News Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Cyrus]

But if an armed population prevented governments from abusing their power then wouldn't there be a correlation between this and the stability of various democratic countries? I see no obvious difference in western countries between this constitutional right and, well, much of anything besides gun violence. The intended purpose does not seem to be served but the drawbacks are in the news daily.

What does that matter? Does the constitution say anything about there needing to be a strong correlation to own a gun? Yes its in the news daily, because the majority of criminals use illegal and stolen guns to commit crimes. Details, details...

 

[Teegvin]

A citizen cannot own a nuclear weapon, so the answer must be no.

I'm an idiot.

I never even thought of that.

I was more concerned with things like knives, swords, or good old-fashioned halberd.

I later found out that some states allow people to carry weapons other than fire-arms, and others do not.

 

[Cyrus]

Citizens are now allowed to buy fighter jets. Is there something wrong with that Orefa?

 

[Orefa]

I'm an idiot.

I never suggested you were. You clearly asked if citizens can own any weapon they want and the answer is clearly no.

 

[Entropy]

It has to do with having the ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones should you (god forbid) ever need to.

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Basically, myself and millions of other law abiding US citizens carry a firearm... and it isn't for hunting.

Yeah, and I disagree with it. If isn't for hunting animals it's for killing human beings.

Truth is, anyone can get their hands on a firearm and the people who get them legally don't always want to destroy everyone ;) Especially the ones who purchase machine guns legally.

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

 

[Cyrus]

If you don't like guns then don't buy one Entropy. You have the right to disagree with guns, but you don't have the right to limit those who do want to have guns to own one. (Whatever type of gun it may be.) It is a fundamental right to own a gun. If you can't stand it that much, then you should try to amdend the constitution or live in another country.

 

[Orefa]

What does that matter?

Well, it matters that if the intended purpose is not served and if there are drawbacks then the amendment should probably be repelled. It seems sensible.

Citizens are now allowed to buy fighter jets. Is there something wrong with that Orefa?

I see nothing wrong with airplanes. The weaponry could be a problem though, depending on that is allowed and what restrictions apply. A local terrorist would love to take his neighbour's legally-purchased, well-armed fighter for a spin...

 

[Cyrus]

Well, it matters that if the intended purpose is not served and if there are drawbacks then the amendment should probably be repelled. It seems sensible.

Then let's fix the problem by giving people more guns and the proper training so that it does serve its purpose. What are the drawbacks to gun ownership? You have not provided any drawbacks. All you have done is provide a case based on illegal and stolen guns.

A local terrorist would love to take his neighbour's legally-purchased, well-armed fighter for a spin...

What kind of argument is that? A terrorist could just get a U-haul truck and fill it with fertilizer. Do you see the absurdity of your argument? Anything can be dangerous when used improperly. That does not mean you ban everything that can be a potential weapon.

 

[Orefa]

What are the drawbacks to gun ownership?

Oh my.

What kind of argument is that?

Pretty much the same argument that keeps nukes off the street.

 

[turbo]

Come to my house. You will be well-fed, warm, and comfortable. If you ask, you can see my gun collection (mostly old lever-action Winchesters). If somebody came after you while you were in my home, I would defend you to the best of my ability. If you were a battered woman and your estranged husband was hunting you down, you might appreciate that level of support.

If you would prefer that private citizens not have access to firearms, what is your alternative?

 

[moose]

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

My trainer has had someone shoot at him and yet he is the one alive today ;)

If there is absolutely no way out of a situation and you or a third party will definitely die and the guy has a gun pointed at you, you would nearly always be able to pull your gun out and shoot fast enough. If you are trained of course.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh my.

That is the only drawback you could come up with, 'oh my'? Oh my indeed.

Pretty much the same argument that keeps nukes off the street.

Keeps nukes off the street? You don't walk around town holding a nuke. It's not physically possible, so your argment makes no sense.

 

[deckart]

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

? Nonsense.

Yeah, and I disagree with it. If isn't for hunting animals it's for killing human beings.

Exactly. What's your point?

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

Here is how it works, if you pull your gun and point it at somebody, you better be pulling the trigger. Now in your scenerio, you are right, I could very well be killed. Armed or not. Now, if I'm a third party in this situation, and I see this happening, I'm prepared to defend the other individual. Whereas if I did not have a firearm, I could very well be killed as well. Why would you want to take that ability (and Constitutional right) from an average law abiding American? What are you afraid of?

