Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

[Westerschwelle]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Actually civilians with firearms would still be non-combatants and if they engage combatants they can be shot or hanged or whatever else the invading force thinks is apropriate for dealing with partisans.

 

[jedizero]

Actually civilians with firearms would still be non-combatants and if they engage combatants they can be shot or hanged or whatever else the invading force thinks is apropriate for dealing with partisans.

What does any dictator do first upon gaining power?

Ban any and all guns.

Why?

He doesn't want the oppressed people rising up in a revolt against him.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually civilians with firearms would still be non-combatants and if they engage combatants they can be shot or hanged or whatever else the invading force thinks is apropriate for dealing with partisans.

Not if they carry arms openly, wear identifying insignia or uniforms and otherwise abide by the rules of war same as military forces do.

 

[Jonluw]

Personally, I think it's a stupid law.
It no longer serves the purpose it originally did, and it has led to guns (illegal ones too) being stupidly abundant and easily to get a hold of in America.

And if you think it's necessary because of a scenario where another country invades The US... Um, good for you...

 

[Westerschwelle]

Not if they carry arms openly, wear identifying insignia or uniforms and otherwise abide by the rules of war same as military forces do.

But how many people know that?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not if they carry arms openly, wear identifying insignia or uniforms and otherwise abide by the rules of war same as military forces do.

But how many people know that?

Admittedly few people now, but that's because it's not currently relevant to them...if people were seriously expecting their nation to be invaded, they'd learn all sorts of things about fighting as partisans.

 

[SpAc3man]

The Second Amendment is stupid. No one should have the right to bear arms at all. Owning a gun should be a privilege that is earned and maintained. Never a given right.

 

[Westerschwelle]

What does any dictator do first upon gaining power?

Ban any and all guns.

Why?

He doesn't want the oppressed people rising up in a revolt against him.

What has that to do with anything I just wrote?

 

[Pinkamena]

I am against the idea that anyone can get a weapon that can kill so easily. I think it does more harm than good.

 

[Harlief]

No-one says it better than Eddie Izzard:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KsN0FCXw914
[Edit] How the hell do you embed a video in this forum?

 

[Thaluikhain]

One thing I'm a bit confused about. Two of the main arguments in favour of allowing privately armed weapons is that it allows people to protect themselves from their government, and that restrictions do not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

If criminals are able to obtain weapons despite restrictions by a just government, are not innocent civilians likewise able to obtain weapons despite restrictions by an unjust government?

 

[Esotera]

You seem to forget that Britain doesn't need to deal with what the US deals with. America is not Europe, and it never will be.

I was assuming that the countries were not that different from each other, and using the UK as an example of what America might look like without as many guns. What does the US need to deal with that Britain doesn't? And why does that make it necessary for the majority of its citizens to be armed?

For one: Cartels run amok in Mexico, giving weapons and drugs to gangs in America. Cartels are no longer gangs, but now fully mobile organizations that makes mafias look like a street gang of 7 year old street rats. Gangs in America, specifically California, have weaponry that would put Al Queda to shame. The Cartels however have weaponry that rivals the US Special forces. Their arsenal includes RPGs and C4 charges, and some cartels are composed of Ex military soldiers or special ops. These are not simple street gangs by any stretch of the imagination.

Two: The Second Amendment was written in order to protect the people, the country, and rights. America was created by armed rebellion from Tyranny, which disarms its people so they wont fight back. Guns were needed so tyranny could be fought on American soil if necessary. Its also to protect the people from outside invasion. Fun Fact: Russia didn't invade America during the cold war because every household held a gun during the cold war. The Russian military couldn't afford killing a whole country.

The second amendment had reason behind it. Don't assume every place is like Europe culturally, politically, or geograqphically.

Surely not all gangs in America get their weapons from Mexico? My understanding is that weapons can be purchased very easily, so the only reason to import would be to bypass restrictions/get more advanced gear? If gangs are forming with American weapons, then this cannot be a supporting argument for the second amendment.

As for your second point, I appreciate the history & heritage of America...but it's history. America doesn't really have a significant threat of invasion in the foreseeable future. And as deterrents go, several thousand nukes would scare anyone sane away - does America really need an armed populace with military superiority like it has? I doubt Russia's primary concern during the cold war was civilians with guns, although it would definitely be a factor.

I wasn't assuming that everywhere is like Europe; just that America is quite similar in a lot of respects. That said, I admit I wasn't fully aware of the problem of gangs.

 

[Feriluce]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Thats a silly notion. Owning a pistol does not somehow magically make you as well armed and trained as a soldier.

 

[Dags90]

And in regards to your later paragraph. Would it be as scary if it were way harder to get guns? Just think about the ease of which you can obtain a firearm in the US compared to over here in Aus. That has a flow on effect to criminals obtaining guns.

Think of it this way, committing a crime with a firearm I assume leads to harsher penalties correct? If this is the case why do criminals use these weapons? Simple answer, because their "targets", if you will, might be carrying them too.

The places I was referring to wasn't actually Detroit (that was a joke), I was referring to the large amount of "bear country" in the U.S. And those places would be scarier without a gun for many. I also think it's a mistake to conflate the ease of getting a firearm and the ease of getting a firearm through legal channels. Making it harder to get a firearm legally might make it a bit harder to get one illegally, but the effect will be reduced. Heck, our own regulating agency allowed illegal straw purchasing to go on for weeks to catch some extra baddies, never recovering the dozens of semi-automatic rifles.

And guns are usually treated as any other "deadly weapon" as far as I know, though I can't say I know the laws of each jurisdiction. You might get extra penalties for using an illegal gun.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Actually civilians with firearms would still be non-combatants and if they engage combatants they can be shot or hanged or whatever else the invading force thinks is apropriate for dealing with partisans.

While me and a few million other people believe in something bigger than themselves. Like my country. Even if I were a non-combatant I would fight against an invading force regardless of the fate they had in store for me if I were captured.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Thats a silly notion. Owning a pistol does not somehow magically make you as well armed and trained as a soldier.

Actually, pistols are the least commonly owned firearm in the US. Its rifles, then shotguns, then pistols. And even if you aren't trained in military tactics, if you outnumber the enemy 3 or 4 times, that doesn't matter too much.

 

[jackdaniel0001]

Ideally the 2nd Amendment symbolizes freedom, as only a government not afraid of its own people will allow them to keep arms. Practically however it creates problems, as you will have a bunch of people running around with deadly weapons.

Balance should be that you should let gun-laws be developed by states and locals, with a federal mandate regarding the movement of weapons between states and between countries. There are vast stretches of the country where law enforcement can't respond promptly or wild lives actually pose threats, and there owning guns will be a good ideas. In urban areas however, it makes sense to have very tight gun regulations. The country is big enough that you can't have an one size fit all approach.

 

[thechaostheory]

There is a very long list of innocent people, children included, who have been killed by people who legally owned guns...

 

[Jegsimmons]

.....how many people here are from the USA?

cause that would put better perspective on this poll.

and yes, im a gun owner, and im all for it. i could put up stats about how they do WAY more good than harm, but it would have been like the 8th time on this website and its getting old.

and actually, you can own artillery, automatics, ect if you build it, its called improvised weaponry. but since most people are good at building shit so complicated and its made from any household material, they dont bother outlaw it.....THAT DOESNT MEAN TO TRY IT!!

 

[Jegsimmons]

There is a very long list of innocent people, children included, who have been killed by people who legally owned guns...

and a longer list by people ILLEGALLY owned guns and those who have been saved by guns.