Guns-A Constitutional Right?

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
And here are some words from the neo cons second most unfavorite President they all love to hate. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?th&emc=th
I don't see any Noble Peace Prize recipients on LPSG's political forum who can refute his views on the subject of assault rifles, automatic weapons, and the NRA.
 

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
You people read so much into something that's really quite simple. We have the right to bear arms for if and when the government becomes to oppressive, we'd have the ability to engage in violent revolution. The founding fathers were big on that.

Does that as a basis still apply today? YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You people read so much into something that's really quite simple. We have the right to bear arms for if and when the government becomes to oppressive, we'd have the ability to engage in violent revolution. The founding fathers were big on that.

Does that as a basis still apply today? YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES.

Yeah, that's simple, all right; too simple to account for how private citizens armed with legally acquired weapons are supposed to put the fear of God into government forces armed with machine guns, rockets, bombs, tanks, planes, and so on. It seems to me that if the government were to turn tyrannical, a bunch of citizens with rifles, pistols, and shotguns would not constitute much of an impediment.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah, that's simple, all right; too simple to account for how private citizens armed with legally acquired weapons are supposed to put the fear of God into government forces armed with machine guns, rockets, bombs, tanks, planes, and so on. It seems to me that if the government were to turn tyrannical, a bunch of citizens with rifles, pistols, and shotguns would not constitute much of an impediment.

If Iraqis can do it, why can't we? You think an armed insurrection wouldn't be effective, but it is.

Once again, I offer Iraq, Bosnia, Ireland, Afghanistan (who have fought the British, Soviets, and Americans), Cambodia, Vietnam, and Mexico off the top of my head. Armed people who do not want to be conquered are deadly for invading armies or even their own. Need I even point out that the Americans of the revolution were facing the greatest military power in the world and yet managed to win? Even now in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no real safety for allied forces. Israelis all keep assault weapons in their home because they are under terrorist siege and have been since the country was founded.

Guerrilla tactics when used by armed partisans can undermine modern military forces and we're seeing that right now.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Once again, I offer Iraq, Bosnia, Ireland, Afghanistan (who have fought the British, Soviets, and Americans), Cambodia, Vietnam, and Mexico off the top of my head.

All relatively poor countries compared to the firepower strength of the US government. How many of those 7 countries have nuclear arms?


Need I even point out that the Americans of the revolution were facing the greatest military power in the world and yet managed to win?

Yeah, a great military power based 4,000 miles -- mostly ocean -- away from where the fighting was in an era when people were still getting around on and behind horses. C'mon.


The Second Amendment makes it clear that arms in the public's hands are safeguarded and appropriate insofar as the readiness of a militia is concerned. There is scant evidence that it had much of anything to do with uprisings against our own government. The plan was that once the colonies were free, they were determined to stay free of invading armies through a national militia (to complement the army).

No American has a "right" to own a gun for any reason unrelated to national defense. Not to shoot a rabbit, or a bear, or even to shoot a burglar or rapist in your home. The Supreme Court has been quite clear on this. Various states and municipalities grant the privilege of gun ownership for what they consider legitimate reasons (hunting, self-protection, etc.). But none of these privileges are guaranteed in the US Constitution and absolutely can be revoked.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
108
Points
193
It is really ridiculous to argue about this subject. The federal courts have already ruled that citizens do indeed have the right to own guns. They overruled the district of Columbia on a firearm ownership ban.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
All relatively poor countries compared to the firepower strength of the US government. How many of those 7 countries have nuclear arms?

Exactly. They're poor and yet they're still able to maintain a lethal insurgency which the US, despite its firepower, is unable to eradicate. Nuclear weapons are pointless in these conflicts. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100. You can't use them.

Yeah, a great military power based 4,000 miles -- mostly ocean -- away from where the fighting was in an era when people were still getting around on and behind horses. C'mon.

The principle tactics remain the same. Prior to the war, the Brits closed all the iron foundries in the colonies, and prevented them from fabricating weapons of any sort. When the Revolution started, we had to re-open them and get to work. We were definitely at a disadvantage and had we met the British in battle according to the rules of war at the time, we would have been slaughtered.


