The Right to Bear Arms

[mechdestroyer]

"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."

I just want to start this conversation with that quote. Directly taken from the constitution in the bill of rights. The second amendment.

I want to hear everyones opinions on it. Should people have the right to bear arms. Does this have its limits? Can a person have a weapon on school grounds. What if that is where you live.(College)

Does this mean you can have shotguns and rifles but not hand guns? Or tanks? or nukes?

this article here makes a lot of good points i will highlight some of the points in my own writing but a good read none the less.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2901.html

I cannot think of any points I really disagree with him on. Plz excuse the 2 part and long read but I would request you read this if you got the time and if you just want to post your comments do so freely.

I for no gun control whatsoever.(Except when comes to convicted felons of violent crimes) One thing I want to do eventually in my life is to own a working tank. Think that would be cool to own.

An exspecially good point that the article makes is that a volunteer security guard stopped the killing rampage in colorado. Not the police but a private citizen with a gun.

Alright just wanted to get some discussions going! look forward to your comments.

[Will]

"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."

I just want to start this conversation with that quote. Directly taken from the constitution in the bill of rights. The second amendment.

I want to hear everyones opinions on it. Should people have the right to bear arms. Does this have its limits? Can a person have a weapon on school grounds. What if that is where you live.(College)

Does this mean you can have shotguns and rifles but not hand guns? Or tanks? or nukes?

this article here makes a lot of good points i will highlight some of the points in my own writing but a good read none the less.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2901.html

I cannot think of any points I really disagree with him on. Plz excuse the 2 part and long read but I would request you read this if you got the time and if you just want to post your comments do so freely.

I for no gun control whatsoever.(Except when comes to convicted felons of violent crimes) One thing I want to do eventually in my life is to own a working tank. Think that would be cool to own.

An exspecially good point that the article makes is that a volunteer security guard stopped the killing rampage in colorado. Not the police but a private citizen with a gun.

Alright just wanted to get some discussions going! look forward to your comments.

Absolute and total gun control in my opinion. No one except police and military should have guns (the militia argument no longer holds water, it was fine when wars were fought with muskets, but it's useless nowadays unless you allow civilians to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons.)

[-Chris-]

http://www.taylorstudio-taxidermy-art.com/files/bear1.jpg

[Mr President]

There is no such thing as gun control. All these law makers do is strip and restrict the decent people from buying and having guns. Do you really think we will ever get all the guns from the criminals off the street? yea, good luck!

Perhaps if people we able to carry guns all the time then crime might go down. I mean would you rob someone who has a gun or no gun?

Now as a gun owner i'm fine with having laws. I can deal with not carrying my gun in a store or places like that. There is no need. But i don't like people telling me i can't have one or own one. If i go out and shoot someone, then yup take it away and lock me up... But i will never feel that taking guns away will ever solve anything.. it would be just one more thing that we have been stripped of.

It's like the seatbelt law.. Why in the hell do we keep putting these over educated idiots into office.. I mean really, now we need them to tell us how to save our lives? I mean do they really care? No, they want you alive so they can soak more tax money out of you..

Some laws are needed to keep the peace. But 60% of todays laws are BS!

When are people going to accept the fact that you can kill with anything not just guns. When someone goes crazy and blows away 10 people the first thing that they start saying is, well if he couldn't get a gun then this never would have happened.. No maybe he/she wouldn't have been able to kill 10 people and maybe just 2 or even one, so basically they are saying that 10 lives is more important then 2? How about we start looking at the people doing these crimes. How about things change so one parent can be home with the kids raising them instead of some daycare? How about allowing parents to dicipline there kids without fearing they will be taken away. Kids have no fear of there parents today. they rule them! When i grew up if i did something wrong i got it good. I feared my parents and out of that fear grew respect!

There are so many more factors that come into play in these mass murders. GUNS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING! and taking them away will not solve the problem..

There are no guns in prison but yet lots of inmates die everyday.. but nobody cares about that. Someone gets shanked in prison it never makes the news. But if someone would get shot then it's all over the papers... funny how selective we are on what we want to report!

[Xavior]

Put it this way:

Would your country be safer if every household owned multiple guns?

One word: No.

[Mr President]

Put it this way:

Would your country be safer if every household owned multiple guns?

One word: No.


