You are here: Home » Law » Right to Bear Arms vs Right to Live

Right to Bear Arms vs Right to Live

All Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. Do all Americans have a constitutional right to live? It seems not.

Every American has the legal right to bear arms. This right is enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America. It is a right the forefathers of America granted all its Citizens.

Recently, a law was passed which required individuals to undergo a criminal check prior to being able to purchase arms. This may be seen as an erosion of the “Right to Bear Arms”. America is one country where there are numerous deaths from violence. Somehow, the American people do not seem to realize that their right to bear arms is costing other people to lose their lives. The fundamental question which all Americans should be asking themselves is “Is the citizen’s right to bear arms more important than the citizen’s right to live?” Many American would argue that only criminals cause the carnage. I agree. However, if the criminals did not have the means to commit the carnage then it would be prevented.

I have just read the news which states that 32 Americans have lost their lives. This is not the first time that such carnage has taken place; it will not be the last time either. It is time that the gun was banned in the United States. America’s next door neighbor (Canada) has only a fraction of the murder rate of America. All guns have to be registered in Canada. There is no legal right to bear arms. Great Britain and other European Countries too have only a fraction of the murder rate as the United States.

It is about time that the right of the people to live be given a greater priority than the right to bear arms. The innocent dead, they will never come back. Their rights to life were denied. It is my view that their rights were taken away because the law failed to protect them! It is time more Americans woke up to the reality of rights of the ordinary people. The Law can be an Ass at times. This is one clear example.

As a Registered Nurse I look after many patients who are the victims of senseless crime. I see gun manufacturers raking in millions of dollars. They are opposed to any safety measures which will reduce gun sales. Their profit margins will be reduced if there is a reduction in gun sales. Surely, we Americans are not blind to the self interests of the gun lobby yet we let them have it their way.

I also see major hospitals providing care and raking in millions of dollars from the wounded. These hospitals market their services to the wounded so that they can rake in the big dollars. At the end of the day Medicare, Medicaid and other Government agencies pay through their noses to treat the ill. Ultimately, it is the American Citizen who is paying. It is about time that the Citizen got a better deal. Everyone’s right to life should be a greater priority than the right of some to bear arms and kill innocent loved ones. Think about it!

19
Liked it
User Comments
  1. Jonathan

    On April 19, 2007 at 12:55 pm


    Firearm ownership does not violate your right to live Shergill, murderers do that. The greatest defense against a murderer is a would-be victim who is armed with a gun. The right to defend oneself with the greatest defensive tool on earth is part and parcel of the right to life. If one owns one’s life, one is responsible for it, that includes its’ defense.

    Even if you were to ignore the moral argument against gun control, do you really believe that the State is powerful enough to actually prevent illegal firearms ownership? Their record against the black market has been abysmal so far. Even as they mobilize hordes of gunmen against drugs, prostitution, counterfeits, and other illegal goods and services, the illicit trade expands at a pace faster than that of licit trade. The most ruthless criminals become empowered with vast wealth and control spanning the globe (I speak of both illicit traffickers and the industries which arise around the fight against them). With all the evidence in the world against you, do you really believe your laws which persecute the law-abiding gun owner will even curb criminal ownership of firearms?

    And on a side note, there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in America. The civilian arms industry is actually one of the smaller and less profitable American industries. Any gun lobby’s weight in Congress comes from the fact that over a 3rd of adult Americans are gun owners, that there are more guns here than there are people.

