NationStates Jolt Archive

If you think guns should be illegal you are nuts!!! Guns give us liberty and freedom. Guns make sure the King of Estonia doesn't come to your door and run off withh your misses. If there were no guns there eould only be weather reports and no news. Sociaty is built around the AK-47. It's a bit :twisted: but that doen't matter. ALl that matters is that the King of Estonia cannot ome up to your house and run off with your misses.

Come to kentland if you are 8)

Of course guns should be legal. The most important is the right to blow the head off anyone who appears threatening. The right not to be killed by stray weapons is not a major issue, since you could have bought a gun of your own and shot first.

Guns dont cause preoblems; People do. Guns just resolve them.

As usual the pro-gunners are unable to see that there can be a middle ground between the two extreme choices offered here. How can any rational person choose one or the other of them?

Yes certain guns should be legal. And just like with a car, there should be legal requirements to owning and operating them. All guns and gun owners should be registered/licensed, exactly as all cars & drivers are.

Would anybody say we should let absolutely anybody own or drive a car with no state regulation at all? Of course not. So why should the rules be any different for guns?

To have some state regulation of guns *does not* take away freedom in any meaningful or mature way.

I'm all for gun control...

I use both hands... :twisted:

Uhm, Estonia's a Republic - no king that I'm aware off - and why would he go to your house when he's got all the Scandinavian beauties to choose from?

BLAHBLAHBLAH IM AN NRA FANATIC!!!!

Of course guns should be legal, but NOT for your reasons! Everybody has the right to protect themselves, however personal and military/law enforcement firearms obviously have to be differentiated.

As far as I'm concerned, the best argument against the illegalization of guns is that it would give the government too much power. If guns were illegal, our government could do anything they wanted to us and we'd be able to do jack shit about it.

Now, I think that all of you (exept the guy who likes regulations) are absolutly nuts. I support the right to own firearms, but there should be laws about regestration. The right to owning a firearm is garunteed by the second ammendment rights. By limiting the extent of those rights, the government is in breach of it's power. Throuought history, almost no armed population has been the victim of it's own scicotic government. Lomiting rights (especially those havint to do with self defence) is one of the first stepps to tyranny. Now, I doutb that the government will turn to a dictatorship anytime soon, but self defence should never be taken away for any reason. Sure, probably less anti-gun lunatics would be killed because they refused to take even the most basic steps of self defence (going to Galyans and buying a revolver) would be murdered, but the way I see things is that there are only two requirements to be an american: have an active citizenspip, and to take choice over safety. And while I am complaining, why would a mentally retarded person be denied the right to bear a firearm?, I mean I see WHY, just not how. And about bearing firearms, have you seen those signes in the entrance of public buildings saying that you can't bear a firearm! And the whole "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" crap, how about the death penalty, jailing, and other punishments. I know that they are vital, but they are also illegal. I am not sure where I stand on that issue. And final complaint, I think that you should be responsible for your firearms, I mean if your neibor where to break into your house and take your gun, than you obviosly did not lock it well enough. The person doing the crime with the gun should be prosecuted more severly, but I think that failure to securly loke your firearm should be illegal. And that would probably make anti-gun lunatics shut up and stop complaining that they don't care about themselves or their families enough to even buy a gun, and so they don't want anyone else to be able to defend theirselves either.

M-pire

Now, I think that all of you (exept the guy who likes regulations)Check out my post.

Yes, available guns should be about, but for some people... I know I can restrain myself from killing somebody. I've been in possession of a pistol crossbow now for awhile, a long while, and I've never hurt anybody with it. Never even come close. It's not the traditional firearm, but the same principal as of a gun: trigger, ammunition, fire, dead.

Guns are entirely permissible by me, so long as they are kept and used on the following conditions...

1) Both hands are used for handling it at MOST IF NOT ALL times. Even if it's a handgun. Safety issue.
2) It's kept unloaded, uncocked, unprimed, etc. with safety on. Safety for the kids.
3) Rounds are stored in a separate location. Safety for the kids, again.
4) It's registered. As said above in the thread, same principal as driving.
5) It would be possible to stop most standard threats of people breaking and entering, self-defense, etc. We're not talking about .50 call sniper rifles in your house, but instead maybe a 9mm handgun, .45 magnum, .12 gauge or .8 gauge shotgun, or a .22 or .308 rifle. We don't need AK's to stop terrorists... what's the odds of one going for your house, anyways? Preferably, the weapon is bolt-action, single shot or semi-automatic.
6) The person in charge of it makes sure that any children who are too thick-headed and want to play with it don't know about it.

I think that sums it up.

I'm cool..... 8)

seriously, guns should STAY legal!

As far as I'm concerned, the best argument against the illegalization of guns is that it would give the government too much power. If guns were illegal, our government could do anything they wanted to us and we'd be able to do jack shit about it.
Firearms are close to illegal in the UK, you need to jump through hoops to get a Fire Arm Certificate and that allows you access to rifles etc (no handguns). And, golly, my government's ticking along nicely.