How do you know this?

lets use this for an example, if every home in the US was able to have one gun but the rule was nobody could take it from there home(and pretend that everyone followed this law) as it would only be for protection from burglers how many homes do you think will be broken into?

Nobody is going to break in a home when they know that person has a gun and will be ready to use it. It's just like, homes with dogs are less likely to be robbed then homes without.

Nobody knows how things would be if everyone had guns. I'm not saying they all should. I'm simply saying i don't know. And that i'm tired of people saying that guns are the problem when i really wish they would say they don't know..

And 95% of the people who say guns are the problem are ones who don't have them. But yet if we try to take something of there's away well then that would be a different story..

[Mahdi]

hehe i could arm a small country with everything from revolvers to LMG's and you dont see me going out to kill someone... if someone broke into my house i dont have to leave the second floor to stop them dead in their tracks... if my house catches on fire im not calling the fire department... for their own safety cuz if my house goes up chances are my one neighbors house would go up and that would make our block a danger zone...

i have cases upon cases of bullets as well as over 120 guns in my house... but id be more worried about the dogs then the guns

[Xavior]

Of course we don't know what would happen if that were the case. But please tell me, what are guns for? For shooting things! For shooting what? Do people need AK-47s and or Glocks to hunt animals? So what then? Hmm.. say, PEOPLE?

I am against any gun that is not used for hunting or by law enforcement. I do not understand why gun shops in the states sell assault weapons.

[ranger2112]

An armed society is a polite society. Period. Gun control is total BS. Who are a bunch of pasty faced attorneys to tell me i cannot own a firearm and protect myself? They wont. gun control only pushes gun sales underground and mainly in the hands of criminals.

o am P, the seatbelt thing...i agree with u in principle however driving is a privilidge not a right..so they CAN force us to wear seatbelts.

[Mahdi]

Washington DC has a very high crime rate why? weapons are not allowed in the city and the criminals knwo that...

i use assault weapons for entertainment... we have a shooting range set up and i use it to its fullest extent... 300 yards yeah its not much for a .338 lapua, an AR50, or a 300 win mag but its still fun to know that i can demolish a pop can at 300 yards

[Mr President]

Do people need AK-47s and or Glocks to hunt animals? So what then? Hmm.. say, PEOPLE?



now assault weapons i will agree with. There is no reason a normal citizen needs to own one of these. I have seen many dirt bags in my time with these weapons and i def agree that these should be banned.. I was talking about pistols mainly..

[Will]

The problems with criminality could better be addressed with Arab style punishments rather than gun ownership. I saw pictures of a thief in Iran having his arm driven over with a truck. THAT is criminal justice (and for murderers etc it would be much worse)

[Mr President]

The problems with criminality could better be addressed with Arab style punishments rather than gun ownership. I saw pictures of a thief in Iran having his arm driven over with a truck. THAT is criminal justice (and for murderers etc it would be much worse)

lol.. i have to agree with that.. It would def make people think twice before breaking the law.

[Cape]

The USA is nuts, there are as many guns per person in Canada yet for some reason we're not as homicidal, we don't even have the death penalty. The only difference between us seems to be the huge disparity in wealth from region to region in the US compared to Canada, as well as our higher level of social spending in health and welfare. In the US your either excessively well off, well off enough to get by, or dirt poor, the latter becoming more common. In Canada there is a system called transfer payments between provinces, basically transferring money from rich areas so that poorer areas have the same level of service, so there is less desperately. Maybe the US has to take a good look at itself and what they spend there taxes on, maybe it's time to spend less on military and more into your own people. Any student of history knows most empires collapse soon after the value of there currency is wiped out, not when they are conquered by an outside source. This may cause some ruffled eagle feathers, but the US should adopt a more liberal/Europe/Canadian stance on social issues and spending, if they wish to prosper. As a final note there is no use for handguns or automatic weapons other then to kill a human being, so they have no use in society other then to kill.

