The right to bear arms
Options
Replies
-
Great way to look at it.0
-
Exactly. We're discussing it because in a democracy, that's how we deal with issues. Free speech, petition the government, freedom of assembly. All those 1st amendment rights that don't get trumped by the 2nd amendment.
Well, I'm not sure that Australia (homeland of the OP) is a democracy. They don't even believe in the right to bear arms!
I'm not quite sure we are democracy.... last I looked we were a Constitutional Republic.
0 -
I have many issues with this debate. The right to bear arms was and has always been for the purpose of defending ourselves from oppresive government. Using firearms as a means of self defense was a given, especially during our forefathers days when so many of our citizens lived near or on perilous borders leading into the frontier.
The problem I have with the assault rifle crowd is the spin. Just be honest. If you like aasault weapons, either you are a collector, enjoy shooting them, think they are cool...ect. You don't NEED them for anything. A shotgun or a hand gun is more than adequate for home defense, and a pistol is much handier for people to conceal and carry.
Even if you make the case that assault rifles are needed for their original purpose, keeping the government if check....the effectivenesss of citizens being able to stand up to the US government using them is being over rated. The Iraqi army had fully automatic Ak-47s, tanks, APCs and an airforce....and we wiped the floor with them. So to think that any cititzen based militia with AR-15s would somehow protect us from a tyrannical government is laughable. An insurgency based in large cities would be the only thing they could accomplish and even that would be met with a very limited success.
On the other hand, now defending the pro-assault rifle crowd, I am bothered by anti-gun legislation because it targets law abiding citizens by assuming, with no premise, that they will one day break the law and slaughter their fellow citizens. It is a slippery slope when we tell citizens who have no history of criminal activity or mental instability what weapons they can or cannot own. I understand the debate...because using the very reasoning I use, technically, I should have no problem with a person owning an RPG because they have never broken the law.
We also have to be aware of the publics un-educated positions on assault rifles. Shot guns at close range are much deadlier and can split a man in half. Hand guns might only have 15 shots as opposed to 30, but can be easily concealed....and many hunting rifles have far superior stopping power, range and accuracy, making them a lot more ideal for assasination attempts.
So why I can not really justify why any person in this nation should own an assault rifle, I also keep in mind that maybe it't shouldnt be up to me to be telling other citizens what they need or don't need if they have never broken the laws of the land.0 -
As an Australian can someone explain to me the rational behind having semi automatic weapons available legally? I know the second amendment but its a right to a WELL REGULATED militia. Not a free for all. Having these guns legally available makes it easier to go on mass killing sprees. Look at the incident in China. 22 children were stabbed the same day. Clearly if someone is sick enough they will do harm, but those 22 children are going home. The two women who challenged this monster (I refuse to name him and I won't look at his picture. I'm remembering the people he took) could have potentially fought him off if he didn't have a semi automatic.
When we had a simillar incident we had some of the strictest gun laws in the world enacted. Between 1979 and 1996 we had 13 mass shootings. (Which apparently was simillar statistics to America per capita) Since 1996 (when the laws came in) we've had none.
I don't understand why the right to own a machine that's sole purpose is to kill trumps the right of American children to feel safe at school.
People who don't own guns mistakenly believe that a "semi- authomatic" gun is the same as a machine gun of some kind. A semi automatic handgun is more similar to a revolver than a machine gun. The difference from a revolver is that it holds 10-15 bullets instead of six and you can reload it faster.
It does NOT fire "hundreds of bullets per minute" as someone else quoted. Those types of weapons aren't in the hands of the general public.0 -
The sick obsession with guns is a malignant pathology in American culture. That combined with an equally pathologic propensity for violence makes America unique among industrialized nations--and not in a good way. 30,000 people die in traffic accidents each year and we have numerous traffic laws and safety laws that no one say "boo" about. 30,000 people die from gun violence every year and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?
That's a sickness, not a "constitutional issue".
3.000 people died on 9/11 and we unpended our economy and our entire constitutional and legal system without even a thought. 30,000 people die each year from gun violence and we are not allowed to even have a serious discussion about it?
That's a sickness, not a constitutional issue.
The NRA's obsession with not only supporting gun "rights" but attempting to force unrestricted firearm ownership and usage into every part of our society reflects a cult religion more than anything else.
