The 2nd Amendment (USA), the right to own guns

Personally,
I think it's a right. If someone is mentally capable enough to (gasp!) vote... then that person should have the right to keep (and bear...) arms. In other words, they also should be allowed to carry and use them.

Just as people do not receive drivers licenses either, until being shown how to drive responsibly and made aware of the laws...the same with firearms.

Incidentally, Seanus, while I've heard your implication before ("...Europeans think about self protection too? We don't use guns to do it") it really is off the mark. Even in areas where people mostly own firearms, a fight is a fight. People who grew up around firearms know the difference. Getting into a fight is not the same as defending one's own life or that of a loved one.

Incidentally, while America had very low restrictions on firearms ownership, and a low crime rate- European countries with more restrictive firearms laws were suffering secret police, Stasi, Gestapo, the Nazis (the first big firearm registration move in the 20th century was by Adolf Hitler...which of course went badly) KGB, GRU, and a whole bunch of other acronyms which went around and killed their own citizens, Russians were killing or sending each other to Siberia or other fun places...now that the firearms laws are getting more restrictive in the U.S. it seems as if our crime rate has gone UP, not down...and there are more complaints about loss of personal freedoms.

You cannot sacrifice the one freedom you disagree with and hope to keep the one you like....

Wow. I'm really rambling.
John P.

The Government already is too powerful no Militia can stand up to the U.S. Military remember what happened in Waco to the branch Davidians?

The video camera is far more powerful than the gun,when fighting the government. if you
think a Militia of rednecks could hold their own go and try it I will light a candle for you. And if you think a group of people assemble armed with guns (constitutionally correct or not) and the police and National Guard etc. won't shoot you you are crazy or don't live in the America I do.

btw. most likely more then half of those rednecks served in the armed forces at one point or another. :)


of course there have been major gun laws changes... australia and canada.. and studies have been done.. but there is no country that has allowed more guns.. in both the above cases, hand guns were outlawed and some others restricted. in both instances the gun deaths decreased dramatically.. but there seems to be an upword swing in gun deaths in canada, mainly by illegal gang bangers.

Obviously, you're slightly retarded.

First of all, the Branch Davidians weren't a militia, but a cult and the US military was not involved (the ATF and FBI were).

Second of all, "the power of the video camera" is nonexistent unless the people have some kind of coercive power over the government. In this case, we can own firearms, create a militia, and vote for our representatives. Those are our three coercive powers which protect us from the government.

Lastly, your last sentence doesn't make any sense. You need to learn some sentence structure, because it's making it quite obvious that you don't live in America. A militia could quite easily overthrow our government, as long as it had the side of the people. With widespread discontent and the right to bear arms and form militias, it's quite obvious that the people would overthrow any government. Imagine you armed every single Pole in Communist Poland and let them form militias if they wish. "Communist Poland" would've stopped existing within a matter of days. This is why our Founding Fathers imbued us with these rights.

I may be, I took an I.Q. test and did pretty good though.


I missed a comma but it is a comprehendable mix of words.
I pose this question to you though: would you want a slightly retarded man living next to you armed to the teeth?
I don't know how to prove I live in the USA though, my profile says Katowice but we moved in July. I ate at an In-N-Out Burger yesterday. I know the Branch davidians were not a militia per se but they were wackos from Waco with guns and many children were killed.

Let me guess though you support people like David Duke, don't you? I smell some white power cooties.How will you feel with a black president? I am against handguns mostly, and I am in favor of stricter rules. Guns Kill, I am against killing, If that is retarded then googly moogly blah brrrewahh thekruk drools on himself and wets pants and crawls off.

As I understand, slightly retarded people sometimes need protection also? Retardation does not equal hostility, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know one's life is in danger. That said, I'm not positive that people who are undergoing mental / psychiatric treatment are allowed to carry arms, but it is not the federal government controlling this but a rule of treatment. This is how guns were illegal in Washington D.C.-local authority vice national authority. Didn't stop them from becoming the murder capitol of the nation...


First off, I'm jealous. In-N-Out burger is one of the few redeeming qualities I liked about the state of California while I lived there (amazingly hot women helps too...) it is ONLY in California, not the rest of the U.S.

Secondly, Remember you only saw what you were "supposed" to see from Waco. They may have been a little wacky but that was government mismanagement at its best, and personally, I lay all those deaths at the feet of Janet Reno, who turned that into a shooting war, and according to some accounts, her actions also directly resulted in the inferno. Lots of people, including within the Law Enforcement community, were unhappy and wanted her head on a platter, but at the time Pres. Clinton and anyone he appointed were untouchable in the media...


