Discussion: The Second Amendment

[terry78]

I don't like guns, but I don't think they should be completely illegal either.

I think those of us that live in the big urban areas aren't big fans of guns because we only know them for being used for less than genial reasons. Those guys out in the boonies are the ones that crave the freedom to own multiple rifles and what not. Not trying to be funny, but just from guys I know that live out in farmland area and dudes that live here in the city, that's what the consensus is. If you live in some 7th floor studio apt. in the middle of downtown you ain't really trying to get no gun unless you've honestly been robbed before, possibly.

 

[SuperFerret]

I think those of us that live in the big urban areas aren't big fans of guns because we only know them for being used for less than genial reasons. Those guys out in the boonies are the ones that crave the freedom to own multiple rifles and what not. Not trying to be funny, but just from guys I know that live out in farmland area and dudes that live here in the city, that's what the consensus is. If you live in some 7th floor studio apt. in the middle of downtown you ain't really trying to get no gun unless you've honestly been robbed before, possibly.

True, my growing up in an urban envrionment (albeit a relatively peaceful one where I only found out about gun violence happening "around here" in my teens) had a hand in my dislike of guns, but I have other reasons as well. I don't like the fact that something so dangerous and powerful is simple enough to use that a child can figure it out. I don't like the fact that it's relatively easy for someone who would act irresponsibly can get one fairly easily. Hell, I don't like the way they look (for those who buy guns for collection and display purposes). I just don't like them.

 

[Excel]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

 

[terry78]

^LOL, that deer was coming right for me. I needed to shatter his skeletal frame with my AK.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

Gotta go with Excel on this one. I was raised in Texas and taught to respect guns. I used a 12 gauge to hunt quail. That's about all ya need. Maybe upgrade to a 16 gauge if that's your thing. But that's it.

You don't need automatic weapons or hand guns. You don't need armor piercing or teflon bullets. The only use for those kinds of thing is for killing people.

Handguns were designed to kill people. Why do you think Dr. Doom carries one?

 

[Tron5000]

Gotta go with Excel on this one. I was raised in Texas and taught to respect guns. I used a 12 gauge to hunt quail. That's about all ya need. Maybe upgrade to a 16 gauge if that's your thing. But that's it.

You don't need automatic weapons or hand guns. You don't need armor piercing or teflon bullets. The only use for those kinds of thing is for killing people.

Handguns were designed to kill people. Why do you think Dr. Doom carries one?

The purpose for owning my hand gun is to kill people. Specifically, someone who breaks into my house and tries to harm me, my girlfriend, my roommate, or whoever else may be in my home. If you're in my home uninvited, and are trying to harm someone close to me who is in my home, you will get killed. Better them than me.

 

[lazur]

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood the importance and value in a person being able to adequately defend his or her own life. It's first on the list of the most 'fundamental' of freedoms; that 'law abiding' citizens are able to have the ability, at any time, to protect him or herself from crime and homicide. After all, what is the value of life if one is not able to protect it?

Our legacy as a country has, after all, boldly made the point with its 'wild west' and 'mob boss' history and/or current mentality, or at least the perception of these by the masses. We produce the most mesmerizing tales of crime and intrigue both on the screen (Godfather, Sopranos) and on the real streets of every city in America. (While, of course, chronicling our 'adventures' with the likes of 'reality tv', just to shove the point up the collective *ss of our citizens, and the rest of the world, with a little more zeal, and just a little bit deeper. Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion.)

So maybe we all do have a reason to be just a 'little' paranoid.

The RIGHT to bear arms was recognized by the Founding Fathers because they understood what the pursuit of freedom was all about. They understood that freedom was power. With great power comes (no not great responsibility...) great risk, sometimes also coined by the popular phrase "Freedom Isn't Free." Funny how that phrase means something to all of us, no matter what side of the aisle we sit on, ain't it?

The Founding Fathers understood how to 'resonate' the pursuit of freedom and happiness with the language they crafted for our country and its government. But they also understood the 'nature' of the type of country they were creating, and that no matter how well a government's structure may be constructed, no matter how careful its language to protect its citizens, no matter how much opportunity for growth it provided its citizens, and no matter how many measures they took to protect the 'sanctity' of the government they were creating, great trepidation and animosity would rise up and grow equally as large. It doesn't matter if it's a thug breaking into your house while you sleep, or the rapist waiting behind that tree up ahead, in the dark, or a a 'hitman' pulling into your driveway on a Saturday afternoon. The danger is real and too common.

Has anyone ever really looked at our crime rate, by the way? The U.S. has the highest crime rate in the world. We have 2.2 million prisoners in this country. China is second with 1.5 million - with four times our population, mind you. Of course, that the U.S. has a completely ridiculous number of laws doesn't help with statistics, and some of the data provides puzzling results to most people with a brain. For example, of the 2.2 million, 57% of them are drug offenders. Only 5.5% are homicides. (I wonder how much of the 57% would go away for 'marijuana' were suddenly legalized. I can't find that data, but please do feel free to let me know if you do. )

The spirit of the Second Amendment, as I see it, is this: Be a law-abiding citizen. Carry your gun and carry some extra money. Give the extra money freely to those who deserve or truly need it, but shoot dead those who would kill you to steal it.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Matt]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

The results in England say otherwise. Criminals will get guns no matter what. To ban guns is simply to take them away from the people who want to have them for the right reasons.

 

[Tron5000]

The results in England say otherwise. Criminals will get guns no matter what. To ban guns is simply to take them away from the people who want to have them for the right reasons.

