Okay, so this thread isn't a discussion per se of what the 2nd Amendment means, but rather do we agree with it. I put that in there because much of what is being said is based on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
So, do I think we should have the right to bear arms?
In short; Yes.
In long; Yes, and here's my reasoning.
First, it's my right, my life, my money, and I'll do whatever I damn well please. So if I want to drop $500 on a Fabrique Nationale FAL L1-A1 to go pop paper targets at the range, I will do so.
Second, self defense. At the moment I do not own a proper gun for self defense (to be honest .30 caliber rifles aren't the best when you want to limit over penetration living in an apartment complex
), but I do want to get a pistol eventually. My primary motiviation lies in just wanting to own another range toy, but the secondary benefits are hard to ignore (and I'm not going to play the apologist).
Now, I want you all to understand that I am not buying a self defense weapon because my neighbor owns a gun. If anything I would feel
safer knowing my neighbor had a gun. This is because I know the majority of gun owning persons are fairly responsible with their guns.
Secondly, I would never purchase a gun for the express purpose of killing or shooting someone. I pray to God I would never have to use a weapon (any weapon, not just guns) against a person. I do not fantasize about being put into such a position. About 95% of the gun owning public would agree with me. That's right,
the majority of those who own guns aren't violent psychopaths. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Self defense, or defense of one's home is a crucial aspect of being given the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Here's a shocker for you:
The police are not responsible for protecting your "basic rights". The only task Police are charged with is that of catching the criminal, not protecting the victim. Which is why you can't sue the police for failing to show up to a crime or failing to prevent a crime.
So, if the police aren't responsible for protecting your life, who is? That's right, you are. So how to protect yourself? With a weapon, of course. Whether you prefer firearms or some other means, the 2nd Amendment gives us in the USA the ability to use a weapon or some form of "arms" to protect ourselves. That includes using a barstool if really need be.
Now, I know there may be some cultural differences; as in my day to day life it is possible for me to be in a place in which the closest police officer is a good half hour away. This place is called Page, ND (near Fargo. Yes,
that Fargo). Of course, I don't fear for my life constantly, and I'm not paranoid as many of the gun control lobby like to paint the pro-gun crowd. In fact I would say I feel safer out in Page (where gun ownership is 100%) than I do in Fargo. But, moving on...
Third point I want to make is that everyone who has argued for gun control or limitations, have argued that it should be the government who makes the rules/regulations and definitions. I am of the belief that the government should fear the people. And in turn I do not like the idea of the government making these decisions. Now, if the people of the US wish to limit themselves in the right to bear arms, that is a decision that needs to be made
by the people and not by the government.
And, to make some examples, the most recent "assault weapons ban" was based more on aesthetics than on any actual killing power that a gun has. To add insult to injury, the California "Safe Handgun List" (which is used in D.C. as well) is based more on how much the gun manufactures pay the state, rather than on what is a "safe" handgun. Which lead to a recent law suit in which a woman had purchased a handgun that would've been on the "safe handgun list" if she had bought it in the right color. That's right, she wasn't allowed to have the gun she wanted because that particular color of that particular model wasn't included on the "Safe Handgun List". Could you imagine if you weren't allowed to own your car because the color wasn't registered as being "safe"?
For those of you not convinced about the "assault weapons ban" being a farce, let me tell you this. Semi-auto AK-47s and FALs and what not cannot be made fully automatic with "simple modifications". The mechanisims are so wildly different (and my model FAL was never available in full auto anyways), it would require me to completely rebuild the guns from scratch if I wanted them to be full auto. The only thing that makes either of my rifles an "assault weapon" is the fact that they look "evil". And really, the term "assault weapon" is such an ambiguous term to be using when it comes to making any sort of legislation.
Oh, and another "let's blow your mind": it is very very very difficult to legally own full auto weapons or large bore weapons or rocket launchers in the US (due to laws and the prohibitive costs). You all really make it sound like we live in some twisted action movie dystopia.
I've gotten long winded again, so I'll just respond to people from here on out.
TL;DR, I think it's a fundamental right for the people to own weapons for their self defense and enjoyment.