Can't speak for others here, but if I am going to vote for a black president (or a white one, or any other race) I want to know what the candidate's plan is. All I know about Mr. Obama is that he is like a rock star. He is a good speaker, energetic, and the media loves him. Unfortunately, he has also written books in which he claims open hatred of white people (perhaps because his mother is white?) the supposed innocent attendance at a Madrassa (you don't go to Catholic school without being Catholic-although he has tried distancing himself from the radical Islam tag that typically goes along with Madrassa educated people) and, well to be honest, he makes plenty of promises and hasn't once outlined his plan or where he will get the money for it when he does. Colin Powell? I would vote for; Perhaps, if she showed an opinion of her own, even Condoleeza Rice-she's probably smarter than all the leading candidates combined....but not Barack Obama. Not now. Someday, perhaps, if he shows a true plan-but I'm long since over voting for the candidate who looks the best on television.


I'll bet you don't know how strict they already are. The problem is, someone who intends to do great physical harm to another person, or kill them, isn't going to stop at a silly law about what sort of armament he is allowed to use to do so. Witness recent genocide in certain parts of the world against Christians-using Machetes....


I disagree. Guns are an inanimate object. Put a bullet next to a gun, lay it on the table and do not touch it. Wait 1,000 years. The gun will have killed not a soul. The issue isn't whether someone can kill given the tools (such as a gun...) they can...but rather, do you really think the only people one can trust with this power is the government. Do you also believe that if the government held this power exclusively it would not somehow become more corrupt? Stasi? GRU? KGB? Gestapo? all AFTER governments were trusted with the primary ownership of weapons, and all set up as national "police" or some such to "protect the people".

I'll protect myself, thanks. If I lose, then the police are welcome to search through my entrails and find out who did it and give that person a fair trial.

John P.

And an eight year old will, and then he will blow his friends brains out, by mistake of course. its simple less guns equals less murders.

And I don't think you can use the KGB or Gestapo as an argument against gun control, as it wasn't ordinary militia's that thwarted these organizations.

And yes I trust the police and military to protect me more than I trust some militia nuts or some guy I read on a forum.

And Believe me I do not love the Government.
The gun laws are not strict enough ask any 16 year old in L.A. where to get a gun he'll tell ya. Its an archaic law from a different time John P. time to evolve. Read about Ghandi.

I Norway we have a law that says one who owns guns must also have a guncabinet to keep them locked in. And ammunition can not be locked into the same cabinet.

Is there no such law in USA?

"When people fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, that is liberty." (Accredited to either Jefferson or Adams)

This is the whole reason for the 2nd amendment.

And the fact that pretty much everyone back then had a rifle or musket...

(back from dinner)

:]

Great Quote!!!

Lets reason together.

People kill, not guns, if not a gun, how about a bat, or a stun gun, or a club, or a CAR!!!!
Car accidents with people whp drink and drive will kill more people than guns. This is so rediculous.If I feel my life or my families life is in danger the ass**** is dead..Period end of discussion.

There are other things to worry about in America before they start taking away the guns...

amen El Gato
Hi my friend how are U.. Is LC

ohmygod that was so funny!

But if we can have guns, what's wrong with a small, say purse-sized nuke? Just in case I'm accosted in a dark parking lot.... :P

PS. Just for the record, I grew up in a house full of hunting guns, bows & arrows, and Dad even had some funky thing where you had to pour the gunpowder down the barrel..tamp it down...add the shot...etc. and then shoot it (smelled awful and kicked like a mule!)....I even helped make shells as a child....BUT I DON'T LIKE GUNS. But actually, I think a flamethrower or bazooka would be fun to have! ;)

Amen, that is it.

Yes, actually, there is. The case listed above of children running around and "finding" the gun is one bandied about by many who blindly support gun control without knowing such things are already illegal in the U.S. as with everything else, with power comes responsibility. There are reams upon reams of laws controlling everything from where one is allowed to fire his or her firearm to how it is stored, etc. etc.

In the case of the child for instance, 1. the parents are stupid for having such a tool and not teaching respect of it to the children. I was taught this at the tender age of 3-uncles took me "hunting" let me fire a 30-'06 hunting rifle. It scared the !@# out of me...and it was made clear to me to NEVER EVER touch the guns or let anyone else touch them without adults with me. It worked... 2. The parents in such cases in the U.S. are responsible for the actions of their minor children and will likely be imprisoned for negligent homicide and 3. What the heck are they thinking these days, leaving unlocked guns around unsupervised children who (obviously) they have not bothered to TEACH...?

Doesn't matter, it's a canned story and is one of those what if stories used to scare people. While it has and does happen, it's the exception not the norm. People also back over their children quite often with cars in their own driveways. But that doesn't get attention apparently.

Many people who are in favor of stronger laws in the U.S. have never seen a gun, still fewer have ever touched one, and still fewer have any CLUE what the existing laws are.

