First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply What's Your Opinion on Firearms and/or The 2nd Amendment?
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15

AirMarshall wrote:

I come from a military family. My uncle was a marine during the late days of Vietnam. My grandfather was in the Navy and fought the Japanese in the Pacific during WW2, more accurately in the Philippines. My grandfather before him was in the Army in World War 1, etc., etc. My family grew up with the firearm, hunted with it, target practiced, thank God we have never been in the situation where we've had to defend our home with it, but then again, my relatives have seen war, which is just as horrifying. I guess you can say it's bias that I think owning a firearm is okay, no matter where you live and in what country. It's kinda difficult to own one outside of the U.S., but if you are responsible like how fortunately most of the Gun community is in America, why not own one?

With that said, what are your thoughts about gun ownership, guns, the 2nd Amendment, what have you? I haven't gotten a chance outside of high school to see frankly what the world thinks, so speak your mind!

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." -Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

EDIT: crap I forgot the "E" in "The". That's what happens when you're sleep deprived. xD

EDIT 2: The gods of Crunchyroll have fixed my typo at last!!


I think backround checks are reasonable. We keep felons from voting, etc. so I see no reason why we should not have similar restrictions in the case of firearms.

However, I am opposed to having to have a license to carry any sort of weapon. I think self-protection and the 2nd amendment are innate human rights. Demanding that people have a license to own a weapon for the sake of seeing if they are responsible is like demanding someone pass a literacy test to vote. Unless they have a history of abuse, which is the burden of the government to prove, then people should be able to buy firearms.
29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
I don't know, had an ex-boyfriend in the Navy and now he's becoming a police officer, and he's someone who's very mentally ill..
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15
My grandad was a doctor, he treated soldiers. Very kind apparently, good thing my gran was shrewd lol. Got shot doing his job but not what killed him... anywho, I do also know one other who was shot and died but out of his own fault. I think guns are lame, it's a lame way to die.
15406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Empire of Walker
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

LoomJ wrote:

Being an Englishman, I have never understood why people need guns in their homes to protect them; I guess this could be partly biased though seeing as I am not an American.

I have read countless stories about people using their guns in order to protect their property and family from burglars which in the end have lead to either themselves or their family members being shot accidentally. I also feel that many people rely on their firearms when in fact they should be used only as a last resort. I guess these things could be prevented or at least reduced with further education on how to use and look after firearms properly, however.


Like I said, the standard of training for firearm training and usage in America is not low, it is nonexistent. There is no mandatory skill or knowledge test in any state to own or operate a firearm. Don't worry Union Jack, us Yankees are just as ass backwards as ever.


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

I live out in the woods, I share my back yard with bears, and other predators. For the most part we leave each other alone, but its always a good thing to carry a fire-arm with just in case. For those that want to get rid of guns in America, come visit me.. I be happy to let you stay with me a weak, you can take a nice walk in the woods, or ride some dirt bikes. But I like to see how you deal with the wild life that don't seem to keen with leaving you alone.


Then for you proper weapon handling is even more critical, I have had several run-ins with bears and a warning shot or two is usually enough to scare them off. Still, if a bear of any kind decides to charge, you won't stop it with sloppy shooting. Bears are fast too, a lot of people underestimate how quickly an animal that size can close the distance. Don't you think it would at least pay to take a couple classes from a certified firearms instructor, ideally one who works with hunters?


DevinKuska wrote:

I believe someone also mentioned accidents from civilians, to this I would say that the pretense that only civilians do stupid things with firearms is incorrect. 2011 I believe a soldier on Joint Base Lewis McChord blew his hand off while using a 50cal live round as a chisel, as he struck the primer with a hammer the round exploded(Darwin award ). In today's day and age where as an American I understand much of the world dislikes me because of my freedom, or the results of my countries govt actions. The threat of terrorist attacks are ever present. So I personally would rather be able to defend myself rather than be a victim waiting for the govt. to respond to the threat. Carpe Diem


I believe I also pointed out that if someone who is properly trained makes mistakes, someone who is untrained is an accident waiting to happen. You are also incorrect in your recollection, the SM in question was using the round to remove a jammed pushpin while taking an M2 out of a turret. As much as I hate to admit it, this isn't as uncommon of a practice as you might think, but he wasn't just hammering away at a .50 round.

