What's your position on gun rights?

[AM07]

With the re-opening of the Politics forum, I thought I'd get things started off right and begin a topic about a very controversial subject for some people, although it shouldn't be at all because outlined in the CONSTITUTION, it says we have the right to arm ourselves.

If you can't tell by the last sentence, I'm pro-gun rights. I do believe some control is necessary (i.e. keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, violent felons shouldn't be allowed to own one, etc.), for the most part, gun control causes more harm than good. Prime examples of this are the major cities in the U.S. They typically tend to be run by Democrats. While some of them are run well, some of them are complete trash because they have been taken over by leftists. After D.C. enacted it's gun ban, crime increased. It's now one of the most violent cities in the country, and what can residents do about it? Nothing.

[Red Dog]

Great post! -- and I agree completely.. I'm not even a hunter or a violent person and I absolutely support the right to own and CARRY a weapon with you -- given you go through the proper channels of authorization..

Absolutely -- mentally ill people, felons, etc. should not be granted the right to arms, for obvious reasons that only an absolutely idiot would argue against..

Also, I absolutely support the right for qualified individuals to carry concealed weapons on campus as well -- how many lives would it have saved? How many could it save in the future?

Even more, how many criminals would be willing to assualt, rob, or engage in criminal activity against people that could very likely be carrying a gun or weapon? The positives outweigh the negatives in this situation so heavily that I fail to see how anyone can support the proposed anti-gun legislations..

[AE14]

this is an interesting argument, as both sides can make valid points. However if we look at it directly from a constitutional perspective then unless you are a part of a "well regulated militia" you do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Red Dog]

Well, it depends on how you define militia.. that's an argument of semantics that I doubt anyone will ever win.

Regardless, there is absolutely no positive aspect that I can see that limiting law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying weapons provides.

[bigironkiller]

they day they take away my guns, it will be my last day in this country.

[AE14]

Well, it depends on how you define militia.. that's an argument of semantics that I doubt anyone will ever win.

Regardless, there is absolutely no positive aspect that I can see that limiting law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying weapons provides.

with regard to your first statement I agree, it is semantics however for me if you read it literally then it seems fairly apparent, but we are at the point where there is a lot of give and take about language

[MuscleBound1337]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." - Adolf Hitler

[ManBeast]

While I agree that people should be able to arm themselves for defense and sport (love my mossberg 500), I am against people having a cache of fully-automatic weapons and the like.

MB

[BodyWizard]

This might surprise some, but I am not only a defender of the 2nd, I am one who reads it as plainly indicating an individual right to own and carry arms - and, specifically, military-grade arms; after 40 years of study and debate and argument, it is clear to me that any other rendering of the meaning misapprehends the language used, and thereby distorts the meaning.

One point where I disagree w/ a lot o' folks: there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that refers to sport or hunting in any way. Not that I have a problem w/ hunters or sportsmen, particularly, but politicians are always quick to assure the public that they aren't targeting hunters and sport-shooters whenever gun restrictions are proposed; they bring these up as a specific counter to 2nd Amendement concerns. That is bogus, as dishonest as Hillary's sniper attack, and intended to cloud the issue. It usually works...and it's usually hunters and sportsmen who usually help it work.

[jrkarp]

this is an interesting argument, as both sides can make valid points. However if we look at it directly from a constitutional perspective then unless you are a part of a "well regulated militia" you do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

That's completely false.

The text and history of the constitution clearly define the 2nd as an individual right.

Remember that the 2nd describes the "right of the people." "The people" is exclusively used throughout the constitution to refer to citizens in general, not members of any particular group. The prefatory clause simply describes one of the purposes of the 2nd, not its exclusive purpose.

The Parker decision from the DC Court of Appeals has an excellent in depth background and analysis of the 2nd. I strongly suggest checking it out: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa...erdc030907.pdf

[Saurabh]

With the re-opening of the Politics forum, I thought I'd get things started off right and begin a topic about a very controversial subject for some people, although it shouldn't be at all because outlined in the CONSTITUTION, it says we have the right to arm ourselves.

