The Right to Bear Arms

[Harvested Sorrow]

Shedra Helix

Meirelle

Every civilian has a right to own a gun -- for defense, protection, whatever. There are legitimate reasons for having one.

However, no civilian ever has a lawful reason for owning a ******** AK-47.

I couldn't agree more.

Why not? They're very ******** fun guns to shoot and they're pretty much NEVER used in crimes, so why should they be banned exactly?

Just because certain people are paranoid?

You don't need a good reason for owning it, you need a good reason for banning it.  

[Harvested Sorrow]

Theophrastus

[Hollow Point]

I think that gun laws are just fine the way they are now, seeing places that have enacted a stricter gun law or completely banned guns have a much more significant violent crime rate.

I disagree with this statement. Japan is a fine example of a society that excels in low crime rates and doesn't even let their normal police carry guns.

An exception to the rule does not change the overall truth of the rule.

It's been shown time and time again: If you remove the right of the public to an efficient way to defend themselves the criminals are going to have a field day.  

[Harvested Sorrow]

D0k70R_4LPH4

The main purpose of the guns act was in the essence of English power. The people were allowed guns just in case some Monarchy started by America. As well, the amendment states that we have the right to have the most advanced weaponry.

And their writings indicated that they felt that the individual man should have a weapon for self defense, too. If they didn't explicitly write into the constitution that they meant it for people and not JUST militias it's because they didn't feel such a thing was necessary since they never foresaw a time when people decided it was necessary to revoke the right to self defense of other people to satisfy their own paranoid delusions.

D0k70R_4LPH4

Come on, people. There's no way we can put down our government if they become too powerful. Who's gonna buy an effin' nuclear warhead? Bill Gates? I think he is respectful to the government agencies that pay him for his software.

I don't get this. I've seen this logic used quite often as an excuse for banning, however, it makes no sense 'If a rebellion against the government was necessary it'd be impossible anyway....SO LET'S MAKE IT HARDER! scream " Makes no sense. That aside, the US government won't even use nukes on other countries so it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'll blow up a large portion of their own country to kill off a few rebels. This would be a great way to increase public sympathy for them and a growing rebel force.

D0k70R_4LPH4

Keep guns in the home.. I don't care if someone has an AK - 47. If they feel they need it, let them have it.

Bad idea. People get attacked outside the home. This is why concealed carry licenses are necessary.  

[Sanguvixen]

Quote:

I think that if you have never used a gun, or dont know anything about guns you shouldnt have an opinion on them. It's just like if you didnt vote you shouldnt whine about the president.

Not to be rude, but that is total BS. I couldn't disagree more.

You have to own a gun or have used one to have an opinion? It has been a great while since I have read something so assinine and arrogent. What next? Are you going to tell that to a woman who's 9 year old died in her home, when a gang member outside shot a firearm, and the bullet missed the target, went through the house, and hit the kid in the head?

Would you say the same thing to one of families that is minus a member because of what happened at VA tech? Would you say the same to anyone who lost a member of thier family due to the Columbine Shooting? "Oh well, stop whining. You've never owned or used a gun, so your opinion doesn't matter. Shut your mouth...your loss is irrelevent." That might not be what you are saying...but that is pretty close to the meaning.

If anything I find it amazing how so many people turn blind to the fact that guns are out of control. Getting them in control is a momentus task, especially when the NHRA goes rabid over very simple suggestions such as "Child saftey locks"

Isn't it nice to live where I live? You wake up, and just can't help but wonder where the next shooting has occured in your state, and city. You don't go a day without another civlian owned fire-arm going off somewhere in the City...and you can only hope that the target lives to see the perpetrator put behind bars.

I'm 19(going on 20), but I can walk into any gun store and buy a gun. No questions asked. I could be a 19 year old currently being accused of manslaughter, and out on bond, and walk into any gun store, and get a gun. No questions asked.

How is that not disturbing?

You know something else? Blades, swords, and knives have better control and regulation in my area than guns do. That, is disturbing. For the most part people don't use blades as much as guns when committing a crime. I can have an opinion on guns, despite the fact that only weapons I own are blades, because I live in an area where death by gun is not uncommon. I dare anyone to tell me other wise.

 

[Sanguvixen]

Harvested Sorrow

Theophrastus

[Hollow Point]

I think that gun laws are just fine the way they are now, seeing places that have enacted a stricter gun law or completely banned guns have a much more significant violent crime rate.

I disagree with this statement. Japan is a fine example of a society that excels in low crime rates and doesn't even let their normal police carry guns.

An exception to the rule does not change the overall truth of the rule.

It's been shown time and time again: If you remove the right of the public to an efficient way to defend themselves the criminals are going to have a field day.

Rather than treat the exception as being irrelevent, you might ask...what makes Japan's case work? An exception to this unwritten rule you speak of is proof that it can work. You just have to ask why it works...and when you know why, you are better able to deal with other places.

 

[CountGrishnak]

Harvested Sorrow

D0k70R_4LPH4

The main purpose of the guns act was in the essence of English power. The people were allowed guns just in case some Monarchy started by America. As well, the amendment states that we have the right to have the most advanced weaponry.

