Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

[Qitz]

No-one says it better than Eddie Izzard:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KsN0FCXw914
[Edit] How the hell do you embed a video in this forum?

[ youtube = *the numbers at the end* ]


Like so.

(If you quote you can see)

As for the 2nd amendment. I thinks it's perfectly fine if restricted to certain conditions. Not just the whole "Wait X days for a background check" but also training with it should be mandatory. Should also be restricted to Pistols and Revolvers as there's no real reason someone needs to own an AK47, well not an "active" one anyways, I'd be fine with having the firing mechanics removed for those who just like the look of an AK or a Tommy Gun.

I see no reason to restrict it since I would doubt most people commit crimes with guns they obtained legally so removing the 2nd amendment wouldn't really do anything to deter gun crimes.

 

[Jegsimmons]

I am against the idea that anyone can get a weapon that can kill so easily. I think it does more harm than good.

damn it...im going to have to put up statistics...and i didnt want to today...

on average about 10K americans are murdered, 60% are with firearms.
a reported 2 million people report useing a gun in self defense, and about another estimated 2 million (give or take) go unreported totaling up somewhere between 3-4 million people saved by a firearm, most without fireing a shot.

also, illegally acquired guns used by gangs, cartels, ect are responsible for most of the fire arm murders. so.....yeah, go second amendment.

 

[x-machina]

I think that any weapons you can easily conceal should be banned. I really don't see the legal purpose of a handgun.

 

[Terminate421]

I am quite surprised by the amount of people against the second amendment.

There are morons but I'd rather have a gun and not need one than need one and not have one.

Personally, If I had a gun, I'd prefer to have my current favorite gun. (The SCAR assault rifle). It may sound messed up to have an assault rifle, but hey, I like that gun (And not because of Modern Warfare.)

 

[NeonWraith]

The bit that bothers me about this is that hardly anyone ever seems to quote the full amendment. The part that seems exceedingly relevant to these arguements. Specifically:

As passed by the Congress:

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. (emphasis mine)

Now, while I don't claim to know the mindset of the people that wrote it, it would seem to imply that they're all for weapons, provided there's a structure for it, not just allowing any random passerby to own one.

Just my thoughts on the matter, mind.

 

[teqrevisited]

I agree with it and I wish the UK adopted it. Just because guns are illegal to own doesn't mean that a determined individual / organization wont get their hands on them, and if homeowners had guns to defend themselves with some smaller crimes might end up being prevented.

I'm no expert on this, I just like the idea of burglars getting shot.

 

[gbemery]

Seeing as the average response time for a police officer to get to my house after I have dialed 911 is approximately anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes I would have to say I support the right to have guns. If someone breaks into my house at night they most likely have the intentions of doing harm, or else they would try to break in at a time when they think no one would be home. If they want to do harm then 10 minutes is a long fucking time to be left with them even less than 5 minutes is enough time for them to find you and harm you. So yes I support my right to defend myself, my family and my property.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I don't really like guns but that doesn't mean that i would want to take that right away from the people of this country.

 

[Brent Baker]

In the U.S. (where I live) there are thorough background checks in place to prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. There are also several mandatory gun safety classes that must be attended to obtain firearms. The only thing a ban would do is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes because they know that they're the only people with guns. Most mass shootings take place in "gun-free" areas such as schools and parks. The more people that have guns the less likely criminals are to commit crimes because they don't know who is and who isn't armed. Those are the FACTS.

 

[Howard.Murdock]

in the U.K. you're on an island. Its pretty damn easy to patrol your borders, and ensure nobody brings in any guns to sell on the streets.

Here? Hey, look at that. We have Mexico right to the south of us, and Canada to the north of us...

Wow. Good to know we've got the U.S. terrified of the Great White North, the nation that's A: Had your back for just shy of two centuries, and B: Is made up of pacifists. Fear our great beaver legions.

