Our US government: Should they fear us or Controle?

[Superbeast]

++EDIT++
Whoops, apologies for the double-post, meant to edit the above post to include this but got it wrong (wanted to get the quotes right).

Overall, on the topic of guns, if there's evidence and statistics showing both benefits and harmful side effects to the restriction of guns then wouldn't the logical solution be to allow citizens to carry guns, but not have full access to them, hmm, maybe something like the system we have now? It's not exactly perfect, but it is far better than completely banning guns or allowing all people to have any guns they want. The truth is, guns can be helpful in certain situations, but they are dangerous, and do need some restrictions. For example, automatic weapons aren't really necessary for civilian use. However, I do think that any law-abiding (and that is key) citizen should be able to purchase a firearm if they choose to.

actually the right to bear arms is for the ability to form a well armed militia should the armed forces of our country ever not be enough to repel an invading army. At least that is what the rest of the amendment says. It doesn't just day you have the right to bear arms.

These two quotes bring to mind an idea I had reading this thread. Despite my above belief in an unarmed population, I have been toying with a hypothetical idea that would both appease the constitution (or at least one reading of the constitution) and improve safety at the same time (by allowing tighter restrictions on firearms to take place).

This idea would be that there exist in every town a "civil armoury", guarded (perhaps by the National Guard, but then that means it would technically be under military juristiction so some people may have issue with that, but I feel the police/sherrif departments wouldn't have enough ability to secure the site properly) and containing several rifles, shotguns, handguns - hell, it could even hold automatic weapons (hence the need for extreme security). Also incorporated would be a shooting range and instructors.

This would mean that people can be trained to be proficient in firearms, but the weapons are kept extremely securely so there are no incidents of "accidental shootings" from someone being careless with a gun or mistaking a family member for a theif-in-the-night. Training would mean less people injuring themselves cleaning their firearms (all 3 are common firearms-related accidents in the States). Perhaps also allow the renting of guns for hunting trips - or people to purchase their own "personal" weaponry (instead of stored at home it's stored in the firearms-equivalent of a bank).

In times of civil unrest this armoury could be "opened up" and would form a rallying point for a citizen militia - and a relatively competant one at that. Naturally only those with a permit (granted by the feds upon FBI checks and whatnot) would be permitted access, so you also wouldn't have loons with guns running around.

In this way the citizenry have a right to bear firearms as part of an organised militia (and thereby remaining utterly constitutional) and can still go hunting; and the Gov't could also impose stronger restrictions and policing on the obtaining of firearms, keeping them out of the hands of the common criminals (thereby keeping you safer in your homes as well).

The downsides would be the cost (unfaesibly expensive), obviously, and that such a cache makes a tempting target for criminals seeking the firepower needed to carry out dangerous crimes (but if they're less well armed in the first place [black-market stuff] it's going to be hard to break in).

Anyway, this is WAY off topic, but I just thought I'd share to show that I am not totally against guns (just against the mindset that you have against your government), and is how I would personally go to try to minimise the sheer number of shootings in America whist still keeping your rights as intact as possible.

 

[Vuljatar]

How many incidents are there though where a single robber attempts a heist on a popular bank - or at least one large enough to have 20-or-so patrons in at any one time (I doubt there are many cases, if any at all)? Far more often these kinds of crimes are carried out by mobsters/gangs/teams of criminals (ie those with access to some pretty scary firearms) where there will be several people going into the bank (let's say 5 for this hpyothetical example, as they know they need to control the crowd as they know the crowd is armed). I sure as hell hope that, were I in a situation where there were 5x 30-round automatics pointed at 20 people, some idiot in the crowd wouldn't try to pull a handgun and take them on. That's a sure way to get yourself, and a lot of other people, killed.

After all, these people are expecting (even if as a contingency plan) to be dealing with the police, who are more heavily armed and protected than citizens - to attempt to rob a bank under other circumstances is idiotic (no one who really has a plan for a robbery expects to get away without police intervention at some stage).

I understand what you mean, but mobsters don't really do bank robberies in this day and age. Bank robberies rely on lack of opposition in order to be successful--the criminals are expecting to get out and away before the cops show up, otherwise they are screwed. No bank robbery involving a direct confrontation with police has ever been successful. If the would-be criminals knew that their target had a large number of people inside that were very likely to be armed, they would not attempt to commit the crime. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator.

 

[Dancingman]

I've always felt that America's got a happy medium, frankly, lessening restrictions doesn't work well and it annoys me that the archaic Second Amendment is still around.

Its not archaic. Governments nowadays are even more prone to become corrupt and power hungry. Our government is already corrupt in several ways. The military, national guard, and police are not militia.

I disagree with you on that point, frankly, our crime rates would be much lower if guns were as policed as they were in other nations, not every crook has access to a supply of illegal weapons, and one man with a kitchen knife is far less threat than one with a rifle. But other than that, I don't feel like arguing because people who believe in something enough won't change their views no matter how much evidence to the contrary.

 

[shadowstriker86]

The government doesn't fear its people mostly because most of the people in the u.s. are complacent and just go with the flow

 

[sheppard419]

Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check.

That's not why it was made, the second amendment just says that were allowed to have weapons because we have the freedom to do so its not to keep anyone in check