[ranger2112]

The USA is nuts, there are as many guns per person in Canada yet for some reason we're not as homicidal, we don't even have the death penalty. The only difference between us seems to be the huge disparity in wealth from region to region in the US compared to Canada, as well as our higher level of social spending in health and welfare. In the US your either excessively well off, well off enough to get by, or dirt poor, the latter becoming more common. In Canada there is a system called transfer payments between provinces, basically transferring money from rich areas so that poorer areas have the same level of service, so there is less desperately. Maybe the US has to take a good look at itself and what they spend there taxes on, maybe it's time to spend less on military and more into your own people. Any student of history knows most empires collapse soon after the value of there currency is wiped out, not when they are conquered by an outside source. This may cause some ruffled eagle feathers, but the US should adopt a more liberal/Europe/Canadian stance on social issues and spending, if they wish to prosper. As a final note there is no use for handguns or automatic weapons other then to kill a human being, so they have no use in society other then to kill.

nothing personal, but the only reason Canada can spend more on health care etc. and less on military is because u are our neighbor. the only reason Canada is still a sovereign nation is because we share a border. without the USA's military might u so easily snub your nose at Canada would either be a conquered nation or forced to bone up on its military and forego those polite social programs u have.

[mechdestroyer]

ok then everyone would be fine if we banned weapons world wide. There is no use for them, we live in civilized society where there will never be another war between us. Where a criminal can have a gun and kill someone or rob them but to protect themselves a person cannot have a gun. Because they are commiting crimes.

Also i believe peopel have the freedom to have property any property and to do with that property what they wish unless they take away anothers freedom. If you say that people cant have or use a certain way, then you are taking away freedoms, and taking away your own. Just because you believe that people shouldnt own guns does not mean you can enforce your belief on someone else, when they have done nothing to take away your freedom.

When we make laws, we make criminals.

Also what happens when a government gets out of control and become tyrannical. Now less often today but still happens, could you imagine how much less power hilter would have had if 6million jews had guns. they wouldnt have been as easily rounded up and killed.

There are reasons to have assault rifles and tanks, antitank weapons, anit air weapons. they are there to protect ourselves from the government. Our guns are liberties teeth. Should our government ever start taking our rights and freedoms away we should and are able to flash our teeth to back them down or to bite if in the last case.

I do think guns can be used for ill. I also think knives could be used for ill should we outlaw them? a rock can be used for ill. should we outlaw them. Do not punish one person for another persons crime.

Personally i think that guns a good thing. They make people behave civil to each other. I believe that people should, and are entitled to be free. People would behave much better if they though that someone might shoot them.
But as long as they do not they have done nothing wrong. Do not presume someone is guilty untill they prove their innocence which no one can every do if you charge them that they may one day use their gun for the wrong reason as they cannot control the future. But people shouldnt be punished for a crime they did not commit, that they have not planned to commit, and may never commit

Should not a free people be trusted to use their arms responsibly. Freedom should not be taken away lightly and even then you must ask yourself why are you going to take away anothers freedom, when they have not taken away anyone esles freedom.

[ranger2112]

ok then everyone would be fine if we banned weapons world wide. There is no use for them, we live in civilized society where there will never be another war between us. Where a criminal can have a gun and kill someone or rob them but to protect themselves a person cannot have a gun. Because they are commiting crimes.

Also i believe peopel have the freedom to have property any property and to do with that property what they wish unless they take away anothers freedom. If you say that people cant have or use a certain way, then you are taking away freedoms, and taking away your own. Just because you believe that people shouldnt own guns does not mean you can enforce your belief on someone else, when they have done nothing to take away your freedom.

When we make laws, we make criminals.

Also what happens when a government gets out of control and become tyrannical. Now less often today but still happens, could you imagine how much less power hilter would have had if 6million jews had guns. they wouldnt have been as easily rounded up and killed.

There are reasons to have assault rifles and tanks, antitank weapons, anit air weapons. they are there to protect ourselves from the government. Our guns are liberties teeth. Should our government ever start taking our rights and freedoms away we should and are able to flash our teeth to back them down or to bite if in the last case.

I do think guns can be used for ill. I also think knives could be used for ill should we outlaw them? a rock can be used for ill. should we outlaw them. Do not punish one person for another persons crime.

