No, this is not a thread about Guns'n'Roses - unfortunately. I just came across the recent US Supreme Court decision which upholds the second amendment to the US Constitution which grants the right to have and bear a gun. From a legal point of view, there is nothing surprising about this - if it is granted by the Constitution, it should be preserved. I just hoped that the Supreme Court will take into account that this amendment was passed in a very different era, when it was more necessary to protect oneself (because the state was not able to do so). I think that this right in the present situation appears odd to the rest of the Western Culture (cannot speak for other cultures) and it should be reviewed.
My question is:
1.Do you think that the right to hold a gun is really a human right which should be preserved? If so, why isn't it protected in the same way in other states (at least in the Western civilization)?
2. Do you think that bearing a gun creates a safer society?
3. Do you think that it is an infringement of this right to create a system which controls the bearing of guns and grants this right only after passing several exams (psychological, legal, technical etc.)?

Would you want to have this kind of (absolute) right in your state? Why do Americans need this kind of right?

To take it less seriously, watch this:
Zqh6Ap9ldTs

(Bowling for Columbine - Michael Moore)

P.S.: PLEASE, do not take this thread as a chance to offend Americans for whatever you choose (mostly foreign politics). Thanks
1 2
Lawyeetake this thread as a chance to offend Americans for whatever
In the words of George Bush, "Bring 'em on!"

Why should Dick Cheney be the only one who can shoot people?

Seriously,

1.No, I don't. (Who said it's a human right?) As Lawyee says, those were different times. If we hadn't all had guns, we never would have been able to defeat the British. The founding fathers tended to be suspicious of one another. This was another one of our famous checks and balances.

2. I'm open on that. Statistics seem to say "yes," but I'm not sure all the facts are in.

3. I haven't read the amendment lately, but I suspect it would be okay, if it were fair and reasonable.

I don't know if the right is "absolute."

Best wishes, - A.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Lawyee2. Do you think that bearing a gun creates a safer society?
If it does, and the USA is a safe society at the moment, I shudder to think how many murders would be committed there if people didn't have the right to possess guns.
CB
Lawyee2. Do you think that bearing a gun creates a safer society?


I really think society will be safer without guns. What makes me think so? I live in one, with some exceptions for politicians and hunters. As long as weapons are easily available, a lot of innocent people will be victims of crimes. Imagine a person who went beserk with his company and was determined to kill everyone in his company and he had no gun and couldn't get one in the black market because he had no connections, he had no choice but to resort to less fatal weapons like knives to carry out his killing spree. I'm sure there would be less victims. However, I guess no senators in the US want to push such a bill because many will protest especially the existing gun owners and he/she will be really unpopular and his political career will go down the drain in no time.
Just a thought.
Generally, I agree with all said above.
Lawyee1.Do you think that the right to hold a gun is really a human right which should be preserved?

I do not think so.
Lawyee2. Do you think that bearing a gun creates a safer society?
No way. It creates a more dangerous society.
Lawyee3. Do you think that it is an infringement of this right to create a system which controls the bearing of guns and grants this right only after passing several exams (psychological, legal, technical etc.)?

Well, since that doubtful right exists, they have to control it in way, otherwise such incidents as mass shooting people in schools and colleges would happen too often.

What do you think yourself, Lawyee?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
RuslanaWhat do you think yourself, Lawyee?

Well, I think that my attitutude is obvious from the questions. But in general I am very dissapointed by this Supreme Court decision. I considered US Supreme Court to be really an independent authority which made some very bold decisions which formed the US legal system and which went directly against the govermental (ill) policies... Enough of that.
I think there should be no general right to hold a gun - this should be an exception granted only after passing strict exams and re-considered periodically. As it was stated in Dominik's article, in the present situation, holding a gun can never protect you against terrorist attacks, nuclear weapons etc. BUT on the other hand, according to the Gallup Institute, 70 % of Americans think that holding a gun by every citizen is good. Why is it so? What about you, American members - are you among that 70 %?
Lawyee 70 % of Americans think that holding a gun by every citizen is good. - are you among that 70 %?
Personally, I hate guns.

Compare them to cars, which are also lethal weapons. The authorities in California say "Driving is not a right; it's a priviledge." There are lots of controls. It's easy to lose that priviledge. Not all vehicles may be driven on the public streets. Drivers must pass written tests on the law, as well as tests of their driving skills. I think gun ownership should be like that.

But just as it would be impossible to force every eligible citizen to own and be licensed to drive a car, it's rediculous to expect every citizen to buy a gun and learn how to fire it safely. Yet some towns now have such laws.

- A.
I also think gun owners should be required to show proof of liability insurance to protect the public from careless users, who "accidently" shoot their friends in the face while hunting birds.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more