People should read these articles on ridiculous gun accidents. As long as shit like this happens I say no guns for anyone who hasn't passed a safety and marksmanship exam with standards at least as high as what the Army/Marine Corps use in their infantry companies, ideally higher. The 82nd/173rd/101st/75th standard would be fantastic.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/13-most-tragic-and-horrifying-gun-accidents-2014 -Not sure which was better, the 4 year old shooting the 3 year old, or the Idaho State Prof. who shot himself in the foot during class.
http://www.oddee.com/item_99217.aspx -Lot's of cops fucking up in this one, and a guy who gets shot by his dog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEwEZR1yPR8 -Has as much of that Uzi "accident" as anyone should see, not graphic, goes up until the incident.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-accidents/ -On top of the NRA having no studies showing their attempts to educate people on weapon safety have been effective, another myriad of the effects of people having no clue what they are doing.

I'll say it again, people who are too scared or can't hack it need to stop trying to play army.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

DevinKuska wrote:

Its always interesting to see/hear different opinions on this topic. I would urge everyone to remember that their opinions are SUBJECTIVE. That is there is no right or wrong answer to whether firearm ownership should or should not be allowed. This very topic i believe is what makes for good debates as most people usually feel strongly one way or the other. That said I personally believe in the 2nd amendment for its original purpose as I understand the best I can. That is not to say my interpretation is correct, but that simply I have not found a convincing argument to change my mind as of yet.

The 2nd Amendment was added so that the people could "bear arms" in the face of oppressive governments and domestic threats. I do agree that there seems to be a group of US gun owners who discuss an armed opposition to the govt, but I indifferent to this group. I live in the US and we have the right to openly voice our opinions, even if its directed towards the govt(with some exceptions of course). We should keep in mind the US was founded on its citizens rebelling against a government that they felt was oppressive and not in their best interest. Who are we to judge those who feel the same way today? The parallel is the same. The area i find Gray about the 2nd amendment is what should be allowed for civilians to posses. Restricting gun ownership to shotguns and handguns seems reasonable if you consider hunting and self defense, but against even a third world militia I am not sure it would be enough. Large caliber weapons (50 cal, 20mm) have no hunting or general self defense applications, but are currently too expensive for the average person to buy. Automatic(full auto) weapons also have no application other then sports or defense against military combatants, these weapons could and do pose a significant threat to the public when in the hands of the wrong person but then again same with Miracle Grow and diesel.

I am disappointed when people who don't like guns bring up mass shootings. These sad events are the results of terrorists both foreign and domestic and do not represent gun ownership as a whole. In EVERY mass shooting in the last 10years that I can recall all shootings were done in high traffic(lots of people) low threat(guns were prohibited, so they had no opposition) areas. One could say that if guns were not available explosives might have been use, and in some cases were. I believe someone also mentioned accidents from civilians, to this I would say that the pretense that only civilians do stupid things with firearms is incorrect. 2011 I believe a soldier on Joint Base Lewis McChord blew his hand off while using a 50cal live round as a chisel, as he struck the primer with a hammer the round exploded(Darwin award ). In today's day and age where as an American I understand much of the world dislikes me because of my freedom, or the results of my countries govt actions. The threat of terrorist attacks are ever present. So I personally would rather be able to defend myself rather than be a victim waiting for the govt. to respond to the threat. Carpe Diem


So why does it say "well regulated"? Folks always keep omitting that bit from it. We as a society have the right to make sure the person that wishes to own firearms are safe to do so. We as a society also have a right to make sure you are trained in how those firearms are used. We also as a society have the right to limit what type of fire arms that can be purchased. That is what well regulated means in this context.

If you think a tricked out AR-15 is able to help you defend yourself from the government best of luck I find it laughable.The founders gave us a prefect legal way to change how our government works. If you don't like how it is working, run for office change it the way it is designed to be changed.

I stopped shooting right after I got out of the military I didn't need a gun to protect myself I have never needed a gun to defend myself. Firearms much like swords and knives give a false sense of security. Must assaults are very fast and happen when the criminal is within ten feet of the victim. This means you have to be a quick draw expert to defend yourself with a gun or knife. Also the only time in any of the mass shooting since Columbine there has only been one case where a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy and that was last year in Canada.

