NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

Alright.

However, things such as slavery, murder, and rape... Regardless if you feel the majority should have no say over your rights, you must agree that "women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys" is a poor analogy to support gun rights.

I don't know if this needed a new topic.

Let's see how fast this turns against the pro gun crowd.

Alright.

However, things such as slavery, murder, and rape... Regardless if you feel the majority should have no say over your rights, you must agree that "women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys" is a poor analogy to support gun rights.

I don't know if this needed a new topic.

Why is it not a good analogy? My point is I have a right to a weapon as much as someone has a right to not get killed/raped/enslaved.

As soon as people start classifying different rights on different levels of 'importance' they start to degrade.

P.S. I have a right to make a new thread. :p

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.

I like guns, and I like rights. :downs:

:headbang: Does this forum go really slow or not load at all all the time for anybody else? It just took my like ten minutes to post one reply, but now it's going fast again.

:headbang: Does this forum go really slow or not load at all all the time for anybody else? It just took my like ten minutes to post one reply, but now it's going fast again.

Same here.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I don't mind people having guns if gun owners would get themsleves licenced to show they have gone through gun safety (we do it with hunting licences and cars) and I still don't accept your need to own military grade equipment.

Yeah, it LOOKS cool, but I also think tanks and cruise missles look cool, but there's a reason why I shouldn't have any.

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.
Why?

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.


The unfortunate truth is that you only have the rights that the government says you can have. The government gives, and the government takes away. For example, I think I should have the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. But the government says no, I can only marry a person of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that I think it is a basic human right to marry the man I love, if the government says no, I'm up shit creek. And if the government says no more guns, you are too.

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.

To overthrow the government if they start screwing around with the amendment that comes before the right to bear arms?

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I don't mind people having guns if gun owners would get themsleves licenced to show they have gone through gun safety (we do it with hunting licences and cars) and I still don't accept your need to own military grade equipment.

Yeah, it LOOKS cool, but I also think tanks and cruise missles look cool, but there's a reason why I shouldn't have any.

Yeah, I agree with those points - but in most places you have to have a license anyway. Plus, that should be a state law, not a national law. (but I think that about pretty much everything anyway)

Anything that can cause mass damage should be illegal - that's just common sense. ( and you can't use it for sporting or self defense very easily :D )

What is more important?
- Rights.

What makes you believe you have a right to own a gun?

The unfortunate truth is that you only have the rights that the government says you can have. The government gives, and the government takes away. For example, I think I should have the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. But the government says no, I can only marry a person of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that I think it is a basic human right to marry the man I love, if the government says no, I'm up shit creek. And if the government says no more guns, you are too.

Yeah, hence the need for weapons! :)

Ideally, the government would be controlled entirely by the people. So everyone governs themselves.

What makes you believe you have a right to own a gun?

Have you really never heard of the second amendment?

What makes you believe you have a right to own a gun?


The Constitution of the United States?

Have you really never heard of the second amendment?

So the right is one granted you by government?

If hippies and liberals dont like that I own a gun they should just move to amsterdam.

:eek:_______:sniper:_______:D
/\ __________ /\__________ /\
hippie________ me ________lmao

Yeah, I agree with those points - but in most places you have to have a license anyway. Plus, that should be a state law, not a national law. (but I think that about pretty much everything anyway)

Wow... Reasonableness on NSG?! 0_o This must be a sign of the coming End Times. :D

I wouldn't want a national law about it, states are fine as each state controlls access to firearms anyway.

So the right is one granted you by government?

Um... Yes, but no-one can take it away for any reason. This is my opinion on what a right is. If it can be taken away, it is not a right.

If hippies and liberals dont like that I own a gun they should just move to amsterdam.

:eek: :sniper: :D
/\ /\ /\
hippie me lmao
Such eloquence and reasonable debating style. You'll go far here, I can already tell.

Um... Yes, but no-one can take it away for any reason. This is my opinion on what a right is. If it can be taken away, it is not a right.

Did that right exist prior to the Second Amendment?

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I don't mind people having guns if gun owners would get themsleves licenced to show they have gone through gun safety (we do it with hunting licences and cars) and I still don't accept your need to own military grade equipment.
Why not?

The whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the government should it become necessary. Thus, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is absurd and illegitimate.

Parity is essential if we're going to have a real chance at carrying out a successful revolt.

Yeah, it LOOKS cool, but I also think tanks and cruise missles look cool, but there's a reason why I shouldn't have any.

No, there isn't.

The unfortunate truth is that you only have the rights that the government says you can have. The government gives, and the government takes away. For example, I think I should have the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. But the government says no, I can only marry a person of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that I think it is a basic human right to marry the man I love, if the government says no, I'm up shit creek. And if the government says no more guns, you are too.

Might does not make right.

The government does not grant my rights or take them away. My rights are an inherent part of my existence as a human being. All the government can do is decide whether it chooses to respect or violate my rights--and it is only legitimate to the extent that it does the former.

Um... Yes, but no-one can take it away for any reason. This is my opinion on what a right is. If it can be taken away, it is not a right.

Hey, so long as it's not a machine gun/bazooka/mass murder weapon, you have a license for it, you're trained to use it, and you're mentally stable and legally eligible to own it. I have no problems with anyone owning a gun.

Did that right exist prior to the Second Amendment?

It most certainly did.

A gun is worth enough word for you to back off :p

If hippies and liberals dont like that I own a gun they should just move to amsterdam.

:eek:_______:sniper:_______:D
/\ __________ /\__________ /\
hippie________ me ________lmao

Wow. You'll last long with that philosophy. And that name.

It most certainly did.

So it isn't one granted by government then, despite what 1010102 and Risi claim?

Hey, so long as it's not a machine gun/bazooka/mass murder weapon, you have a license for it, you're trained to use it, and you're mentally stable and legally eligible to own it. I have no problems with anyone owning a gun.

There should be no such restrictions. See my earlier post in this thread.

You do not have a right to own a gun. However, in the United States, if you can prove you are a militia member, you can hawe a gun. Proving that IMO requires only that you say you are.

Why not?

The whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the government should it become necessary. Thus, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is absurd and illegitimate.

Parity is essential if we're going to have a real chance at carrying out a successful revolt.
Ah yes, the whole "We gotta have them to rebel" argument. Makes perfect sense... assuming that the military was armed with the same things you are. Since their tech includes things like modern aircover, tanks, and nuclear weapons... kinda makes it a little silly now.

No, there isn't.
Yes, there is. No one should be capable of blowing up a city block because they happen to be pissed off at the downstairs neighbors.

There should be no such restrictions. See my earlier post in this thread.

None at all? I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable letting a convicted felon owning a weapon....

So it isn't one granted by government then, despite what 1010102 and Risi claim?

Correct.

Why is it not a good analogy? My point is I have a right to a weapon as much as someone has a right to not get killed/raped/enslaved.

As soon as people start classifying different rights on different levels of 'importance' they start to degrade.

P.S. I have a right to make a new thread. :p

I guess you could support it that way. Owning a gun however, seems a bit less important than not being killed/raped/enslaved. Despite what you say about classifying entirely different rights on different levels of severity, it is a slippery slope fallacy to assume the degradation of all rights. I highly doubt the right to not be killed/raped/enslaved will ever be taken away, whether or not rights to gun ownership will.
I am not disagreeing with your point, but the nature of your support.


lawl to the thread right

What makes you believe you have a right to own a gun?
What makes you believe you have a right to decide what rights others have?

Works both ways. :p

EDIT: Holy fuck! Two new pages since I clicked quote... damn, I need to type fast0r.

You do not have a right to own a gun. However, in the United States, if you can prove you are a militia member, you can hawe a gun. Proving that IMO requires only that you say you are.

Wrong.

First off, EVERYONE has the right to own any weapon he wishes, and the source of that right is not government fiat or some document, but the mere fact of one's existence.

Secondly, you should take some time and learn what a "subordinate clause" is.

I can't wait till america breaks off ill start gathering land and forge an empire.Boy oh boy will liberals be having fun(not really:p )

Ah yes, the whole "We gotta have them to rebel" argument. Makes perfect sense... assuming that the military was armed with the same things you are. Since their tech includes things like modern aircover, tanks, and nuclear weapons... kinda makes it a little silly now.
Apparently, you missed the part where I said "any government restriction on civilian ownership of weapons is absurd"

I never claimed it was limited to individual firearms.

Yes, there is. No one should be capable of blowing up a city block because they happen to be pissed off at the downstairs neighbors.
No one should be ALLOWED to do it, no--but to deny to the people the CAPABILITY to do it is absurd, for the reasons given above.

Correct.

So what is the source of that right?

What makes you believe you have a right to decide what rights others have?

Be a darling and point out to me where I stated that I believed I had any such thing, thanks.

None at all? I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable letting a convicted felon owning a weapon....

Tough shit.

Liberty is more important.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.


So - let's revoke that right.

There. Everyone is happy.

So what is the source of that right?

The mere fact of one's existence.

So - let's revoke that right.

There. Everyone is happy.

Rights cannot be revoked, just like they cannot be granted.

Tough shit.

Liberty is more important.

Based on what?

I am constantly amused by the hypocrisy of that kind of logic... 'liberty is more important' when it's what person A wants, and they don't care about person B's opinon...

But wait until person A is having a rusty knife waved at his tallywhacker by a crazy person, and - all of a sudden - 'liberty' for the crazy person becomes a very secondary consideration.

Secondly, you should take some time and learn what a "subordinate clause" is.
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9821/halthammerzeitnc6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Krazie_Sj/GrammarNazi.jpg

ok the only thing that matters really is.
Life
Liberty
pursuit of happyness (it makes me happy to have a gun)

Might does not make right.

The government does not grant my rights or take them away. My rights are an inherent part of my existence as a human being. All the government can do is decide whether it chooses to respect or violate my rights--and it is only legitimate to the extent that it does the former.

Good point. Actually this is THE point. For any right.


The only thing a license is for is to keep weapons out of known criminals. Or insane people/etc. NOT for discriminating in any other way, other than previous record.


Another thing I have to mention is ignorance - people think guns are way more dangerous than they really are. Gun crimes and accidents are blown way out of proportion. For example do you know that swimming pools cause more deaths per capita (and based on how many pools there are) than guns?

The unfortunate truth is that you only have the rights that the government says you can have. The government gives, and the government takes away. For example, I think I should have the right to marry the consenting adult of my choice. But the government says no, I can only marry a person of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that I think it is a basic human right to marry the man I love, if the government says no, I'm up shit creek. And if the government says no more guns, you are too.

Actually in the constitution it says something along the lines of "if the government ceases to work then the people shall disassemble it and build anew" what that means basicly is that if the government starts to try to oppress us and/or take away our rights and/or stop listening to the people it is OUR responsibility to take them down. I think anyone who is against guns should do a little research or atleast read the book "More Guns Less Crime" which is a compilation of evidence that the more guns in a area the less crime there is. If you think about it. Imagine if everyone had a gun. You would KNOW that everyone had a gun. Therefore if you are a thief your not gonna be to apt to try to rob someone or try to kill someone are you? I am a strong gun advocate and i know a whole lot about both military and civilian guns. I think it is wrong that the government has put the laws on guns it has now. I'm not talking about continuous propulsion devices and launched explosives but strickly small arms. I go and shoot my rifles every weekend and have never even come close to having an accident :sniper: . Here is a little quote all of you left wing anti gun morons will enjoy.

