Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree with that, despite its lack of probability. Moreover, I believe in the right to bear arms due to the fundamental right that you should have the freedom to do something as long as it doesn't harm anyone. This includes my weapon collecting hobby. While they may be weapons, and combat is a primary use, that doesn't mean they will be used in such a way. It actually makes me quite angry to think that those who think that repealing the second amendment would do anything other than force guns into the black market could actually get their way, thereby decreasing the amount of people able to defend themselves from robbers, muggers, murderers etc. and (by swelling the black market) increase the amount of untraceable guns available, thereby making it easier to acquire a weapon for criminal purposes. It isn't simple as "buy gun, hold people at gunpoint" when your gun is on the legal register. Fucking idiots...gamerguy473 said:
This guy actually bothered to rationalize things!Apollo45 said:
You sir, win five internets.I'd say that the people that think banning guns would somehow be the first step towards a peaceful world are looking at it in a far too simplistic view. I'd go so far as to even call it childish. The good thing about state legalized weapon ownership is that if it's properly encouraged, the majority of a population would be armed and it would create a level playing field, as it were. The whole state of nobody being at anyone's mercy sort of thing. Obviously, some people are just dicks and would try to abuse those things, but that's why the weapons black market exists. Better to allow people the tools to defend themselves. That's another point. Guns aren't murderers, they're tools. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of mental disorder to have fear of inanimate objects.
That's no reason to take stuff away from the general populace, though. See, this is why we can't have nice things!CrazyGirl17 said:
In all seriousness, I'd say I agree. No matter what sort of thing you're talking about, that fact is there by sheer probability. If we clamp down on everything that is subject to that, we're left with nothing.
Wow. I'm surprised at the sheer number of people who claimed America has a "might makes right" attitude. "Gun porn" seems equally popular. Personally, I've never met an American (and I've lived here my whole life) who is so enamored with guns. I know many gun owners. My cousin hunts professionally for a living. My grandmother keeps a gun for self defense. My friend owns a gun and practices at the fire range, hoping to some day join the police force. Gun owners are as varied in their attitudes and beliefs as any other portion of humanity.
Actually... correction... I met one person who seemed like he probably met the stereotypes you guys are claiming. He also believed that DVDs were reverse engineered from the technology found in an wrecked alien ship. so... yeah... crazies exist in the world. Not a majority.
Personally, I do not own a gun. I do not ever plan to own a gun. However, I strongly believe in the right to own guns. Any guns. If my neighbor wants to own a bazooka, he can have it. Once he decides to use it on living things, he becomes a criminal and shall be held accountable for his actions.
I believe in the citizen soldier. That is the foundation of this country. Though our country has always been flawed, and always will be, there are some core virtues which shone through in those early years and I weep for each one that has been lost. I will probably leave this country when I have the chance, as very little of those virtues are left and we lose more every year.
I am, at heart, a pacifist. I won't throw a punch if I can avoid it. I am also a realist, and there are some times when people must take action. When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. I am too cowardly to be such a man, but I have the utmost respect for those strong enough to take a stand. I would not wish a law into existence that would deny liberty or freedom.
If the only purpose for guns is hunting or self defense, then a restriction on the grade of weapons available seems reasonable. But those are not the only reasons for owning guns. No country is yet a utopia. I suggest that you consider the gun control laws of nazi germany. They are very similar to laws being proposed in the united states at this time. I wonder how Hitler would have faired if every hebrew in his nation owned a personal firearm.
Final note: America needs to get over this "world police" kick. I know we played the cavalry in our version of WWII, but seriously... get over it, America. You're not the main character in an action film. I don't know why my government thinks they can solve all the world's problems when they can't even manage their budget. ugh...
I only mention our unnecessary involvement in other countries because I think this is why so many countries think we're crazy. They see the bull headed super patriots of my country cheering on the US military the same way other countries cheer on a soccer team. Only, people don't die in soccer. God damn morons...
Actually... correction... I met one person who seemed like he probably met the stereotypes you guys are claiming. He also believed that DVDs were reverse engineered from the technology found in an wrecked alien ship. so... yeah... crazies exist in the world. Not a majority.
Personally, I do not own a gun. I do not ever plan to own a gun. However, I strongly believe in the right to own guns. Any guns. If my neighbor wants to own a bazooka, he can have it. Once he decides to use it on living things, he becomes a criminal and shall be held accountable for his actions.
