2nd Amendment

[Cornelius the Noble]

"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."
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

Why should a law abiding citizen with a clear mind not have the right to own firearms for their protection or for recreation?

1. Reason to own a firearm for protection: Believe it or not, the police can't protect you from criminals, they can only capture and detain people suspected of crime. Also criminals will get guns if they want them bad enough. Guns can serve as a deterrant to possible criminals.

2. Where I live, a lot of people hunt. Firearms are a big part of this, some people have shooting competitions. Guns used in a safe manner for recreation are part of American society, once necessary for survival on the frontier.

With a gun comes a moral responsibility, you have to take care of it, and use common sense. If not in use, it probably shouldn't be loaded, and ammunition should be in a seperate place. That will minimize accidents.

What is your opinion on firearms? Are private citizens allowed to have them in your country?

[mike^_^]

I want EVERYONE to have a gun. I believe they should be dropped on populations from large helicopters

the government can't protect you and won't protect you. but they WILL take your guns!

anyone doubting this can look to the events of new orleans for proof

[Rush Limbaugh]

Not this again. Loom out it sometimes gets ugly. Im waiting for the only the militia can be armed crowd to arrive.

[Pra]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Amen.

[Katrina]

Well of course you are right, everyone should have the right to bare a gun. If we were not allowed, it would be unfair since criminals have basically all the will to get a gun at any time, and our police systems do not protect us from those who have them, therefore making the law against us having guns completely unjust and putting us in potential danger. However:

With a gun comes a moral responsibility, you have to take care of it, and use common sense. If not in use, it probably shouldn't be loaded, and ammunition should be in a seperate place. That will minimize accidents.

Yes, very true, but there are many who no matter what, will abuse their right with a gun and exersize no restraint under certain situation, making this statement meaningless to those who wish to use their right to bare a gun in an abusive manner.

[Ahiga]

I may be leftist generally but I wholly agree with the right on this issue. It's in plain lettering. 'The right to bear arms'. The Milita [National guard] isn't the people. It's the government. Guns being outlawed will allow only outlaws to have guns. Ectera Ectera.

That being said, I wholeheardly agree with gun safety and requiring people to go through checks and so forth in order to own a gun, just as you would have to do so in order to drive a vehicle. The buerocratic (spelling) issue is when you inherit a gun, as I have. I'm not quite sure what I'll have to do if anything, unless I go about parading it at gun shows and the like I hope I won't be in any trouble.

[the Black Prince]

because it says well regulated militia

gun ownership is one thing, but using the 2nd amendment to support it is somewhat silly... a bunch of people running around waving guns is not well regulated, nor is it a militia. the well regulated militia is the national guard.


the phrase above is a single sentence. the well regulated militia part cannot be divorced from the right to bear arms.

[Gaidin]

because it says well regulated militia

and the word 'people' means nothing.

Now for some entertainment! <sits back to watch the thread>

[RusskiSoldat]

I won't even try on such a right wing site.
I will say this: I pitty the westerners who believe so little in the government that they think it cannot and will not protect them.

[Barbarian-Bob]

It's not allowed in my country, not even the police use them (except in special situations of course), but it's not like they ever need it.

I think "Bowling for Columbine" has some very good points on the matter, and I recommend anyone to watch it. If not anything else, it's good fun.

IMO, guns are not needed to protect your family. In fact, you're making it more dangerous for them. Criminals will have to equip themselves with guns, in order to defend themselves when breaking in for instance, simply because many families have guns in the house. If there were no guns in the house, criminals would not have to arm themselves as heavily. That alone is reason enough (but it would only work if everyone did it. It has to be common not to have a gun in the house for criminals to not carry firearms), let alone the danger in itself to have a firearm in your house where your kids live.

[Oldgamer]

IMO, guns are not needed to protect your family. In fact, you're making it more dangerous for them. Criminals will have to equip themselves with guns, in order to defend themselves when breaking in for instance, simply because many families have guns in the house. If there were no guns in the house, criminals would not have to arm themselves as heavily. That alone is reason enough (but it would only work if everyone did it. It has to be common not to have a gun in the house for criminals to not carry firearms), let alone the danger in itself to have a firearm in your house where your kids live.

This is possibly the most illogical thing that I've ever read, Bob. Criminals don't carry guns in response to a threat from law-abiding people. Criminals carry guns because they are the threat. What you're saying is that the only reason that criminals arm themselves is because that they are afraid of the people they intend to victimize.

However, your argument could possibly be effective when you know that some of the people you debate with will have protected themselves with guns. This might be your reason for the argument. If so, congratulations! You've discovered a method of argument every bit as good as the global warming crowd's "it's a blizzard, it must be global warming!".

Is this another version of "Let's all get along", or "Give peace a chance"?

[Rush Limbaugh]

I was under the impression that they are a federal court, not a state one. And legally, they are the highest court that have made a ruling on this issue

So far. Its not the law of the land and certainly not the definitive position on the 2nd amendment. Its their position on one particular case.