"guns kill people like spoons made rossie o'donal fat"

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "any government restriction on civilian ownership of weapons is absurd"

I never claimed it was limited to individual firearms.
Still makes a silly argument. Even if you COULD own millitary tech, no one could own enough to take on the millitary should it deside to crush a rebellion.

That argument is a nice idea, very romantic, but nowhere near pratical nowadays to really give weight to the argument for firearms ownership.

No one should be ALLOWED to do it, no--but to deny to the people the CAPABILITY to do it is absurd, for the reasons given above.
What reasons? You haven't stated any reasons beyond I Say So.

Based on what?

I am constantly amused by the hypocrisy of that kind of logic... 'liberty is more important' when it's what person A wants, and they don't care about person B's opinon...

But wait until person A is having a rusty knife waved at his tallywhacker by a crazy person, and - all of a sudden - 'liberty' for the crazy person becomes a very secondary consideration.

He has no such right to attack me, no.

But that he might is no reason to violate the liberty of everyone who hasn't yet.

Stick to punishing offenders after the fact--that's the only way to do things without violating the liberty of those who haven't done anything.

The mere fact of one's existence.

So an infant should be allowed to possess any weapon they want, yes?

What other rights do you believe our existence grants us?

Good point. Actually this is THE point. For any right.


The only thing a license is for is to keep weapons out of known criminals. Or insane people/etc. NOT for discriminating in any other way, other than previous record.


Another thing I have to mention is ignorance - people thing guns are way more dangerous than they really are. Gun crimes and accidents are blown way out of proportion. For example do you know that swimming pools cause more deaths per capita (and based on how many pools there are) than guns?

Yes. Remember that school, out west, where those suicidal teenagers took a swimming pool into their classroom, and drowned a load of students, before turning it on themselves?

No... wait - that may not have actually happened.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9821/halthammerzeitnc6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Krazie_Sj/GrammarNazi.jpg

I was referring to the subordinate clause he was talking about in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Had he known what a subordinate clause is, he would have known that the particular words he was referring to had no actual effect on the meaning of the sentence they are contained in.

It was not in reference to anything explicitly contained in his post.

Tough shit.

Liberty is more important.

Well in which case please feel free to provide arms to the inmates of any Federal Prison of your choice.

Liberty IS more important. The right to own guns is...somewhat important (at least, you know, in case the First Amendment gets shot to hell, we'll have a chance to shoot at professionally trained, highly equipped soldiers).

Therefor, I demand my right to all types and kinds of porn. The legalization of all drugs. As well my right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Oh, and I demand a driver's license!

Yes. Remember that school, out west, where those suicidal teenagers took a swimming pool into their classroom, and drowned a load of students, before turning it on themselves?

No... wait - that may not have actually happened.

stop fliping around what he said you asshole people do stupid thing in swimming pools and people drowned in them.people with guns normal know how to use them.

Still makes a silly argument. Even if you COULD own millitary tech, no one could own enough to take on the millitary should it deside to crush a rebellion.
You said it yourself--no one person.

That argument is a nice idea, very romantic, but nowhere near pratical nowadays to really give weight to the argument for firearms ownership.

And even if it were impractical, that's no reason to try to come as close as possible. In the end, it is far better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

He has no such right to attack me, no.

But that he might is no reason to violate the liberty of everyone who hasn't yet.

Stick to punishing offenders after the fact--that's the only way to do things without violating the liberty of those who haven't done anything.

On the other hand, I don't think random people 'deserve' the right to own weapons of destruction.

You argue 'liberty' - I argue that there is no reason why these implements of death should be handed out as the default setting. You say 'punishing offenders after the fact', I say 'let people earn the right to carry guns, if they can'.

There is no intrinsic right nascent in the human condition, to carry any kind of weapon in a society.

stop fliping around what he said you asshole people do stupid thing in swimming pools and people drowned in them.people with guns normal know how to use them.

*cuts strings*

Yes. Remember that school, out west, where those suicidal teenagers took a swimming pool into their classroom, and drowned a load of students, before turning it on themselves?

No... wait - that may not have actually happened.

I mean, 20 mins form my house over in Camden, people just drown each other on every other corner.

The only thing a license is for is to keep weapons out of known criminals. Or insane people/etc. NOT for discriminating in any other way, other than previous record.
I wouldn't even go THAT far. I'd say the main purpose of a licence is to show knowledge of gun safety. You have the right to own a gun, I have the right to feel secure that you're not going to do something stupid with it. :D

Another thing I have to mention is ignorance - people think guns are way more dangerous than they really are. Gun crimes and accidents are blown way out of proportion. For example do you know that swimming pools cause more deaths per capita (and based on how many pools there are) than guns?
I'd be leary of this argument. Swimming pools are not, after all, purposely designed to harm/kill (Unless you have some REALLY interesting swimming pools over in Colorado I haven't heard about yet). ;)

Well in which case please feel free to provide arms to the inmates of any Federal Prison of your choice.
I have every right to do so. That I might not be able to get away with it in practice does not make it wrong.

Liberty IS more important. The right to own guns is...somewhat important (at least, you know, in case the First Amendment gets shot to hell, we'll have a chance to shoot at professionally trained, highly equipped soldiers).
Look at what's happening in Iraq.

Therefor, I demand my right to all types and kinds of porn. The legalization of all drugs. As well my right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.
Exactly.

Oh, and I demand a driver's license!
You shouldn't have to have a license to drive on a road for which you were compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for.

stop fliping around what he said you asshole people do stupid thing in swimming pools and people drowned in them.people with guns normal know how to use them.

I'd advise you to get a grip on yourself.

I'm not the sort of person to report someone to moderation just for calling me an 'asshole', but others might.

If you'd stopped to think for a second, you'd have realised that your argument is illogical. I was parodying the comments of the other poster by referring to Columbine... where you seem to be arguing that the Trenchcoat Mafia 'knew how to use' guns...?

I believe he speaks of the reactive approach to criminal justice, instead of the proactive approach. Unfortunately, reactionary policies don't always work out so well when the offender leaves country to some foreign nation with no formal extradition treaty with the United States.

You shouldn't have to have a license to drive on a road for which you were compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for.

But surely you should be qualified? So as not to kill the largest amount of relatively innocent civilians?

There is no intrinsic right nascent in the human condition, to carry any kind of weapon in a society.

I'd go so far as say that there ain't no intrinsic rights at all.

I was referring to the subordinate clause he was talking about in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Had he known what a subordinate clause is, he would have known that the particular words he was referring to had no actual effect on the meaning of the sentence they are contained in.

It was not in reference to anything explicitly contained in his post.

I just wanted to use the Halt image. :p

On the other hand, I don't think random people 'deserve' the right to own weapons of destruction.
Rights are not a matter of "deserving" them.

You argue 'liberty' - I argue that there is no reason why these implements of death should be handed out as the default setting. You say 'punishing offenders after the fact', I say 'let people earn the right to carry guns, if they can'.
Then you reject the very concept of rights, in which case you are nothing more than a brute beast--a subhuman animal.

There is no intrinsic right nascent in the human condition, to carry any kind of weapon in a society.

On the contrary, it is only in the context of society that rights have meaning--for when man is alone, his actions affect no others so rights are of no practical issue.

That is not to say that he lacks rights outside of society--simply that they are of no practical import.

You said it yourself--no one person.

Look how much money the US government spends on military equipment.

Now you tell me just how even a group of people would be able to match that? ESPECIALLY given that the elite with the money would most likely not be on your side?

And even if it were impractical, that's no reason to try to come as close as possible. In the end, it is far better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.
Still makes for a damned stupid argument for gun ownership though.

I have every right to do so.

You are now claiming that you not only have the right to possess a weapon yourself, but also to supply weapons to others, yes?

...and going back to that question about infants and weaponry, what say you?

I'd go so far as say that there ain't no intrinsic rights at all.

Then you would be horrendously wrong.

So do you believe you also have the right to own missile launchers? If you don't, why not? The second amendment says 'arms', not specificity guns. What about biological weapons? Nukes?

Still makes for a damned stupid argument for gun ownership though.

I've yet to understand the logic behind how guns help people die on their feet. If they are in a position of servitude without weapons they are in no way disempowered from carrying out futile and ill-planned acts so as to bring about their own deaths at the hands of the masters.

But surely you should be qualified? So as not to kill the largest amount of relatively innocent civilians?

Nope.

That, too, implies a rejection of the entire concept of rights.

I'd be leary of this argument. Swimming pools are not, after all, purposely designed to harm/kill (Unless you have some REALLY interesting swimming pools over in Colorado I haven't heard about yet). ;)

It was proved by some statisticians. When you think about it, you could see how it could work.

First, there are WAY less pools than guns. I don't know the ratio, but if there were as many pools as guns the US would be an ocean. :)

Second, the amount of people pools kill for being just water is amazingly high. Swimming pools kill about 2,000 a year. Guns about 30,000.

I'm pretty damn sure there are more than fifteen guns per pool in the US.

I'd go so far as say that there ain't no intrinsic rights at all.

I'm very much inclined to agree.

'Rights' are - as far as I can tell - intrinsic to societal existence, and thus, must be contingent upon that society.

You shouldn't have to have a license to drive on a road for which you were compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for.

You do realize that the license is to certify that you can drive a car without
posing an overwhelmingly significant risk to other individuals. It is for
the protection of the populace, demanding few sacrifices from you.

Are you telling me you would give someone that drives 90mph through a school zone a license?
That you would with give a man known for mental instability and a penchant for murder a gun?

Your 'logic' is flawed and does not lend itself towards self preservation or the safety of others.

If you give me that quote about "those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither", then you are just being illogical. What you preach may possibly be liberty, but is definitely lunacy.

So do you believe you also have the right to own missile launchers?
Yup.

The second amendment says 'arms', not specificity guns.
True, but also irrelevant.

What about biological weapons? Nukes?

Yup.

Look how much money the US government spends on military equipment.

Now you tell me just how even a group of people would be able to match that? ESPECIALLY given that the elite with the money would most likely not be on your side?
You mean, unlike 1776?

An aircraft carrier costs somewhere in the range of $10,000,000,000--certainly not out of the reach of the wealthiest of Americans.

And in fact, much of the most expensive military hardware (such as aircraft carriers) would likely (but not necessarily) be useless in waging a domestic insurrection.


Still makes for a damned stupid argument for gun ownership though.
I fail to see how.

Rights and Security. You can have both.

You have the right to own guns, and it should not be unreasonably difficult for you to obtain them. However, the government may require you to take classes in gun use and safety. It may require significant military training to own military-grade weapons, and tax them heavily, though.

It was proved by some statisticians. When you think about it, you could see how it could work.

First, there are WAY less pools than guns. I don't know the ratio, but if there were as many pools as guns the US would be an ocean. :)

Second, the amount of people pools kill for being just water is amazingly high. Swimming pools kill about 2,000 a year. Guns about 30,000.

I'm pretty damn sure there are more than fifteen guns per pool in the US.
I'm not saying your stats are incorrect (I actually have no idea and no prticular wish to look them up), but in terms of an argument for gun ownership, it's a little illogical. I would not, after all, attempt to knock over the local gas station with a diving board. The military are not issued water wings. You see what I mean?

