You say, "there is no justification to deny the right of reasonable folks to keep and bear arms" is exactly my point. You're defining the right to "reasonable folks" but isn't the cost too high for this freedom since there are so many "unreasonable folks" out there who will now (with no gun restrictions at all, let's say) be able to own as many guns as they want to. I guess you could say then, that all the good people would also own guns, and defend themselves against the bad people.
I just find it hard to believe that the framers of the big C meant this to fit into the world we live in, that they could not possibly conceive of in their day. I fully get it, about protecting all of our "rights" as citizens. But I also cannot imagine what life in the U.S. would be like if there was no gun restriction of ownership at all. It is mind-boggling to me, despite what you all say we have a "right" to do under the constitution.
I think the blood would flow in the streets, and that civilization as we know it would end, and chaos would reign.
Just my humble opinion...and no, I'm not a Democrat in disguise. Just an honest girl trying to think for myself and for my children, and not just to go along to get along.
Thanks..
Then let's have that debate and amend the constitution. Until then, my reading of the document is clear: we have a right to bear arms.
"But I also cannot imagine what life in the U.S. would be like if there was no gun restriction of ownership at all. It is mind-boggling to me, despite what you all say we have a "right" to do under the constitution".
Uhhh...
No more blood in the streets than there is now. Do you really think thieves and murderers obey the gun ownership restrictions?
That something is mind-boggling speaks to the mind, not the something.
Perhaps you are unaware of how unregulated arms are in the majority of states. The less the regulation, the greater the peace. VT and AK have no regulation, and are very peaceful; NY and DC have extreme regulations, and among the highest violence rates. States which relaxed regulation promptly saw a drop in violent crime.
This "wild west, blood in the streets" notion is sheer nonsense.
The world has always been the same. There have always been "unreasonable" folks. They can occupy any position in the population, from street thug, to the office of President, Congress, or the SCOTUS. The founders recognized this clearly. That's why they penned the 2nd Amend. I don't think I need to go into history at all. That should be clear.
They respected their fellows back then and gave each other the gift of freedom. Sure they excluded some from participation in the govm't, for various reasons, but most otherwise had their freedom protected in law. What has changed between now, and back then, is the power and extent of the govm't. Such things as rights, are no longer respected, by either the people, or the govm't. Rights to the people are only those popular things, and concepts they engage in.
"I also cannot imagine what life in the U.S. would be like if there was no gun restriction of ownership at all. It is mind-boggling to me, despite what you all say we have a "right" to do under the constitution. I think the blood would flow in the streets, and that civilization as we know it would end, and chaos would reign. "
You are wrong. First you propose, there are no laws. That is not the case. Felons have no right to own a gun. Their rights were lost upon conviction of a felony. That's called attainder in the law. There's a background check now, so there is absolutely no justification for anyone to claim guns are being sold to criminals. Many States have shall issue concealed carry. I don't see blood in the streets. I do see that people can protect themselves, and do. Most never have to fire a shot.
Were I do see innocent blood spilled is where an effective self defense is not allowed. Women are rendered defenseless against rape, store owners are left defenseless against robbers, and travelers are left defenseless against road agents. What matters is that their fellows denied their right to an effective self defense, and the police only show to collect the dead bodies afterwords. There's a book written by a man named John Lott, More guns, less Crime. It shows what you envision, is pure fantasy.
Reality is that there are criminals, and the reality is that criminals are not allowed to have guns. Neither are founders, nor any reasonable man would deny their fellows the right to own guns. There is no blood in the streets now, and all that hype is just nonsense. I know lots of people that own as many guns as they want to. They are not criminals, and they have no desire to be. I will not abandon them, or their rights to those that think we are, and desire to deny our right, and render us the equivalent of criminal wanna bees.
When Giuliani took away the right of law abiding NYers to own guns, he did nothing to reduce crime. He simply removed their ability to defend themselves. I have no respect whatsoever for Giuliani. None. He is supported by those that could care less about their fellows, and are driven by irrational, propaganda fueled fears. The founders had no intention of creating an effective dictatorship, control by a privileged class.
There are laws, and we need no more. The laws in those places that have taken away the right, such as NYC, and Chicago, need to be removed. The founders provided for laws against defining was is a criminal act, not laws defining all people as criminals. I've seen what criminals, and "authorities" do when the "authorities" deny the right of effective self defense. I will neither promote it, or go along with it.
Here's a link to a thread regarding the morality of the matter. It extends over several posts. I'm surprised more folks on FR didn't chime in.