The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Chernobyl Veteran]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes.

So exactly on what grounds are you smarter then they are? They presented over a hundred pages of history and law to support their argument what do you have besides an opinion?

So thus, we have those morons who say that it's their right to own a semi-automatic weapon.

On the contrary, I'd argue we have morons who want to deny said right which flies in the face of the fact that semi-automatic weapons are arguably the most common type. This isn't 1874; Semi-automatic weapons have become THE most popular type in the past 100 years. What are we supposed to be shooting flint locks? The local hooligans sure aren't.

I guess what we're supposed to do is call the police; but what some of you folks plain do not get, and probably never will, is that the police do not instantly materialize out of thin air. They have to get to where you are from wherever the heck YOU are and if you're lucky, you might get them in five minutes. A lot can happen in five minutes, you can die in five minutes; and that's assuming it's five minutes to begin with. In some places it could be forty minutes or MORE. Consider that; and the fact that the police have no obligation to protect you before you cry about someone else's choice to put the value of their life over that of someone illegally trying to do them harm:

http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm

Do we need guns? Most of the time probably not. But we don't need seat belts, or fire extinguishers, or insurance policies most of the time either. Guns are there for the 10% of the population that wants to harm their fellow man, if they make that choice on what moral ground do you say I have no right to use force to stop them? Why are the rights/life of someone intent on harming me MORE important then my right NOT to be harmed? I think some of you folks really do not think this thing through well enough.

 

[Kubanator]

-snip-

Why are people shooting you?

Either they are psychopaths, which shouldn't have guns in the first place, or you gave them a reason to kill you. A mugger has no motivation to kill you, because the crime of murder is far worse then mugging, and he would not benefit from shooting you. However, if you have a gun, he benefits by ensuring his safety, adding incentive to murder during a mugging.

 

[Bassman_2]

We need to stop carrying guns and carry Batarangs instead. Everybody.

 

[pdpstyle]

What about guys like me who collect and restore old rifles and pistols? Why should I not be allowed to preserve history because every once and again someone gets shot (usually by someone who does not legally have the entitlement to own their gun)Besides if we go by the "well x amount of people are killed by guns" thinking we should get rid of cars and french fries fist.

 

[TheEnglishman]

I'm against the second amedmant personally, as I don't like the idea of meeting people who have the potential to end a life in a heartbeat.

I prefer the idea of only giving guns to people who are trained to use them, know how to use them responcibly, are working to protect the people, and using them is only a part of their jobs which means they wont be a moron when they have it.

So in that category I'm glad to live in Britain. But you guys still have own the movie business.

 

[Nutcase]

I'm against the second amedmant personally, as I don't like the idea of meeting people who have the potential to end a life in a heartbeat.

Become a hermit then. Every single person you meet has the potential to end your life in a heartbeat. All it takes is a stab.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Because only officers of the state and hardened criminals deserve weapons. Cough?

Look, it's simple. No government has the right to disarm their populace unless they disarm their police force. Put simply, if PC Bob McBobbity is wandering around with a 9mm pistol then I demand the same right to wander around with one, presuming I am a law-abiding citizen of sound mind, over 21 and otherwise competent in it's use. Why? Because clearly PC McBobbity needs that firearm, and if one exists in a situation where the police need to carry firearms, then denying the right for law-abiding citizens to carry them is not only immoral, it's insane and inhumane as well.

If, however, PC McBobbity only carries a truncheon, then I should not be permited to carry a firearm. Clearly, since PC McBobbity has no need for a firearm, there is no reason for me to have one.


And to forestall any arguments made by the inexorably stupid, I am not saying that the police being armed as, say, a Armed Response Unit, is a bad thing. The fact that some criminals will get a hold of guns means that the police must have some form of armed backup. But if it gets to the state where a beat police officer (i.e. a foot or car patrol officer) has to possess a firearm to protect himself in the course of his duties, then it is wrong to argue that a citizen of the state should not possess that same right to self-protection.

