Blue_vision said:You shouldn't be able to walk down the street and have a gun with you. I could accept a handgun or shotgun at home or a small collection at a gun range, but both guns and owners would need to have a complete licensing and screening process, while individuals with a firearm inventory over a certain threshold automatically get put on a special watch list. All this, and it is illegal to carry a loaded gun with you off your property or any other licensed area.
Goddamnit, I'm getting tired of this nonsense.Dwarfman said:I have no problem with someone owning a gun for home defence, sporting or rural purposes.
I do and will draw the line with have automatic
What the hell does that even mean? Most rifles used by snipers are modified versions of hunting rifles, and pretty much all other guns are select fire(the aformentioned illegal to own guns) and you(yet again) cannot get any of the larger guns used by the military without a class III.Dwarfman said:and military grade rifles,
And what capacity are you talking about? 8 rounds instead of 5? Or do you mean drum mags, which I'm fairly certain are illegal for civilians unless you manage to get government approval.Dwarfman said:semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols above a certain ammo capacity.
And that's totally why the manufacturers who made em either sell the damn things to civilians or have civilian versions readily available to steal your hard earned money.Dwarfman said:Such items were never intended for a civilian population.
I may not need a AR-15(an M16 is illegal to own without a class III) for home defence, but I can damn sure hunt with it. As far as the Glock goes, I'd like to see what your suggestions for home defence are as opposed to an accurate, reliable pistol.Dwarfman said:I mean seriously folks you don't need a glock or M-16 to defend your home with!
Win.ravenshrike said:SantoUno said:I believe they should be outright banned for citizens.
Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?
Only law enforcement and government officials who are typically required to carry them should be allowed to use them.
And before anyone tries to respond with scenarios of rising crime and black market operations to acquire firearms, well they woouldn't be able to do much without firearms, especially when the law enforcement tracking them down does.Not to mention the fact that Prohibition worked oh so well.The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them. - Moshe Ben-David
This depends largely on your interpretation. The right to bear arms might apply to the militia for example (I.E. the National Guard) for example. That is the beauty of the the amendment: it is concrete enough that we know what it basically means but it lacks the specific information necessary to apply it universally. After all, in it's entirety it 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.".mb16 said:i heard that the second amendment was only for the USA's ARMY to have the right to be armed not its citizens.Smagmuck_ said:I believe that if you are competent enough and have the maturity enough, then you should be able to buy a gun.Well, states side the second amendment only exists so that the citizens could fight the government if it had gotten too powerful and began to dissolve any rights. Oh, and home defense and hunting help too.SantoUno said:Honestly, when does a citizen need a firearm?![]()
I think guns are great - but only for me. I think I should have all the guns, and other people shouldn't have any.gamerguy473 said:what is the general belief here on the Escapist about guns?
Two words:The Maddest March Hare said:Ban all types of weapons for anything other than display purposes (e.g. Display swords on walls) but beyond that there is just no good reason for them to be legal.
That's the issue I have with guns too. Also, I think the use of weapons in martial arts could be restricted to the learning environments of where they train, at least up until a certain level of mastery (however that art may rank it) is reached. Martial arts also train discipline and respect for fighting, so someone who has dedicated themselves to it is often less likely to snap and kill someone that wasn't the aggressor. Or at least I'd hope that's the case.CrystalShadow said:What about traditional martial arts? Many of those involve weapons...
You don't need for instance, a sword with a proper edge on it, but the requirements for one that can be used in martial arts practice are still quite different to those that are suitable for display.
Personally, I don't like guns. It's just too easy to kill someone with a gun, and too difficult to protect yourself from one.
Any melee weapon, you stand a reasonable chance of running away. And even the injuries aren't nessesarily that bad in a lot of cases.
But with a gun, that changes quite quickly.
I'd much rather be facing a psycho with a sword than one with a gun.
I think I should elaborate my first post slightly, I was tired so I missed out "civilian", I believe that law enforcement should have some form of threat to make people respect their authority a little more. Although as a few recent threads have shown, give an officer a gun and he can be just as irresponsible as a civilian, such as the whittler shooting. 8 or so second warning and then 5 shots on a harmless man..JakeTheSnakeMan said:Exactly my thoughts. With maybe the exception of law enforcement. Tazers work quite well.
You make a compelling argument..austin9993 said:Two words:
Zombie Attack.