Are You For Or Against Guns?

[jezza39]

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you there. The purpose of having guns is to prevent the uprising of a tyrannical government and that has always been the purpose of the 2nd amendment. This is why the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment. It was to prevent another Revolutionary War or to give use the means to protect ourselves if there was one. But I do agree that home defense and hunting are reasons to have them too.

 

Wasn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to arm militias to resist the British as the newly formed USA thought that an attack from England was imminent (and is was, War of 1812)? I don't think it's purpose is to arm people for home defence, or New York City/State's gun laws would be unconstitutional. 

 

People are forgetting competition shooting too  

[Fred Castellum]

I like the idea of a CCP for self defense, of course your not going to carry your firearm everywhere so its nice to have experience in CQC techniques to disarm others who may be a potential threat. 

 

Having a durable knife is a good option too, not only can it serve as a tool it can be used for self defense. (I'm pretty accurate at throwing knives, though its a foolish move if the criminal is armed, once the knife is out of your hands your down to physical self defense)

 

I think background checks should be done and only people who don't have a criminal record should be allowed to own a CCP. 

[jmaster299]

A gun is a tool, nothing more. Laws already exist that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing a gun and laws already exist that prohibit someone from having a gun in places like schools. But criminals and the mentally ill don't follow the law, so no new law or restriction would stop them. Even if you took away every gun in existence, they would still find a way to hurt and kill people. When a drunk driver kills someone, you don't blame the car, so why do we blame the gun and not the person when one person shoots another?

The Second Amendment was written for the explicit purpose of allowing the citizens of the new formed United States the right to own guns in case there is ever the need for the people to overthrow an unjust government again and to protect themselves and their property. It does not require that there be a current and obvious threat and it was created because the citizens of this country may one day need to rise up against their government again just like we rose up against the British.

The government does not have a right to constantly put more and more restrictions on guns. It's that sort of tyranny that the Second Amendment was created for. If the government, on any level, starts to over step it's authority, the citizens of the United States have a Constitutionally protected right to rise up in force if all other legal recourse fails.

[cae]

I'm for guns, if such a thing is possible. I'm against them being used to initiate force against other humans. Pretty simple.

 

iCarry

[SKOONJar]

I believe and use my second amendment right to own and use arms. However I do believe it is too easy to get them especially without mental health checks and states need to have the same laws no matter what. I am a pro-gun advocate through and through but too many mentally unstable people have gotten a hold of guns. I keep mine locked away in a safe and I am only knows the code yet only my girlfriend lives with me but none the less my name is on them and I will be the only one using them. I use them for target practice only. Part of the second amendment was to arm citizens in case the government becomes a corrupt organization trying to take away rights. Plus gun free zones those don't work. Last time I checked criminals don't follow rules. I sure as hell am not going to let any one take that right away even if it is the government. 

[Jaybird]

There is only two reasons someone should own a gun/firarms, Food (Hunting) and home protection, anything out side those lines, means only one thing.

collection? I collect. 

[Guest]

Wasn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to arm militias to resist the British as the newly formed USA thought that an attack from England was imminent (and is was, War of 1812)? I don't think it's purpose is to arm people for home defence, or New York City/State's gun laws would be unconstitutional. 

 

People are forgetting competition shooting too

You're close but not quite there refer to my previous post and yes home defense were never part of the second amendment.

[JustTooDank]

Wasn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to arm militias to resist the British as the newly formed USA thought that an attack from England was imminent (and is was, War of 1812)? I don't think it's purpose is to arm people for home defence, or New York City/State's gun laws would be unconstitutional. 

 

People are forgetting competition shooting too

It was to arm the citizenry, so that if s*** hit the fan, militias could easily be formed and a resistance would be possible. Every able-bodied man ages 17-45 in the US is a member of the militia, whether they want to be or not. And the NYC gun laws ARE unconstitutional. They don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Here is an example of the 2nd Amendment in effect (it's a dramatization, but this actually happened):

Home defense is secondary. As a living creature, you have the right to defend yourself. As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms, free of infringement. Put 2 and 2 together.

And trying to get rid of guns is like trying to filter piss out of the ocean. Ain't gonna happen.

