Poll: What is your stance on Guns?

[ReverendJ]

I'm just going to say that it's a lot harder for a despotic regime to subjugate an armed populace. Of course, that went right out the window when we started limiting civilians to semiautomatic pistols and the like, so... eh, whatever.

 

[loc978]

I have a bit of a gun collection myself (and a concealed carry permit), and I'm actually for a form of gun control that requires licensing to own firearms. The second amendment was for an earlier time, when cities the size we have now simply didn't exist... and a vast majority of people back then grew up around firearms.
Now, things are different. Inner-city populations are mostly timid and sheltered, many people are raised with an irrational fear of guns. It would take decades of mandatory firearms education to change that... so I say if you wanna own a firearm, go take a class. Learn how to use it, what you're allowed by law to do with it, and get a nice little laminated license for it... then you can buy it.

This is typical of liberal thinking. I have gun and you can't. You can't be trusted to have a gun. No minority should have firearms and so on. Only the elite and people in power should be allow to have guns.

The thing about rights is that the government can't decide who can have guns or not. Who can talk freely or not. Who can vote or not.

so... are you against requiring a driver's license for people to drive legally? Would it surprise you to know that I would love to abolish the C class licence in the US, instead requiring B class racing and commercial licenses and a motorcycle endorsement before allowing anyone to drive? Also, that I'm against any form of seatbelt law anywhere off of a racetrack?

Also, it's a fairly typical conservative view to value blind confidence over technical competence (also, in my experience, the financial elite are the least likely to qualify for any license I would issue. Technical competence is very much out of vogue with them). I wish people could be trusted to operate dangerous tools and machinery without having to prove they're not incompetent... but down that road lies the bodies of innocent bystanders. Law exists to protect us from one another, so that's where I would draw the line.

 

[Rex Fallout]

The military is both the government's strongest weapon, and greatest threat.

Who is in the army? People, and people will question the things that government are making them do.

Anyway, even if that was not the case, do you really think group of average people will have any chance against miltary units?

You have obviously never read much on history. The military is trained to NOT question orders. Because if when you are under the line of fire you start to question orders people die. Several people might stop and rebel against the military but the majority would still stand.

A group of average people won the American revolution. Those were farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, sailors, ranchers and couriers. Not soldiers. And they won. Even if they hadn't, at least in that situation, the people have a fighting chance.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The military is both the government's strongest weapon, and greatest threat.

Who is in the army? People, and people will question the things that government are making them do.

Anyway, even if that was not the case, do you really think group of average people will have any chance against miltary units?

You have obviously never read much on history. The military is trained to NOT question orders. Because if when you are under the line of fire you start to question orders people die. Several people might stop and rebel against the military but the majority would still stand.

A group of average people won the American revolution. Those were farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, sailors, ranchers and couriers. Not soldiers. And they won. Even if they hadn't, at least in that situation, the people have a fighting chance.

I concede the first point, you're right, I'm just slightly optimistic in the idea that if a soldier is told to shoot members of his own country, he would wonder why.

The American Revolution was only relevant at that time.

The military have far more toys than civillians now than they did 300 years ago, like semi-automatic weapons, and tanks, and planes, and bombs.

 

[Rex Fallout]

You have obviously never read much on history. The military is trained to NOT question orders. Because if when you are under the line of fire you start to question orders people die. Several people might stop and rebel against the military but the majority would still stand.

A group of average people won the American revolution. Those were farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, sailors, ranchers and couriers. Not soldiers. And they won. Even if they hadn't, at least in that situation, the people have a fighting chance.

I concede the first point, you're right, I'm just slightly optimistic in the idea that if a soldier is told to shoot members of his own country, he would wonder why.

The American Revolution was only relevant at that time.

The military have far more toys than civillians now than they did 300 years ago, like semi-automatic weapons, and tanks, and planes, and bombs.[/quote]

I'd hope the soldiers would too but history says that the majority wouldn't.

And you have never been to the west have you? The central states like Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma etc? Because I know many people who have all those things, except the tanks planes and bombs, (which wouldn't be used do to property damage that would accumulate in battle.) I know people with fully automatic machine guns... and before you say anything, no they aren't crazy.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

You have obviously never read much on history. The military is trained to NOT question orders. Because if when you are under the line of fire you start to question orders people die. Several people might stop and rebel against the military but the majority would still stand.

