Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
This thread is fairly simple. It is a poll to determine how people feel about the ownership of firearms. As most know the right to own firearms is mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
I am one to believe that this text guarantees the right of Americans to own a firearm if they wish. For this reason and others I am in favor of the people having the choice of owning a firearm. Should people have the choice to own a firearm? Should they be denied this choice?
 
Last edited:

TBoneUs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
703
Location
Texas
Car(s)
2008 VW GTI
Absolutely, but then my location and the contents of my closet may have something to do with my opinion. Way to stir the pot with this thread. But hasn't this topic been covered a thousand times?
 
Last edited:

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Is this intended for americans only or are you looking for global opinion?
It is to be a global opinion. In short, should people have to choice to own something like a firearm?

Way to stir the post with this thread. But hasn't this topic been covered a thousand time
I am interested in a straight up yes or no poll to determine the overall opinion of the forum. In addition perhaps other questions concerning the politics of firearms can be discussed.
 
Last edited:

jebjeb

Active Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
359
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
03 F150 Blown motor, 05 FX35, 13 Accord
I voted yah but i belive it should have limits. No need to have a full auto assult rifle.
 

Quadrax

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
1,226
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Car(s)
Jap crap
It is to be a global opinion. In short, should people have to choice to own something like a firearm?
Ok then I voted Yes. Assuming the person is properly checked out and licensed and so-on.

*waiting for someone to post hilarious picture of a bear's arms*
 
Last edited:

TBoneUs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
703
Location
Texas
Car(s)
2008 VW GTI
I am interested in a straight up yes or no poll to determine the overall opinion of the forum. In addition perhaps other questions concerning the politics of firearms can be discussed.
Also gives a thread to direct off topic discussions in other threads. As much as I enjoy them, some times the tangents can get annoying.
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
In short, yes- I would probably have one myself if I lived in the US and I believe in the right of owning a weapon.

However, there are limits- a pistol or revolver, hunting rifle or shotgun- fine. But no fully automatic or semi-automatic guns (eg assault rifles), extremely high-powered shotguns, sniper rifles, or gigantic gun collections (more than about 50 guns and a few thousand rounds or clips) without at least further intervention and policing.
 

ediesbra

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
473
Location
New Zealand
Car(s)
2004 Subaru Legacy B4 3.0R
Yes,

I'm currently working on getting my B Category Firearms licence so I can get a Pistol for target shooting, in NZ you have to do this if you want a firearm. There are many different classes that you can go for:

A Category = Sporting classed (e.g. Rifles, shotguns) Most common
B Category = Hand guns
C Category = Gun collector (non military style, and must be a particular theme. e.g. only rare hand guns you can't just have any old gun and add it to the collection)
E Category = MSSA: Military style guns (almost... impossible to get)
F Category = Licensed Gun Dealer

The fact is that I have to join a Pistol Club and they hold on to the first gun I buy for six months in there armoury while the Police check me and make sure I'm going to the club and participating regularly so I can take the gun home. Then they inspect your security there as well to make sure that any kids/nutta's can't access the gun. This is an annual check for hand guns.

This, or something similar is what America should do with people that want to have guns. Don't take the right to get one away just make it so that only the sane ones can have them. I'm of the belief that when the Constitution of the States was written they didn't have any conception of the weapons that you can get now also most people back then needed guns to kill things for tea, whereas now you just go to the fridge/freezer, and open the door.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition


Can I be liberal-minded and a gun nut? These days it seems like a notion that would make Sarah Palin's (and jetsetter's) head explode. :rolleyes:
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
If I were to get specific I would say that I am in favor of eliminating all regulations and laws regarding firearms. Assault rifles, machine guns, high powered bolt action rifles......I would like to own them all.

Can I be liberal-minded and a gun nut? These days it seems like a notion that would make Sarah Palin's (and jetsetter's) head explode.
Actually it would not. I was always of the opinion that a liberal person would be more in favor of firearm rights than others. The freedom of speech and the freedom to own a firearm are not so different things. It has actually been quite aggravating that so many liberals who favor and practice their freedom of speech so much would advocate limiting other rights (like firearm ownership).
 
Last edited:

Suedschleife

Subtitling God
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
802
Location
Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium, Germania
Yes, if owners are are held responsible to the highest level of care.

Ownership:
- Mandatory handling and safety courses, renewable every few years.
- Storage out of the reach of third parties (at least without significant criminal energy). Proof needed. Owner is fully liable if 3rd party accesses weapon due to lack of care.
- No individuals with a history of violence
- Limited amount of arms and ammunition, enough to fight off the zombies not enough to equip an army.
- Registration of all Firearms


Concealed carry:
-Marksmanship test every year.
 

