Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Right and don't get me wrong we need laws for any number of things but look at how that elevated extent shakes out. You have cops entering in a high speed pursuit for a guy who has unpaid parking tickets. He would have paid a fine but instead he goes to jail or worse kills himself in the process of avoiding the law. With guns you raise the bar high enough you have idiots who pull the trigger for minor infractions.
 
Last edited:

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Should it be a right to bear arms, or should it be a privilege?

You have to pass the Armed Forces exam (granted, with only a 45% score, but still) to be able to use a firearm to defend our country. Our well-regulated, uniformed militia is privileged to own a firearm... but it's a right for Joe Sixpack to own one?
Woah there buddy, the whole point of mentioning that the right of the PEOPLE(aka, Joe Sixpack) to bear arms, is so that if ever the time comes, he can defend himself from the well regulated militia. Pretty sure the founding fathers weren't thinking that someday the government would deny the uniformed militia the right to bear arms....

I think some bullshit is appropriate here. Or, skip to 1:23 in the second video
[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqufzEFCzw&feature=PlayList&p=C4B53E6700D79133&index=1[/Youtube]

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqufzEFCzw&feature=PlayList&p=C4B53E6700D79133&index=1[/Youtube]

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoIKlO20RqM&feature=PlayList&p=C4B53E6700D79133&index=2[/Youtube]
 
Last edited:

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,003
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I don't want to get into the reducing death debate but your right it should be added to the education curriculum for elementary schools.
This is a good idea. Since it is a constitutional right it should be taught in public schools.

The founding fathers were not confident that the US Republic would last (the outcome of the later French revolution provides an idea of how things could have gone wrong) so they wanted the populace to be ready to remove another government if needed.

All governments go bad eventually, Republics have the best track record (~800 years for the original) but they are still not perfect governments. Having a well armed populace is another deterrent to would be oligarchs or dictators.

And yes I do realize that I am a crazy wack job for not believing that governments last forever and that historical change ceased in human endeavors.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
This is a good idea. Since it is a constitutional right it should be taught in public schools.

The founding fathers were not confident that the US Republic would last (the outcome of the later French revolution provides an idea of how things could have gone wrong) so they wanted the populace to be ready to remove another government if needed.

All governments go bad eventually, Republics have the best track record (~800 years for the original) but they are still not perfect governments. Having a well armed populace is another deterrent to would be oligarchs or dictators.

And yes I do realize that I am a crazy wack job for not believing that governments last forever and that historical change ceased in human endeavors.
no, you're a fantastimerican

Gunna hafta break out the Jefferson quotes in a moment, I can feel it
 

CD82

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
1,521
Location
German in Switzerland
Car(s)
Audi A3 2.0 TDI
Do I think people should have the right to be armed (with restrictions like background checks, restrictions on the sort of weapon and mandatory tests on gunhandling - wich pretty much is the german system) ? Yes.
But I would strongly oppose a general right to bare firearms for everybody. Restrictions are very needed.
Not very surprisingly I agree with that (being from Germany and so on...)

Generally I'm quite interested in guns (rifles, actually), meaning I read a lot about them, how they work, technological progress, what thoughts went into which design, in which conflicts they are/were used...

But I don't really see the need to personally own a weapon of any kind. I guess it's just a question of how you were brought up, in what kind of neighborhood you live/lived and simply what is "normal" around where you live. I for instance live in a sleepy village with about 3000 residents and a very low crime rate. Thus the need for self-defense is quite low, there's hardly anything more than a couple of burglaries a year and no crime-related deaths at all.
 

marcos_eirik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,527
Location
Oslo, Norway
Car(s)
Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
First of all I'd like to say I'm in no ways against guns. However I don't think it should be a right to own a gun, it should be a privilege. I think it is completely reasonable to demand a course in how to operate, maintain and store your gun, before you are allowed purchase of one. There should also be a registry of all guns sold to civilians and who owns them.

When it comes to the 2nd amendment, it was all nice for the people to have guns back then, when there was little protection from internal or external threats offered by the young nation. These days the USA is the only military superpower, thus civilians having guns as a protection from foreign attacks seems rather redundant.

Woah there buddy, the whole point of mentioning that the right of the PEOPLE(aka, Joe Sixpack) to bear arms, is so that if ever the time comes, he can defend himself from the well regulated militia.
Sorry to single out your response, but seriously... :lol: How cute...

So, a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians armed with simple firearms are going to fight off the biggest, most advanced and best equipped military machine the world has ever seen? It's great to have ambitions, but thinking you can defeat the US Army, Air Force, National Guard, Navy SEALS etc, is perhaps a little too ambitious, or what?

To sum up the 2nd amendment, I think it made good sense when it was written, but today I think it's long since outdated.
 

captain_70s

Forum Addict
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
6,209
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Car(s)
'77 Triumph Dolomite 1300 + '83 Triumph Acclaim
I too find the 2nd amendment outdated.

When first writen the communication accross country and between military forces was slow and un-reliable, small communities could easily be cut off with no military support creating risks. When writen it was also a case of single shot rifles vs single shot rifles for the most part.

Now-a-days chances of a attack on the people USA is very slim, if it is something that the army can not deal with civillians would stand no chance even if armed with machine guns as air attack and armoured vehicles could easily take them out.

I don't think it should be a right to own a gun, it should be a privilege. I think it is completely reasonable to demand a course in how to operate, maintain and store your gun, before you are allowed purchase of one. There should also be a registry of all guns sold to civilians and who owns them.
I agree, allowing people to own firearms without good training is a danger to them-selves let alone others. (Thoughts of the British home gaurd during WW2 spring to mind, where several shot themselves/family members while maintaining their rifles!)