A group of average people won the American revolution. Those were farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, sailors, ranchers and couriers. Not soldiers. And they won. Even if they hadn't, at least in that situation, the people have a fighting chance.

I concede the first point, you're right, I'm just slightly optimistic in the idea that if a soldier is told to shoot members of his own country, he would wonder why.

The American Revolution was only relevant at that time.

The military have far more toys than civillians now than they did 300 years ago, like semi-automatic weapons, and tanks, and planes, and bombs.

I'd hope the soldiers would too but history says that the majority wouldn't.

And you have never been to the west have you? The central states like Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma etc? Because I know many people who have all those things, except the tanks planes and bombs, (which wouldn't be used do to property damage that would accumulate in battle.) I know people with fully automatic machine guns... and before you say anything, no they aren't crazy.[/quote]

Even if that is the case, they're going to be at far larger disadvantage. Sure, they'd put up a fight, but I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Even if that is the case, they're going to be at far larger disadvantage. Sure, they'd put up a fight, but I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference.

I guess you're just one of the people that are willing to be pushed around and told what to do. If that is the case, I just ask that you not stand in the way of those of us who are willing to die for what we believe in.

And the American Revolution is hardly irrelevant. Whether you said that because of patriotism or whatever, the factual story about a small group of colonies defeating the strongest nation in the world then becoming one of the richest most powerful nations in human history is relevant whether you admit it to be so- or not.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Even if that is the case, they're going to be at far larger disadvantage. Sure, they'd put up a fight, but I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference.

I guess you're just one of the people that are willing to be pushed around and told what to do. If that is the case, I just ask that you not stand in the way of those of us who are willing to die for what we believe in.

And the American Revolution is hardly irrelevant. Whether you said that because of patriotism or whatever, the factual story about a small group of colonies defeating the strongest nation in the world then becoming one of the richest most powerful nations in human history is relevant whether you admit it to be so- or not.

In regards to the Revolution, the colony didn't exactly defeat the British. The French did.

In a situation without them, the American colonies would never have stood a chance.

And I never said fighting your government is a bad thing, I would do the same thing, but remember, this is America were talking about. The country with the worlds largest military? Civillians wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Kurokami]

We Americans get a lot of flack for allowing guns for self defense,is it deserved? I don't have any children so I'm in no danger of them playing with it, so I could keep one, I don't. I don't want to kill someone, and if someone breaks into my apartment to steal something I'll just hit them in the head with something. The self defense theory is rather contradictory, more crimes are committed with a gun than stopped with a gun, or at least it seems that way to me.

What do you think?

Edit Editing the poll doesn't work, sorry guys
Edit 2: I live in North Carolina and I don't use a gun, and neither does any part of my family so some stereotypes are false

If someone who has likely already contemplated the possibility of having to kill or at the very least harm another person when trespassing breaks into your home, most probably armed with something for the occasion, a knife if not a gun, your plan is to hit them over the head with something.

I'm gonna assume you're built something like Michael Clark Duncan, but lets assume the situation was reversed as it would be for most, people should what? Run away? Most likely, though you will seldom have the opportunity in a small house and to be frank, why should you? Rolling over to your shelf drawer is probably easier.

Personally I agree, guns shouldn't be available to just anyone. A tazer would be much more appropriate and far less easy to abuse. Alternatively I'm in favor of setting up elaborate traps all around your home.

(In case you don't know who Michael Clarke Duncan is, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003817/ that guy's the shit)

 

[Rex Fallout]

In regards to the Revolution, the colony didn't exactly defeat the British. The French did.

In a situation without them, the American colonies would never have stood a chance.

And I never said fighting your government is a bad thing, I would do the same thing, but remember, this is America were talking about. The country with the worlds largest military? Civillians wouldn't stand a chance.

You do not know history, the Colonies did 90% of the fighting before the French showed up. They HELPED, don't get me wrong, but they only decided to do that once they were sure we were the side that was more likely to win. Without them there would have been a naval blockade of the colonies and we would have been forced to expand west sooner.

Each state has its own militia which has all the equipment that the military has, (or at least that equipment is made available to it.) not to mention the National Guard which is usually very faithful to their own home states. We would not be completely unarmed at all. You also fail to realize Nukes, bombs, tanks, etc would probably no be used. After all after the government defeats the rebels, they still want to use their land, and having burned it to the ground in a fire bombing would cost quite a bit to fix after the war.