[Guest]

It was to arm the citizenry, so that if s*** hit the fan, militias could easily be formed and a resistance would be possible. Every able-bodied man ages 17-45 in the US is a member of the militia, whether they want to be or not. And the NYC gun laws ARE unconstitutional. They don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Here is an example of the 2nd Amendment in effect (it's a dramatization, but this actually happened):

Home defense is secondary. As a living creature, you have the right to defend yourself. As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms, free of infringement. Put 2 and 2 together.

And trying to get rid of guns is like trying to filter piss out of the ocean. Ain't gonna happen.

Amen

[jezza39]

It was to arm the citizenry, so that if s*** hit the fan, militias could easily be formed and a resistance would be possible. Every able-bodied man ages 17-45 in the US is a member of the militia, whether they want to be or not. And the NYC gun laws ARE unconstitutional. They don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Home defense is secondary. As a living creature, you have the right to defend yourself. As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms, free of infringement. Put 2 and 2 together.

And trying to get rid of guns is like trying to filter piss out of the ocean. Ain't gonna happen.

The right to defend yourself only goes so far, you are only allowed to meet danger with equal force, shooting an unarmed burglar is not reasonable in anyway, sure scare them, call the police, if you are in real danger, open fire.

 

My country had no problem removing guns. Anyway, people could try, a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step no? Or, why not ban assualt weapons, semi-automatic and large calibre weapons? Why do people need these weapons? Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

 

People don't realise that in 1791 the weapon of choice on the battlefield had an effective range of 100feet and took 30+ seconds to load a second shot as was 6 feet long. Not comparable to a handgun that empties 16 rounds in 20 seconds, can shoot as far and can be concealed beneath a t-shirt. 

 

The wording of the 2nd amendment is "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." 

 

I would have called the United States Army the best security in the world, but hey, every joe needs an M-16 too right?

 

Amen

 

Not to sound cliched, but there is a saying from a (admittedly fantastic) movie that goes "lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten". I wonder how much blood will be spilled before Americans wake up and realise something is seriously wrong.

 

Maybe when your 10 year old child is gunned down at school you'll feel enough is enough.

[AlwaysFSX]

People will kill people, but the amount of damage that can be done with a gun is more than a knife.

If someone pulls a gun and starts to shoot at people around me and I have one too, chances are high that I'm going to put a few rounds in them to stop them from killing others. If most people have this mentality then gun crime will go down because you would have to be a blithering idiot to try and kill people in a public place where you know there's guns.

[qwertywarrior]

the number one most used object to kill someone is a hammer. true story.

you have just reminded me of this

the hammer attacks on tourists two weeks in a row in london

 

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/i-do-not-want-to-go-to-london-anytime-soon-1.1323499

[Mentalguy]

I feel that scared people use firearms to defend them self's and those are the wrong hands that a firearm need to be in.

And feel you are uninformed on what gun ownership is like.

 

 

Due to my military status, If someone breaks into my house (either with the intent to harm or to steal stuff), I am allowed and will use deadly force, if necessary. The situation will dictate.

[MadZee]

I've shot an AK-74 on a range, I enjoyed it and I see why others would. But the "defense" thing is BS, at least in Europe. So, for sport- yes, otherwise- what's the point of it?

[jezza39]

If someone pulls a gun and starts to shoot at people around me and I have one too, chances are high that I'm going to put a few rounds in them to stop them from killing others. If most people have this mentality then gun crime will go down because you would have to be a blithering idiot to try and kill people in a public place where you know there's guns.

Not everyone carries a weapon, what if you're shot first? Or you don't see the shooter, or you aren't there? Now what?

Aren't you just a hero. What if no one had a gun to start with? People have had the mentality that if everyone has a gun everyone is ok. Hasn't worked out so far has it?

 

What about after you shoot the gunmen? Do you have anything to restrain him? Might wanna grab some handcuffs, and a torch so you can see if the lights go out. Do you know what else you should do? Wear that gun on your hip so people can see it and be deterred by your presence. Also, I think a nice blue uniform would go well with the above combination, and you should drive a black and white car with flashing lights on top.....

 

OH WAIT, we have people for stopping criminals, they go by the name of police no?

[AlwaysFSX]

Not everyone carries a weapon, what if you're shot first? Or you don't see the shooter, or you aren't there? Now what?