The Second Amendment makes it clear that arms in the public's hands are safeguarded and appropriate insofar as the readiness of a militia is concerned. There is scant evidence that it had much of anything to do with uprisings against our own government. The plan was that once the colonies were free, they were determined to stay free of invading armies through a national militia (to complement the army).

No American has a "right" to own a gun for any reason unrelated to national defense. Not to shoot a rabbit, or a bear, or even to shoot a burglar or rapist in your home. The Supreme Court has been quite clear on this. Various states and municipalities grant the privilege of gun ownership for what they consider legitimate reasons (hunting, self-protection, etc.). But none of these privileges are guaranteed in the US Constitution and absolutely can be revoked.

No it doesn't and the amendment doesn't say that. It says quite plainly, "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." It says because of one thing, the following shall occur. The comma is there for a reason and any grammarian will tell you that the clause in the beginning does not change the subject of the second part. The clause merely gives a reason for it, but does not exclude owning arms for any other reason. The men writing the Constitution were well-educated and knew precisely what they were writing. It was very clear to them what they meant. The Supreme Court affirmed this in District of Columbia v. Heller:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."-Syllabus of DOC v. Heller

and:

"The Amendment&#8217;s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause&#8217;s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms" -Ibid.

and:

"Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court&#8217;s conclusion." -Ibid.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
I may be echoing comments made by others, but clearly there are many types of guns, so one law written over 200 years ago can hardly apply to all types of today's firearms. I doubt the writers of the Constitution had assualt rifles in mind when they were framing the right to gun ownership. There is no rational basis for 99.9% of all individuals to own an assult rifle. The right to own a conventional type of gun must come with demonstrated responsibility, such as a ability to obey the law, evidence of Federally certified firearm's training, no history of mental illness/violent outbursts, several personal recommendations, and a 30 waiting period, are all reasonable criteria. Otherwise you have the catastropy we have now where shills are legally buying weapons and reselling them to criminals. Individual right to gun ownership cannot mean denying the right to a peaceful full life by another. The argument that criminals can easily get any gun anytime they want, which is virtually guaranteed with no regulation at gun show sales, does not warrant weakening (what should be) Federal standards of responsible gun ownership. If you really believe that, than everyone should own a government issue rifle/gun, and perform mandatory military service, just as they do in Switzerland. Then no one, or militia, will be without the happiness of a warm gun.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
21
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Bottom Line: Gun bans accomplish NOTHING, PERIOD. Nowhere that has gun bans is safer, or does crime drop much, if at all. Many places it actually goes up. Unless you can stop the production of guns forever, they'll still get wherever they're banned and be used by criminals.

All gun bans do is stop the legal and responsible owners.
 

FuzzyKen

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
193
Gender
Male
There is a great misunderstanding world wide. Guns in and of themselves do not cause crimes. Criminals with a desire to as a whole obtain something for nothing or to cause anarchy cause crimes.

I absolutely believe in the right to bear arms.

Countires without arms have historically had their problems because of it. Countries with arms have had theirs too, but they have had different problems.

Most of the arms used in crimes inside the United States were not purchased by the criminals. These arms were stolen in separate crimes. Some individuals because of their past behaviors are denied ownership of firearms.

Those individuals, denied the ownership of weapons then result to first the crime of obtaining a weapon, or possession of a stolen weapon, and then they proceed to commit another crime with this weapon. On average, crimes involving firearms are thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, and many charges are often added when firearms are used for the comission of a crime.

The elimination of firearms my dear U.K. friend will in no manner even make a dent in crime.

I live in the Southwest United States. The State in which I live and the area in which I live has a very low crime rate. The reason for this is that most in ranching areas are pro-firearms and are extremely skilled in their use.

We do not have a street-gang problem here. We do not have graffiti here. We don't have driveby shootings simply because the gun laws here support your right as a citizen to defend yourself.

