The Right to Bear Arms

[Dominicus of Byzantium]

The second ammendment allows Americans to legally bear arms. What do people think of this. I am against it in principal, and my views shall become clear as the thread ages.

[HellDawg]

I'm totaly for it. I own about 9 or so firearms legally (including what would be classified as "assault weapons" which are now legal now that the ban has expired), and don't plan on getting rid of them anytime soon.

[Gunfighter34]

I'm quite happy with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I pity those folks in countries without such rights, or who have recently (UK, Canada, and Australia to some extent) had those rights repealed. The right to keep and bear arms is a safeguard against government tyranny and a guarantor of the right to self-defense. I have no problem, of course, with other countries choosing to outlaw guns, that's their business. Thankfully, I'm an American, so I don't have to worry about it.

[Bovril]

Wouldn't want it in my country.
Don't care too much that other people want it in their's.

[Manuel I Comnenus]

In my opinion it's an outdated law.
Only in the hand of reasonable people you can minimize the danger of weapons, but then again reasonable people usually won't buy a weapon.
Once I read statistics (will try to find a link with a similiar one) saying the possibility of being shot is notedly higher, if you posses a gun or heave one in your house.

I'm quite happy with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I pity those folks in countries without such rights, or who have recently (UK, Canada, and Australia to some extent) had those rights repealed.

Well, and I'm quite happy to be able to step on the streets without having to fear of being shot.

Just for comparison (murder with guns/100.000 inhabitants):
USA: 5,2
EU: 0,55
(statistics are from 1995)
There must be a reason for the probability of being shot in the US is ten times higher than in the EU.

The right to keep and bear arms is a safeguard against government tyranny and a guarantor of the right to self-defense.

You won't loose your right of self-defense not bearing arms. The possesion of arms is more like a guarantor that you'll have to defend yourself, regarding the first statistics I mentioned.
And the best safeguard against government tyranny still is to elect a good government, though I know it's hard to convince a majority of this and especially to find a possibly good government.
But anyways, if your government decides to tyrannize your state and comes with the army, your weapons won't help you much, but once again they make it more likely that you'll be killed.

M-I-C

[Dan_Grr]

You make a very good point there Manuel I. Im an european, but im somewhat contradicting myself. See, for the reasons you appointed (there are more) its good not to be able to legally carry a weapon in EU, but I would like to have one, to be mentally and phisycal safer when Im crossing some dangerous outcast zone. But I guess its better not to be legal over here.

A couple months ago, in Portugal, a 22 year old was beaten in his car by a man who came out of his car, in front of the young man. The young man was with his girlfriend at the time, inside the car. After being beaten up, the agressor (man) gives 3 steps into his own car, turns back, draws his gun, and gets 3 shots in the youngman's chest, at close range. He died in his way to the hospital. He was only 22.

This will most likely happen again, if the so called right to bear arms becomes legal in Europe.

[Manuel I Comnenus]

You make a very good point there Manuel I. Im an european, but im somewhat contradicting myself. See, for the reasons you appointed (there are more) its good not to be able to legally carry a weapon in EU, but I would like to have one, to be mentally and phisycal safer when Im crossing some dangerous outcast zone. But I guess its better not to be legal over here.

A couple months ago, in Portugal, a 22 year old was beaten in his car by a man who came out of his car, in front of the young man. The young man was with his girlfriend at the time, inside the car. After being beaten up, the agressor (man) gives 3 steps into his own car, turns back, draws his gun, and gets 3 shots in the youngman's chest, at close range. He died in his way to the hospital. He was only 22.

This will most likely happen again, if the so called right to bear arms becomes legal in Europe.

You're right, there are more reasons, I just pointed out those that are the most obvious and easiest to prove.

I don't know of any outcast zones where I would feel more secure carrying a gun in my pocket. If someone wants to shoot you, you will hardly have enough time to get the gun out before he shoots. best solution in such cases is to run away. May it be cowardly, its safe and that's what counts for me, cause what's the point of not being coward if you're dead?
btw, I don't know of any areas, here in germany at least, I would call an outcast zone, where it is likely that you're shot on the streets.