In a perfect world, people would be mentally capable to carry a weapon. Since we're talking about America, that's obviously not the case. Many are capable but laws prohibit such actions to occur. For example, areas where it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Shot first? I can guarantee that there's at least one other person in the area with the same capability of taking down a gunman. Have you ever heard a gunshot? You don't miss it. You'll usually know where the shooter is. I'm not there? This is why I go back to the idea that where there are capable, rational thinkers then I wouldn't need to be there to prevent a gunman from ending the lives of others.

Aren't you just a hero. What if no one had a gun to start with? People have had the mentality that if everyone has a gun everyone is ok. Hasn't worked out so far has it?

If people here actually had the mental capacity to realize the differences between rational and irrational actions then guns wouldn't be a problem, again we're talking about America. But let's envision an America where people are rational. That would mean that parents teach their children morals and those children act on those morals reducing idiocy between peers, preventing thoughts of irrational actions like shooting people in a movie theater becoming rarer. Also, you can club the living hell out of someone with nearby objects if you wanted to. Hell, you don't need a weapon to take down a gunman either, it's happened time and time again. Also, you're putting words in my mouth saying that with the mentality of everyone having a gun is mentally sane. I disagree. (MOST) People are fucking idiots. The sane ones should be allowed to carry guns because they're more likely to make a rational decision if they decide to use a firearm against another person than someone that constantly causes physical, emotional abuse unto others. It doesn't work because society is filled with nitwits. Get rid of the nitwits and there wouldn't be this problem. Then everyone could carry a gun and nothing would happen. Why? Because they understand there is no reason to shoot one another.

What about after you shoot the gunmen? Do you have anything to restrain him? Might wanna grab some handcuffs, and a torch so you can see if the lights go out. Do you know what else you should do? Wear that gun on your hip so people can see it and be deterred by your presence. Also, I think a nice blue uniform would go well with the above combination, and you should drive a black and white car with flashing lights on top.....

Do you understand what happens when you shoot someone in the joints? That limb becomes useless until the wound has healed. I wouldn't have to shoot you above your wrist or elbow to prevent you from firing a weapon, I could hit a larger target... say your shoulder. Same effect. 

OH WAIT, we have people for stopping criminals, they go by the name of police no?

Apparently you have never heard the phrase "when the seconds count, police are minutes away" in your life because you have a sugar-coated idea of how the world works. The average response time for police is roughly 10 minutes. I could point a gun at you, let you call the police, wait 9 minutes and still end up killing you before the police arrive to save your life. At least they can ID your body and count you as a statistic to gun crime, right? Now let's say ANYBODY had a gun and they were in your vicinity. Your chances of living just went up exponentially. Why? Because drawing a gun and even firing at a gunman is enough to prevent murders. You don't even have to hit them. Just scaring them off could provide you enough time for your precious police to show up. 

This is the best of an argument you can come up with? I have to main points to make:

1. You are sorely mistaken on how the world works.

2. People are fucking idiots, you cannot remove gun crime until you get rid of the idiots. You can however, prevent a lot of it by giving people the power to protect themselves.

[Guest]

No, I don't believe in people owning guns.

 

Reason being that guns make it far easier to kill people.

 

Sure, a kitchen knife can kill easily too, But that is not it's purpose.

 

 

You can bring in as many law talk as you want, my unfiltered opinion is just No. They make it considerably easier to hurt each other.

[juretrn]

If you take away the tool that stupid or crazy people can use to kill others easily, you make their intents harder. 

I'm against guns. 

[jezza39]

This is the best of an argument you can come up with? I have to main points to make:

1. You are sorely mistaken on how the world works.

2. People are fucking idiots, you cannot remove gun crime until you get rid of the idiots. You can however, prevent a lot of it by giving people the power to protect themselves.

 

It's not just insane people, it's angry people too, and vindictive people and so on. It's just too hard to restrict ownership to people who should have them. I don't think they need to be banned totally, but heavily, heavily restricted. If america spends 1% of what it does on it's military on mental health that would be a huge step. 

 

No I've never heard that phrase, maybe because people don't go on shooting rampages in my country? Because no one has guns that fire rapidly (not allowed semi automatic rifles, and handguns are only for competition shooting).

 

What are the chances of hitting someone from across a theatre when people are screaming and running in your line of sight. It's not ideal anymore. Sure, if it were you vs him I might back the idea of having weapons but no, there are always people caught in the crossfire.