And their writings indicated that they felt that the individual man should have a weapon for self defense, too. If they didn't explicitly write into the constitution that they meant it for people and not JUST militias it's because they didn't feel such a thing was necessary since they never foresaw a time when people decided it was necessary to revoke the right to self defense of other people to satisfy their own paranoid delusions.

D0k70R_4LPH4

Come on, people. There's no way we can put down our government if they become too powerful. Who's gonna buy an effin' nuclear warhead? Bill Gates? I think he is respectful to the government agencies that pay him for his software.

I don't get this. I've seen this logic used quite often as an excuse for banning, however, it makes no sense 'If a rebellion against the government was necessary it'd be impossible anyway....SO LET'S MAKE IT HARDER! scream " Makes no sense. That aside, the US government won't even use nukes on other countries so it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'll blow up a large portion of their own country to kill off a few rebels. This would be a great way to increase public sympathy for them and a growing rebel force.

D0k70R_4LPH4

Keep guns in the home.. I don't care if someone has an AK - 47. If they feel they need it, let them have it.

Bad idea. People get attacked outside the home. This is why concealed carry licenses are necessary.

Dude, a nuke is an over - statement. Even if they don't have nukes, they have a largely advanced weaponry system consisting of things only an economy in the top ten could afford.

Another thing is the whole "people could get attacked" thing.

Really? Isn't that common sense? Anything's possible. It doesn't matter what firing power someone has. Either they get them illegally or they get them government issue. Your choice.  

[[Hollow Point]]

Sanguvixen

Quote:

I think that if you have never used a gun, or dont know anything about guns you shouldnt have an opinion on them. It's just like if you didnt vote you shouldnt whine about the president.

Not to be rude, but that is total BS. I couldn't disagree more.

You have to own a gun or have used one to have an opinion? It has been a great while since I have read something so assinine and arrogent. What next? Are you going to tell that to a woman who's 9 year old died in her home, when a gang member outside shot a firearm, and the bullet missed the target, went through the house, and hit the kid in the head?

Would you say the same thing to one of families that is minus a member because of what happened at VA tech? Would you say the same to anyone who lost a member of thier family due to the Columbine Shooting? "Oh well, stop whining. You've never owned or used a gun, so your opinion doesn't matter. Shut your mouth...your loss is irrelevent." That might not be what you are saying...but that is pretty close to the meaning.

If anything I find it amazing how so many people turn blind to the fact that guns are out of control. Getting them in control is a momentus task, especially when the NHRA goes rabid over very simple suggestions such as "Child saftey locks"

Isn't it nice to live where I live? You wake up, and just can't help but wonder where the next shooting has occured in your state, and city. You don't go a day without another civlian owned fire-arm going off somewhere in the City...and you can only hope that the target lives to see the perpetrator put behind bars.

I'm 19(going on 20), but I can walk into any gun store and buy a gun. No questions asked. I could be a 19 year old currently being accused of manslaughter, and out on bond, and walk into any gun store, and get a gun. No questions asked.

How is that not disturbing?

You know something else? Blades, swords, and knives have better control and regulation in my area than guns do. That, is disturbing. For the most part people don't use blades as much as guns when committing a crime. I can have an opinion on guns, despite the fact that only weapons I own are blades, because I live in an area where death by gun is not uncommon. I dare anyone to tell me other wise.

Youre right, I apologize. A rewording is in order. I meant that for people who dont know anything about guns at all. A gun is a tool, that is all it is, it does not kill, people kill. I've debated with people who dont know the laws, dont know how guns are used, what safeties are on them, ect.

I meant it on the basis that far too many people get the notion that guns are immediately bad because bad people sometimes use them. I just want to say that people will find a way to do bad things regardless of their weaponry.

How do you suppose we regulate our guns? The point of this argument is that you ban guns, you arent only getting them out of the hands of bad people, youre also taking them away from good ones. I think the best thing to do would be make guns safer, and make people safer. More classes need to be forced on the public, the safe use of a gun, the responsibility to use it well.

PS- I love the whole "I dont want to be rude" thing, then you tell my that I'm stupid and that my ideas are asinine, very nice.  

[Theophrastus]

Harvested Sorrow

An exception to the rule does not change the overall truth of the rule.

It's been shown time and time again: If you remove the right of the public to an efficient way to defend themselves the criminals are going to have a field day.

Friend, had you read all my posts you'd see I am against gun bans/intense gun control. I heartily support the 2nd. Also, criminals are going to do what they want no matter what - that's why they are criminals and why we upstanding members of society do what we can to punish them. Sometimes I wish violent crime was punished more severely, to be honest.

Regarding the general theme of this thread it seems people are stating either "tools used for murder should be regulated" or "people should be held responsible for their actions."

I'm in the latter camp. Guns, knives, large trucks, blunt objects and even high heels (if daytime dramas are to be believed) can all be used to kill. "Anything can be a weapon," is an old turn of phrase and it rings true.

