Guns

WillyBubba · #1 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 11:47 AM

k, this could really go in politics, but I think this is section is better for a debate.

I'm just wondering what people think about the right to bear arms, the second amendment? In what ways can and/or should it be restricted or infringed on, if it should even be in place at all, and why?

NachtEngel · 03-10-2008, 12:21 PM

Thats a complicated question but I here are some of my thought as of now. On one hand I don't think people that have different mental disabilities, criminals, and probably a few others should have them. When I think about it though thats not fair to them. If it's legal to own guns and you restrict certain people then that makes them an easy targets. If I was to rob someone I would probably pick a person that I knew couldn't own a firearm. That makes it very unfair to anyone that couldn't own one. I guess I'm ambivalent.

There are just to many ways of looking at it.

Abrasax · 03-10-2008, 12:37 PM

I believe that non-automatic weapons should be allowed to everyone not convicted of a violent felony and to everyone without mental disorders (assuming everyone is 18 and above).

The government taking guns away completely would make them too powerful. There would be virtually no way to overthrow the government if they eventually got out of hand because everyone would be unarmed.

Any weapon capable of killing several people at once should be banned from the public in general.

Just my opinion....there are still a lot of problems present in my idea but everything is based on personal belief.

WillyBubba · 03-10-2008, 04:26 PM

I agree that mental problems or criminal records (especially violent) should mandate restrictions on gun ownership (depending on the degree of the problem, all the way to not being allowed to won one). I also agree that with your 18th birthday should come all the responsibilities of adult-hood.

I don't think we necessarily need to ban weapons, just their use (there is a difference). If you use a weapon in a crime it should come with a very stiff penalty (same with just accidents, these cannot be tolerated with such weapons-responsibility is key). However, as a law-abiding citizen, and I realize the possibility of having one frightens people, I feel I should be allowed to own an unmodified assault rifle, if not heavier weapons.

Use of these weapons for anything other than target practice would be strictly illegal as they're simply unnecessary for any practical uses (and explosives probably not at all). However, their only actual use in civilian hands would be fighting a powerful government and so that point their use would be treasonous anyway.

A government should fear the people, not the other way around.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 03-10-2008, 07:51 PM

I go back and forth on automatic weapons. I've fired an AK-47 and damn is it fun! I can definitely see the recreational value of these things. However, the risks seem so big to me I don't know if I'm willing to accept Johnny down the street having a case of uzis in his basement.

The issue of defending against government also pulls me the other way, but at the same time, I don't trust people to merely defend themselves.

Responsibility, once again, is key. I know many gun owners who participate in gun clubs. My friend told me about his gun club where they set up scenarios, like hostage situations, robberies, and other threats, and then practice using their weapons to efficiently and effectively neutralize the threat and protect themselves and those around them. This is amazing I think! Also, they are super strict about where you are aiming the gun, safeties being on etc. They are truly training responsible young men and women in regards to firearm use.

Although, on the other side, where does this end. Should I be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in my basement? Can I have anthrax or other bio-weapons? I'm being a bit outlandish here, but only to make a point.

Personally, i think there need to be SOME laws in regards to this stuff (set at the state level, not federally). Assuming everyone should be able to own whatever weapons they want is just as foolish as saying no one should have any weapons.

tombinghamthegreat · 03-10-2008, 09:10 PM

Funny the gun debate has drawn a lot of attention with the supreme court hearing DC's gun ban this month. Anyone that is aware of my perivous posts on the forum, on other forums, anyone who read my speeches and anyone who has seen my profiles is aware of my support for the second amendment. I am sure if you look, i have expained why too. Currently in the US, 40 states allow CCW as a right since it has reduced crime in every state that considers it as a right. As long as the person is not a felon, crazy or anything else he should be able to own and carry any gun protected by the 2nd amendment. Look at part of my arguement on this link if you care Login | Facebook

Now to the matter of full auto weapons, sawed off shotguns, and heavy machine guns. One those weapons are not illegal, just registered and very expensive since the government runs a monoploy on that part of the gun market. I am against the government stoping the manufacture of these weapons to drive up the price. So i would say it is a right constitutionally protected. Other countries like Israel and the Swiss mandates all citizens own full auto weapons, a side arm and ammo. Those countries also allow citizens to carry weapons like our country with CCW except instead of being limited to just handguns, they can carry full auto rifles.

Puting this debate makes sence in the religion part since in the US gun ownership by millions of gun owners is very much like a religion. Spent the past few days presenting my arguement on facebook during miderms, kinda tired.

Bigmouth1 · 03-11-2008, 06:36 AM

My belief on the subject it this this:

THE Second ammendment clearly states that the people of the united states has the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. wither it be from your neighbor or your government. it also states that the states have a right to establish a state militia(National Guard) to protect the people in times of war and peace should the homeland get invaded by a foreign invader, we as a people under the right of amendment 2 have the right to asist the military. that is to keep weapons, such as rifles and hand guns. as long as Uncle Sam knows you have one and you are licensed to carry one. But if you have a mental problem or you're a homicidal maniac, you should be stripped of that priviledge. amendment 2 is not just a right, it's a priviledge. one that can be taken away should you break the law. IF proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was broken, all weapon rights should be stripped. I think it should be manditory that at age 18, you automatically get inrolled into a firearm class(unless you have a record) to learn to use one. and get licensed to carry, but the decision to carry a firearm is up to you. but you would be licesened anyway should the need arise and you need one.

Abrasax · 03-11-2008, 08:27 AM

The National Guard is not the militia mentioned in the second ammendment....that is just what the goverment wants you to think. The government in fact controls the National Guard.

The militia the second ammendment refers to is the right of just an ordinary group of people to get together in order to form one.

--------------- Added 11 Mar 2008 at 08:30 am ---------------

After hearing the argument from mr.nra i am leaning heavily towards allowing full-auto weapons. Although I imagine the country would be more like it was in the wild west.

Maybe the liscensing for the full-auto weapons should be much more difficult than for semi-auto....i agree that I don't like the idea of my crack-head neighbor owning a box of uzis.

Estefanina · 03-11-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillyBubba

A government should fear the people, not the other way around.

agreed. which is why the people should be allowed to buy any gun the government can buy. Legally, and with a permit, background check, etc.

For protection from the government.

Cause, hell, if the government is coming at me with an Ak47 and all I have is a .22 handgun, I'm screwed. It's just a fact.

tombinghamthegreat · 03-11-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abrasax

After hearing the argument from mr.nra i am leaning heavily towards allowing full-auto weapons. Although I imagine the country would be more like it was in the wild west.

Maybe the liscensing for the full-auto weapons should be much more difficult than for semi-auto....i agree that I don't like the idea of my crack-head neighbor owning a box of uzis.

It is hard to get full auto weapons since only a few states allow NFA Class 3 permits. Not only have long waiting peroids(6 months per transfer), $200 fee, put into a database, need police approval, plus the manufacture of these weapons stopped since 1986 causing the price to go up. An Mac 11 machine pistol which should only cost $300 cost about $4,500 without the fees from the government. An AK which would be $600 is actually 10-15 grand. A very high price for a gun that is used and 22 years old. The few people that buy them are gun ranges to make money off of people that can't buy them.