Why Americans Have So Many Guns

[bobevenson]

This is for the vast majority of you people who have absolutely no conception of why Americans have so many guns, and it's got nothing to do with our love for hunting, target shooting or protecting ourselves from common criminals.

Jewish World Review Jan. 2, 2013
Why the 2nd Amendment
By Economist Walter Williams

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?

James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."


Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Rep. John Lewis and like-minded people might dismiss these thoughts by saying the founders were racist anyway. Here's a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." I have many other Second Amendment references at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes.html.

How about a couple of quotations with which Rep. Lewis and others might agree? "Armas para que?" (translated: "Guns, for what?") by Fidel Castro. There's a more famous one: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.

Here's the gun grabbers' slippery-slope agenda, laid out by Nelson T. Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.: "We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. ... Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal" (The New Yorker, July 1976).

There have been people who've ridiculed the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, asking what chance would citizens have against the military might of the U.S. government. Military might isn't always the deciding factor. Our 1776 War of Independence was against the mightiest nation on the face of the earth — Great Britain. In Syria, the rebels are making life uncomfortable for the much-better-equipped Syrian regime. Today's Americans are vastly better-armed than our founders, Warsaw Ghetto Jews and Syrian rebels.

There are about 300 million privately held firearms owned by Americans. That's nothing to sneeze at. And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.

[Ginkgo]

Yes, but modern history has show that when you take up arms against, 'the government' it will not be just 'the government'.There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will support the government, regardless of how dictatorial a government may become. Civil wars are usually the result.

[bobevenson]

Yes, but modern history has show that when you take up arms against, 'the government' it will not be just 'the government'.There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will support the government, regardless of how dictatorial a government may become. Civil wars are usually the result.

That may be true, as in present-day Syria, but America has a tradition of freedom that Syria and most other countries don't have, and it would be very surprising to see many Americans support a dictatorial regime. At any rate, the vast majority of Americans would be armed, ready and able to overcome an oppressive government.

[Ginkgo]

Yes, but modern history has show that when you take up arms against, 'the government' it will not be just 'the government'.There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will support the government, regardless of how dictatorial a government may become. Civil wars are usually the result.

That may be true, as in present-day Syria, but America has a tradition of freedom that Syria and most other countries don't have, and it would be very surprising to see many Americans support a dictatorial regime. At any rate, the vast majority of Americans would be armed, ready and able to overcome an oppressive government.

But, Bob that is saying that violence is a viable option that has a reasonably high priority.

[bobevenson]

Yes, but modern history has show that when you take up arms against, 'the government' it will not be just 'the government'.There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will support the government, regardless of how dictatorial a government may become. Civil wars are usually the result.

That may be true, as in present-day Syria, but America has a tradition of freedom that Syria and most other countries don't have, and it would be very surprising to see many Americans support a dictatorial regime. At any rate, the vast majority of Americans would be armed, ready and able to overcome an oppressive government.

But, Bob that is saying that violence is a viable option that has a reasonably high priority.

That's the position of our founding fathers, and I think they knew what they were talking about. It is the ultimate defense against oppression.

[thedoc]

Yes, but modern history has show that when you take up arms against, 'the government' it will not be just 'the government'.There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will support the government, regardless of how dictatorial a government may become. Civil wars are usually the result.

That may be true, as in present-day Syria, but America has a tradition of freedom that Syria and most other countries don't have, and it would be very surprising to see many Americans support a dictatorial regime. At any rate, the vast majority of Americans would be armed, ready and able to overcome an oppressive government.

But, Bob that is saying that violence is a viable option that has a reasonably high priority.

If you remove violence as an option, the violent person wins.

In those other countries that had less freedom, it was the attempt to gain freedom by those who were not armed that was met with violence.

[Ginkgo]

In those other countries that had less freedom, it was the attempt to gain freedom by those who were not armed that was met with violence.

[/quote]

Each country to its own ethos I guess

Out attempt to gain freedom from British rule was mostly a peaceful revolution. We have a completely different view of freedom.

[Impenitent]

of course life itself is violence...

no! it is peace and love and willingness to be food for others...

-Imp

[thedoc]

of course life itself is violence...
-Imp

Life feeds on other life, in nature violence is the rule. Are humans merely smart animals, or can we cast aside the need for violence to prove our worth and value?

[thedoc]

On another forum, (in fact several) a user was decrying the "feminization of mankind" in that men were becoming less macho, kinder and less violent, more peaceful. Is violence and brutality really the mark of being a man, or can a man show strength in gentleness and compassion. The same standard could also be applied to women, so is peace a characteristic that is possible for all humans?

[Impenitent]

constantly altering the nature of the animal is a peaceful act...

-Imp

[Gee]

On another forum, (in fact several) a user was decrying the "feminization of mankind" in that men were becoming less macho, kinder and less violent, more peaceful. Is violence and brutality really the mark of being a man, or can a man show strength in gentleness and compassion. The same standard could also be applied to women, so is peace a characteristic that is possible for all humans?

Hi Doc;

I think that there is more strength in gentleness and compassion. People are confused about what it is to be male and associate gentleness with weakness. If man is becoming more feminine, it is not in this way and is not about compassion.

But I also do not think that all people want peace, as some seem to thrive on discord, violence, and chaos.

Thinking about guns, I believe that in elementary school, we were taught that freedom is not free; that any people, who were not willing to fight for freedom, could lose it. So I suspect that most Americans are taught this, and think this may have something to do with our thinking that we have a right to own guns.

Gee

[Felasco]

It seems rather unlikely to me that average people using handguns and hunting rifles could overthrow a high tech trained military dictatorship in the United States.

I would agree this was the intent of the founding fathers, but that was a few hundred years ago, and technology has changed the equation substantially. Technology has created a huge imbalance which could only be addressed by allowing average citizens to buy machine guns, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles etc, something even the NRA probably doesn't want.

A better argument for guns is that if the government can not perform it's function of protecting us from criminals, then we retain the right to defend ourselves from criminals. That's a job suitable for hand guns and hunting rifles.

[thedoc]

It seems rather unlikely to me that average people using handguns and hunting rifles could overthrow a high tech trained military dictatorship in the United States.

Yes it is unlikely, except that the civilian forces may be much more numerous than the military, and the average people could have among them ex-military personel who would know the military weapons and tactics and will be able to train the civilian forces to be more efficient. High tech does have an advantage, but in battle nothing is a sure thing, even a rock upside the head will put a soldier on the ground.

[Kayla]

And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.

republicans support gun control!?