The right to bear arms

Sasquatch, can you explain how the right to bear arms to form a citizen militia to keep a tryannical government in check equates to an argument for concealed weapons so that civilians can shoot ctiminals?

It strikes ne that the constitutional argument cannot be used for the latter, as individuals with concealed weapons =/= an armed militia, and criminals =/= a tyrannical government.

Also, isn't the threat of a tyrannical government overblown? You actually think American service people can be persuaded to turn on their own? You actually think that even if they did, there'd be no action by, say, foreign military forces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sean

I don't buy the argument that if you take away all the guns only criminals will have them and no one will be able to stop them. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

---

Yes, you caught me. It's a complete stretch which is entirely illogical to assume that criminals will break new laws in the same way they break current ones. And this implementation of common sense is totally an attempt at scaring people into promoting my right to have a gun, which I wouldn't need in the first place in the new world order where all criminals everywhere will read the 'no firearms allowed inside' sign on the door, and leave without incident. Because criminals read and respect signs, rules, and laws.

Seriously? How do you get fear mongering out of the application of common sense? Criminals by definition are people who break laws. It is therefore reasonable to assume that more laws, which again, they break by definition, aren't going to do anything to stop them. Law abiding citizens however will be disarmed by laws, because law abiding citizens by definition follow the laws.

A law to disarm people would only disarm those who follow them, not the people who don't, the ones you're actually trying to disarm. The results of logic being frightening does not turn the logic into fear mongering.

Quote:

---

You actually think American service people can be persuaded to turn on their own? You actually think that even if they did, there'd be no action by, say, foreign militaryforces?

---

No, there really would be no foreign intervention to assist the civilian population of the US. I honestly believe that.
Look at Slobodan Milosovich,
Who saved Bosnia?
The dutch army?
Nope.

That situation actually began with the disarming of the civilian population and arming of extremist groups.
You can talk all you want about how thats not going to happen, but it does. Genocide, tyrrany and oppression do happen in a lot of countries.
It doesnt look like it could happen to the US because of a relatively transparent federal system, a large and pwoerful military and a civilian population who prefer to take action, rather than hope things turn out okay.
But it could happen. If it did, it would start with the disarming of the civilian population. Take the guns away first, then certain rights, then target a specific group and begin the cleansing.

We did have a civil war at one point. Our country stands as a unified nation because the fed was better armed and better supplied and not because of any moral highground.

I really, really hate how the standard debate format is to pick apart arguements line by line, as I really don't want to bother with doing that.

Anyhow, on the statistic you quoted, Sasquatch, that's... pathetic. Assuming it's true (as a cursory search of Google brought me nothing) then it's a strong case for gun rights, but it still doesn't change my mind nor make me feel safer with a bunch of people running around with guns strapped to their waist.

All I will say is this: People who advocate loose gun laws because they live in fear of the government, I will not understand. You made that plain in all of your arguments it's how you feel. America having fairly loose gun laws still hasn't stopped the myriad of shitty presidents, congressmen, and local officials this country has seen and nor will it.

You're mistaking my fear of an indvidual who is carrying a weapon with a fear of the weapon itself. I'm more afraid of the (stereotypical usual Republican, usually white, usually male, usually Christian, usually bigoted, homophobic, racist) individuals carrying the weapons who may, for whatever reason, decide to turn them on me because I'm not a white male Christian Republican, but instead an antitheist, atheistic while male liberal who doesn't live in constant fear of his government, because I'm not quite cynical enough to have given up hope that this country isn't completely ****ed, but rather in constant fear of the far right.

I'm scared to death of the Tea Party. I'm scared of the angry, bigoted, racist, so-called God-fearing conservatives, most of whom are armed, who want more than anything, based on their actions, to commit anarchy. I'm scared of the violent hatred being spewed by the (again, armed) far right against homosexuals being turned on the most hated minority in America: the atheists, to which I belong.

And please don't say "If you're so afraid you should go buy a gun" because... no.

