Guns

[armyman_83]

I voted that I have not shot a firearm before and that I'm both for and against gun ownership. I also voted for both pro-gun control and pro-gun rights. I like to be difficult, or rather, I thought the options were too narrow and didn't really fit my beliefs.

So what are your beliefs Paradox, lets hear 'em? Sorry if the poll didn't fit you. I tried to make it kind of cut and dry. Too bad there is only 10 options.

 

[GQ Chris]

 

[Wren]

So what are your beliefs Paradox, lets hear 'em? Sorry if the poll didn't fit you. I tried to make it kind of cut and dry. Too bad there is only 10 options.

I would, but this isn't my issue. It's just not something I'm passionate about one way or the other and don't want to debate anyone about it.

 

[mjmcmillan]

This is a toughie. I've already stated that I don't believe everybody should have guns. Some people are crazy and if you give crazy people guns bad things have a way of happening.

The flip side though is the idea of depending on police for protection against crime. Sorry, but that idea is a non-starter. Police tend to arrive on the scene only after a crime has taken place. By then, the bad guys have taken your stuff and shot you dead. After the police do the investigation and fill out the reports, with luck they "might" catch the guys who took your stuff and shot you. How, exactly, did this prevent crime? Please don't try to tell me that gun control would prevent the bad guys from shooting you. I live near Chicago which has had stiff gun laws for years. The criminals are armed to the hilt with firepower. It might not work even if guns were taken away from criminals. A few months back a couple of young women returning home from a party were beaten senseless and robbed by a man wielding an aluminum baseball bat. There are no controls at all on who may buy or possess aluminum baseball bats. Need I say more?

 

[Obzocky]

Self defense is a privilege? Then those without firearms can expect to have police protection all the time? I am not saying that every firearm owner is a safe and responsible person, just like I would never say that everyone who owns a car knows how to use it properly.

Knives have potential to do lethal damage....should those be restricted too?

Self defence is a right.
Guns can be used for self defence, but they should not be a right. Again, cultural difference I guess. Almost everyone in the countryside has a gun, but they don't think of them as defensive weapons. No, police protection all the time is not possible, but owning a gun as a right as opposed to an earned privilege? No, not my opinion at all. I worked for my rifle, I know how to shoot with intent to disable and I know how to shoot to kill, if someone knows how to disable someone with a shot then hurrah, have a gun, defend your home, if someone does not know how to handle a gun then it is pretty much useless. I'm not articulating my thoughts particularly well, I just know I do not like how people equate guns with self defence, like it's the only way to defend oneself. If people own guns for self defence then I feel they should be more than emotionally prepared for the possibility of taking a life. This is something I do not feel most people with guns really grasp, my father was a sniper, he took lives, he watched people take lives, he's come close to losing his own, his opinions on guns and the general public have heavily influenced my thoughts on this (as well as living in the UK). He is not for the right to own a gun, neither is my grandfather, friends in the police do not feel it should be a right, and I agree. Just one of those things.

Knives do have the potential to do lethal damage, but i'd rather an idiot with a knife than an idiot with a gun.

 

[HotRhymez]

I have shot 1 firearm before and I think people should have the right to gun ownership. I used to be afraid of guns but not anymore, now that I know more about them. Gun safety is very important too.

 

[Lover_Of_Shoes]

After much deliberation, I have decided that Pro-Gun rights wins.... The End. and country folk can survive because we know how to shoot our own food

 

[MacFall]

Self defence is a right.
Guns can be used for self defence, but they should not be a right.

People having a right to do something is dependent upon their right to equip themselves to that purpose. Saying that we have a right to self defense but not to keep and bear arms is like saying we have a right to eat, but not to possess kitchen utensils, apply heat to the food, or consume prepared food: it limits the supposed right only to the most rudimentary expression of it. If it's a right, then there can be no just abridgment of any action taken to fulfill it. If it can be justly abridged, then it's not a right; it's a privilege. And I will not accept the idea that we live only because the state grants us that privilege.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

I voted wrong...now that I think about it, I have shot a gun before with my step-dad's father. I think people need to be checked out before they're given a gun. There are some that don't need guns, they're dangerous enough weaponless...other than that, I have no problem with people owning guns..we all have knives, baseball bats, screw drivers, hammers..ect in our houses don't we?

