Right to bear arms...

[HollandScotts]

I consider the right to own a gun a moral cornerstone of society. I believe that the right to own a gun is the right to self defence. A gun is the most effective and safest way to defend yourself and family from any number of threats. I believe it is as immoral to take away guns as it is to take away free speech, and once the guns are gone, then no other right is safe.

There are people that don't believe this, and even though I will never agree with them, I'ld like to at least try and understand how they believe something so fundamentally wrong as that people should not have the right to own a gun, or have that right so diluted and restricted that owning a gun capable of handling a self defence situation is either illegal or so impractical to get that most would never consider it, such as is the case in the UK.

 

[TooCurious]

I don't advocate the position that all gun ownership should be illegal, but the "all guns, all the time" point of view causes me some concern, and I'd like to ask you to clarify a couple of points. Based upon your statement, "once the guns are gone, then no other right is safe," I might infer (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that part of the necessity of gun ownership is the ability to violently defend one's rights against a corrupt government. I would agree that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution ("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.") seems to support this notion. However, this poses to me two significant problems:

1. From a purely practical standpoint, given modern military technology, it is no longer possible for a corrupt US government to be overthrown by a "militia" of citizens armed with rifles, handguns, and submachine guns. In order to accomplish such a goal, the "militia" would either need access to military-grade hardware (up to and including tanks, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms) or would have to resort to terrorism (which generally involves explosives more than firearms). I perceive problems with the prospect of allowing civilians access to heavy military weapons or high explosives as a general rule. What are your thoughts on civilian ownership of such materials?
2. Who decides when the government has become "corrupt"? In this country, and even on this message board, there are a variety of conflicting opinions about the purpose and powers of the government, and what is or is not acceptable. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. The important question is, why should we trust other people more than we trust the government (which is wholly comprised of "other people")?

These are not intended to be arguments against the Second Amendment, but merely concerns regarding it. Beyond the theory of gun ownership, there are the nuts-and-bolts details of the practice. I don't think that requiring some basic criteria for gun ownership is unnecessarily obstructionist. We require licensing and a demonstration of necessary skills before allowing someone to operate a motor vehicle -- a device which, while potentially fatal, is not designed to kill or injure. For what is arguably a more dangerous implement, is it unreasonable to require some basic qualifications to be established, such as a lack of a record of violent crime, and a solid grasp of gun safety?

 

[billwald]

Generally Agree. Don't want a 13 year old kid walking around with a machine pistol - unless the shooting war has started.

 

[Mling]

I came home very late once, around 2 AM. I was about 20 at the time, and when I got into my backyard, I noticed the shed light was on, so I went to turn it off. When I turned around, I noticed my dad at the door, with his belt wrapped around his hand. Our neighbors have some very sketchy sons, and he thought I was one of them, trying to break in.

A person who would shoot a trespasser is perfectly allowed to own a gun. If my dad was one of them, I would be dead.

 

[HollandScotts]

From a purely practical standpoint, given modern military technology, it is no longer possible for a corrupt US government to be overthrown by a "militia" of citizens armed with rifles, handguns, and submachine guns. In order to accomplish such a goal, the "militia" would either need access to military-grade hardware (up to and including tanks, rocket launchers, and nuclear arms) or would have to resort to terrorism (which generally involves explosives more than firearms). I perceive problems with the prospect of allowing civilians access to heavy military weapons or high explosives as a general rule. What are your thoughts on civilian ownership of such materials?

I think people should be allowed to own any type of firearm that can be carried by a single US soldier up to 50 caliber machine guns, which are legal in certain areas and with proper licensing.

And I disagree with you notion that the government couldn't be beaten by a militia. 10 percent of this nation is 30 million people against a standing army of 1.5 million. You need more than nice gear to win a war. And how many of those soldiers with families of their own, are going to participate in the killing of fellow Americans who have a good reason to oppose the government? How many of them will go AWOL? How many would join the militia?

After all, I would hope that a fair number of America's soldiers would be patriotic enough not to fight for a government that trashes the Constitution and people rights.