The most responsible thing that could happen on a government level is background checks, delayed acquisition and the prohibition of the criminally violent from possessing guns. The personal responsibility of non-owners is that they try to live wisely, if possible live in a safe area and make sure they're supporting local, federal and state measures that encourage a successful model of gun control.

I'm not an owner, I am a supporter of gun control as outlined above, and I think every American has the right to own a handgun and should be proud of that fact. The problem with guns is that, when abused, a rash and sudden decision can end a life. The same is sadly true of driving a car.  

[Sanguvixen]

As it stands alone, the only idea of yours that I was referencing to as being assinine and foolish is that one sentance about "You have to have used a gun or owned one...ect."

So what? It is....but you have already corrected yourself...I wasn't calling all of your ideas assinine and foolish...just that one sentance.

Moving on, when I was in Georgia, there was a local chapter of the NHRA...and you could say that because of them I am more than a little anti-NHRA.

They were very stubborn, narrow-minded, and blind. They were...horrible, in my eyes. But yes, they claimed that unless you have used a gun, or owned one...your mouth should remain shut and that your opinion doesn't matter.

However, as a whole banning guns will solve nothing, because that only means that the guns will only be available black-market. The only thing that I see as a workable solution to part of the problem, is for there to be actual back-ground checks involved. That and it should be mandatory for guns to be registered. As of now, in America, registering your gun is voluntary. I would like to see that change. I would like to see it so that any gun shop that sells guns has to do back-ground checks.

It might not stop the flow of guns, but it may slow it down. Another thing, I think that it is not unreasonable to simply have child-saftey locks on all guns. Or at least to start the production of all newer models with child-saftey locks.

Those are but just a few that come off the top of my head.

 

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Not to merely repeat the "tighten the laws and leave it alone" bit, but it's actually not a horrible idea.

Banning even some civilian firearms will do nothing but provoke an over-response and monstrous growth of the black market.

On the other hand, TIGHTER laws and STRICTER police enforcement are needed.



I'm not proud to say it, but I live in a high crime area. There've been at least two or three shootings in the past few months, and I've actually learned to take cover at the sound of any kind of gun discharging around home. It simply isn't safe here anymore.

Heck... the number of shooting incidents up in the Birmingham area is ridiculous. It's almost a nightly occurrence.



It was our decision to let civilians own firearms so freely, now we need to take some kind of responsibility before more innocents are hurt.  

[CountGrishnak]

Tenth Speed Writer

Not to merely repeat the "tighten the laws and leave it alone" bit, but it's actually not a horrible idea.

Banning even some civilian firearms will do nothing but provoke an over-response and monstrous growth of the black market.

On the other hand, TIGHTER laws and STRICTER police enforcement are needed.



I'm not proud to say it, but I live in a high crime area. There've been at least two or three shootings in the past few months, and I've actually learned to take cover at the sound of any kind of gun discharging around home. It simply isn't safe here anymore.

Heck... the number of shooting incidents up in the Birmingham area is ridiculous. It's almost a nightly occurrence.



It was our decision to let civilians own firearms so freely, now we need to take some kind of responsibility before more innocents are hurt.

Or else just do something that a famous comedian said.. put up the price of bullets. Nobody would wanna shoot if a bullet costs $1000 a peice.  

[x Kanetsugu Naoe x]

I say that gun control is good and bad. It keeps gun related accidents down, and would keep gun crime down a little bit. It also means that knife crime would escalate, increasing bloody and painful deaths, and people would much rather be able to defend themselves, for example, if someone breaks into your house you do want to be able to protect yourself right? Plus, that would mean no more hunting 'cept with a bow which would be a tad more fatal to the hunter. And they would take my hard earned MP5k and fulauto license. There goes $5,000 down the drain.  

[Sergeant CJ]

[Hollow Point]

Youre right, I apologize. A rewording is in order. I meant that for people who dont know anything about guns at all. A gun is a tool, that is all it is, it does not kill, people kill. I've debated with people who dont know the laws, dont know how guns are used, what safeties are on them, ect.

I meant it on the basis that far too many people get the notion that guns are immediately bad because bad people sometimes use them. I just want to say that people will find a way to do bad things regardless of their weaponry.

How do you suppose we regulate our guns? The point of this argument is that you ban guns, you arent only getting them out of the hands of bad people, youre also taking them away from good ones. I think the best thing to do would be make guns safer, and make people safer. More classes need to be forced on the public, the safe use of a gun, the responsibility to use it well.

PS- I love the whole "I dont want to be rude" thing, then you tell my that I'm stupid and that my ideas are asinine, very nice.

I agree very much on the point of "its not the gun its the person" because guns dont kill people its other ignorant people that do

Dudes I wish I owned a freakin ak  

[x Kanetsugu Naoe x]

I shot an AK once, it wasn't that special. But to say you own one is pretty cool, which is another reason why gun control is not good. If you collect guns, they would be confiscated.  

[PrezarioKaiser]

You guys seem to be making a big deal out of nothing. If the founding fathers wanted it that way, let it be.


Yeah, I shopped it in minutes. Shut up.

Serious response? You can't get rid of guns. Ever. Humans are incredibly clever, they'll find ways. If you're paranoid about getting shot, get a gun.