 

[BobG]

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Entropy has a point. Firearm accidents occur much more often than firearms saving a family's life. In fact, intentional shooting of another family member occurs more often than a firearm protecting someone from a stranger. Actions taken to prevent firearm accidents or to make it harder to use them in the heat of anger (trigger locks, keeping ammo locked separate from guns, etc) reduce their effectiveness as a self defense tool. The self defense argument is similar to that of people who drive across the country because they're afraid to fly - both arguments fly in the face of statistics.

A better defense than guns is to increase your income. Your chances of being shot by a stranger are more affected by the neighborhood you live in than by whether you own a gun or not.

If I remember correctly from past discussions we had on this, the number of gun owners and gun control laws have no correlation at all to crime rates, so really doesn't support the arguments of either side.

 

[Entropy]

Exactly. What's your point?

I disagree with citizians using guns other than for hunting animals.

I could very well be killed. Armed or not.

No you're far more likely to be killed pulling out a gun in retaliation. If someone robs you on the street and you pull out a gun in retaliation, you're tempting that man to shoot you. Why take a chance with your life?

Now, if I'm a third party in this situation, and I see this happening, I'm prepared to defend the other individual. Whereas if I did not have a firearm, I could very well be killed as well. Why would you want to take that ability (and Constitutional right) from an average law abiding American?

Who the hell assults someone with others looking? No one is going to pull a gun on you in a crowded street.

(and Constitutional right)

If slavery was a Constitutional right, would you defend someone's right to have slaves just because it's in the Constitution?

What are you afraid of?

Being shot.

 

[Entropy]

If there is absolutely no way out of a situation and you or a third party will definitely die and the guy has a gun pointed at you, you would nearly always be able to pull your gun out and shoot fast enough. If you are trained of course.

Have just considered giving the assailent what he wants? Chances are slim to none that your going to me a complete pyscopath that will just walk up to you and kill you. And if you do meet someone like this, chances are he'll just shot you in the back without you even knowing. Most likely the guy just wants your money. Why not just give it to him instead of putting yourself in unnescessary danger?

 

[Tarheel]

Entropy has a point. Firearm accidents occur much more often than firearms saving a family's life.

Really? Do you have a source?

I would challenge that if you compared the number of accidental shootings to the number of legally registered guns you would find the number statistically insignificant.

As for firearm safety in my home, my firearms are locked securely in a safe, and only I know the combination.

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night?

You ever heard of "Always be prepared".

Do you have absolute faith in the stability of this government? I don't.
No one knows what the future may hold for all of us, but if difficult times are on the horizon... I will be prepared.

You will be like a sheep to the slaughter.

 

[Entropy]

Do you have absolute faith in the stability of this government? I don't.

Dude, you're seriously paranoid.

 

[Tarheel]

Dude, you're seriously paranoid.

Yeah, You're right.
Nothing bad ever happens.

There are people all over this planet that NEVER THOUGHT what happens to them today would ever happen.

I hope your rose colored lenses are bullet proof.

 

[Cyrus]

Entropy, don't compare Gun ownership to slavery, that makes you look insensitive and foolish.


I already told you. If you don't like guns, then don't own one. Don't preach to the rest of us who have a constitutional right that having one is bad. If you hate it that much go try to nullify the 2nd amendment and see how far you get. Perhaps Rosy O'donell can give you some support.

 

[Art]

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

In the Vietnam war decade 1963-73 there were 46,752 americans killed in SE Asia. During the same time period there were 84,633 americans killed by firearms back in America.

 

[Cyrus]

So what art? Out of context that is meaningless. How many were illegal or stolen? You do know that the rate of violent crimes is actually going down right?

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

No, it does not. We have a constitution that says so. Just because a gun has a potential to kill does not make it a negative. By your logic hammers are bad, knives are bad, anything blunt that can be used to kill is bad. Therefore we should ban it all. I don't think so.

 

[Art]

So what art? Out of context that is meaningless.

I cited a comparison with the Vietnam war deliberately to put it in context. Most americans were horrified by the number of casualties suffered during the Vietnam war but I wonder how many realize nearly twice as many were killed on the 'homefront'.

How many were illegal or stolen?

Stolen from whom Cyrus? Wouldn't be from people who exercised their constitutional right to own a gun would it?

No, it does not. We have a constitution that says so.

