Yes. Simply so when the US military falls to pieces(assuming the nation is falling apart, invaded, etc), the American people can defend themselves.
Gun control is a must though.
Gun control is a must though.
Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Trippy Turtle said:
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 don't like guns, myself, but I like the idea of making them illegal even less. The US has a rather poor track record in regards to taking away rights (see: Prohibition). The common quote that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" seems pretty inevitable.
Canadian here, I believe that it is a privilege to own a firearm, not a right. I'll bear arms and arm bears respectively if Canada should need me to. Or if I eventually go hunting. I'll never own an automatic weapon though.
[sub]I would totally own a tank but not with the guns working <.<[/sub]
[sub]I would totally own a tank but not with the guns working <.<[/sub]
if you outlaw firearms you acomplish nothing becauce a firearm is just a tool for example a hammer doesnt build anything by itself and a gun wont kill somebody by itself the cause for people to use them cannot be removed from society, spouces cheating, legal issues, or any other reason cannot be taken from society
there was a place in japan that outlad firearms completly and the homicide rates stayed the same now here my question you are going to rob a bank in 2 differant searios 1. you are the only one in the bank with a gun because they have been outlawed 2.every single person in that bank is packing and some probably with a bigger gun then you. which situation would crime most likely occur in. so if everybody has a gun a large number of people would be scared off from commiting crimes
there was a place in japan that outlad firearms completly and the homicide rates stayed the same now here my question you are going to rob a bank in 2 differant searios 1. you are the only one in the bank with a gun because they have been outlawed 2.every single person in that bank is packing and some probably with a bigger gun then you. which situation would crime most likely occur in. so if everybody has a gun a large number of people would be scared off from commiting crimes
I think it's a mistake to say they were less deadly. While a Revolutionary Era musket wouldn't stand up to even your most basic modern "juniors" rifle, we also have much more advanced medicine. A single bullet wound to a non-vital area could give you a lethal infection. Nowadays, infections are easily prevented with antibiotics. Bullet wound for bullet wound, Revolutionary Era bullets win. We've just gotten much speedier and accurate with our bullets. Also, some ammunition can leave holes the size of a grapefruit in a person...So it's not really cut and dry.SL33TBL1ND said:
I think there should be regulated access to firearms, as I'm sure most people do. Some parts of the wilderness in the U.S. are just plain scary without a firearm, like Detroit. OH BURN!
Also, gun manufacturing is a big business in the U.S., wouldn't want upset the Economy.
I'm by no stretch of the imagination a patriot, but there are certain instances where I can almost proudly state at least I don't live there/were not as bad as those guys. Guns are illegal in the UK and we have very minimal rates of gun crime. I like it that way.
the right to bear arms is the only physical check that the people have against the government, so i think that i should definetly have the right to bear arms. i own an SKS, Five-seveN, and a Ruger .22 and while its not integral to my survival that i own them and im certainly not going a rampage with these weapons anytime soon, i think that its a right of the people to check the government into place should need to. idk why everyone hates on guns these days, im not hurting you one bi by owning these weapons, its the people that are either a) psychotic and shouldnt have the weapon anyway or b) uneducated about firearms and are likely to get their finger blown off that give us all a bad rap. most of the people who own firearms never EVER intend on using them on human beings and most weapons in the U.S. at least dont, so i dont know why you feel the need to take it away from me. and anyway "an armed society is a polite society" 
I think the point of the amendment has been rendered obsolete with the growing rift between military and civilian.
At the time, a militia man wasn't that far off from a soldier, but now the training and weaponry makes them worlds apart, and then there's the sheer size of the US standing military. Arming yourself against the government would just get you wtfpwn'd.
However, at this point the US is so saturated with firearms that taking away the right to bear arms now would achieve very little as there are plenty of illegal weapons circulating to arm every criminal who wants to get one.
If you have the floodgates open for two centuries, you can't just close them and expect noone to get wet.
At the time, a militia man wasn't that far off from a soldier, but now the training and weaponry makes them worlds apart, and then there's the sheer size of the US standing military. Arming yourself against the government would just get you wtfpwn'd.