I have to respectfully disagree. I understand your point but the point of the police is to deter crime with superior fire-power than what is available to the general populace. They've had to undergo rigorous training and evaluation to be accepted into their position and they therefore should be given the privilege of carrying a weapon that can cause as much harm as a gun can. That's the theory anyway and while in practise it's not always successful, considering the number of police corruption charges in the past several decades, it's better than having every citizen armed with a tool that can end a life with every single bullet in a clip (usually it'll take several bullets but the potential is there).

Don't get me wrong, if you're in a neighbourhood where gun crime is extremely high and the police will not do anything about it then your only recourse is a weapon. But that leads to criminals getting bigger guns and the problem gets exponentially worse. I think the best compromise is in Chris Rock's bit about bullet control (from the start of Bowling for Columbine if you've seen it). People would be able to keep their weapons and have it loaded in case of attack but it would be too expensive for muggers to use a gun with heavily taxed ammunition.

The annual murder statistics of the U.S. prove that the current situation is far from ideal and it's only get worse as the criminal culture is glorified in shows, movies and music. I also acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment existed for a reason but it was written in a time where there was a real danger of being killed as a casualty of war or by a wild animal so you needed the extra protection that the guns of that time offered. In the present time guns have evolved into being much more dangerous in a time that is a lot more peaceful (in general, ghettos are probably equally dangerous as those times).

I must likewise politely disagree on your assessment of police officers. A police officer is, like a soldier, a servant of the state, but he is also just another human being, given a badge and a duty to protect. In an ideal world, we'd all have the second, but that's a non-sequiteur.

However, you seem to be agreeing with my point, in practice. My argument is not that people have some intrinsic right to be armed, it is that people have the intrinsic right to protect themselves. If, thus, a police officer requires a firearm to go about his duties, it only follows that a law-abiding citizen has the right to carry one to ensure their own safety.

I have no complaints about the current situation in the UK, where police officers go unarmed, as does the general populace.

If, however, our officers were all equipped with pistols, I would damn well demand that I be allowed to own a firearm myself, and carry it to protect myself.

 

[JRslinger]

I'm against the second amedmant personally, as I don't like the idea of meeting people who have the potential to end a life in a heartbeat.

You have nothing to fear from law abiding gun owners. In all likelihood you don't know any

-snip-

Why are people shooting you?

Either they are psychopaths, which shouldn't have guns in the first place, or you gave them a reason to kill you. A mugger has no motivation to kill you, because the crime of murder is far worse then mugging, and he would not benefit from shooting you. However, if you have a gun, he benefits by ensuring his safety, adding incentive to murder during a mugging.

A mugger might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or might just be a violent person. You should have the option of using an effective tool for self defense. An armed and aware person who carries a gun may see the mugger coming and have time to draw his gun.

 

[secretsantaone]

It's laudable how the civilians of the U.S think that a 9mm could possibly protect them from jets, tanks, artillary and nukes. Even if the government was somehow conspiring to corrupt your lives in some way, there's not a thing you could do about it.

Nowadays, we have NATO and the International Monetary Fund to solve problems like that. It's time to get rid of this dated act which does nothing for the good of the people as a whole.

A mugger might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or might just be a violent person. You should have the option of using an effective tool for self defense. An armed and aware person who carries a gun may see the mugger coming and have time to draw his gun.

So, be so paranoid that everytime you step out your front door you think you might have to shoot someone? Would you shoot someone so high on drugs they barely knew what they were doing?
Come off it, muggers work by getting you whilst you're unaware, they don't make a big song and dance about it. You seem to imagine a mugging as some sort of stand-off from a western.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

I'd be more comfortable without everyone having guns. I think that goes without saying.

However

There are so many guns in America that banning them now will create a black market just like banning alcohol did. Gangs don't use legal guns. Usually they have some non-gang family member buy it and they use it. Or more commonly they get stolen ones in exchange for drugs/money. If guns are banned they will not be effected other than the prices of the weapons they get perhaps going up.

That being said shooting is a popular past time here. So many people do it, that if the law came down on gun ownership you will have immensely pissed off a shitload of crazy rednecks and decent law abiding citizens. For fuck's sake these people think the government is oppressive for wanting to do health-care, if you take their guns they'll shit bricks. Nay, not bricks, pyramids.

