Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

[Shoqiyqa]

I think owning actual assault rifles should be banned. most of the criteria that lists assault weapons can also apply to WWI-era rifles. I think we should be using the current army definitions of these fabled "assault weapons". And, if it comes to banning guns that are supposedly more deadly due to barrel shrouds and pistol grips, I would like the general public to be informed on what they actually do.
this vid pretty much explains what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U

I read California's definition of what was a Scary Evil Weapon and what was an acceptable one and boggled at it. I think it was California's, anyway. There was, from memory, something in there about the pistol grip extending below the level of the bottom of the stock. Seriously, who gives a flying **** about that?!? It's not like you can even tell if you're in front of it.

As for the Second Amendment, do I believe in it? Man, I've read it!

Actually, I think we should have a proficiency test for weapons like we have for motor vehicles, possibly like the pilot's licence. (The difference is that you have to keep flying to keep a pilot's licence.) That way I could demonstrate that I'm capable of carrying, using, putting away and carrying a semi-automatic pistol up to 9mm, .40 or .45 ACP, a bolt-action rifle with or without magazine up to 7.62x51mm or any of the SA80 family up to 5.56mm safely and with both a reasonable degree of accuracy and a reasonably assessment of my own accuracy, and then be cleared to own and/or carry the things (dependent on a lot of other factors) ... without having to be able to hit a barn from the outside with a .357 Mag revolver or even work an AR-15.

For the curious, Hertfordshire Police [http://www.herts.police.uk/advice/firearms_licensing/faqs.aspx] will helpfully explain our rules on firearms and Merseyside Police [http://www.merseyside.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1078] will tell you about air rifles, with help from Northamptonshire Police [http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=561] (You get the feeling it's not really clear?):

Spoiler: Huge amount of text, not even half of it!

What is a Firearm?



"Firearm", within the definition of the Firearms Acts, means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description, from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. It includes any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not, and any component part of such a weapon, and any accessory to such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing of the weapon.



Firearm, within the terms of what you are allowed to hold on a firearm certificate, would obviously not include any prohibited weapons. Neither would it include "shotguns", as they are held on a shotgun certificate. Except, that is, for Section 1 shotguns, which can only be held on a firearm certificate.



What is a Section 1 shotgun?



A Section 1 shotgun differs from a conventional shotgun, by virtue of the fact that it has a magazine capable of holding more than two cartridges. These are known as "pump-action" or "semi-automatic" shotguns, where cartridges from the magazine are loaded by hand "pumping" the action, or by the discharge of the previous round. These weapons are required to be held on a firearm certificate.



What is a prohibited weapon?



This is too large a subject to describe here. It has its own section, Prohibited Weapons [http://www.herts.police.uk/advice/firearms_licensing/faqs/prohibited_weapons.aspx], where greater detail is available.



So, what can be held on a firearm certificate?



Well, if you take away Section 2 shotguns, which are held on a shotgun certificate, and also eliminate prohibited weapons, you can have any other weapon you want. Provided you can supply a "good reason".



Most applicants require small or full bore rifles for target shooting, as a member of a Home Office approved club. Others request muzzle-loading hand guns for the same reason. Others still, use rifles for vermin control or deer stalking. Provided good reason is satisfied, all these weapons can be legally held on a firearm certificate.

...

What is a Prohibited Person?



A person who has been sentenced to preventive detention or to imprisonment or to corrective training for a term of three years or more; or who has been sentenced to be detained in a young offenders' institution in Scotland, shall not, at any time, have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.



This means for life and includes all firearms, even air weapons.



A person who has been sentenced to borstal training, to corrective training for less than three years, or to imprisonment for a term of three months or more, but less than three years; or who has been sentenced to be detained for such a term in a detention centre or in a young offenders' institution in Scotland, shall not at any time before the expiration of a period of five years, from the date of his release, have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

...

In England and Wales rifles must be at least .240 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,700 ft/lbs.

In Scotland, for Roe deer rifles must be at least .222 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,000 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.


For other species of deer the rifle must be at least .243 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,750 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.

...

The Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) prohibits the possession of expanding ammunition.



However, Section 5A(4) allows a condition to be added to a firearm certificate for possession of expanding ammunition for:



1. the lawful shooting of deer
2. the shooting of vermin or, in the case of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife
3. the humane killing of animals
4. the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans

...