In a group society, no one gets to do exactly what they want to do all the time. All of our "basic freedoms" are abridged to some extent when the common good is deemed more important. That is a fundamental principle described in JS Mills' treatise "On Liberty" which provides much of our philosophical foundation. There is no reason why we cannot try to institute legislation that could curb gun violence while at the same time respect basic 2nd Amendment rights.
The obsession with guns is a result of being a people who once had to fight to free ourselves.
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.0 -
But you don't need assault rifles, large capacity magazines, military weapons, thousands of rounds lethal ammo, etc, to defend yourself. Fighting mandatory background checks doesn't make you any safer, nor does tighter regulation of gun shows, etc.
I love the way you guys think Americans just go buy guns like you'd go out and order a pizza.
Everyone who buys a gun goes through a background check, and a waiting period for some guns.
You also have to be licensed and trained to use it in order to carry it off your own property.
also an "assault rifle" is not a machine gun. It's just a style of rifle liberals renamed because they think it looks scary.
This is a gun article written by a liberal. It's very informative.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/0 -
I'm all in favor of increasing mental health services. A $200 tax per gun and $1 per bullet ought to pay for it just fine.
so you're saying lower income people who might not be able to afford a 200$ tax per gun then don't have the right to bear arms?0 -
3. Close the gun show loophole.
I'm curious as to what this "gun show loophole" is. I bought a gun at a gun show. I still had to go through a federal background check.0 -
I am not interested in the opinions of non-Americans on the issue of American gun ownership, nor am I interested in the opinions of Americans who can't read. The Second Amendement very clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. If more people owned firearms and were sufficiently trained in how to safely use, store, and care for them, there would be fewer gun-related crimes.
I have a concealed carry license. I am armed 99% of the time. Few people are ever aware of that fact. I have never shot or killed or even threatened to shoot or kill anyone. My gun has never "accidentally" discharged. How is it that I have never committed a crime with my gun, since, you know the mere act of having a gun must mean you want to kill someone?
P.S. Guns are not intended solely for killing, humans or animals. Shooting (not hunting) is a sport and a hobby in many parts of the world, including the U.S.
Tell me what sport/hobby requires you to fire off 45 rounds per minute?
Americans don't own those types of guns. Drug Cartels do.0 -
Everyone who buys a gun goes through a background check, and a waiting period for some guns.
Utter nonsense. You never heard of the "gun show loophole" that the NRA fights so hard to defend?
Edit: I spoke too soon. You admit never having heard of the gun show loophole in a later post. You must have bought from a federally licensed dealer who happened to be at a gun show. If you had bought from a private party at a gun show, not background check would have been required.U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Controversies0 -
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The same power that wrote and ratified the Constitution: "We the People" speaking through our democratically elected representatives. That's how a constitutional republic works on this issue, just like every issue.0 -
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The same power that wrote and ratified the Constitution: "We the People" speaking through our democratically elected representatives. That's how a constitutional republic works on this issue, just like every issue.
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.0 -
Utter nonsense. You never heard of the "gun show loophole" that the NRA fights so hard to defend?
Edit: I spoke too soon. You admit never having heard of the gun show loophole in a later post. You must have bought from a federally licensed dealer who happened to be at a gun show. If you had bought from a private party at a gun show, not background check would have been required.
Well if that loophole does exist, it's still not really a loophole.
someone is still responsible.
If you sell your gun under the table to someone without having that person checked, and the gun is used for a crime, you're the person the government will be coming to for answers.0 -
And if you had no reason to know that the stranger you legally sold a gun to was a felon, the answers will be "I didn't know." And that will be the end of it.
You're right in one respect: It's not a loophole. It's a tunnel big enough to drive a truck through.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
You have heard of the first amendment, right? It's the one right before the second amendment. You might look it up sometime.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
You have heard of the first amendment, right? It's the one right before the second amendment. You might look it up sometime.
Well you've heard of the second amendment and keep arguing about it, so I can gripe about your 1st amendment debates. 0 -
Your right of course, no matter how wrong you are.0
-
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
Except no. The statistics all show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. And without a referendum (dumb question but do you have referendums in America?) you can't say what the people talk for.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
Except no. The statistics all show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. And without a referendum (dumb question but do you have referendums in America?) you can't say what the people talk for.
Except no. LIBERAL statistics show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. If i were you I'd stop reading leftist media polls and assuming they're indicative of the desires of the majority of Americans.
If you were right, all those firearms would be banned already. They've certainly been trying for years.
the facts keep working against them however. Liberal "gun free zones" are the places innocent people are most likely to get shot.0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.0
