Übergeek 바둑이: The difference is quite simple. It comes down to what the Czech constitution defines as "rights" and "freedoms." "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare. Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion.

The English language is not as consistent as Czech and analogously the U.S. Constitution is not as consistent as the Czech constitution in the naming of the "rights" and "freedoms." The right to bear arms is not a "right," it is a "freedom." You are free to own a weapon even if there are no gun manufacturers, even if there are no arms available.

Pedro Martínez: well said

Pedro Martínez: One thing that gets me about this 'freedom' of owning arms is the situation in which it came about. IE the time of American independence. It has led imho to much gun crime on the streets, in schools, etc in current times.

I can accept that to change such a freedom would be not possible, but the nature of what people are allowed to own, or at least the nature of how they are kept needs sorting. When my brother owned two guns, he had to be vetted by the police (even though he was a serving member of the UK military, his guns had to be stored as such that if someone broke in, they could not just nick them (steel boxes bolted down) and that each weapon was stored so that someone could not just break into one box and have a gun, as the firing mechanisms were stored in a separate steel box, again bolted down.

Access as such in homes I can appreciate in America needs to be quick due to the number of criminals with guns, but this ought to be handguns only, anything heavier stored to prevent thieves getting easy access to them. Or as has happened.. kids using them.

A small safe, does not cost much. And with keypad combo's is quick to open.

(V): This gun conversation is helpful for me in explaining the differences of opinions in the health care debate.

It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Czuch:

> It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe
> our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health
> care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Your are right in this. Guns in themselves do no harm until somebody pulls the trigger. Opposition to availability of guns is just like prohibition. "If there is no alcohol available, then people will stop drinking. If no guns are available, then people will stop killing each other."

Some countries like Japan have full bans of buying and selling firearms. Their statistics show a low incidence of murder, but not a low incidence of stabbing. Less people die of stabbing, but it does not mean that stabbing happens less often than shooting.

Some gun owners are responsible. I know a man who collects guns and he loves hunting. He keeps at least 50 hunting rifles safely locked away in the basement of his home. He would never harm anyone. He just loves fishing, hunting, etc.

Then we hear stories of children taking their parents gun to school and shooting other children. Irresponsible parents leave the gun lying around without thinking of the consequences.

Healthcare in the US is somewhat like that. Some insurers are responsible and care about their clients. Others are greedy and charge more for providing less services. Some insurers operate in some states where they provide better or worse services than in other states.

Should the government intervene? Legislate companies at a federal level to ensure everyone in every state gets adequate coverage from private companies? Should there be price checks to make it affordable to everyone? Or should the state pick up the slack and provide equal healthcare to the needy?

People in the US don't seem to agree. Here in Canada the government did away with the problem by providing universal healthcare. It works here, in spite of the mistakes and problems with waiting lists, etc. However, the American reality is different. Somewhere along the way the problems with the system have to be fixed in a balanced manner. I think that if all the special interests could be removed, the government might find a better way to deal with the problem.

Czuch: No. I don't. I would like it made so kids cannot just take guns. I made that quite clear. Seeing as much gun crime is kid related.

Is being responsible regarding firearms anti republican?