Who decides when the government has become "corrupt"? In this country, and even on this message board, there are a variety of conflicting opinions about the purpose and powers of the government, and what is or is not acceptable. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. The important question is, why should we trust other people more than we trust the government (which is wholly comprised of "other people")?

That's a fair question and one our Founders asked. Their were a lot of people that didn't want war with Britain. But the choice was made for them. People can only take some much, and after you push them long enough, they push back. Revolution won't happen in this country until the government oversteps it's bounds so aggregiously that no one will be able to defend them, and the decision will be made for us.

I came home very late once, around 2 AM. I was about 20 at the time, and when I got into my backyard, I noticed the shed light was on, so I went to turn it off. When I turned around, I noticed my dad at the door, with his belt wrapped around his hand. Our neighbors have some very sketchy sons, and he thought I was one of them, trying to break in.

A person who would shoot a trespasser is perfectly allowed to own a gun. If my dad was one of them, I would be dead.

That's why you should always know who you're about to shoot before you shoot. And if you do some stupid crap like that, you should be prosecuted.

 

[Mling]

That's why you should always know who you're about to shoot before you shoot. And if you do some stupid crap like that, you should be prosecuted.

And who needs smoke alarms? If there's a fire, you just call the fire department afterward.

 

[Washington]

I consider the right to own a gun a moral cornerstone of society. I believe that the right to own a gun is the right to self defence. A gun is the most effective and safest way to defend yourself and family from any number of threats. I believe it is as immoral to take away guns as it is to take away free speech, and once the guns are gone, then no other right is safe.

There are people that don't believe this, and even though I will never agree with them, I'ld like to at least try and understand how they believe something so fundamentally wrong as that people should not have the right to own a gun, or have that right so diluted and restricted that owning a gun capable of handling a self defence situation is either illegal or so impractical to get that most would never consider it, such as is the case in the UK.

Belong to a well regulated militia? If not, then you have no uninfringeable right to own a gun. End of discussion.

 

[Allegory]

 

[HollandScotts]

And who needs smoke alarms? If there's a fire, you just call the fire department afterward.

What's that supposed to mean?

Belong to a well regulated militia? If not, you have no right to own a gun. End of discussion.

Well, seeing as how every American capable of forming a military militia in time of war to be well regulated by a commanding officer is technically a member of the "militia", all Americans have the right to own a gun.

I don't understand how one can revision history to the point of believing that the Founders, who just got finished overthrowing one of the worlds most powerful empires with their muskets, would have turned around and made it impossible for future Americans to do the very same thing.

 

[HollandScotts]

http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten...ar-tongue.jpeg

I don't know about you, but I think he needs his arms.

 

[Bombila]

I'm in favour of the right to arm bears, myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

In Canada, rural people own long guns. A majority of rural households have one or two.

 

[HollandScotts]

What about handguns?

 

[jcook922]

Never giving up any of my guns.. Even if I don't re-enlist. (The ones I personally bought, I don't plan on keeping an M4 in my home.)

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Belong to a well regulated militia? If not, then you have no uninfringeable right to own a gun. End of discussion.

The militia is you and I the common citizens of the country.

 

[Bombila]

What about handguns?

Not so much.

here's the legal deal on firearms (from the same Wiki article as above, which seems pretty correct):

"There are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited firearms are not actually prohibited, they simply require a prohibited licence to obtain. New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of a province or the Federal Government of Canada.

• Non-restricted licences allow a person to own and use most semi-automatic and manual action rifles and shotguns, but no handguns. Rifles and shotguns that do not meet length requirements are classed as restricted. Some rifles and shotguns are classed as restricted by name.
• Restricted licences allow a person to own most handguns and some restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Handguns with barrels shorter than 104 mm are classed as prohibited. Some handguns are classed as prohibited by name.
• Prohibited licences allow a person to own firearms classified as prohibited, including fully automatic firearms. Generally, these licences are not commonly available and may only be issued by the CFO of a province or the Federal Government. Otherwise, to possess one, the licence must be grandfathered as of December 1, 1998.