I believe in the citizen soldier. That is the foundation of this country. Though our country has always been flawed, and always will be, there are some core virtues which shone through in those early years and I weep for each one that has been lost. I will probably leave this country when I have the chance, as very little of those virtues are left and we lose more every year.
I am, at heart, a pacifist. I won't throw a punch if I can avoid it. I am also a realist, and there are some times when people must take action. When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. I am too cowardly to be such a man, but I have the utmost respect for those strong enough to take a stand. I would not wish a law into existence that would deny liberty or freedom.
If the only purpose for guns is hunting or self defense, then a restriction on the grade of weapons available seems reasonable. But those are not the only reasons for owning guns. No country is yet a utopia. I suggest that you consider the gun control laws of nazi germany. They are very similar to laws being proposed in the united states at this time. I wonder how Hitler would have faired if every hebrew in his nation owned a personal firearm.
Final note: America needs to get over this "world police" kick. I know we played the cavalry in our version of WWII, but seriously... get over it, America. You're not the main character in an action film. I don't know why my government thinks they can solve all the world's problems when they can't even manage their budget. ugh...
I only mention our unnecessary involvement in other countries because I think this is why so many countries think we're crazy. They see the bull headed super patriots of my country cheering on the US military the same way other countries cheer on a soccer team. Only, people don't die in soccer. God damn morons...
I think people should be allowed to own guns but I think it should go like so.
istols, shotguns, and a select group of rifles are fine with a background check before you can buy it.
:anything heavier than that is outlawed, there is no reason a person needs to own an automatic assault rifle or a tripod machine gun or a .50 cal sniper rifle.
istols, shotguns, and a select group of rifles are fine with a background check before you can buy it.:anything heavier than that is outlawed, there is no reason a person needs to own an automatic assault rifle or a tripod machine gun or a .50 cal sniper rifle.
The only reason I would own a gun is because it's easier to hide than a flail and shield.
Should we force everyone to cut off their own hands and feet so they can't use them as weapons? Should forks and spoons be banned? In the hands of a skilled fighter they're just as deadly as guns. Any ordinary item could be used to kill a person.
Gasoline is far deadlier than any gun, should we ban that too?
Should we force everyone to cut off their own hands and feet so they can't use them as weapons? Should forks and spoons be banned? In the hands of a skilled fighter they're just as deadly as guns. Any ordinary item could be used to kill a person.
Gasoline is far deadlier than any gun, should we ban that too?
No, we're not terrified. Believe me, if we were terrified we'd have invaded by now, since pretty much nobody has a gun. Much love to Canada, though. <3Howard.Murdock said:
What I mean, is that its a lot of land to patrol, and a lot of places where it would be pretty easy to sneak in with a lot of nasty things for sale on the black market, one major example would be guns.
Again, the Canadian mindset, and the U.S. mindset, is a lot different. For one thing Canada hates America with the seething rage of a thousand suns.Howard.Murdock said:
I don't really see how it is that hard to understand. Not all countries are exactly the same. What might work somewhere else won't assuredly work elsewhere, and its starting to piss me off that nobody can admit that its true.
For instance! Did you know that in certain parts of the world, a thumbs up is considered a horrendous insult? Cultures are different in different places, even in the west we have our own differing cultures. Like how we speak proper English and Canadians don't even know what they're talking aboot. Again, much <3 to Canada.
No, its not. Hence why he is arrested as soon as he is caught. A strawman argument.Howard.Murdock said:
And the reason for this, isn't because of the gun itself, but because of the idiots who get a hold of them. I agree on one point, in order to get a gun, you have to take mandatory tests so you know what the hell you are doing, and know that you don't play around with a gun, or leave it loaded so your kids can find it, or simply hide it from your child. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and the sooner you teach your child to respect the gun and its capabilities, the better. I've actually been told that I'm a horrific person for wanting to actually teach kids how guns work and how not to hurt themselves in the process of shooting them. I...honestly don't see how, but meh.Howard.Murdock said:
Yes, yes, I know. US supplied arms. Came back to bite us in the ass. Yadda yadda yadda, I fail to see what it has to do with this discussion.Howard.Murdock said:
P.S. Please note, I respect Canada, I respect the Canadians living there. I'm being a bit silly, and if I come off as offensive, I apologize.
