Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Ok, so lets deal with real issues of today, like crime. Does gun control reduce crime? that answer is patently no. Look at Chicago and D.C. constanly competing each year to see who can be the murder capital of the world. Both have city wide gun bans, not just handguns, but all guns.
Now, do carry states have less crime? thats debatable. some states claim to have lower crime, some higher, and some have not changed at all. But I can tell you with all certainty that those carry states at least allow for the people to defend themselves. What should this tell us? Crime isn't going to go away because of gun control. There will always be crime. But law abiding citizens who carry can better protect themselves. But theres already a thread about that issue.
|
Very interesting. I did not know this. And as I have said before, since you have shown good information that gun control does not reduce gun crime, I am now leaning toward not getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Of course, I want to see even more analysis, as I've also read facts from the other side. Something for me to look up some day and delve into deeply.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
study history some more, especially world history. When one side has all the guns, it's easy to commit massacres.
|
So, basically if both sides has guns, then they can both committ massacres?
I point you to the Indian struggle for independance. There were many massacres, especially in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Please read up on it. It actually proves your point, but so what? Indians could have picked up guns and fought back, but they chose not to, atleast most of them. Non-violent civil disobediance is a way of life, and has been successful against men with guns. I also point you to the conflicts going on in Africa. There both sides have guns, neither side seems morally just after all the massacres committed by both sides. Guns aren't always the answer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
If you'll notice, the bill of rights mentions nothing about slaves or women. It specifically refers to individual rights. As time went on and slavery came to be regarded as oppression, it was remedied with another amendment (13th). When the southern states grudgingly dealt without slavery, they still treated blacks as second/third class people, so along came the 14th amendment.
It should be also noted that only one time in our history did our nation use the amendment process to prohibit something and it turned in to a colossal failure and was soon repealed.
The US was built upon the tenets of individual liberty and freedom. Those were bought with the lives of many and attained with the use of firearms. The surest way to lose those would be to willingly deprive ourselves of that right. The founders saw this to be true from history.
|
So because the bill of rights mentions nothing about these two mistakes, but was written soon after the Constituion, which does allow these two mistakes the bill of rights is clearly above any possible mistakes. I'm not saying they are mistakes, I love the bill of rights, I'm just saying they're not above reconsideration and rethinking, especially after 200 years.