Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Falqour]

most criminals that end up getting their hands on some type of gun don't do it legally

This is the most common argument I get from friends of mine who have conceal carry permits. "If criminals can get guns illegally, why shouldn't I be allowed to carry one legally to defend myself?"

The problem with any gun control laws is that a law can't control guns in the US. There are simply too many. The United States is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world. (there is some debate on which nation is the leading small arms manufacturer in the world, but the US makes the most "weapons", at any rate) The drug wars happening in Mexico right now are being fought with guns made in the US, traded illegally across the border with drugs that will be consumed in the US.

A law to complicate or prohibit gun ownership in the US would likely only affect law abiding citizens, and do nothing to hamper a criminal's ability to own a gun. And because of the 2nd amendment, a federal law against gun ownership is unlikely, meaning the individual states would have to create and enforce their own gun laws to varying degrees of success. Which means a criminal living in California, where gun laws are strict, could easily drive to Arizona to legally (but untraceable) purchase guns where gun laws are less strict, and bring them back to California, effectively making gun laws useless.

Instead of more gun laws, the systemic problem of gun accessibility needs to be addressed across the entire nation. If you want to keep guns off the streets, the manufacturers of guns would need more government regulation to ensure that weapons are tracked with some degree of certainty as they come off the assembly line and make their way to the end user's hands. Travelling gun shows need to be disbanded, as gun shows (in some states) are usually the best place to buy lots of guns with no paperwork.

We could also use technology to aid gun control, fitting all weapons with biometric security (so they'll only be usable by specific people) and GPS tracking devices.

As a gun owner myself, I'm strongly in favor of tighter gun control. I might not be in favor of an outright ban on all firearms, but there is a lot we can do to keep guns off the streets.

Now, for those of you who live in the US and think gun violence is completely out of control and the worst in the world, try living in South Africa, which experiences 3 times as many fatal gun related crimes per year as the US, mostly by criminals using guns that have never been legal for private citizens to own. This fact seems to make the point that gun laws simply don't work. Gun accessibility, both legally and illegally needs to be addressed.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

The reason is exist is because if the American people see fit they can forcefully remove the government. Also the government should not be the only people with guns, if the government becomes tyrannical how are we to stop them? Of course it should be better detailed as to what's allowed. I believe people should own small arms, as to owning a howitzer.... Maybe not. Remember it was written in 1776, not like they had Miniguns and RPGs to tack into account back then.

Although it would be nice if people with a history either family or personal of mental problems not allowed to get guns, as well as those with criminal records.

 

[LetalisK]

The U.S. military is not nearly as large as people seem to think. This is part of why we have had so much trouble in Iraq. But, I still want to have my guns for in case something catastrophic were to happen. Mostly, though, I want my guns because I won't kill as many ducks with my bare hands. Now, if I had BEAR hands, that might be something.

The sad thing is the US military is actually pretty damn big....but not anywhere near as close as people's preconceived notions of how big it is. XD

I believe people should own small arms, as to owning a howitzer.... Maybe not.

Howitzers can be privately owned. Granted, they're really small howitzers owned by ski companies to provoke avalanches to make skiing safe, and this is clearly not within the context you were assuming, but I just think that little tidbit is amusing.

 

[Terminate421]

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country. Therefore, I think it is a right to own a gun, even if it is a shitty one, it can make a much larger differance the one thinks.

Also, calling Gun Collectors ones "Who collect tools of death is questionable" is ironic, people collect many things, why is it questionable towards fire arms

As for the 2nd Amendment, I feel that it is fine the way it is. Gun Control is impossible, fixing something that isn't broken isn't the answer.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Maybe it could use a little revision but I think that every person has the right to own a gun for personal protection, hunting, or some other civilian use.

 

[WanderingFool]

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country.

Well, when Red Dawn becomes a reality, you only need to kill one guy with the knife, the rest you can use the guys AK.

 

[Karlaxx]

I've always seen the second amendment as existing to ensure our populace won't be completely unable to help defend itself shoudl it come under attack. Viewed from that angle, it seems fine, but I would also certainly agree to severely restricting who can buy firearms and what sort of weapons those are (YOu do -not- need an assault rifle, kthxbai) compared to what we have now.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country.

Britain doesn't have a right to bear arms but the Home Guard was given WW1 rifles. Rights or no a gun may be given to the right person in the right situation

 

[RatRace123]

It needs some revision, but in a society where everyone and their dog has a gun you need to have one too, if only to avoid being under dressed.

 

[bbad89]

No. 10nos. The 2nd amendment is here to stay, and for good reason. Unless we had a pot-smoking, single digit IQ idiot in charge of the military, they wouldn't dare to do anything to the armed populace. The population far outnumbers the military, so yes, they would stand a chance.

 

[Snowalker]

I don't get it. Having a gun would be cool, but only if it was an old one, or a model, and with no ammo. Shooting people doesn't solve all your problems.

Fuck, Yeah it does.