Canada is actually probably the best example of how a gun-less U.S. would look. We still have long arms available for hunting and animal control in areas like Northern Ontario (without rifles, bears become a pretty serious issue). That said, we have no assault rifles up here. Do people smuggle them in from time to time? Yeah, mostly through the States. And when they do, we've got a way to throw people like the Hell's Angels in prision (they've already broken the law by possessing illegal weapons, we don't need to wait for them to kill someone now). More than once Hell's Angel's clubs in Montreal have been broken entirely by possession arrests.

As to the original question, the second ammendment actually reads as thus (going with the version ratified by the states): "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." Huh. I wasn't aware that a guy in the 7/11 with an AK-47 demanding the money behind the counter was a "...well regulated militia". Learn something new every day.

Arthur Kellermann, one of the leading experts on gun violence in the United States, released a pair of studies, one in the late eighties and one in 1993, both of which showed that guns in the home are significantly more likely to kill or injure a family member than they are to injure a criminal (owning a gun actually increases the likelihood of death within your own home by 2.7 times). These figures have been challenged, and then confirmed by more than one independant study since then.

In terms of keeping the Russians away, the Russians had no real desire to attack America directly. Europe was the real goal of Russia, had they been able to fulfil their territorial desires, and had been for centuries before the Communist Revolution ever occured. Does that mean that they would never have attacked America should they have managed to take Europe (somehow)? Probably not, but such a bloody war against the military power of the U.S., before even taking the nuclear option into account, made any war against the United States a lot less attractive than one against somewhere like Afghanist... Oh yeah, that didn't go so well for them either, and Afghanistan didn't really even HAVE a military. Huh. Yup. I'm sure it was the civilian population that left the Russians quaking in their boots.

 

[Warlord211]

Even if you think you will handle it responsibly there is no saying everyone will. How many shootings have been in America compared to Australia? I feel so much better not having guns in Australia because nobody having weapons is a lot safer then everyone having weapons.
Off topic (Kind of): If you were getting mugged, and new you were in no serious danger as long as you gave over your money, would you shoot the person doing it?

In that question you are only giving us two choices. To kill the guy or give my money to him. In an actual situation like that, there would be way more choices than: I'm gonna shoot him even though I'm not technically threatened or I'm just gonna give him my money to avoid trouble. If you had a gun you could easily just take it out and tell him to gtfo.

Also, I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that I can protect myself if need be because I have a gun in my nightstand.

I would feel a lot more nervous knowing everyone else has a gun at their nightstand.
Kind off unrelated but I know the guy who made gun laws tougher in Australia after his family was killed.

Why wouldn't you feel safe? Most people are not psychopaths so they more than likely won't try to kill you, unless you are in some deep shit. Of course I can understand how some people have bad experiences with guns but just because the few have had bad things happen it does not mean that you should take the guns away from the people who will only use them to protect themselves and their families.

 

[jackdaniel0001]

Or there could be a third option, where guns (including assault weapons) are legal for purchase, but is incredibly well regulated: i.e

1) mandatory ballistic testing/mandatory 6 month police check (make sure you still have the weapon).
2) highly regulated ammo sales for assault weapons, some sort of quota, and can only be purchased through police/military stores.
3) Some sort of obligatory public service, like civil defense or something if you have assault rifle.
4) Concealed/Assault weapons licenses be public information that can be searched by anyone (unless a court let you opt out of it for special cases)

Shotguns and Hunting rifles should be exempted tho.