If you can't tell by the last sentence, I'm pro-gun rights. I do believe some control is necessary (i.e. keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, violent felons shouldn't be allowed to own one, etc.), for the most part, gun control causes more harm than good. Prime examples of this are the major cities in the U.S. They typically tend to be run by Democrats. While some of them are run well, some of them are complete trash because they have been taken over by leftists. After D.C. enacted it's gun ban, crime increased. It's now one of the most violent cities in the country, and what can residents do about it? Nothing.

That is an old and stale law and should be done away with.

I am reminded of the time when there was this shooting at Virginia Tech. I was talking to my neighbourhood folks and I was surprised how each and every one of them had a gun inside their house. And each of these gentlemen slept with a gun very close to their bed in case a burglar walked in.

Does that kind of atitude makes USA a safe country? Or does it make it a scared country? You judge.

[MuscleBound1337]

I totally agree jrkarp. The constitution clearly states that we have the right to bear arms... And not just for duck hunting either. I agree some control is necessary such as background checks. But I do not believe in individually registering each firearms. That will lead to confiscation.

[Red Dog]

That is an old and stale law and should be done away with.

I am reminded of the time when there was this shooting at Virginia Tech. I was talking to my neighbourhood folks and I was surprised how each and every one of them had a gun inside their house. And each of these gentlemen slept with a gun very close to their bed in case a burglar walked in.

Does that kind of atitude makes USA a safe country? Or does it make it a scared country? You judge.

Wait, so we are a scared country because we have guns in our homes and keep them near us when we sleep?

[MuscleBound1337]

That is an old and stale law and should be done away with.

I am reminded of the time when there was this shooting at Virginia Tech. I was talking to my neighbourhood folks and I was surprised how each and every one of them had a gun inside their house. And each of these gentlemen slept with a gun very close to their bed in case a burglar walked in.

Does that kind of atitude makes USA a safe country? Or does it make it a scared country? You judge.

Makes us a safe country bro. If you feel like pretending there aren't people willing to hurt you or steal your stuff in a heartbeat to better themselves then you have the right to disarm yourself. And you think wanting to protect ourselves and our family's makes us scared? Maybe you're willing to depend on the police to protect you, but i sure as hell am not. In a perfect world the you wouldn't have a reason to own a firearm, but in a life and death situation where you don't have time to call for help you need to rely on yourself for protection.

[Saurabh]

Wait, so we are a scared country because we have guns in our homes and keep them near us when we sleep?

Course it does.

You do realize that this happens only in USA, please show me which other country has this situation at hand??

Indeed very recently when students were interviewed at Virginia Tech they suggested they all wanted guns, in case the shooting happened again. Why did they want guns? Because they suddenly developed affection for it? No, they are scared. Not entirely different for most other people as well.

[Saurabh]

Makes us a safe country bro. If you feel like pretending there aren't people willing to hurt you or steal your stuff in a heartbeat to better themselves then you have the right to disarm yourself. And you think wanting to protect ourselves and our family's makes us scared? Maybe you're willing to depend on the police to protect you, but i sure as hell am not. In a perfect world the you wouldn't have a reason to own a firearm, but in a life and death situation where you don't have time to call for help you need to rely on yourself for protection.

In that case shouldnt citizens make more of an effort to better law and order in USA than to go get a gun??

Let me put this question to you: What do you opine will bring down crimes - good Cops and Police system in USA? OR Americans carrying guns?

[AE14]

That's completely false.

The text and history of the constitution clearly define the 2nd as an individual right.

Remember that the 2nd describes the "right of the people." "The people" is exclusively used throughout the constitution to refer to citizens in general, not members of any particular group. The prefatory clause simply describes one of the purposes of the 2nd, not its exclusive purpose.

The Parker decision from the DC Court of Appeals has an excellent in depth background and analysis of the 2nd. I strongly suggest checking it out: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa...erdc030907.pdf

I dont doubt that the modern view has seemingly changed from what our founding fathers truly meant, but based on their meanings I dont think that there is an individual right.