Also, if you look at their history, most of their decisions were not reversed.

I would venture more of theirs have been overturned than any other though.

[Barbarian-Bob]

This is possibly the most illogical thing that I've ever read, Bob. Criminals don't carry guns in response to a threat from law-abiding people. Criminals carry guns because they are the threat. What you're saying is that the only reason that criminals arm themselves is because that they are afraid of the people they intend to victimize.

However, your argument could possibly be effective when you know that some of the people you debate with will have protected themselves with guns. This might be your reason for the argument. If so, congratulations! You've discovered a method of argument every bit as good as the global warming crowd's "it's a blizzard, it must be global warming!".

Is this another version of "Let's all get along", or "Give peace a chance"?

If I may say so, I think you are missing my point.
If every criminal in the country knew that the homes they were breaking into had no guns, why not only bring a crowbar and nothing more? What would you need a gun for? Police? It's preferable to come even come into contact with police, much less exchange fire with them.
Think about it. If you're a criminal, you don't WANT to shoot anyone. It'd just complicate things. If they know the home they are breaking into is harmless, why bring a gun?

[Oldgamer]

If I may say so, I think you are missing my point.
If every criminal in the country knew that the homes they were breaking into had no guns, why not only bring a crowbar and nothing more? What would you need a gun for? Police? It's preferable to come even come into contact with police, much less exchange fire with them.
Think about it. If you're a criminal, you don't WANT to shoot anyone. It'd just complicate things. If they know the home they are breaking into is harmless, why bring a gun?

Bob, the prisons are full of people who wanted to shoot people, and did. Taking guns from law-abiding people would merely put those people more at risk than they already are.

If the criminal knows that the home they are breaking into (i.e., the people they are victimizing) is "harmless" (i.e., they are unable to protect themselves), they are more likely to bring a gun. Breaking into a home is about control, as much as it is about any other criminal activity. Having a gun, while your victims do not, gives one control. And that, to the criminal, is a "rush".

You're assuming that the criminal is rational. Many criminals may be of above-average intelligence (working in a prison is depressing and dangerous, for that very reason). But they do not act rationally. If they did, they would go to school, get a job, find a good woman, raise children and grandchildren, pay their taxes, and perform their civic duties in a responsible manner.

Besides, are we also assuming that the criminal is simply a burglar? Home invasions, murder-in-the-mass, rape, and other violent crimes are often the purpose of a home invasion. I've defended my own home and family twice, in exactly these kinds of situations. By disarming law-abiding people, you dramatically increase their risk of falling victim to this sort of criminal.

@The Fish

I'm also concerned (and a bit amused) by the number of people who apparently want to own guns in case they need to engineer a coup against the government some day; I guess such notions aren't just reserved for whacko survivalists...

You can be amused, if you wish. But don't be concerned, unless you want to become part of a system that has decided to "tread on me".

[Bwaho]

while it isn't normal for civilians to get killed with guns over here (sweden) I can still see why some would feel safer with one... especially in the ghetto-like areas.

However, I can't compare my country to the U.S because there's much more crime over there.

I don't believe there's more crime in the U.S because it's legal to own guns, but because America has an economical/political system which creates a larger percentage of poor people... and poor people are more prone to committing crimes.

Getting gun control in the U.S wont do much for crime rates I'm afraid.

So if I was living in USA I would not be in favor of gun control... infact I would own several reliable small arms to protect my home.

[Barbarian-Bob]

Bob, the prisons are full of people who wanted to shoot people, and did. Taking guns from law-abiding people would merely put those people more at risk than they already are.

If the criminal knows that the home they are breaking into (i.e., the people they are victimizing) is "harmless" (i.e., they are unable to protect themselves), they are more likely to bring a gun. Breaking into a home is about control, as much as it is about any other criminal activity. Having a gun, while your victims do not, gives one control. And that, to the criminal, is a "rush".

You're assuming that the criminal is rational. Many criminals may be of above-average intelligence (working in a prison is depressing and dangerous, for that very reason). But they do not act rationally. If they did, they would go to school, get a job, find a good woman, raise children and grandchildren, pay their taxes, and perform their civic duties in a responsible manner.

Besides, are we also assuming that the criminal is simply a burglar? Home invasions, murder-in-the-mass, rape, and other violent crimes are often the purpose of a home invasion. I've defended my own home and family twice, in exactly these kinds of situations. By disarming law-abiding people, you dramatically increase their risk of falling victim to this sort of criminal.

Criminals are not criminals because they cannot think rationally. It's not like the they don't have the capacity to live a good life, get a job etc. Mostly it's a matter of falling out of the system sometime in their life, not a matter of thinking straight.

Moving on, why is it that so much of the rest of the world can live without fear of crime with no guns in their home? Why is it that countries with billions of people can feel safe without guns in their home? Why does all of Europe feel safe with no guns in their home?