However, at this point the US is so saturated with firearms that taking away the right to bear arms now would achieve very little as there are plenty of illegal weapons circulating to arm every criminal who wants to get one.
If you have the floodgates open for two centuries, you can't just close them and expect noone to get wet.
Yeah, banning the sale and possession of guns in a country (I live in the U.S.) which practically worships them is most definitely not going to reduce gun related crime.
The people who are committing these crimes are typically gang-bangers who likely get their weapons illegally in the first place.
It's probably just going to prevent responsible enthusiasts from being able to have them, while giving organized crime another reason to buy from the black market.
Not that I'm against the idea of trying to reduce the amount of firearms here, but I don't think that outright banning them would be as effective as many people tend to imagine it would be.
The people who are committing these crimes are typically gang-bangers who likely get their weapons illegally in the first place.
It's probably just going to prevent responsible enthusiasts from being able to have them, while giving organized crime another reason to buy from the black market.
Not that I'm against the idea of trying to reduce the amount of firearms here, but I don't think that outright banning them would be as effective as many people tend to imagine it would be.
Absolutely without question I fully support the right to own and carry firearms.
I also say this as someone who has been shot twice and was literally 6 inches away from being murdered, Had it not been for a gun I WOULD be dead right now.
I am however in favor of logical screening (criminals, psychos, etc) and registered ownership). You register your vehicle, theres nothing wrong with expecting to register, and be held accountable for your weapons.
I also say this as someone who has been shot twice and was literally 6 inches away from being murdered, Had it not been for a gun I WOULD be dead right now.
viranimus said:
I am however in favor of logical screening (criminals, psychos, etc) and registered ownership). You register your vehicle, theres nothing wrong with expecting to register, and be held accountable for your weapons.
i agree and dont forget america is a much more spread out country then any european countries so there a lot more places for funs to be used for hunting or sport which is what most fifles are used for in the US and hand guns are for sport as well but most gun crimes are commited with a handgun that is why they are a little harder to obtainstutheninja said:the right to bear arms is the only physical check that the people have against the government, so i think that i should definetly have the right to bear arms. i own an SKS, Five-seveN, and a Ruger .22 and while its not integral to my survival that i own them and im certainly not going a rampage with these weapons anytime soon, i think that its a right of the people to check the government into place should need to. idk why everyone hates on guns these days, im not hurting you one bi by owning these weapons, its the people that are either a) psychotic and shouldnt have the weapon anyway or b) uneducated about firearms and are likely to get their finger blown off that give us all a bad rap. most of the people who own firearms never EVER intend on using them on human beings and most weapons in the U.S. at least dont, so i dont know why you feel the need to take it away from me. and anyway "an armed society is a polite society"
I take it what your saying is that if guns were made legal in the UK that crime would not increase? If that's what your trying to convey, I say that is bullshit. This is one of the rare situations where I would say the term 'don't fix what ain't broke' would apply. We don't have much of a problem with gun crime in this country and we don't need to create problems. Introducing guns at this stage would only serve to exacerbate our crime rates.ROTMASTER said:
damn, i WAS gonna say that i have too many bear arms and ask if anyone knew where to find a bear arm rack.Meatramen said:I think Family Guy said it the best...
The right to hang a couple of bear arms on the wall!
how, what would it change in the population itself giving a person a gun doesnt turn them into a criminal, and giving a person who going to murder somebody with a knife, makes you irresponsible and him just more efficient, the introduction of firearms sould not change the crime rate to any noticable amount because giving a man a hammer does not make him a carpenter and giving a man a gun doesnt make him a murdererOmniscientOstrich said:
I feel like it's important for the development of any country for there to be consolidated control of the military, and part of that means making sure armed militias do not start using violence to control any economic or political organizations. Armed Militias were certainly important during the 18th and 19th century due to the government's inability to properly protect its citizens but I feel like nowadays that is less of a problem. Really, I believe that allowing citizens to arm themselves is only leads to trouble. It works now because the military is so powerful it can control any groups that try to use violence to increase their own benefit but the question becomes what will happen when we eventually cut down on military spending and citizens are still armed? The government will be unable to protect its citizens and the system will break down.