It is a capital crime in some cases to commit murder in the U.S. but somehow, there are groups who would have you believe that a misdemeanor or even felony law banning this or that arm will provide more pause to a criminal meaning harm than possible trial and execution.

I say not so.
Regardless, every new law is seldom a freedom gained, but typically is one lost. Gun Control laws are believe it or not what actually started the SHOOTING part of the U.S. revolution from colonial British rule....it would be a shame, if in our infinite wisdom, we let our own government do the same thing, for ostensibly the same reasons. Governments disarming the people is not a new thing. Medieval England banned possession of the original "cop-killer" bullet, the bodkin tipped arrow, except by government forces...other nations have done similar things.

but I'm rambling.
John P.

hopefully you;re not fooling yourself that this could/would actually happen, right?


oh please.


not allowed but obviously missed in regards to the Vtech shooter.


and his voting record is very, very left.


there isn't much of a choice this time around either.


that is aburd. please.


and another new law somehow change all this? who are you kidding?


maybe in some states but in general, no. that really makes no sense.. who check that one's guns are in that cabinet and seperate from ammunition?

Nobody checks it ,but if something happens to the guns and they where not properly stored ,then it will be hell to pay.

Wow,are you Daisy Duke?


We have the same law in the UK,and BTW,the local Police Firearms officers can check whenever they feel like it and revoke your licience if you are breaking the rule.

Still,law or not,the vast majority of legal firearms owners are never,ever involved in gun crime,its the nut jobs and wanna be gangsta's with dodgy weopons smuggled in from eastern europe and now apparently,in returning servicemens kitbags.....

This is the truth. Not long ago, maybe 20 years, gun racks were in all the trucks and going out they were right there to see. I do feel if you have guns you should have them locked up and gun safes are a great investment.

Well said,trust me,if we decide we want our colony back Im sure you will all have time to unlock a cabinet ;)
I just wonder how many of the firearms used in all these terrible shootings you seem to have on a weekly basis were stolen from negligent legal owners though?

I dont advocate a total ban on Firearms(though if every single one of 'em on the planet disapeared Id be a happy bunny) but there has to be an inbetween answer,I mean,come on,I was reading somewhere about someone "going postal" with a pistol ,when police searched his house he had a bloomin M16! Come on,a freakin assualt rifle! whats all that about?Aint no viet cong in L A (a few ex ARVN generals maybe but...)

A few good points, and I agree with most.
FWIW its not Britain wanting it's colony back (Or Russia wanting Alaska back) that bothers me, but I do think it pays to keep a keen eye on our own government. After all, this whole revolution thing happened and Britain was OUR government. It wasn't like Portugal attacked after all.

A lot I think is just different culture. If I went to a house and someone had an M16-well good for him. They are very common but not nearly so lethal as many seem to think. 99.99% of the time his rifle is probably not even a real M16 but a civilian legal semi-auto only version, such as an AR-15. There are a few states in which a citizen can with the proper paperwork, taxes, background checks etc etc own a fully automatic weapon, but to date (the law started in 1932 wrt automatic weapons) not ONE legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime. In fact, FWIW lots of people have AR15s or some variant of them, some no doubt picture themselves ready for some apocalyptic vision, but most think it is simply a fun rifle to shoot. Some use them for varmints. The lethality of the 5.56mm NATO round (.223 Remington) fired by the M16 is highly overstated in the media-who only know that well, it has a big magazine and it's black-so it must be deadly.

Most states, in fact, won't even let you hunt with one, because the weapon is considered underpowered for killing DEER....
I ramble. I believe the solution is combining freedom with responsibility. Own a gun? could you pass a test with questions about when you can and cannot fire it, or its safe operation? could you pass a basic firearms safety test with a score of 100%? I think you should be able to.

Playstation 3 should NOT be the only "exposure" to firearms that one has when making a purchase, IMHO.
John P.

The thing with the gun cabinets and safes, though, is that what if you own a handgun for protection? A lot of people live in bad areas, and own guns to protect themselves if someone tries to break in and kill them (which happens a lot in the US, sadly) Last year a bunch of gang members broke into an elderly woman's house and shot her in the back of the head then robber her.

Imagine, you live in a ghetto or some other bad neighborhood, and someone breaks in to steal some stuff, but wakes you up and decides they are going to kill you because you can report what they look like to the police. What are you going to do?

"Oh sorry mister criminal, let me just go to my gun safe real quick and then find my ammo and load the gun before you decide to kill me."

For people with hunting rifles and other larger guns, gun safes and cabinets are a great investment, but for a bad neighborhood, I'd feel safer with a 9mm inderneath my pillow. I've seen what can happen and heard stories of people getting killed by would be robbers.

Idk, I guess it depends on your situation.


