Governments already tell people if they can or can't use guns, problems only occur when people are told they have a right to be armed. The American constitution was written in times when people made their living with guns, hunting small animals and such. It shouldn't be too hard to explain that just because early settlers used weapons as part of their everyday life that people in modern times are allowed to keep automatic weapons in suburban homes.
The second amendment was encoded into our constitution because the revolutionary war was one with small arms in the hands of ordinary people. The founders wanted to make darn sure if there ever needed to be another revolution, that the people would retain the means. Also, keep in mind the weapons they used in the war were the same state-of-the-art weapons being used by the British military... I think this is a great argument for eliminating bans on automatic weapons and even tanks and fighter planes (which the 2nd amendment clearly trumps anyway).
Hm, coming from a land (continent) where it is not common habit to even have weapons anymore, have my problems with firearms.
Lately i have been reading a bit about the political-philosophical reasons why people keep firearms (you know, second amendment-stuff...), and i can connect to that at some level.
Keep in mind that the United States was built upon a foundation of rugged individualism. The people who settled this country were running
away from civilization
toward the frontier. This was true for the majority of our history until "civilization" reached the Pacific. Now the land is tamed, and those comfortable with the gilded cage can't understand those of us who inherited our forefather's need for space and liberty.
The gun is the great equalizer. It brings the struggle between man and predator to an even field, it allows a small woman to protect herself from an overpowering man, it even allows the people to retain an even footing vis-a-vis a tyrannical government.
So, it is not only about owning a gun, it is also about getting into the 'right' frame of mind. The one in which you will pull the trigger and end another persons life, when he threatens you...I would not be able to, i think, and i don't think i would want either.
I don't want to be a person which is willing to just end the life of another human, perhaps because he wants my money...
You will never hear gun advocates recommend shooting someone over money. First of all, every time your gun leaves it's holster is a potential for a life-altering legal embroglio in which you may spend time in jail, and have to sell everything you own to pay for legal fees. It gets 1,000 times worse if you actually shoot someone or kill them. It's worth it to lose $100 and avoid that trouble.
In fact, the only situation in which the defensive use of a handgun is justified (both legally and economically) is when your life (or another's) is in danger, or in danger of great bodily harm. When this occurs, the legal fees and possible jail time would be worth it because you're alive instead of dead, or whole instead of crippled.
So, if a guy pushes you over and takes your wallet, you're not justified in shooting. However, if he approaches with a weapon (fists can also be deadly weapons) and appears to intend violence, then you are justified. The jury will be asked if, given the information you had at the time, any reasonable person would have assumed they faced great bodily injury or death. If yes, then it is found justifiable. If no, then you're charged with murder and put in prison.
