The Right to Bear Arms

[God of lunchboxes]

What is your opinion of this right in the american constitution? (If it applies in countries in Europe let me know) How do you think it should be regulated? Etc.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Personally, I don't think stricter rules need to be imposed, but there should be an additional test to determine the amount of personal responsibility someone has, though I don't know how you'd objectively measure that.

Basically, the constitution was written during a time when America was a frontier. Frontiers ordinarily have substandard law enforcement, meaning bandits, smugglers, and thieves have an easier time. I think the second amendment was put in place specifically to allow homeowners, settlers, and farmers to defend themselves should the need arise.  

[[Hollow Point]]

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.

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 just think people need to be better educated about how they use guns. Irresponsible hunters give people like myself a bad name, people that misuse firearms need to have their rights stripped from them. But then owning a gun is a responsibility and just like anything like it you will always have people that misuse them and people that are perfectly fine using them.  

[Theophrastus]

[Hollow Point]

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.

Absolutely correct.

[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.

However, the overall sentiment is something we are in agreement over. A well-armed nation is hard to tyrannize. I am sorry that the liberal Democrats seem bent on removing guns from our society, especially since I would often be classified a liberal democrat. Felons should face stiff penalties for possessing firearms, and skill classifications would be a good thing, too; test a person's ability with different firearms and give them a license dependent on the results. Just like how my driver's license has a restriction that I can't drive unless I'm wearing glasses or contacts to correct my nearsightedness.

I think that there should be no laws against gun ownership for the average citizens. No law will ever stop bad people from getting guns, but it will prevent good people from using them. Home invasions are notably small in regions where the population is heavily armed (Texas, Alaska, etc), and that's a fine testament.

I remember coming to the conclusion that most people in the South are friendly since everyone on the street was possibly carrying a snubnose .38. biggrin  

[ProjectOmicron88]

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.

I think I read somewhere that although it is not encouraged, Japanese police are allowed to use force in almost any situation.  

[Theophrastus]

ProjectOmicron88

I think I read somewhere that although it is not encouraged, Japanese police are allowed to use force in almost any situation.

Indeed, batons, chemical agents, etc. Deadly force requires serious authorization.

In Japan it is also within the law to be arrested and detained without proof. Just suspicion. So for the most part people really don't wanna bother with getting thrown in the tank over dumb crap.

That said, it's a very different society that is deeply ingrained with the concept of personal actions affecting the group (yes, generalizing), so the outlook on committing crime is likely fairly different.  

[Prince Rilian]

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed.  

[God of lunchboxes]

"Now they're thinking about banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GUNNA KEEP THE ********' REAL ONES!" George Carlin (Doin' in New Jersey?)  

[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.  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

I do believe the second amendment has a second half:

Quote:

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.

Too bad people always forget that part.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Baron von Turkeypants

I do believe the second amendment has a second half:

Quote:

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.

Too bad people always forget that part.

In the colonial days, a militia was an admired group of brave men. Today, any militia is usually composed of sociopathic backwoods rejects, like the Montana Militia years ago, and the Minutemen today, who have a delusional guardian complex.  

[God of lunchboxes]

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.  

[[Hollow Point]]

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.

My good friend owns an AK. So youre saying that he cant own an AK for collection reasons? For sport reasons? I gotta say, target shooting with that gun is a lot of fun. Just because they own one doesnt mean it's bad that they do.

I myself find both of those reasons to be perfectly lawful.  

[Fenky]

The 2nd amendment means nothing now. It was created during the American Revolution. It said that states could have their own militias so they could protect themselves during an invasion or attack. The people who made that amendment couldn't even imagine the kinds of guns now or why people would want to have them so the 2nd amendment does not apply to owning a gun. I'm not saying that guns should be banned or anything (although certain people shouldn't be allowed to have them) but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with citizens having guns.  

[CountGrishnak]

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.

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.

McDonalds? The same.

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.