Personally i think that guns a good thing. They make people behave civil to each other. I believe that people should, and are entitled to be free. People would behave much better if they though that someone might shoot them.
But as long as they do not they have done nothing wrong. Do not presume someone is guilty untill they prove their innocence which no one can every do if you charge them that they may one day use their gun for the wrong reason as they cannot control the future. But people shouldnt be punished for a crime they did not commit, that they have not planned to commit, and may never commit

Should not a free people be trusted to use their arms responsibly. Freedom should not be taken away lightly and even then you must ask yourself why are you going to take away anothers freedom, when they have not taken away anyone esles freedom.
u got repped for that one :)

[Zeonic]

What if you happen to be someone who shoots for competitive purposes? Like skeet shooting or trying to get the best marksmanship with a .22? Heck, what about archery? Should all of that be restricted to just the shooting ranges, or outright removed altogether?


You can add as many restrictions on guns as you want. Some people are still gonna find them. And if your argument is the violence, all restricting weapons will do is force the people with the malicious intent to use some other weapon. The guns aren't the problem in violence; it's the people who have the intent to cause harm.

[mechdestroyer]

I have to disagree with the restrictions as the second amendment states the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[
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 Second Amendment

Looking at the actual wording, one sees that there are two separate sections to this amendment. The first is clarifying that the purpose of the amendment is to guarantee a secured free state with the use of militias.

The second part is where the rub is for gun-control advocates. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty strong legal language. "'Shall' is the strongest legal terminology we use". So the prohibition to not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms is used with the strongest legal terms. But what does "infringed" mean?

According to the dictionary, the term means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another". To encroach, again using the dictionary means "to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another". Also, it means to "advance beyond usual and proper limits."

No matter how you look at it, the Federal Government is not to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not even a little or gradually. It is not supposed to be open to interpretation.

]

[ ... ] Taken from http://www.nolanchart.com/article2901.html

[Cape]

nothing personal, but the only reason Canada can spend more on health care etc. and less on military is because u are our neighbor. the only reason Canada is still a sovereign nation is because we share a border. without the USA's military might u so easily snub your nose at Canada would either be a conquered nation or forced to bone up on its military and forego those polite social programs u have.


Hmmm, how easy we forget, if you studied anything besides American propaganda history you'd remember the good old USA invaded Canada in 1812, and during the American revolution, and were thrown out on your asses each time. Canada stands on it's own with or without American military bull crap. I also remember the good old USA sitting out the start of both world wars, nothing like coming in late and claiming a great victory. America only became a real military power after WWII, before then they wanted nothing to do with foreign wars or to be a superpower. I'm sure if the US wanted to invade Canada they could easily do it, but I promise if they did it would make Iraq and Vietnam look like a beach party, I would make it my mission to kill as many invading troops as necessary, by what ever means necessary. As would anyone who has there home country attacked.

[mechdestroyer]

your right cape. we didnt become the superpower we are today till after ww1, we were sleeping, and i think that we need to do the same, i think a lot more people around the world would like us better and we would be safer as if you remember how long it took for a german sub to get ballsy enough to sink a passanger liner or for the japs to attack us. But now all the time we are under constant threat of terrorism being commited on us.

I think it is time for america to go back to sleep. We need to let the world take care of itself and stop wasting the governments money on that and instead try to keep us a superpower instead of the superdebtor.

[ranger2112]

I agree Mech. All are very quick to criticize, yet all have their hands out. if we do anything it has to be drastic. Pull EVERY TROOP home...close Embassy....pop the US titties out of the worlds mouths and lets see who ends up hungry or destroyed when its all done.

the reason those two invasions failed is because we were fighting on several fronts and was poorly organized and destined to fail before it started. and why would we invade canada now? i mean u are our 51st state...lol..just yanking your chain.

[Cape]

and why would we invade canada now? i mean u are our 51st state...lol..just yanking your chain.

*cough* worlds second largest oil reserve *cough*

Reason enough? :P

[mechdestroyer]

I have heard that basically all mountains have quite a bit of oil trapped under them, and canada has most of the rockies

[Dogma]

If I may add a slant to this argument. I rally don't see the ownership of firearms as the major problem with the violence that pervades our societies today, I see it as being the desensitization of the population to violence itself. With all the "entertainment" that revolves around violence we as a people are becoming less disturbed by it. Now before I get flamed, I am not saying that movies and video games and such, cause the violence to occur. I just see it as people don't see it as that big of a deal anymore.

I mean kids are raised these days virtually killing their opposition in games and all of the TV shows and movies seem to glorify the violent resolution to the worlds ills.

