> Well, being a citizen of a safer country, I had to read up on what the 2nd amendment > is. >
When you say "Safer Country" would that happen to be one of those countries where if a hoodlum should attack you - you would be arrested for trying to protect yourself? Not saying you'd use a weapon, but maybe just fighting back.
I'm not saying that to make fun, I'm serious, because that's what I've heard about some places. And I think Britain is one of them.
> Seems it is the 2nd of 10 amendments comprising a bill of rights. They were drafted > at a time before an organised police force or army existed, when the only defence was > your own (the wild west). Of course times have changed, and logically it is no longer > needed. Note that it is an amendment to the constitution, so obviously not important > enough to be included originally. > > The reasons then, were > * deterring tyrannical government; (how far do you think that would get you?)
> * repelling invasion; (who would invade America?) > * suppressing insurrection; (the established armed forces can handle that)
If you think about it - there's a bit of a gray area here. Who would be doing the act of 'insurrection'? A group of people against another? Or people against a government or oppressive, ruling body? [/rhetorical question]
> * facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (no longer relevant - call the > police)
If a person which has a licensed, open or concealed gun is at or near the scene of a crime - they can act within seconds as opposed to the police who could take minutes... let's say, on average, 10 minutes to get to the scene of a crime. How many people can a gun toting maniac take out in that 10 minutes it took the police to get there? Now explain to the families of the dead people why the 2nd Amendment isn't relevant.
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Flat 
Re: Firemen shot dead in another gun crime
Reply
