Guns

[Deacon]

No one is questioning a right to self defence. We're questioning a right for all and sundry to own weapons designed to kill with little or no appropriate oversight.


Burglary then. Killing an intruder as a first response isn't my idea of a "right", nor is it "self defence".

Maintaining your macho self image is worth someone else's life?

Ehh...wrong, try again. It is my right to blow the bastard away if he breaks into my house.

 

[E.C.]

I've shot a firearm, believe ownership is a right, do not presently own any myself (some family members do), and I believe in gun rights, but with every right there needs to be a degree of control with laws and enforcement of said laws.

 

[TanteBelle]

I own several firearms and practice with them regularly. As for gun rights, I don't believe in any special right to keep and bear arms; it is simply a necessary corollary of property rights:

1. The most basic property right is self-ownership.
2. The simplest expression of self-ownership is the right to life.
3. The right to life requires the right to defend one's life from that which would end it, just as it implies the right to consume food to prevent starvation.
4. The right of self defense requires the right to equip one's self to that purpose, just as the right of a person to consume food requires the right to equip himself to obtain, prepare, and consume food.

Therefore I support the right of every person to keep and bear arms, so long as in so doing they do not infringe upon the equal right of others to do the same.

'Freedom is the right to defend your life, your liberty, and your property. The preservation of any one of these things depends on the preservation of the other two!' Frederik Bastiat ~ 'The Law'

An old Cliche but true "Guns Don't kill People. People kill People."
As a guns right advocate I want to commit on something that was said on page 1...

I saw one of those big cowboy buckles and it had written on it, 'God, guns, and guts freed America'! LOL! I thought that was classic!

 

[MehGuy]

I actually want a firearm, don't know too much about guns so I can't tell you what exactly, but something small that can fit in my pocket maybe. Would be cool to take it to the fire range and practice until I was a decent shot, then if someone broke into my home, I wouldn't have to wait for the cops, I'd just blow the guys head off with all the gun training I had earlier.

 

[JesusFreak2008]

Of course I've shot a gun before, or a weapon for that matter. I was in the US Army for 4 years as a military police officer. I see no issue with guns, because the point of the matter is what you choose to use them for. If you take a gun and go and shoot someone, I don't care whom you are, that is a criminal and often premeditated thought process unless your some sociopathic killer. I own a gun, specifically a Glock 17 Pistol, 9mm, and it is for matters of protection. I bought it when I turned 21, and have it on safety at all times. I also hold a concealed weapons license. I did at one point plan on going into law enforcement, and at some point hope to do so. When my daughter is old enough, I plan on teaching her that a gun is a weapon and it can hurt someone, and plan on taking her to gun safety courses. In the case that some one puts my life or hers into harms way, than I plan to teach her that this may be a reason to shoot someone. For example, if some one robs the house, or holds me at hostage or hurts her i.e. rape or molests and she can't get away, this is a good reason to use a gun, not for cold blooded killing because someone "picked on you". I plan to teach her within good reason when she is old and mature enough to understand the concept of what happens when you do shoot some one, and what could happen. I believe gun ownership is a right, but that it is one to have a strict screening process. A convicted felon or anyone with a criminal record should not be allowed near a gun or weapon of any kind. Children should also not be allowed near them for the simple fact that they don't quite understand what they can do. Just some points of mine.

 

[armyman_83]

I own a gun, specifically a Glock 17 Pistol, 9mm, and it is for matters of protection. I bought it when I turned 21, and have it on safety at all times.

The Glock 17 doesn't have a safty switch....only a "safe action trigger".... So It has to be on unless ya shooting!


But really, good point. I agree, Children should be taught to respect and how to use firearms. My Father taught me to respect firearms and all the safty aspects, and their proper use.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I don't care if it's legal. I want power.

 

[JesusFreak2008]

The Glock 17 doesn't have a safty switch....only a "safe action trigger".... So It has to be on unless ya shooting!


But really, good point. I agree, Children should be taught to respect and how to use firearms. My Father taught me to respect firearms and all the safty aspects, and their proper use.

Well, I call it a safety switch lol. Erm... whatever its called, its always on lol. Its still a safety mechanism!

 

[Sketcher]

My question is whether "gun ownership is a right" includes mandatory safety quizzes and safe handling courses, proper registration, and background checks?