 

[Kurtiss Penman]

"I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto

I'm a gun owner and have been shooting sense I was around 10 and have been hunting from 14 and I'm 24 now and I have a problem with people that just don't want people to have guns at all, I'm fine if someone doesn't like them and stuff like that, but I get tiffed when you have people that want them banned and gone and most of the people like that (at least people that I know) really have no idea how you go about getting one, using, cleaning, being registered when you buy one and so forth, they mostly think it's like GTA, in all honestly when was the last time the Crips or any other gang walked into a Bob Words and bought a bunch of Glocks?
Most guns used in violent crimes are illegally owned. My self I have an XDm in 45 for carry (With a permit that HAD to be registered with a state "MT" sheriff and have to have proof of firearms safety and handling) and a few rifles for hunting and every time you casually say that you are a gun owner of if someone asks you in conversation it seems that people think of you as a bad guy and start up with the "everything would be so much safer without them and need total gun control" line and I like to use this quote explain it,
"Gun Control is the theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." and I also point out that even if you take guns away from good law abiding people guns will still be owned illegally.
I live in the US and one of the best parts of it is you can think what you want and not be ashamed about it but remember it's your opinion, don't force it upon others. and as for fully automatic weapons I have fired quite a few and own one that was an inheritance from my grandfather and I do have the legal tax stamp that allows me to own it legally and to be honest, it sucks, simple as that cause you really can't hit crap with it, it's fun to make noise at the range but in real life it's kinda useless.

That's my two cents about it.

 

[zehydra]

I am in favor of the right to bear arms, mainly because it allows for a power monopoly should things one day go south.

The military doesn't serve the people, nor the country. It serves the government that's in power.

If the government stops serving the people, then we should have good reason to be afraid.

 

[kjrubberducky]

I came across a very interesting article a little while ago; here's the link for anyone who's curious: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/21/496931/-Why-Liberals-Should-Love-The-Second-Amendment?detail=hide

I personally think that, barring weapons of mass destruction, and maybe exploding ordinance, all weapons should be legal to US citizens. And although I think weapon registration is a must, all the fees, waiting periods, and restrictions are very excessive; politicians are covering the whole thing with so much red tape, in the hopes that people will give up before they can get their firearm.

Also, shouldn't this be on the Politics board?

 

[Vivi22]

I have no issue with people having access to owning firearms for hunting, personal defense or recreational purposes. However, ownership should not just be freely granted to anyone who can afford a gun. There should be mandatory safety and marksmanship training, as well as retesting every so many years. Too many people die or are injured accidentally because some idiot didn't have the proper level of knowledge or respect for the weapon they own. I would also be in favour of those looking to carry a smaller firearm for self-defense purposes be required to get training in how to react in situations where they may need to use it. Most people are not prepared for the sort of pressure and stress they're under in the heat of the moment when they have to defend themselves and that's when things can go wrong. Even highly trained police and military officers have made mistakes when things get hairy, and they're trained for these things. Any civilian who wants to carry a weapon with them while they're out getting groceries should be receiving at least some training as well.

I'll also add that I see no need for any civilian to own assault weapons. There is no practical reason to own one. Even if the military turned on the people tomorrow an assault rifle will not save your ass, and you are not going to be some sort of a rebel hero winning out over a better equipped military force in traditional armed combat.

 

[Warlord211]

Why wouldn't you feel safe? Most people are not psychopaths so they more than likely won't try to kill you, unless you are in some deep shit. Of course I can understand how some people have bad experiences with guns but just because the few have had bad things happen it does not mean that you should take the guns away from the people who will only use them to protect themselves and their families.

You don't have to be a psychopath to commit murder. Sometimes something could just set you over the top and escalate the situation to violence. If there's a gun present, well, heat of the moment you know?

I don't really care about the second amendment, since I'm not American. I don't really understand the gun culture thing either.

I do know that if they implemented a similar system in Australia I'd probably consider moving, because I personally don't like the idea that anybody can obtain a gun so easily.

As I said in my other comment, unless the person is a psychopath or you are in deep shit, you most likely will not be shot. I never said only psychopaths kill people. That would be ridiculous. In fact, most people that kill other people are not psychopaths. And its not like in America anyone can buy a gun. You cannot have any prior criminal offenses, you have to be at least 18 and there is a waiting period.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

HELLS YEAH! Guns are awesome and they should totally be available to the general public!