Saying that other things kill more people doesn't help your argument because said things are not designed to kill people in the first place, unlike a firearm.

Then you would be horrendously wrong.

Possibly, but I wouldn't be the one asserting the existence of something without either any empirical evidence or a rationalist argument, would I?

You mean, unlike 1776?
In 1776 both sides were using pretty much the same weapons as they wasn't a large difference between civilian and military as there is now.

Not to mention that, no, a lot of the rich in the colonies were not supporting the colonist at the time. Some did, a lot did not.

An aircraft carrier costs somewhere in the range of $10,000,000,000--certainly not out of the reach of the wealthiest of Americans.
Bill Gates perhaps, why don't you go and ask him if he'll be nice enough to buy you one?

Of course the Navy has a fleet of them, but hey...

And in fact, much of the most expensive military hardware (such as aircraft carriers) would likely (but not necessarily) be useless in waging a domestic insurrection.
Assuming the millitary doesn't decide to bomb the place flat. See, that's the threat. They have nukes. They can take you out.

I fail to see how.
Because your argument boils down to, "I need my guns to commit suicide by trying overthrow the US Government." This is not a logical or rational argument.

I completely agree with you. Guns are the rights of any person. Guns are necessary, not so much for self-defense, but in case the government does not match the best interests of it's people. If the people try and massively vote out the government and current economic conditions, the government would, in a sudden unveiling of greed, form a dictatorship. Throughout the last two centuries it has been proven time and time again that industrialized forces cannot beat a determined people. People need the guns in case revolt is necessary to eject a corrupt government. Hell, even Cuba allows them, and for that exact reason.

I completely agree with you. Guns are the rights of any person. Guns are necessary, not so much for self-defense, but in case the government does not match the best interests of it's people. If the people try and massively vote out the government and current economic conditions, the government would, in a sudden unveiling of greed, form a dictatorship. Throughout the last two centuries it has been proven time and time again that industrialized forces cannot beat a determined people. People need the guns in case revolt is necessary to eject a corrupt government. Hell, even Cuba allows them, and for that exact reason.

Would it now...?

Cuba is run under a dictatorship...

So..the government would suddenly form a dictatorship, then give us all rights to guns so we could overthrow them?

:confused:

I completely agree with you. Guns are the rights of any person. Guns are necessary, not so much for self-defense, but in case the government does not match the best interests of it's people. If the people try and massively vote out the government and current economic conditions, the government would, in a sudden unveiling of greed, form a dictatorship. Throughout the last two centuries it has been proven time and time again that industrialized forces cannot beat a determined people. People need the guns in case revolt is necessary to eject a corrupt government. Hell, even Cuba allows them, and for that exact reason.
See thread as to why that's a bit unrealistic.

Ah yes, the whole "We gotta have them to rebel" argument. Makes perfect sense... assuming that the military was armed with the same things you are. Since their tech includes things like modern aircover, tanks, and nuclear weapons... kinda makes it a little silly now.


Yah, but all those fancy doohickeys don't seem to be working out in iraq too well though do they.

The american millitary is just too small compared to the size of the US population for them to ever really be a factor in a general revolution. In reality, it would be the police and state troopers that people would end up fighting in the event of a rebellion. And they aren't armed all that much better, so it makes sense, kind of.

I, for one, however would flee long before it came to that.

I'm not saying your stats are incorrect (I actually have no idea and no prticular wish to look them up), but in terms of an argument for gun ownership, it's a little illogical. I would not, after all, attempt to knock over the local gas station with a diving board. The military are not issued water wings. You see what I mean?

Saying that other things kill more people doesn't help your argument because said things are not designed to kill people in the first place, unlike a firearm.

What the thing is designed for is irrelevant in the argument I was making. (I can see your point though) I was using the fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to display the ignorance of people who believe guns are ridiculously dangerous.

However, 'to kill' isn't exactly the purpose of having a gun. This is in the same way that a crow bar wasn't designed to kill people. Yes, you can use it for that, but it is not it's sole purpose.

And even if it was the original purpose - it is different now. For example, if you took a baseball bat back in time fifty thousand years, people would say it was a club and used for hunting/defense/whatever (violence in any case, not sport).

So what is the source of that right?


Frum god.

The american right to own guns was granted by the English crown when the colonies were set up.

And the crown was appointed by god. So it's a god given right. Q.E.D.

I believe it is the right of any human to defend themselves with the best tools available.

In the world we live in it is a very real possibility that I may one day have to fight for my very survival at some point, whether it be some punk who wants my wallet or, yes, a corrupt government that wants to infringe on my rights.
In such a situation, I'm going to want a fucking gun.

Yeah, the military has hardware, but they're not going to put down an insurrection in the United States by carpet-bombing the United States.
That doesn't make any sense. Who would they rule?
And I highly doubt most soldiers would follow such orders.
And there's WAY more civilians than there are soldiers, there's no way it could end in a decisive military victory. Even if they win the United States infrastructure would be shot, literally and figuratively.

So, while I don't own a gun, I believe it is my right to own one should I feel it necessary.
Anyone who tries to infringe upon that right is simply giving me a reason to get a gun.

Yah, but all those fancy doohickeys don't seem to be working out in iraq too well though do they.
Difference being that the objective isn't to bomb the place flat. You'll also notice that the US military is IN the country. It's having one hell of a time, but it is in there.

The american millitary is just too small compared to the size of the US population for them to ever really be a factor in a general revolution. In reality, it would be the police and state troopers that people would end up fighting in the event of a rebellion. And they aren't armed all that much better, so it makes sense, kind of.
Depends on what's occuring of course, but again, they have nukes. That WOULD be a rather large threat.

What the thing is designed for is irrelevant in the argument I was making. (I can see your point though) I was using the fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to display the ignorance of people who believe guns are ridiculously dangerous.
In that case, it would work.

However, 'to kill' isn't exactly the purpose of having a gun. This is in the same way that a crow bar wasn't designed to kill people. Yes, you can use it for that, but it is not it's sole purpose.
Oh, it's not the purpose of HAVING a gun, it's the purpose OF a gun. They are designed to harm/kill things. The things don't have to be people, but yu can hardly say that a gun was designed to make pretty pictures.

And even if it was the original purpose - it is different now. For example, if you took a baseball bat back in time fifty thousand years, people would say it was a club and used for hunting/defense/whatever (violence in any case, not sport).
What you do with it may not be to beget violence, but you still cannot say that it wasn't designed for it though.

Yeah, the military has hardware, but they're not going to put down an insurrection in the United States by carpet-bombing the United States.
That doesn't make any sense. Who would they rule?
And I highly doubt most soldiers would follow such orders.
And there's WAY more civilians than there are soldiers, there's no way it could end in a decisive military victory. Even if they win the United States infrastructure would be shot, literally and figuratively.
Worse case senarrio, because that's what seems to be the plan here. And why wouldn't they? Blow up the leaders, take out a few cities, that'd be a rather nice deterint for a lot of people. Threaten to use nukes... yeah, it could happen.

On the topic of all this revolution and stuff:

Even if the government got out of control and decided to revoke gun rights, they would have a much harder time doing this if people had guns already.
i.e. it would be easier to take control if the law had already been passed before.

And arguing that the military is 'too strong' for us to defeat them,etc. is not a valid argument. This is because in any large revolution it is not like the entire military personnel would side with the government, some would be on our side. If the citizens are brave enough to actively threaten the government with weapons, I'm pretty sure quite a few soldiers would be willing to go AWOL.

The revolution in itself would severely cripple the military's ability to be well organized and efficient.

I don't think people need to have guns.

I don't think people having guns protects them from crime.

I don't think people having guns protects them from the government.

But I do know that some people are happier if they own a gun. And so I say..."meh". Some people want to have a hole drilled in their skull to improve their consciousness, other people want a gun to protect themselves from evil people. They may both seem incredibly stupid to me, but as long as they leave me alone with it, I'm in no position to tell anyone to stop.

Oh, it's not the purpose of HAVING a gun, it's the purpose OF a gun. They are designed to harm/kill things. The things don't have to be people, but yu can hardly say that a gun was designed to make pretty pictures.

Well then why does it matter if it is not the purpose of having one?

Worse case senarrio, because that's what seems to be the plan here. And why wouldn't they? Blow up the leaders, take out a few cities, that'd be a rather nice deterint for a lot of people. Threaten to use nukes... yeah, it could happen.

Well the worse case scenario still could happen, and I'd like to have something to work with.
Even if it's not an insurrection scenario, I think the average criminal would be a bit reluctant to pull any bullshit when a large percentage of the population is armed.

And my point that soldiers would be much less likely to fire on US citizens, nevermind annihilating entire cities, than fighting in some foreign place as they are now, is still quite relevant, I feel.

If the government was so oppressive as to destroy entire cities to prove a point, the people would most certainly not stand for it.

Would it now...?

Cuba is run under a dictatorship...

So..the government would suddenly form a dictatorship, then give us all rights to guns so we could overthrow them?

:confused:
Cuba already has the rights to gun ownership given. If you'd do some research on Cuban democracy, you'd find that their "dictatorship" isn't nearly as bad as the West makes it seem.

While I could go into an extensive argument for why I need to own a gun, at the current time, the only reason I need is that I want to.

In the US anyway, that right is explicitly granted to me by the Constitution. Should some groups not want that right granted- they are free to attempt the democratic process of amending the constitution. Until then, the right was democratically created (By the votes of the states anyway) and is by-and-large judicially protected.

Fellow Americans!

If you don't own guns then the terrorists are winning!

Difference being that the objective isn't to bomb the place flat. You'll also notice that the US military is IN the country. It's having one hell of a time, but it is in there.

The millitary is in the country, but the consensus seems to be that they pretty much have lost control of it for all intents and purposes. There just aren't enough of them, and there aren't even that many Iraqis.

Depends on what's occuring of course, but again, they have nukes. That WOULD be a rather large threat.

It's a threat. But I think a rather empty one. What would be the point of bombing the place flat, or nuking the continental US to put down a large scale armed rebellion. It would effectively end the government anyway. And I would imagine at that point the rebel would consider it job done regardless. After all I don't imagine anyone would start an armed rebellion without significant expectations of dying in short order anyway. Bringing down the government is the main point after all.

(Which is why I would flee, of course.)

I'm not saying that the government doesn't have an upper hand. I just don't think you can dismiss the idea of an armed populace as completely impotent in the face of government tyranny is all.

While the government can unquestionably crush civilian rebels with guns from a purely military standpoint, revolutions are never fought purely militarily.

They have to do so without alienating the general public, and the rank-and-file of the military, to such a degree that it refuses to go along and tolerate its rule any longer.

Edit: And populations under regular attack from hate groups, or populations that the state doesn't care to protect, need guns for other reasons, too.

Well then why does it matter if it is not the purpose of having one?
Well, again the point was that using an argument of "(Insert everyday item here) kills more people than guns do" as a reason why one should have them doesn't make a lot of sense as that everyday item wasn't designed to kill, unlike a gun.

The reason why a lot of gun nuts drive ME nuts is because they either resort to the above argument or the revolution one. Both arguments are rather weak in terms of why one should have them. I think there are far stronger arguments for gun ownership that are usually not played out.