Its true. A lot of people around here with some sort of disability are allowed to hunt with semi-auto AR-15s and have told me they shot the deer 3 times and it lived long enough to get away from them. Those guns are better at feeding coyotes than getting yourself some deer jerkey.

It is exactly the same in Nevada and Michigan and all the other states as far as I know.

Your post made me think of something else.
I agree with you, and I've had people come into my home at night while I was asleep, and it is not a good feeling. When this happened the only firearm in the house was a surplus (=cheap) SKS. NOT the weapon I want to defend my home with. Most rifles are not, for that matter, as I live in a populated area-there are concerns about over penetration and possibly hitting someone else outside or something. I don't have one yet, but a sidearm with frangibles or other expanding round, or perhaps a shotgun would be better, because if one actually had to FIRE it, there is less risk of the round penetrating a wall and hurting someone I do not intend hurting...

John P.

Yeah. I'm just looking at it from both perspectives. In my neighborhood all we have to worry about are kids opening some people's unlocked cars and stealing some money and stuff. If you ask me, if your car is unlocked you are asking to be robbed, so whatever.

Incidentally, I didn't have to shoot anyone in the above case, but would have been more comfortable knowing that if I had, it wouldn't be hurting someone outside my house.

Pepper is another good defense tool...(OC, not just black pepper)
John P.

Its a joke mate,just a refference to the origional meaning of the 2nd...


Yes,it was a ar 15,just wasnt sure how many people would know what one of those was....everyone can picture an M16....incidently,please dont tell me a 5.56 semi auto isnt deadly just coz it cant go on full auto,thats just plain daft ;)


er,come on mate,I know your usual rounds are a bit bigger,but,the 5.56 is designe to tumble and cause maximum internal damage....


yep,but flip the pig sticker bayonet forward and poke em to death ....."they dont like it up em Mr Manwairing,they dont like it up em.."

( see,I know a bit about bang sticks,still dont like the idea of any old tom dick n harry getting hold of them though.There has been a bit of a campaign over here to allow our veterens to own them if they want,the reasoning being they will have had all the training,the counter though is the % of vets who beat the **** out of wives etc...how many would just blow her away...PTSD aint a joke( Ive lived with it,not my own,but a close reli,last thing he wanted was access to a "mouth filler".)

I know. No worries about London sending an invasion force or anything. Just wanted to point out that our OWN government is not above watching, also....


While I'm not claiming it isn't deadly (even a sharp stick is deadly....those, for the moment, are not banned..) the rounds do not tumble as many think. During the Vietnam era there was a tendency because twist rate of the rifling combined with high velocity bullets had it spinning at an obscene speed. The newer bullets (not the cartridge mind you, those are the same size) are longer and the twist rate is different. IAW Geneva conventions the bullets are designed just to penetrate and go through. They fly pretty much straight but the damage is done by the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing through. It is true, btw, it is considered inhumane to hunt deer with them. After all, shot deer should die immediately (therefore most hunting rounds are expanding) whereas a soldier is given the chance (because all we are allowed to use is FMJ) to have a medic or corpsman patch him up and send him to the rear to live and collect medals...


I think everyone suffers from a little of this if they've been shot at, hopefully it subsides and is mild. In my case, second week home with my girlfriend we were walking around downtown San Diego, when there were fireworks (football? SeaWorld? not sure where it was) and she said I almost tried dragging her under a car. I'm not so jumpy these days. Like most, my case was very mild. Others are badly affected by it, but those are also ordered into treatment=which I think-should preclude owning a firearm unless deemed safe and back to normal by a LOT of people.

I also agree that it would be a good idea to let the troops have them if they want them. In the U.S. there were some who shot their wives when returning home, but turns out one of the medications they were forced to take when returning home had some side effects the manufacturer didn't bother to mention, of suicidal tendencies, rage, hallucinations and paranoia... so it wasn't the guns but the doctors....

I can think of no better person to trust with a firearm. He's already been trained in its responsible use (day one lesson one) knows how to fire it somewhat accurately (something I wonder about some police forces for...) is a patriot, and has proven him or herself to be responsible. Not only that, unlike a panicked person with eyes closed screaming and shooting wildly in the dark, returning troops also know to be sure of their target and not fire at the wrong one...

I'd say the odds are great it would be a good move, and in military rich areas, the crime rates would drop dramatically, but that's just my opinion. I also don't think anyone should HAVE to own one, if he or she didn't want to.

John P.

why do people buy corvettes?
because of the performance, same can be said of weapons.


assault weapons are selective fire and civilians cannot own them unless they have a class three permit threw the batfe. what civilians can own are clones that fire a bullet everytime you pull the trigger.


black powder muskets were the assault weapons of that day.


take away the guns and all a person will have to do is jump off a bridge.


so ban all guns because somebody "might" kill themselves with one?
how about banning all ownership of cars, because somebody "might" get into a accident.