You've got the right to vote, that, as opposed to a firearm, should be your method of control over the government: And you're kidding yourself if you think you could stop the government if it did go on a tangent. An SKS or whatever isn't going to stop an armoured vehicle or missile from an AH-64D...

Yes, available guns should be about, but for some people... I know I can restrain myself from killing somebody. I've been in possession of a pistol crossbow now for awhile, a long while, and I've never hurt anybody with it. Never even come close. It's not the traditional firearm, but the same principal as of a gun: trigger, ammunition, fire, dead.

Guns are entirely permissible by me, so long as they are kept and used on the following conditions...

1) Both hands are used for handling it at MOST IF NOT ALL times. Even if it's a handgun. Safety issue.
2) It's kept unloaded, uncocked, unprimed, etc. with safety on. Safety for the kids.
3) Rounds are stored in a separate location. Safety for the kids, again.
4) It's registered. As said above in the thread, same principal as driving.
5) It would be possible to stop most standard threats of people breaking and entering, self-defense, etc. We're not talking about .50 call sniper rifles in your house, but instead maybe a 9mm handgun, .45 magnum, .12 gauge or .8 gauge shotgun, or a .22 or .308 rifle. We don't need AK's to stop terrorists... what's the odds of one going for your house, anyways? Preferably, the weapon is bolt-action, single shot or semi-automatic.
6) The person in charge of it makes sure that any children who are too thick-headed and want to play with it don't know about it.

I think that sums it up.Teaching your kids about guns is also a good way to make sure they respect them.

Well, I guess that could boil down to how trustworthy your kids are, Ryanania. If they would play with the thing, then they definitely shouldn't know about it. So, before I'd even think of telling my future kids if I had a gun or not, I'd have to know if they'd try to get their hands on it to show off to friends, etc.

But that is a good point...

As far as I'm concerned, the best argument against the illegalization of guns is that it would give the government too much power. If guns were illegal, our government could do anything they wanted to us and we'd be able to do jack shit about it.
Firearms are close to illegal in the UK, you need to jump through hoops to get a Fire Arm Certificate and that allows you access to rifles etc (no handguns). And, golly, my government's ticking along nicely.

You've got the right to vote, that, as opposed to a firearm, should be your method of control over the government: And you're kidding yourself if you think you could stop the government if it did go on a tangent. An SKS or whatever isn't going to stop an armoured vehicle or missile from an AH-64D...But it would at least allow us to put up a guerilla resistance. I'm in the military, and I know that the civilian population couldn't hope to fight a face-to-face battle with it, but look at Iraq, they don't need to.

Voting isn't going to help you if a dictator seizes power. And just because the UK is free right now doesn't mean it will be in the future. Keep an eye on your government.

Oh, I do, but the current system is inherently beuracratic which stacks against the government suddenly making a snap decision that would veer off towards dictatorship. I gather the same is very true in the US the two, umm, parts (Congress and the House of Representatives, I think?) acting as a counter balance.

As for Iraq, theres a lot of weapons floating around that I imagine are much rarer in the US - especially heavy stuff - but that's a good point I hadn't considered.

hell no! But my family votes for pro gun politicians and belongs to at the least the NRA (I also like goa) I know how to use them and will own one when I move out on my own soon. Many in my family also hunt. The founding fathers were very much supportive of guns and they would not support the so called "assualt" weapons ban, state troops can have them but by god not the individual! I'm 100% pro gun including in public if you like.

I've got no problem with assault weapons. They're inaccurate as hell, though, so I'd take a Springfield 30-06 rifle, an M1911A1, and probably a Winchester shotty if I had to defend myself.

At least in the US, guns should stay legal because there is an amendment in our Constitution specifically stating so. To completely remove their legality would require an addition to this amendment. Much like an amendment "defending" marriage, such an amendment would be the first time in 200 years that an alteration has been made to our Constitution that specifically limits freedom and liberty. In both cases, such an idea is repellent in the extreme and violates the very principles the Constitution is based on.

Furthermore, as many of the responses in this thread (and this may be an assumption and if it is I apologize), Americans are far too in love with their guns to willingly give them up. For such an amendment to work, people would have to freely give up not only the guns they currently have, but agree in their futility and not wish to purchase them in the future. Since I don't see this happening anytime soon, to try and completely remove legal gun ownership from those who are in full compliance with the law is a pipe dream.

However, I still stand firmly behind the belief that guns are, fundamentally, wrong and I work for a change in society where people don't want to have them. This may also be a pipe dream, but it's what I believe in, conversational confrontation and social activisim with peaceful intent. I see nothing in the Constitution to justify the carrying of concealed weapons by private citizens, or to allow for "guns on demand" with no criminal background checks or waiting periods. I also don't see anything in the Constitution that provides for automatic weapons or ammunition that can shoot through walls. Recently, a young girl in my city was shot in her own home because of one of these types of rounds. She wasn't hurting anyone or threatening anyone. She was playing in her house when stray gunfire from gang-banging imbeciles took her life. If regulation of armor and wall piercing ammunition was more tightly regulated, perhaps she wouldn't be dead today.