Well the worse case scenario still could happen, and I'd like to have something to work with.
Even if it's not an insurrection scenario, I think the average criminal would be a bit reluctant to pull any bullshit when a large percentage of the population is armed.

And my point that soldiers would be much less likely to fire on US citizens, nevermind annihilating entire cities, than fighting in some foreign place as they are now, is still quite relevant, I feel.

If the government was so oppressive as to destroy entire cities to prove a point, the people would most certainly not stand for it.
If the government really WAS that evil to the point where a significant portion of the population decided it needed to overthrow it, they probably would be that evil and would have already secured the military by whatever means (You'd THINK they wouldn't fire, I HOPE they wouldn't fire, but history has already shown that they WILL).

The point being (and if you read up in the thread, you'd see I am not arguing that guns should be taken away), I just say that this threadbare argument is weak. It's a romantic, unrealistic, throwback to another time. It doesn't make any real sense in terms as to why people should be able to or have the right to own guns.

Like I said, there are much stronger arguments and I wish gun supporters would drop this one.

The millitary is in the country, but the consensus seems to be that they pretty much have lost control of it for all intents and purposes. There just aren't enough of them, and there aren't even that many Iraqis.
True, but from a military standpoint, the insurgents could never force the US military out.

It's like Vietnam, the North couldn't win from a military standpoint, they had to just endure till the population said enough. These hypotedtical (sp?)revolutionaries might be able to fight such a war, but how do you drive your own military out of you own country?

It's a threat. But I think a rather empty one. What would be the point of bombing the place flat, or nuking the continental US to put down a large scale armed rebellion. It would effectively end the government anyway. And I would imagine at that point the rebel would consider it job done regardless. After all I don't imagine anyone would start an armed rebellion without significant expectations of dying in short order anyway. Bringing down the government is the main point after all.
If by that point, we're probably already in a dictatorship of somekind. I doubt that it would really collaspe.

I'm not saying that the government doesn't have an upper hand. I just don't think you can dismiss the idea of an armed populace as completely impotent in the face of government tyranny is all.
Not compleatly, just unable to 'win' under the romantic terms that have been given as a reason for firearm ownership. That was my orginal point after all, this is just a very weak argument as to why someone should be able to own a gun. I think there are stronger ones out there than this.

Why?

In the worst case scenario, when americans have to actually fight to the last man for something for the first time since the revolutionary war, weapons are the only thing protecting liberty from tyranny.

You said it yourself--no one person.



And even if it were impractical, that's no reason to try to come as close as possible. In the end, it is far better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.


Hell yes! The right to bear arms is in the constitution. It is irrevocable. An armed populace is the best deterrent to a potential tyrant. I don't own any guns yet, but in a few years I will. After I get them, the only way they'll be taken away if they are taken from my cold dead hands!

:eek: :mp5:

I'm an Australian. I'm 22, and I've never seen a gun other than on TV. None of my friends or my family have ever seen a gun, let alone touched or fired one.

I think (and someone might correct me here, and I'm cool with that) Australia has one of the tightest gun control systems in the world.

I have no objection to farmers having a gun to shoot rabbits, or foxes on their land. It is less harmful (both to crops and domesticated animals) than poisoning the pests. In certain circumstances, I don't mind police using their guns to kill a suspect (but I would personally prefer if they used a tazer or capsicum spray).

Guns are inherently an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon. A gun is NOT a weapon owned for self-defense reasons. A gun is only taken out to threaten, or make your opponent cower.

I object to a society in which having a gun is nothing to be shocked about. I believe that we should be shocked about people walking down the street, sitting on your train, dancing next to you in a club, carrying a weapon whose sole purpose is to maim and kill others.

You might believe that you have a right to carry a gun. You might be right. However, I definitely have the right not to be afraid of everyone around me carrying weapons of destruction in their pockets.

Guns are inherently an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon.

Someone attacks you. You shoot him.

Offensive or defensive?

Someone attacks you. You shoot him.

Offensive or defensive?
Not the use, the weapon. The weapon is offensive, not defensive.

Not the use, the weapon. The weapon is offensive, not defensive.

What's a defensive weapon?

The human body can be used as a weapon, either defensively or offensively.

What's a defensive weapon?
Something that was designed primarily for defence, say a shield, or pepper spray. A tazer would probably also count (Though I think you could argue that either way).

Guns CAN be used for defense, don't get me wrong, but they were designed to harm/kill.

Someone attacks you. You shoot him.

Offensive or defensive?

Attacks you with what?

In Australia (this is just my understanding of Australian law, so please correct me if I'm wrong), if someone punches at you, you're not allowed pull a gun on them. If you shoot them in that situation, it's murder, not self-defense. If you shot the person punching at you in America (again, to the best of my knowledge), it'd be self-defense.

Does that seem silly to you? I've had punches swung at me before, and I wouldn't have called it a 'situation in which I feared for my life' - the very DEFINITION of self-defense.


Ok. So let's put it on an equal footing. Someone is pointing a gun at me. I am carrying a gun, but I don't have it out. I go to get the gun, I get shot.

The only way NOT to get shot in that situation is to have your gun out first, in which case it CANNOT be self-defense.

To overthrow the government if they start screwing around with the amendment that comes before the right to bear arms?Hahaha! You really think you and a few of your mates could beat back a modern army to defend your rights?

Something that was designed primarily for defence, say a shield,

A shield isn't a weapon - or, rather, if you use it as a weapon (say, to hit someone with it), it is "offensive" in your sense.

or pepper spray.

Designed to harm, isn't it?

Attacks you with what?

Why does it matter? Whatever it is, a reasonable person would fear for his or her life.

Does that seem silly to you?

Depends on the circumstances, really.

Ok. So let's put it on an equal footing.

Why?

Someone is pointing a gun at me. I am carrying a gun, but I don't have it out. I go to get the gun, I get shot.

Or I have it within easy reach, and shoot him or her instead.

The only way NOT to get shot in that situation is to have your gun out first, in which case it CANNOT be self-defense.

Why not?

Someone attacks me. I take out a gun, to threaten him or her into stopping. He or she takes out a gun, too. I shoot him or her.

Isn't that self-defense?

...a reasonable person would fear for his or her life...

What sort of reasonable person carries around a weapon solely designed for killing people?

I'm afraid i will have to be middle of the road on this one. I can understand the rights argument when it comes to guns for sport and self defence. I don't have a gun and won't ever have one but i understand why others would want a gun for those 2 reasons.

But where the pro gun movement annoys me is when some of them want any guns allowed, such as assault rifles. If your passion is sport then you won't need an assault rifle. And you can protect yourself with a normal rifle or pistal, things like fully automatic assault rifles and things along those lines are not necessary.

I support a ban of certain guns, such as assault rifles. I support a crack down and harsher penalties for illegal guns and those that misuse guns.

So sorry but thats my middle of the road argument yet again :(

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

I voted rights

But why am I always struck by the exteem irony of gun nuts harping on right to own guns while they often work to undermine the Right to privacy, The right to a speedy trial, The right of freedom of speech, And the separation of church and state. All of which are much more important rights in my view

I'm afraid i will have to be middle of the road on this one. I can understand the rights argument when it comes to guns for sport and self defence. I don't have a gun and won't ever have one but i understand why others would want a gun for those 2 reasons.

But where the pro gun movement annoys me is when some of them want any guns allowed, such as assault rifles. If your passion is sport then you won't need an assault rifle. And you can protect yourself with a normal rifle or pistal, things like fully automatic assault rifles and things along those lines are not necessary.

I support a ban of certain guns, such as assault rifles. I support a crack down and harsher penalties for illegal guns and those that misuse guns.

So sorry but thats my middle of the road argument yet again :(

To be fair the "assault weapon" ban is including "assault looking" weapons

They banned a whole class of weapons by their looks rather then functionality

(If I remember it being explained right ... )

Ignoring the 'Gun ownership to fight a dictatorship' argument let me focus on the personal protection aspect which I feel has more merit.

I admit, I have a concealed carry liscence, and I carry a pistol. I also study martial arts, and know how to use other weapons to protect myself. Is it likely that I will be attacked in my life? No. Is the potential there? Oh yes. The vast marjority of law enforcement work is responsive, not preventive. Over 90% of all police activities from the local police department to the FBI (or what not in your nation) is done in response to a crime that has already been comitted.

In the US the average response time to a 911 call is 15 minutes. That's 15 minutes after you've made the call, given accurate information, and relayed exactly where you are so the police can be dispatched to your location. Combine that with a disturbing fact that many people don't know; the police don't have to come.

A court ruling in 1975 after three women were repeatedly raped and beaten after calling the police for help and no assistance arrived, the DC appelate court ruled that the police could not be held responsible for not responding. 'a government and it's agents are under no duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen'.

Take these three things in combination and you can arrive at one unarguable point, the only individual that can adequately be relied upon to defend you when a crime is commited against you, is...you. When speaking about gun rights and ownership, the heart of the argument differs to the individuals right to self determination and making their own desicion about how they're willing to deal with a situation that involves their life or the lives of those close to them.

Allowing those who obey the law the acess to the same kinds of weapons that will be potentially leveled against them is only fair, attempts to stop gun crime by removing firearms from those who willingly obey the law is...let us call it counter-productive, I need only point to Great Britans Handgun murder rate (after the ban and confiscation of all legally owned handguns in that nation) to amplify the point.

Do I think that we (Americans) have a right to bear arms, absolutely. Do I also thing that intelligent gun control and firearms education is a prudent course of action, absolutely. But I think that removing firearms from the equation merely adresses a symptom of a greater problem, rather than the root cause, and removes the ability for the victims to keep themselves from being victims. I won't adopt the NRA matra of '2 million crimes are prevented by private gun ownership every year'...but there are a great number of crimes which are prevented not by the use of personal firearms, but by their use.

I am a reasonable person, I carry a gun, and two knives when I deem it nessecary. I know how to use them in my defense should it be nessecary. I've spent a great deal of time examining the potential results of my using these weapons in my defense, and know when I would be willing to do so. I've made these descions knowning that I am the only person responsible for my safety, beacuse I have yet to meet a police officer who can arrive at a crime before it happens...every single time.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

first off, those are your rights in your country. come to my country, or many others, and you do not have that right. therefore that right is not universal.

seconly, other countries manage to not have guns quite successfully.

thirdly, i love the usual "what if.... OMG!" strawman so often used by conservatives



i understand that if criminals in general had guns, i would want to have a gun to protect myself and my family. but you have to understand in many (probably most) places in the developed world guns are not much of a problem to people in general. thus many arguing against guns may well be arguing to keep it that way in their (our) respective countries, whereby we're safe enough without them.

first off, those are your rights in your country. come to my country, or many others, and you do not have that right. therefore that right is not universal.

That's something that people on both "sides" seem to forget. I live in France at the moment, and I'm quite all right with not being allowed to have guns here. That's how the French do things. However, I'd fully expect a Frenchman to not rant and rave about how wrong we were for having guns were he to come to Michigan. Acceptance of other cultures works both ways.

Pure Metal, very true that European nations have much less in the way of gun crime, but correct me if I'm wrong, there still is gun crime? Along with other violent crimes, rape, robbery, assault, murder, etc. without widespread acess to firearms?

