Why do you support gun ownership?

[Abaddon]

So, the conclusion is its just because Americans are crazy?

 

[Archbob]

So, the conclusion is its just because Americans are crazy?

Like I said, shooting people is fun. Proud to be American. Plus I like hunting.

 

[Abaddon]

Cool, mods you can wrap up this thread then

 

[MobBoss]

You are denying that there was a century's time between the Constitution and the creation of the National Guard?

Not at all. In fact, I say that is direct proof that the constitution does not refer to the National Guard as the "militia". Once more, the "militia" are you and me and everyone else that is a citizen of the United States...not the members of the National Guard.

The National Guard has been federally administrated through the United States Army for nearly a century...

Militia Act of 1903

National Defense Act of 1916

Amazing how "gun control" advocates are willing to fabricate such blatant falsehoods.

Not a blatent falsehood. What you fail to understand is that "administrated" does not equate to "own and operate". The National Guard of each and every state are commanded by the Governor of that state, UNLESS, the National Guard is federalized under a title 10 status and thus under operational control of the president. The HQs and Armories of the National Guard are not federally owned. Example: In my state of Washington, the National Guard HQs are located at Camp Murray, which is entirely state owned and operated. Very little of what the National Guard does on a day to day basis is federally funded.

This is my career. I know first hand about this stuff. Dont try to read a wiki headline and pretend you know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Xanikk999]

Cool, mods you can wrap up this thread then

You should watch the naked gun movies. Frank drebbin loves the joy of shooting down criminals!

 

[MobBoss]

First off, why include suicides in "killed by gun" statistics? Does anyone think that someone committing suicide won't because they need to use a knife, a noose, pills, or whatever instead of a gun?

Now, as to

How can you cite "facts" and then say it is not based on anything?

Anyway, here's an actual fact:

There are somewhere between 100,000 and 3,000,000 defensive uses of a gun every year in the US, and the number is probably higher than 800,000. (Source here)

Here's another:

There are now 47 states that allow legal carrying of concealed firearms to varying degrees. Violent crime rates have not gone up in those states when the laws were passed. (It is hotly argued whether they've gone down, and if so whether it is attributable to concealed carry laws). The rate of gun crimes committed by permit-holders legally carrying is (in most if not all) cases lower than that of police.
(Source here)

And finally a couple opinions of mine:

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, not collective rights. They don't apply to publishing companies, religious organizations, hotel owners, or corporate boards of directors, they apply to individuals. I don't think "the people" would be defined one way in the First, Fourth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments and another way in the Second Amendment.

Banning things doesn't work. The US can't keep out illegal immigrants or certain sorts of drugs, and couldn't keep out alcoholic beverages. There's no reason to assume that they'll be any more successful with firearms. With that understanding, I refuse to render law-abiding citizens helpless for the sake of hoping to render criminals less dangerous.

OFT, very nice Igloo, very nice indeed.

 

[Elrohir]

How about all of the above. (Except for the "I don't support it" option)

 

[Yeeek]

I can't deny the fact firing a gun is fun when you shoot a couple rounds at a firing stand on a week-end. But owning a gun at home? Just doesn't feel right to me. In fact it wouldn't make me feel safer just because i have a gun in my home.

I had to use a FAMAS for roughly a year during my military service, i kinda loved the thing at end, once you know how to use a weapon and know how it works i assure you, you have a different opinion on weapons.

Can't really comment on supporting gun ownership, its part of the USA's culture i guess and ours (in europe) is totally different on the matter.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Not at all. In fact, I say that is direct proof that the constitution does not refer to the National Guard as the "militia". Once more, the "militia" are you and me and everyone else that is a citizen of the United States...not the members of the National Guard.

And who is it you are trying to convince?

Not a blatent falsehood. What you fail to understand is that "administrated" does not equate to "own and operate".

Retreatism.

The Constitution mentions nothing about "own and operate." As you yourself have admitted, at the end of the day the National Guard must submit to the federal government. It is certainly not the militia of the people defending a free state envisioned by the Second Amendment's authors...

This is my career. I know first hand about this stuff. Dont try to read a wiki headline and pretend you know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I was unaware you were there to personally interview the writers of the Second Amendment and then come back again in Congress, 1916. But if that is your career...

 

[Kozmos]

I can't deny the fact firing a gun is fun when you shoot a couple rounds at a firing stand on a week-end. But owning a gun at home? Just doesn't feel right to me. In fact it wouldn't make me feel safer just because i have a gun in my home.

I had to use a FAMAS for roughly a year during my military service, i kinda loved the thing at end, once you know how to use a weapon and know how it works i assure you, you have a different opinion on weapons.

Can't really comment on supporting gun ownership, its part of the USA's culture i guess and ours (in europe) is totally different on the matter.

Mhhm FAMAS such an eloquent bullpup design, I envy you.

 

[plarq]

Why not use toy gun instead?You can still scare off people while it can't kill!

Seriously, the right of bearing arms is to defend off criminals. So it depends on the crime rate. When crime rate is high and police and other law enforcement are incompetent, the armed civilians are our last resort to fight crimes.