The license required to purchase and own a firearm in Canada is the Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL). This is the same license used for both restricted and non-restricted firearms with a small variation in the application. In order to be eligible to obtain a non-restricted PAL, the applicant must have completed and passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC). For the restricted PAL (which includes handguns) the applicant must have passed both the CFSC and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC). Most courses offer the CFSC or a combined course that includes both the CRFSC and the CFSC.[7]"

Far fewer people own handguns. About ten million gunowners, most of them rural owners of long guns. I've lived in a small Canadian city, and mostly in various rural areas. In the city, I knew very few people with any kind of firearm, and only two with handguns. People are mostly of the opinion that long guns are for hunting and livestock protection, handguns are for shooting people, therefore handguns are not popular. This opinion varies through the country, though. Overall, the majority of Canadians have repeatedly been polled as wanting handguns heavily restricted.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Belong to a well regulated militia? If not, then you have no uninfringeable right to own a gun. End of discussion.

The second amendment doesn't state that.

It says the right for the people to own exists for the purpose of having that. It doesn't say you only have that right if that is what you are doing. If you read over any of the comments on the founding fathers on that issue- it is undeniable that they believed every American had a right to own a firearm.

The idea is that in a time of need, you'd be able to band together into an armed forced.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Speaking of the fire department- getting rid of guns and trusting the police to help you is a bit like waiting in your house for the fire department to rescue you.

Until they invent teleportation devices, the police can't get there in time to help you. You have to take immediate action- just as you take immediate action by leaving your home when it is on fire, rather than sitting in the living room waiting to be rescued.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I consider the right to own a gun a moral cornerstone of society. I believe that the right to own a gun is the right to self defence. A gun is the most effective and safest way to defend yourself and family from any number of threats. I believe it is as immoral to take away guns as it is to take away free speech, and once the guns are gone, then no other right is safe.

There are people that don't believe this, and even though I will never agree with them, I'ld like to at least try and understand how they believe something so fundamentally wrong as that people should not have the right to own a gun, or have that right so diluted and restricted that owning a gun capable of handling a self defence situation is either illegal or so impractical to get that most would never consider it, such as is the case in the UK.

Much safer ways to protect your family, like a big... huge... dog... make that many dogs, which are all loving and nice, but which when you sick them on something, will tear it from limb to limb. Then again, my granddad shot his brother when they were kids playing 'cowboys and indians'. It was right between the eyes, my great uncle died before he hit the floor.

At the same time, I think we should have guns, not as much to protect ourselves against intruders ("Get him boy, right for the balls" ), but to protect ourselves and to be able to attack evil organizations when we do not have a higher one. Say the police/military was busy and we have a big problem with gangs, then you pull out the guns (and send in the dogs still... I hate the way dogs smell and are generally disgusting, but they have a few redeeming qualities... well I consider the potential to be blood thirsty a redeeming quality). Plus, I was raised on shot meat... in other words, my father hunted and we ate what he (legally) killed... except coyote.

 

[Washington]

The second amendment doesn't state that.

It says the right for the people to own exists for the purpose of having that.

No it doesn't. It says

"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."​

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No it doesn't. It says

"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."​

I know what it says. And you are suggesting that unless you have a well regulated militia, you don't have a right to fire arms. But, as you will clearly see- it doesn't say that. It does not say:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so long as they have a well regulated militia"

That is your interpretation- which you designed to fit your reasoning for depriving Americans of firearms. It is an interpretation which totally contradicts what every historical document about why the amendment exists.

The text of the amendment is pretty obvious- as is the intention of it when we examine history. Simply put: Every American is to have a right to own a gun- which gives them the ability to create a well regulated militia, for the security of a free state. Read it and see it has two declarative statements. One- that a militia is necessary for security of a free state. Two- that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first statement explains why it is necessary. It is like me making the two statements:
1- I am hungry
2- I will go eat dinner
-- I am hungry, I will go eat dinner.