Section 57(1) Firearms Act 1968 defines a "firearm". (See "What is a firearm?")



It should be noted that this definition includes "any accessory to any such weapon, designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon".



This "accessory" is known as a moderator or, more commonly, a silencer. So it will be seen that to possess a moderator you will need to have the authority on your firearm certificate, the same as you would for any firearm.



As with any other requirement for a firearm you will need to satisfy good reason.



The most common reason for requiring a moderator is, in the destruction of vermin, to prevent additional quarry from being frightened off when the first round is fired.



Every application for a moderator, as with any firearm, will be treated on its own merit, but if you feel you need one, then it should be included on your application form, in addition to any weapons requested.



You cannot legally possess a moderator unless you have the authority on your firearm certificate.

Common sense dictates that there are many types of firearms, especially those designed for military use, that have no place in the sporting field or hobby of shooting. There are others, for instance some hand guns, which have been brought into the prohibited category by Acts of Parliament. All of the following weapons and ammunition are prohibited:



Section 5 (1)



(a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.



(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges.



(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.



(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall.



(ad) any smooth bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun.



(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus.



(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.



(c) any cartridge with a bullet so designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb or other like missile, or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid.



Section 5 (1A)


(a) any firearm which is disguised as another object (e.g. walking stick).



(b) any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use.



(c) any launcher or other projecting apparatus not falling within paragraph (ae) of that subsection which is designed to be used with any rocket or ammunition falling within paragraph (b) above or with ammunition which would fall within that paragraph but for its being ammunition falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection.



(d) any ammunition for military use which consists in or incorporates a missile designed so that a substance contained in the missile will ignite on or immediately before impact.



(e) any ammunition for military use which consists in or incorporates a missile designed, on account of its having a jacket and hard core, to penetrate armour plating, armour screening or body armour.



(f) any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact.



(g) anything which is designed to be projected as a missile from any weapon and is designed to be, or has been, incorporated in -


(1) any ammunition falling within any of the preceding paragraphs; or


(2) any ammunition which would fall within any of those paragraphs but for its being specified in subsection (1) of this section.


In England and Wales, the Home Secretary is responsible for granting authorities to manufacture, sell, transfer, purchase, acquire or possess prohibited weapons and ammunition.



Applicants should write to:



The Home Office, (OPPU)
50 Queen Anne's Gate
London
SW1H 9AT

Air weapons
In the strict legal sense an air gun is a firearm, provided its muzzle energy does not exceed 6ft/lbs in the case of an air pistol or 12 ft/lbs for an air rifle, the only restrictions placed on ownership are those of age and of criminal convictions.

Please refer to age limits for further information.

If by virtue of a criminal conviction you are barred from holding a shotgun or firearm you are not allowed to possess an air gun either.

It is an offence to have an air gun in a public place, whether it is loaded or not, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Prohibited air guns

Air guns using a self-contained gas cartridge system are prohibited. Those that were possessed on 20th January 2004, when the new legislation came into effect, may be held as Section 1 guns on a firearm certificate.

Sale of air guns

In 2007 it became a requirement that if you sell air guns by way of trade or business you must be registered as a firearms dealer.

Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Ban on Air Weapons Using self-contained gas cartridge systems.

From January 20, 2004 the above Act made it an offence to manufacture, sell, purchase, transfer or acquire any air weapon, which is designed or adapted to use a self-contained gas cartridge system.

A self-contained gas cartridge system is a cartridge that contains both a charge of compressed air or other gas as well as the pellet. The ban does not apply to air weapons that use CO-2 bulb systems as they do not contain a projectile and therefore are not self-contained.

The ban does not just apply to hand guns, it also includes ANY firearm that has been manufactured or adapted to fire this type of cartridge.

If you have any queries regarding whether the ban affects your particular air weapon please contact the Firearms Licensing Department on 03000 111 222 ext. 2289/8180/2293/2288 during normal office hours.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

Yeah, I think that the federal government should be able to take on the debt of the states which didn't exist at...oh, you mean the US second amendment.

No. A good idea at the time (though personally I'd interpret the original meaning differently than most anyway), but no longer useful.