Back to my "Criminals will be the only ones with guns" comment, way to blow it out of proportion. Of course criminals would find ways around it, but I like to think, and maybe I'm being over idealistic, that they'd have fewer of them than they do now if there were stricter gun laws. I'm not ridiculous enough to think that banning guns would magically make them all disappear. But by using this argument, you are playing on fear. You're making people afraid of anyone who's illegally carrying a weapon, so that they think they have to go gear up to defend themselves from these people.

On assault weapons: The federal ban expired in 2004 and has yet to be reenacted. Many states currently have no bans on them, and it's perfectly allowed, by law, to own a semi-automatic weapon (and people sell kits to easily convert them to fully automatic, which some states allow) in many states.

Beyond this, you can call it whatever you want, but I've got nothing left. This isn't a topic I've give too terribly much thought, aside from the basic "I don't like it" decision and that the armed far right scares the **** out of me, and I don't have the wits to keep it going at Sasquatch's level (whom I'm glad to see is still around) and, honestly, I never was able to reconcile how the militia aspect of the second amendment equated loose gun laws, which Sasquatch provided an adequate argument for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean

You're mistaking my fear of an indvidual who is carrying a weapon with a fear of the weapon itself. I'm more afraid of the (stereotypical usual Republican, usually white, usually male, usually Christian, usually bigoted, homophobic, racist) individuals carrying the weapons who may, for whatever reason, decide to turn them on me because I'm not a white male Christian Republican, but instead an antitheist, atheistic while male liberal who doesn't live in constant fear of his government, because I'm not quite cynical enough to have given up hope that this country isn't completely ****ed, but rather in constant fear of the far right.

I'm scared to death of the Tea Party. I'm scared of the angry, bigoted, racist, so-called God-fearing conservatives, most of whom are armed, who want more than anything, based on their actions, to commit anarchy. I'm scared of the violent hatred being spewed by the (again, armed) far right against homosexuals being turned on the most hated minority in America: the atheists, to which I belong.

---

If I may be frank, this block of text is pathetic. Especially considering it's recurring theme is bigotry and racism, when in fact this entire tirade is about a stereotype. For the record, I am a Republican. I am white, I am male. I am pro gun rights, and am not best pleased with the government. I am however not Christian, I'm agnostic (technically agnostic atheist, depending on how many hairs you want to split), I personally find hardcore religious people highly irrational for believing something so strongly without proof of it. I can't even commit to hard atheism, because it too relies on the unknown and unprovable. I own many firearms, and have never turned them on another human being. If I ever did, it wouldn't be on the basis of race, religion, political views, sexual orientation, or any such things. Because, the average republican, in contrast to your narrow minded stereotype, is just a normal person, who works for a living and would rather keep what they work for than give it to those who do less, and is tired of a government who wants to take more and give less. If I were to use a gun on someone, it would be in either self defense, or an attempt at defending others. This because, I like the average republican, am a sane, rational human being.

Quote:

---

Back to my "Criminals will be the only ones with guns" comment, way to blow it out of proportion. Of course criminals would find ways around it, but I like to think, and maybe I'm being over idealistic, that they'd have fewer of them than they do now if there were stricter gun laws. I'm not ridiculous enough to think that banning guns would magically make them all disappear. But by using this argument, you are playing on fear. You're making people afraid of anyone who's illegally carrying a weapon, so that they think they have to go gear up to defend themselves from these people.

---

Riiiight... and fewer criminals having guns compared to NO law abiding citizens having them, leads to exactly the original claim you're attacking. Only the criminals now have guns, albeit fewer of them. So, a revocation of the right to bear arms, logically does not solve the problem, it makes it worse.

YOU who demonize an entire political party as crazy, bigoted hicks with sawed off shotguns going out to gun down anyone who doesn't agree with them on the basis of your dislike of a religion and a few specific moral stances that are stereotypical of the party that you don't happen to share, are accusing ME of fear mongering?

I am using this argument because this argument follows from basic formal logic and common sense.

I personally don't care much for this issue, so I'll just post my opinion. I see both sides. On one hand, why do we need automatic weapons and such? On the other, what happens when we ARE caught defenseless? If the military and government officials can handle it, why not anyone with the right training? That's my issue. Ideally, one would have to have a background check and in depth psychological evaluation before they could get a gun. I plan on buying my own gun one day for self defense, and if I quit being lazy, I'd like to start hunting again. You never know when some one will try to break in to your house. If guns were made illegal, it wouldn't stop criminals what so ever. Most of the time, they're weapons are illegal anyway. Unregistered, modified to the extreme.

