The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man.
Quote from: amygdala on May 03, 2007, 08:08:18 PM Yes, it is about business. It is about money.If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer. This kind of paranoid anti-business military-industrial complex rant is not very original or valid for a number of reasons. The main reason is that you can use it to support any argument. Take, for example, abortion. One could make the argument that the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is about business and money. No abortions means no money for abortion providers, ergo there is a strong financial interest in making abortions legal.
Yes, it is about business. It is about money.If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer.
I'd grant you that, Flashy! I mean, it's not ONLY about money, it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.
[...] it's also about getting across the message that America is a violent country, that its government creates the possibility for people to kill each-other as easily as possible.
It's not about "getting across the message that" -- the government actually acts as a facilitator in the process of people killing each-other as quickly and "neatly" as possible. Using knives to kill it's not effective when people engage in killing sprees, for instance.
The same way the government "facilitates" thousands of deaths a year by allowing people to drive cars, or allows alcohol to be purchased by anyone over 21, or makes cigarettes legal, or makes it legal to consume food that is proven to lead to heart disease or obesity, or doesn't execute murderers and lets them back on the streets to kill again? When you use a loaded term like facilitator, it makes it sound like you mean accomplice, which makes me think you need to take the tinfoil hat off and back slowly away from it. Allowing individuals to own firearms is not the same as facilitating murder.Also, why would you assume a gun ban would suddenly make people who would go on a killing spree resort to knives? They would still use guns; they would just be illegally obtained guns instead of legally obtained ones.
What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America.
Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns. If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS.
As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.
[...] and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof. [...]