te27ch Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 So, are you pro-(civilian ownership and usage)-of guns, or not? Or, something else.... My opinion is that if guns are allowed, then more power to everyone, and rights rights rights. BUT, if no guns are allowed, I'm also fine with that, because I'm not really much of a guns user at all and dont really own any. Sometimes my dad (pro-gun) tells me of something that the 2nd amendment in the US bill of rights (right to bear arms) was created so that we can revolution if the government is turning corrupt, which sounds freaky-cool. Wait, too much Star Wars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I am anti-gun but my libertarian leanings say that the state has no place regulating the personal ownership of firearms - especially something so obviously called out in the founder's documents. My father-in-law has a nice gun collection, and neither my wife nor I want any part of it ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I don't outrightly oppose the possession of all types of guns, I just don't perceive why private citizens need to own some sorts of weapons, like assault weapons, shotguns, and other high caliber guns. A handgun is, more often than not for the average citizen, more than enough of a deterrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I dont like guns, and I don't understand why people WANT guns, but I don't agree with a COMPLETE ban, though I was deffinately in favor of continuing the ban on assault rifles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Eh, I don't mind about wether the average citizen gets guns. Afterall, those who would use them to kill innocents would probably buy them illegally anyway. Although, assault weapons are going a bit too far...hunting shotguns and pistols would be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Hand Guns-Ok(Though it's pushing it a bit) Hunting rifles-Ok Shotguns- Maybe not Assault Rifles: No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 If they band guns, all it would accomplish would be taking away a civilians protection, and leaving them at the mercy of thugs and robbers. You can not always count on having a cop handy when somebody blows a hole through your door and demands your valuables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Of course! Tell the guy to wait a sec while you go get your assault rifle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Hand guns! Always carry your hand gun with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki Hand guns! Always carry your hand gun with you. Because that's safe and practical. Honestly, do you think that an assailant who comes into your home and is pointing a gun at you will let you go for your gun with out shooting you? It's been mentioned before in the thread about the ban on assault rifles, but you pulling out a gun is going to increase the chances of you being shot before you had a chance to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 not to mention the safest thing is to just hand em over something, get a good description and notify the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Exactly. Things can be replaced much more easily than human life. Now if someone broke into your house with intent to rape your wife, THAT is when you step up and do something. Otherwise it's best to appease them and keep your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 exactly, if someone came after my wife or a loved one, I'd go stealth, grab a knife and stab the ****er in the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I was assuming you wern't stupid enough to let them come face to face with you BEFORE you pulled out your gun. Do you always get a good look at the people who are breaking into your house before you shoot them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki I was assuming you wern't stupid enough to let them come face to face with you BEFORE you pulled out your gun. Do you always get a good look at the people who are breaking into your house before you shoot them? gee, sorry I have a small house that anywhere you're at you'll be spotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Eh, guess you're screwed then. I have a multi-room house, and I would hear somebody breaking in long before I came face to face with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 The fundamental reason that the right to bear arms is such a cornerstone of the US constitution is that 'the state' (in their case, British gov't) was using control of firearms as a way of surpressing dissent and instilling fear - random house-checks and removal of weapons used for food gathering. So certain weapons are OK, but not others? Who decides which? The 'State'? The U.N.? The criminals who will still get whatever guns they want? *That* is part of my libertarian objection to gun control - you get the so-called 'assault weapons ban', which was largely a misnomer, but was guided through special interest groups on both sides to be palatable ... but with little impact, ultimately. Isn't what we want fewer armed criminals? Less violent crime? Fewer household gun accidents where little kids shoot themselves or someone else? Shouldn't *that* be what is worked on? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Not all guns. People should be allowed to keep their flintlock rifles and pistols, which were the most advanced firearm developed at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. After all, it would be unConstitutional to disallow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Not all guns. People should be allowed to keep their flintlock rifles and pistols, which were the most advanced firearm developed at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. After all, it would be unConstitutional to disallow them. And, of course, that was also written when states actually existed as self-powered entities, when the Federal government was viewed as a necessary thing for a very minimal set of requirements, and that the bill of rights was largely to protect states and their citizens against the possibility of a federal government encroachment on their sovereignty ... As I said, I'm anti-gun, but also strongly opposed to both Democratic and Republican attempts to limit my indvidual freedoms 'for my own good' ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 and it was only allowed as part of the milita, so anyone who registers to be allowed a gun should be forced to go on training and do other useful stuff one weekend a month... I could live with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Handguns - Sure, if you've never commited a violent crime Hunting Rifles - " " Shotguns - " " and it cannot leave your property. Assault Rifles - Eh...no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible! the founding fathers didn't make that 2nd amendment for NOTHING! -the 2nd ammendment like free speech etc. is nessicary to keep evil dictators from taking over our country! -the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Was that sarcasm or are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible! Righto, I think that company execs should also be able to buy M1-Abrams tanks...nothing says "back off communists" than a long concrete barrel in your face. the founding fathers didn't make that 2nd amendment for NOTHING! That was so that everyone was armed against Britan in case of an invasion, I believe. -the 2nd ammendment like free speech etc. is nessicary to keep evil dictators from taking over our country! It doesn't matter if we have guns; if an evil dictator takes out the military and/or assumes control of Congress, we're screwed any way you slice it. -the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves! I partially agree with you, but there's a fine line between arming everyone and making everyone a walking tank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! then I want a nuclear bomb capable of destroying the entire west coast. After all, it is my right. Originally posted by kipperthefrog to keep evil dictators from taking over our country! that's why we have armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.