Quote:

---

I plan on buying my own gun one day for self defense

---

Will you seek the approval of a qualified psychologist before you buy a gun?
Or...
Are you implying that you need no certification beyond what is already in place, but everyone else should have a harder time buying guns?

There is an inherent dual standard in being pro gun control;
Everyone believes they are the only sane person who could know when to use one and when not to.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of consealed carriers are so sane and in their right mind that they not only never misuse their firearm, they go as far as to promote safety, knowladge, proper handling and attending courses with certified instructors.

Would those of you who are pro gun control take the time to teach your child or a friend or family member how to safely handle a firearm?
Would you know how to?
Would you rather they or yourself never become familiar with firearms?

Is knowladge dangerous?
Are certain kinds of knowladge dangerous?

These are questions which only have one correct answer and a pile of contradictory ones.

Edit::

Quote:

---

I'm more afraid of the (stereotypical usual Republican, usually white, usually male, usually Christian,usually bigoted, homophobic, racist) individuals carrying the weapons who may, for whatever reason, decide to turn them on me because I'm not a white male Christian Republican

---

Racism!
Racist, ignorant garbage.

Especially considering that if you break up violent crime in the US by race, you'll notice that white people do not commit the highest number, or percentage of murder, gun-related or not.

You are living in fear of unseen individuals who secretly want you dead?
What makes you so special?
Why are there hidden people who are plotting your death, specifically using a legally aquired, licensed and permitted concealed firearm?

You are either someone very influential and radical with some form of clairvoyance.
Or...
You are a racist, disillusioned fanatic. Just like the individuals you fear.

You racist sack of crap.

Order: I will say this again, as I have said it before. Please, please, shut the **** up. You are not helping your cause, and your ignorance and arrogance reflects upon those who share even remotely similar beliefs, which includes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Sasquatch, can you explain how the right to bear arms to form a citizen militia to keep a tryannical government in check equates to an argument for concealed weapons so that civilians can shoot ctiminals?

---

Probably the best argument would be that it doesn't matter. The right to bear arms is protected -- whether it be to bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government, a foreign nation, or a mugger, or for hunting or sport.

Quote:

---

It strikes ne that the constitutional argument cannot be used for the latter, as individuals with concealed weapons =/= an armed militia, and criminals =/= a tyrannical government.

---

Individuals with weapons are exactly an armed militia.

Quote:

---

Also, isn't the threat of a tyrannical government overblown? You actually think American service people can be persuaded to turn on their own?

---

While the actual military would not, there are certain groups -- namely, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security), perhaps the FBI, IRS, and others -- that can, would, and have done so in the past.

Look up Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. (Now, I don't disagree that the people involved were friggin' nutcases. But they didn't deserve to be targeted for slaughter.) Those two incidents were the prime motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.

Quote:

---

You actually think that even if they did, there'd be no action by, say, foreign military forces?

---

Do you honestly think that an outside military force would come in to the United States to protect United States citizens against its government? Especially when many places in the world bitch and moan about the United States doing that exact thing for other countries? If it was a huge event, possibly. But small, isolated incidents -- even when the defenders have no chance -- would not draw too much international attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean

I really, really hate how the standard debate format is to pick apart arguements line by line, as I really don't want to bother with doing that.

---

Actually, I would recommend that. It's a good way to address specific points, without missing anything, and keep the points and their rebuttals close to each other to maintain context.

Quote:

---

Anyhow, on the statistic you quoted, Sasquatch, that's... pathetic.

---

It is, isn't it? That's one reason I support concealed carry -- not only is a handgun in my pants much closer than a police officer, it's also much more accurate and reliable.

Quote:

---

Assuming it's true (as a cursory search of Google brought me nothing) then it's a strong case for gun rights, but it still doesn't change my mind nor make me feel safer with a bunch of people running around with guns strapped to their waist.

