So, are you pro-(civilian ownership and usage)-of guns, or not? Or, something else....

My opinion is that if guns are allowed, then more power to everyone, and rights rights rights. BUT, if no guns are allowed, I'm also fine with that, because I'm not really much of a guns user at all and dont really own any.

Sometimes my dad (pro-gun) tells me of something that the 2nd amendment in the US bill of rights (right to bear arms) was created so that we can revolution if the government is turning corrupt, which sounds freaky-cool. Wait, too much Star Wars...

I am anti-gun but my libertarian leanings say that the state has no place regulating the personal ownership of firearms - especially something so obviously called out in the founder's documents.

My father-in-law has a nice gun collection, and neither my wife nor I want any part of it ...

Mike

I don't outrightly oppose the possession of all types of guns, I just don't perceive why private citizens need to own some sorts of weapons, like assault weapons, shotguns, and other high caliber guns. A handgun is, more often than not for the average citizen, more than enough of a deterrant.

I dont like guns, and I don't understand why people WANT guns, but I don't agree with a COMPLETE ban, though I was deffinately in favor of continuing the ban on assault rifles.

Eh, I don't mind about wether the average citizen gets guns. Afterall, those who would use them to kill innocents would probably buy them illegally anyway. Although, assault weapons are going a bit too far...hunting shotguns and pistols would be enough.

Hand Guns-Ok(Though it's pushing it a bit)
Hunting rifles-Ok
Shotguns- Maybe not
Assault Rifles: No

If they band guns, all it would accomplish would be taking away a civilians protection, and leaving them at the mercy of thugs and robbers. You can not always count on having a cop handy when somebody blows a hole through your door and demands your valuables. ;)

Of course! Tell the guy to wait a sec while you go get your assault rifle! ;)

Hand guns! Always carry your hand gun with you. ;)

Originally posted by Hiroki
Hand guns! Always carry your hand gun with you. ;)

:eyeraise: Because that's safe and practical. Honestly, do you think that an assailant who comes into your home and is pointing a gun at you will let you go for your gun with out shooting you?

It's been mentioned before in the thread about the ban on assault rifles, but you pulling out a gun is going to increase the chances of you being shot before you had a chance to do anything. :dozey:

not to mention the safest thing is to just hand em over something, get a good description and notify the police.

Exactly. Things can be replaced much more easily than human life.

Now if someone broke into your house with intent to rape your wife, THAT is when you step up and do something. Otherwise it's best to appease them and keep your life.

exactly, if someone came after my wife or a loved one, I'd go stealth, grab a knife and stab the ****er in the back of the head.

I was assuming you wern't stupid enough to let them come face to face with you BEFORE you pulled out your gun. :p Do you always get a good look at the people who are breaking into your house before you shoot them?

Originally posted by Hiroki
I was assuming you wern't stupid enough to let them come face to face with you BEFORE you pulled out your gun. :p Do you always get a good look at the people who are breaking into your house before you shoot them? gee, sorry I have a small house that anywhere you're at you'll be spotted. :dozey:

Eh, guess you're screwed then. ;) I have a multi-room house, and I would hear somebody breaking in long before I came face to face with them.

The fundamental reason that the right to bear arms is such a cornerstone of the US constitution is that 'the state' (in their case, British gov't) was using control of firearms as a way of surpressing dissent and instilling fear - random house-checks and removal of weapons used for food gathering.

So certain weapons are OK, but not others? Who decides which? The 'State'? The U.N.? The criminals who will still get whatever guns they want?

*That* is part of my libertarian objection to gun control - you get the so-called 'assault weapons ban', which was largely a misnomer, but was guided through special interest groups on both sides to be palatable ... but with little impact, ultimately.

Isn't what we want fewer armed criminals? Less violent crime? Fewer household gun accidents where little kids shoot themselves or someone else? Shouldn't *that* be what is worked on?

Mike

Not all guns. People should be allowed to keep their flintlock rifles and pistols, which were the most advanced firearm developed at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment.

After all, it would be unConstitutional to disallow them.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Not all guns. People should be allowed to keep their flintlock rifles and pistols, which were the most advanced firearm developed at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment.

After all, it would be unConstitutional to disallow them. :rofl:

And, of course, that was also written when states actually existed as self-powered entities, when the Federal government was viewed as a necessary thing for a very minimal set of requirements, and that the bill of rights was largely to protect states and their citizens against the possibility of a federal government encroachment on their sovereignty ...

As I said, I'm anti-gun, but also strongly opposed to both Democratic and Republican attempts to limit my indvidual freedoms 'for my own good' ...