The requirments for gun ownership should also be made stricter to stop any idiot from getting hold of one. On an even more controled level I'd say try to eradicate guns from urban areas where there is the most risk for injury to innocent people.

At the end of the day I think eradicating legal gun ownership completely fromt he USA is A: impossible and B: a very bad idea! However I do think it needs a reform to cope with modern society.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Sorry to single out your response, but seriously... :lol: How cute...

So, a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians armed with simple firearms are going to fight off the biggest, most advanced and best equipped military machine the world has ever seen? It's great to have ambitions, but thinking you can defeat the US Army, Air Force, National Guard, Navy SEALS etc, is perhaps a little too ambitious, or what?


This also brings to mind several other instances where the people were vastly underestimated by their government...

Thinking you'd have no chance of defending yourself from your government if it were to become an abusive one is a poor reason to take away the right to bear arms, and could quite easily become a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TC

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,003
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Sorry to single out your response, but seriously... :lol: How cute...

So, a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians armed with simple firearms are going to fight off the biggest, most advanced and best equipped military machine the world has ever seen? It's great to have ambitions, but thinking you can defeat the US Army, Air Force, National Guard, Navy SEALS etc, is perhaps a little too ambitious, or what?

To sum up the 2nd amendment, I think it made good sense when it was written, but today I think it's long since outdated.
The British were a hell of a lot stronger than the US colonies.

And having to fight guerilla forces in each and every city is a complete bitch. The US military was far stronger than the VC, but still lost Vietnam. Hitler avoided Switzerland because of the heavy armed civilians. City fighting is a bitch. Troop morale falls when any civilian can be hiding a gun and shoot them.

Iraq is still far from pacified. Afghanistan is still far from pacified.

Sorry to single out your response, but seriously... :lol: How ignorant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,003
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I've always assumed that if it got to that point large chunks of the military would mutiny.
Not necessarily. North Korea is in part able to keep things as they are due to the military being treated much better than the populace.
 

shellygrrl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
3,678
Location
Maine
What I'm trying to clarify is that...

Should it be a right, as in you answer questions such as "DO YOU HEAR VOICES?" and "WILL YOU SHOOT ANYONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR FACE?" like you do now...

Or a privilege, as in you have to take some sort of aptitude test, like you do in order to drive... or in the case of the military, bear arms?

My argument in favor of privilege is that if the United States Military has to take an aptitude test in order to bear arms to defend our country, why is it that the average American schmuck can get one without such scrutiny?
:nod: Excellent points here.

I don't think gun ownership among the general population is a right...because we (read: US population) aren't a well-regulated militia. The Armed Forces are. The police are. The Border Patrol is. I'd even say the Secret Service could be. But then, in my perfect world, only the military, hunters, gun collectors and historians, Secret Service, and the rozzers would have guns. I don't see the need for anyone else to, really.

However...

The real problem I have with outlawing them, though, is that doing so would set a really bad precedent and leave the Bill of Rights open to other changes. The founding fathers showed a great deal of foresight when they wrote it, but damn I wish they'd left out the bit about the right to bear arms, or had somehow been endowed with the ability to see the mess it would cause 230 years down the line. Yes, it was pertinent in 1776; not so much in 2010.
D'you know, I never thought of that first part?

At the time, the Second Amendment definitely was important. Now? It needs to be, at best, redefined. Sigh.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
:nod: Excellent points here.

I don't think gun ownership among the general population is a right...because we (read: US population) aren't a well-regulated militia. The Armed Forces are. The police are. The Border Patrol is. I'd even say the Secret Service could be. But then, in my perfect world, only the military, hunters, gun collectors and historians, Secret Service, and the rozzers would have guns. I don't see the need for anyone else to, really.

However...



D'you know, I never thought of that first part?

At the time, the Second Amendment definitely was important. Now? It needs to be, at best, redefined. Sigh.
Once again, the point of the second amendment is so that the people may bear arms (among other reasons) in case the well regulated militia goes sour. Also, once again, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Laws don't typically apply to criminals, and all you'll do is create is another blood industry. The second amendment is one of the fundamental principles that our country was founded upon.

ok, time fer TJ!

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
 
Last edited:

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
Need is key. Just because you want a firearm doesnt mean you can just go and get one, not even in America. If you are deemed qualified and can show that you need a firearm (for example for target shooting) I see no problems. But if you want a firearm that you can trundle about town with, that is something I can not accept.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Just because you want a firearm doesnt mean you can just go and get one, not even in America.
Actually I can just go out and get a rifle, shotgun, or pistol if I want one. No need is necessary. That is the beauty of a free society. And make no mistake, that is how I see it. Societies that ban their citizenry from owning firearms is a society that is less free.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
So you can waltz into any store and without background checks walk out of there with a loaded semiautomatic pistol? Sounds scary and it's not the picture that I have been presented.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
So you can waltz into any store and without background checks walk out of there with a loaded semiautomatic pistol? Sounds scary and it's not the picture that I have been presented.
Well, it does have to be a store that sells firearms, and it also depends on the state, but essentially, yes.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
So you can waltz into any store and without background checks walk out of there with a loaded semiautomatic pistol? Sounds scary and it's not the picture that I have been presented.
At least in Kansas, there is no waiting period or effective background check. If I left my house right now I could easily be back with a gun in an hour or less.

I was actually just thinking about going too :p. I gave my brother my old .22 so I'd like to have another one.

Ha, that's another thing. Even if someone does buy their guns legally, has their name in the database for owning whatever firearms, they can still sell/trade/give them to others. Completely off the government's radar.
 
Last edited:
Top