Personal Right to Bear Arms

[GhostWriter16]

SCOTUS ruled recently that every American has the right to keep and to bear arms. Many liberals and Democrats claim they support the constitution more than conservatives, and yet they support the handgun bans in DC and Chicago?

Positives of people being allowed to bear arms freely:

1. Defense. Criminals will always find a way to get weapons, if the innocents can also have weapons they can shoot to stop violent crime. Not to mention there are MANY innocents for every criminal, let alone hardened criminals.

2. They are a check on government tyranny, just in case a DPRK type government took hold in the United States, which could hypothetically happen. And yes, people could be a threat to the government as you can't just "Blow up everything" like in other countries. And Afghanistan is a show that a few nutjobs can do a lot. Again, even if you don't believe it can happen, just in case.

3. And of course there's hunting and target shooting. While losing these things may not seem like a big deal, if shooting a rifle at a target or a deer is illegal, how can we claim to be a "Free" Country.

4. And of course, the constitution is in its favor. And, SCOTUS agreed recently. SCOTUS got it right for once. People have this right, so anyone who opposes it opposes the Constitution.

Liberal Arguments on a personal scale:

1. "Well, then criminals can kill more easily."

Mutually assured destruction. Most criminals are not hardened, and those that aren't will be afraid of being killed with an assault rifle. The hardened criminals will be more than willing to buy a gun off the black market anyway.

2. "Well, people will kill criminals when its not needed."

Throw out the laws! If you are committing a crime, you have no rights!

Discuss.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

2. "Well, people will kill criminals when its not needed."

Throw out the laws! If you are committing a crime, you have no rights!

What about "Innocent until proven quilty"?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What about "Innocent until proven quilty"?

I was referring to while you ARE committing a crime, in other words, I was defending the Castle Doctrine to the farthest possible degree. I wasn't saying they didn't have rights AFTER they committed the crime

In other words, criminals, while they are committing a crime, should not be protected by the law as they are currently breaking the law. I don't mean later on

 

[Joecoolyo]

 

[GhostWriter16]

Strawman. NOBODY would say that's what it means, even you.

Care to actually discuss the topic?

 

[GoodGame]

I generally agree with the OP, but I see no need to lace it with politics (Dem vs. us).

There already is a DC vs. Heller thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=369951&highlight=heller

and I kind of feel this topic has been done to death. Buy a gun, don't just talk about it!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Mutually assured destruction. Most criminals are not hardened, and those that aren't will be afraid of being killed with an assault rifle. The hardened criminals will be more than willing to buy a gun off the black market anyway.

Wait, I can have an assault rifle?! Dom3k 2012!

To be more serious, I support gun ownership only if you are responsible and know gun safety and operation well. And a thorough psychological and background check couldn't hurt.

 

[GinandTonic]

I was referring to while you ARE committing a crime, in other words, I was defending the Castle Doctrine to the farthest possible degree. I wasn't saying they didn't have rights AFTER they committed the crime

In other words, criminals, while they are committing a crime, should not be protected by the law as they are currently breaking the law. I don't mean later on

1 - They are not guilty until they've had a fair trial, peers, due process yadda yadda.

2 - No protection from the law? Really? By that logic I can do whatever I want to any criminal in the act? I could rape a shoplifter to death? Cut off the private parts of underage drinkers?

Hyperbole much?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, I can have an assault rifle?! Dom3k 2012!

Yep

1 - They are not guilty until they've had a fair trial, peers, due process yadda yadda.

2 - No protection from the law? Really? By that logic I can do whatever I want to any criminal in the act? I could rape a shoplifter to death? Cut off the private parts of underage drinkers?

Hyperbole much?

No. Again this is a strawman. I meant someone who is doing something on YOUR PROPERTY.

 

[Cull]

There was a something a while back that in burglaries, the burglary typically gets the gun, not the defender. I suppose there needs to be some restrictions, like there are currently, but a complete ban on guns for civilians is RL troll worthy.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yep

Hell yes, you are the best president ever! Almost makes up for the dismantlement of social programs.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if I was just wandering down to the local corner store and a mugger tried to relieve me of my spare change, I'd be really thankful I remembered to bring my assault rifle.

It's nice to know that in your libertarian world, criminals have no rights.

 

[Camikaze]

No. Again this is a strawman. I meant someone who is doing something on YOUR PROPERTY.

So what G&T described would be fine so long as the shoplifting was of your shop, or the underage drinking was occurring on your front lawn?

 

[GhostWriter16]

There was a something a while back that in burglaries, the burglary typically gets the gun, not the defender. I suppose there needs to be some restrictions, like there are currently, but a complete ban on guns for civilians is RL troll worthy.

This is a problem.

I don't know if its legal, but if it is and I ever become a store owner, I will DEFINITELY have a pistol in my pocket just in case.

I get why they want to restrict military weapons. However, I do not get why they want to ban anything else. There is no point, and criminals will still get them.

I don't agree with banning military weapons for three reasons:

1. Its still technically unconstitutional.

2. Most criminals are not going to try if, say, I'm carrying a P90. If they do, they will be dead

3. It helps defend against government tyranny if they started like suppressing free speech or imposed martial law.

Hell yes, you are the best president ever! Almost makes up for the dismantlement of social programs.

Domination2012 Even though I'll still be too young.

 

[Cull]

Wait, you are proposing full gun rights, no restrictions, all guns allowed.

So teenagers could run around with automatic guns.

 

[Camikaze]

Why stop at teenagers? What about toddlers?

 

[Cull]

This is a problem.

I don't know if its legal, but if it is and I ever become a store owner, I will DEFINITELY have a pistol in my pocket just in case.

I get why they want to restrict military weapons. However, I do not get why they want to ban anything else. There is no point, and criminals will still get them.

I don't agree with banning military weapons for three reasons:

1. Its still technically unconstitutional.

2. Most criminals are not going to try if, say, I'm carrying a P90. If they do, they will be dead

3. It helps defend against government tyranny if they started like suppressing free speech or imposed martial law.

1. Whatever.

2. And you get some lawsuit for killing someone.

3. Then the radicals on the left and right would rebel when nothing is going on.

 

[Methos]

Note, I'm not agreeing with Dom...

So what G&T described would be fine so long as the shoplifting was of your shop, or the underage drinking was occurring on your front lawn?

In the state of Missouri, our Castle Doctrine is in regards to inside the home, car, or tent, not the property (as in yard). There was a recent change in the law about a month ago that included other property, but I currently don't recall the specifics.

 

[civver_764]

1. Defense. Criminals will always find a way to get weapons,

Wrong.

2. They are a check on government tyranny,

Your stupid hanguns are nothing compared to the capabilities of the United States military.

4. And of course, the constitution is in its favor.

The constitution is over 200 years old. It's bound to get some stuff wrong. There are many different you can interpret "arms", unless you think people should get to have nukes too?

There has to be restrictions.

 

[JohnRM]

I was referring to while you ARE committing a crime, in other words, I was defending the Castle Doctrine to the farthest possible degree. I wasn't saying they didn't have rights AFTER they committed the crime

In other words, criminals, while they are committing a crime, should not be protected by the law as they are currently breaking the law. I don't mean later on

Yea, you plan on shooting that guy running down the street with a gun after some young man with a backpack?