I believe people should definitely know what they're doing when they shoot a gun, rather than think they know what they're doing. Problem is with "mandatory," that means the government is the one doing it. Which defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment to begin with, because if the government can say who can own firearms and on what conditions, then an oppressive government can use that precedent to prohibit guns from their political enemies. If the government can say "you have to take this safety class," then it can also say "only registered Party members may take this safety class and own a gun." The latter is a much greater violation of the Second Amendment than the former, but they are both violations, and the former creates a precedent for making the latter possible. I prefer to go by the Second Amendment as written:

"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."

 

[armyman_83]

I believe people should definitely know what they're doing when they shoot a gun, rather than think they know what they're doing. Problem is with "mandatory," that means the government is the one doing it. Which defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment to begin with, because if the government can say who can own firearms and on what conditions, then an oppressive government can use that precedent to prohibit guns from their political enemies. If the government can say "you have to take this safety class," then it can also say "only registered Party members may take this safety class and own a gun." The latter is a much greater violation of the Second Amendment than the former, but they are both violations, and the former creates a precedent for making the latter possible. I prefer to go by the Second Amendment as written:

"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."

Excellent post.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Regulation and Registration are unconstitutional. The City of Chicago needs to buzz off and leave my constitutional rights alone.
When guns were illegal it didn't stop anything. It just made the conditions for the bad guys easier because they were the only ones with weapons. Now the playing field is even and I want to stop worrying about how dangerous the train is at night when I'm coming home from work. If the cops won't do anything about it, they should leave my gun rights alone.

 

[Sketcher]

I actually want a firearm, don't know too much about guns so I can't tell you what exactly, but something small that can fit in my pocket maybe. Would be cool to take it to the fire range and practice until I was a decent shot, then if someone broke into my home, I wouldn't have to wait for the cops, I'd just blow the guys head off with all the gun training I had earlier.

Try both autos and revolvers. I never thought I would prefer a revolver until I shot one.

 

[MichaelHelp]

I shot a gun before and i don't care to own one.

 

[Mr Dave]

Not being a US citizen and having never been there, the 2nd amendment plays no role in my life, which I feel to be a complete and utter blessing. I would hate to live somewhere where fire-arm ownership was commonplace. I have fired a rifle before but only as an Air Cadet where it was part of the military side of things.

Some things that have recently become known to me through chatting to my American friends,
Compared to Great Britain, in the USA where fire-arm ownership is much more commonplace, people are more likely to be shot, the police carry weapons as a matter of course, and it is not unknown for policemen to be shot themselves. In Britain, few people own weapons, it is fairly uncommon for people to be shot, the Police very rarely carry lethal weapons (I would be angered if this were to ever be common) and Policemen are hardly ever shot on duty (12 in the last 44 years Police Roll of Honour Trust - Police Memorial Trust - Local Memorials). I know which country I'd prefer to live in...

...


I might add that at the moment I live in France instead of GB and there is an armoury shop in my city which I find very strange. I've never seen one before.

 

[Mr Dave]

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."

Change 'gun' to 'vote' and I agree with you

I agree completely

 

[mjmcmillan]

I've fired a rifle before. One of my uncles, a preacher no less, happened to be an avid hunter. One day he took some of us out to open farm field and let us -- almost insisted that-- we fire his .22 rifle at an old quart can that was set up some fifty yards away. I doubt that the can was ever in any danger, and since there was nothing but sandy-soil farm fields within range of the gun nothing else was in much danger either.

I suppose living arrangements have something to do with it, right now where I live a gun might be a liability. I've been in places where it's a wonder that everybody isn't armed to the teeth because you really need them. Like the Chicago guy says, the police don't do much to stop crime and aren't much good after the crime has happened.

I don't think everybody should be armed, though. I personally know some people who shouldn't be trusted with rubber bands, much less a gun. The idea of my brother with a gun is enough to send chills down the spine of Chuck Norris. Give him a gun and I'm reasonably sure something regrettable is going to happen.

 

[armyman_83]

Not being a US citizen and having never been there, the 2nd amendment plays no role in my life, which I feel to be a complete and utter blessing. I would hate to live somewhere where fire-arm ownership was commonplace. I have fired a rifle before but only as an Air Cadet where it was part of the military side of things.