It is very common to see average John Q. Citizen wearing a holster and a sidearm here. Nobody, not even law enforcement thinks anything of it. Teens are taught to shoot and do it well by the time they are in Middle School.

You would think that this would be an "armed camp". It is not! There are places where firearms are not allowed, but, these have clearly posted signs and the laws are obeyed.

I think that proper useage of firearms should be required in all schools and taught. Both Obama and McCain supported the right to bear arms. Biden supported the right to bear arms.

I do not trust any government that would take away the right or ability of the private citizen to protect himself/herself from either crime or a government corrupted by unknown sources.

If you look at various Dictatorships and extremely opressed countries the bottom line is how many of the citizens in those countries have the right and ability to own firearms.

Hope that this clarifies things for you even more than many here already have. . .

 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I accept that owning a gun can make you feel safer, i know it would if i had one and i know that it is a part of US culture....i'm not criticising america's relationship with guns, i'm just interested and questioning.

Some of the arguments though, they don't stand up.

Its easy to say as some have "look at developing nations or dictatorships" to argue how not having weapons amongst the general populas is bad but thats a poor comparison....look at western countries who have at one time been in similiar situations, tyranny beaten down by the masses with the leadership of brave men, guns are not needed by everyone, we have fists to fight with common sense tells you that a hundred men with rifles will cause bloodshed but they will lose against 1000 men with anger in their hearts.

Its also daft that there seems to be such a paranoia about the US government, what exactly might the worse case scenario be that guns for the public would be useful....dont cite history to argue this point as times have changed.
From where i'm standing the US would have to sink into the depths of poverty where those getting paid were mostly working in the public sector, corruption would have to be such that the opposition were no longer true opponents and actually profiting, where people would be doing anything to make a buck in order to survive....in which case i think the biggest threat would be from your neighbours than the government.
This aint the 18th century....not in our countries....

....i dont criticise like i said before but anyone who argues that things are worse where there are no guns amongst the general population are wrong.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
dont cite history to argue this point as times have changed.

anyone who argues that things are worse where there are no guns amongst the general population are wrong.

This is a prime example of why I don't interact with most of the people in this forum any longer. What an intellectually weak decree that any position you might disagree with is somehow not a valid argument simply because you proclaim it to be so. If you cannot argue the merits of your position against any challenge, then perhaps you should consider reassessing that position.

Then to further make such a broadly ignorant claim at the finish without offering up even the tiniest bit of substantiation only cements the title of weak-minded hypocrisy above your head.

Learn the basic principles of reasoned debate, people. The point of discussion is for people to state and evaluate multiple viewpoints with respect to topics...and that evaluation process involves the use of fact and reason to determine whether any contention can stand on its merits or not. Ignorant displays of this sort are highly unbecoming of free-thinking individuals. Do better.
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
21
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
This is a prime example of why I don't interact with most of the people in this forum any longer. What an intellectually weak decree that any position you might disagree with is somehow not a valid argument simply because you proclaim it to be so. If you cannot argue the merits of your position against any challenge, then perhaps you should consider reassessing that position.

Then to further make such a broadly ignorant claim at the finish without offering up even the tiniest bit of substantiation only cements the title of weak-minded hypocrisy above your head.

Learn the basic principles of reasoned debate, people. The point of discussion is for people to state and evaluate multiple viewpoints with respect to topics...and that evaluation process involves the use of fact and reason to determine whether any contention can stand on its merits or not. Ignorant displays of this sort are highly unbecoming of free-thinking individuals. Do better.

Pretty much. I've had this debate a hundred times, and the pro-ban people can never back up what they say. They'll say "Virginia Tech!" or "Columbine!" but I can show you stats that say gun bans don't lower crime, and in many places it actually goes up.

Legal and responsible trained gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes most of the time. Sure there's murders and the occasional nutjob, but even if guns were banned they'd find one anyway.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
108
Points
193
In the case of District of Columbia versus Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Dick Heller owned a handgun, and DC was trying to restrict personal gun ownership.

It hasn't been that long sense the ruling was issued. Why do peeps keep bringing the stupid ass argument back up?