 

I think you need to realise that in the rest of the first world there really aren't any guns, so there isn't gun violence and in turn no school yard rampages. I KNOW IT'S A CHICKEN AND THE EGG SITUATION. But I think it's time America left behind its childish obsession with guns. 

 

The minority (insane as you call them) spoil it for the majority. But it's for a greater good. 

[ericlee30]

LOL your an idiot. I watched the first one and that was police officers. We are talking about civil self defense. Also I could defend myself in a fist fight i would however rather have a gun. Also if guns were banned a criminal could obtain one illegally and I cannot defend myself against a man with a gun if I myself do not have one. Let that reality sink in. Also please stop with the real man crap.

Really genius? The video has nothing to do with cops shooting civilians and everything to do with people killing people with firearms. That was the only message I was sending with the video. Who's the idiot again? You don't even have the common since to get a simple message in a video without someone spelling it out for you.

Also, stop throwing out the criminal card, news flash, you do not need to have a criminal history or a criminal record to pull the trigger and kill another human life.So stop justifying stupidity with your second amendment crap.

I have been around firearms my entire life, I grow up on a big farm in Kansas. Trigger happy second amendment rights people like yourself is the reason why I hate the beliefs in firearms in this day and age.

Like I said in my first post,

"As the saying goes, Guns are for pussies. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and that is were the problem lye's, irresponsible people thinking that they are bad asses with their firearms"

You have your beliefs and I have mine, we could argue about this all day but one thing will not change, the way you think and the way I think. You decided to make a thread about your second amendment right and now im constituting my first amendment right. If you do not like when people disagree with you or have a different opinion about firearms then you, you should not make a thread about it, because not everyone believes in what you believe in , but you already knew that before you made this thread didn't you Typical second amendment hero.

 

[The_Strict_Nein]

Well, living in the UK, I have a bit of different perspective.

 

Quite frankly, people are killing each other on the streets. The UKs gun crime statistics are extremely low.

 

I think the problem is that the US has snookered themselves. Unlike the UK< which always had gun restrictions, the US has always allowed them. If you took away the right to own them legally, people would be easily able to get them, unlike here where it takes quite a bit of effort

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

Just in case

[Art Vandelay]

The right to defend yourself only goes so far, you are only allowed to meet danger with equal force, shooting an unarmed burglar is not reasonable in anyway, sure scare them, call the police, if you are in real danger, open fire.

 

My country had no problem removing guns. Anyway, people could try, a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step no? Or, why not ban assualt weapons, semi-automatic and large calibre weapons? Why do people need these weapons? Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

 

People don't realise that in 1791 the weapon of choice on the battlefield had an effective range of 100feet and took 30+ seconds to load a second shot as was 6 feet long. Not comparable to a handgun that empties 16 rounds in 20 seconds, can shoot as far and can be concealed beneath a t-shirt. 

The whole equal force thing is what we have in Canada. Basically it means that you're gonna end up in court if you defend yourself. Also you can't have any weapons on you in public at any time, as far as I can tell.

 

If you look at the FBI crime statistics, "Assault weapons" (taking it based on the definition of the old federal assault weapons ban) make up a very small portion of the crime committed in America.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Rifles made up 323 of 8500 homocides.

Large calibre weapons aren't really anything special... a .223 is a hell of a lot more powerful than a .45 ACP, and I doubt any violent crimes have ever been committed with a rifle chambered in .50BMG, due to the impracticality of committing crimes with a 40 pound rifle.

Also, a 5'0" person with a baseball bat against a 6'4" dude is gonna got a lot differently than if the short one had a gun.

 

Before I respond to the last part, I'd like to note that pistols were a thing in 1791. 

 

Part of the point of the second amendment is that the people are equally equipped as the government, so the government is limited in its power.  It seems to be a theme among dictatorships that the government disarms the people before taking over fully. Do you trust the US government at all?

 

The wording of the 2nd amendment is "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." 

Am I the only one that sees the irony in a militia regulated by the government that's supposed to be a line of defense against the government having too much power.

[jezza39]

The whole equal force thing is what we have in Canada. Basically it means that you're gonna end up in court if you defend yourself. Also you can't have any weapons on you in public at any time, as far as I can tell.

 

If you look at the FBI crime statistics, "Assault weapons" (taking it based on the definition of the old federal assault weapons ban) make up a very small portion of the crime committed in America.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Rifles made up 323 of 8500 homocides.

