Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
That this is a free country and if someone wants a 32-pounder in their backyard then that's cool with me.
How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?
- Thread starter Bigfoot3814
- Start date
That this is a free country and if someone wants a 32-pounder in their backyard then that's cool with me.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
I think the system in place is fine, because if people want to cause trouble with guns, they're going to get them whether they're legal or not. Additionally, I would guess that the vast majority of gun-owners have them for recreational use or home defense, not for some obscure crime organization.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
That'd make a great anti-trespassing sign.
Or even:
Warning: Resident is a sharp, 1st amendment debater.
I think that the logic behind it was not to allow people the 'freedom' to own an artillery piece, but allowing the people to own an artillery piece as a matter of national defence. I think that that need has passed, and even if their was an invasion of America (which I'm sure is very likely), urban development and high population density means that these artillery pieces would probably hurt more than harm.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Why these companies have secret bathrooms, and why would they keep Zombies in there? Wouldn't keeping them in Laboratories make more sense?
Clearly you haven't played Left 4 Dead.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
The logic behind the entire bill of rights, not just the 2nd amendment is these rights exists beyond any government saying it exists. The 2nd amendment as far as the founding fathers were concerned existed beyond the founding of the government. It was a right that had been suppressed by the British in the times past. The 2nd amendment didn't give anyone any freedoms. It simply guaranteed that the government would not infringe on it. It's as simple as that. They wanted the people to be able to stand up against standing armies but besides national defense, there was self-defense, tradition, hunting, etc.
The US is not "densely populated" by any stretch.
But regardless, cannons are unrestricted in the US sans local laws perhaps. Anyone can own one. Many people do. But just to give credence to your argument can you tell me how much harm are these evil cannons are causing? How many people killed, maimed, $ amount of property damage, etc?
How do you perform an act of self-defence with an artillery piece? Same goes for hunting. As for tradition, I think it is perfectly acceptable to allow people to have unusable artillery pieces for show in their backyard.
Sorry. Bad wording. I meant that most Americans (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) live in highly urbanised areas, so the majority of the population live in high density areas.
I assume that these are unusable. And as I said, I have no qualms if that is the case. I suppose guns (not field guns) would be more harmful, however, as they are more likely to be used. In which case, many people are being killed. I heard somewhere that you are more likely to get shot in New York than in Baghdad. In Baghdad you'll get blown up.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
The point is I don't have to justify why I own a cannon or a 22. For the sake of having one is good enough. Free country and all.
I don't live in a city. Well I live in a town but it ain't what you might call "urban." So then why should I be subjected to arbitrary laws concerning urban life? And either way people in cities were crime rates are high have an even greater need firearms for self-defense as well.
I'm talking about perfectly functional guns that people shoot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhER53Mb_T4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijkyDHi-wrA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH2Arwt2R7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcP96l7R_7Y&feature=related
Sounds like bullcrap. Who told you this? Though it interesting since NYC has the strongest gun control laws in the country.
Self-defense, target shooting, for fun.
I think just about everyone agrees that there needs to be some amending of the Second Amendment, but the disagreement of whether the amending text consists of "hereby repealed" or "Edit: when we say 'arms' we mean everything up to crew-served weapons and laser rifles in the 40-gigawatt range, and just ignore the militia bit, it's obviously too confusing for y'all".
And Toby Keith is saddened that a thread about gun rights doesn't have a single mention of DC v. Heller.
Wow, that neutral observer is pretty incredibly neutral. I'm only a moderately neutral person, and I think it's less bad for the attacker to get killed, if only because the 'attacker' surviving is more likely to lead to more than zero other people getting killed by the 'attacker' in the future. I mean, this is why police carry pistols, right?
But I think you're failing to account for the possibility that the gun in the hands of the person being 'attacked' (why are we putting ' ' around that word?) doesn't necessarily result in the attacker being shot. In fact more often than not the trigger doesn't get pulled - and this is true for both police and private law-abiding citizens.
Personal defense. Oh, and target shooting, too.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Yeah. When it comes to a serial rapist/murderer versus his innocent victim, I am totally neutral towards both parties.
Well, I didn't say repealed, did I?
You and I have had a long and positive give and take on this, so I needn't go into much detail, but I'll give it a quick take.
My view, is that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment as conceived in 1789 are no longer valid in 2008. That said, while I personally don't and most likely will never own guns, I recognize that this country has a long social history with firearms. I also recognize the de facto reality that there are 10s (100s?) of millions of guns in circulation and getting rid of all of them makes no sense what so ever.
That said, my biggest worry is not being killed by an intruder but by a family member or by some person who didn't follow gun safety.
That said, I would declare the 2nd Amendment null and void. I would replace it with a new amendment that recognizes the modern and traditional use of firearms in the US. One that then allows us to correctly deal w/ firearms issues without the lunacy of both fringes.
My amendment would allow private, personal firearms explicitly and only for self-defense and hunting. We would have to work out some loose ends... ie where does "self-defense" extend to? Is defining that an issue for each state?
Nice to see you post here ID. Always glad to discuss this with you.
TOBY KEITH AGREES!
Ethan Moreau
18th and Potomac
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 81
I support gun rights. I just wish they were easier to regulate.
Abaddon
Deity
Guns should not be legal.
Show me one where this was the cause. Do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
Crash and burn.
Edit: Sorry but I just gotta post it:
Is this a joke? From your own source on wiki, they were pushed out by non gun owners who just seemed tough.
Further, that's all you have in the past 100 years? Pathetic. Have you or any of your gun owning friends done anything remotely related besides chat up how necessary guns are to ensure rights?