Guns don't kill people. Drivers using their cell phones do.
 

StrictlyAvg

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Posts
698
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
103
Location
UK Hatfield
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
a likely reason why americans will never give up their guns and europeans will never allow them....its the status quo i guess and one that i will never seek to criticise....
Think you might be imprinting the UK's ridiculously restrictive firearms laws on the whole of Europe there mate! It's pretty easy to get one in most of Europe if you want one.

I call it ridiculously restrictive because for the most part, people you wouldn't want to have guns can get hold of them illegally quite easily, and return them back into the black market once they've used them for whatever nefarious purpose they wanted them for.

Yet one of our Olympic gold medallist marksmen goes abroad (Switzerland I think) to train because it's such a pain in the arse to own and shoot the types of guns used for those competitions.
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,368
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
After having many conversations about this with foreigners (Japanese, Ghanans, Swedish, Portuguese and others), I came to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference in American culture and therefore Americans where guns are seen as the ultimate expression of the freedom that we are entitled to as Americans.

Other cultures do not value the level of freedom that Americans do, so it is difficult for them to see why having the right to own a gun means anything. Often, I find, naturalized immigrants will be gun owners because it is a fundamentally American idea that in a free, civilized society, all people have the right to own one and protect themselves with one from any threat.
 

StrictlyAvg

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Posts
698
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
103
Location
UK Hatfield
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
all people have the right to own one and protect themselves with one from any threat.

A gun would be entirely useless against most threats you're likely to face in modern society!

That's not an anti-gun statement btw - guns are specific tools designed to do specific jobs.
 
Last edited:

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is a prime example of why I don't interact with most of the people in this forum any longer. What an intellectually weak decree that any position you might disagree with is somehow not a valid argument simply because you proclaim it to be so. If you cannot argue the merits of your position against any challenge, then perhaps you should consider reassessing that position.

Then to further make such a broadly ignorant claim at the finish without offering up even the tiniest bit of substantiation only cements the title of weak-minded hypocrisy above your head.

Learn the basic principles of reasoned debate, people. The point of discussion is for people to state and evaluate multiple viewpoints with respect to topics...and that evaluation process involves the use of fact and reason to determine whether any contention can stand on its merits or not. Ignorant displays of this sort are highly unbecoming of free-thinking individuals. Do better.

I have said nothing which was not the counter argument to other posters rash declarations....i have not tried to suggest that the pro-gun view is wrong....i stated at the end a fact which i do not feel needs to be argued because i stated earlier in my post the prime example of why things are no worse but to clarify.....

....no gun europe is just as safe, prosperous and free as america.

Its easy to claim things are worse when you compare with Afghanistan during the Taliban reign or Sharia ruled regions of Africa. Essentially all that guns do is make it easier to revolt, something which can still be done without guns (among the gen pop) as european history proves.

There is no right or wrong in either argument, there are pros and cons to both. I said i wasnt criticising just questioning.

I suggest as a personal message to you that you have argued your own hypocrisy not mine....if you want to ignore those who you feel have made poor arguments then it serves only to show arrogance on your part to assume that people who hold differing views to you are wrong, something you claimed i was doing....read ALL posts clearly and dont pick out the odd comment cos if you had then you would have seen my post in context not as an off-the-wall statement.
 

Rikter8

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Posts
4,353
Media
1
Likes
128
Points
283
Location
Ann Arbor (Michigan, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd rather have a firearm at my side for protection, rather than be a nightly news blip of how some crazed lunatic got pissed off in a traffic jam and started shooting everyone around him.

I've seen this happen - and if the gun was pointed at YOU -I'm sure you would change your opinion. It's easy to say no right now.... but in circumstance - it would be a different story.
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,368
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
A gun would be entirely useless against most threats you're likely to face in modern society!

That's not an anti-gun statement btw - guns are specific tools designed to do specific jobs.

You'd be better off not cherry-picking half a sentence out of my post and instead taking the post for its full meaning.

Clearly I was not saying that guns are useful against most threats in society.