Forbidden Donut

i dont need to provide backup to make my point.

I'd rather have a bigger, better firearm than the bad guy.

the thing is about gun control is it's counter-productive. yes, you feel safe, but you have a greater chance of hurting someone you love, i.e. a family member or a friend, than you do a "bad' guy.

i understand that the Constitution gives everyone the right to own a gun, but that was also at a time when people were avid hunters. times have changed.

What if there were mandatory gun safety classes, much like drivers training? Would that work?

i think that would be a step in the right direction, but honestly, the people that are going to go to those classes aren't the problem. it's the people buying the guns illegally. we don't need to make it more difficult for some 40 year old living in New Hampshire, we need to make it more difficult for the 18 year old drug dealer on the streets of Baltimore.

I have to disagree with you on the reasons behind the second amendment.

The second amendment was designed as the ultimate balance of power for the young democracy. While we do have balances in place within the federal government, they are not sufficient enough to ensure that the government's power will not grow so vast that it can gain control of the populous. The right to keep and bear arms as well as the right to organize as militias was not one bestowed on citizens so they could hunt, though. If that was the concern at the time, they probably would have left it up to the states to decide since some states relied far more on hunting game than others.

No, the right to arm yourself was given to you because no one should limit the ways in which you could defend yourself and your property. Yes, it exists so that citizens can stop people from burglarizing their homes or harming their loved-ones, but the added 'militia' aspect was so that if the federal government ever tried to intrude on the rights or property of any individual state, that state could rise up and defend itself. The gun was the citizen's balance in the government. If everyone was armed, things would be much different than they are today.

I whole-heartedly endorse the second amendment. I am fine with background checks and designated hunting areas, but I believe it is everyone's right (dare I say responsibility) to arm themselves.

very well said.

Background checks should go deeper and farther so that the likes of those as in the VT shooter could not get their hands on any sort of firearm.

I like guns, I think people should be able to have them when they want, of the kind they want, anywhere in the US. But I also think they need to be tightly controlled.

The dept of the licenses, safeguards and registrations needs to be done based on what kind of gun it is. While I agree that anyone should be able to the guns they want, it should be much more difficult to purchase assault weapons than a 12 gauge used for hunting. A waiting period is also a great method of reducing violent crimes.

I'm also for the concept of previous criminal activity restrict what you can buy. Anyone found guilty of any kind of violent crime should not be allowed to purchase a gun, although with a court review they may be later found to be allowed after many years of proven reform. I'm all for people getting a second chance.

Attempts to control guns are usually pointless. The laws only prevent the people that already follow the law from getting them. The people using the guns to break the laws are going to get them regardless of whether or not its legal to buy them. Let the people with valid reasons buy them too.

please explain. would things be better or worse? i don't quite understand.

lulz im taking my 12g shotgun, .45 1911, and both my .22's and staying away from this discussion.

The second amendment is, I dare say, one of the most important elements of a Constitutional Republic. It serves several vital roles.

1. The right to keep militias helps to decentralize the military, making parts of it accessible to state governors in the event of disasters. It also allows private militias, which would prove invaluable if the US were ever invaded by land again. Indeed, this is the reason that the Japanese didn't try to invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."- Isoroku Yamamoto, Admiral, IJN

2. It removes the monopoly of force from the hands of the government, meaning that the President and Congress would have to think twice before trying to push citizens around.

3. Likewise, it removes the monopoly of force from large, powerfully-built thugs with blunt objects, meaning that home defence and defence from muggers is much easier. Foro example, a .44 magnum is just as effective in the hands of an octogenarian as it is when wielded by a 20-year old.

4. The right to bear arms also ensures that those who enter our military have some prior experience with firearms, saving on training costs and improving the overall effectiveness of the American GI.

Hunting is just a tertiary application of the amendment.

I think that gun safety should be taught right along with learning to cross the street. I don't mean that kids should be directly handling guns, but they learn to walk across the street before they drive. So they should probably learn a thing or two about gun safety while they are young too. Teaching things like respect for guns, how dangerous they are, can go a long way towards preventing kids from playing around with daddies toys.

let me point out that i see nothing wrong with the second amendment, i understand what was behind it and whatnot. all i'm saying is that there are too many guns on the streets of our cities and adding more is not a good idea. we need to restrict the sales of guns to responsible adults.

Sadly, putting more restrictions than we have now for responsible people to get guns isn't going to help. I'm not for easing this restriction, because I believe this to be necessary.

How many gang members own their guns legally? How many bloods and crypts kill people with legally bought guns?

On a funnier side note: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

How many of you actually believe that citizens being able to own guns would ever in a million years discourage our government from intruding on our rights if they were so inclined?

How many of you actually believe a "citizen militia" would do anything other than be massacred by the massively funded and populated military that our government, or any other government for that matter, would undoubtedly control in such a scenario?

I think the importance some of you assign to the second amendment is B.S. I believe it is important because there are things I believe the government shouldn't be able to force on us, not because I think we'll need to defend ourselves against our government or any other invading entity.

I think if a group of citizens revolted for something very popular, then the government troops might not be willing to fight their fellow neighbor if they agree with them. Also, having the government massacre those militias would only serve to further their cause against an overbearing government.

