In the last 7 years of living in the UK I have seen more wildlife that I ever did in the 6 years I spent living in the US. In both cases I was living mainly in cities or just outside them.
I don't know specifically where in the US you are living, but I am guessing the likelihood of crossing paths with a bear or lion in the average daily life of an american isn't very high.
Certainly if you are living in the more wild areas of the country I could see a need, but I hardly think that requires a "constitutional" right.
The constitution imo and I am likely to piss off a great many people saying this should really be taken more like a list of suggestions for legislation rather than the third testament of the bible.
geffy, when a person uses the excuse; "to kill a lion or bear that might attack me" it's nothing but transparent rubbish that works only on themselves...not too may people are killed in America from a lion or bear because they didn't have a pistol in their pocket
people like myself find the constitution a perfect document BECAUSE we can change it..in any event it is the law of the land and when there are laws that need to be changed the constitution provides for that change
the constitution IS a list of suggestions that have become law, those laws can be changed too...that's why there are amendments, the constitution is a living document of our law...it''s not a shopping list to pick and choose...it is law...if a law becomes untenable the constitution can easily be changed..in addition if the jury thinks a law shouldn't apply it's withing their ability to judge the law as well as the person charged with that law
now, as far as this discussion with these shootings;
it took me a while to click this thread, events like this are pretty painful to me...I was hoping this thread would be some kind of tribute and remembrance but now I see it's evolved into political debate
kind of crazy a thread talking about this travesty turned into a political discussion but here it is
teh second amendment to the constitution said:
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."
the reason the amendment is there is clear, it's not for hunting, it's not for personal protection, it's not to "kill bears" and it's not to "kill lions" and contrary to anything gun lobbyists tell you, the amendment is NOT there so you can protect your property, your wife, your kids.
the amendment is there so the state can keep it's own REGULATED militia, it's clear as day, the amendment states in plain language it's a REGULATED constitutional right
that purpose is satisfied without letting people keep nuclear bombs which are of course REGULATED away from personal ownership as the amendment provides (of course I think there might actually be some nuts that will argue this point but they are after all nuts)
the right of "the people" in this amendment does not read "the right of each person", it does not read "the right of A person", it reads "the right of the people"
then to make it crystal clear the constitution tells us in with unmitigated language why that amendment is there and that the right IS REGULATED
there are some people that think they can twist the meaning of the constitutional amendment to suit their fetish for blowing things up but they are what they are
the constitutional right to keep and bare arms has a storied history but it's clear there are arms that are not protected..."to keep and bare arms" doesn't mean you can keep a nuclear bomb, a flame thrower, ballistic missiles, a chemical cache, nor a host of arms that are clearly excluded from this "constitutional right"
the only thing that MIGHT not excluded by the amendment is "a gun"
this doesn not mean any gun, it does not mean a pistol, it means a gun
you can keep a gun, the government can and should regulate any guns that are clearly a public threat so long as you get to keep some form of gun, the amendment CLEARLY states this amendment is for a REGULATED malitia...simple stuff here guys
for instance, who would argue that a "gun" that shot nuclear waste is excluded by this constitutional amendment?...show me a person that thinks ownership of a gun that shot nuclear waste is constitutionally protected and I'll show you a moron...the very same "regulation" easily excludes pistols, machine guns, flame throwers, nuclear bombs, etc
that's why single shot rifles should never be excluded but there is no question the government can and should exclude certain "arms" and everyone agrees with this
there's no reason to carry a pistol for the sake of lions or bears Geffy, that's gun lobby talk and that's all it is
don't get the wrong idea here, though I am usually a liberal I am probably more on the Conservative side of the fence when it comes to guns...but there are people that are so insecure about their point of view they make things up to justify their opinion
most people that go to these areas carry their rifle, CERTAINLY someone who thinks they need a pistol would take their rifle if they couldn't get a pistol
this discussion needs to be broken up into two threads, one a tribute and remembrance and the second in hard talk about gun control
your decision Geffy, I'm a little too subjective to be involved in this discussion
have a good day guys