  2. Shergill

    On May 1, 2007 at 2:35 pm


    Great to read your comments.
    “Firearm ownership does not violate your right to live Shergill,”
    If I were dead we will not be able to have this debate.
    It is a luxary of the living to be able to hold that view. Sure the greatest deterant is an armed defendent. That’s your opinion. Let us take that to the next level. Let us arm everybody so that they can defend themselves. Then there will be no murders according to your theory.
    All countries with low murder rates do not have the right to bear arms. USA has one of the highest murder rates. I would presume that the USA does not see that as an indicator for arms management because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.
    Americans are the only people who can and know how to manage arms. Yes, you are right,”Firearm ownership does not violate your right to live Shergill,”
    I will buy a gun now and wait to defend my right to live. I will be the greatest deterrant because I will keep my gun loaded. I will wait behind a cocrete wall. So when the ___ shows up to kill me I will kill him first. This will set an example to future murderers. Then they will disarm!
    So I am not going to be surprised because I will pull the trigger first.
    Paranoid thinking has its limitations.

  3. Shergill

    On June 19, 2007 at 7:00 am


    Jonathan,

    We can debate this till the cows come home. If all your reasoning was so good and all you said was true. America would be safer than Canada, Australia and the UK. It is not safer than any of these countires.

    America has more than half of it’s population without medical insurance, it’s life expectancy and infant mortality rates are higher than that of Singapore, Australia, Canada and the UK.

    To cut a long story short your arguments do not add up. Keep supporting the current ways. Another vietnam is about to happen. I am wondering when a victory will be declared.

    You have your ways, I have mine. The dead will not talk.

  4. Shergill

    On November 5, 2007 at 3:36 am


    I have never said America is safer than UK, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

    In my view the Gun Lobby and cultural history with the Focus on right to bear arms as the main problems.

    The mental block of the American People is a big hurdle to be overcome if they want change.

    God Blessed America with the right to bear arms and the right to believe that bearing arms is strong deterrant.

  5. ieyasu

    On November 15, 2007 at 11:14 am


    Shergill writes:
    “I have never said America is safer than UK, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.”

    I never said you did.

    To repeat your original statement: “If all your reasoning was so good and all you said was true. America would be safer than Canada, Australia and the UK. It is not safer than any of these countires”

    As mentioned previously, you failed to correctly address Jonathan’s claims.

  6. armedcanadian

    On March 12, 2008 at 10:22 am


    in response to the original story,

    “America’s next door neighbor (Canada) has only a fraction of the murder rate of America.”
    true, i cant argue this however it is intersting to note that according to the most recent studies, there are approximately 7million gun owners in canada and about 21 million guns. About three guns to every owner which i believe is about the same ratio of ownership in the US.
    “All guns have to be registered in Canada.” Only recently did this occur (1995) and i dont beleive this has much to do with anything. current registration stands at about 2 million gun owners and about 6 million registered guns. Thats a far cry from the numbers stated previously that were estimated by the canadian department of justice. so that means there is a huge non compliance with the current laws, however still a lower gun murder rate……I dont pretend to understand why we (canadians)have a lower gun murder rate but it was lower even before the 1995 legislation was brought into effect.
    “There is no legal right to bear arms.(in canada)” Actually there. It has been recognized by the courts as well. most recently as of december 2007. Our laws are based on british common law, much like american laws. Ours does not specifically state “the right to bear arms” as clearly as your 2nd amendment however it is part of our rights and was further secured as a right in 1982 when our latest civil rights bill was signed to law.

    In conclusion before you start spewing “myths” around about other countries laws and rights please do a little research. The media does not count as research as they are biased.

    One final note: How many news reports actually stated that the recent school shooting in israel ended because an armed student shot the criminal???? how many more lives would have been lost if that student did not have a carry license.

  7. CountriesVary

    On August 12, 2008 at 3:31 am


    It’s worth mentioning that Canada, Australia & the UK do not have even close to the amount of Hispanic, Asian and Black street gangs that America has…nor do they have nearly the expansive, organized crime cartel families (Russians, Italians, Columbians, etc). Add to that a glorified “thug” gang-life culture that’s spouted through the media and of course you will have problems with violent crime. Is that any shock? That has LITTLE to do with guns though. It has more to do with cultural & moral erosion. Wanto to stop crime? Why not try “banning” violent and misoginistic music & films? Oh, wait…that’s violating someone’s “free speech” right? Well, if one person’s “free speech” develops and encourages a violent culture of thuggery, theft, disrespect towards women, et al, then another American should rightfully maintain their arms for self-defence against said criminal mindsets.