Contrary to the California Liberal stereotype that folks tend to associate with me, I believe not only that the Second Amendment should be upheld, but it should apply to all weapons to which our standing military has access.[footnote]Some might note that I was rather absolute in this declaration, not even excepting nuclear of biochemical weapons, both of which are in the United States military arsenal.To this I note that civilian weapons are not lesser, weaker versions of their military counterparts. To the contrary, they're usually better made, more rugged and more accurate, given the military version has to be mass-produced for the conscripts, concessions are often made in favor of the tooling process than the final product. Civilian weapons of choice are usually based on practicality for their purpose, and there aren't that many civil purposes for a nuclear detonation, or a human specific contageon without a cure. Of course, there haven't been any military purposes for such weapons either since WWII, and the fact that we still cling to them like a security blanket might give us pause. We'd probably be fine if we were to burn all our weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in power reactors, and burn our bio arsenals...well, just burn them to say we did.[/footnote] And frankly, I don't thing this would change the political skyline of the United States, were such an open law implemented. There just really isn't much use for an artillery piece, except maybe to pop targets on the countryside for giggles.
Gun regulation is what moderates talk about when they speak of the nanny state[footnote]Though conservatives have stretched the derogative of the nanny state to include providing welfare benefits to those who need them. This is a sort of nannying we liberals believe is necessary to preserve the rights to some to ensure their survival and a modicum of lifestyle, this clearly applies in those many cases in which injustice has caused one an incapacity to sustain himself or herself and any dependents. What is less accepted is how frequently such injustice occurs.[/footnote]. The state has to trust its citizens to a certain degree, as the same needs people have for dangerous and powerful weapons they also have for dangerous and powerful industrial tools (such as motor vehicles), and we sometimes like to engage in intrinsically dangerous activities, such as climbing tall rocks or sailing out to sea or jumping out of an airplane with nothing but silk and twine to keep gravity from having its way with us.
The intent of a weapon's design and manufacture, whether as an instrument for hunting game, for protecting against dangerous fauna or even for open warfare against enemy infantry are all incidental to our own intent in owning them, or our right to do so, or to the danger they might pose to the community. Yes, weapons can be used to murder, but as Timothy McVeigh so adroitly IED [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Bombing#Building_the_bomb]s to violent purpose than it is to manufacture guns. And in the meantime, in the US, cars kill far more people than guns, yet this is entirely contrary to their intent in use or design.
I would suspect that gun enthusiasts are the least dangerous of gun owners, as they tend to be familiar with their weapons and the safety precautions one needs to take with them, and own them for their own sake, in contrast to some darker purpose. The most dangerous are radicals and extremists who acquire a gun for the purpose of using it, and have little interest in the weapon beyond how to make it put a hole in something else. They're the ones who are going to shoot something they didn't intend, most likely themselves. And they're not going to be slowed by regulations as they usually get their ill gotten weapons cheap from cops emptying out the evidence lockers of confiscated weapons. This is also the usual supplier for street gangs and the national drug trade.
The now-expired Assault Weapons Ban defined an assault weapon as having a combination of a number of specific aesthetic components. It served (as it was designed to serve) as a tiger repellant rock to pacify those who felt guns posed a greater danger than statistics revealed them to be. In this case, the term assault was used strictly as hyperbole. One would think, in this era of information, that we wouldn't be so naive. I would think, on this site where we are hyper-aware of our culture of fear and how fringe groups get marginalized by the mainstream, that Escapists, especially, wouldn't be so naive.
238U[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
Gun regulation is what moderates talk about when they speak of the nanny state[footnote]Though conservatives have stretched the derogative of the nanny state to include providing welfare benefits to those who need them. This is a sort of nannying we liberals believe is necessary to preserve the rights to some to ensure their survival and a modicum of lifestyle, this clearly applies in those many cases in which injustice has caused one an incapacity to sustain himself or herself and any dependents. What is less accepted is how frequently such injustice occurs.[/footnote]. The state has to trust its citizens to a certain degree, as the same needs people have for dangerous and powerful weapons they also have for dangerous and powerful industrial tools (such as motor vehicles), and we sometimes like to engage in intrinsically dangerous activities, such as climbing tall rocks or sailing out to sea or jumping out of an airplane with nothing but silk and twine to keep gravity from having its way with us.
The intent of a weapon's design and manufacture, whether as an instrument for hunting game, for protecting against dangerous fauna or even for open warfare against enemy infantry are all incidental to our own intent in owning them, or our right to do so, or to the danger they might pose to the community. Yes, weapons can be used to murder, but as Timothy McVeigh so adroitly IED [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Bombing#Building_the_bomb]s to violent purpose than it is to manufacture guns. And in the meantime, in the US, cars kill far more people than guns, yet this is entirely contrary to their intent in use or design.