So I'm for well regulated firearms this means background checks and limiting to hunting and personal defense though you would spend better money on actually learning how to defend yourself via hand to hand.

5333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/15


[
So why does it say "well regulated"? Folks always keep omitting that bit from it. We as a society have the right to make sure the person that wishes to own firearms are safe to do so. We as a society also have a right to make sure you are trained in how those firearms are used. We also as a society have the right to limit what type of fire arms that can be purchased. That is what well regulated means in this context.

If you think a tricked out AR-15 is able to help you defend yourself from the government best of luck I find it laughable.The founders gave us a prefect legal way to change how our government works. If you don't like how it is working, run for office change it the way it is designed to be changed.

I stopped shooting right after I got out of the military I didn't need a gun to protect myself I have never needed a gun to defend myself. Firearms much like swords and knives give a false sense of security. Must assaults are very fast and happen when the criminal is within ten feet of the victim. This means you have to be a quick draw expert to defend yourself with a gun or knife. Also the only time in any of the mass shooting since Columbine there has only been one case where a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy and that was last year in Canada.

So I'm for well regulated firearms this means background checks and limiting to hunting and personal defense though you would spend better money on actually learning how to defend yourself via hand to hand.


My apologize, so that no further omissions can be accused here is the second amendment as I believe it is written. "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. . " To begin with the definition of "Militia" is force or military comprised of untrained or non professional fighters(one could argue conscription). This implies no training, certification, experience, or discrimination because of age or gender. So saying only military or police should be the only ones to posses or use firearms is in direct opposition to this notion. Personally I find this line of thinking something akin to censorship of our first amendment rights.

In regards to "well regulated," this is the part of the constitution that I wish we could travel back in time and ask our founding fathers about. At the time anyone i think it was 15 or older was "able bodied" and could become a combatant. I have heard some say that well regulated was simply stating rules were still necessary(i.e. recruiting only able bodied people, adhering to rules of war, ect) Another line of thinking is that it means it should be regulated by state(read govt.). Although this is reasonable explanation, if you consider the circumstances that dictated the constitutions writing... I personally feel this would make our founding fathers de facto hypocrites and criminals. This "well regulated" portion will always be debated, anyone who believes they know the true meaning is misguided at best wouldn't you agree?

In regards to what I can only assume is a reference to my avatar.. I personally have no quarrel with the govt. other than I believe the 6 democrats and 6 republicans who came up with sequester should be brought up on charges of treason. I think you misunderstood when I said I was indifferent to a group of individuals who feel armed uprising is/was necessary. Also, no single individual opposing the govt would fare well no matter what weapon the possessed. Even CQC would not help. However should the citizens of the US in a unified... or semi unified(civil war wasnt completely unified) rise against any threat foreign or domestic, even the govt. the results would likely mirror history.(See Revolutionary war).

I am also for background checks and do not believe I have stated anything to that effect. As far as limiting firearms to hunting and personal defense, what about sports? Even Olympic events including shooting firearms. Also, it is impossible to limit a tools use to its owner. You can make it a law to only use a flathead screwdriver for use with screws. But if I as an owner use mine to pry boards apart how can you enforce it? A firearm is a tool nothing more. I do agree that there are people out there that shouldn't have access to weapons. However if you make an mentally ill person, or domestic terrorist take a class, are they less dangerous? I am a firm believer in safety dont get me wrong. Every firing range I have been to instructs all new shooters on basic firearm safety. These same instructions are also in every firearm manual I have ever seen or heard about.
16598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / NC
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
The purpose of the second amendment is to put a check on the government's power. Should the government overstep the powers granted to it in the constitution (as they so often do), an armed populace can be ready to resist tyranny using any means neccesary.
33345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Online
Posted 3/23/15

SoraSource wrote:

There are reasons why firearms should be allowed and reasons why they should not. I am not informed enough on this subject to make a concise decision yet.

Random:


That truck... is Japanese (Nissan).




11852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
Don't know a single thing about guns or the 2nd amendment but I've never felt the need to carry a gun and I feel perfectly safe with less guns around me.