    Secondly, gang-related/drug related violence is where ALOT of your American “gun offences” come from. Naturally, the gun-related crimes committed will be lower in areas (eg. Australia, Canada) where there is LESS murder/gang-related crime.

    Secondly, a sad reality of the world is that there are still racial tensions in every nation of the world. America is one the most diverse nations on the planet whereas Australia and Canada are predominantly “white” populations. Is that to say that crime increase in America is due to non-whites? No. Is that to say that say that there is anything wrong with a dominant white population in Canada or Australia? No. It DOES say though that where there is cultural conflict, there WILL be increased crime rates, including gun crime….and MOST of that gun-crime will be with ILLEGAL weapons used by unlicensed carriers, thereby having NOTHING to do with legal firearms owners who are law-abiding.

    People continuously blame the “evil gun” in America, when in reality there are so many other factors in America that virtually no other country has to do deal with, nor has ever had to deal with. America is still dealing with these issues and will continue to do so for as long as it is a place of “melting” cultures together.

  8. williebob

    On November 3, 2008 at 6:37 pm


    CountriesVary
    absolutely spot on!!!… What more can i say,If anyone does not agree with your comment then i think a reality check is in order. It’s good to see people with there own mind showing some real independant thought!

  9. Alex Fraguglia

    On January 8, 2009 at 5:26 pm


    As every human, we born free…and…any, any State on whole earth has not the right to get my right to bear a registered firearm. When a bandit comes to rob and kill you…the Police for sure will not be there. If you have no criminal records and no mental problems…you should have your own gun, rifle, pistol or a revolver.

    In Europe…we live like robots, the State controls too much our lives. We pay too much tax, tv license, road tax is an extortion and we have no rights to defend ourselfs.

    North America is right and should keep this fair right to bear guns instead of UK for example which became a kind of socialist country.

  10. Steven Parker

    On July 13, 2009 at 6:45 am


    We have a higher murder rate because we have more slums ghettos and crime ridden cities. It is not the guns but the way we raise our children, or rather how we do not raise our children. We neglect our young generation and they grow up to kill maim rob and destroy. Other nations put their children first, that is the difference. It has nothing to do with guns.

  11. Shergill

    On September 8, 2009 at 5:48 am


    You have more wealth than other countries. How come you have more ghettos and crime ridden cities?

  12. Nathan

    On September 16, 2009 at 8:53 pm


    Americans do not have the right to bear heroin. As a result, there are no drug overdoses, addicts, robberies/murders to pay for heroin etc. Yep, making something illegal means no one will attempt to acquire it, because no one would break the law… like using a gun to kill another person. I guess this world is perfect.

  13. Verdecat

    On January 20, 2010 at 9:29 am


    Quite Frankly, I’m disappointed. As a Nurse, working in a nice, safe (guns aren’t allowed in the hospitals except by LEOs), controlled environment, you have the luxury of making statements against guns. As a Paramedic having recently worked in a major populated area, I worked in volatile environments every day when I wished I could be armed. I’ll cite a city that has a very low violent crime rate amongst Home owners: Kennesaw, GA. In the City of Kennesaw the law is that each homeowner must own a gun or rifle. Because of this, violent crime is reduced because no thief, rapist or other violent criminal really wants to run up against an armed home owner. There are dozens of stories everyday of people protecting themselves with their guns. I’m not sure where you work, or whose stories you are listening to, but consider this. America was built on a foundation ideal of personal responsibility. Only in the last century have we allowed the concept of government being responsible from cradle to the grave of its citizens become an obsession. What you have stated in your editorial comes down to this: The right of a woman who is being physically abused, but chooses not to leave her abuser and ends up getting shot is more valid than my right to soberly and intelligently carry my pistol where and when I want to. Maybe I should put it this way: There are a lot of stories out there, some good, some bad, some heartbreaking, and a lot of out right lies, (guess what, patients lie) but none of these stories should be legally allowed to interfere with my right of self determination, and if I choose to do that with a weapon, that, also is my right.