Not having guns might have worked in Europe because for the most part nobody there ever had any anyways. If I could have anything it would be a system where you can own a weapon if you pass courses, get licensed, and pass a psych evaluation. Unfortunately that is possibly discriminatory and doesn't change the fact that I can get an illegal gun anyways.

And let's not even go into the actual process of how the hell do you ban guns? What guns? All guns? Is it a federal or state issue? How does one even enforce this law? Do you use the military? Cops? How do you deal with the fall out of that?

Face it, we're stuck.

 

[Hybrid Sight]

As bad as it sounds, as soon as I hit 18 im getting a concealed weapon permit. If someone has a gun and shoots at/me I'm gonna make dam sure to take them with me.

 

[Chernobyl Veteran]

It's laudable how the civilians of the U.S think that a 9mm could possibly protect them from jets, tanks, artillary and nukes. Even if the government was somehow conspiring to corrupt your lives in some way, there's not a thing you could do about it.

What makes you think the entire U.S. military would robotically act in lock-step with whatever corrupt administration tried to seize power? No U.S. soldier is bound to obey illegal orders and being used on civilian targets is pretty high on that list.

Like wise you familiar with the term "Force multiplier?" The insurgency in Iraq et all doesn't have any of the things you just listed, yet they manage to bedevil a bunch of Americans with ALL those things. Half of what Speical Forces does is to train native forces to resist a common enemy. You think THOSE people have jets, tanks, artillery and nukes? You think the Pentagon would waste millions of dollars on such efforts if it wasn't damaging to the enemy?

You're also not thinking this through.The United States government is neither going to nuke or carpet bomb it's own back yard. That's even LESS realistic then an administration dumb enough to pull an Adolf in a country with hundreds of millions of guns and a severely disgruntled populace.

Nowadays, we have NATO and the International Monetary Fund to solve problems like that.

LOL. Yeah, right. If you believe that i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

It's time to get rid of this dated act which does nothing for the good of the people as a whole.

I think it does a lot of good by removing the ability of people like you to do just that. It's a pretty sad day when people so readily sell out liberty for a false guarantee of safety.
Honestly, if the good of the people is your primary concern move to Singapore. Keep your socialism off my rights.

So, be so paranoid that everytime you step out your front door you think you might have to shoot someone?

In some neighborhoods, yes, I would be. I'm also that paranoid when I'm carrying things people want to steal. I might be that paranoid on a daily basis if I were part of an unpopular minority group living in a community that hates the color of my skin, or if I were gay in the same sort of hostile area. It might interest you to know that the first gun control laws were authored by racist white people who wanted to keep weapons out of the hands of African Americans trying to defend themselves from violence. This is what you're throwing in with. You're surrendering all ability to use force to the criminal and the corrupt.

Would you shoot someone so high on drugs they barely knew what they were doing?

If he's threating my life? what makes you think I wouldn't? I don't particularly want to be stabbed or shot etc. What part of their highly voluntary decision to ingest a mind altering substance subordinates my right to be alive, unhurt and secure in my personal effects? You seem to be pushing some kind of human rights angle while ignoring that the person who chose to get high is violating mine! How high they are has nothing to do with it. Being DUI doesn't relive you of responsibility for your actions and this has been repeatedly proven in court. You are responsible for your actions under the influence.

Come off it, muggers work by getting you whilst you're unaware

Part of self-defense is learning to be aware people who carry tend to be more aware then people who emulate woolly animals chewing grass.

You seem to imagine a mugging as some sort of stand-off from a western.

Another belabored cowboy analogy, how quaint. Stand-offs are fiction, so is the idea that there are NO signs of a mugging until it's too late. People live under that delusion because they're all too frequently not paying attention to what's going on while they yammer on their cellphones or tune out reality on ipods. If you didn't see it coming you weren't minding your surroundings Bruce.

 

[Sparcrypt]

No I don't think people need training to own guns because there currently is no requirement for training to own a gun and accidents/abuse by law abiding citizens isn't really an issue anywhere in the US. Just because there is no legal requirement doesn't mean that we're a bunch of drunken irresponsible loonies. It is possible to learn things without having an authority figure teach them to you. And didn't you specify you learned how to use a gun when you were young, do overgeneralizations not apply to you?