And did you know that a Japanese General during WWII specifically decided not to invade the US because there are so many gun owners that occupation would be a pain impossible (ie all the guns available in Iraq)

i don't get this whole idea that we need guns because the government may turn on us. it's happening now and people could give two shits about it. American citizens are being kidnapped and flown to foreign prisons. why aren't you militia types going out and buying your rifles and marching on Washington. i'll tell you why, because you really don't care that much. for some reason, people feel if they lose the right to own a gun somehow the government is going to be more inclined to control your lives. i don't get it.

that's exactly what I'm thinking.

yes i think we should be able to own guns, but no i don't believe any one has any higher purpose for their guns. they're for self defense and recreation, not defending our rights or overthrowing our government.


Evestay. Yeah, if it was the american people versus the government then yes I'm sure the soldiers would have second thoughts about their orders. but it would never be that way. there will always be supporters of the government and people who just don't give a fuck either way.

And yeah, that's great that the japanese were scared off by our guns. You do realize that was WWII right? You know way back in the stone age when we hadn't even used a nuclear bomb yet? and chemical and biological weapons were still in their infancy? i think it's safe to say that military technology has advanced quite a bit and I don't think the common people will be the one utilizing it.

Because I still feel that there is some hope left in the democratic process for this nation yet. That is why I support Ron Paul.

I certainly hope the government doesn't go totalitarian, but if it does people WILL start fighting.

All except full auto machine guns of course! /dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="<_<" border="0" alt="dry.gif" />

They were legal up until the 30's I belive, and you can still own them with a special license, and a huge yearly fee for it.


CJ....The armed citizens of the US have the US Military outgunned by about 50 to 1, granted the Military has a much greater arsenal at thier disposal, but i would find it hard to belive all military personel would stay loyal to a Government that got to a point in time where its citizens revolted.....and as it was mentioned, slughtering armed and unarmed citizens would only cause the situation to get worse.

I use a hammer to pound nails, works much better than a rock. A firearm works better for self defense, than my fist or a knife...or my hammer for that matter, especially if the bad guy(s) are also armed. I just have to be much more proficient than them.

I have never needed to use a firearm for defense, but it is nice to know it is usually available if needed.

I think I started hunting when i was 10 years old, and have always enjoyed it since, target shooting as well, but Budlight seems to show me up every time we go shooting.....bastard.

Yes I belong to the NRA, and have for a very long time. They have a great magazine, and many other benifits besides looking after the 2nd Amendment.

I don't believe the government is gaining power as a result of people giving up their guns. Instead, I would say the reason people are willing to disarm and the reason the government is exploding in power are the same. People are comfortable and as a result, they are apathetic and naive. We believe the modern age is so different than every other period in human history that we willingly hand over our lives to someone who doesn't care about us at all.

Actually in most states you don't even need a license to own a full auto. You just need it to be on file with the feds and pay a HUGE federal tax on it (like $6,000). The same goes for suppressors and silencers, all you need to do is register it with the feds and pay a $200 tax on it. Of course you need to pass vigorous background checks before the purchase of either.

a nice Washington quote I dug up today:

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth."

If things get to the point where the people actually need to use guns to protect their liberty (I would assume in a revolt situation) what length do you think the government would go to towards stopping the revolt? Even if we have more firearms than the government, what is scary is the technology the government has. Guns vs. tanks and helicopters and fighter jets? And how long would a revolution last if they government showed that it was willing to bomb an entire city where they were losing the revolution.

When we revolted in 1776, we were nothing more than a bunch of farmers with outdated muskets. The British had a massive navy, experienced soldiers, and far superior technology. Had it not been for the French, we never would have won the revolution and this whole discussion would be a moot point.

If a hundred million + Americans revolted do you really think the rest of the world would sit back and let the federal government firebomb its cities and lay waste to millions of citizens (armed or not) with tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets? Plus, contrary to popular belief, the people in the military aren't complete idiots that are physically brainwashed. It would be a safe bet to assume that if a real revolution took place, the military would be split (just as it was in the civil war).

If a revolution took place, it would be awful. I'm sure millions would die and the prosperity that the US has gained and the consumerist life-style that we've developed would be shattered. Freedom and liberty will never come cheap and it must constantly defended against the tyranny of powerful men (hopes someone googles some revolution quotes that are 100x more awesome).

I'm not saying that we're about to start a revolution or anything, but being armed is a right granted just as much (if not more so) as a preventative measure as a revolutionary measure.

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of gun ownership. After a string of fatal shootings in the UK it kind of dawned on me that I would love to own a gun if only for peace of mind. At least I would stand a chance. I would also like to lead a revolt against the British Government to stop us entering into the corrupt EU treaty.

My only concern is the UK statistically speaking is far more violent than America. Would the violence decrease because of the threat of your would be victim owning a gun? Or would it stay the same with a much worse outcome at the end of most violent crimes.

The citizens of the UK have been disarmed by the government...the criminals know you are helpless, and unarmed....oh wait, they are breaking the law by having a gun....how unfair.

Not to worry Australia did the same thing, and they are having the same problem...only worse.