Australian made
Well-known member
If your allowed to carry a gun, how does that work say if your gonig to a night club, bar, college etc? is there restrictions to where you can have one on you?
What's your position on gun rights?
- Thread starter AM07
- Start date
teribleturtle
Member
I agree with most of the points you make, but I really dont see the purpose of an average citizen owning military grade arms. I mean for home defense I would assume that a good shotgun would be more than sufficient
Xodus
Well-known member
What if you had to fight the military, ie martial law was enacted?
Xodus
Well-known member
Here in CO, you cannot carry into establishments where alcohol is served. You must 'check your gun'.
Courthouses, etc are obviously off-limits as well.
Dadof2
Active member
This is the shotgun that I want for home defense :bow28:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
jrkarp
Registered User
Restrictions vary by state, but all states have restrictions on carrying on college/school campuses, and most have restrictions about carrying where alcohol is served.
No state allows carrying in a courthouse, most do not allow carrying in government buildings, and some states have restrictions about carrying in buildings with large capacities (like stadiums). Furthermore, some states allow businesses to put up signs restricting carry on that business's premises.
jrkarp
Registered User
Well, we're talking about a constitutionally protected right here, so "sufficient" isn't the relevant standard.
Would you tell someone that they can't protest in front of the courthouse because it should be sufficient to protest in the park?
From the DC v. Heller oral argument:
EasyEJL
Never enough
Does a hemophiliac not carry blood clotting agent because the odds of a big cut are small? Does a person with severe bee allergies not carry an epipen in the city because there are so few beehives? When your wife is 7 months pregnant do you plan your travelling in advance and plot out where along the way hospitals are or do you not worry about it because she shouldn't give birth for two months? There is nothing wrong with preparedness. Particularly in areas subject to natural disasters - california, florida, lousiana, etc. When hurricanes or earthquakes strike, some portion of the population seems to think its "free shopping at other peoples homes day", and will attempt to rob homes even if people are in them, as they know the phones are out and the police can't respond to all calls
The gun itself can do no harm, so if carried by a responsible rational individual it is harmless. It is only when it is carried by an irresponsible or irrational person that it does harm, and an irrational person can do as much damage with a car, or with many other objects. In 2001 (sorry, just picking years I can find) there were 29,573 deaths attributed to firearms. 16,869 of them were suicides. You don't need a gun to commit suicide, so lets remove those for a net of 12704 deaths
Invalid Link Removed
Blood poisoning killed more than twice as many people that year Invalid Link Removed
The center for disease control estimates more than 20,000 people died in 2001 from the flu.
I count hunt for most statistics, but to me these are more than enough.
EasyEJL
Never enough
man, I had always thought the streetsweeper was a sweet piece, this totally outdoes it
BodyWizard
Registered User
This was implicit in the evaluative chain I was trying to set up for Reaper329, but he won't play, so:
In the language and time of the drafting of the Constitution, the militia was the military equivalent of a volunteer fire department: in both cases, every able-bodied man was *expected* to turn out and take part, any time either fire or other disaster hit a community, and in the case of incursions by foreign soldiers, indians, bandits or whatever, those same able-bodied men were expected to muster - that is, grab their gun & canteen and join the rest of the men in the community: If you weren't able-bodied, had no firearm, or were too young, you didn't "pass muster", and did not take part.
A well-regulated militia was one large enough and well-enough equipped as to be useful in a battle/defense scenario, and including a sufficient number of officers to command them effectively (or at least keep them out of trouble). Pretty simple, really. Because the militia was drawn at need directly from the civilian ranks, they all needed to have arms capable of taking the field against a serious military opponent. At the time, those old single-shot black powder rifles were the state of the military art, not antique relics which would prove to have inadequate range, damaged parts, insufficient caliber, or be too hard to aim and fire accurately in a combat situation.
Therefore, rendering the sense of the second amendment in modern language, we get something like this:
"The Body of the People being the last, best defense of the nation, the right of the people to own and carry arms equal to that sacred duty shall be neither restricted nor denied."
Others may quibble w/ my recension, and I invite them to propose their own re-statement, as it's crucially important that we citizens understand the import behind the Second; we also need to understand that while it is unquestionably an individual right (and I would say, duty) to keep and bear arms, it is equally a civic obligation to the community, and to posterity - it is no less than our right and duty and obligation to feed our children, love our families, and deal squarely with the other guy: THAT is the people we are and have always been, and claiming it's "all just semantics" is at its best, pure fiction.
Last edited:
Australian made
Well-known member
Holy crap that gun is freakin amazing...........i'd be lying if i said i wouldn't want to have a go of that thing. Looks a little impracticle though with that round thing in the middle.
ecu19
Active member
Just read the first page, so I'm not sure if this was entirely discussed, but if you would read the second amendment, it would clearly tell you that the right to bear arms is for both a militia AND the right of the people. See for yourself
I am for gun control essentially the way it is currently. Felons should not be able to own guns, along with mentally ill persons, and persons under the set age of 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns.
I am for the right to own an automatic weapon, provided it is done in a way much like getting a class 3 weapon currently (long background check, approval from sheriff in your county, etc).
I am for CCW on campuses provided they have gone through the process to legally carry on campus.
Keep this in mind, the only thing laws stop are LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the criminals.
Most law enforcement officers also have the same opinion on this matter as described by me above.
ecu19
Active member
Also, to the persons saying it should not be allowed to own certain "heavy" arms, why not? You can drive a car with 1000+hp or to keep things simple you can choose a v8 over a 4 cylinder. You don't HAVE to have the v8, but some may like it. Different toys for different boys. Doesn't make it illegal, maybe excessive, but not illegal.