I would suspect that gun enthusiasts are the least dangerous of gun owners, as they tend to be familiar with their weapons and the safety precautions one needs to take with them, and own them for their own sake, in contrast to some darker purpose. The most dangerous are radicals and extremists who acquire a gun for the purpose of using it, and have little interest in the weapon beyond how to make it put a hole in something else. They're the ones who are going to shoot something they didn't intend, most likely themselves. And they're not going to be slowed by regulations as they usually get their ill gotten weapons cheap from cops emptying out the evidence lockers of confiscated weapons. This is also the usual supplier for street gangs and the national drug trade.
I'm surprised this argument would still be used. Most bans on assault weapons are done without any awareness of what makes something assault or otherwise. The term is generally used regarding battle rifles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle]. Assault Rifles use a shorter cartridge designed so that a soldier can carry more ammo at once. Battle rifles (which are not banned by ordinance meant to regulate assault rifles) use full rifle rounds, which is to say each shot does more damage, and is designed to kill from sheer kenetic shock (as opposed to shock from bleed-out caused by lesser cartridges). In the military, we usually assign battle rifles to designated sharpshooters, and assault rifles to ordinary riflemen.MorsePacific said:
The now-expired Assault Weapons Ban defined an assault weapon as having a combination of a number of specific aesthetic components. It served (as it was designed to serve) as a tiger repellant rock to pacify those who felt guns posed a greater danger than statistics revealed them to be. In this case, the term assault was used strictly as hyperbole. One would think, in this era of information, that we wouldn't be so naive. I would think, on this site where we are hyper-aware of our culture of fear and how fringe groups get marginalized by the mainstream, that Escapists, especially, wouldn't be so naive.
238U[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
Not all people will respond in the same way to being shot. There are people who collapse right away and those who angrily empty their magazines despite both being shot with 9mm. My personal favorite family of bullets and handguns are 1911's in the 45 ACP or derivative calibers, due to the fact that they are known for just dropping people. Also I'm not saying that no one has moved around for 10 seconds after being shot in the heart, but I really doubt that it that its more than a handful of cases.thaluikhain said:
Whether the benefits are exaggerated or not entirely depends on what benefits are promised. 9x19 mm +P certainly isn't as powerful as say 10mm auto, but it is more powerful than standard ammo. It's still not powerful enough to really guarantee a quick kill if shot placement isn't exactly on, but at the same time recoil isn't really different either.thaluikhain said:
I do know that when different police units and such review their caliber choice, there has been a trend towards more powerful rounds such as 40 S&W. 9x19mm +P has the advantage that many guns don't even need a conversion kit, the unit simply buys different ammunition.
Not everyone believes in hydrostatic shock, and even in weapons that are in theory supposed to deliver it its effects are not always significant to notice. Often times, while shock damage does occur, its not as important as the 5 other bullets that person was shot with were. Now this is strictly my opinion: but its better to have a more "forgiving" gun. While shot placement is critical, in a real life situation, a shot may hit somewhere other than the heart, lungs or brain, and in those cases having even a small possibility of still stopping the attack is useful.thaluikhain said:
Another obvious advantage of higher caliber rounds, is that they punch larger holes, for instance 45 ACP punches a 27% larger hole than 9mm.
Sorry that I kept nailing you with walls of text.
There... there are people in Australia?Trippy Turtle said:
Kidding. But you have to look at other factors. America has hundreds of different ethnic groups and a higher poverty rate. Tons of things could potentially lead to larger instance of gun crime. Correlation =/= causation. But, no, of course I wouldn', haha.
Anyway, look at D.C. Guns are pretty frickin hard to get there, legally, at least, and it's still one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
this.the second amendment isn't telling the government you can't regulate guns,it just says you can't take them away completely,something that is lost on a lot of people.T5seconds said:
i believe,personally,that you should be allowed to own a gun,and that the current laws in place need to be reevaluated at some point...and for the love of god,keep the NRA out of it,those guys just seem batshit on a sandwich...
Right. First off, I'm not American, so my opinion on this is really moot.
With that out of the way, I think you should have the right to bare arms, there should be limits. I mean, no private citizen should ever need an assault rifle.
With that out of the way, I think you should have the right to bare arms, there should be limits. I mean, no private citizen should ever need an assault rifle.
