Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

teeb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
Bordeaux, France.
Car(s)
old Saab 9-3 coup?
It is to be a global opinion. In short, should people have to choice to own something like a firearm?
I think that any attempt to ban ownage of guns in the US is doomed to fail and shouldn't be attempted. Stricter criminal/background checks before buying? Sure. Making bazookas forbidden? Sure. But actual banning of handguns and the like? No. For the simple reason that the US is already awash with guns and any attempt to ban them will fall at the first hurdle : a huge revolt amongst the populace.

On the other hand, let's take the UK, a country with very little appetite for guns, and some of the most strict gun laws (our Olympic shooting team spend 30 days a year in Switzerland in order to practise!). I think, bearing in mind our history, our gun laws in our context aren't unreasonable and that suddenly legalising guns for all and sundry would be a mistake. For starters, there's pretty much no pro-gun lobby here and little public support for it. Deaths from guns hit a new low in 2008, too, of 42 people across the UK.

Scotland are trying to go further still and are attempting (so far unsuccessfully, as it needs the UK parliament's approval) to ban BB guns, or at least put background checks in place before buying, after a spate of blinded babies from the things. That might be a bit too far.
 

Ladamaha

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,286
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.
As an internet arm chair expert of everything, I think it definitely says organized militia should have guns.

But you know, that's like an opinion man.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
On a shooting range, yes. In public, no. I think of the latter of the two when I see the question phrased like that.
 

captain_70s

Forum Addict
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
6,209
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Car(s)
'77 Triumph Dolomite 1300 + '83 Triumph Acclaim
I think in the UK the current laws work well, its all very well and good having everybody on the street armed and ready for self-defence/zombie prevention but it only takes one moron who's had too many drinks to start wandering around taking pot shots at cats/dustbins/pensioners etc.

It also brings up the issue that in the UK at least in my opinion maturity has reached an all time low. Its gotten to the point where not only will that arse-wipe teenager try and kick the crap out of you because you look 'looked at him funny' but his dad will probably jump in to help him. Start giving people like this access to weapons (unless you make a law saying anyone wearing Burberry clothing is exempt) and the nation will crumble into a war zone in a suprisingly short time.
You introduce a larger ammount of legal weapons in the UK and more of them will fall into the wrong hands illegaly. Its common sense.

As for the USA, I have no idea. I personaly don't think its a good idea. But its been implimented so long and there are so many guns in circulation there already removing the right would create a huge fuck up.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
As an internet arm chair expert of everything, I think it definitely says organized militia should have guns.

But you know, that's like an opinion man.
I am of the opinion that for a militia to come into existence the citizenry has to have access to firearms and private firearm ownership. Generally speaking during the Revolution it was the militia men themselves who supplied their own firearms.

As for all of these strict regulations and police actions and oversight so many seem ready to accept.......I just cannot. Having so much governmental control is not all that different than having no firearms at all. It is not the government place to wield such control.
 

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.
I think I might want to elaborate on my earlier position.

I'm not really against gunownership. I like guns, I'm fascinated by them, and I like shooting them.

But I still don't think it's a right. That's different.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Created a list:

Some trends seem to be developing. Almost all of the Americans who voted checked yes, the Australians are split, and the Germans are generally checking no.
 
Last edited:

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
DONOR
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,885
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso, GL1000
Yes. Right of self-defense is a fundamental right, and guns are a very important and effective tool of self defense.

When everyone has a gun, nobody wants to use them. Do you (anti-gunners) really think that somebody is going to try and go on a shooting rampage if everybody is carrying? They would last all of 10 seconds before a fellow citizen takes care of the problem.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
The thing is, I'd classify it as a privilege over a right. A right is something everyone should enjoy, no matter what, but there are some people who should not be allowed to bear arms - those with convictions of violent crimes, those with most serious mental disorders - and by saying it's a right it essentially says they should be allowed to bear arms as well.
 

Aircooled

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
252
Car(s)
00' Jeep Cherokee
I support the 2nd amendment

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA[/YOUTUBE]
 
Last edited:

Twerp128

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
3,664
Location
Indiana
Car(s)
'91 Miata, '09 Street Triple
The inherent problem is that gun control policy is assumed to be a direct cause of the homocide/crime rate.
 

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
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.
Guns allowed the English colonists of America to kick out the British when the latter started taxing them to death (due to an idiotic war they couldn't afford, yes I see the irony), QUARTERING MILITARY PERSONAL IN THEIR HOMES, and not giving them a right to vote in the government (no representative at the house of commons). If it wasn't for gun ownership they would not have been able to revolt.
 

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.
Guns allowed the English colonists of America to kick out the British when the latter started taxing them to death (due to an idiotic war they couldn't afford, yes I see the irony), QUARTERING MILITARY PERSONAL IN THEIR HOMES, and not giving them a right to vote in the government (no representative at the house of commons). If it wasn't for gun ownership they would not have been able to revolt.
I disagree. The fact that you got the French in as allies sealed the deal. Even if the easy access to firearms were a a good thing in the context. In fact, I believe the first colonial army had more trouble getting ammunition than they had getting guns.

And if the Queen of England decides she want's to attack America today, will she be met by the US Army, or a bunch of guys from texas with Colts, if you excuse my pun?

:)
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
France didn't enter the American Revolution until 1778 - 5 years after the Tea Party, 2 years after the Declaration and 3 years after the "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord. And even then, France primarily supported the Americans through naval means, taking on the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake and the Seige of Yorktown.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Probably not the best example.

1. The shooter was a major in the armed forces, and even the most anti-gun countries allow their armies to be armed.
2. He opened fire on a group of unarmed people.
 

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 disagree. The fact that you got the French in as allies sealed the deal. Even if the easy access to firearms were a a good thing in the context. In fact, I believe the first colonial army had more trouble getting ammunition than they had getting guns.

And if the Queen of England decides she want's to attack America today, will she be met by the US Army, or a bunch of guys from texas with Colts, if you excuse my pun?

:)
As BlaRo stated the French didn't fight the war for the US as you seem to believe.

The point still stands, it is hard for an oppressive government to function against its citizenry if they can arm themselves.
 

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.
France didn't enter the American Revolution until 1778 - 5 years after the Tea Party, 2 years after the Declaration and 3 years after the "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord. And even then, France primarily supported the Americans through naval means, taking on the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake and the Seige of Yorktown.
For millenias, wars have been won and lost by dominating or not dominating the sea. The French navy was, in lack of a better word, very important.

So it took a foreign power five years to join. Big deal. It took your own congress three years to join in.
 
Top