Even with the more...creative law enforcement methods employed in Europe, there is still widespread crime. Private gun ownership dosen't embody a 'fire to fight fire' mentality, rather a mindset of being able to use the best tools available to deal with a problem.

Along with a different cultural mindset in Europe which to be honest, baffles me. Haven't most European nations been overrun by hostile invaders or been the dictatorships or police states? The American 'we need guns!' mentality is a part of our violent founding and the need for individuals to own weapons to fight against an opressive government.

I would think that on a Continent which has spawned Facists, Communists, and tyrants since before my nation was born, one of the most closely held ideals would be 'if it happens again, I will fight it'. At least that's my motivation for owning firearms that are more...military capable, than pistols and hunting rifles.

I think that if I came from a region whose most notable political leaders were Hitler and Stalin I would feel that way. Even from the nation of Winston Churchill who said so clearly, 'we will fight them on the beaches, but we will never surrender'.

But then, I'm an american and my cultural identity is much differnt from yours.

Why does anyone who is not in the military or in an Police armed response unit or at a stretch, needs to hunt for FOOD, need or want a gun? How odd is that? Guns are NOT a right, that is the most dumb thing I ever heard...I have a right to own a gun? wooopee! I have a right to win the lottery surely?

Banning guns just doesn't work, it made no difference to gun crime in the UK and rumour has it that it might get unbanned (pistols that is).

Really tho there is only one question they should have when you apply to have a gun.

1) Do you want to own a gun

Answer - Yes

result - you nutter you can't have one :)

Ex firearms owner
And skill at arms instructor

The whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the government should it become necessary. Thus, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is absurd and illegitimate.

So according to you opinion the civilian population should beableto whatever it wants. Only problem then is that whilst anyone in the civilian populace can theoretically own any kind of weapon almost all of them would still be restriced to their current arms due to

A) Essentially all modern, military grade weapons being so expensive that only the ultra-rich could afford a full complement. It would result in most ofthe people at bet having revolvers, small submachine guns and the rich having private armies of . Even then it would only be the ultra-rich (billionaire level) that could afford the really important countermeasures, such as anti-air defenses, fighter planes and other missile systems, along with the expertise to keep them functioning.

B) The people who produce the mainstay military equipment would probably choose to only sell to people they favour, allowing a corprorate/clique militia to form.

C) Even if the middle-low income earners pooled enough money together to buy, say an assault rifle for each person, they would not have anywhere near the training to have tactical superiority either by proper maintenance routines, storage, deployment, ease of deployment and combat training . This would always give the state military or extremely well funded private armies the tactical and strategic edge.

That ammendmant was based on the slow reloading rate of the guns, along with the inaccuracy of them which meant that the normally most of the training was for reloading and not targetting. The tactics of that time was to more make a 'wall' of bullets so that you would get the most kills possible.

You also get into the problem of cohesiveness. What if your government decided to amend your constitution to eliminate religion? You would get people who want to restore the status quo trying to topple the government along with extremely religious people trying to topple the government to create a theocracy, more than likely causing them to fight each other at times and people in favour of the atheistic approach fighting the other two civilian groups.

The only way a civilian population can revolt against its own government in modern times is by destroying its civilian powerbase, either by having peaceful non-violence (thus stopping the whole economy) or by killing/rendering inoperative the populace (for the same purpose)

Hence the futility of the argument that a civilian militia could revolt against the government if all the weapons were suddenly available to all. Even if it were argued that the state could subsidise the weapons needed you would then sink a massive % of your GDP to actually be able to fund that.

Parity is essential if we're going to have a real chance at carrying out a successful revolt.

Might does not make right.
The government does not grant my rights or take them away. My rights are an inherent part of my existence as a human being. All the government can do is decide whether it chooses to respect or violate my rights--and it is only legitimate to the extent that it does the former.

Have you been living under a rock? Might almost always has dictated the rights. It is now on the internation level that we can see that best through realpolitik.

The government grants certain rights to the people within it's influence. The state (through legislative juidicial and as well as executive) then upholds them until they are removed. They are legitimate only so long as the location you are in considers them rights.

There are many types of rights.

A shield isn't a weapon - or, rather, if you use it as a weapon (say, to hit someone with it), it is "offensive" in your sense.
Anything can be turned into a weapon, just as anything manufactured by man can be used to kill another. But, again, the difference is in primary purpose of design. A shield is far more defensive than offensive. A gun; however, is not.

Designed to harm, isn't it?
Designed to stop someone, but I have never heard of someone dying from pepper spray, or lasting harm for that matter.

Before we start dancing around, let me make my point. A gun is a gun. It was designed to kill. THAT is what it does and it does so very well. You cannot pretend that it is anything other than a weapon. You can use it for various purposes, you can display it, sport it, hunt with it, target practice with it, use it for defense, turn it into a lamp, whatever; but you cannot escape from what it was built for.

If you're gonna debate it, you have to admit what it actually is instead of dressing it up in pretty clothing.

It's the same as a sword. Swords are beautiful. I'd love to display them if I could, and I have practiced with them in the past, but I am also aware that it was designed to kill. That's what it was made for.

I am fully for the use of guns in self-defence. Let's not call this a right though - self-defence is a right. Using a gun is a way of exercising this right. If someone uses it to kill in offence or uses excess force in self-defence, punish that and no more than that.


Before we start dancing around, let me make my point. A gun is a gun. It was designed to kill.
Or incapacitate. And killing can be in self-defence, after all. It depends on how you use the weapon.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.So what? It was once people's right to own slaves and what not.
Whether you have the right or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether you should have the right; or whether you should not have it. (If there are no compelling arguments for either sides, it becomes a non-issue.)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?Is that supposed to be an argument? "You can't get rid of all of them, so everyone should be allowed to have them"?
You can't get rid of murder in a society either, should every person be alloted a quota of how many people they have a right to kill per year? A rather morporkian solution, certainly..

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.Untill the right is taken away. Rights and obligations change with time. Rights are merely conventions of agreement anyway.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?No it wouldn't. And yet a few hundred years ago it was every man's right to treat "their" women as objects, like cattle.
A good thing that right was taken away from them, I'd say.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.


Sure, but there are less messy ways to commit suicide. Think of those who find you.

Or incapacitate. And killing can be in self-defence, after all. It depends on how you use the weapon.
That is the choice of the user, I am talking about the design of the weapon.

A hammer can be used to kill or incapacitate, and you could attempt to use it for self defense (Though that would be FUN ;) ), but it was designed to hammer in nails.

Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have guns, or that you can't use them for self defense, just that when this topic is debated it is no good trying to state that a gun was designed for anything other than harming/killing something.

That's why I said earlier that an argument on how swimming pools kill more people doesn't make sense as swimming pools aren't designed for such; whereas guns are.

That is the choice of the user, I am talking about the design of the weapon.
I am aware and I wasn't trying to contradict you. I just wanted to point that out. :)

The meaning of the ungrammatical text of the Second Amendment has been debated for decades: "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."

The Miller court in 1939 and many scholars since have viewed it as an articulation of the right of state militias -- not individuals -- to bear arms. Over the years, the high court, apparently glad to avoid the hot-potato issue, has consistently declined to take up Second Amendment challenges to laws restricting gun use and possession.

But recent scholarship has shifted toward the individual-rights view -- even in the opinion of Harvard Law School's liberal Laurence Tribe, who expressed his new analysis in the latest edition of his widely read constitutional treatise, "American Constitutional Law." Silberman cited Tribe in his decision on the way to reaching the conclusion that the Second Amendment expresses the framers' view that "people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms."

It is of some interest that the most recent appeals court decision in Parker vs. DC held that the Second Amendment is an enumerated, individual right to bear arms, and that it predates the Constitution.

I am aware and I wasn't trying to contradict you. I just wanted to point that out. :)
THANK YOU! SOMEONE is understanding what I am getting at!

Pure Metal, very true that European nations have much less in the way of gun crime, but correct me if I'm wrong, there still is gun crime? Along with other violent crimes, rape, robbery, assault, murder, etc. without widespread acess to firearms?

of course there is, but with guns far less prevalent and illegal, getting hold of them remains, for the most part, difficult and must be done through criminal channels. i never said there wasn't gun crime in the UK, but what there is is illegal and easier to target.

Even with the more...creative law enforcement methods employed in Europe, there is still widespread crime. Private gun ownership dosen't embody a 'fire to fight fire' mentality, rather a mindset of being able to use the best tools available to deal with a problem.
true, but again i never said there wasn't crime here. what i would say, however, is that criminals carrying guns is de facto more dangerous than if guns are not nearly as widely available.
ie. if the problem comes at you with a knife, that's one thing. if the problem has easy access to a gun, then that's quite another. making guns legaly more widespread in this country would only be inviting said 'problem' to get better armed.

a lot of people i've talked to from the US have said 'if criminals didn't have guns, i wouldn't need a gun [to protect myself]' (ignoring the "what if the government turned tyrannical?!' nonsense). it is for that reason i would hate to see gun ownership be allowed in this country - as of yet only a few criminals have them, and it is for the police to deal with them. increasing the supply of guns can only raise danger levels. they are designed to be lethal weapons after all.
i guess we don't have so much a 'vigilante' culture in this country.

Along with a different cultural mindset in Europe which to be honest, baffles me. Haven't most European nations been overrun by hostile invaders or been the dictatorships or police states? The American 'we need guns!' mentality is a part of our violent founding and the need for individuals to own weapons to fight against an opressive government.

I would think that on a Continent which has spawned Facists, Communists, and tyrants since before my nation was born, one of the most closely held ideals would be 'if it happens again, I will fight it'. At least that's my motivation for owning firearms that are more...military capable, than pistols and hunting rifles.

actually, unlike the gung-ho nature of many americans, i think mostly people in europe have learned the lessons of the last x-hundered years. fighting problems such as these doesn't work - talk, debate, education, working together and a more open society does.

i guess we've had enough of fighting, and structures such as the EU and NATO help us ensure that fighting of that nature will be more than a little difficult to start again. you can't go to a single village or town, in this country at least, and not see a cenotaph to the lives lost in the world wars. i think that realisation keeps most (sensible, intelligent) people aware of the dangers of violence, and of how far we've come, as a continent, to come together.


I think that if I came from a region whose most notable political leaders were Hitler and Stalin I would feel that way. Even from the nation of Winston Churchill who said so clearly, 'we will fight them on the beaches, but we will never surrender'.

But then, I'm an american and my cultural identity is much differnt from yours.
indeed. the more i learn about the american way of life and way of thinking, the more i am reminded that we may speak a common language, but that's almost where the similarity ends. i could not, and would not, live in the US after what i have learned (a lot thanks to this forum and talking to americans, such as yourself:) )



edit:
I am fully for the use of guns in self-defence. Let's not call this a right though - self-defence is a right. Using a gun is a way of exercising this right. If someone uses it to kill in offence or uses excess force in self-defence, punish that and no more than that.


see, this i can agree with. however currently, for the most part (despite growing gun crime in recent years) people in this country simply don't need guns for self defense, as most criminals don't have them either. that's the idea behind keeping them banned. and by continuing to restrict this supply hopefully we can all remain safer.
in america, guns are already prevalent and a problem. if i lived in america, i would have a gun for self defense, no question.

Stick to punishing offenders after the fact--that's the only way to do things without violating the liberty of those who haven't done anything.

