[ash]

The right to bear arms.

[Lycurgus]

For.

Unequivocally.

[hubcap]

For -

"shall not be infringed."

What part of that do people not understand?

[Warrior]

Definitely for it.

[Aronnax]

It depends on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The founding fathers didn't foresee the invention of thermonuclear weapons so "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part has been fudged to "the people shall be limited to a reasonable level of armament". I'm ok with most small arms, I don't really see a need for heavy weapons in the hands of private citizens.

[Cooper]

"Goin' huntin'....wheres my AK47?"

Give me a break....the right to bear arms is one thing, but to think/say military type weapons in the hands of civilians today is a right is nuts... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do we not have "A well regulated Militia"? The 5 branches of the Military, the National Guard, and the Reserves?

[Valiyn]

For - regardless of the definition.

I would be fine with everyone having handguns, however, PMCs require heavier gear to operate. In Iraq I think it was every 1 in 10 was a private contractor to a PMC of some sort, without them then we would have trouble waging war for political interest. Mercs have been the medium warfare has been waged for centuries and national armies are new additions to war relatively speaking. If you don't want to complain about the wars fought for political reasons then you will need those companies in the future. Outside of PMCs, civilians should be using no more then they can presently use.

On the other hand, in times where we are facing an opponent like the Soviet Union I think everyone should own military grade weapons after going through military training (and back to civilian life with no commitment to the armed forces except during invasion). Good luck to any invader that tries to take a nation where everyone can and is willing to fight you off.

[paperclip]

i ain't no one woman militia....so no

[Blse]

Well, we certainly no longer need amred civilian militas; that's an outdated idea.

Should civilians be allowed to bear arms? I can see both sides of that issue.

[stasis]

Ambivalent.

This strikes me as being a lot like an inalienable right to two oxen and a plow. Private citizens couldn't overthrow the government with the type of arms allowed unless they had mass support - and if they had that kind of support, they wouldn't really need the arms anyway. Meanwhile, most people with guns spend their time shooting ducks and paper targets and junk like that. So who gives a shit?

[Shauru]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ambivalent. This strikes me as being a lot like an inalienable right to two oxen and a plow. Private citizens couldn't overthrow the government with the type of arms allowed unless they had mass support - and if they had that kind of support, they wouldn't really need the arms anyway. Meanwhile, most people with guns spend their time shooting ducks and paper targets and junk like that. So who gives a shit?

Couldn't agree more.

The right to bear arms was to ensure the ability of the people to prevent what happened between the colonists and the British empire. Today it's pretty much irrelevant, no civilian ownership of weapons could really put a scratch in the governments current technological ability to suppress unrest.

[HackerX]

Ambivalent is probably a good description on where I would sit, given a choice (the 2nd amendment need not apply to me)

I am of the firm opinion that, people will kill people, and the easier you make it, the quicker people will resort to deadly force. Such that, if you dramatically reduce the number of guns in america, you will dramatically reduce the number of gun fatalities*. It would probably take >100 years for massive results to be seen (for the majority of weapons to shift out of the system), which is really too long for those that be that want to see meaningful results "now" (and also why their arguments seem to suck so much).

As for overthrowing the government if required... I am almost of the opinion that it's even more likely that the army (etc) would be on your side, not against it. Remembering that service personel are members of the community etc, and given the history of military coups around the world. It think too that a civil war scenario is far more likely as a consequence of any trigger event that might bring the 2nd amendment into play.

Still, you might end up in a situation like australia, where you have to hand load individual rounds into bolt action only rifles, which is a PITA, and can only keep pistols locked at the target range and everyone is ZOMG guns kill people.

There needs to be a solution that prevents guns being a "quick solution". Reduce access to firearms and people will think twice about killing other people the more difficult it is to do it.

*Hell, the accidental deaths from firearms (per capita) exceeds the total firearms deaths per capita of Australia, last I saw

[daydreamer]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It depends on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers didn't foresee the invention of thermonuclear weapons so "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part has been fudged to "the people shall be limited to a reasonable level of armament". I'm ok with most small arms, I don't really see a need for heavy weapons in the hands of private citizens.

this is closest to how i think. adding, i think it's good for people to have the responsibility of small arms.

[phej]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, we certainly no longer need amred civilian militas; that's an outdated idea. Should civilians be allowed to bear arms? I can see both sides of that issue.

Yes. A citizen should be able to protect himself from the government. However, what is an "arm?"

