road-rage (or you can take an example of burgulary, car-jacking, rape etc.) would it not be a great deterrent to a would-be assailant not knowing whether his intended victim has a gun or not? (btw note that not only are people carrying guns benefitted, but also people who aren't).
also look the following link, it shows that in USWould there be cases of abuse of the liberty? For sure. But the abuse of a liberty by a very small amount of persons should not deprive the general public of its privileges/protection.
What we can reasonably disagree on is how much would it be abused and what could be the acceptable limit. Would 1 in 10 persons legitimately buying a gun use it criminally or would 9 out of 10? That is a question that warrants further study and thinking - that's my point.
For every time a gun is used in a legally justifiable manner, there are 22 times it is used for crime, suicide or in other unintentional manner.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f...earm_facts.pdf
PS: it is a partisan website, it is hard to find non-partisan website about gun control as it seems to be an emotional issue in US
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | India tops list of murder numbers
explain then this.
More murders are committed in India than in any other country in the world, according to figures released in Delhi.
A new government report says 32,719 murder cases were registered last year, double the figure in the US and three times more than in Pakistan.
and yet we dont have any rights to have a gun.(aka strict gun license)
this misconception needs to be removed.its like wearing burqha to ward of evil eyes.
usa had 90 guns per hundered and india has 4 guns per 100.
tell me why dont let the citizens arm and defend themselves.
and also reply to this
genocide
Re: Right to bear Arms was supposed to be our fundamental right Lets tell BBC what these figures mean indirectly.
It indirectly means that for every million ppl ( per year)
USA has 54 murderers
Pakistan has 67 murderers
India has only 29 murderers
Which means for every million ppl:
USA has almost double murderers than India.
Population source from:
World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wud BBC put the statistics this way?!! no, it wont.As on 2006:
Indian population 1,132 million
USA population 304 million
Pakistan population 163 million
Last edited by amish; October 18th, 2008 at 06:32 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Posting Permissions
