Being from probably the only country in the world in which the police don't carry guns I accept I may have quite a skewed concept of public gun ownership.
I am not really anti-gun, thinking more that just like any dangerous thing, it is mostly down to the user rather than the object. Of course, such a small, portable and lethal object as a gun, is too easily passed from those with the right to those without.
There can be no easy solution to the problem of illegally owned guns in the US. They can't be un-invented and there are already way too many in circulation for any legislation to have any worthwhile effect for decades to come.
One point I'd like to hear views on though is this thing with 'the right to bear arms' being in the constitution. I have heard many versions of the following argument over the years: 'The founding fathers this' and 'The founding fathers that.'
Each side, pro and against, seem to invoke their own interpretation of what the intent of the authors of the constitution.
My point is that everyone seems to revere everything in the constitution as something that cannot be wrong. There are many things sane men allowed a couple of hundred years ago that are out of the question nowadays. I personally think that when the constitution was written, there was no doubt very good reason for inclusion of the right to bear arms. Trying to prevent a repeat of the tyranny of the British colonial masters is top of the list I expect.
However, things are very different now. The sheer number of firearms circulating in the States, along with ridiculous drug laws, brings the country to a far different place than when the right to bear arms was devised. It is a fact that guns, whilst legitimately being used for hunting and household protection, are being used to commit a staggering number of murders year on year.
I don't pretend to know the answer - no doubt any severe restriction on the production of guns would have a huge effect on that economy. Every law-abiding citizen also has a genuine claim of needing a gun to protect themselves from the criminal element.
I don't have a clue as to an answer - but I will say that even though it may have been justified in it's inclusion in the constitution, the right to bear arms for me, has less and less meaning these days that is anything like the reasoning back then.
I am not really anti-gun, thinking more that just like any dangerous thing, it is mostly down to the user rather than the object. Of course, such a small, portable and lethal object as a gun, is too easily passed from those with the right to those without.
There can be no easy solution to the problem of illegally owned guns in the US. They can't be un-invented and there are already way too many in circulation for any legislation to have any worthwhile effect for decades to come.
One point I'd like to hear views on though is this thing with 'the right to bear arms' being in the constitution. I have heard many versions of the following argument over the years: 'The founding fathers this' and 'The founding fathers that.'
Each side, pro and against, seem to invoke their own interpretation of what the intent of the authors of the constitution.
My point is that everyone seems to revere everything in the constitution as something that cannot be wrong. There are many things sane men allowed a couple of hundred years ago that are out of the question nowadays. I personally think that when the constitution was written, there was no doubt very good reason for inclusion of the right to bear arms. Trying to prevent a repeat of the tyranny of the British colonial masters is top of the list I expect.
However, things are very different now. The sheer number of firearms circulating in the States, along with ridiculous drug laws, brings the country to a far different place than when the right to bear arms was devised. It is a fact that guns, whilst legitimately being used for hunting and household protection, are being used to commit a staggering number of murders year on year.
I don't pretend to know the answer - no doubt any severe restriction on the production of guns would have a huge effect on that economy. Every law-abiding citizen also has a genuine claim of needing a gun to protect themselves from the criminal element.
I don't have a clue as to an answer - but I will say that even though it may have been justified in it's inclusion in the constitution, the right to bear arms for me, has less and less meaning these days that is anything like the reasoning back then.