Also, the US government has been playing fast and loose with it anyway, though that's an unrelated issue.

No citizen should own assault weapons. Period.

"Assault weapons" haven't been defined. Assault rifle/carbines, yes, but not "assault weapons".

I think assault weapons are automatic rifles of 5.56 caliber or above.

I'm all in favor of owning guns, it's always been my right to.

The thing that really bothers me is when people on this website say we should outlaw guns, when in reality, the vast majority of people who use them with bad intentions are criminals, and they don't even get their guns from licensed dealers. Basically, it would be disarming innocent people, and effectively giving them little chance to defend themselves should they need to. Besides, I don't want my government to have even more control over my life.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I have a penchant for weaponry of all kind and like to collect them as a hobby. Unfortunately, being that I live in Canada, it is rather disappointing to have assault rifles banned. Frankly our gun laws here are ridiculously and unnecessarily strict. The US does a fine job and I would support that amendment wholeheartedly. For those who dislike firearms, do so by respectively accepting their are those whose opinion differs from your own and you have no right to demand our rights be taken.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Do i believe in it? Could you have phrased this any worse?

Yes, i believe in it. I know for a fact that the 2nd Amendment exists.

As for my stance on gun policies, i support the actual text of the amendment. It gives citizens the right to form militias and arm themselves when the U.S is under attack, but it doesn't apply to individuals. Guns are overrated, and they cause way more harm and way more crimes than they prevent.

 

[Jodah]

I feel any weapon should be legal ASSUMING the person who wants it passes rigorous background checks and such. Required gun registration and background checks are good as long as they are not used to restrict the rights of legal owners. Also proficiency tests/classes should be required at least once. New York does this well with our pistol permits. You must pass a course, which involves firing a handgun, in order to even own one. Most states only require such to carry concealed.

In otherwords make it reasonable easy for a law abiding citizen to own and carry any weapon they want but the moment they do something stupid or dangerous...or dangerously stupid I suppose...they should be hung from their ears. Then again I am a strict Libertarian and feel this way about nearly anything. Make it legal but severely punish anyone who abuses it and harms another.

 

[Apollo45]

Kersnip

Er...firstly, an invasion of the US is going to lead to a nuclear response, whether the attackers use nuclear weapons or not. T

Anyway, I'm not sure of the benefit of private gun ownership in the case of an invasion, as opposed to a state mobilisation and arming of the populace. We've seen that sort of thing, in WW2, formation of Home Guard and Home Guard reserves and so on, but under state control, and with state owned weapons, which has obvious benefits with regards to standardisation and so on.

It's unlikely an infantry invasion of the United States would lead to nuclear retaliation. M.A.D. meant that if one country used nukes the other countries would too, leading to mass destruction and essentially the extinction of the human race (and most life on Earth). Even in the most dire circumstances, it's doubtful that any modern country with a halfway sane leadership would use nuclear weapons as a weapon against invaders using only infantry (by which I'm including armor, aircraft, and so on), simply because even if they are conquered it would be better for the human race to continue than for it to be destroyed. We might say we'd retaliate with a full nuclear strike, but it's highly unlikely that would actually occur. The reason the Cold War worked was because both countries didn't want to risk the chance of a nuclear retaliation, but times have changed even since then.

As for state mobilization and arming of the populace, with a country the size of the United States, and a population distribution like it has, it would be impossible to arm even a quarter of the amount of civilians that are currently armed in any sort of decent time frame, much less instruct them on how to use this weapon that they've never used before. It would be a disaster, likely leading to more casualties of friendly fire and next to no casualties on the enemy side. All in all, better to have them armed first off.

Something else I have noticed wasn't brought up is the fact that hunters do more for environment conservation than, literally, any other group out there. 75%+ of the budget of the Divisions of Wildlife across the country are provided by hunters paying for their license, safety classes, and so on. Many of those hunters also actively volunteer at their DOWs, teaching said classes, leading environmental clean-up efforts, and so on. Compound on that that, without hunters, many animal populations (deer, elk, birds, etc) would be out of control. And what to most hunters use? Guns.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The 2nd amendment? That'd be the 1910 amendment to section 105 of the Constitution allowing the Commonwealth Government to assume the debts of/on behalf of State Governments. Yeah, I believe in that.

