Elementary school shooting

How do you know that it isn't in the interest of the American population? You seem to think that your opinion is that of the nation and even then what people want isn't necessarily what is in their best interest.

 

I'm going to assume that was sarcasm.

Because what you describe as the "American citizen" isn't true.

 

That's a rather empty argument. And although I would be calling the pot black, you can not speak for all the interests of all the American populace. There are interests for a lack of gun control (Private gun manufacturers...) just like there are interests for gun control (perhaps the gov't (probably not given the tax revenue), safety advocacy, etc). To say that any topic has no relevance when clearly there are consequences related to the subject in politics is a misleading statement.

Just because the interests aren't explicitly stated (like the NRA) does not mean no one is interested. Surely there are people interested in the safety and well being of themselves if not others? Guns and other weapons fall into this category. Self-interest or not, this topic carries a certain amount of interest for many parties not just the government. After all we are discussing it no?

 

I'm not suggesting that every American is like I described. Even I know that would be wrong. I should have worded it better, and meant every American who keeps arms for the reasons mentioned, or is pro gun for the reasons mentioned. Apologies for that.

 

Now that what you meant is clear to me I can agree with you. Cheers.

 

yes its 2 years old but still relevant

 

I would disagree with that, but even if it was so, the constitution is there to protect individual rights, and one of those is the right to bear arms. People don't have to like it, there are those that don't like the 1st amendment either, because people often times say things that someone either dislike, or find offensive.

As for government and mainstream media, well, published opinion is not public opinion.

....

Fair enough, I suppose.

Page 17

How would you know what's in everyones interest? You seem to think that your opinion is that of everyone.

Page 17 (same quote)

Well, who are you to decide what is in the best interest of the people? that of the individual. Or should that read: government?

 

I think you're misunderstanding. And perhaps I may be wrong. But the crux of my point lies in the fact that you made a blanket statement regarding the interests of the American people regarding gun control and it was rather untrue.

 

Guess what - if it goes through the necessary steps, repealing and/or replacing the 2nd amendment can be constitutional. If you want an example, then look at 18th (prohibition of alcohol) and 21st (removal of 18th). In same way the 2nd amendment could be repealed and replaced by a new one which is more strict - and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

 

Or you could just reinterpret the current 2nd placing more emphasis on "well organised militia."

 

walle

Can the constitution change?

What can be defined by an "arm"?

Does the constitution defend your right to own a anti tank rifle? What about an RPG?

 

Well actually, the founding fathers didn't want a standing army, they wanted the people to be responsible for the defence of the country, local communities, and so on.

 

That would be amazing if it was still like that today...

 

Do you believe that it would be acceptable to reinterpret it as guns only being allowed if your an active member of of a "well regulated militia" (or nowadays gun club) with your weapon needing to be stored safely.

 

You are making the assumption that private gun ownership is in the interest of the population and the prohibition against private gun ownership is not. That can be challenged.

You are making the assumption that there are only three interested parties in this matter: you (such conceit!), the public or government. That, too, can be challenged.

You are making the assumption that it would be in the government's interest specifically to ban private gun ownership. You therefore must have an opinion why, but suddenly you get bashful when asked for it. So your reasoning is:

"Well, I cannot see gun control being in the public's interest, so it must be in the government's. Why I dunno, but the very fact that it wants this control means that we should be highly suspicious and deny it."

Paranoid much? I know that you can do better than that.

 

That made sense when the US was still a colony that had recently achieved independence, and was under possible threat from the British Empire and the South American colonies (not to mention that internal little problem of the natives). Now the US has an army, National Guard, homeland security, NSA, CIA, FBI and local police forces. Not needing to rely on some farmers with muskets anymore.

Seriously, if you need a gun to keep your government in line, you need to seriously reflect on your voting behaviour over the last few elections. People get the government they deserve. And the society. I for one am happy to live in one where gun ownership is not yet the norm.

 

I'm inclined to go with Eddie_dane on this one...

 

No, no, no, no, no, Nexxo. You're crediting Walle with too much public patriotism. It should have just said:

"Well, gun control is not in my interest, so it must be in the government's. After all, I have to blame someone other than me "

 

I know it's cherry picking, but in the same vein, I don't think that's necessarily true. Elections in the US are massively ambiguous and the real power still lies within super PACs (political action comittees) and those with money.

I am also aware that this is a tangent, but indirectly, any steps towards any sort of reform would take not only a upheaval (or at least paradigm shift) in the thought processes of the Representatives (which btw, representation is not as prevalent or well done in the US) but also a massive voter movement.

Given that the United States is a big lumbering conglomeration of States which comprise of people and organizations, to say that the people deserve the government they get is akin to placing the blame on just the government. Both have to have a modicum of transparency and ease of understanding for a society to ever reach a proper consensus (if of course, Democracy is believed to be a good way of running things, oligarchy still seems to be the way though).

If I was to relate this to the topic. No meaningful action would occur on a large scale unless everyone took the time to understand the reasoning behind the events that have transpired. We could have gun control within reason. But we could also (thanks to our rather fast paced and more often than not, ignorant constituency) go way out of hand and end up with another prohibition (except with knives I suppose...) like disaster.

 

Wheras in your "land of the free", you can't bet on sports in most states, or drink a pint with a meal at 20 years old. At 18 years old in most civilised countries you are deemed responsible enough to make you own mistakes, and can bet on sport or what colour the queens hat will be on christmas day.