 

[Miss Spaulding]

I believe wholeheartedly in our right to bear arms. I cannot understand anybody who is against it, I just can't.

 

[Mr Dave]

Self defence is a right.
Guns can be used for self defence, but they should not be a right. Again, cultural difference I guess. Almost everyone in the countryside has a gun, but they don't think of them as defensive weapons. No, police protection all the time is not possible, but owning a gun as a right as opposed to an earned privilege? No, not my opinion at all. I worked for my rifle, I know how to shoot with intent to disable and I know how to shoot to kill, if someone knows how to disable someone with a shot then hurrah, have a gun, defend your home, if someone does not know how to handle a gun then it is pretty much useless. I'm not articulating my thoughts particularly well, I just know I do not like how people equate guns with self defence, like it's the only way to defend oneself. If people own guns for self defence then I feel they should be more than emotionally prepared for the possibility of taking a life. This is something I do not feel most people with guns really grasp, my father was a sniper, he took lives, he watched people take lives, he's come close to losing his own, his opinions on guns and the general public have heavily influenced my thoughts on this (as well as living in the UK). He is not for the right to own a gun, neither is my grandfather, friends in the police do not feel it should be a right, and I agree. Just one of those things.

Knives do have the potential to do lethal damage, but i'd rather an idiot with a knife than an idiot with a gun.

I tend to agree with you here. I cannot at all comprehend the idea that it is a right that without such would diminish one's humanity, but people should be permitted to own fire-arms. They should be a privilege provided to those who can demonstrate that they are mature enough to use them sensibly (just as cars are only given to those who can demonstrate that they are mature enough to drive them and not to those who are considered to be a threat) and should be kept from those who seem to be a dangerous with them. This of course won't stop them getting into the wrong hands, but it will make it harder and easier to punish those who fail to abide by the law.

 

[Rory]

I picked never shot one but think it's a right. I've never even held a gun before personally, but until they change the amendment I don't see why it should be denied, pending background check of course.

Interesting side note, I thought it was a US law for the waiting period on handguns. It seems Texas at least has no waiting period just a background check.

 

[Luther073082]

Blind Post: I've shot a firearm a few times, don't own one and I'm not well versed with them either, although I may get one in the future and would like to go shooting and learn to use them better.

I firmly belive the reasonable and safe ownership of firearms by private citizens is a right with one exception.

I don't belive in the right to own automatic assault rifles. And here is why.

The 2nd amendment does not say "firearms" it says the right to bare "arms" shall not be abridged.

Arms means "weapons" not just guns.

But yet few people are upset about the fact that its illegal for me to build a nuclear bomb. Few people are upset that even with enough money, I can't buy an F-22 and arm it. These are weapons and "arms".

So either you are for reasonable exceptions to this rule or you arn't.

If you arn't then that is fine, but be consistant and start protesting the fact that its illegal to own or build a nuclear weapon.

But if you are ok with the exception of not building or owning a nuclear weapon, then you can understand that some exceptions apply.

In this case automatic assault rifles, are designed for the sole purpose of killing people. One does not buy an M4 for self defense or hunting.

The only other purpose is the recreation of spraying several hundred rounds per minute down range.

In which case I think there should be an exception for firing ranges perhaps owning one, keeping it secure and on site and renting it out (and selling the ammo) for the recreation of the people at the range.

But I see no reason to own an M4, with full auto capabilities at one's home.

 

[armyman_83]

I don't belive in the right to own automatic assault rifles. And here is why.

The 2nd amendment does not say "firearms" it says the right to bare "arms" shall not be abridged.

Arms means "weapons" not just guns.

But yet few people are upset about the fact that its illegal for me to build a nuclear bomb. Few people are upset that even with enough money, I can't buy an F-22 and arm it. These are weapons and "arms".

So either you are for reasonable exceptions to this rule or you arn't.

If you arn't then that is fine, but be consistant and start protesting the fact that its illegal to own or build a nuclear weapon.

But if you are ok with the exception of not building or owning a nuclear weapon, then you can understand that some exceptions apply.