Oh.. you mean the US gun thingy... Meh. Whatever. I don't see why people should be allowed to own firearms when I'm not allowed to own biological weapons or even a small cannister of VX nerve gas.

 

[Happy_Mutant]

I would be interested to see your sources for the claim that "most" gangs get their weapons from cartels, Ultrawinkle. Also, I know I'm reaching back to the beginning of this forum, but are we really concerned that we might be invaded? I mean, warfare has kinda moved past that point. Even if we had a largely unarmed populace, who would try?

 

[aei_haruko]

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?

I misclicked, I meant to say every type of weapon.
Like I know that the 2nd amendment says ' The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
As for the line about militia , thats like saying " A plethora of ideologies being nessecary to have a well informed people, the freedom of speech shall not be infringed" We still wouldn't question that freedom of speech is a neccessity.
As for all weapons, i consider explosives to be a weapon in capable hands, and I like explosives. I want to be a chemist whe I grow up, and an understanding of chemicals is imperative to me.

 

[Arsen]

1. People need them for self defense.
2. People need them for self defense against those who can physically overpower them.
3. Guns are the equalizer. All you have to do is be a law abiding citizen, use it responsibly, follow the rules, and you can defend yourself.
4. You have to have a federal license in order to obtain the firearms everybody flips a shit about in other countries.
5. People need to quit pretending crimes involving weapons happen out of necessity, poverty, and sociological issues. People commit crimes whether or not a gun is present. See argument two as to why this is needed.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I dunno. I'm all for people being able to defend themselves, but there will always be assholes who ruin things for everyone else...

 

[Thaluikhain]

The 2nd amendment? That'd be the 1910 amendment to section 105 of the Constitution allowing the Commonwealth Government to assume the debts of/on behalf of State Governments. Yeah, I believe in that.

Oh.. you mean the US gun thingy... Meh.

Heh, I beat you to it on this one.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Yes, I do, now let me leave before I'm roped into any gun arguments.

 

[The Funslinger]

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?

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...

 

[The Funslinger]

Kersnip

Er...firstly, an invasion of the US is going to lead to a nuclear response, whether the attackers use nuclear weapons or not. T

Anyway, I'm not sure of the benefit of private gun ownership in the case of an invasion, as opposed to a state mobilisation and arming of the populace. We've seen that sort of thing, in WW2, formation of Home Guard and Home Guard reserves and so on, but under state control, and with state owned weapons, which has obvious benefits with regards to standardisation and so on.

It's unlikely an infantry invasion of the United States would lead to nuclear retaliation. M.A.D. meant that if one country used nukes the other countries would too, leading to mass destruction and essentially the extinction of the human race (and most life on Earth). Even in the most dire circumstances, it's doubtful that any modern country with a halfway sane leadership would use nuclear weapons as a weapon against invaders using only infantry (by which I'm including armor, aircraft, and so on), simply because even if they are conquered it would be better for the human race to continue than for it to be destroyed. We might say we'd retaliate with a full nuclear strike, but it's highly unlikely that would actually occur. The reason the Cold War worked was because both countries didn't want to risk the chance of a nuclear retaliation, but times have changed even since then.

As for state mobilization and arming of the populace, with a country the size of the United States, and a population distribution like it has, it would be impossible to arm even a quarter of the amount of civilians that are currently armed in any sort of decent time frame, much less instruct them on how to use this weapon that they've never used before. It would be a disaster, likely leading to more casualties of friendly fire and next to no casualties on the enemy side. All in all, better to have them armed first off.

Something else I have noticed wasn't brought up is the fact that hunters do more for environment conservation than, literally, any other group out there. 75%+ of the budget of the Divisions of Wildlife across the country are provided by hunters paying for their license, safety classes, and so on. Many of those hunters also actively volunteer at their DOWs, teaching said classes, leading environmental clean-up efforts, and so on. Compound on that that, without hunters, many animal populations (deer, elk, birds, etc) would be out of control. And what to most hunters use? Guns.

This guy actually bothered to rationalize things! 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.

I dunno. I'm all for people being able to defend themselves, but there will always be assholes who ruin things for everyone else...

That's no reason to take stuff away from the general populace, though. See, this is why we can't have nice things!

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.

 

[SamBargeron]

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...

 

[staika]

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.