Some things that have recently become known to me through chatting to my American friends,
Compared to Great Britain, in the USA where fire-arm ownership is much more commonplace, people are more likely to be shot, the police carry weapons as a matter of course, and it is not unknown for policemen to be shot themselves. In Britain, few people own weapons, it is fairly uncommon for people to be shot, the Police very rarely carry lethal weapons (I would be angered if this were to ever be common) and Policemen are hardly ever shot on duty (12 in the last 44 years Police Roll of Honour Trust - Police Memorial Trust - Local Memorials). I know which country I'd prefer to live in...

...


I might add that at the moment I live in France instead of GB and there is an armoury shop in my city which I find very strange. I've never seen one before.

So your arguments against firearm ownership are? You feel less likely to be shot?

Its not just a matter of self-defense in one's home. Its one's rights that firearms ownership also helps to defend(indeed, the 2nd Amendments main goal). You can't defend your right to free speech, freedom to wroship whom you please, freedom to etc. without the right to defend yourself. If the government said, you can't say this, you can't worship this, you can't meet here.....what are you supposed to do? Petition the government? Its the government that is oppressing you! Tyrannts are deaf to pleas.

Sadly your rights have been taken away, just like almost everywhere in Europe. Not many people own firearms in the U.K. but what about Switzerland? Almost every household where there is a military aged male living, there is an assult rifle. Yet they don't have crazy ammounts of crime.

 

[Mr Dave]

So your arguments against firearm ownership are? You feel less likely to be shot?

Its not just a matter of self-defense in one's home. Its one's rights that firearms ownership also helps to defend(indeed, the 2nd Amendments main goal). You can't defend your right to free speech, freedom to wroship whom you please, freedom to etc. without the right to defend yourself. If the government said, you can't say this, you can't worship this, you can't meet here.....what are you supposed to do? Petition the government? Its the government that is oppressing you! Tyrannts are deaf to pleas.

Sadly your rights have been taken away, just like almost everywhere in Europe. Not many people own firearms in the U.K. but what about Switzerland? Almost every household where there is a military aged male living, there is an assult rifle. Yet they don't have crazy ammounts of crime.

Not exactly, that I feel with a lower ownership rate, you have a safer society, the maths is fairly simple, the lower the numbers of people owning lethal weapons, the less chance there is that there would be fatalities from such weapons.

I agree that defence of other rights is vital, but I don't understand what lethal weapons have to do this. If people feel the govt. is being oppressive you can form a political party, or petition your local MP, or if things are hugely bad, rely on HM The Queen to take the initiative to dissolve Parliament and call an election where if the majority agreed the govt. was being oppressive then they would not be voted back into office. I don't see how owning a lethal weapon would be any great benefit unless you expect something like a modern day Peasant's Revolt with lots of angry people trying to overthrow the govt.

I don't feel Switzerland can be really brought in as a good example; The Swiss way is to take a neutral stance and so the nation as a whole has a fairly pacifistic nature, so the Swiss mindset is wholly different to that of GB of the USA.

Could you explain which rights of mine have been taken away? I have the right to free-speech, the right to vote, the right to life, the right to security, the right to free thought... European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sketcher]

Not exactly, that I feel with a lower ownership rate, you have a safer society, the maths is fairly simple, the lower the numbers of people owning lethal weapons, the less chance there is that there would be fatalities from such weapons.

That depends entirely on who has the weapons. If they're all good people, then yes. If they're criminals (in or out of a government uniform) then nobody is safe from them. Best to arm the good people in order to counteract the bad. There's a reason why no intelligent person would try to hold up a gun store.

 

[Mr Dave]

That depends entirely on who has the weapons. If they're all good people, then yes. If they're criminals (in or out of a government uniform) then nobody is safe from them. Best to arm the good people in order to counteract the bad.

Such is where we disagree. Not a fan of the idea of 'good people' owning lethal weapons to run around apprehending criminals, leave that to the Police Force.
You mentioned the gunshops, would you agree that the existance of such things exacerbates the problem. In GB (as far as I know, I've never looked into it) to come to into possession of fire-arms you have to have consciously decided to want one, then gone out of your way to find a way of purchasing one, then you need a license, different licences for different weapons. In the USA having gunshops it becomes 'one of those things you buy' and takes much less determination or seriously thought out desire to want to own a weapon, thus making it much more common for the good the bad and the ugly to own fire-arms. If this is a false or mis-understood hypothesis for some of the difference between our two nations then please say so, but it seems to me that the presence of armouries and the ease of purchase could be a significant factor in America's gun-problem (it's viewed as a problem this side of the pond).