M-I-C

[DimeBagHo]

Once I read statistics (will try to find a link with a similiar one) saying the possibility of being shot is notedly higher, if you posses a gun or heave one in your house.

You are probably thinking of "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

This study has been criticised for a wide variety of flaws. The most serious flaw was that it counted suicides, and in fact suicides made up the vast majority of instances of people being shot with their own guns (lol - yes if you are suicidal then owning a gun could be a danger to your health).

The CDC recently finished a large meta-study of gun control in the US and concluded that there was no evidence that any gun-control measure had ever had a beneficial effect on crime rates or mortality rates.

[Manuel I Comnenus]

You are probably thinking of "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

No, actually it was a german study, and as far as I can remember it focused on murder not on suicide.

[internationalist]

I'm totaly for it. I own about 9 or so firearms legally (including what would be classified as "assault weapons" which are now legal now that the ban has expired), and don't plan on getting rid of them anytime soon.

why do you own 9 guns? Do you use them that regularly? I think guns are great but I dont see why you need so many? What kinds do you have?

[Destroyer Joe]

I am a great supporter of the right ot bear arms. I also support the right to arm bears. However, I believe a licence should be required for bare arms.

[HellDawg]

why do you own 9 guns? Do you use them that regularly? I think guns are great but I dont see why you need so many? What kinds do you have?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do use them regularly, mainly for target shooting. I both shoot and collect firearms. I've got a pretty wide assortment of weapons, ranging from an AK clone, to the civilian version of the G3A3 (the HK91), to an M1 Garand, a bunch of handguns, some hunting rifles and .22s...

I feel safer having these weapons in my house, because I know if someone with a hostile intent breaks in, the only way they're gonna leave is either on a stetcher on in a body bag.

[Manuel I Comnenus]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do use them regularly, mainly for target shooting. I both shoot and collect firearms. I've got a pretty wide assortment of weapons, ranging from an AK clone, to the civilian version of the G3A3 (the HK91), to an M1 Garand, a bunch of handguns, some hunting rifles and .22s...

I feel safer having these weapons in my house, because I know if someone with a hostile intent breaks in, the only way they're gonna leave is either on a stetcher on in a body bag.

And what, if the burglar finds one of your weapons befor you even wake up? Then YOU will probably leave your house in a body bag that day.

[Flavius Atius]

And what, if the burglar finds one of your weapons befor you even wake up? Then YOU will probably leave your house in a body bag that day.

If the burglar takes the weapon and shoots you without provocation then he was entering the home with the goal of killing you in his mind already, so whether he has a knife or a gun the end result will be your death.

[HellDawg]

And what, if the burglar finds one of your weapons befor you even wake up? Then YOU will probably leave your house in a body bag that day.

Yes, but first he'd have to find a way to get the gun locks off, then stumble about looking for the ammunition, then take each individual bullet and put them in a magazine, then figure out how to operate the weapon...

And he'd have to actualy find the weapons themselves before then, which is easier said than done.

And by the time he's done all of this, I would have rolled over in bed, grabbed my pistol off of my knife stand, loaded that up in 2 seconds, and blown him away.

Besides, having a dog that tends to bark really loudly tends to help in the detection of burglers, so it'd be pretty damn hard to sneak in undetected.

[Syron]

If Americans feel they should have the "right to bear arms" then thats up to them.

I'm pretty happy that possessing handguns is banned here in the UK.

[meh_cd]

It's funny reading a post by a German who seems to think that everyone in America carries around a gun in their pockets (you need a license for a concealed weapon) and thinks that people get shot all of the time. ROFL.

Oh, and he thinks that many people who own guns keep them under their matresses or pillows whilst they are loaded and without locks. Get real. You put a lock on the gun, put them in a locked case and/or secure area and then you also keep the ammunition in a completely different area of the house.