---

What if you were in a mass shooting scenario? Put yourself in the mall, or in the school, or in the church, or in the movie theater. Now put a shooter in there, with absolutely nobody to stand against him.

Would you rather there be one person with firearms, or more than one? Especially with the knowledge that civilians are less likely to catch people in the crossfire than police are?

Except for one instance, since 1950, every public multiple-shooting resulting in three or more deaths has been in a place which banned firearm possession.

Firearm possession by responsible, individual citizens is supported by many common sayings, as well. Like, "I carry a pistol because a police officer is too heavy," or, "When seconds count, police are just minutes away."

Quote:

---

All I will say is this: People who advocate loose gun laws because they live in fear of the government, I will not understand. You made that plain in all of your arguments it's how you feel.

---

The more people have guns, the less they need to fear their government. Now, I don't own firearms because I believe the government will one day arrest me and put me into a gulag or a concentration camp or anything, but the very fact that I own firearms helps to prevent that from happening. As I pointed out already, tyrannical governments don't start by arresting people, they start by disarming them of their means of self-defense.

Quote:

---

America having fairly loose gun laws still hasn't stopped the myriad of shitty presidents, congressmen, and local officials this country has seen and nor will it.

---

Oh, of course not. We've had quite a few, and I'm sure we'll have quite a few more. In fact, you could say that America protecting the right to bear arms has actually caused shitty Presidents -- without it, America would have had shitty Dictators.

Quote:

---

You're mistaking my fear of an indvidual who is carrying a weapon with a fear of the weapon itself. I'm more afraid of the (stereotypical usual Republican, usually white, usually male, usually Christian, usually bigoted, homophobic, racist) individuals carrying the weapons who may, for whatever reason, decide to turn them on me because I'm not a white male Christian Republican, but instead an antitheist, atheistic while male liberal who doesn't live in constant fear of his government, because I'm not quite cynical enough to have given up hope that this country isn't completely ****ed, but rather in constant fear of the far right.

I'm scared to death of the Tea Party. I'm scared of the angry, bigoted, racist, so-called God-fearing conservatives, most of whom are armed, who want more than anything, based on their actions, to commit anarchy. I'm scared of the violent hatred being spewed by the (again, armed) far right against homosexuals being turned on the most hated minority in America: the atheists, to which I belong.

---

... You ****in' serious, kid?

Quote:

---

Back to my "Criminals will be the only ones with guns" comment, way to blow it out of proportion. Of course criminals would find ways around it, but I like to think, and maybe I'm being over idealistic, that they'd have fewer of them than they do now if there were stricter gun laws.

---

Sure, there might be fewer illegal firearms out there. But there would be absolutely no legal defense against them.

Quote:

---

You're making people afraid of anyone who's illegally carrying a weapon, so that they think they have to go gear up to defend themselves from these people.

---

Yeah, because criminals who carry firearms illegally are law-abiding citizens with no intent to do harm, right?

Quote:

---

On assault weapons: The federal ban expired in 2004 and has yet to be reenacted.

---

That wasn't a ban on assault weapons, it was a ban on scary-looking guns. An assault weapon, by definition, has a selectable rate of fire. For example, an M16 is an assault rifle -- the rate of fire can be switched from "semi", meaning semi-automatic that fires one round every time the trigger is pulled, to "full", meaning fully-automatic that continues firing while the trigger is depressed until it is released or it runs out of ammunition. (There is also a "burst" function on some assault rifles, including modern M16s, that fires three rounds per trigger pull.) Assault weapons -- firearms with a selectable rate of fire -- anything that can fire more than one round per depression of the trigger is highly illegal without immense amounts of registration.

Quote:

---

Many states currently have no bans on them, and it's perfectly allowed, by law, to own a semi-automatic weapon (and people sell kits to easily convert them to fully automatic, which some states allow) in many states.

---

No state allows fully-automatic firearms owned by regular, unlicensed civilians. If you have any source that states that, it's wrong. Even being in possession of a firearm and anything that makes it fully-automatic -- even if it's not installed -- is highly illegal. And those "kits" you refer to are very hard to find ... mainly because, as has been mentioned, they're illegal as hell.

Quote:

---

This isn't a topic I've give too terribly much thought, aside from the basic "I don't like it" decision and that the armed far right scares the **** out of me ...

---

And please, praytell, how many mass shootings in the United States have been committed by right-wing extremists with legal, registered firearms?

I haven't read this entire thread, but I've skimmed over it enough. The fact of the matter lies in that if someone wants to kill someone badly enough, for whatever reason, they will. The legality of the weapon doesn't matter IF the intent is to kill. People have thrown molotov cocktails before. Should the purchase of gasoline, rags and bottles be outlawed?

Sasquatch is right. People have a skewed thought of what assault weapons are. If it looks scarier or more "military" than grandpas hunting rifle, it's automatically an AK47 to reporters, and considered an assault weapon.

Also, a lot of the time, police aren't 5 minutes away. What do you do if you're living in a remote section of the country. You're a US citizen, but you live out in the middle of nowhere, maybe 50 miles from "town", which may have a police station that actually closes. What are you supposed to do if a few burglars try to rob your house, while you're in it? You can call the cops sure, but help will be maybe half an hour away if you're lucky. The robbers may be armed, they may be not, you can't know for sure, but all you see is three strange men approaching your house at night. If I were in that situation, you can sure as hell bet that I would be reaching for my registered weapon in case I had to defend myself.

To me, it wouldn't matter if they had weapons; it would be moreso about my RIGHT to defend my home and my property. If I didn't have that hypothetical weapon, what's to say that I wouldn't be dead or my property ransacked. Who knows what would happen to my hypothetical family.

I wouldn't simply surrender my life or my land because someone else wants it. That's not the American way of life that my family has fought and died to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Individuals with weapons are exactly an armed militia.

---

Individuals with weapons are an unorganized armed militia, and not the proper militia referred to in the constitution.

The founding fathers didn't want to take away the right to possess firearms from the people. That is clear as day. Not just from the simply worded 2nd Amendment, but from actual statements in regards to the 2nd Amendment and it's meaning.

However, there are two parts of the 2nd Amendment. The first part states that "a well regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state. The second part stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

These are two entire separate statements, hence why in wording, they're separated. The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that ordinary citizens are the well regulated militia. In actual sense, the well-regulated militia would be the National Guard, or any other public service organization who's soul purpose is the protection of America, it's land, and it's people.

The legal definition of a militia describes it as a force that can be called upon to step up and defend the nation if needed. A group of gun-wielding ordinary citizens cannot defend America from a foreign invader. They lack the training.

The people are not the militia. The militia is the militia. The people just have the right to bear arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Probably the best argument would be that it doesn't matter. The right to bear arms is protected -- whether it be to bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government, a foreign nation, or a mugger, or for hunting or sport.

---

Well it does matter. Not only is it important in my mind to place the Constitution in its historical context (to determine whether the justifications for the rights included are still applicable today), but also because a bad argument is one where one is simple saying "just because".

Now I'm not hot on American history. Something do with not being an American or something. So I'm possibly exposing myself too much, and I welcome correction. But I'm pretty sure that the Constitutional right to bear arms was not made in the context of gangs dealing drugs, mass shootings by depressed and disaffected teenagers, a horrendously high rate of homicides and gun-related violence, and with minimal threat of invasion by foreign empires. Rather, those who penned these words were afraid of Indians, slaves, bears and wolves, the British, French, Spanish. If that historical justification for this right has eroded, in my mind so has the right. (Or, at least, opposition to tighter gun regulation cannot be made from a Constitutional position.)

Quote:

---

Individuals with weapons are exactly an armed militia.

---

Owning a hunting rifle is not a sign that says "I'm willing and capable of fighting the federal government if it manages to convince reasonable service people to shoot innocent civilians". I thought a militia would at least have some kind of organisation and structure. This is just random people with guns.

Don't States have militias of some kind?

Also, I'm aware of that whole survivalist, militia movement thing, although I've really only read about it in novels. If you're going to cite those, I want you to first explain to my why I shouldn't consider them equivalent to terrorist cells.

Quote:

---

While the actual military would not, there are certain groups -- namely, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security), perhaps the FBI, IRS, and others -- that can, would, and have done so in the past.

Look up Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. (Now, I don't disagree that the people involved were friggin' nutcases. But they didn't deserve to be targeted for slaughter.) Those two incidents were the prime motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.

---

I'm not cognizant of Ruby Ridge, but we studied Waco in high school Religious Education when covering sects and cults. A cursory look at Ruby Ridge tells me that the government departments were found to have acted improperly, and with the public outcry, it may be considered an aberration not a good example of a tyrannical government overstepping the mark. Waco is an even worse example. These are not convincing at all, and if these are the best examples you have, I'm just going to assume that it is given knowledge that a fear of a tyrannical, violent federal government in the modern United States is overblown and a not a good justification for mass gun rights.

Quote:

---

Do you honestly think that an outside military force would come in to the United States to protect United States citizens against its government? Especially when many places in the world bitch and moan about the United States doing that exact thing for other countries? If it was a huge event, possibly. But small, isolated incidents -- even when the defenders have no chance -- would not draw too much international attention.

---

Yes I would, although I see your point about small isolated incidents -- but if this is meant to allude to Waco-type incidents, your argument is becoming a farce again.

As Clint pointed out, the second amendment had two distinct parts. One was a reason for giving its people a right, the second was the right given. The first was only the reason they originally decided to give the people that right, not a condition for keeping it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Goddamn Clint Eastwood

Individuals with weapons are an unorganized armed militia, and not the proper militia referred to in the constitution.

---

"Well regulated" simply refers to the uniformity, not the control. For instance, a militia may have the same rank structure as the standing army.

Quote:

---

The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that ordinary citizens are the well regulated militia. In actual sense, the well-regulated militia would be the National Guard, or any other public service organization who's soul purpose is the protection of America, it's land, and it's people.

---

United States Code 10, Chapter 13: "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Further, militia is made up of ordinary citizens without formal training, not paid a regular salary, and not committed to a fixed term of service. None of those three aspects would apply to National Guard members. Also, militia is not officially governed -- and since states control their respective National Guard units, that would also disqualify the Second Amendment as referring only to the National Guard only as militia. (Also also, the United States National Guard as we know it was created under the Militia Act of 1903, so if didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's writing.)

Quote:

---

The legal definition of a militia describes it as a force that can be called upon to step up and defend the nation if needed. A group of gun-wielding ordinary citizens cannot defend America from a foreign invader. They lack the training.

---

Groups of ordinary arms-wielding citizens can, and have, protected nations before. A well-known quote attributed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II states, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." The Warsaw Ghetto put up a hell of a fight with extremely limited quantities (and qualities) of firearms and ammunition. A minority of Afghan citizens are attempting to do the same -- and the same as they did (admittedly, with support) to the U.S.S.R. ... imagine what they could do if they had majority support, or even a greater minority.

Quote:

---

The people are not the militia. The militia is the militia. The people just have the right to bear arms.

---

"The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" ... "ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -United States Supreme Court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Well it does matter. Not only is it important in my mind to place the Constitution in its historical context (to determine whether the justifications for the rights included are still applicable today), but also because a bad argument is one where one is simple saying "just because".

---

The United States no longer has to worry about the Church of England forcing its doctrine into law, or about British soldiers raiding newspapers that don't praise them. That doesn't mean that the First Amendment no longer applies.

Quote:

---

Rather, those who penned these words were afraid of Indians, slaves, bears and wolves, the British, French, Spanish. If that historical justification for this right has eroded, in my mind so has the right.

---

You're saying that the Second Amendment was originally intended to protect the rights of ordinary citizens to protect themselves from those that would wish to do them harm individually, as a community, or as a country ... and that that, somehow, makes it no longer applicable?

Quote:

---

Don't States have militias of some kind?

---

The National Guard, controlled and paid by each state, is a militia of sorts, but they are still government-controlled. To be a militia in itself, it must be free of government control. There are specific "militias" in certain states that are typically extremist/anarchist groups, but from what I've witnessed, they are no threat to anybody.

Quote:

---

Also, I'm aware of that whole survivalist, militia movement thing, although I've really only read about it in novels. If you're going to cite those, I want you to first explain to my why I shouldn't consider them equivalent to terrorist cells.

---

I wouldn't cite those -- but if you want a reason not to equate them to terrorists, the biggest one might be that they would target government and military, not civilians.

Quote:

---

I'm not cognizant of Ruby Ridge, but we studied Waco in high school Religious Education when covering sects and cults. A cursory look at Ruby Ridge tells me that the government departments were found to have acted improperly, and with the public outcry, it may be considered an aberration not a good example of a tyrannical government overstepping the mark. Waco is an even worse example.

---

I list two very good examples of government agencies overstepping their bounds, abusing their authority, slaughtering innocent American civilians, hiding and fabricating evidence, and refusing to hold themselves accountable ... and somehow, that doesn't measure up to an abuse of government to you?

I don't have the time to read through everyone's arguments until tomorrow, but the one thing that should always be allowed in a civilisation, is the right to defend yourself.

"Take away the guns, criminals will kill people if they're allowed them!" - Hate to tell you, but if you ban guns, the criminals will be the ONLY ones to have guns, and regular people will not have the proper means to defend themselves.

Also, the right to bear arms is more to defend yourself against your own Government and police force if they are corrupt, take away the guns and you have an easily controlled populus that will not be able to hold Government accountable, as Government will be the only people with weaponry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickness89

Also, the right to bear arms is more to defend yourself against your own Government and police force if they are corrupt, take away the guns and you have an easily controlled populus that will not be able to hold Government accountable, as Government will be the only people with weaponry.

---

Country [Guns per 100 residents (2007)] (top 7)

United States [88.8]
Serbia [58.2]
Yemen [54.8]
Switzerland [45.7]
Cyprus [36.4]
Saudi Arabia [35]
Iraq [34.2]

Clearly, the presence of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (and to an extent Serbia and Yemen) refute this argument, but at any rate is is clearly not clear that having more guns prevents a government from misbehaving. Countries with very low rates of gun ownership have very responsible, minimalist government (my own, for instance, is the most transparent, and among the least interventionist). They can also be very irresponsible and dictatorial (Fiji). Civilians in the 21st century will never have weaponry to compete against their governments--tanks, planes and ships will only ever be controlled by governments. Yet we haven't seen mass enslavement, so this argument is completely and utterly redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

---

The right to bear arms is amended in the constitution for a reason. Not only is is an amendment of the Constitution but one of the first 10. One of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Personally my views on gun rights stem from a lot of different experiences both personal and public. For instance, a perfect example is the also another thread in the ID, the shooting in CT. 26 people died 20 of them children. For obvious reasons weapons in schools is a topic that is generally frowned upon. On the other hand, any one of the teachers that came into contact with the killer that day, if given the proper courses and a loaded gun could have minimized the casualties. While less then lethal weapons would have sufficed a dead criminal can do no more harm. I support 100% the right to bear arms for protection. Although, there are many circumstances that should be undergone before such licences should be given out.

I believe ill stick with the conceal and carry law and also expand on its boundaries. The conceal and carry law should be implemented in every state. Not just anyone would be able to acquire a licence to conceal or carry, many things would have to happen before. What do i mean? First an age limit of 21 would be set as the earliest you can get a licence. by age 21 you have been an adult for three years and in some cases longer then that. Criminal background checks would be undergone and anything more then a traffic violation would bar you from a licence (i.e. speeding, running a stop sign, no proof of insurance etc. things you would receive in a routine traffic stop) further then that mental and psychological evaluations should be implemented also. Extreme conditions would bar anyone from getting a licence. Also weapon safety sand operations classes should be undergone. IMO to get a licence to carry a handgun you MUST be 21 years of age, clear criminal record, mentally and psychologically healthy and have taken handgun safety and handgun operations classes. DRUG TESTING would also be very important any trace of drugs in your past. Hair Follicle drug testing can date back as long as 7 years. These tests would be required to even be considered for other testings.