Just because you or I got the training needed doesn't mean everyone has now does it? I see nothing wrong with proper, legal training being required for all gun owners so that all of them get it and more importantly, so that the people giving the training see every person in the flesh whom wants a gun and can hopefully spot a few of the idiots and stop them right there.

So how many assailants have you managed to disarm? If they were competent, it's only a matter of time before something goes wrong. Even if you are an übermensch who can incapacitate someone just by yelling at them really loudly, the rest of us aren't. And frankly, why should we be rewarding criminals by just instinctively giving them what they want? What if what they want involves raping your wife or daughter?

Armed opponents? Two, both of whom tried to rob me. One had a knife and one had a length of metal piping and both attempted to use them on me. I am nothing special - I learned what I know by taking various classes, a few hours a week. It's not hard at all it just requires actual commitment to learn, but anyone can. I'm not some awesome martial arts specialist nor am I 7 feet tall.. if you don't think you can protect yourself without a weapon you're being misled.

Look I'm done posting in here cause people are blowing what I say out of proportion here but here is my final stance on it, agree with it or don't I don't have time to keep posting.

First off you do *not* need a gun to protect yourself, and often it's not the best choice regardless. I'm not anti-guns (I am a gun owner) I just think a lot of people delude themselves into thinking they're the best choice.

Second my problem with the general population and the Virgina tech incident in particular is not that I think guns should be banned, it's that the guy who went and BOUGHT those guns was known to be mentally unstable. You ask me how I would feel if an assailant were after my wife or daughter? How would you feel if that guy had indeed been shot by someone with a license to carry but only after he'd shot YOUR FAMILY? The number of people killed means nothing to the individual family.

Think of it this way.. before you got and get a licenses to drive a car you already knew how to drive it don't you? You've been taught how to be safe and all that. However there are still tests that have to be undertaken on the roads, in the situations you'll be in when you're on your own. There are still people out there who are bad and irresponsible drivers, even those without a licenses, but those numbers of bad drivers would go up by incredible numbers without the training and testing in place.

Checking out various laws I guess my position could be best put down as that I think the laws in Texas are horribly lax, the laws in California are more what should be enforced nationwide. This will not fix everything but I for one was disgusted to see this for instance:

http://news.aol.com/article/texas-trespassing-shooting/472454

Those people clearly should not have been able to purchase a gun.. if nothing else had they been using a weapon they were not licenced for their penalties would have been much more severe. Other good results for 'texas shooting' had a bunch of home invaders being shot, including one where a neighbor was being robbed and while the crooks were LEAVING he went outside and shot them.

If you can't see that gun laws/control etc is designed to minimise those kinds of people who get ahold of guns legally while letting those who are responsible keep theirs then I really don't know what else to say to you.

 

[Double A]

Banning guns would only stop civilians from owning guns. Criminals will still go to the Black Market and pick up a Glock or an AK.

As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Kikosemmek]

All these surveys can suck my dick.

The Second Amendment has a reason for existing, and that is to ensure that at least some power stays with the masses. It comes out of the recognition that the American Revolution would not have been possible without armed civilians forming militias that fought for what they believed in and defeated tyranny.

Basically, the Second Amendment is there for you to have a gun in case you can't trust your police or government anymore, which is always a possibility. What can thwart a military coup or a police state? Millions of armed civilians fighting guerilla warfare can.

The fact that you have a gun does not mean that you're a moron who will missuse it, nor does it mean that you are necessarily more likely to get shot. You don't have to have it on your person on all times, but the right for you to be able to have one cannot be challenged. I consider all sentiments calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment as a threat to democracy.

---

In every police state, it is illegal for citizens to own guns, and only the established power structure is armed. This isn't a joke. Don't take that right away from the people.

 

[teisjm]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

Where, like China?

Now the easy solution would've been to click my pic and see where i'm from but i'll save u the work and tell ya. Denmark.

 

[Kair]

The right to bear arms is just a narrow-minded solution to a problem that is caused by itself.

Says the guy with the communist avatar, representative of an ideology so abusive and destructive it caused deaths of over 100 million people in the first five years of being implemented in China alone.

Says the guy who has no idea at all what Communism is.