So the fact that the preventative police that has risen since the 1800s that has proven to work well in creating greater security and stopped helped to keep the economy of the state that deployed it working well means nothing?

Don't forget that keeping check of people who do peform crimes and

So an infant should be allowed to possess any weapon they want, yes?

Then you get into the sticky situation of when something is considered seperate from the mother.

For some of the more strict christians (since we are using the U.S as an example) would say the point of fertilisation is when something is human. So a single cell would have the right to own a gun!

Tough shit.

Liberty is more important.

And it is that kind of mindset that makes me dislike libertarians (though mostly just the right wing ones).


The only thing a license is for is to keep weapons out of known criminals. Or insane people/etc. NOT for discriminating in any other way, other than previous record.

You want to remove guns from criminals and people with mental issues? Wow, that wouldn't be interfering with their rights (remember, unalienable!) so they cannot be interfered with. Its only when they actually commit a crime the can be judged for that incidence. Their rights would not have to be considered on previous experience.

You then get to the problem of what crime would dictate the removal of rights. You further get to the problem of to prevent people selling the guns (as gun sellers are as much a problem in U.S.A society).

Another thing I have to mention is ignorance - people think guns are way more dangerous than they really are. Gun crimes and accidents are blown way out of proportion. For example do you know that swimming pools cause more deaths per capita (and based on how many pools there are) than guns?

*cough* http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm *cough*

The odds dying accidentally by drowning
One year - 1:87976
Lifetime - 1:1134

The odds dying by accidentally drowning in a pool
One year - 1:564757
Lifetime - 1:7278

The odd of dying by firearms (attacked)
One year - 1:24400
Lifetime - 1:314

The odd of dying by firearms (accidental)
One year - 1:398425
Lifetime - 1:5134

You said it yourself--no one person.
And even if it were impractical, that's no reason to try to come as close as possible.

Well the fact that they could quite easily be private armies trying to enforce a small, select groups's views shouldn't be a reason against it at all...

In the end, it is far better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

Whereas living on your knees as the rich use their private armies to threaten a government or other groups is preferable?

. If you shot the person punching at you in America (again, to the best of my knowledge), it'd be self-defense.



Actually, in self-defense, you can't unreasonably escalate the force. (I'm not sure if this is technically codified, but remember, a jury won't have sympathy with you if a guy punches you and you just pull a gun and shoot him.)
You don't respond to non-lethal force with lethal force. I know, for example, as a martial artist, if somebody were to say, just throw a few punches, and I, in response, snapped his spine or something, I'd get (rightly) sentenced for assault. Now, if he pulled a knife on me, I'd be justified in using any force required to defend myself, because a knife is a lethal weapon.

At least, that's how I understand the law. It's very possible that I am utterly wrong.

I certainly don't care for the sensibilities of the democratic majority, given that they are, to a moron, undeserving of the vote. However, whilst the self-defence offered by a firearm possesses great allure and lustre, I do equally agree that licences and controls are necessary.

I certainly don't care for the sensibilities of the democratic majority, given that they are, to a moron, undeserving of the vote. However, whilst the self-defence offered by a firearm possesses great allure and lustre, I do equally agree that licences and controls are necessary.

I would be more supportive of that position if licenses and controls hadn't been universally used over and over to remove firearms from those who legally owned them.

I would be more supportive of that position if licenses and controls hadn't been universally used over and over to remove firearms from those who legally owned them.

I must bow to your knowledge on this. The issue is never discussed in the UK, and hence not only are you likely to be better appraised than me, but you also live within a context where firearms are considered a right.

However, were restrictions and controls to be imposed intelligently, and simply to preclude wackos from getting a gun and then committing massacres, would you endorse them?

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)
No, safety is more important. The right to life is more important than gun owning rights.

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

That argument only works if it's a fundamental human right we're talking about. Gun ownership isn't one. It's a civil right.

I must bow to your knowledge on this. The issue is never discussed in the UK, and hence not only are you likely to be better appraised than me, but you also live within a context where firearms are considered a right.

However, were restrictions and controls to be imposed intelligently, and simply to preclude wackos from getting a gun and then committing massacres, would you endorse them?

How do you determine someone is a "wacko" if they've never committed a crime?

If they have previously, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. That's the way it is here already but no system is perfect.

The UK is a perfect example of licensing being used to restrict ownership. The majority of firearms collected were done using lists of registrees who had never committed a crime.

The same holds true in numerous places in the US.

No, safety is more important. The right to life is more important than gun owning rights.

Define "safety". SHould we quote Franklin again?


That argument only works if it's a fundamental human right we're talking about. Gun ownership isn't one. It's a civil right.

In the US it is considered one.

How do you determine someone is a "wacko" if they've never committed a crime?

If they have previously, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. That's the way it is here already but no system is perfect.

The UK is a perfect example of licensing being used to restrict ownership. The majority of firearms collected were done using lists of registrees who had never committed a crime.

The same holds true in numerous places in the US.

Indeed. Evidence of the sheer bloody stupidity of UK law regarding firearms is that our Olympic shooting teams must practice abroad, due to the crude nature of the laws. Equally, those who legitimately use guns, namely, farmers, hunters and the like, are imposed upon, whilst an underground martket flourishes unabated. However, the situation is a reflection of the deficiencies of the law itself, and the myopia of the legislators, not the principle of regulation.

In the US it is considered one.
Is it? It's a right granted under the US Constitution, making it a civil right, surely.

Indeed. Evidence of the sheer bloody stupidity of UK law regarding firearms is that our Olympic shooting teams must practice abroad, due to the crude nature of the laws. Equally, those who legitimately use guns, namely, farmers, hunters and the like, are imposed upon, whilst an underground martket flourishes unabated. However, the situation is a reflection of the deficiencies of the law itself, and the myopia of the legislators, not the principle of regulation.

I don't oppose all regulations. I support instant background checks. I would support safety classes as long as they were made affordable and avaliable.

I oppose registration for the reasons I stated. I oppose "safe storage" because they are used to make the firearm useless for self-defense, are inhibitively expensive, and violate 4th amendment rights.

Is it? It's a right granted under the US Constitution, making it a civil right, surely.

The COTUS doesn't grant rights.

The COTUS doesn't grant rights.

Yes it does. "Bill of Rights"

47 people have voted for rights. Damn, you're all a bunch of liberals!

I don't oppose all regulations. I support instant background checks. I would support safety classes as long as they were made affordable and avaliable.

I oppose registration for the reasons I stated. I oppose "safe storage" because they are used to make the firearm useless for self-defense, are inhibitively expensive, and violate 4th amendment rights.

Registration, provided it was simply used as a means of keeping tabs upon the guns in public circulation, and not to disabuse people of guns, might do much to reduce "ghetto" style gun crime. Beyond that, however, you are completely correct.

Yes it does. "Bill of Rights"
Shows how much history you know. The BOR does not grant any rights, it recognizes inherent ones.

Try again.

Registration, provided it was simply used as a means of keeping tabs upon the guns in public circulation, and not to disabuse people of guns, might do much to reduce "ghetto" style gun crime. Beyond that, however, you are completely correct.

And it's the "keeping tabs" I have a problem w/. Will criminals register them?

In the US, every registration scheme has been used to prevent ownership and/or confiscate.

Shows how much history you know. The BOR does not grant any rights, it recognizes inherent ones.

Try again.

Jeez, its an inherent right BECAUSE the BOR says so. If it didn't it wouldn't be so.

I could say "its my right to have free ice cream, what, it isn't in the constitution, well, it is an inherent right but they just havn't recognised it."

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense.


The vast majority of guns available to civilians are not designed for any of those things. You don't need an assault rifle for self defence.

I don't support gun banning, but when you go for a drivers liscence you have to go through a rigarous test to make sure you are safe to the public, the same should apply to Guns.

Jeez, its an inherent right BECAUSE the BOR says so. If it didn't it wouldn't be so.

I could say "its my right to have free ice cream, what, it isn't in the constitution, well, it is an inherent right but they just havn't recognised it."

Keep showing how little about the COTUS you know. It's kind of funny.

Keep showing how little about the COTUS you know. It's kind of funny.

Instead of poking fun try proving me wrong then.

The vast majority of guns available to civilians are not designed for any of those things. You don't need an assault rifle for self defence.

An Assault Rifle is excellent for home defense.



I don't support gun banning, but when you go for a drivers liscence you have to go through a rigarous test to make sure you are safe to the public, the same should apply to Guns.


In the US, a license is only required if you use a car on public lands. You can drive anything you want on private property.

I'm just curious what the extent of this right is. Does the right to bear arms mean that there should be zero restrictions on ownership? Just keeping felons and crazies from owning them? Banning assault weapons? No line at all?

Does anyone know what the laws are concerning gun control in Cuba? Some websites claim that they have draconian gun control laws, but they are somewhat suspect and rely on biased sources, so I am hesitant to accept their interpretation.

I know military service is demanded of all able bodied males over 16. I assume that they have guns when they are doing their required years of service, and must also have access to guns when they are in reserve status. Which brings me to another question: how do reserve forces get access to their weapons when they need them while ensuring that other people can not access their weapons? Can I assume that Cuba would use the same method?

Thank you.

An Assault Rifle is excellent for home defense.


So is spraying mustard gas with a gas mask (do you think that should be legal as well?), doesn't mean you need it for self defence. It's not designed for self defence either.


In the US, a license is only required if you use a car on public lands. You can drive anything you want on private property.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

Instead of poking fun try proving me wrong then.

Because I'm not going to jump through hoops to "prove" your ignorance.

Try reading the 9th, it says enumerating not granting

So is spraying mustard gas with a gas mask (do you think that should be legal as well?), doesn't mean you need it for self defence. It's not designed for self defence either.



I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

Short-barreled handguns are designed expressly and deliberately for self defense, did you know that?

You see, as an offensive weapon, almost any other gun is more effective. A rifle is in almost all cases a better offensive weapon than a handgun, and a longer-range handgun is much more effective when attacking someone than a short-barreled one.

I assume that the smaller the barrel on the handgun, and by extention its suitability for applications beyond short-range self defense, the less it should be regulated?

So is spraying mustard gas with a gas mask (do you think that should be legal as well?), doesn't mean you need it for self defence. It's not designed for self defence either.


Slippery slope, slippery slope, lets all slide down the slippery slope.


I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

I don't need a license or registration to use a car on private land. You state guns should be regulated as strictly as cars.

I assume that the smaller the barrel on the handgun, and by extention its suitability for applications beyond short-range self defense, the less it should be regulated?

Yeah maybe, not sure though. It's still very easy to kill with any gun, so I don't see why all guns cant be strictly regulated.

Slippery slope, slippery slope, lets all slide down the slippery slope.


Hows that a slippery slope, I never said people would be doing that but it's the equivalent in usage and design. They are both designed to kill as many humans as possible. They are not needed for self defence.


I don't need a license or registration to use a car on private land. You state guns should be regulated as strictly as cars.

So you're saying you should not be allowed to take your gun outside to the public without a liscence?

Yeah maybe, not sure though. It's still very easy to kill with any gun, so I don't see why all guns cant be strictly regulated.

Is ease of killing the issue here?

Hows that a slippery slope, I never said people would be doing that but it's the equivalent in usage and design. They are both designed to kill as many humans as possible. They are not needed for self defence.

No, it is not equivalent in any way.



