As the second amendment in the United States Constitution reads, Individuals have the right to bear arms for the main purpose of self-defense, oppression and defense of the state. This was originally adopted in 1791 and is one of the fundamental arguing points for pro-gun activists. You can read more on the second amendment here.
The bill of rights was amended to the Constitution for the united States and among the enumerated Rights, the right to own guns was largely for National Security, in the sense that should anyone try to mess with Virginia, the Virginians could easily gather up and create a militia of the people by the people for the people, it was not about directly Defending Yourself because you inherently couldn't make any argument about Gun Control during those times, 100 years previously it was a Given that people have that right, but it was/is Explicitly about Defending against Oppression as it enunciates:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The main, primary, chief purpose is For the Security of a Free State.
Any pandering to the contrary or insinuation that this right doesn't guarantee the people to keep Nukes or Integrally Silenced Weapons, or any other "Illegal" weapon and anything and everything that could be construed as a weapon and utilized for the purpose explicitly stated in the Simple, Straight Forward, Statement that was Ratified to the Constitution, when it explicitly states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.", is erroneous and without reason because this was explicitly a guarantee Against Federal Regulations and even above that because this is a Right owed to the people, and not to Federal Employees, nor US Citizens, nor any other Foreign Agents and the people, as in Virginian, Nevadian, etc, only they can ratify such Rights, as it was The People that the Constitution is for, and it's the People that have not Recognized any such Dual Citizenship, and no oath of office stands as valid To the People, For the People have only One Constitution, and it's Titled: The Constitution for the united States of America for a reason, and not The Constitution of the United States which is a Corporate Charter and denotes both citizens and Persons, one Title of Servitude and one a Straw Man Corporate Fiction, Purely for Fraudulent Purposes of Defrauding Americans, through the Semantic Deceit of the sound-alike Constitutions, and imposing the Color of the Law, where a crime is wrangled into Legalese Legislation and nothing is permitted without permits and everything is stipulated if you contract with the permit issuers, in so much as making you a subject, and this is done under the Appearance of Law (that is why all it takes is the Appearance of Justice) and as such NO US Congress is a Continental Congress and no Mere Corporate Sound-Alike charter is our Lawful Government, I am no Citizen and no Servant to the State and I am my own man and I do not recognize any authority of man over me and the Government of the People guarantees me nothing if there are no People to be present and accounted for at Roll Call, but those words are speaking in the Context of Defending oneself implicit in the predecessor English Bill of Rights, and in this context it is refined by Expressing the need of a militia for the security of a Free State, which is exactly why we have no more freedoms but only Equal Civil Liberties, and why these mass shootings are not the subject of Security of a Free State, but the subject of detective (NOT-PO-LICE) work and inquiry, and a crime of people and not an act of States which a militia is concerned with.
Okay, some of what you're saying is a little over my head but let me see if I understand what you're saying. The original constitution that was made to protect the people of America no longer does what it was set out to do? You see yourself identifying more as an individual rather than a citizen and you also identify more within your state than the actual whole of America?
I do see your point with invalid legislation being made by people who do not represent their people properly. I have always had a problem with many laws that have been enacted by the few as they really don't help out the "people" the government would have you believe.
But back to the gun issue, you see it more as a necessity against the state? how do we prevent these mass shootings where many innocent people lose their lives?
You cannot prevent mass shootings as much as you cannot prevent people murdering people en mass with any other things, cars, poison, microwaves, electricity etc.
How do we prevent assholes like that one that killed all those people?
A well armed society is a polite society.
What has happened is that ever since the Civil War, which was neither declared nor marked as concluded by the signing of a peace treaty, is that the Federal Government has been working in a Private Capacity and hasn't taken the Oath to the Constitution but to the Corporate Charter that was enacted in 1868, which parrots the actual Constitution.
http://presscore.ca/two-constitutions-in-the-united-states-1st-was-illegally-suspended-in-favor-of-a-vatican-crown-corporation-in-1871
Back to the point I was making, the original Bill of Rights that the Protestants won from the King, ensured that people have a right to bear arms for their defense. The Bill of Rights which was added years after the Constitution was first finalized (which goes to show that the document wasn't "for the people of America", as some of the language explicitly states by excluding Slaves, and Natives from the political process and it took some years to tack on the Bill of Rights which secures our freedoms on paper/principle) was amended in a time where you would have been seen as a LUNATIC to even mention Gun Control and the reason for our Second Amendment Right being worded as it is, was to Record that the people have the right to Band Together in order for the security of a Free State.
The conversation about the Legitimacy of the US Congress and the lack of quorum for over one and a half centuries precludes all other issues of "government", without that most critical and important of fact I will not participate, as 2/3's of people who aren't Registered to Vote equally express their choice of not participating, in The Majority Voting to Eat the Minority for Dinner. Mob Rule is amoral, it's as if people truly have no sense of right and wrong. And this is evident because the Majority Vote to NOT-VOTE, and then how is that DEMOCRACY?!
the 12% vote to eat the rest for dinnerthe ones that conspire make all the rules, absurdity.Nobody can "PREVENT" anything. Nobody can Guarantee Tomorrow (hence why contracts cannot exist in a rational society, SMART or otherwise)
We cannot prevent things like the rain, we can however prevent mass shootings. I refuse to believe otherwise. If we couldnt prevent them then mass shootings would be a worldwide epidemic and not just a mostly american problem.
If the the most lethal weapon on the market is a hunting rifle or a pistol, that is a large step towards preventing a mass shooting
Reality doesn't rest on your refusal.
Who is preventing Mass Shootings? Norway? Can any people that gather prevent against one sicko?
The legal market. Because the market is indeed not under ANYONE'S THUMB, and certainly not because some assholes that don't even have the credentials to be public officials claim otherwise. If the most lethal weapon on the market was a machete, someone would still have a gun, with magnet, or someone could melt styrofoam in gasoline and make a 55 gallon drum and with a nice pump and some sweet nozels make a napalm gun that could touch everything and anything in 100 ft. They could remote control cars through crowds, they could implement a remote control car with napalm gun, they could do this without anything but Basic everyday things.
Prevent that.
Maybe it is just the American culture that has become this way
Does this happen in developed nations?
How do you explain the case of Australia after it's mass shooting in 1996 and subsequent ban on long guns? There has not been a single mass shooting since. That sounds to me like the Australian government took preventative measures.
Why are you asking if it happens in developed nations? As if crazy people CAN be prevented from doing CRAZY things by words on a piece of paper! Wait, it's indeed crazy to be compelled by WORDS on a piece of paper:
Good men don't need laws and Evil man will act regardless of the law.
People have improvised their Spree Killing, hardly anything has changed, those that are easy victims still fall prey because guns are villainized, which means only those with guns (aka a police who goes rogue, a military armorer going bonkers) can do so.
Preventive measures would be arming everyone to the teeth and educating everyone in their use, but the only thing that you'll be preventing is 99% of crime and without that what good are cops and armies.
Because supposedly America is a developed nation. You are talking about anarchy and things out of fictional tales.
Right, Australia still has problems, but what they don't have is a gun problem and that is the issue at hand in this discussion.
Do you really think that arming everyone to the teeth would create a peaceful and working society? DO you think you'd feel safe walking around at night knowing everyone is packing weapons in their pants. Do you think that countries where citizens don't own weapons are living in a police state?