What's your position on gun rights?
- 04-12-2008, 02:30 AM
What's your position on gun rights?
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.
- 04-19-2008, 05:51 PM
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..
04-19-2008, 05:56 PM
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.
04-19-2008, 06:20 PM
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.
04-19-2008, 11:06 PM
04-19-2008, 11:24 PM
04-20-2008, 01:06 AM
"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
04-20-2008, 11:32 AM
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.
-Saving random peoples' nuts, one pair at at time... PCT info:
-Are you really ready for a cycle? Read this link and be honest:
*I am not a medical expert, my opinions are not professional, and I strongly suggest doing research of your own.*
04-20-2008, 11:03 PM
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.
04-22-2008, 05:12 PM
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
04-22-2008, 05:41 PM
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.
04-22-2008, 05:43 PM
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.
04-22-2008, 06:23 PM
04-22-2008, 06:47 PM
04-22-2008, 06:52 PM
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.
04-22-2008, 06:55 PM
04-22-2008, 06:56 PM
"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
04-22-2008, 07:21 PM
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.
04-22-2008, 08:12 PM
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.
Sorry but thats pretty illogical.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.
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 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?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.
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.
04-22-2008, 08:24 PM
04-22-2008, 08:39 PM
It is NOT that Government per se removes our freedom but that this Government most certainly has. I am not sure if I have seen any other American Government that has curtailed the privacy of its citizens as the current Govt.
Onto your question as to how do we go about bringing the change. Well we have the most powerful tool - Democracy - that we can use. I mean we are keen on spreading this abroad(read Iraq and elsewhere) but when it comes to USA this doesnt work? That doesnt cover ourselves with much glory does it now?
My point was rather simple. Just as we dont have slavery today, as we did in the times of our Founding Fathers I see no reason why we should have Free for All Gun control. My argument stemmed from the fact that you suggested -The Founding Fathers knew this was true because they experienced it. This obviously doesnt hold true since not all of Founding Fathers decision in 1789 is valid today.What is your point here?
In many ways it is. How else can you explain the fact that we have been ruled by a President who enjoys 25% ratings on every channel, from Fox to MSNBC for the past 2 years? If ever there was a case of impeachment this was it. I mean can you imagine CEO of Nutraplanet being at top if only 25% of its members/workers/stockholders supported him?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.
So why he hasnt been impeached? Well because he didnt commit a crime and thats what COnstitution says in such cases. Go figure!
I say update Constitution as well.
04-22-2008, 08:57 PM
04-22-2008, 10:00 PM
Imposition of tyranny might not be *stale*, but I doubt any of us would enjoy it much (unless we were among the imposers).
As for whether this makes us "safer" - look around: is this Somalia? Beruit '88? Israel's occupied territories? Sadr City? Rwanda? Darfur? Zimbabwe? He!!, it's not even *Bosnia* (gotta watch them snipers).
Yes. It makes us safer, and not just so far.
04-22-2008, 10:06 PM
What *is* a militia?
What is required for a "well-regulated" militia?
Why do the answers to these questions disassemble your point?
BTW I think it's worth noting that Sen. Obama is the first candidate for the presidency TMK to explicitly comment on the 2nd : he, Constitutional scholar that he is, stated *plainly* that the 2nd *clearly* protects an individual right.
04-23-2008, 12:39 AM
Even the most liberal constitutional law scholars (such as Tribe and Dershowitz) concede that the 2nd is an individual right.
04-23-2008, 12:43 AM
04-23-2008, 12:56 AM
04-23-2008, 02:42 AM
Any restriction on guns hampers only the law-abiding citizen.
Criminals WILL get guns no matter what restrictions are placed on them -- All a restriction does is hamper our abilities to adequately defend ourselves against a very real, very dangerous criminal threat.
04-23-2008, 09:45 AM
Saurabh, I am stunned by your views...I knew some people advocated strict gun control, but your utopian viewpoint never will nor never has existed. Do a little research on gun control in your spare time, and the evidence will destroy your argument.
For instance, when the state of Florida allowed the law-abiding populace to carry concealed arms, violent crimes against Florida citizens plummeted. Two years after the institution of said law they did a study on convicted criminals. They posed the question, "Why have crimes in general decreased over the past few years against Florida citizens?". The overwhelming answer (>85%) was that they could never tell if a Florida resident would be carrying a gun so it wasn't worth the risk.
Wait a minute, so arming the general populace deters criminals? You wouldn't say. You bring up the VT shooting. You think those kids want guns because they are scared? Maybe a few, but I bet the majority want guns on campus, because they realize that if someone had been carrying a concealed weapon in that classroom building that day, then perhaps they could have saved lives.
The police can only do so much. They're are not even enough police in major cities to account for 1% of the population, so how do you expect them to be able to counter 100% of crime even if they were perfect officers? It's unachievable, and unrealistic. Wake up and smell the coffee home slice.
It's been proven by study after study, that strict gun control laws on law-abiding citizens result in a rise in gun related crimes, because criminals have nothing to fear. Where as, lenient gun control laws results in either no change (due to low crime already) or a decrease in gun related crimes against law abiding citizens.
If you take away my right to carry a firearm, what makes you think that will stop a criminal from obtaining one? Because its illegal, he won't be able to get one? Are you kidding me? He'll still have a gun and I'll have no way to protect myself. So he breaks in, and even if I can get a 911 call off to the police, I'll have to wait 5-10 minutes for that officer to arrive. And thats 5-10 minutes that the criminal has to harm me or my family.
I say unacceptable. When my life or the life of a loved one hangs in the balance, I damn well want the ability to protect myself. You say people want guns because they are scared? I don't agree. I think the people without guns are the ones who are scared. The people who own firearms are secure in the fact that they have the means to protect themselves.
But continue living in your utopian mindset. And when someone breaks into your home, and harms your loved ones, don't blame the police for not responding fast enough. Blame yourself for not providing the means to protect those loved ones.
04-23-2008, 10:14 AM
In a country like the UK where this hasn't been true historically (availability of handguns at least) its different.
I think its sweeden that requires everyone spend x amount of time in military training, and that each home have a military grade automatic rifle in it (since they have no standing military). Guess how often home invasions happen there?
Similar Forum Threads
- By R1balla in forum Sports TalkReplies: 11Last Post: 05-11-2011, 06:19 PM
- By Young Gotti in forum Training ForumReplies: 9Last Post: 04-29-2009, 01:15 PM
- By East1600Plus in forum Training ForumReplies: 13Last Post: 01-06-2007, 10:41 PM
- By Stinger124 in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 41Last Post: 09-10-2006, 12:05 AM