    I recently was in Great Britain for a holiday, thinking it was a “safe” country. Yeah, right, just because common street thugs don’t have guns doesn’t mean they can’t hurt you bad enough to put you in the hospital, in a coma, or worse. I guarantee, though had those thugs been in the US where I can carry a weapon, I would have not been the one in the hospital. So are they the “innocents” you are referring to? Is the abusing husband an “innocent” or the car-jacker, or the drunk who decides he “wants a good time” in the parking deck? The innocent children who shoot themselves with a parent’s weapon, is that the innocent you are referring to? Who’s fault is it when that happens, not mine, it’s the parent’s. Why do you want to punish me for someone’s sins that I don’t know?

    A wise man once said, “If a conservative doesn’t want a gun, he doesn’t buy one. If liberal doesn’t want a gun he wants to make sure that no one else can have one either.”

    You spoke about Medicare and Medicaid. Newsflash. I don’t know what kind of system you work in, but most of the folks that I’ve met that are on medicaid are not permanently disabled, they choose not to get a job or to work. I know people who live full productive lives with seizures, diabetes, CHF, they just have the personal responsibility to do so properly.

    I saw your comment on America being a wealthy nation. If you don’t understand, consider what is wealth? Wealth is no longer the amount of gold in the coffers but the worth of goods and services performed. If someone doesn’t want to earn money, they are too lazy, or haven’t been taught the ethics that the rest of the first world lives by, they can, in most first world countries, live off the government (i.e. taxpayer’s) dime. People who don’t earn the money to have their houses or apartments or choose to shoot out street lamps for fun, don’t tend to care for their homes, neighborhoods, or fellow humans. That is where ghettos come from. So the government that is already paying for these people to eat and drink and have a roof over their heads, with a little extra for clothes should further invest in an area where the people don’t care about their fellows or surroundings? Wow, that’s a way to keep an economy healthy.

    I sincerely hope that you are a better Nurse than you are an American, since your new liberal philosophies of the nanny state shine through.

  14. Verdecat

    On January 20, 2010 at 9:37 am


    Quite Frankly, I\’m disappointed. As a Nurse, working in a nice, safe (guns aren\’t allowed in the hospitals except by LEOs), controlled environment, you have the luxury of making statements against guns. As a Paramedic having recently worked in a major populated area, I worked in volatile environments every day when I wished I could be armed. I\’ll cite a city that has a very low violent crime rate amongst Home owners: Kennesaw, GA. In the City of Kennesaw the law is that each homeowner must own a gun or rifle. Because of this, violent crime is reduced because no thief, rapist or other violent criminal really wants to run up against an armed home owner. There are dozens of stories everyday of people protecting themselves with their guns. I\’m not sure where you work, or whose stories you are listening to, but consider this. America was built on a foundation ideal of personal responsibility. Only in the last century have we allowed the concept of government being responsible from cradle to the grave of its citizens become an obsession. What you have stated in your editorial comes down to this: The right of a woman who is being physically abused, but chooses not to leave her abuser and ends up getting shot is more valid than my right to soberly and intelligently carry my pistol where and when I want to. Maybe I should put it this way: There are a lot of stories out there, some good, some bad, some heartbreaking, and a lot of out right lies, (guess what, patients lie) but none of these stories should be legally allowed to interfere with my right of self determination, and if I choose to do that with a weapon, that, also is my right.