It says what? Where does the constitution say the right to bear arms supercedes the right to life?

Just because a gun has a potential to kill does not make it a negative.

Yes it does.

By your logic hammers are bad, knives are bad, anything blunt that can be used to kill is bad. Therefore we should ban it all. I don't think so.

A rather silly strawman arguement. When this rather ridiculous preposition was posited by gun clubs in the UK I thought the then home secretary's response was very good, he pointed out that mass murder is never committed with a cricket bat, cricket bats are not deadly at a range of several hundred feet and cricket bats have other uses which guns do not.

 

[vanesch]

A better defense than guns is to increase your income.

And a good synthesis is then, to use your firearms to increase your income

 

[turbo]

The right to life should trump the right to own a gun.

Whose "right to life" should trump whose right to own a gun? The right to life of a rapist, home invader, or burgler? The right to life of an unstable person who has kidnapped someone and is threatening their life? Perhaps you mean the right to life of a person who chooses not to adequately provide for their own self-defense, then pleads for help when the aforementioned bad people attack them?

We do not live in an ideal world where everybody can be expected to behave nicely. It's better to be prepared to defend yourself, and it's best if you never have to do so. The more certain the bad guys are that you can defend yourself, the less likely they are to target you. There is a bumper sticker that I particularly like "Notice: the driver carries only $20 worth of ammunition."

 

[Art]

Whose "right to life" should trump whose right to own a gun? The right to life of a rapist, home invader, or burgler? The right to life of an unstable person who has kidnapped someone and is threatening their life? Perhaps you mean the right to life of a person who chooses not to adequately provide for their own self-defense, then pleads for help when the aforementioned bad people attack them?

We do not live in an ideal world where everybody can be expected to behave nicely. It's better to be prepared to defend yourself, and it's best if you never have to do so. The more certain the bad guys are that you can defend yourself, the less likely they are to target you. There is a bumper sticker that I particularly like "Notice: the driver carries only $20 worth of ammunition."

A few points;

With a well funded and well resourced police force you don't need vigilantes.

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished and so the need to defend oneself is also proportionately diminished.

How many of the people killed each year by firearms are criminals and how many are innocents?

 

[turbo]

We have a well-funded police force. I live in the country and if I called for help, I would be lucky to see an officer within 15 minutes at the minimum. "Oh please, Mr. Crazy Guy, just wait for 15 or 20 minutes before you smash the window and come into my house."

A person prepared to defend the lives in his or her home is hardly a vigilante - more like a pragmatist. Like I said, the best outcome is that you a fully prepared to defend yourself and never need to do so.

 

[Tarheel]

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished...

If the Right to Bear arms was removed from the Constitution I know all the criminals would happily return any firearms promptly to the authorities.

Why do people believe that changing the constitution would magically make all firearms *pop* out of existence?

Last I checked there was no "Right to own Cocaine" in the constitution, But I bet you I could get ahold of some before the sun sets tonight...

 

[Art]

If the Right to Bear arms was removed from the Constitution I know all the criminals would happily return any firearms promptly to the authorities.

Really ? Personally I wouldn't have thought so.

Why do people believe that changing the constitution would magically make all firearms *pop* out of existence?

I have no idea. Who are these naive people you refer to?

Last I checked there was no "Right to own Cocaine" in the constitution, But I bet you I could get ahold of some before the sun sets tonight...

Indubitably.

So apart from stating the obvious that changing the constitution will not make all guns magically disappear what exactly is your point??

First a society must desire to remove guns from it's culture and then it can be discussed as to how. Saying it is difficult is not a persuasive argument to do nothing.

England for example was awash with weaponry after WW2 but in a very short space of time through legislation coupled with general amnestys guns were once again removed from society.

 

[Tarheel]

Really ? Personally I wouldn't have thought so.

I should have prefaced that statement with [SARCASM]...
But I think you knew that.

So apart from stating the obvious that changing the constitution will not make all guns magically disappear what exactly is your point??

Quite simply my point is... The people that would abide by a Constitutional change are the honest, law abiding citizens of this country.

Therefore making the statement...

With guns out of the equation the threat from criminals is diminished...

Impractical.

The net effect would then be... Honest, Law abiding citizens UNAMRED, Criminals ARMED.

I guess it's okay though, we can all follow Entropy's advice and just "Give the criminals whatever they want."