I am afraid that it is my generation that has fostered a lot of this as we tend to allow our children to get more of their "roll models" from tv and the entertainment industry and we are not teaching the values that we were raised with. Granted, when you have a single mother of 3 kids and she is trying to feed and cloth them and provide a life for them, it is hard as she has to work, and where does that leave our kids? I know, that I, for one, tried to take all of that into consideration when raising my sons. I was determined that my children were going to learn my values and not those of the entertainment industry, which is only trying to make a dollar.

So, I don"t feel that the issue should actually be controlling guns, We should be more interested in educating our children in the right way to resolve problems and deal with people.

[Zeonic]

Which falls on the parents teaching their children properly. But a lot of parents seem to think the TV or something will raise them instead.


Gotta disagree with the desensitizing though. Violence has existed all through history. Heck, look at Rome and how it loved violence via the Coliseum.

[Dogma]

Gotta disagree with the desensitizing though. Violence has existed all through history. Heck, look at Rome and how it loved violence via the Coliseum.

Oh I agree with you there, but we also went thru a time when our moral compass pointed in a little different direction.

I mean, this is only my opinion.

[mechdestroyer]

Dogma i am going to have to agree with you there. Violence is so prevalent in our society but death is taboo. They walk hand in hand usually. While we go and watch our movies and video games usually you dont even realized you are killing someone. That they are gone.

We are living in a rare society where we can experience violence everyday but almost never deal with death.

[Dogma]

Dogma i am going to have to agree with you there. Violence is so prevalent in our society but death is taboo. They walk hand in hand usually. While we go and watch our movies and video games usually you dont even realized you are killing someone. That they are gone.

We are living in a rare society where we can experience violence everyday but almost never deal with death.

You got my point exactly as I meant it. With the prevalence of violence throughout our society, it just seems, to me, that there is no concern for the consequences of our actions. The act of killing seems to no longer be the worst possible behavior. AS in every video game these kids see, "oh I got ****, ok, re spawn" not saying that they don't understand the finality of death, but it is repeated so often that how can they not be desensitized to it to a certain degree.

[Xavior]

Maybe its because whenever we turn on the news, the anchor always says something like: "There were 8 bombings in the middle east today killing 429 people."

The Media is ever to blame :P

[Zeonic]

You got my point exactly as I meant it. With the prevalence of violence throughout our society, it just seems, to me, that there is no concern for the consequences of our actions. The act of killing seems to no longer be the worst possible behavior. AS in every video game these kids see, "oh I got ****, ok, re spawn" not saying that they don't understand the finality of death, but it is repeated so often that how can they not be desensitized to it to a certain degree.

Then again, I'm a big time gamer and I'm a pacifist and bothered greatly by death and violence. =P

It's all a matter of if people can distinguish between reality and fantasy. What may seem to some outsider as desensitization is really just the person realizing something is fantasy, and therefore isn't bothered by it.


Oh I agree with you there, but we also went thru a time when our moral compass pointed in a little different direction.
Certainly hope you're not referring to Victorian times.

[Dogma]

Then again, I'm a big time gamer and I'm a pacifist and bothered greatly by death and violence. =P

It's all a matter of if people can distinguish between reality and fantasy. What may seem to some outsider as desensitization is really just the person realizing something is fantasy, and therefore isn't bothered by it.


Certainly hope you're not referring to Victorian times.

that I agree with. No I am only talking common human decency. I believe, and I know, I am old and ****, but, I believe that is timeless. It isn't any harder to be decent than it is to be some crazy *** shooting up schools. That is all I am really trying to say, it isn't the guns that are killing ppl, it is some of the people that can get guns.

I don't think we really disagree as much as it seems.

[Will]

Hmmm, how easy we forget, if you studied anything besides American propaganda history you'd remember the good old USA invaded Canada in 1812, and during the American revolution, and were thrown out on your asses each time. Canada stands on it's own with or without American military bull crap. I also remember the good old USA sitting out the start of both world wars, nothing like coming in late and claiming a great victory. America only became a real military power after WWII, before then they wanted nothing to do with foreign wars or to be a superpower. I'm sure if the US wanted to invade Canada they could easily do it, but I promise if they did it would make Iraq and Vietnam look like a beach party, I would make it my mission to kill as many invading troops as necessary, by what ever means necessary. As would anyone who has there home country attacked.

In 1812 Canada had the backing of the entire British Empire.