    I recently was in Great Britain for a holiday, thinking it was a \”safe\” country. Yeah, right, just because common street thugs don\’t have guns doesn\’t mean they can\’t hurt you bad enough to put you in the hospital, in a coma, or worse. I guarantee, though had those thugs been in the US where I can carry a weapon, I would have not been the one in the hospital. So are they the \”innocents\” you are referring to? Is the abusing husband an \”innocent\” or the car-jacker, or the drunk who decides he \”wants a good time\” in the parking deck? The innocent children who shoot themselves with a parent\’s weapon, is that the innocent you are referring to? Who\’s fault is it when that happens, not mine, it\’s the parent\’s. Why do you want to punish me for someone\’s sins that I don\’t know?

    A wise man once said, \”If a conservative doesn\’t want a gun, he doesn\’t buy one. If liberal doesn\’t want a gun he wants to make sure that no one else can have one either.\”

    You spoke about Medicare and Medicaid. Newsflash. I don\’t know what kind of system you work in, but most of the folks that I\’ve met that are on medicaid are not permanently disabled, they choose not to get a job or to work. I know people who live full productive lives with seizures, diabetes, CHF, they just have the personal responsibility to do so properly.

    I saw your comment on America being a wealthy nation. If you don\’t understand, consider what is wealth? Wealth is no longer the amount of gold in the coffers but the worth of goods and services performed. If someone doesn\’t want to earn money, they are too lazy, or haven\’t been taught the ethics that the rest of the first world lives by, they can, in most first world countries, live off the government (i.e. taxpayer\’s) dime. People who don\’t earn the money to have their houses or apartments or choose to shoot out street lamps for fun, don\’t tend to care for their homes, neighborhoods, or fellow humans. That is where ghettos come from. So the government that is already paying for these people to eat and drink and have a roof over their heads, with a little extra for clothes should further invest in an area where the people don\’t care about their fellows or surroundings? Wow, that\’s a way to keep an economy healthy.

    I sincerely hope that you are a better Nurse than you are an American, since your new liberal philosophies of the nanny state shine through.

  15. David

    On May 21, 2010 at 7:29 am


    Eventually American citizens will lose “the right to bear arms”. This will happen as it has in Australia. It has historically happened in every country where totalitarian regimes wish to reduce resistance to their tyranny (i.e. Germany, Russia…)
    A one World government is coming and no amount of protest can stop it (i.e. G8, G20). I wouldn’t go so far as to say the “World wide economic crisis” was engineered but, those who wish for dissolution of independent state hood are taking advantage of it to start down the path of World domination.

  16. janelle

    On November 15, 2010 at 12:06 am


    this is flat out stupid. if criminals didnt have guns they would use something else. are you also gonna take our rights to have knives, scissors, bricks, hammers, vehicles, medicine, etc.

  17. Michael

    On January 21, 2011 at 7:28 pm


    \”All countries with low murder rates do not have the right to bear arms\” This is infact a false statement, Shergill. Switzerland who has one of the lowest crime rates in the world also has one of the highest gun ownership rates. If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. I know that is an old saying but it is true. Think of everything you can right now that is illegal to own and there is probably somone who owns it. Cocaine is illegal but yet it is still a multi billion dollar industry. If you make guns illegal you are taking away a part of this country, which is currently only ranked 10th on the worlds happiest countries.

  18. Bob

    On March 18, 2011 at 10:04 pm


    Sure, illegalise firearms. That will somehow protect the law-abiding citizens. After all, criminals are known for their frequent and fervent devotion to acting legally.

    What a truly moronic mindset. Why don’t we ban transport as well, as that would technically save thousands a year from being killed in vehicle crashes. *sigh*

  19. Pamela

    On September 23, 2012 at 7:42 am


    Austraila has the strictest gun laws anywhere & since enacting law to take away Australian citizens’ right to bear arms, Australia’s gun violence has skyrockted. So the sweet concerned nurse whose article we’re all responding to does not look at statistical fact. More are dying way more w/o right to bear arms in Australia than when they had right to bear arms. So if you care about life, as I most certainly do, then protect all citizens’ right to bear arms!

Post Comment
Powered by Powered by Triond
-->