Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.

[Nunny]

Double post.

History has shown that an armed populas has no chance agaisnt its own governments military force. What makes you think that a much of civilians will be successful?

Uh what? The Revolutionary War would like to have a word with you my friend.
OP: Most, if not all of my arguments here have already been stated. I am all for having an armed populace to protect us from criminals and the government.

A bit late but the revolutionary war wasnt fought by civilians but rather a Militia force and a Regular army created within the first year of the war.

Double post.

History has shown that an armed populas has no chance agaisnt its own governments military force. What makes you think that a much of civilians will be successful?

The whole insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to say otherwise. Just saying.

Would they fair the same if fighting the old regimes rather then a Foreign power?

 

[ArcWinter]

No guns.

All the time, anywhere. You wanna be a dick and kill someone, or you are defending yourself against one of the aforementioned dicks, learn how to use a katana. That takes skill, unlike guns.

And thus crime is solved forever, whoopee!

 

[bigolbear]

civilians should have access to all the equipment their army does.

Obviously they may need to take training courses and hold licences and such.

I think this its very important because no matter what a eventualy there will be criminals with weapons, and eventualy there will be corupt governments - history has a great way of repeating itself. Its important to allow the posibility for every free person to fend for themselves when the shit hits the fan, as well as trying to stop it from ever happening.

There right to bear arms is one of the few things i have respect for america for.

There are too many governments in 'power' and not enough in 'service' or 'office'.

 

[michael_ab]

I think it would be more interesting if civilians had to use flint-lock guns instead of magazine-fed modern handguns.
It could lead to some hilarity.
And robbing banks would become harder. loading time would be a *****.

BLAM

THIS IS A HOLDUP!!

umm?? with what?

oh yeah... just... umm... just a sec longer...

youre under arrest

FUCK

 

[mklnjbh]

I think it would be more interesting if civilians had to use flint-lock guns instead of magazine-fed modern handguns.
It could lead to some hilarity.
And robbing banks would become harder. loading time would be a *****.

I am an 18th century living history interpreter (A.K.A. American Revolutionary War Reenactor.) and I own a few Brown Besses. I shoot them at a range in addition to .22 cal, 30.06, .45 colt, etc. Reloading a musket is irritating enough, and in a pressured situation I imagine most people would freak out.

 

[benoitowns]

What kind of dumbass irresponsible parent would let their kid ever even come close to a weapon like that. Yes, it is going a bit over the top with a freaking smg in their home, within access by a retarded fucking 8 year old to shoot himself, but people should be allowed to defend themselves. Im not going to go with a stereotypical redneck apocalypse scenario or some far fetched unlikely event, but burglary and self defense is important to protect against. Redneck argument alarm: UHOH. what if those reds from the USSR come? what if theres terrorist.. what if theres a baby skull waring biker gang that goes around raping our houses, and burning our women, taking over society? what if theres ZOMBIES. what if the police are videotaped assaulting a minority and a riot comes? then you have your armor penetrating bullets, RPGs, magnums, shotguns, rifles, uzis, and bombers to keep you safe.

 

[michael_ab]

Of course not, the idea that anyone should be able to have guns and whatnot to 'protect' themselves is a stupid idea.

Why else would America have such a high gun crime rate? Cause everyone has guns, duh. Why are the gun crime rates so low in Britain? Cause NOBODY (policemen included) have guns.

Actually, gun-related violence went UP after England instituted it's gun ban. There's a saying that explains this:
"If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

If somebody puts you or your family in mortal danger, it's completely absurd to expect the police or military to arrive immediately and save you. Our 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own guns in order to defend ourselves.

theres a bit of a hiccup in that argument, im pretty sure that the 2nd was made to enable civilians firearms so more people would know how to use them and have access to them, making it far eaisier to form an impromptu army for when the english try to invade again

obvioulsly this is no longer the case, as all wars for a long time now, and likly a long time still will not be fought on home soil, and the only people allowed into the army are formerly trained individuals

in short the 2nd amendment was to enable us to defend ourselves from domestic militas, a goverment gone afoul, NOT ourselves

 

[UAProxy]

I'm american, and I see no need to own fully automatic modern weaponry, or anything more complex/powerful than a standard hunting rifle. The only things I've ever purchased for the intent of self-defense/use have been two kukris and a .44 magnum.

Yes, it's an odd and unique combination, but if I ever have to save someone's ass I'm going to look awesome doing it.

 

[quiet_samurai]

You see, the constitution is a lot like the bible. Many old things don't or shouldn't apply. The reason behind the right to bear arms was to protect yourself from english soldiers, which there are none here. If you get rid of civilian GUNS, then crime would go down significantly (except for those that import their guns or buy them from a source).

Slavery does not exist, and stoning your kids is now illegal in most countries. So why should we have the right to bear arms?

