New plan. BAN POLANI FROM THE WORLD
Do you hold the automobile manufacturer or dealer responsible when their vehicles are involved in the death of an individual?I believe that gun owners who do not keep their guns properly secured and in their possession at all times, should be held liable for anything that happens to anyone else, by anyone else. Naturally there is robberies, muggings and such, that a criminal can take a law abiding citizens gun away, I realize that There are millions of accidental deaths, by car, by alcohol, legal drugs...question is, how do we control all of that too?
In the context used by the writers of the Constitution, "militia" was understood to be comprised of every able-bodied adult male, and so the mention of "a well-regulated militia" means those able-bodies adult males who would turn out- with their firearms- in the case of an emergency. This well predates the concept of a "National Guard", so any comparisons to that body are not historically sound.This has been an interesting conversation so far. So here is some additional information. As a student of the Constitution and some of the thoughts of the people behind it, the 2nd amendment was to allow the Citizens to keep their government honest. This brings up the debate of: is it better for citizens to freely have guns or not? The left seems to think that banning guns will prevent people from being killed. Here they mention things like children getting hold of the guns and shooting themselves or others, the cases of crazy people shooting up schools or movie theatres, etc. But they leave out the biggest gun crimes of all time. I will only mention 2 but they are doozies. Hitler prevented the Jews from owning guns and then killed millions who at that point had no way to defend themselves. Stalin banned guns from his own citizens and millions died. So would it have been better to have been armed or not armed?
Drunk drivers, People who drive whlie text or talking on cell phones and People who speed all kill more people than people with guns..... What next we going to ban cars or trucks? People need to step up and assume accountablity for their actions .... I had a friend get a DUI while riding a horse home from bar....WTH ?! The world is going plum crazy just turn on the news....This post resembles Donald Trump at his press conference ... knows nothing, makes ridiculous false claims, has poor logic skills, attacks everyone who actually does know something and is able to reason their way out of a paper bag, etc. Prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Here are some true statements: Guns are weapons that are sometimes used by people to kill other people. Guns are weapons that sometimes accidentally kill people through misuse. Far more people are killed by guns than by coconuts; in fact, far more people are killed by guns wielded by toddlers than by coconuts. More good guys are killed by guns than bad guys.
You mean the right to keep and bear arms, right? The constitution doesn't specify what kind of arms one may possess (can I have a nuclear bomb?) and that's up to the courts (e.g. assault rifle bans). I agree that cars and guns are not a good analogy but not for the reasons you state. Using one as a model to regulate the other would be monumentally stupid.I've been reading all the discussions here but it's obvious many of you seem to either ignore the facts or aren't aware of them. Let me explain... (caution this is a long read but worth it)
First of all, some of you try to compare owning a gun to driving a car. While it's true the gun or car itself doesn't kill people, it's the actions of the person using it that does. However, remember that owning guns is a right specified in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Most laws on the books are added for this very reason. Not much of an argument.Lastly, the bottom line is that anti-gun advocates want to punish millions of Americans for the actions of a small few. Imagine if they wanted to ban pickup trucks, impacting millions of Americans, based on the actions of a few that used pickup trucks to kill people. People would think that's absurd yet they don't realize it's the same exact thing. Punishing all for the actions of a small few. Does that make any sense at all?
I'm not sure why any of this matters. The 2nd amendment gives the right to the people, not people in militias. Sure the 2nd amendment is an anachronism (as are other parts of the constitution) but there's only one way to change it. Good luck with that.You are right, ozzonelayyer, that a gun and a car should not be compared, but you are wrong on why. A car's main purpose is transportation, while a gun's main purpose is to kill living things. Therefore, it is a gross misuse of a car to use it to kill someone, but entirely in line with its purpose to use a gun for the same reason. And, yes, both of them are responsible for accidental deaths. Too many from both.
The other thing is that gun supporters like to partially quote the 2nd Amendment, always ignoring this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When this was written, there was no thought of a professional, standing army for the new country. There was a military structure, but it depended on State militias for manpower. This is much different from how it is today. The argument that the 2nd Amendment was talking about us protecting ourselves from our own government is ludicrous for two reasons. The first is the original intent of the founders, which is clear in the wording, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Not security from the state. The other reason it is ludicrous is that no amount of AR-15s, whether semi- or full automatic, is going to be able to stand up against the U.S. military, should it be used against us. The only way to assure that it isn't used against us is to use the voting rights we have to put people in office that stand up for the people of the U.S., and not just the rich and powerful, like the gun manufacturers' lobby.