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 do believe in the rights to bear arms. There would have been no American Revolution if the colonists didn't have access to guns.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
The fact is that I have to join a Pistol Club and they hold on to the first gun I buy for six months in there armoury while the Police check me and make sure I'm going to the club and participating regularly so I can take the gun home. Then they inspect your security there as well to make sure that any kids/nutta's can't access the gun. This is an annual check for hand guns.
Such a system would be pretty difficult to get into place here. Even if we just enforced our current laws (such as keeping felons from buying guns) I think that things would improve. That could leave the door open for more reforms, but it would take a long time.

Can I be liberal-minded and a gun nut? These days it seems like a notion that would make Sarah Palin's (and jetsetter's) head explode. :rolleyes:
Sure. I'd consider myself liberal and I own a couple (cheap/old/crappy :p) guns. For instance, I hate the US meat industry. Hate the way they raise animals, hate the way they process them, hate the political pull they have, etc. So I go hunting. Half my immediate family is vegan/vegetarian and the only way they'd be happier with that decision is if I just went vegetarian. Which is never going to happen. :lol:
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
As the second stipulates, "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."

It's an archaic law. It came about at a time when the closest thing to a policeman was the gun, when America was still to a large degree a place where laws were scetchy at best, and the protection of private property was dependent on the ability of the individual to defend themselves.

Not exclusively, but to a large degree. We are talking about a time when there was no street lighting. Why do I bring up street lighting? London has street lighting because of armed robberies commited in the dark.

Not to mention the fact that the US had just been through a great war with Britain, the new republic didn't have any Apaches (neither the helicopter nor the tribe, as the Apache nation was in the southwest, but I digress), there were no US Army, no US Navy Seals, no F-15 Eagles..

A well regulated militia was key to national security.

We are talking about a completely different society. A society that's just not there anymore.

Is the law archaic? Of course it is. Anyone who don't see the second ammendment as archaic are talking politics, not common sense.

Well, that's one side of the issue. That doesn't answer the question, is there a right to bear arms, mandated in the second ammendment? I can't say I think there is. There's a right to bear arms, in the context of a well armed militia. But that's not really the point.

This is not a legal argument.

Let me say that again.

This is not a legal argument.

This is a political argument. Either you're for it, or you're against it, and your reading of the law will depend on that. And let's not think for one moment that most of the rulings of the supreme court over the last two hundered years hasn't been politics. There's a reason why the court changed its mind over loads of issues over the last said two hundered years. There's a reason why the religious right has been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for the last decades.

I don't believe it's more of a right than driving a car is a right. Unless, of course, we are talking about a well regulated militia. Then I think it's mandated by the second. For private citizens, I don't believe it is mandated.

But I am sure I'll be in the minority. Doesn't bother me.
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
It is most difficult to own weapons here. We had a very similar regulation to N.Z. until a shooting at Hungerford and one in Scotland I believe at Dunblane - the law was tightened up - only crims are now armed. Still 5 years pokey for possession of an illegal weapon.

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

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

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

"The Dunblane massacre was a multiple murder-suicide which occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. Sixteen children and one adult were killed by the attacker, Thomas Watt Hamilton, before he committed suicide. It remains the deadliest single targeted mass murder of children in the history of the United Kingdom."

The next attack was a loonie with a machete.

btw - actually for the US I agree that weapon ownership is a 'genie out of a bottle' so they should continue.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Yay. Mainly because I believe the natural right to self defense shouldn't be crippled. And banning guns stinks too much of being guilty until proven innocent. I don't like being told I'm not allowed because I'm being protected from myself. Don't ban things simply because they could be potentially harmful to me. I don't want to live my life in a padded room.

Plus, I believe the second amendment is quite clear about private gun ownership. And most gun bans are based solely on irrational fears. Like banning assault rifles. Well, real assault rifles are already banned. All we have are pseudo semi-automatic assault rifles (hunting rifles with different stocks/etc), which are a complete non-issue in terms of crimes, but still people are highly vocal about banning them. High capacity clips as well, despite the fact that on average only 4 shots are fired during a violent crime. Too much fear mongering and paranoia.
 

ediesbra

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
473
Location
New Zealand
Car(s)
2004 Subaru Legacy B4 3.0R
Plus, I believe the second amendment is quite clear about private gun ownership. And most gun bans are based solely on irrational fears. Like banning assault rifles. Well, real assault rifles are already banned. All we have are pseudo semi-automatic assault rifles (hunting rifles with different stocks/etc), which are a complete non-issue in terms of crimes, but still people are highly vocal about banning them. High capacity clips as well, despite the fact that on average only 4 shots are fired during a violent crime. Too much fear mongering and paranoia.
Then the answer is to vet the people that own them more thoroughly yes? I realise it can't always work, it has happened down here a few months ago with a registered firearms person gone Vietnam flashback shooting everything, ended up dead thanks to the Armed Offenders Squad, but of what I know of America's gun laws, shouldn't it be a bit more restrictive?:confused:
 
Last edited:

Lightning Count

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
1,596
Location
Scotland.
Yay, but it should be strictly regulated, look at the way the Swiss handle such matters, nearly everyone has access to a firearm, but the rate of violent crime there is very low.
 
Top