Why would we want law-abiding citizens to own guns? Wouldn't want to level the playing field or anything.

 

[Zen]

Im a liberal.

however... i do not beleive in gun restrictions for people who have no criminal record.

i beleive in protecting my homestead... from criminals... facist governments.

got a criminal record? bust out your bow and arrow. i dont think banning guns drops the crime record... doesnt englands crime record remain the same even without guns?

 

[Kelly]

Well lets take a look at Europe since the UK was brought up...

Does not really matter where guns are less available, those that want to get them...will get them.

After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service states that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm illegally will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Several decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. BUT..... Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

So a ban on handguns DOES NOT automatically mean lower murder rates.

 

[Tron5000]

Well lets take a look at Europe since the UK was brought up...

Does not really matter where guns are less available, those that want to get them...will get them.

After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service states that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm illegally will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Several decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. BUT..... Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

So a ban on handguns DOES NOT automatically mean lower murder rates.

No, it generally results in higher crime rates.

I live near Kennesaw, GA. The city of Kennesaw actually requires that a gun be kept in every residence. And it has the lowest crime rate among Metro Atlanta cities.

People are far less likely to mess with someone when they have a feeling they may be shot. Self-preservation and all.

 

[terry78]

Im a liberal.

however... i do not beleive in gun restrictions for people who have no criminal record.

i beleive in protecting my homestead... from criminals... facist governments.

got a criminal record? bust out your bow and arrow. i dont think banning guns drops the crime record... doesnt englands crime record remain the same even without guns?

Did you just use the term "homestead?"

 

[Zen]

Did you just use the term "homestead?"

underground monolithic concrete dome.

in upstate new york. with a greenhouse and livestock for personal consumption.


its a feckin homestead ok buddy?

 

[Tron5000]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

 

[Handsome Rob]

I believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm.

I grew up around guns and currently have a handgun for home protection.

 

[Zen]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

u gotta upgrade your firefox bro

 

[Handsome Rob]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

Is that an SKS in your right hand? My uncles bought several of those before the ban went into effect. I haven't seen or fired one in years, though. And, I'm not really a expert on the different kinds of guns--I just know how to use my own.

 

[Tron5000]

Is that an SKS in your right hand? My uncles bought several of those before the ban went into effect. I haven't seen or fired one in years, though. And, I'm not really a expert on the different kinds of guns--I just know how to use my own.

It's a Romanian WASR-10. AK-47. And it totally kicks ass.

 

[Tron5000]

u gotta upgrade your firefox bro

I'll make sure I get on that. Is it free? 'Cause I gotta pay for my conceal-carry permit first. Priorities and all.

 

[Mr. Credible]

i think that if you have any history of violent crime on your record, you should not be allowed to purchase or otherwise own a handgun, until a certain period after your sentence or punishment. likewise, if you have a history of mental illness, something that would generally make you unstable.


otherwise, arm up, i say.

 

[Excel]

All the article says is that they are still easy to get, maybe they should enforce rules a bit more??

No matter what happens, we need to understand 2 thing.

1) Police need them; they need to be more powerful than the criminals they fight

2) it is going to take sometime, atleast a decade, befopre you expirience any major effects; however once their there, they are there for good. i.e. if we ban handguns tomorrow, criminals will still be getting them. The deal is though, over time, the years of nothing being to purchase wil make em hard to get. That's all.

God the people who say we're better off with anybody owning a gun...I wonder who the hell they know; I know FARRRRRR too many people I would never trust with a gun.

 

[Tron5000]

i think that if you have any history of violent crime on your record, you should not be allowed to purchase or otherwise own a handgun, until a certain period after your sentence or punishment. likewise, if you have a history of mental illness, something that would generally make you unstable.


otherwise, arm up, i say.

Agreed.

Some would argue that an individual who has gone through drug rehabilitation should not be allowed to own a firearm, but I respectfully disagree. People go through problematic times, and sometimes rely (unfortunately) on drugs or alcohol in order to get through those rough periods. But I feel that barring a conviction for a violent crime or a diagnosis of mental illness, the government should have no basis in determining whether or not a low-abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase and own a means of defense.

 

[Excel]

Hell no; I don't think some of you understand the effects a friggin gun can have until it hits close to home. Hand guns are pointless, and while I know some people are def. responsible enough to have one for security, many arent and their the ones we have to be concerned with. If you want to defend your home with a gun, than buy a riffle. Yeah, a lot of criminals who go break into homes might stil have em, but some of em wouldn't and thats better than nothing; and those ones who dont have one will think twice before trying to rob somebody. Over time, the % of thugs who aint packing would gradually grow, which at this pointr is the best possible scenario as they will never be completely gone even if they are banned.

 

[Tron5000]

Hell no; I don't think some of you understand the effects a friggin gun can have until it hits close to home. Hand guns are pointless, and while I know some people are def. responsible enough to have one for security, many arent and their the ones we have to be concerned with. If you want to defend your home with a gun, than buy a riffle. Yeah, a lot of criminals who go break into homes might stil have em, but some of em wouldn't and thats better than nothing; and those ones who dont have one will think twice before trying to rob somebody. Over time, the % of thugs who aint packing would gradually grow, which at this pointr is the best possible scenario as they will never be completely gone even if they are banned.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of handguns as "pointless." There is definitely a point to the handgun being in my home. And that point is that if you're trying to kill me, I'm killing you first. I will terminate you with extreme prejudice. If the bad guy has one, then I get to have one too. No reason for the outlaws to have the upper hand.