In this case automatic assault rifles, are designed for the sole purpose of killing people. One does not buy an M4 for self defense or hunting.

The only other purpose is the recreation of spraying several hundred rounds per minute down range.

In which case I think there should be an exception for firing ranges perhaps owning one, keeping it secure and on site and renting it out (and selling the ammo) for the recreation of the people at the range.

But I see no reason to own an M4, with full auto capabilities at one's home.

People who own fully automatic weapons, be they machine guns, sub machine guns, or assult rifles, have to go through a very long process. They must receive a Class III license, pay a tax, keep the weapon properly secured, and are open to federal agents checking them when ever they want (the main reason I don't own one.).

Your stand on firearms is rather reasonable, but I would wager that people's right to own fully automatic shouldn't be as heavily registered as it is, under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I think its a good thing to remember though, that the muskets that people used back when the Bill of Rights was formed was the standard weapon for every nation's armies.

People weren't forced to be armed with shotguns, and petty calibre weapons. They were armed with equal power to that of national armies. I have two AR-15 rifles, which is just the civilian version of the M-16/ M-4 variant weapon. The only difference is, mine is only Semi-Auto Only.


You may not think I need an M-4...but I see no reason someone needs a lexus or Audi GT.....a Honda civic can get you to your place of work just as good. But we don't have a Bill of needs, or wants, but a Bill of Rights.

 

[MacFall]

So either you are for reasonable exceptions to this rule or you aren't.

I am for the right to self-defense. There are no exceptions to that rule. Nuclear bombs and other WMDs have no defensive purpose, because they cannot be focused to eliminate a threat without endangering innocent third parties. There is no right to own nor use purely offensive weapons. But firearms of any kind which can be focused against aggressors are included in the right to self-defense.

Furthermore, the entire reason for the second amendment, as evidenced by the writings of the people who wrote it, was to ensure that the state did not outarm the people. So either the people get to own machine guns, or the military has to give up theirs. Or, the Constitution is not the law of the land.

 

[Lover_Of_Shoes]

You may not think I need an M-4...but I see no reason someone needs a lexus or Audi GT.....a Honda civic can get you to your place of work just as good. But we don't have a Bill of needs, or wants, but a Bill of Rights.

I completely agree with you there. By the second amendment being a right and humans also having the right to own very nice things, even though some people disagree that we need such luxuries, it evens each other out in a sense.

Basically my logic on this is simple: if you disagree with something then do things your own way. If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. If you believe that guns need to be regulated by the government; more power to you. If you are pro-gun rights then own a gun and go shoot the crap outta something that isn't human or someone else's property or dog or cattle. We need to stop focusing on who is right and wrong. If that little light bulb would pop on in most people's heads that tell them "Hey, not everyone will agree with me, so maybe I should respect their opinions.." The world would be a better place. But that's just me rambling on about my utopian society. Anyway, don't try to enforce your beliefs on other people. It only creates tension and bitter feelings towards each other. Is it so difficult to accept the fact that everyone has their own set of beliefs and morals and values and take that with a grain of salt? It shouldn't be.

End rant

 

[leothelioness]

I've shot a firearm before, believe it is a right under our Constitution, but don't and probably never will own one.

While I've fired weapons before and am good at it, I'm actually quite scared of guns when they're in someone else's hands.

 

[Aino]

I'd honestly just be scared in a place where just about anyone could bear firearms and I doubt I could really avoid getting paranoid about people being paranoid about me and randomly shooting at me LOL. I also doubt I could ever bear owning a gun, especially for self defense purposes. I think I'd honestly rather die then have to shoot at someone else if I had to choose between those two.

 

[MacFall]

I'd honestly just be scared in a place where just about anyone could bear firearms and I doubt I could really avoid getting paranoid about people being paranoid about me and randomly shooting at me LOL. I also doubt I could ever bear owning a gun, especially for self defense purposes. I think I'd honestly rather die then have to shoot at someone else if I had to choose between those two.

So you at least admit it's a phobia (irrational, unfounded fear) then?

 

[Aino]

So you at least admit it's a phobia (irrational, unfounded fear) then?

I wouldn't say it's completely unfounded. Fear creates fear.