Don't you think the situation is messed up already?

 

[blackheart]

7 Pages in 6 hours?

Anyways, I support gun ownership for all the reasons listed. I believe eveyrone should be taught proper gun handling, safety, and respect for guns as well.

 

[Blazer6]

I gave my opinion in earlier threads so I will just say that having the government wrap red tape at a commercially available item, is just a waste of the customers time and government resources.

 

[CaptainF]

I feel the need to point out that the #1 killer of kids age 15-24 is motor vehicle accidents....so should we ban vehicles based upon that statistic?

As for over all causes of death here is a great link: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Over all age groups you will notice that homicides (of which firearms cause the majority) to be way down the list at #15. Enjoy.

Edit fixed the link...just hit run.

Actually, the statistic I believe is that if you are a young white male aged 15-24, you are most likely to be killed by a car.

But if you are a young black male aged 15-24, you are, sadly enough, most likely to be killed by gun violence.

.....


That said....


.....

I support the right to arms because you cannot regulate them anyway. If someone wants a gun, they can get it regardless of the law. Regulation is pointless in this case. I also just don't see the harm in a responsible person properly keeping a firearm in his possession. All constitutional rights aside, it isn't that big of a deal. Criminal people will kill each other with something else if guns are outlawed. Knives, Garrotes, blunt weapons, whatever. I see it as being much like marijuana in that it is unregulateable, and relatively harmless. So why not deregulate it?

Also, it should be noted that even Ghandi himself was quoted as saying:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

---Mohandas K. Gandhi.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

But I'm part of the American militia! If we own a gun then we are automatically enlisted in the militia, thus I own the right to own a gun.

Militias are only formed in areas of the country where there are no formal police or military presence. When the Constitution was written, that was like 99% of the country. Now, it is probably less than 1%. You don't gain automatic admission to a militia just by having a gun. Since militia were usual private citizens and not professional law enforcement, they were usually raised on an as-needed basis, and were not permanent. The classic Western "posse" is an example of a militia. Also, remember that in 1787, the US didn't even have a permanent standing army. From what I remember, there wasn't a permanent standing army until the Civil War. This made it necessary to grant ordinary citizens the right to bear arms because there was no other defense. If you look at the early history of the US, the leadership was always paranoid about some European power invading the country. President James Monroe even issued his famous doctrine that no European power should even entangle itself in any affairs IN THE WHOLE HEMISPHERE, much less just the US.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yes, but what does the militia consist of? All able bodied men of accountable age. The militia were the citizens themselves, called upon as a last resort.

Like I said in another post, we don't need to raise militias anymore because we have plenty of police and military around. There is virtually no part of the US that is not patrolled by law enforcement. If anything, a militia would just get in the way.

 

[capslock]

Shooting is a sport, and it is fun. Couldn't this be an option?

 

[Leonel]

Just because a place bans guns doesn't mean that criminals will turn in their guns or won't try to smuggle in guns like they smuggle in drugs. Plus criminals in the moment of power cannot be trusted. Even if you cooperate with them, they could still just as easily kill you, despite them saying they wouldn't.

What if a lady is walking to her car and someone grabs her from behind? In a situation like that, being a newb in martial arts won't work because you'll lock up, trying to remember your lessons. And what if it's a group of people that jump her at the same time? One could call the police but by the time they arrive, she may have already been violated or even dead.

 

[plarq]

Just because a place bans guns doesn't mean that criminals will turn in their guns or won't try to smuggle in guns like they smuggle in drugs. Plus criminals in the moment of power cannot be trusted. Even if you cooperate with them, they could still just as easily kill you, despite them saying they wouldn't.

What if a lady is walking to her car and someone grabs her from behind? In a situation like that, being a newb in martial arts won't work because you'll lock up, trying to remember your lessons. And what if it's a group of people that jump her at the same time? One could call the police but by the time they arrive, she may have already been violated or even dead.

What if the lady has a gun? She's sneak attacked, so she couldn't fight back unless she's Laura Croft. So being said, in order to reduce severe crimes, armed civilians aren't that useful comparing to skillful and abundent police power. If we can make sure that the group of thugs can't escape after they do that thing to a lady, maybe criminals will refrain from risking their lives in jail.

As I've said, it's immoral to let citizens do the duty of law enforcement. Where have all the taxes gone?

However, I don't think the right of bearing firearms should be abolished in the constitution. It's the duty of States to decide regular citzens should carry firearms or not, procedures of obtaining firearms, etc. Personally speaking, I don't see the necessarity for a citizen to carry firearm unless: 1. War or Other Urgent State, 2. Hunting area, 3. Country area where police can't cover, 4 Urban ghettos where firearms have already widespreaded.

 

[IglooDame]

Like I said in another post, we don't need to raise militias anymore because we have plenty of police and military around. There is virtually no part of the US that is not patrolled by law enforcement. If anything, a militia would just get in the way.

Except in New Orleans in the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina, where police and military were either absent or in the way.