If you are adult enough to own a gun, you should be adult enough to understand not only the responsibility, but the concept of appropriate force. If a gun is owned truly for defence, then why would you need a gun able to mow down huge swaths of people in an instant or shoot through walls? It's sheer irresponsibility and the corruption of one of the freedoms our Constitution is designed to protect. In addition to providing that no laws will be passed taking away guns, the Constitution also refers to a "well-regulated militia". What we have currently is neither well regulated nor a militia or we risk losing our rights to gun ownership because we could not be responsible with them in the first place.

wow, looks like i'm gunna be the first person to be anti-gun, what an honour.
firstly, guns kill. thats a fact. in nations where guns are readily available the homicide rate is sometimes up to one hundred times higher than in countries where they are outlawed. and since the day that the first guns were batch-produced, not a single day has gone by without someone's life being prematurely taken away by a scrag of metal moving out of a barrel.
maybe its just that i haven't grown up in a culture where carrying around a deadly weapon in case someone on your property needs fragging (the eagle-eyed would have noticed from my spelling of honour) but the so-called 'right to bear arms' just seems insane. the idea arose at a time where much of america was still wild and people needed protection against wild buffalo (well done by the way) but today its totally outdated. the people i hear being pro-gun talking about freedom, last time i checked there was no such freedom as the freedom to kill, but y'know, i'll have to look that up.

Guns do not kill...those that use them kill. If you believe that removing guns from citizens reduce death rates I suggest that you examine the stats on the increase inviolent crime/murders in Great Britain and Australia since private ownership has been banned. I hear that Australia even wants to ban swords!

Gun laws that are fair and enforcable, required firearms safety courses as well as teaching how and when to use/not use a firearm are big steps in the right direction. Add to that very harsh sentences for criminals using a firearm in comission of a crime and no plea bargaining is also a better method than banning firearms.

Here's what I say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And don't think that guns are the only way to kill someone; cars can kill you, and so can baseball bats, but I am not surrounded dy idiotic protesters whenever I drive to a little leage game!

And for whomever said that an innacurate rapid fire assault rifle is safe: The only dangerous gun is an inacurate one! If the gun is accurate, than it cannot by dangerous (that though says nothing about the opperator)


PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS, NOT GUNS

Guns do not kill...those that use them kill.

That's like saying 'Nuclear missiles don't kill, it's the people that use them. Let's give every man, woman and child a nuclear missile so that they can defend themselves.'

Seriously, there's no need for anyone to have guns besides specially trained police units and the armed forced.

Here's what I say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And don't think that guns are the only way to kill someone; cars can kill you, and so can baseball bats, but I am not surrounded dy idiotic protesters whenever I drive to a little leage game!

And for whomever said that an innacurate rapid fire assault rifle is safe: The only dangerous gun is an inacurate one! If the gun is accurate, than it cannot by dangerous (that though says nothing about the opperator)


PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS, NOT GUNS

Agreed, people are dangerous. But the difference between a car and a baseball bat is in intent. They only reason a gun exists is to harm. Regardless of the rationale behind that harming, the fundamental purpose of a gun is clear. That is why no one is protesting Ford or Little Leauge games. As you pointed out, there are a multitude of ways for harm to happen, even accidentally, in today's world. In a society that claims to be based on laws, why should we all have to go armed to preserve our freedom? There's a contradiction in that. Either our laws are not as important as we might make them seem (in which case a law banning guns is moot) or there is some other reason we still love instruments who's sole purpose is to harm.

Ban handguns.

The power of the government needs to be limited. Guns give us a means to resist the government if that becomes necessary. Oh, and as Admiral Yamamoto said, "We could never invade America; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Um, in one word: No.

Um, in one word: No.It would be better if you could tell us why you think that.

I guess that while I'm against banning guns altogether, since I'm from a place where hunting is a way of life, I'm against handguns.

I believe that handguns are specifically used and made for the purpose of hurting and killing people. I know a lot of people feel that they have the right to defend themselves, and I agree up to that point. When you hear gun afficionados saying that it's something like a deterrent, that someone sees your gun and leaves you alone, I can't say that I agree.

They have a fight or flight response, and half the time, they might be prompted to hurt you if they see it, rather than run away.

We should have the right to bear arms, I have no problem with that, but handguns make it too easy for people to take on more power over life and death than they can psychologically handle.

The reason that we do not give every man, woman and child a nuke is because they are designed to kill thousands of people at once. A gun, however is designed to kill one person at a time, to kill one other animal at a time, or to simply enjoy one's self at the range for an afternoon.

Seriously, there's no need for anyone to have guns besides specially trained police units and the armed forced.

I take it that you live in the city ;)