Of course, I can see why you feel the way you do, and I would probably feel the same way if I had to protect my family twice, but what if we turned it around?
What if YOU were the one that wasn't thinking rational? What if you were a person that wasn't familiar with guns, what if you wanted to kill? Not to mention what could happen if people (or kids!) had an accident. But hey, it's alright, it's your right after all to carry guns in your home. Not everyone can think as straight as you in a heated up situation. Guns shouldn't be trusted to people so easily.

I realize this may seem frustrating for you to hear as you yourself have experienced what it's like to be in a situation like that, what it's like to have your family under attack, and I can't even imagine what that's like. But I still believe the average citizen is better off without guns widely available.

[Lee1026]

If I own an AK47, I don't think the criminal will be better than me.

Of course, that is illegal. And if you make it legal, then the criminal will also gain easy access to it. And the average criminal is far more skilled in using that AK47 then the average homeowner.

History has shown that a small to medium group of citizens with guns will be able to thwart armies.

Yeah, when that army is part of a liberal democracy. Problem is, the jackboots crushing you will not be part of a liberal democracy.

The police's job should not be inherently easy.

Me, I want the cops to be there to ensure out society does not descend into arachy

If you ban guns, the criminals will still find a way to get them. Youve just taken away a constitutional right and not really helped the crime problem.

Well, yes, they will be there, but they will also be so expensive that only a very small number of criminals can afford them. In effect, it takes the guns out of their hands.

"Guns don't kill people - people kill people". And people armed with guns even more so However there's an advantage in allowing the population to own guns (other than preventing overpopulation ): it's harder for a dictator to seize power. That makes the political elite's actions a tad more subtle than simply resorting to thughs in brown shirts and black boots marching on the streets. Do you know many people who used their licensed gun to shoot the TV set?

Well, considering Hitler's wide-spread support in 1933, it is entirely silly to think that the Germans would have risen up against him.

Well did you know that 42,000 people die from simply driving their cars average per year? Or how about:

Heart disease: 685,089
Cancer: 556,902
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 157,689
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 126,382
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 109,277
Diabetes: 74,219
Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,163
Alzheimer's disease: 63,457
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,453
Septicemia: 34,069

Guns really arean't that bad.

Well, when you consider that the holocaust merely killed 500K a year (6 million people, 12 years), which is still well below heart disease, gas chambers are perfectly acceptable, no?

Problem is that there are so many guns (legal and illegal) in circulation in the US nowadays that if firearms were taken from the law-abiding citizens it would leave them totally defenceless against the heavily armed criminals that retained their weapons. Its too late for the US, but its not too late for the UK. But if our police force dont get their act together then it could very well spiral out of control.

Make carrying a gun punishable by death. That should sort out 99.999% of the guns.

[RusskiSoldat]

As for the old "criminals are armed" argument: the only civilians who had guns in the USSR were the police and officers on leave (who were allowed to keep their Tokarev pistols).
Guess what?
The criminals weren't armed.
Oh, just so you know the joke/point someone is about to make along the lines of "the government was the criminals so they were armed lololololol" is neither a good joke nor a good point.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

As for the old "criminals are armed" argument: the only civilians who had guns in the USSR were the police and officers on leave (who were allowed to keep their Tokarev pistols).
Guess what?
The criminals weren't armed.
Oh, just so you know the joke/point someone is about to make along the lines of "the government was the criminals so they were armed lololololol" is neither a good joke nor a good point.

the soviet union is a compeltly diffrent matter. The USA does not have the manpower nor the social control that the soveit union had ( if I remember correctly some 20% ofthe population were part of the KGB or affiliated with it). If guns were illigalized in america, the police and the FBI would not have the power to control the black market. Look at drugs in USSR. Drugs were practicly non-existant in the USSR, largely becuase it was impossible to get them into the country. In the USA when alcohol was illigalized grandmothers were easily making it in thier basements. The american people and political structure simply isnt made for that type of prohibitive law.

Also to TBP and giadin, as I remember the point of the second amendement was to allow for revolution. The founding fathers were all dissedents who had the opportunity to create america only becuase they revolted aginst the british empire. The revolutionary war started when Britian tried to sieze the conitnental congress's weapon stockpiles. It would follow that the founding fathers would make it unlawful for the governmetn to not allow its citizens to revolt if needed ( declaration of independance). So it to me the second amendemnt and the militia part means that citizens have the legal right to form a non-governent militia as long as they are peaceful ( dont go around killing people, which is what is meant by well regulated).

[the Black Prince]

Gaidin, the way the sentence is constructed, the 2nd limb - the right of the people to bear arms - is secondary and subservient to the primary limb - a well regulated militia...

effectively, in modern english it could be written

The people have a right to bear arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia, because such a militia is necessary for national security.

in my example the primary limb of the amendment becomes a conditional clause, or depenendant clause of the sentence, achieving the same meaning in a different manner,

the people have a right to bear arms for the purpose of forming such a well reuglated militia (the national guard) but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows or makes a right for groups of citizens to carry guns for any other purpose. such gun carrying must be legislated for under state or federal law