If everyone is dead, you're right. Simple as that.[/sarcasm]

 

[moretimethansense]

We should be Civil and mature to have Guns for self-protection. We wouldn't have issues if people just learned not to misuse Guns. For the matter, I feel taking away Guns is pointless because there will be people buying off Guns in Black Markets and when they threaten us, we'll have no way to protect ourselves then. Plus, it'd also cause other Nations to feel the urge to invade us if we don't have Guns, let alone only the Army does. It's all complicated really..

"Civil and mature" to me means that you don't need the guns, nor have an obsession with having the right to own them.

What does maturity have to do with the need to own a weapon?

I personally don't own any weapons(illegal here), but I am fasinated by them, swords, knives, axes, polearms, bows, crossbows and of course guns, I'm fasinated by both their constuction, their use and their history, if it were legal (and I had the money) I would collect them simly because of my interest in weapons and warfare.

And no one's going to invade you because your citizens aren't armed - if the fucking military attacked then civilians wouldn't stand a chance anyway.

The US consists of about 312 million people, and about 200 million guns, name one military in the world that could take those odds.

 

[derdeutschmachine]

I own several guns, I can legally carry most of them.
There are problems with the system. The man in Arizona was a crazy person, crazy people and guns are not a good mix. People like that should have been put away long before they ever became a problem. Pointing the finger is easy here. People died unexpectedly. It's a shame albeit not uncommon elsewhere in the world. If you want to ban guns, you'll have a much bigger problem from the people who wish to protect that one right.
Guns are not the problem, the ease in which one can buy a gun is. Rather than sitting here saying what is wrong, find a solution and bring that to the table, otherwise you're nothing more than a fearmonger.

 

[xdom125x]

Don't we have the right to bear arms for protection of our lives, property and in case the gov't goes tyrannical on us where woe would have to wage war on it?

 

[Terminate421]

It seems that you do not like civilians owning a fire arm.

When America gets invaded, I don't want to have to use a kitchen knife to fight off who ever it is that is bombing our country.

Well, when Red Dawn becomes a reality, you only need to kill one guy with the knife, the rest you can use the guys AK.

Unless I can somehow throw it and hit him in the neck OR magically gain the ability to use VATS, theres almost no way I'd catch a lone soldier off guard and be able to kill him with a kitchen knife.

I do like how you think around my situation though.

 

[WanderingFool]

The US consists of about 312 million people, and about 200 million guns, name one military in the world that could take those odds.

North Korea

Wait, did you mean logical and sane?

 

[xdom125x]

I think at this point, owning a gun to stand up and rise against the government would be pretty irrelevant. Unless we have the right to bear tanks.

Also, this. Our 2nd amendment rights are so restricted that we wouldn't stand a chance against the government in a revolution.

 

[Woodsey]

We should be Civil and mature to have Guns for self-protection. We wouldn't have issues if people just learned not to misuse Guns. For the matter, I feel taking away Guns is pointless because there will be people buying off Guns in Black Markets and when they threaten us, we'll have no way to protect ourselves then. Plus, it'd also cause other Nations to feel the urge to invade us if we don't have Guns, let alone only the Army does. It's all complicated really..

"Civil and mature" to me means that you don't need the guns, nor have an obsession with having the right to own them.

What does maturity have to do with the need to own a weapon?

I personally don't own any weapons(illegal here), but I am fasinated by them, swords, knives, axes, polearms, bows, crossbows and of course guns, I'm fasinated by both their constuction, their use and their history, if it were legal (and I had the money) I would collect them simly because of my interest in weapons and warfare.

And no one's going to invade you because your citizens aren't armed - if the fucking military attacked then civilians wouldn't stand a chance anyway.

The US consists of about 312 million people, and about 200 million guns, name one military in the world that could take those odds.

The guns are irrelevant - invading the US is a ridiculous thing to attempt anyway (which was my point). Invading a country is also illegal and attempting to invade arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is beyond moronic.

But supposing a suitable sized invasion force capable of capturing a developed country of 300 million people did happen, then the guns would still be irrelevant. The civilian guns are going to be with people who know how to fire it, not people who can actually fire it at another person, nor deal with a situation against trained forces.

 

[FFHAuthor]

IF the Second Amendment is out-dated, then what about the first? Freedom of Speach and Freedom of the Press were far different matters in the 18th century than they are today. Free speach then meant words traded in a bar, not discussions that go around the planet. Freedom of the Press was for newspapers that barely reached an entire city, let alone a 24 hour news network.

Honestly people, you can't pick and chose which parts of the consitution you follow, you start saying 'we need to get rid of the second amendment' then what's next? Speach? Religon? The press? Protection from search and siezure? Trial by jury? Which one?

 

[moretimethansense]

The US consists of about 312 million people, and about 200 million guns, name one military in the world that could take those odds.

North Korea

Wait, did you mean logical and sane?

The north korean military currently consists of about 1.2 mil those fit for service total about 10.3 mil and the total population is aprox 23.5 mil, they could(and probebly would) try, and they could do some damage but if they were trying to occupy america they wouldn't have a chance.