Null,
Great points. Although the “arms” in the second amendment does refer to Guns, but they would have been single shot muskets which might put them closer to the killing power of a pitchfork.

And I think I’m not a million miles off-track when I say that the general form of the ‘arms’ that the amendment meant was probably closer to a pitchfork than a mach-10.

The most recent news I had head over here in the UK was the shooter was from South Korea but had a green card and the guns were legally purchased. Even if they weren’t, I think the “ban / dont ban” issue is valid and this sad event is a good time to think about it.

Regarding your comment about the limits of rights – I agree totally. To me though, this is where the law (esp criminal law) comes in. Killing some one is not a misuse of a right to bear arms, it is murder. Just the same as killing some one with a pencil through the eye would be murder. The problem with guns is that it makes it easy for discontented people to disproportionately kill lots of other people.

As I said previously, I find this a confusing issue, with conflicting internal rationalisation, and your comments and input are certainly welcome.

We have limits on all rights, the most basic stance on this is, “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” As long as your right isn’t infringing on the rights of others then its protected (maybe). But with guns when you infringe on someone else, that person did not lose a right, they lost their life. Hence why screaming Fire! in a crowded building is NOT protected by the first amendment.

Yeah we aren’t completely insane although I can understand why you might think otherwise, not everyone has absolute rights to bear arms. For instance a foreign national such as the recent shooter, does not have that right, hence the illegal guns. Felons usually lose that right. There are probably other examples but I’m not real up to date on gun laws. Unfortunately individual states have there own gun laws, so while here in New York I would need a permit to buy a handgun and it would be very difficult to legally conceal it. My cousin in South Carolina who knows very little about guns has a pistol and a holster to carry it concealed, not because he needs it but simply because its legal there so why not? Some states like Florida have even made it legal to use deadly force if you “feel threatened” thats a recent law and hopefully it will be overturned soon.

Its funny that I found this post, via Planet Atheism by the way, as I had just recently talk to a friend who knows someone who claims they are purchasing a .50 cal rifle. for target practice and maybe some hunting, he’s going to start off practicing on squirrels. If you know anything about this ridiculous weapon you would know that it falls perfectly into the “anti-aircraft” status Heather mentioned. The idea that some random idiot with too much money can purchase one of these is a bit unnerving.

one last thing, I do think the UK has much lower gun violence than the US, but as long as they are available, legal or otherwise they will be used for violence.

OK I need to run, If I can find this again I’ll be back tomorrow. Have a good one!

I find, with this, I am caught between two opinions. My instincts are largely against allowing every body to carry guns, but it remains a “right” allowed to US Citizens. Any caveats added to this “right” can equally be applied to others. For example, allowing freedom of speech as long as it is done in a manner society feel acceptable leaves a sour taste. (I am aware that “freedom of speech” does actually have limits but I am trying to stretch things to make a point.)

As I said, thanks for your comments and I am glad I live in a country where guns are not sold to unbalanced students. (We still have gun crime though…)

If we promise not to ask for the tea tax again, maybe you could ban them.

Thats the quick answer. In truth people can die indirectly due to freedom of speech. I am unsure of my personal stance on the gun issue for the exact reasons you pointed out. I will defend freedom of speech at all costs so I can’t immediately say to throw out the second amendment. But gun control does not mean no guns, it means sensible limits. Also the right to bear arms is a throw back to the revolutionary war, if your country didn’t allow us to have guns we’d still be a colony, BTW thanks. But today no one in their right mind would try to out the US government by force it would be suicide. Therefore the main argument in favor of the second amendment is sort of a mute point. Today the claim is guns are for hunting and self protection. Hunting is fine, non-automatic large guns that cannot easily be concealed. Self-protection is a myth as its been shown many times your far more likely to shoot someone by accident than to shoot an assailant. And as you point out a “wild west” shoot out is hardly a positive solution. I’m still willing to be persuaded on this issue but I support gun control, not abolishing the ability to own one, but I think it should be a privilege to be earned not a right that can occasionally be taken away.

Finally though no, not all rights are equal. We have pretty well thrown out the fourth amendment, along with the sixth, eight, ninth, and tenth. (and I’m only looking at the bill of rights) So no not all rights are equal.

But thats just my opinion. Thanks for the interesting vantage point.