So you're saying you should not be allowed to take your gun outside to the public without a liscence?

Only if I can own and operate any firearm I want on private property.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

I'm all for guns. I'm all for people being able to own a 9mm handgun to protect themselves. Anything more powerful than that and you're getting silly - a rapist will most likely not be wearing body armor. If he is, you can still shoot him in the head. A burglar, same thing. Armor-piercing rounds are pointless in non-military situations.

So you're saying you should not be allowed to take your gun outside to the public without a liscence?No he was saying that cars aren't so strictly regulated. There's similar laws in Germany.

Guns serve a purpose. Therefore, an entrepreneur has the right to manufacture them for his livelihood and a consumer has the right to buy them for their utility. Besides justifying guns with capitalism, there's no reason really to outlaw any kind of gun. Registration is important, to assist in the gathering of evidence in the event a gun is used in a crime, and also checks of a person's mental stability. However, if I want to buy a gigantic ass gun I think I have the right to, because that's the American dream. I wouldn't kill anyone with it unless they deserved it, and if I do and it turns out they didn't, then I'm getting my ass fried. The system takes care of itself. Murder is outlawed, which means guns don't have to be. If I have the money and distrust of the government to buy tanks and jet planes and Vulcan cannons, then I should be allowed to, and if I'm not, there are places to go to get them. Africa.

I'm all for guns. I'm all for people being able to own a 9mm handgun to protect themselves. Anything more powerful than that and you're getting silly - a rapist will most likely not be wearing body armor. If he is, you can still shoot him in the head. A burglar, same thing. Armor-piercing rounds are pointless in non-military situations.

And if the government turns on you or is overthrown you're to be subjected to their tyranny?

Is ease of killing the issue here?

Ease of killing as many people as possible yes.

I'm all for guns. I'm all for people being able to own a 9mm handgun to protect themselves. Anything more powerful than that and you're getting silly - a rapist will most likely not be wearing body armor. If he is, you can still shoot him in the head. A burglar, same thing. Armor-piercing rounds are pointless in non-military situations.

The problem is defining "armor-piercing". Any hunting rifle round will penetrate standard police body armor. Is it AP ammo?

Ease of killing as many people as possible yes.

Yes. You said yes. I will have this very clear before moving forward, you, yourself, believe now that ease of killing as many people as possible is the issue in this discussion we are now engaged in?

Yeah maybe, not sure though. It's still very easy to kill with any gun, so I don't see why all guns cant be strictly regulated.

You could kill a lot more people a lot more easily with a car than with a small handgun.

A small-frame short-barrel handgun is mainly good for shooting attackers up close in self defense.

In ANY offensive capacity, a larger handgun or a rifle would be preferable.

Such guns should be legally classified "self defense weapons" in my opinion.

No, it is not equivalent in any way.


Why not?


Only if I can own and operate any firearm I want on private property.

Hmm, but forcing them to have a liscence to go outside with it isn't going to stop them. Can't you just take the test/fill in the questionaire or whatever you might have to do instead?

And if the government turns on you or is overthrown you're to be subjected to their tyranny?

That's a very moot point, because nobody is going to be throwing a revolution.

Even if they do, I doubt that at that point they would be worrying about the laws, and would obtain illegal guns regardless of if the government likes it or not.

No he was saying that cars aren't so strictly regulated. There's similar laws in Germany.

Thats still strict though.

That's a very moot point, because nobody is going to be throwing a revolution.


I'm sure if they were you'd know about it.

Even if they do, I doubt that at that point they would be worrying about the laws, and would obtain illegal guns regardless of if the government likes it or not.

Are you saying gun laws can be circumvented with relative ease?

Why not?

Big, unconrolled gaseous cloud vs aimed/aimable select fire weapon.



Hmm, but forcing them to have a liscence to go outside with it isn't going to stop them. Can't you just take the test/fill in the questionaire or whatever you might have to do instead?

I fill in a questionaire now. Like I've said, I would support readily available safety/education classes like drivers ed. I oppose registration because it has always been used to confiscate/defacto ban unlike cars.

I'm all for guns. I'm all for people being able to own a 9mm handgun to protect themselves. Anything more powerful than that and you're getting silly - a rapist will most likely not be wearing body armor. If he is, you can still shoot him in the head. A burglar, same thing. Armor-piercing rounds are pointless in non-military situations.

Where, pray tell, might I find some "armor piercing" handgun bullets?

A 'right' to have a gun?

Yeah, a lot of people think they have a 'right' to a lot of things.

I have the 'right' to food.
I have the 'right' to shelter.
I have the 'right' to water.
I have the 'right' to not have my view of the harbour obstructed from my house.
I have the 'right' to get my bins collected for free.
I have the 'right' to a bigger pay check.
I have the 'right' to a blowjob.
I have the 'right' to protect my family with an assault rifle.

A 'right' to have a gun?

Yeah, a lot of people think they have a 'right' to a lot of things.

I have the 'right' to food.
I have the 'right' to shelter.
I have the 'right' to water.
I have the 'right' to not have my view of the harbour obstructed from my house.
I have the 'right' to get my bins collected for free.
I have the 'right' to a bigger pay check.
I have the 'right' to a blowjob.

...Ermmm...I don't quite follow.

A 'right' to have a gun?

Yeah, a lot of people think they have a 'right' to a lot of things.

I have the 'right' to food.
I have the 'right' to shelter.
I have the 'right' to water.
I have the 'right' to not have my view of the harbour obstructed from my house.
I have the 'right' to get my bins collected for free.
I have the 'right' to a bigger pay check.
I have the 'right' to a blowjob.
I have the 'right' to protect my family with an assault rifle.

ANd if they can argue that in front of SCOTUS when it's not specifically enumerated, then more power to them. Kind of like privacy.

Are you saying gun laws can be circumvented with relative ease?

*shrug* At the most, it's a short trip to Home Depot.

Where, pray tell, might I find some "armor piercing" handgun bullets?

Duke Nuke 'em's house.

Big, unconrolled gaseous cloud vs aimed/aimable select fire weapon.


Used in the wrong hands they can both have the same effect.


I fill in a questionaire now. Like I've said, I would support readily available safety/education classes like drivers ed. I oppose registration because it has always been used to confiscate/defacto ban unlike cars.

What do you mean by unlike cars?

...Ermmm...I don't quite follow.

People think they have a right to pretty much anything. If it wasn't in the Bill of Rights people most certainly would not have a right to a gun no matter what they may think.

People think they have a right to pretty much anything. If it wasn't in the Bill of Rights people most certainly would not have a right to a gun no matter what they may think.

Exactly. Thank you.

Yes. You said yes. I will have this very clear before moving forward, you, yourself, believe now that ease of killing as many people as possible is the issue in this discussion we are now engaged in?

No not just that, also the amount of beneficial use it adds the the person.

People think they have a right to pretty much anything. If it wasn't in the Bill of Rights people most certainly would not have a right to a gun no matter what they may think.

Now try reading the 9th as well as the court cases associated w/ it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

The problem is defining "armor-piercing". Any hunting rifle round will penetrate standard police body armor. Is it AP ammo?

Yes, AP, armor-peircing ammo. Most commonly, hollow-tipped handgun and rifle rounds that are designed to pierce armor through design, not power.

People think they have a right to pretty much anything. If it wasn't in the Bill of Rights people most certainly would not have a right to a gun no matter what they may think.

Yeah, sure, people are stupid. But that seems distinctly irrelevant.

Yes, AP, armor-peircing ammo. Most commonly, hollow-tipped handgun and rifle rounds that are designed to pierce armor through design, not power.

Hollow point is not designed to go through armor. It's designed to reduce blow through.

No not just that, also the amount of beneficial use it adds the the person.

And what will we take into account for measuring that? Example, cars get you around, yeah. But they also tend to pollute. And car insurance payments and the like can be draining.

I'm an Australian. I'm 22, and I've never seen a gun other than on TV. None of my friends or my family have ever seen a gun, let alone touched or fired one.

I think (and someone might correct me here, and I'm cool with that) Australia has one of the tightest gun control systems in the world.

I have no objection to farmers having a gun to shoot rabbits, or foxes on their land. It is less harmful (both to crops and domesticated animals) than poisoning the pests. In certain circumstances, I don't mind police using their guns to kill a suspect (but I would personally prefer if they used a tazer or capsicum spray).

Guns are inherently an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon. A gun is NOT a weapon owned for self-defense reasons. A gun is only taken out to threaten, or make your opponent cower.

I object to a society in which having a gun is nothing to be shocked about. I believe that we should be shocked about people walking down the street, sitting on your train, dancing next to you in a club, carrying a weapon whose sole purpose is to maim and kill others.

You might believe that you have a right to carry a gun. You might be right. However, I definitely have the right not to be afraid of everyone around me carrying weapons of destruction in their pockets.

A fear of legally armed people is an irrational fear. Policemen in most countries are legally armed, they are not better morally qualified to carry arms than holders of concealed weapons licenses (both require complete criminal background checks, including juvenile delinquency, in most American states) nor are they necessarily any more proficient in the handling of their arms.

The holder of a legal concealed weapon is no threat to you, nor does he have any power over you by virtue of being armed. The license to carry a gun is not a license to kill or intimidate, and the owner of a weapon is under even more intense scrutiny than other citizens to insure he does not create panic. The use of force by a private citizen is more likely than force used by a police officer to result in prosecution if that citizen is in the slightest wrong or mistaken, and the right to carry a weapon legally does not change that. As for businesses and public transportation, these venues usually ban the carrying of weapons on their premises either by law or right of private property owners to control activity on their property.

What do you mean by unlike cars?

Gun registration has never mirrored car registration and licensing in the US.

An analogous "gun license test" would just test the ability to shoot accurately and rudimentary knowledge of gun laws.

This does not make guns "safer" the way it does cars, because people do not walk around shooting guns at all hours, relying on their accuracy not to hit people.

The reasons for licensing drivers do not have an analog in the realm of guns, so why should such a license be necessary?

Yeah, sure, people are stupid. But that seems distinctly irrelevant.

People are stupid.
People should have guns.




Yeh, I see a bad ending to that equation alright.

People are stupid.
People should have guns.




Yeh, I see a bad ending to that equation alright.

People are stupid
People should choose who lead them.

And what will we take into account for measuring that? Example, cars get you around, yeah. But they also tend to pollute. And car insurance payments and the like can be draining.

Just things like do you need it for hunting (one of the ways you can get guns in England), do you take part in sporting events using lare rifles? does this particular gun help you with any of those activities or is it designed only to kill humans? etc...

Yes, AP, armor-peircing ammo. Most commonly, hollow-tipped handgun and rifle rounds that are designed to pierce armor through design, not power.

NO NO NO NO


Hollow-point bullets are the OPPOSITE of armor-piercing, they are the LEAST-CAPABLE of ALL TYPES of bullets of piercing armor.

A hollow-point bullet is 'soft,' it is designed to expand and flatten out when it hits something, which REDUCES its ability to penetrate things.

The entire idea of a hollow-point bullet is to make it expand and stop rather than penetrate.

You are in complete factual error here.

An analogous "gun license test" would just test the ability to shoot accurately and rudimentary knowledge of gun laws.

What about teaching people where the safety is and how it works? The 'emergency brake' if you will?

People are stupid.