It does not take half a blind eye to see that Capitalism is wrong, but 300 million narrow minds and 80 years of propaganda not to.

Which flavor of communism do you subscribe to, Kair?

Mostly original Marxism, but with reformist views. And before you ask; Marx always supported a democratic socialist state, not this guy:

Hehe. I'm an anarchist myself, but of the individualist variety. So I'm reasonably familiar with what you might call 'real' communism through my interactions with anarcho-communists and syndicalists, some of whom also describe themselves as left-Marxists. I've learned to sympathize with communists. Our ideologies are irreconcilable, but we usually agree on who we want to help and who the worst offenders are. The worst is that our means are polar opposites, except for the anarcho-communists of course.

I'm a left libertarian, so I obviously support the right to bear arms. But Kair, you didn't even state the Marxist position on the right to bear arms yet. I'd like to hear it. You just called it narrow minded. You're not going to educate that way, just find trouble. I suppose a forum is as good a place as any for opinions, though.

All right, the Marxist opinion on the right to bear arms:

Marxists believe people should be educated towards trust and reliability, not towards mistrust and deceit. Having a personal firearm completely disregards all faith in your peers and only leads to more mistrust and apathy. People aren't people any more, they're 'individuals' and only see other 'individuals' as competition and hazards. They think everyone else is an unwelcome troublemaker and so they become one themselves. They get guns because they think everyone else has guns, and everyone else is of course a psychopath out to get them.

And on the subject of educating them, educating members of that mass of 300 million and those influenced by them is as stated very hard. Trying gets tiring quickly, especially when you face several especially chauvinist members of that group several times a week, all year round.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

All right, the Marxist opinion on the right to bear arms:

Marxists believe people should be educated towards trust and reliability, not towards mistrust and deceit. Having a personal firearm completely disregards all faith in your peers and only leads to more mistrust and apathy. People aren't people any more, they're 'individuals' and only see other 'individuals' as competition and hazards. They think everyone else is an unwelcome troublemaker and so they become one themselves. They get guns because they think everyone else has guns, and everyone else is of course a psychopath out to get them.

What is the difference between 'people' and a group of 'individuals'? (Just so you know, I consider myself a radical individualist, so there may be a cultural divide or language barrier at work here). Is there anyone who is a person, but not an individual, or vise verse?

If a Marxist trusts everyone around him, on what grounds does he object to them owning weapons? I pretty much agree with the sentiment that people should trust their neighbors and encourage conditions that lead to that trust. But if I trust my neighbors absolutely, or even the entire world, why on earth would I want to deny them a firearm? It seems to me I would prefer that everyone have a firearm. At the very least, I would encourage armament as opposed to disarmament. I trust my neighbors, and that's precisely why I say 'no' to gun control. What possible basis could I have for denying the right to bear arms? 'Trust' is exactly why I want everyone to bear arms.

I guess this as much a criticism as a question, but I am genuinely interested in understanding what Marxists and communists think. I have increasingly found that communists, Marxists and anarchists talk past each other, which creates unnecessary divides. I hope you don't take it too harshly.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I am going to post this link and let it speak for itself. Civilians with guns are by no means a bad thing. We have the right to defend ourselves, and this right has saved many innocent lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32426383/

If the shop keeper had not had access to a weapon, the headline would have read differently.

I'm also sick of self-righteous jackasses saying that, "Americans are stupid because they can (and enjoy) being able to have guns." Seriously... Grow up and worry about your own country. It's part of our culture - Deal with it. There's nothing wrong with guns in the hands of responsible people.

ok in the article it says "they appeared as if they were going to shoot" and NOT that they had shot people. so really that man murdered in cold blood several robbers, sure it was called justifiable but really he murdered them

the criminals were NOT shooting them, they were pointing and waving and pistol whipping but they were not shooting them. if he just handed over the money then none of this would have happened AND everyone would have lived

so i don't see why the gun was needed, insurance would have covered any losses and the police could have had a chance of catching the guys and getting that money back

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Someone had to do it.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on. And I believe that having a gun gives you better chances while being mugged. The guy mugging you probably just needs quick money and doesn't have the balls to shoot you.

Dang I wanted to say that.
EDIT: I just think they ought to distribute these to the population: