Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127
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.

So it's about where to draw the line. What if I wanted to own a nuclear bomb? Am I less free because I'm not allowed to? Probably yes. Is everyone else safer because I'm not allowed to? Definitely yes. Certain restrictions serve the purpose of protecting the people, and what restrictions are deemed necessary is up to the government. One can argue whether the government always makes the right call, but that's another topic...
But I can understand why someone would be pissed if one of their rights was taken away and that they would start thinking "hey where will that end?". So if you were brought up in a gun-free environment where it's very difficult to obtain a weapon and you never had any personal experience with a gun of any kind you are left wondering what anyone would want with a gun, but if you are used to the possibility of just going out right now and coming back with a weapon an hour later then that's normal to you and you are wondering why anyone would want to take that possibility away from you.
Let me put it this way: I feel safe knowing that only a very tiny percentage of the people around me own guns of any kind. But when everyone has a weapon you need one as well to regain that sense of security. Or you own weapons just for fun, which is probably fine too. ;)
 
Last edited:
I know I read somewhere that gun crime was down 10% while gun sales and concealed carry permits were way up over previous years. Can't find the source, either way aren't there any Swiss on this forum they'll back us up.

Also lets clarify, depending on the state you can purchase a gun with usually nothing more than a background check, and I know in Indiana you can legally buy a gun privately as long as you come across legit, ie. not supposed to sell to someone who is clearly drunk, high, etc. But, in most places you need a permit to carry the gun on your person or in your vehicle. Acquiring that permit requires a backround check and approval from the chief of police.
 
Last edited:
I am comfortable with firearms and there are still quite a number of restrictions I'd like to see put in place. I think that anything automatic (or easily modified to be) and small caliber handguns should be illegal, mostly because iirc that's what most homicides are performed with. If Congress was capable of coming up with a logical, new "assault weapons ban" I'd probably support it.

But given the current state of things I also find myself grudgingly in support of conceal/carry. Just a couple weeks ago a couple guys tried to steal a car at a local car wash. The car owner was carrying (legally) and shot both of them. One died at the scene (he had a gun) and another fled as far as the nearest hospital. If you can say anything for conceal/carry, it will at least make would be criminals think twice.
 
Last edited:
The British were a hell of a lot stronger than the US colonies.
Well, that was in a time when you could make a cannon with relative ignorance to the process of making a cannon, the same goes for guns and ammunition.

I know there's plenty of examples that small guerillias has defeated large armies, well, it really doesn't mean that it's emmediatly representative for a decadent, western democracy.

Back in 1940, members of the civilian rifle movement defended the King against a German advance, and they kept the Germans back long enough, but they wouldn't be able to do that today. Not just because modern armies are much better equipped, but you have to keep in mind that being a soldier isn't just about being able to hit a target at 400 yards.. it's just as much about stamina to mention one aspect, not to mention that armies spend a lot of time getting their soldiers ready to actually kill a person.

After the battle of Gettysburg, they found a rifle which had 20 loads of powder and minet ball. 20 loads. A soldier had stood in line, loaded his rifle, not fired, and done that over and over again 20 times. It's not like he wasn't in the line of fire, eh.

That's an extreme example. But there's plenty of examples of smaller loads of unfired ammunition, 2-5 loads of powder and ball.

I know it's an interesting thought, but I can't say I think it would work.

:)
 
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc show how an unprofessional army can beat a big one. A modern army is good at coming in and taking things out, not at keeping the peace for a long time. The US military could not contain a wide spread US revolution.
 
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc show how an unprofessional army can beat a big one. A modern army is good at coming in and taking things out, not at keeping the peace for a long time. The US military could not contain a wide spread US revolution.

Also, the vast majority of US military men and women are generally conservative, most do believe the second amendment is a personal right and would disagree with mass confiscation of firearms. I also highly doubt they'd fire upon their own family and friends.
 
I'm sure...that the military wouldn't send soldiers to their friends' house to try and confiscate the weapons
 
If it is right to own, then yes.
it it is right to bear, then no.
 
Duh, that's how people don't get killed. ;)
 
Naturally if you're a licensed hunter you need a rifle, goes without saying. Just don't take it into town or point it at people, same principle as a knife.
 
No one is saying to run around and point it at people. Same goes with a knife. You can carry it anywhere just treat it as it is a dangerous instrument.
 
In fact, it's illegal to carry a knife in public in Norway, unless it's short enough (ie. a pocket knife), you have a general use for it (for instance, you're going to remove the shitsack from a fish) or it's part of a cultural attire.

Not to mention, we all know what the law in the United Kingdom of England-land says about carrying knives in public.
 
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.

Something that hasn't happened in this country's history. Until/unless that happens, I stand by what I said.

Need is key. Just because you want a firearm doesnt mean you can just go and get one, not even in America.

Sadly, in some states, yes, you can.

For what it's worth, Maine's gun laws...and, if I'm honest, some of them leave me very uneasy -- largely the fact one doesn't need a permit to own one.

Certain restrictions serve the purpose of protecting the people, and what restrictions are deemed necessary is up to the government. One can argue whether the government always makes the right call, but that's another topic...
But I can understand why someone would be pissed if one of their rights was taken away and that they would start thinking "hey where will that end?". So if you were brought up in a gun-free environment where it's very difficult to obtain a weapon and you never had any personal experience with a gun of any kind you are left wondering what anyone would want with a gun, but if you are used to the possibility of just going out right now and coming back with a weapon an hour later then that's normal to you and you are wondering why anyone would want to take that possibility away from you.

I live in a house with guns (not mine; only had to be used once in my lifetime, and not on another person). I don't know how to use them. Most of them (rifles) are easy to access (too easy, IMO...they're in an unlocked cabinet). I live in a very small town that has probably never seen any violent crime and is pretty safe. Yet, I live in a state where it's fairly easy to purchase a gun (again, no permit required).

This is one of those issues that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 
Something that hasn't happened in this country's history. Until/unless that happens, I stand by what I said.

Its how our country was sort of founded but whatever.

If your fear of guns comes from someone wanting to hurt you or your family with one, make no mistake, if a person wants to shoot you with a gun, they will get a gun and shoot you with it. The only thing a load of bans and restrictions will do is make it a more expensive for the person who's buying it. Criminals, funnily enough, DONT OBEY THE LAW.

Sans guns, a knife would do, or a chair leg, or a plastic bag, or a fist. and if the intention is to kill, grim as it sounds you're probably better off with a bullet to the head than a beating with a club.
 
Last edited:
This poll needs more options. I'm against a total ban on guns, but I also think they should be strictly controlled.

With that said, I'd never own one.
 
well, as we've seen with drugs, strict control does nothing but prompt unsavory folks to branch into a new market.
 
No one is saying to run around and point it at people. Same goes with a knife. You can carry it anywhere just treat it as it is a dangerous instrument.

Not what I'm saying, I'm saying you cant (shouldnt be able to) walk around town or any residential area with a gun. Same as carrying a knife which is also illegal (unless you are a tradesman).
 
Top