In certain instances Licences to own, and have small arms weapons such as sub-machine guns and assault rifles on hand, weather it be locked in a vehicle or locked in an accessible place in your home. (Magazine and Weapon locked in separate boxes with separate keys) By certain instances i mean that individuals involved with the military or any advanced police force (i.e. SWAT, Drug Task Force or any type of Advanced Response Team) Also individuals with more safety and operations classes, de/reconstruction of the weapon, semi annually weapons training. and periodic mental/psychological examinations would be required.

Obviously these things are a stretch and many of these things are over thought and possibly too much but when it comes to the safety of others there is no such thing as to much.

Quote:

---

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

---

Its hard to imagine if crime will be positively or negatively affected. My guess is if things were implemented as i stated above then the impact would be positive. Because short of drug lords, gangsters and those with high dollar sources of income that can get weapons from black market arms dealers, Nobody with any type of criminal record would be able to acquire weapons of any kind. The rate of crime could possibly decline with responsible human beings being armed to protect themselves and those around them while criminals and psychopaths would have to think twice about things like this if they had no access to weapons of such a sort.

Quote:

---

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

---

I believe that if somebody has evil intentions they will find a way to carry them out. Short of locking people up with intentions of doing harm (which is completely irrational) there is no way to stop people like that. Implementing the above proposed laws would stop bad guys from purchasing weapons and being able to carry them legally but that does not make it impossible for them to get guns. Therefore if the bad guys can get them anyway i would feel much safer if the good guys could carry them too.

Quote:

---

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

---

I in fact due own a gun, multiple actually. They are registered in my dads name for now but they are all my guns.

I own 2 Kimber handguns a 1911 and a 9mm, i also have my duty weapon which is a M4 carbine assault rifle, 30 round mags and full auto selector. Also my fun gun is an AR-15 Semi Automatic with 3 round burst selector switch. I want more but i still have all my hunting guns a couple shot guns and a .22 besides that i just cant afford them.

Quote:

---

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

---

I have not had to defend myself or anyone else for that matter. If the opportunity presented itself i would not hesitate for a second.

Quote:

---

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

---

YES YES YES. They already carry on duty what makes it wrong for them to carry off duty. This might not be what the question is asking but if its asking if the police should be able to carry on duty? then still YES YES YES YES YES. If the cops dont carry weapons on duty then whats to stop a criminal from continuing whatever it was that attracted the cops attention?

This is all obviously just my opinion. I am a very strong supporter of gun rights and think with the right balance of weeding out those that should not be aloud to have weapons then crime in this and other countries would start to decline drastically.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms?
I believe a person should be able to own whatever they feel they need to protect their own (within reason (no Bazookas, tanks or full-auto). And only People who are Licensed, Drug-free, no criminal record.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership?
I think neither. There's going to be crime wether there's restrictions or not on ownership.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns?
You can't. They will find ways, especially if you try to stop them.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun?
I don't currently own one, but I wouldn't mind having one for self defense.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)?
No I have not.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns?
Situationally it's useful, but not all cops are fit to bear arms (imo)

I believe that people do have the right to bare arms, but also that they have the responsibility to use and store them appropriately and that they should be required to take weapon safety classes prior to being able to purchase a weapon.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

Generally I believe they do, but that's not taking into account all of the unstable, mentally unsound indivs. There should be psych tests upon registration or something.
Handguns seem to be the more practical choice, unless you live near large violent animals (I'm not talking about overweight brothers) in which case I suppose rifles should be allowed.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes

I guess it's negatively associated. There are always some people who weren't raised right, or desperation caused them to use their weapons to commit wrongs upon others. But unless they pop into my yard, they really aren't my concern. I can only practically advise for sane people. I think forks are good and people should have forks, but of course I won't take forks out of sane people's hands just because some insane people use them wrongfully.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

I guess we could have background checks on gun-buyers... assign some FBI dudes to do that...

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

Nope and nope - but I certainly don't want bad guys to know that. If I were a criminal, the main reason I wouldn't break into somebody's house would be "Oy, they might own a gun."

(If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

What on earth do you mean by "at another's expense?" Heck yeah, I'd defend myself, I'm not an idiot.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

I believe law enforcement officers should carry guns because they need them in that line of work. In holsters.