the right to bear arms, established in 1783, when the majority of the population was rural and hunting was a part of life for many, alongside constant threats from indians, spanish, and others.

fast forward 232 years. 3/4 of us are urbanized, and hunting is for only sport. CLEARLY we shouldnt... ya know 'update'... that would be too logical!

For 232 years, it's worked pretty well, aside from those accidentally killed.
Update to what?

"aside from those accidentally killed"

THE AMERICAN GUN LAWS WORK GREAT APART FROM ALL THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO DIE.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

MOVE ALONG.

Pretty sure you can throw in a few homicides and suicides along with "those accidentally killed."

BO_SOX, 5,148 PEOPLE COMMITTED SUICIDE LAST YEAR USING A FRYING PAN, IN THE USA ALONE. DO YOU WANT TO BAN FRYING PANS, YOU LIBTARD?

I am amazed at those that suggest that something being in the Constitution makes it an immutable thing. The Constitution was amended many times, and partisan gridlock is the only reason it hasn't changed in a while. Times have changed, and some amendments need to be restricted. I am not opposed to private ownership of firearms, but guns are dangerous. The owner should be responsible for the gun. If the gun finds its way into the hands of someone who should not have the gun, then it clearly should have been secured better. There are simple, objective and obvious criteria to use here.

I'm curious how you commit suicide with a frying pan. Wouldn't you go unconscious long before you could kill yourself?

Still, I don't know the gun homicide/suicide rates around the country, but they are outrageous. Accidental deaths are far lower I imagine.

@ BO_SOX: YOU HIT YOURSELF OVER THE HEAD WITH THE FRYING PAN, THEN IN YOUR CONFUSED STATE, YOU SHOOT YOURSELF.

Do they turn off caps lock before they die?

@ Jamie

I believe the preferred method is to fill the frying pan with bacon and pancakes and serve for breakfast every morning until your heart stops.

Mmm, bacon and pancakes...

@ bo_sox48

"there are plenty of people who are legally able to carry one that don't [know what they are doing]"

And I will OPENLY admit that this is a big problem. To an extent, the gun community needs to police itself up and educate our own. A large plurality of firearm owners are military or former military, and stories like this make those guys hang their heads in collective shame.

As for a legislative solution to retarded (yes, I'll be politically incorrect here; deal with it) gun owners, I would advocate more mandatory training in lieu of "blanket" regulations that target law-abiding, responsible owners/carriers like myself. Concealed carry permits should require some sort of safety course involving live-fire range shooting with minimum accuracy standards and a written/oral exam.

I'm all for making gun owners into responsible gun owners, but I stand opposed (now and forever) to restrictions by type or cosmetic feature. Collapsible/folding stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, short barrels, heat shields, and "high-capacity" magazines have never increased the lethality of a firearm and will never increase the lethality of a firearm. "Assault weapons" bans attempt to restrict cosmetic features that do not effect the lethality of a given firearm and are thus inherenty flawed. A Mini-14 is just as deadly than an AR-15 (the Mini-14 is actually slightly deadlier, because of its more reliable design), but the former would be legal and the latter illegal under a so-called "Assault Weapons Ban"

Also, for the record, most states require a training course to get a Concealed Weapons permit. Idaho is one of the exceptions.

Agreed in general. I don't know much about assault weapons or whatever that actually means, so I stay out of it. I haven't even fired a gun since Boy Scouts. I'm all knives and stars here.

Yes, most states do have some pretty good training - some programs might even be called intensive - but it's still easy to get your hands on a firearm without that training even in the strictest states.

But training makes it harder to sell guns. That'll never fly with the current NRA.

Since the constitution and tradition and such of America seems to influence people's opinions when it comes to how tight control should be, I'm wondering what you guys feel about that issue looking at it from an opposite state of affairs.
So my question:
Should there be tight regulations in countries such as the Netherlands that make it possible to own legal weapons for self-defence in rare exceptions, for example? Lots of training, lots of checks, lots of security if you're an exceptionally good citizen? Where would you draw the line in our country? Right where it is now, meaning only for collectors, hunting and competitions? And cops and military personnel?

@steephie,

Part of the American mind set of gun ownership is not only personal defense or hunting. Part of it is an inherent sense that we need protection from our government, or at least a bargaining chip level of power. If ever the government gets too out of hand, too oppressive, Americans know that they can only be pushed so far.

That being said, I use my guns for hunting only. I don't carry, but I plan on getting certified in the next couple of years.

