How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?

[Dachs]

I think that the state should have a monopoly on violence. This is easier to achieve if guns are banned.

What makes the state so responsible?

 

[mrt144]

It's difficult to say whether we would have even made it this far as a country if we didn't have the right to bear arms. For example, the War of 1812 may have ended quite differently, or the Civil War may have never happened. The expansion of the West would have been much different. Indians might still hold claim to large portions of their own country. Not to mention, the increased likelihood of potential military coups over the course of over 200 years.

On this point though, I can't see how you can compare the situation back then, to the situation we have now where the weaponry itself, the training required, the tactics employed, the way the military is staffed by professional soldiers rather than compulsory service.

Going forward, using conscripted troops utilizing smooth bore rifles from the 1800s as justification for continued possession of arms is by far the weakest argument in favor of the right to bear arms. The far better argument is self defense and the multipurpose roles a rifle can be used for in completely legal scenarios.

 

[Gogf]

On this point though, I can't see how you can compare the situation back then, to the situation we have now where the weaponry itself, the training required, the tactics employed, the way the military is staffed by professional soldiers rather than compulsory service.

Going forward, using conscripted troops utilizing smooth bore rifles from the 1800s as justification for continued possession of arms is by far the weakest argument in favor of the right to bear arms. The far better argument is self defense and the multipurpose roles a rifle can be used for in completely legal scenarios.

No, it's not. The best defense is "this is what the Constitution says." Now, if we're debating a Constitutional amendment, then you might have a point, but I would think that insuring that tyranny does not rein in this land is more important than being able to go out and shoot some dear.

 

[Yui108]

I think that the state should have a monopoly on violence. This is easier to achieve if guns are banned.

This would be wrong. Wondering if the old lady(or anyone you could physically overpower anyways) you're about to mug might be packing heat is an incredible deterrant.

 

[Kerozine]

This would be wrong. Wondering if the old lady(or anyone you could physically overpower anyways) you're about to mug might be packing heat is an incredible deterrant.

Shoot first, ask questions later.

 

[GoodGame]

Originally Posted by mrtn
I think that the state should have a monopoly on violence. This is easier to achieve if guns are banned.

This would be wrong. Wondering if the old lady(or anyone you could physically overpower anyways) you're about to mug might be packing heat is an incredible deterrant.

Not to mention that is the choice action of dictators:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

 

[Formaldehyde]

On this point though, I can't see how you can compare the situation back then, to the situation we have now where the weaponry itself, the training required, the tactics employed, the way the military is staffed by professional soldiers rather than compulsory service..

I can't. That's why I mentioned events from the past. Nowadays, any attempt at revolution would likely be put down more easily than the US dealt with Hussein's military unless there was great popular support.

But who knows what tomorrow may bring. While commonly owned weapons certainly are no defense against tanks, neither are M16s. And a headshot from a deer hunting rifle will still kill anybody in body armor, as was amply demonstrated in Iraq. Not to mention, in the case of any sort of populist revolution against great tyranny there are bound to be a number of military commanders who would take the side of the opposition, so things would likely not be nearly as lopsided as you allege.

Going forward, using conscripted troops utilizing smooth bore rifles from the 1800s as justification for continued possession of arms is by far the weakest argument in favor of the right to bear arms. The far better argument is self defense and the multipurpose roles a rifle can be used for in completely legal scenarios.

Of course. But the principle remains the same. A free society should have access to arms as much today as they did back then, even though one of the justifications has changed to some degree.

 

[a_propagandist]

See, I have a proposal. Ban lethal ammunition for civilians and only allow people to buy rubber bullets etc.

 

[Dachs]

See, I have a proposal. Ban lethal ammunition for civilians and only allow people to buy rubber bullets etc.

Rubber bullets: they won't let you defend yourself from the government or home invaders. Why rubber bullets?

 

[GoodGame]

See, I have a proposal. Ban lethal ammunition for civilians and only allow people to buy rubber bullets etc.

Cute idea. But then what about repeat offenders who use their hands as weapons? We'd have to replace them with rubbers.

 

[capslock]

I dislike the term gun, a gun is an artillery piece, rather obvious that there are no retired Marines posting on this thread.
.

Haha, my range coach was a good ol' boy from Georgia and he made a point of saying gun all the time.

Don't forget about machine guns. They aren't arty.

 

[CaptainF]

I think that the state should have a monopoly on violence. This is easier to achieve if guns are banned.

Nah, not really.

If there aren't any guns, I can still stab, bludgeon or slap the crap out of people.

Not that those acts are violent, though...

 

[Kerozine]

Not to mention that is the choice action of dictators:

That is obviously the logical thing to do.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dislike the term gun, a gun is an artillery piece, rather obvious that there are no retired Marines posting on this thread.

Haha, my range coach was a good ol' boy from Georgia and he made a point of saying gun all the time.

Yes, I imagine we've all seen this movie before.

The second amendment seems to be used by people who do not think through what it means.
The right to keep arms, would you be happy with a neighbor with a tonne of 81mm HE and WP bombs in his basement ?
After all a 81mm tube is an infantry weapon.

So, I see you've already met my neighbors.

 

[Mad Man]

People should be able to own any kind of gun that want just as long it doesn't fire explosives.
So P90's,AK-47's,SPAS-12's,MG-42's,Five-seveN's and Flame Thrower's=YES
RPG-7's,AIM-9's,C4,MGL's,M1 Abrams,M67's,LGM-30 Minuteman=NO

 

[carmen510]

The 2nd Amendment clearly means that gun ownership is allowed for the people. And even if the Framers did mean it only for the militia (In which case there is a bounty of their writings contradicting that view), gun ownership IS STILL LEGAL under the 9th Amendment. So fail to any argument against the 2nd Amendment.

That being said, I do believe guns should be strictly regulated.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I should clarify. I think Americans have a right to own guns, but that such a right comes with responsibility, and can regulated, i.e. you need a license to get one.

It was pointed out to me by the Ghost of Ecofarms Past that if guns are regulated, then knowledge of who their owners are, and their subsequent control (read, elimination/confiscation) effectively mitigates the point of an armed citizenry in the first place.

So basically I'm realigning my position to be "everyone should have as many guns as they want, of all calibers, round types, range, and lethality."

 

[capslock]

Yes, I imagine we've all seen this movie before.

I know you have. So you know Marines can be pretty anal about calling a rifle a rifle and not a gun. This particular Sgt, however, made a point of calling the M16 a gun. Hence the humor. I wasn't referencing any movie, just a stereotype brought up by otago and a humurous counter-example.

But you are right, that clip is a good example of the stereotype.

 

[Bugfatty300]

See, I have a proposal. Ban lethal ammunition for civilians and only allow people to buy rubber bullets etc.

Rubber bullets aren't lethal? lolz.

Keep these doozies coming! I'm seriously cracking up. You guys are priceless!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Indeed. I'd rather be shot by a real 5.56 than a rubber one, it'd probably do less damage.