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, we certainly no longer need amred civilian militas; that's an outdated idea.

No, it's not. It's like thinking mercenaries for hire are no longer the main way of waging war instead of national armies. Civilian militias are still widely used around the world and the idea will never die. Not to mention, you can train every civilian in self-defense with such a policy and there might be a decline in violent assaults and other criminal acts because of it. (No source for that, just speculation).

[Kery]

I am anti-gun but for the 2nd amendment.

[Taluric]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The right to bare arms to protect the people from the government, imo, is so outdated it might as well be abandoned. How many shotgun shells do you think it'll take to go through depleted uranium armor on an Abram? (Here's a hint, you don't have enough).

As a second issue, I feel handguns are pretty much only good for killing people and its a psychological fact that the more 'distance' you can place between you and your target, the easier it is to kill them. I generally do not believe its in the countries best interest to allow people weapons that are only good for hurting each other.

Outside of those two complaints though, I'm definitely pro-hunting and I do think its especially important for some people to have them. Coyotes are still a problem for cattle in some parts of the country for example.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do we not have "A well regulated Militia"? The 5 branches of the Military, the National Guard, and the Reserves?

The standing military is not a militia, nor was it what the founders were referring to when the verbiage of the 2nd Amendment was written.

The militia referred to in the Constitution is "the people". There are ample writings of the founders which elaborate on this point.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 Richard Henry Lee

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788

[Mader]

For, 100%.

Yes, Billy-Bob down the road with grenades and rocket launchers makes me very nervous.

But one purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people FROM the government, can't fight the Federal Government with a hunting rifle. Would our Armed Forces turn against the citizens, probably not. But better safe than sorry.

[Synchronicity]

I agree that civilians should be able to own guns, though I hesitate to call it a "right". It should be a privilege, in the same way owning a driver's license is a privilege. In both cases, you have in your hands the ability to operate a device with a high likelihood of injuring or killing someone if used irresponsibly. Since injury and death are non-incidental functions of firearms, they should be tightly controlled and only sold to people who have proven themselves able to use them with skill and responsibility.

The original rationale behind the 2nd amendment is a non-issue in my mind. Ours is not a world where someone can simply seize power and turn a nation against its own people. Guns are not necessary to protect ourselves from the government, though they may be necessary (or at least prudent) for defending ourselves from other individuals. They would also certainly come in handy if our country were ever invaded by a foreign power, but that's not likely enough to have any effect on my opinion.

[Shauru]

I would like to be the first to jump on the obvious horrendous joke...

I believe in the right to arm bears!

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by Synchronicity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The original rationale behind the 2nd amendment is a non-issue in my mind. Ours is not a world where someone can simply seize power and turn a nation against its own people. Guns are not necessary to protect ourselves from the government, though they may be necessary (or at least prudent) for defending ourselves from other individuals. They would also certainly come in handy if our country were ever invaded by a foreign power, but that's not likely enough to have any effect on my opinion.

So are of you the opinion that the government never uses unecessary force against its citizens?

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by Taluric To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As a second issue, I feel handguns are pretty much only good for killing people and its a psychological fact that the more 'distance' you can place between you and your target, the easier it is to kill them. I generally do not believe its in the countries best interest to allow people weapons that are only good for hurting each other. Outside of those two complaints though, I'm definitely pro-hunting and I do think its especially important for some people to have them. Coyotes are still a problem for cattle in some parts of the country for example.

Actually large caliber handguns are very popular for hunting boar. Around here pigs live in scrub and canyons, that kind of terrain makes a longer weapon unwieldy. The terrain also limits visibility so a short weapon range acts as an additional measure of safety. When you can only see 100 yards on flat terrain you shouldn't ever fire a rifle.

[mmw]

I find it interesting that previous posters have referred to the idea of a militia/armed citizens as outdated or irrelevant in today's world. It's exactly that sort of naive complacency that creates situations where an armed citizenry would be necessary. It's as if these people think that wars, revolutions, etc. are "history" and are no longer possible. Anyone care to explain why they think this?

[Stickman]

Wouldn't the second amendment protect citizen's right to bear pipe-bombs, explosives, IEDs and most things found on the anarchists cook-book?

I mean, if you're serious about fighting the government, we all know how important those things are to guerrilla urban warfare.

---------- Post added 11-02-2009 at 09:48 PM ----------

Haha, I bet this post just put me on the FBI watchlist... "Hi feds!"