Maybe you are.......

People are stupid.
People should have guns.




Yeh, I see a bad ending to that equation alright.

*shrug* If it were our job to protect people from their own stupidity, we'd just kill them at birth. And even that wouldn't be idiot proof, I bet.

Now try reading the 9th as well as the court cases associated w/ it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

I didn't notice a gun reference there but if I missed it the 9th is also in the Bill of Rights as well as the 2nd. So I don't see what the point here is.

Gun registration has never mirrored car registration and licensing in the US.

An analogous "gun license test" would just test the ability to shoot accurately and rudimentary knowledge of gun laws.

This does not make guns "safer" the way it does cars, because people do not walk around shooting guns at all hours, relying on their accuracy not to hit people.

The reasons for licensing drivers do not have an analog in the realm of guns, so why should such a license be necessary?

I don't mean a liscence to train people how to use a gun (though that would be useful) but just making it harder for people to get Guns (i.e. people with a violent past, criminal record etc... (yes I know they already have that sort of thing, but somethings not working because people who should never be allowed to own a gun can still get one from the local gun shop)) and making sure that gun shops keep to these regulations.

People are stupid
People should choose who lead them.

... but we should still let stupid people have guns.

Like I said, I sure don't see a bad ending to that equation.

Stupid people + weaponry = Happy happy fun time.

I didn't notice a gun reference there but if I missed it the 9th is also in the Bill of Rights as well as the 2nd. So I don't see what the point here is.

Of course you don't. You claimed if it wasn't in the BOR explicitly, people wouldn't have it. Now go back and read the 9th again.

... but we should still let stupid people have guns.

Like I said, I sure don't see a bad ending to that equation.

Stupid people + weaponry = Happy happy fun time.

So you oppose universal suffrage as well. Gotcha.

I don't mean a liscence to train people how to use a gun (though that would be useful) but just making it harder for people to get Guns (i.e. people with a violent past, criminal record etc... (yes I know they already have that sort of thing, but somethings not working because people who should never be allowed to own a gun can still get one from the local gun shop)) and making sure that gun shops keep to these regulations.

They already have both. NICS and ATF inspections of FFL dealers.

Of course you don't. You claimed if it wasn't in the BOR explicitly, people wouldn't have it. Now go back and read the 9th again.

No, what he was saying was (expanding on my own previous point) that people think they have the right to a lot of things, purely because it's written down.

If it wasn't specified they had that 'right', people wouldn't kick up such a fuss over it.

The 'right' to a gun is not universal.

No, what he was saying was (expanding on my own previous point) that people think they have the right to a lot of things, purely because it's written down.

If it wasn't specified they had that 'right', people wouldn't kick up such a fuss over it.

The 'right' to a gun is not universal.

You claim that. Privacy wasn't explicitly written down yet it's considered fundamental.

The 'right' to a gun is not universal.

What's special about that?

You claim that. Privacy wasn't explicitly written down yet it's considered fundamental.

UN-I-VER-SAL. The right is not universal. I don't claim that. I know that.

They already have both. NICS and ATF inspections of FFL dealers.

As I said I know but it's clearly very badly done.

As I said I know but it's clearly very badly done.

Clearly?

I don't mean a liscence to train people how to use a gun (though that would be useful) but just making it harder for people to get Guns (i.e. people with a violent past, criminal record etc... (yes I know they already have that sort of thing, but somethings not working because people who should never be allowed to own a gun can still get one from the local gun shop)) and making sure that gun shops keep to these regulations.

Factually wrong here.

It is a serious federal crime for a local gun shop to sell a gun to a prohibited person, since all gun shops must be have a Federal Firearms License and run an instant check on the person buying the gun, as well as keep paperwork on file.

As I said I know but it's clearly very badly done.

Why? Crime dropped for over ten years even w/ more firearms. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved but it works fairly well as it is.

What's special about that?

It degrades the argument a little.

It degrades the argument a little.

No it doesn't. I can't shout fire in a crowded theater for no reason. I can't print lies about a person in the news paper. Since when have rights been universal?

I'd really like to know this. Do those people who believe it's their right to own guns also believe it's their right to own drugs? Because that's exactly the same.

Guns, if used correctly, can protect people, aid in sports, etc.
Drugs, if used correctly, can ease people's illnesses and pains, aid in treatments, etc. (Yes! Even heroin and the likes)
Guns, if used incorrrectly, can make murders and rapes easier, support crime, cause mayhem on the streets, etc.
Drugs, if used incorrectly, can make people addicted, destroy lives, cause drug wars, etc.

I'm not a fan of either. If they are both illegal, I'm happy.

UN-I-VER-SAL. The right is not universal. I don't claim that. I know that.

Uh, huh. You claim that you know that. Just because some gov'ts don't recognize it doesn't make it non-fundamental.

I'd really like to know this. Do those people who believe it's their right to own guns also believe it's their right to own drugs? Because that's exactly the same.

Guns, if used correctly, can protect people, aid in sports, etc.
Drugs, if used correctly, can ease people's illnesses and pains, aid in treatments, etc. (Yes! Even heroin and the likes)
Guns, if used incorrrectly, can make murders and rapes easier, support crime, cause mayhem on the streets, etc.
Drugs, if used incorrectly, can make people addicted, destroy lives, cause drug wars, etc.

I'm not a fan of either. If they are both illegal, I'm happy.

And the war on drugs has reduced use and crime how much?

No it doesn't. I can't shout fire in a crowded theater for no reason. I can't print lies about a person in the news paper. Since when have rights been universal?

Many peopel argue that owning a gun is a universal human right, but it isn't really.

Many peopel argue that owning a gun is a universal human right, but it isn't really.

Just because you don't recognize it doesn't make it not true.

Uh, huh. You claim that you know that. Just because some gov'ts don't recognize it doesn't make it non-fundamental.

Again, I don't 'claim' to know that. The very FACT that not all governments allow it as a right, makes it "not universal".

By your logic, purely because governments don't recognise the right to a blowjob, means we actually do have that right?!

Why do you assume you are speaking to an American? Why, on an International forum, do you still assume you are speaking to an American?

Factually wrong here.

It is a serious federal crime for a local gun shop to sell a gun to a prohibited person, since all gun shops must be have a Federal Firearms License and run an instant check on the person buying the gun, as well as keep paperwork on file.

I know, I did say that I was aware it was already being regulated. Yet they arn't regulating it very well from the things I have read and seen, at all. A lot of gun shop owners couldn't give a shit about the FFL and sell guns to anyone anyway and not enough in my opinion is done to stop that.

I know, I did say that I was aware it was already being regulated. Yet they arn't regulating it very well from the things I have read and seen, at all. A lot of gun shop owners couldn't give a shit about the FFL and sell guns to anyone anyway and not enough in my opinion is done to stop that.

All you're reading are sensationalist stories. Every FFL sale has to be checked.

I know, I did say that I was aware it was already being regulated. Yet they arn't regulating it very well from the things I have read and seen, at all. A lot of gun shop owners couldn't give a shit about the FFL and sell guns to anyone anyway and not enough in my opinion is done to stop that.

Read and seen. Ah, you must mean the news?

I know, I did say that I was aware it was already being regulated. Yet they arn't regulating it very well from the things I have read and seen, at all. A lot of gun shop owners couldn't give a shit about the FFL and sell guns to anyone anyway and not enough in my opinion is done to stop that.

Gun used in crime -> gun traced to FFL -> FFL found to have sold to criminal -> FFL in criminal trouble.

All you're reading are sensationalist stories. Every FFL sale has to be checked.

There is a difference between "has to" and "is".

There is a difference between "has to" and "is".

And more laws will remove this difference?

There is a difference between "has to" and "is".

And the (at least) annual inventory/paperwork check by the ATF will make bad things happed so said dealer.

Why is it that the most hotly contested arguments in America are about stupid issues?

This issue is not complicated, nor are the other ones that get argued about all the time in America.

I want to know why all the democratic and critical energy is spent on pointless questions, when ones about suffering, injustice and human life get so little attention?

when ones about suffering, injustice and human life get so little attention?

Which particular ones?

And the war on drugs has reduced use and crime how much?

Well... That's a valid point, really... But I must say that if I were to compare the two, drugs seem less harmful and do more good when used right... Can't quite understand what's so good about guns though... I just wanted to see if there's anyone who's pro-guns, anti-drugs...

And more laws will remove this difference?

More action, or maybe a different system yes.

People have the right to make all decisions regarding their own bodies and property so long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

The primary purpose of government should be to protect this right.

Seriously, read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

Well... That's a valid point, really... But I must say that if I were to compare the two, drugs seem less harmful and do more good when used right... Can't quite understand what's so good about guns though... I just wanted to see if there's anyone who's pro-guns, anti-drugs...

There's variation depending on the kind of drug. You may want to be more specific.

Which particular ones?

I don't remember seeing a thread on here about how high tax should be, or how global poverty could be alleviated, about very poor people, prisons, drug rehabilitation, crimes against humanity going on, that guy in thailand going to prison for graffiti against the king...

The threads that run to 16 pages long seem to be about guns, abortion, who to 'blame' for crime, the pledge of allegiance, how atheists are evil, how theists are evil, how republicans are evil, how liberals are evil...

Ok, maybe I'm just drawn to the sensational arguments. But my point is that you all are as well, and we keep giving in to the temptation to mark our identities by arguing with stupid people on stupid issues.

Damn right mate! That is exactly what I do. On the other hand you are completely correct, and I can only surmise that for half of this, NS'ers are not amnesty international, who do deal with all human rights and things. Also I can only guess no-one really has expertise for the other stuff and arguing over general issues is more easy than the actually helping people and the world.

I don't remember seeing a thread on here about how high tax should be, or how global poverty could be alleviated, about very poor people, prisons, drug rehabilitation, crimes against humanity going on,

I've seen threads about all of those things.

I don't remember seeing a thread on here about how high tax should be, or how global poverty could be alleviated, about very poor people, prisons, drug rehabilitation, crimes against humanity going on, that guy in thailand going to prison for graffiti against the king...

Not payin much attention, are we? :p

Not payin much attention, are we? :p

Sorry! I'm like a moth drawn to raging arguments. But now I'm bored of them.

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.

okay,
have your bear arms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2utcuURGXw :p

Hollow point is not designed to go through armor. It's designed to reduce blow through.

My mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_bullet



To the person who asked where they could find armor piercing rounds: "Armor-piercing ammunition can range from rifle and pistol caliber rounds all the way up to tank rounds". Not sure where you'd get them, specifically, but you can get them for pistols.

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.
Not really, no. Far from it, actually.
I don't think people need to have guns.

I don't think people having guns protects them from crime.

I don't think people having guns protects them from the government.

But I do know that some people are happier if they own a gun. And so I say..."meh". Some people want to have a hole drilled in their skull to improve their consciousness, other people want a gun to protect themselves from evil people. They may both seem incredibly stupid to me, but as long as they leave me alone with it, I'm in no position to tell anyone to stop.

I approve of this post :)

Oh, and gun ownership? It's at present a right in the US, but it is not a universal right.

Guns might not always be necessary for everyone but i do think that people should have a right to own and carry a firearm if they want to. People say that nobody needs them but the first time i try and get robbed or they mess with my family, they better be willing to answer to a couple of 9mm lodged in their bodies.