[Arkan]

Ok, this is geared more towards people LIVING in the US, but you "outsiders" are welcome to join in.

How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment? Is it an "individual right" or a "Collective right" to bear arms?

I feel as if the founding fathers meant it as an "Individual right" to bear arms. This is a touchy subject to "anti gunners" as well as "pro-gunners". Washington DC took it upon themselves to out right ban all guns back in 1976 due to the high murder rate. They thought by banning guns, they would cure their crime rate. Well, it may work in theory but, out of all the crimes committed with "firearms", what is the percentage committed by "law abiding" citizens? Meaning, those who "legally" purchased their firearms? I'm betting it's less than 2%.
Anyway, back to DC......they STILL have the highest murder rate in the entire fucking country!! Why?....well, simply because, only the fucking criminals have guns!!!

I'm thinking, if you give citizens their rights back, the murder rate will drop across the country. At least a potential victim will be able to fight back.

Oh, and for all you Pyros of the world, the guns are already here. We can't simply make them go away. We have well over several million in this country so we have to address that. If we took all the guns away from the law abiding, what's left? Only the criminals and cops would have guns leaving the rest of us "fucked".

Screw that, i want to be able to protect me and what's mine.



/discuss

[[DAS REICH] Blitz]

If I didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk into my house any time he wants and start shoving me around.

[Chronic Diarrhea]

Citizens must have the right to bear arms because what if your government does something so drastic, so deplorable that you must engage in a revolution? The right to bear arms is an individual's right to protect his life, his property, and his family should his government one day decide it is time to become a dictatorship.

[Coleman]

i feel that the constitution and other important documents should be read as a minimalistic documents. The founding fathers knew that things would change (whether societal values, technology, etc.), and with this in mind, they made a document that can be kept as a core for the rest of the remaining years of the nation (with amendments being put in there as a safety precaution.) So under their circumstances at the time, they believed the people needed guns to have their revolution. With their personal arms playing such a large role in the revolution against a country with "good intentions", they made sure that fellow man would be able to have the same opportunities as they had. They're not looking to protect the [the nation + the people of the nation]. They're looking to protect people in general in case that nation fails them.

I'm all about individual rights to bear arms due to the historical context and my interpreted intentions of the documents.

[Tripper]

i heard that the right to bear arms was originally added because back then americans were against having a 'standing army' and wanted their people to fight for themselves in militias

ironic how now you guys have the biggest standing army in the world nowadays

[jujumantb]

its a completely obsolete amendment... it was meant for citizens to be able to overthrow a government that was no longer representing them... clearly, in this day, that is totally unreasonable. im not against hunting, its needed, but everything but single shot rifles should be outlawed. getting that to actually work in the US is another story

[jujumantb]

Originally Posted by Chronic Diarrhea

Citizens must have the right to bear arms because what if your government does something so drastic, so deplorable that you must engage in a revolution? The right to bear arms is an individual's right to protect his life, his property, and his family should his government one day decide it is time to become a dictatorship.

youre fucking dumb... good luck getting any citizen army with pistols organized to defeat a modern military... maybe 200 years ago... any revolution nowadays would have to involve a military "mutiny", not pockets of fucktards with six shooters and hunting rifles...

[jujumantb]

Originally Posted by Tripper

ironic how now you guys have the biggest standing army in the world nowadays

i think were second or third, for sure behind china

[Chronic Diarrhea]

Originally Posted by jujumantb

youre fucking dumb... good luck getting any citizen army with pistols organized to defeat a modern military... maybe 200 years ago... any revolution nowadays would have to involve a military "mutiny", not pockets of fucktards with six shooters and hunting rifles...

No you're fucking dumb. There are TONS of state militias in this country. The Texas Constitutional Militia alone stands at 20,000 strong and armed with tanks, APCs, and heavy artillery...and they're only one of over 50 Texas state militias.

Take all of the militias, and factor in the tens of thousands of National Guard and military personnel that would defect to militias, plus possible foreign aid and you've got a pretty tough battle.

Stop living in your pussy college boy world. The 2nd Amendment has a practical purpose. It's not just some law for rednecks to piss off tree hugging hippies like yourself.

[ninty]

A civilian population revolution in the US could overthrow the US government and defeat the US military. They would just overwhelm them with numbers. Looks at what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do any of those guys have F-16's or ships or artillery? No, they have AK's and a fighting spirit. Personally I don't think it's outdated at all and I think it is a fundamental part of a free nation and a fundamental part of an individual being free.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens doesn't quell crime. You're only left with the criminals who have guns then and they get free reign. It is a basic right of every person to defend themselves, and if a criminal is running around with a gun, the average citizen should be able to fight back with one as well if the situation arose.

[[DAS REICH] Blitz]

[Mr.Buttocks]

Originally Posted by jujumantb

its a completely obsolete amendment... it was meant for citizens to be able to overthrow a government that was no longer representing them... clearly, in this day, that is totally unreasonable.

What about the government in 10, 20, 30, years from now?

[m00nraker]

I am for the right for people to keep/bear arms, unlike most people around my age to who are caught up in the liberal BS. It might be because I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US. It seems everyone my age is terrified of guns, and they somehow think they just decide to go off by themselves.

I plan to apply for my LTC(License to Carry) in 2 years when I'm 21. I'm also a member of SCCC (Students for Concealed Carry on Campus) and have applied for a Campus Leader position. I'm also planning on joining the NRA, just as soon as I can get the extra cash together.

It might be because I have been raised around Law Enforcement/Military(Father/Grandfather were cops, Uncle was/currently Army) but I have always been around guns. My grandfather always carries his Sig with him, even to family parties and stuff.

I have taken friends of mine to the range who were uneasy about guns prior, but after they said it was fun! I am a Criminal Justice major, and my favorite thing to hear is kids in my class saying how bad guns are....do they not realize that its something they will have to wear on their hip in a few years?!?!

[Madmartagen]

banning guns isnt a solution, its just going to create more crime because you will have to prosecute and arrest people who will continue to seek out and own guns, whether its for crime, protection or whatever. it will make millions of people who refuse to disarm criminals and then you have to put them in jail and spend money, resources and find facilities to house them. i think they still serve a purpose - people have the right to defend themselves.

[Tripper]

ban crazy people