"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 bolded certain parts for a reason

[Dadof2]

In that case shouldnt citizens make more of an effort to better law and order in USA than to go get a gun??

Let me put this question to you: What do you opine will bring down crimes - good Cops and Police system in USA? OR Americans carrying guns?

Good cops and police system? You cannot depend on the government to protect you from everything. At 2am when your house is being burglarized your local policeman is likely eating his dinner at the local diner. At that point it is up to you to protect yourself.

Besides who would stop the government from seizing our freedoms if we as a populace are unarmed? History tells us all that we need to know about government, and it isn't pretty.

The liberty that we have in this country did not come easy, it was fought for tooth and nail. Don't think for a second that things have changed. We could just as easily be called on to fight for our freedom again, and if that day was to come would you want to try to get that freedom back with a stick?

The Founding Fathers knew this was true because they experienced it, thus they gave us the right to have guns. Human nature has not changed since the Revolution, and our right to own guns is just as important now as it was back then.

[Saurabh]

Good cops and police system? You cannot depend on the government to protect you from everything. At 2am when your house is being burglarized your local policeman is likely eating his dinner at the local diner. At that point it is up to you to protect yourself.

Yes and Yes.

If we have an efficient system then you wont/dont hear of crimes. And thats true in most part of USA. Unless you are living in a really crime infested area you dont see gun-fights everyday. You tend to hear crimes mostly in areas like LA, Chicago, New York etc...cities that have a corrupt Police service.

Besides who would stop the government from seizing our freedoms if we as a populace are unarmed? History tells us all that we need to know about government, and it isn't pretty.

Sorry but thats pretty illogical.

In 8 years the price of gas has gone from 2 dollars a gallon to 4, people have lost houses, economy has tanked, dollar has lost values, rest of the world is making fun of USA and all you are worried about is what would you do if Government seizes your freedom?? Well I have got two words for you - Patriot Act. What happened when Govt. started recording your privacy? Didnt exactly see the NRA come out firing against Govt, did we?

The Founding Fathers knew this was true because they experienced it, thus they gave us the right to have guns. Human nature has not changed since the Revolution, and our right to own guns is just as important now as it was back then.

The Founding Fathers got things done in their lifetime. This is not 1789, this is 2008. Many founding fathers had slaves, do we do that now? During Founding Fathers lifetime no woman or blacks had power to vote, do we do that now?

Heck half of the Americans hate the whole Primary thingy thats ongoing right now. Again a tradition going back to Founding Father days. Why should we even carry such traditions is beyond me.

[Dadof2]

Yes and Yes.

If we have an efficient system then you wont/dont hear of crimes. And thats true in most part of USA. Unless you are living in a really crime infested area you dont see gun-fights everyday. You tend to hear crimes mostly in areas like LA, Chicago, New York etc...cities that have a corrupt Police service.

Talk about illogical? There are murders and every other crime committed all over the United States. Yes, corrupt police departments do exist in big cities, but that has more to do with hiring practices than anything else. You are totally incorrect in stating that ethical police equals significant crime reduction. What is your idea of good policing praytell?



Sorry but thats pretty illogical.

In 8 years the price of gas has gone from 2 dollars a gallon to 4, people have lost houses, economy has tanked, dollar has lost values, rest of the world is making fun of USA and all you are worried about is what would you do if Government seizes your freedom?? Well I have got two words for you - Patriot Act. What happened when Govt. started recording your privacy? Didnt exactly see the NRA come out firing against Govt, did we?

Ok so we are in agreement that the government is slowly but surely removing our freedoms. How do you suppose a populace would go about getting those freedoms back? Thumb wrestling? Slap fighting?

The Founding Fathers got things done in their lifetime. This is not 1789, this is 2008. Many founding fathers had slaves, do we do that now? During Founding Fathers lifetime no woman or blacks had power to vote, do we do that now?

What is your point here?

Heck half of the Americans hate the whole Primary thingy thats ongoing right now. Again a tradition going back to Founding Father days. Why should we even carry such traditions is beyond me.

The way that a politcal party nominates its presidential candidate, and a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT are two totally different things. The Constitution is not a tradition.