First off I don't think that's a fair comparison, comparing the number of "violent crimes" would probably make sense, but not the number of shooting. Even if there were 0 shooting in all of Australia the number of people murdered/injured is what we're really examining.Trippy Turtle said:
Secondly, I don't understand why you posted this hypothetical question. It doesn't really make sense because you can't know if this person really means to do you any harm or not it's impossible to say. Also for you being robbed might not be a big deal but for others, especially those living paycheck to paycheck. For them it could mean losing their house or going without food. Really what your asking is if we would shoot someone for inconveniencing us. I doubt anyone is going to answer yes to that question, but i guarantee you many people would pull the trigger if they were being robbed.
OP: I feel like many people don't understand violent crime, not really. If someone has a mind to commit a violent crime, whether it's for financial gain, revenge, or even just to get your rocks off, it's gonna happen. Many, many people are killed with knives, bats, bricks, and other improvised means. Taking away guns won't change that. My aunt carries a gun and she once shot a man. She was not charged with a crime because the man in question was attempting to rape her. The fact of the matter is that for people like my aunt a gun is their only chance. She weighs about 100 pounds and the rapist weighed about 170. Without a gun she would have had no chance.
I had thought that was a political compromise. On the one hand, you have anti-gun people wanting laws against them, on the other you have pro-gun people not wanting restrictions, so you come up with a law that doesn't do anything to somewhat please both groups.Uriel-238 said:
Well that's the problem then, isn't it. Preventing crime should be a higher priority than just catching people out.Dags90 said:
There are two tactics. One is to make a law that doesn't do very much, such as the Assault Weapons Ban. The other is to pass a law that is very restrictive (one came through California in 2006), which then immediately gets challenged by the NRA and defeated in court. Both of these allow Democrats to pass anti-gun laws and say they're doing something to reduce violence, without really changing the political landscape around guns.thaluikhain said:
There's an interesting point in that the pure AK-47 can no longer be sold by dealers. I think the law is still in effect.[footnote]The AK-47 is a cheap gun, thanks to its ubiquity, and a decent gun for beginners when it comes to learning the ins and outs of gun ownership (cleaning, maintenance, safe storage and so on); It's not greatly accurate, but the action is designed to function no matter how gunked up it is. Contrast to the M16 / AR-15 which is much more accurate, but needs to be squeaky clean to operate properly.[/footnote] However, you can go to a gun show and buy all the components to build one, without any license, waiting period or gun registration. Also, I think the law does not prohibit the numerous AK-47 clones (or component clones) many of which are considerable improvements on the original (or the 1959 modernization, called the AKM).
It's also noteworthy that even though the Brady Law requires guns to be registered by dealers and storehouses (it doesn't cover private transactions), it provides no official facilities for the paperwork, leaving it up to the dealership to store the records. If ever there were a mass gun confiscation, a lot of records would probably mysteriously go up in flames.
But the fact that there is (or was) an AK ban, and that the Brady Law waiting period still prevails can be pointed to by the gun-regulation folk as progress made. At the same time, that we still can pretty much get whatever gun we want[footnote]though not the HK PSG-1, a police sniper that is rare in being semi-auto rather than bolt-action. We don't use it much here in the US, though NATO likes it as do the various SWAT type groups in Europe. Hollywood loves it because it's a sniper that doesn't look like every other American deer rifle painted black. There are a few guns like the PSG that are restricted at the dealer side, which is to say the manufacturer won't sell it to civilians[/footnote] can be pointed at by the NRA and gun enthusiasts that we still hold our Second Amendment rights.
As for full scale military armaments, nothing really stops one from buying, say, a Maverick anti-tank missile, or a vulcan cannon, except for the price. But again, why would you want one?
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
As a proud practitioner of the second amendment I can safely say that once you get one gun, you will want to get more.
I have a grocery list of guns I want: two Colt Pythons, at least one AR, a Glock 45, a Ruger .38 Special, A Remington 12 gauge, a Remington .22 Rifle, a .22 Revolver just for fun shooting.
And I would own none of those with any intention of using them to harm a human being or any other living thing.
I only shoot targets on ranges.
I also don't see it as a means to quantify power or superiority over another. I see it as a piece of sporting equipment that I use to have fun with my friends when we go out for an afternoon at the range.
I have a grocery list of guns I want: two Colt Pythons, at least one AR, a Glock 45, a Ruger .38 Special, A Remington 12 gauge, a Remington .22 Rifle, a .22 Revolver just for fun shooting.
And I would own none of those with any intention of using them to harm a human being or any other living thing.
I only shoot targets on ranges.
I also don't see it as a means to quantify power or superiority over another. I see it as a piece of sporting equipment that I use to have fun with my friends when we go out for an afternoon at the range.