Maybe it's because of where I live but I feel like having a gun for "self defense" brings nothing more than a fake feeling of security. If someone comes and suddenly shoots me I don't think there's much I can do about it. Gun or no gun.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15

billytheboy wrote:

The purpose of the second amendment is to put a check on the government's power. Should the government overstep the powers granted to it in the constitution (as they so often do), an armed populace can be ready to resist tyranny using any means neccesary.


When you have half the county saying a action taken by a government is constitutional and another half saying its not isn't this a bit of a recipe for disaster? I mean I understand in your system the judiciary acts as a arbiter in this regard but I've also seen people allot of people saying they don't acknowledge the authority of the federal courts. Such as the whole Alabama thing going on right now (I'm sketchy on the details because the bbc's coverage of america is sparse), but it seems clear that there's a significant section that sounds like it doesn't agree with the rulings.
16598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / NC
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
It can be, but typically armed revolt is a last option thing. better a misunderstanding like that than live under tyranny.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/23/15 , edited 3/23/15

DevinKuska wrote:



[
So why does it say "well regulated"? Folks always keep omitting that bit from it. We as a society have the right to make sure the person that wishes to own firearms are safe to do so. We as a society also have a right to make sure you are trained in how those firearms are used. We also as a society have the right to limit what type of fire arms that can be purchased. That is what well regulated means in this context.

If you think a tricked out AR-15 is able to help you defend yourself from the government best of luck I find it laughable.The founders gave us a prefect legal way to change how our government works. If you don't like how it is working, run for office change it the way it is designed to be changed.

I stopped shooting right after I got out of the military I didn't need a gun to protect myself I have never needed a gun to defend myself. Firearms much like swords and knives give a false sense of security. Must assaults are very fast and happen when the criminal is within ten feet of the victim. This means you have to be a quick draw expert to defend yourself with a gun or knife. Also the only time in any of the mass shooting since Columbine there has only been one case where a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy and that was last year in Canada.

So I'm for well regulated firearms this means background checks and limiting to hunting and personal defense though you would spend better money on actually learning how to defend yourself via hand to hand.


My apologize, so that no further omissions can be accused here is the second amendment as I believe it is written. "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. . " To begin with the definition of "Militia" is force or military comprised of untrained or non professional fighters(one could argue conscription). This implies no training, certification, experience, or discrimination because of age or gender. So saying only military or police should be the only ones to posses or use firearms is in direct opposition to this notion. Personally I find this line of thinking something akin to censorship of our first amendment rights.

In regards to "well regulated," this is the part of the constitution that I wish we could travel back in time and ask our founding fathers about. At the time anyone i think it was 15 or older was "able bodied" and could become a combatant. I have heard some say that well regulated was simply stating rules were still necessary(i.e. recruiting only able bodied people, adhering to rules of war, ect) Another line of thinking is that it means it should be regulated by state(read govt.). Although this is reasonable explanation, if you consider the circumstances that dictated the constitutions writing... I personally feel this would make our founding fathers de facto hypocrites and criminals. This "well regulated" portion will always be debated, anyone who believes they know the true meaning is misguided at best wouldn't you agree?

In regards to what I can only assume is a reference to my avatar.. I personally have no quarrel with the govt. other than I believe the 6 democrats and 6 republicans who came up with sequester should be brought up on charges of treason. I think you misunderstood when I said I was indifferent to a group of individuals who feel armed uprising is/was necessary. Also, no single individual opposing the govt would fare well no matter what weapon the possessed. Even CQC would not help. However should the citizens of the US in a unified... or semi unified(civil war wasnt completely unified) rise against any threat foreign or domestic, even the govt. the results would likely mirror history.(See Revolutionary war).

I am also for background checks and do not believe I have stated anything to that effect. As far as limiting firearms to hunting and personal defense, what about sports? Even Olympic events including shooting firearms. Also, it is impossible to limit a tools use to its owner. You can make it a law to only use a flathead screwdriver for use with screws. But if I as an owner use mine to pry boards apart how can you enforce it? A firearm is a tool nothing more. I do agree that there are people out there that shouldn't have access to weapons. However if you make an mentally ill person, or domestic terrorist take a class, are they less dangerous? I am a firm believer in safety dont get me wrong. Every firing range I have been to instructs all new shooters on basic firearm safety. These same instructions are also in every firearm manual I have ever seen or heard about.