 

[SadakoMoose]

Freedom from want, Freedom of Speech, Freedom from fear, Freedom of worship or even lack thereof
These are the four freedoms that all men, women, and children should be able to have.
The gun is just one of many tools to protect and gain these freedoms.
Fight for freedom, where ever you go.
From Burma, to Indonesia, to the PRC, to the Xinjiang Uigher Region, even down to the American south.
If you rights are at stake, fight for them.
Back in the 50's and 60's, do you know what the NRA was doing?
It was setting up Black Chapters of their organization in the South, and supporting anti klan legislature.
They were founded by Union soldiers after the Civil War, and set themselves up initially as the mortal enemies of the klan.
While now it may be just another Lobbying group, it's original ideals related to the longstanding use of the gun in American history to ensure freedom and prevent totalitarianism and oppression.
I can't say that guns are always the solution. Nor can I say that they are the only part of progressive political movement and change.
However, the ability to defend one's self and ideals is tantamount to living in a strong and healthy democracy.
No one can take your freedom away without a fight.

 

[SilentCom]

I say no guns. I don't trust the average person to know when it would be necessary, if there is such a time; and even intelligent people could make mistakes. They are much more potential trouble than they are potential solutions.
I would say law enforcement should have firearms, but if so they should be counted and checked back into a secure armory at the end of a shift; and I think this would just increase the risk of someone breaking into police stations for firearms with everyone defenseless. It's probably safer to have everyone on equal footing. Give the cops stunguns if you think they need them, whatever.

Considering you live in America, you should know that many "average-looking" people walking the streets probably do carry a concealed gun... Also, so many potential problems can be resolved with firearms.

Law enforcement already carry guns on themselves, they even store shotguns in the trunk of their patrol cars... As a matter of fact, law enforcement are issued even stronger, often automatic weaponry when the shit hits the fan (S.W.A.T.). Oh yes, one more things, breaking into the police station where a bunch of well trained and well armed officers who have authority to shoot you dead if you attempt robbery and violence to get to their armory is a really stupid idea. Even breaking into a gunshop isn't that smart, seeing that many gunshop owners are packing as well.

I am fully aware that many people carry guns, I am also aware that many people are total f*cking idiots, and therefor I don't think they should be carrying guns.
Also, to reiterate: people are idiots, and therefor whether or not it is a good idea to break into a police armory, there are those who have tried and will try in the future. This not only puts stress on police to take proper security measures and have guards (who could be out policing), but also increases the chances that at least one of several attempts will succeed, and that's all it takes for a messed up person to take advantage of the weapons he has gained.
And as far as my knowledge of guns extends, they only have one function: to end a person's life. They are not tools, they do not improve your quality of life or ease daily work or contribute anything to society other than the ability to end the life of another human being; which should not be a power placed in the hands of the public, if it should even be given to anyone at all.

No offense but much of what you have stated is completely ignorant. For one, there will be police at the police station because it's a bloody police station. They're not going to leave it empty, they will have people working the offices and guarding the cells. They don't usually have people just standing there guarding the armory. It would be much easier for "idiot people" to obtain a gun via black market. Trying to rob a police station is about as stupid as playing russian roulette with a magazine loaded pistol (guaranteed dead).

Also, not everyone is an idiot with a gun and not everyone is an idiot plain. Assuming human beings are all complete sh!t brains is stupid in itself. We'd all be extinct if we were that stupid.

Lastly, guns are in fact tools. Not all guns are designed to kill people. Many guns are designed for hunting or sports shooting. Sure, they can still kill people, but guess what? Many things can kill people even though they aren't designed for it. Look at knives, cars, or the human hand/arm for example. Guns have done people a lot of good, not just protecting against other people but from animals as well. Much of the American Frontier was tamed through use of firearms. Without guns, frontiersmen and explorers really wouldn't have been able to brave the wilderness. There are strict laws in the U.S. that prevents dumbasses and criminals from having guns, if they do happen to get their hands on them, they are the only ones to blame when shit happens, not the tool. Yes, you can make the stupid argument that the crimes wouldn't of happen if there weren't guns but arguably, they would, just without guns. You can't blame the tool, only the person using it for doing something bad.