I think someone is playing too much Grand Theft Auto.

[Dominicus of Byzantium]

I'm not opposed to the possession of fire arms as a whole, I'm mainly against the 'right to bear arms', I think that one should have to pass competence and mental health checks before you get a licence. I think the second ammendment refers to the right to bear arms in defence of the state, not of the person. I think that now the U.S.A. has a full-time, well trained (admittedly the U.S. frequently misses the target in a warzone) army, navy, airforce, nuclear arsenal and police force, I think that it is safe to assume that local citizen militias are no longer needed. I also think that it is very unlikely that any country which would be suicidal enough to invade the U.S. either has a crackpot leader about to be assassinated or killed in an armed coup, or has been absorbed by another country.
Whether or not the weapon is in view or not is irrelevent, it is still dangerous. One of you said that you pity other countries that have recently had the right to bear arms revoked. May I remind you that these countries have healthy armies and police forces and most had the right to bear arms rebuked sometime in the 1700's. Admittedly the U.S. had some natives to cull before they could feel safe but I think that time has come. As for armed militias, I'm sure if there was an invasion of one of the above countries, their army would grow from patriotic conscription and they would be equipped in a military way.
As for self defence, we in these countries like to use clubs, bottles, bare hands and even bows, crossbows and airguns to defend ourselves. But because burglars aren't exactly going to find it easy to get hold of guns in this country, and that it's a crime to use unreasonable force to resist assault (shooting a man who is threatening to punch you) then I think all need for guns in this country is non-existent unless you want to practice a sport.

[Gunfighter34]

Whether or not the weapon is in view or not is irrelevent, it is still dangerous. One of you said that you pity other countries that have recently had the right to bear arms revoked. May I remind you that these countries have healthy armies and police forces and most had the right to bear arms rebuked sometime in the 1700's. Admittedly the U.S. had some natives to cull before they could feel safe but I think that time has come. As for armed militias, I'm sure if there was an invasion of one of the above countries, their army would grow from patriotic conscription and they would be equipped in a military way.

Any weapon I may be carrying only becomes dangerous of you become physically threatening to me or someone within my line of sight. If you attack me, I will kill you with whatever means I have available to do so.

Yes, I pity those of you in countries who have had your personal freedoms revoked.

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States isn't related solely to defense of the state. It is designed as a defense for the people against the state, and also as a guarantor of the right and means to private self-defense. Your ignorance of the intentions of the Founding Fathers with regard to this matter is irrelevant, as is your ignorance of the fact that the US government, both through the action of all three branches, has declared that the second ammendment is an individual right.

The Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776 might shed a little light onto the ideas prevalent at the time: "The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."

Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms".

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them."

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."

Thomas Paine: "Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." (emphasis added for you dim bulbs) Paine also said, "Those who reap the blessings of freedom must, LIKE MEN, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." That's a nice segue into the next quote:

Benjamin Franklin: "They who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Wow, he might have been talking about you!

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Wow, guess he wasn't talking about arming people just to defend the state, eh? Also fascinating to note that Europeans were mollies even in the 18th century.

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Wow, guess he wasn't talking about the militia!

These are just a few representative quotes to enlighten you as to the general mood of the American founders and Americans prominent in public and political life around the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. Anyone who wants to take the time to look will find hundreds more quotes like these.

So sure, you're entitled to your opinions. Your opinions, with regard to our Constitutional rights, are meaningless. Our Founders were a whole lot smarter than you are. The Bill of Rights was created for good, well thought out, reasons. So, while I have no problem with your country disarming you, please understand that I'll simply nod and laugh at you when you try to tell me how it should be in mine.

[Gunfighter34]

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Ok, when you read the above statement, you believe that it "explicitly states" that the purpose of an armed citizenry is to have people to serve in the militia? Is English your second language? Seriously. And if you think Madison was against private ownership of firearms--wow! LOL!