Actually you can look at the other Constitution that were written for the states at that time to see what they had in mind for well regulated and what they considered a militia.

Virginia 1776
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

North Carolina 1776
17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Massachusetts Circa 1780
Art. VII. The governor of this commonwealth, for the time being, shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and of all the military forces of the State, by sea and land; and shall have full power, by himself or by any commander, or other officer or officers, from time to time, to train, instruct, exercise, and govern the militia and navy; and, for the special defence and safety of the commonwealth, to assemble in martial array, and put in warlike posture, the inhabitants thereof, and to lead and conduct them, and with them to encounter, repel, resist, expel, and pursue, by force of arms, as by sea as by land, within or within the limits of this commonwealth; and also to kill, slay, and destroy, if necessary, and conquer, by all fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever, all and every such person and persons as shall, at any time hereafter, in a hostile manner, attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance of this commonwealth; and to use and exercise over the army and navy, and over the militia in actual service, the law-martial, in time of war or invasion, and also in time of rebellion, declared by the legislature to exist, as occasion shall necessarily require; and to take and surprise, by all ways and means whatsoever, all and every such person or persons, with their ships, arms, and ammunititon, and other goods, as shall, in a hostile manner, invade, or attempt the invading, conquering, or annoying this commonwealth; and that the governor be intrusted with all these and other powers incident to the offices of captain-general and commander-in-chief, and admiral, to be exercised agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the land, and not otherwise.

New York 1777
XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.

There are four examples The first two are pretty clear.

Madison and Jefferson with George Mason wrote the Virginia state Constitution. Madison wrote the US Constitution and consulted the others on this. So it is pretty clear they didn't want a standing army and they wanted militias that were sworn to the state and could be called up. Not Bobby Lee and Billy Lee running around in the woods playing army thinking they are going to hold off the military with civilian grade hardware.

Now then as for sport shooting sure no problem with that considered doing it myself at different time problem is to actually be competitive at it you spend a huge amount of time shooting time I don't have anymore. That and my eye sight isn't what it used to be, and you really need good eyes for it.

Nope the reason I pulled out the AR-15 is it is the most common weapon that private militias grab when they go to purchase a weapon. We are mostly in agreement on the sequester the whole idea was stupid to begin with. Really smart stop spending during an economic down turn yeah that is bright just makes things worse. Piking idiots.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

billytheboy wrote:

The purpose of the second amendment is to put a check on the government's power. Should the government overstep the powers granted to it in the constitution (as they so often do), an armed populace can be ready to resist tyranny using any means neccesary.


I will just ask you the simpler question so why are the supposed to be well regulated?
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/23/15

dsjb wrote:


billytheboy wrote:

The purpose of the second amendment is to put a check on the government's power. Should the government overstep the powers granted to it in the constitution (as they so often do), an armed populace can be ready to resist tyranny using any means neccesary.


When you have half the county saying a action taken by a government is constitutional and another half saying its not isn't this a bit of a recipe for disaster? I mean I understand in your system the judiciary acts as a arbiter in this regard but I've also seen people allot of people saying they don't acknowledge the authority of the federal courts. Such as the whole Alabama thing going on right now (I'm sketchy on the details because the bbc's coverage of america is sparse), but it seems clear that there's a significant section that sounds like it doesn't agree with the rulings.


This is because people fail to understand what well regulated means in the context of the founding and the Constitution. Madison and Jefferson made it pretty clear what they wanted when they co-wrote the Virginia State Constitution with George Mason. But folks don't like looking at those because the militias are still under the control of the government.
22221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/23/15
Well as an Englishman we don't have firearms.

I don't feel the need for them and countries that have disowned them (Australia) have had fantastic results in terms of crime.

If I'm honest the ENTIRE argument surrounding the 2nd amendment perplexes me.... it's called an "AMENDMENT" it can be amended, changed and altered by the very definition of that it says.

America abolished slavery and nothing bad happened if people genuinely thing they think doing the same for firearms will do cause heaps of problems then frankly they're delusional.

That's just my opinion anyway
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.