Large calibre weapons aren't really anything special... a .223 is a hell of a lot more powerful than a .45 ACP, and I doubt any violent crimes have ever been committed with a rifle chambered in .50BMG, due to the impracticality of committing crimes with a 40 pound rifle.

Also, a 5'0" person with a baseball bat against a 6'4" dude is gonna got a lot differently than if the short one had a gun.

 

Before I respond to the last part, I'd like to note that pistols were a thing in 1791. 

 

Part of the point of the second amendment is that the people are equally equipped as the government, so the government is limited in its power.  It seems to be a theme among dictatorships that the government disarms the people before taking over fully. Do you trust the US government at all?

 

Am I the only one that sees the irony in a militia regulated by the government that's supposed to be a line of defense against the government having too much power.

 

Interesting points, but in 1791 a pistol took 30 seconds to reload and could be trusted to about 30 feet. 

 

The UK, most of Europe, Australia, NZ and many other countries have maintained a steady democracy after disarming its citizens, and in Aus we're all convicts I struggle to understand why there is so much distrust of the government in America, especially in the Southern States.

 

I think my point about assault weapons has been lost through the thread as I mean that they can be used in mass shootings as they fire more quickly and deal more carnage. They were used in the Colorado cinema massacre, Sandy Hook massacre and Columbine. Nobody needs them for self defence, hunting or competition shooting.

 

The 5.0' guy having the baseball bat is able to strike the 6'4" guy withouth the taller guy being able to reach him. 

 

The equal force is a good thing, if someone is legitimately and imminently threatening your or another's life you can shoot them, no problems here. But shooting dead unarmed intruders where you have the advantage of knowing the layout, turning on lights, access to police and a firearm is unjustified. Case in point, Oscar Pistorious chased an 'intruder' in to the toilet, where they locked the door, and locked them self away from causing any harm to Oscar. He shouted warnings, the intruder had retreated and then opened fire. That's murder or manslaughter. The intruder who turned out the be his girlfriend posed no threat after retreating and isolating them self in a tiny room with no escape while Oscar was camped outside with a pistol.

[Art Vandelay]

The UK, most of Europe, Australia, NZ and many other countries have maintained a steady democracy after disarming its citizens, and in Aus we're all convicts I struggle to understand why there is so much distrust of the government in America, especially in the Southern States.

 

I think my point about assault weapons has been lost through the thread as I mean that they can be used in mass shootings as they fire more quickly and deal more carnage. They were used in the Colorado cinema massacre, Sandy Hook massacre and Columbine. Nobody needs them for self defence, hunting or competition shooting.

 

The 5.0' guy having the baseball bat is able to strike the 6'4" guy withouth the taller guy being able to reach him. 

 

The equal force is a good thing, if someone is legitimately and imminently threatening your or another's life you can shoot them, no problems here. But shooting dead unarmed intruders where you have the advantage of knowing the layout, turning on lights, access to police and a firearm is unjustified. Case in point, Oscar Pistorious chased an 'intruder' in to the toilet, where they locked the door, and locked them self away from causing any harm to Oscar. He shouted warnings, the intruder had retreated and then opened fire. That's murder or manslaughter. The intruder who turned out the be his girlfriend posed no threat after retreating and isolating them self in a tiny room with no escape while Oscar was camped outside with a pistol.

Well, there's the fact that the NSA is spying on everyone and forcing companies to help them spy on people and not allowing them to tell people that they are helping. Why would anyone want to give their government unlimited power?

 

Mass shootings are actually a very small portion of gun crime and it's been proven in past shootings that they can be stopped by people with guns. like this, for example: http://www.wktv.com/news/crime-reports/95032689.html or this http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10370&page=73 (I'm too lazy to search for more)

 

What if the 6'4" guy has a baseball bat? What if the 5'0" guy is in public and can't walk around with a baseball bat constantly, then the 6'4" guy attacks him with a bat? Pepper spray isn't going to stop a guy from beating you to death. There's a reason that the police respond to lethal force with lethal force, and don't fire TASERs at a guy walking toward them with a knife.

 

The Oscar Pistorious thing was really obviously just him murdering his girlfriend and then coming up with terrible excuses... If a guy comes to your house and does not immediately leave or surrender upon seeing the gun, it wouldn't be equal force to shoot him, but at that point, your life is in danger if he advances on your or makes some kind of threatening action.