The right to bear arms

[New_U.S.]

I believe you should be able to. No civilian needs an automatic assault rifle, and there are laws to prevent military grade weapons from being sold/owned. The system is fine as is.

 

[Avaleirra]

I'm Canadian, we dont get guns.

No problems

right to bear arms = bad IMO

 

[Faust]

People with guns kill people.
Nobody should be allowed to carry a gun. Have it home, or on your belt on the streets.
What is this bullshit with defending against an armed person?
They aim the pistol on you, you think you'll have time to use yours? ROTFL

It should be illegal, everywhere.
Stop crying you anarchist children.
Get a good police, duh.

 

[Azlier]

They aim the pistol at you, and you think you'll have time to whip out your cell phone, call the police, and wait for them to come? ROTFL

I see no problem with having a pistol in the house. A machine gun mounted to your porch is rather unacceptable.

A guy with a gun is more scary than a police officer (who is highly trained and most likely won't fire). Do you want to rob that guy's house?

 

[Genkora]

People fail to see the difficulty of obtaining a gun when it is illegal to own them. If guns are illegal, most criminals are reduced to cutlery, which is a much much more personal form of murder, and most people cannot do.

Unfortunately, if guns were made illegal one day, just like that, then the guns everyone has would not just disappear. We kind of screwed ourselves over in the beginning on that one. So, right to bear arms, good or bad? Bad. Is it ever going to change? Considering the circumstances, no.

On a side note, I would not feel safer with a gun in my house. Guns are tools for killing, and kids could very well get their hands on it unless I kept it in a safe, but I suppose the time it takes to open the safe might very well defeat the purpose of defending myself in a home invasion.

 

[ElderKingpin]

actually in switzerland the crime rate is super low why? because every man has been in the military and trained. and they are allowed to keep their rifles. I wouldnt rob a house knowing the guy is at liberty to shoot me, it think it is less of the gun, but more of the idea of fear

 

[Genkora]

Switzerland also has one of the highest standards of living in the world, it has one of the highest per capita incomes. The motive of theft or home invasion is virtually nonexistent. You're going to have to do better than that.

 

[ElderKingpin]

there will always be theft. no matter how prosporous something is.

 

[T.s.e]

there will always be theft. no matter how prosporous something is.

Lies. Nobody steals without reason, even kleptomaniacs have to start somewhere.

 

[ElderKingpin]

people get greedy, its a fact of life

The needs of humans are unlimited.

 

[WolSHaman]

During government class we got off track and started to talk about gun rights, since i go to a private school, all of us agreed on one thing.

Guns dont kill people. People kill people

Ok.. down to the point

The right to bear arms was in the original bill of rights. I havnt done too much research, but all i know is. It is not bad to not bear arms. (I think its Biden thats against right to bear arms?) I dont know whats bad about it, you use it for self-defense

As stated by wikipedia.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense.

In other words, if you use it for self-defense, you might get sent to jail, its a controversial aspect of it, whether or not it is for self-defense. Its stated that you can retaliate only if you are attacked first. Even in self-defense you cant kill them, which would probably be the case if you used a gun.

In Virginia, its legal to carry in public, as long as its clearly visible and you are 18, which is good since without a gun you cant fight a guy with a gun. (of course, you can use a samurai sword). Which is the context of "right to bear arms" its the right to bear any kind of weapon

Responding to several quotes at once here. Not sure about the complete abolishment of gun ownership, but there has to be a large degree of control. "Self-defense" doesn't involve you carrying a fully-automatic assault weapon to kill said attacker and several nearby civillians. The reason murdering in self-defense is illegal is because more often then not, it's unnecessary. If you get into a fight and they throw the first punch, they probably don't want to kill you, so you don't have to get all shooty on them.

As to those who say guns don't kill people, people kill people: it that's the case, then people wouldn't die from gun mishandling. Guns ARE lethal, and mishandling them can lead to deaths. When you give everyone a gun instead of just a few people, the chances of a death will go up.

One last point: nobodies going to invade America. The USA is the third most populous nation on the planet. It would take a MASSIVE standing army to control the USA, regardless of whether guns were legal or not. Besides, even when they're illegal, the criminals still seem to have them in everybody's hypothetical examples, so obviously they could just do the fighting, and circulate more weapons. The only countries that could even stand a chance of occupying a country the size of the USA would be China or India, and the odds of it becoming an occupation are slim. Nuclear war seems more likely, if things got really out of hand, that WOULD make them withdraw, and we'd both be in smithereens. Mutual-assured destruction and all that.

One last thing: I've noticed two contradictory argument from the pro-gun advocates. They say only criminals will carry weapons, yet at the same time they say no one would be able to protect the USA should some evil country invade us. I doubt the criminals would just have weapons during peace time, so it seems contradictory to argue both these.

 

[Avaleirra]

The needs of humans are unlimited.

Do I know you? That's what my business education teacher said a few days ago.

 

[Azlier]

>the same time they say no one would be able to protect the USA should some evil country invade us.

What about the need to rebel in case the government becomes a little too tyrannical? That's also one of the reasons in the U.S. Constitution.

>The needs of humans are unlimited.

Nonsense. Human wants, however...

 

[T.s.e]

What about the need to rebel in case the government becomes a little too tyrannical? That's also one of the reasons in the U.S. Constitution.

That's just ridiculous. Those guns you keep for "rebeling" will just cause more accidents and deaths. Keep in mind that the constitution was written long ago. Things were different then.

 

[WolSHaman]

>the same time they say no one would be able to protect the USA should some evil country invade us.

What about the need to rebel in case the government becomes a little too tyrannical? That's also one of the reasons in the U.S. Constitution.

Then the military would more then likely mutiny. Generally people don't like having their freedom stepped on and it would trigger a civil war.

 

[Genkora]

there will always be theft. no matter how prosporous something is.

Of course. But the rate at which it happens is most certainly related to a standard of living. Someone who makes 60k isn't going to attempt armed robbery.

 

[ElderKingpin]

like you said. it still happens. and im not going to sit around and let some guy steal my stuff

>the same time they say no one would be able to protect the USA should some evil country invade us.

What about the need to rebel in case the government becomes a little too tyrannical? That's also one of the reasons in the U.S. Constitution.

>The needs of humans are unlimited.

Nonsense. Human wants, however...

Its a bit of that. And a bit of needs. Its kind of like, people are poor, because needs of humans are unlimited. We cant make everyone happy

Do I know you? That's what my business education teacher said a few days ago.

No, thats what my government teacher said he used that to contradict government control.

He said (summary)

"When people say they want government control, they want the government to care for them. That is not bad, in it of itself, but people cannot hope for government to solve ALL of their problems. The needs of humans are unlimited."

Anyway.

I am for gun rights, like a lot of other people say, but not "my bazooka!"
Guns require responsibility, and care, without those, accidents or others happen.

 

[Varine]

Of course. But the rate at which it happens is most certainly related to a standard of living. Someone who makes 60k isn't going to attempt armed robbery.

Unless you want 65k. Or 60k and a free wallet. OR if you make 60k through illegal methods!

I am for gun rights, like a lot of other people say, but not "my bazooka!"
Guns require responsibility, and care, without those, accidents or others happen.

Well I mean I kinda wanted an RPG tube when I was in the Army but they wouldn't let me keep the one I found.

 

[Avaleirra]

Guns are lame, I would rather have a maul.

 

[Varine]

Guns are lame, I would rather have a maul.

What about a maul with a .50 cal sitting on the ship? Yeah... you know that would be badass, no one would EVER bitch about gray ever again.