Are you fucking kidding me? You're comparing the constitution of the United States to the words of Bronze Age - Dark Age scholars? That is a historical gap of not just time but knowledge and tolerance of almost 2000 years. And owning a firearm is not even comparable to owning a slave. A slave is a living peron... a firearm is a tool. And what the hell does stoning people to death have to do with it?

But the Constitution didn't only apply to British soldiers, it applied to ALL foreign invaders and local upstarts, not to mention the possibility of our very own government becoming overbearing with power. When you control the weapons of a country, you control the people more easily.


"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
- George Washington

 

[Shynobee]

I find the whole idea of having to own a weapon stupid.
Seriously, what do you need a freaking shotgun for at home? If someone breaks into your house you're better off just calling the cops anyway.

except if you live in the ass end of nowhere and the police take upwards of 10 minutes getting to your house. Then, a gun might seem like a pretty good idea.

 

[Americow]

"What the hell is that AK-47 for son?"
"Self protection."
"What a great American!"

 

[Shynobee]

in short the 2nd amendment was to enable us to defend ourselves from domestic militas, a goverment gone afoul, NOT ourselves

BUT.... as times change, defending ourselves has also become a legitimate argument for gun ownership. Especially for those people who live in areas where this police arrive in a less than timely manner.

 

[knightguy123]

im going to go to an old saying:guns dont kill people, people kill people

 

[o0oMetalHeado0o]

You are one of those people who says "oh this one thing happened once so it will automatically escalate to be a huge problem so we should just outlaw it now" same thinghappened with games such as GTA or doom. "One person wen't on a killing spree and they happened to be a doom player, they obviously did it because of doom and these games should be outlawed." What right do you have to tell people that they can't have a gun? Even if you outlaw them there are other weapons besides guns...knives, brass knuckles, and bombs...and to tell you the truth I would rather be shot and killed instantly than suffer a stab wound or be bludgeoned to death or blown apart. You even putting forth the idea that taking away guns will reduce gun crimes is propagating false logic. Those who commit crimes are most likely not going in to get a gun liscence, they are just getting these from the "black market" or illegaly. You are one of those people who says "guns kill people". that is absurd, that is like saying "Spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat" This is a logical fallacy at its finest. Instead of wasting the governments money on enforcing strict gun laws, we should be trying harder and harder to eliminate crime, and the need for crime and guns in the first place...get to the root of the problem, not this stupid scrape-the-surface type of law. If we take away guns there will still be a problem under the surface, and there will still be anger and the disire to commit crime in the masses. These are the type of things we should be talking about, not this stupid crap

 

[Junkle]

Yes, there is a justifiable reason, at least where I live (U.S.).
First, the change over would be horrendous, though this isn't really part of the argument.
The main point is that as soon as you took away the weapons from civilians, it would make it that much easier for the criminals that were still armed with modern weapons. How easy would it be for a thief with any sort of modern pistol and a light form of body armor to rob someone if that person had a flintlock that jammed/missed every time you tried to fire?

 

[Ghengis_tron]

There is one problem, criminals already have access to thousands of illegal firearms that rival law enforcement weapons. I was watching a special on gangs in Oakland, one gang said they stay one step ahead of the police in terms of firepower, and judging by the guns they showed, they were doing a good job. Also hand guns range from $20-$60 and AKs and assault rifles at a couple hundred.

making guns like that illegal do not make them disappear as most criminals are using illegal guns to begin with.

 

[lizards]

yes taking guns away from civilians just takes civilians chance of protecting themselves away if bad people want guns i imagine half the time dont even get them from stores and if they dont have stores they will just get them from dealers

governments are armed to the teeth also why not civilians?

 

[lizards]

You are one of those people who says "oh this one thing happened once so it will automatically escalate to be a huge problem so we should just outlaw it now" same thinghappened with games such as GTA or doom. "One person wen't on a killing spree and they happened to be a doom player, they obviously did it because of doom and these games should be outlawed." What right do you have to tell people that they can't have a gun? Even if you outlaw them there are other weapons besides guns...knives, brass knuckles, and bombs...and to tell you the truth I would rather be shot and killed instantly than suffer a stab wound or be bludgeoned to death or blown apart. You even putting forth the idea that taking away guns will reduce gun crimes is propagating false logic. Those who commit crimes are most likely not going in to get a gun liscence, they are just getting these from the "black market" or illegaly. You are one of those people who says "guns kill people". that is absurd, that is like saying "Spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat" This is a logical fallacy at its finest. Instead of wasting the governments money on enforcing strict gun laws, we should be trying harder and harder to eliminate crime, and the need for crime and guns in the first place...get to the root of the problem, not this stupid scrape-the-surface type of law. If we take away guns there will still be a problem under the surface, and there will still be anger and the disire to commit crime in the masses. These are the type of things we should be talking about, not this stupid crap

2 things

1 welcome to the escapist
2 i hope you stay a while because intelligent posts like that are what we need around here

 

[Nunny]

Couldnt the "Guns are only tools" also be used to argue the ownership of Nuclear weapons and other WMD's?.... "Nuclear weapons dont kill people, people kill people"