"inherent"

The age where people can defend themselves against an encroaching government is long over. They use tanks against their citizens now.

Bo, two words. Arab Spring.

And where is that taking that region of the world? It's dissolving into further anarchy because the people with no sense of order are now the ones controlling the weapons stashes.

The protest in Ferguson amazes me because the people have remained civil (as civil as they can be) in the wake of tanks, tear gas, rubber bullets, media suppression, and SWAT teams. It tells me that there is value in determination, far more than there is in having superior weaponry.

@bo, if you don't think there would be a hell of a civil war if it ever comes down to it, you don't know the full scale of the armed American citizen.

Yes, and the government has unleashed its weaponry upon its citizens numerous times, yet the people with the guns and the bullets and the monthly subscription to the NRA magazines don't do a thing. It's the youth donning masks that have nothing to lose that do all the fighting.

@ bo_sox48

I am very concerned by police militarization for that exact reason. It threatens (but doesn't eliminate) the ability of the people to revolt if necessary. I have being stating for months (if not years) on this Forum that certain forms of gun control are scary for that reason, because they expand the gap between civilian weaponry and police/military weaponry.

Up until the early 20th century, the average American citizen was actually better armed than the average American soldier in many cases. When soldiers had sluggish single-shot rifles, citizens had lever-action guns with a rate of fire approaching that of modern semi-automatic rifles. When soldiers were relying on single-action revolvers, citizens had double-action revolvers holding almost as much firepower as modern semi-automatic pistols. When soldiers had bolt-action rifles, citizens had submachine guns. Up until 1934, the citizen had better weaponry at his disposal than the soldier and the policeman. Since then, we've seen that trend not only reverse but grow in the wrong direction. If the citizenry had decided to revolt at any point before 1934, they would have stood a very good chance of success (the Civil War excepted; that was a regional conflict, not a general uprising)

"The protest in Ferguson amazes me because the people have remained civil (as civil as they can be) in the wake of tanks, tear gas, rubber bullets, media suppression, and SWAT teams."

Riot control should be a National Guard (militia) responsibility, NOT a law enforcement responsibility. There is absolutely no historical precedent for this amount of police militarization. Riots have been successfully suppressed by National Guardsmen for decades. In fact, excessive law enforcement involvement in riot control has lead to worsening violence, as seen in Los Angeles in 1992 and Detroit in 1967. In both cases, the riots were only stopped with National Guard and federal military involvement. People respect the green uniform a lot more than the blue uniform, because when the green uniforms appear, that's the official signal that the powers-that-be are done screwing around.

"Part of the American mind set of gun ownership is
not only personal defense or hunting. Part of it is an
inherent sense that we need protection from our
government, or at least a bargaining chip level of
power. "

Yeah, cause that worked out so well in Wakko, Texas...

Bull. Shit.

A lie sold to you by a government who isn't scared of killing it's own citizens, or of them killing each other; because if you have your security blanket (ie guns) you're less likely to oppose all the terrible crimes they commit.

Guns are a means of appeasing, and an excuse to kilk those who are deemed problematic (henceforth labeled as terrorists, and killed, not with tanks, but with drones)

@gunfighter

I think I can follow your thoughts, albeit I think these are out of place. I have several questions, which needs elucidation:

1. how would you distinguish between riot and revolt?
2. why is it OK to have paramilitary (like the national guard) acting as law enforcers? (my point here is that law enforcement is defined by what its name is. Suppressing riots is kind of a law enforcement, else (ie. if not forbidden by law) this would be a violation of the constitution)

3. why then is it OK to open the way for criminal weapon use through gun use, but not OK to give law enforcers the means to counter these effectively?

4. how does a hypothetical necessity for rebellion justify to allow one of the highest murder rates in the OECD caused by gun ownership?

5. what would you respond to the claim that most of the militarisation of the American law enforcement system results from the widespread gun ownership in the population (and their willingness to use these)?

I agree that accidental killing by kids like the case above or that Uzi kill are solely in the responsibility the adults allowing these kids access to guns. Actually my first thought was in both cases "serves them right," esp. the gun trainer. I am most upset by the thought of what happens to the children when they realise what they did. I remember my first shooting with hand gun and the awkward feeling I had when I couldn't handle it well. In sight of this, I think the frequency of these cases just tells us that too many people can't handle their second amendment rights very well. And thus they should be revoked. By the people, ofc.