[Abood]

The common stance American liberals have on guns is pro-gun control (do other liberals have the same stance?), and I never understood why. I thought liberalism stands for civil liberty and being able to stand up against tyrants, and I truly believe that anarchism is the purest form of liberalism (many anarchists would disagree, I'm sure), except I'd never see myself as being pro-gun control. I see gun control as being a tool of tyrants to limit the power of descent... which is, the way I see it, very un-liberal.

My question is simple, what is the rationale behind liberals supporting gun control?

[Mazhi]

What good can a couple of guns do against an army of tanks and F-14s?

[Abood]

Nothing. But a couple million guns held by people can do a lot.

[Mazhi]

This is one of the topics that I am still undecided about. Some people say that more guns in households actually cause more violence and deaths, and others say that the more guns are controlled, the more crimes there are.

[Rancid]

What good can a couple of guns do against an army of tanks and F-14s?

See Iraq

...and others say that the more guns are controlled, the more crimes there are.

do the research.. you'll see (at least in the US and UK) that the above statement is true.. I haven't looked at other countries. because i only care about gun control in the US.. I only know about the UK because people love to reference the UK as a place that control decreases crime.. which that is complete bullshit..

[Dr House]

Guns provide safety, and they don't care how big or small you are. If a woman is attacked in a dark alley, she can shoot her attacker. And criminals can still get guns in the black market.

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Why should we deny their ownership to honest tax-paying citizens?

[Rancid]

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Why should we deny their ownership to honest tax-paying citizens?

because guns promote violence... end of story...

seriously though...

i'm surprised people haven't chimed in with opinions. i think the OP had an interesting question.

[keso]

What good can a couple of guns do against an army of tanks and F-14s?

Then

See Iraq

I don't believe for a minute that if the USA were called in to occupy some part of the USA that had rebelled or just "needed occupation" that we would employ anywhere near the level of violence against our own people that we are using in Iraq.

[Rancid]

^ your point?

[keso]

That if it came right down to it, the Americans who would rebel against the government (with their Second Amendment guns) would stand no chance whatsoever against the government.

[Rancid]

That if it came right down to it, the Americans who would rebel against the government (with their Second Amendment guns) would stand no chance whatsoever against the government.

pffffttt.. not a reason to ban guns though.


anyway
we're off topic

[keso]

What purpose did the Second Amendment serve, in your opinion.

My interpretation is that it is written to provide for the fact that an army, a MILITIA, can be raised when needed for war...Especially since most of the Founding Fathers were against having a standing army.

[Brutus]

So let me get this straight Keso, the first nine amendments were all individual freedoms. BUUUTTT they decided to make the second (originally was the first, but was moved back for political reasons) amendment the only one out of that packet of amendments they turned in one day to be the one which is not for individual rights.

[keso]

So let me get this straight Keso, the first nine amendments were all individual freedoms. BUUUTTT they decided to make the second (originally was the first, but was moved back for political reasons) amendment the only one out of that packet of amendments they turned in one day to be the one which is not for individual rights.

Let's see.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Which half of this Amendment are you reading? The red half, the blue half? Both?

Individual rights? You state that the Bill of Rights are all about Individual rights?

1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see the rights of the people. Individual?

10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Individual?

I will agree that the majority of them deal with individual rights, but to claim (unfoundedly in my opinion) that the Bill of Rights is "exclusively individualistic" and then to proceed to use that claim to retroactively justify the interpretation of the Bill of Rights is post hoc logic to which I do not subscribe.

How do you interpret...and this is crucial, the SECOND half of the SECOND Amendment in light of the FIRST half?

[Zyx]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Clearly, the constitution does not provide the right to bare arms for the woman in the alley being attacked by a mugger and neither should we. That said, I think "liberals" are against guns for self-protection because "self-protection" is not a right.

Now, do not misunderstand; I do think that the woman in the alley should be safe, but the burden of her safety is on the community and not solely on her. Hence why I pay taxes.

[ThereBeDragons]

The right to bear arms does not exist because people have the right to self-defense by guns or that guns are inherently good things to be disseminated. The Second Amendment exists as a safeguard of democracy; it means that theoretically, the final bastion of power - the military - rests with the people. That is really the only reason it exists.

[Rancid]

i'd like to hear thoughts on the OPs question

but the burden of her safety is on the community and not solely on her.

I believe the burden is on her and the community not solely the community

[Zyx]

I believe the burden is on her and the community not solely the community

Add that to your list of wrong beliefs . . .

[Rancid]

Add that to your list of wrong beliefs . . .

yes, because excluding the person that is most affected by the situation is wrong...

so much for caring about the people huh?

[Zyx]

RancidWannaRiot, wanna justify where I am not caring for the person?

I actually maintain a belief that everyone should be equally as protected; that is, an elderly handicapped person without a group should be as safe as someone fit and armed being hauled by the U.S. Military and Navy combined. Or do you disagree?