Mike

and it was only allowed as part of the milita, so anyone who registers to be allowed a gun should be forced to go on training and do other useful stuff one weekend a month... :D

I could live with that...

Handguns - Sure, if you've never commited a violent crime
Hunting Rifles - " "
Shotguns - " " and it cannot leave your property.
Assault Rifles - Eh...no.

I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible!

the founding fathers didn't make that 2nd amendment for NOTHING!

-the 2nd ammendment like free speech etc. is nessicary to keep evil dictators from taking over our country!

-the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves!

Was that sarcasm or are you serious?

I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible!

Righto, I think that company execs should also be able to buy M1-Abrams tanks...nothing says "back off communists" than a long concrete barrel in your face.

the founding fathers didn't make that 2nd amendment for NOTHING!

That was so that everyone was armed against Britan in case of an invasion, I believe.

-the 2nd ammendment like free speech etc. is nessicary to keep evil dictators from taking over our country!

It doesn't matter if we have guns; if an evil dictator takes out the military and/or assumes control of Congress, we're screwed any way you slice it.

-the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves!

I partially agree with you, but there's a fine line between arming everyone and making everyone a walking tank...

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! then I want a nuclear bomb capable of destroying the entire west coast. After all, it is my right. ;)

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
to keep evil dictators from taking over our country! that's why we have armies.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves!
that reminds me somehow of the cold war..

also, not every criminal has a weapon, y'know? in fact i'd say most criminals dont have guns and there are more "righteous" people in the us carrying guns than than criminals.

Awww.... he's only a little frog, don't pick on him...:D

I wouldn't want anuke anyway (i'd just kill myself along with everyone else)... i'd be happy with a fully armed tank...

"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." - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I take it that kipper is part of a well-regulated militia? :D

Originally posted by toms
Awww.... he's only a little frog, don't pick on him...:D Um ... that's a toad, not a frog ...

Originally posted by toms
I take it that kipper is part of a well-regulated militia? :D Actually, the founding fathers envisioned two types of militia - a 'ready' militia and a 'standing' militia. The standing militia would essentially be the army of the state. The ready militia would be that everyone over 18 would be 'ready' to serve at a moments notice.

A couple of things - the militia is all about the state and state's rights and protections as opposed to the rights of the federal government to impose its' will ... most of them saw an overly powerful federal government as a danger against the rights of the general citizenry, and wanted to ensure that control remained local to the states. Unfortunately that is exactly the opposite of what has happened ...

Originally posted by txa1265
The ready militia would be that everyone over 18 would be 'ready' to serve at a moments notice. army reserves? So that means normal civilians no longer need to bear arms since we have the army and backups, the national guard and the reserves.

and he's kippertheFROG, not toad.

In Britain guns are almost completely banned, but you're still allowed hunting rifles and if you want handguns you'll have to get police permission (I think so anyway).

This is what I think it should be like:
1) Handguns: OK but you have to be over the age of 18 and be examined for background, mental health, ect. Expensive to make sure as little get them as possible.

2) Hunting Rifles: Just have to be over 18 to get one.

3) Shotguns: See handguns.

4) Assualt Rifles: No way

Well i can see wanting to own a gun for protection in the home, then if you have children you need to make sure its safely put away. But that kind of defeats the purpose of having a gun for protection cause you're gonna have to get up and get it then shoot someone.
1.Handguns- okay(but since the assault gun ban being lifted,one can carry a hand gun with a 15 round clip, instead of a 8 round clip.)
2.Hunting Rifles-don't like them cause i hate hunting(other than if you eat the animal, and all of it!)
3. Shotgun- eh, don't see why you need one, but if you want one go ahead.
3.Assault Rifle- Doesn't really matter if you should be allowed to have one, cause if you really want one...you can get one with or without legalization. But i would rather them banned from civilian use. Cause then anyone who can buy an assault rifle can now out-gun our law enforcement.

Originally posted by Feanaro
But i would rather them banned from civilian use. Cause then anyone who can buy an assault rifle can now out-gun our law enforcement. until the S.W.A.T. team shows up and shoots them in the face with an mp5

Originally posted by InsaneSith
until the S.W.A.T. team shows up and shoots them in the face with an mp5

Mp5's are weak, you need like 15 shots to kill someone with them...pfft...

If Counterstrike taught me anything, it's that you need an AWP to sucessfully kill any of those pesky terrorists. :p

If you were being serious...
9mm is not weak. No gun is weak... A .22 can kill.

Guns just cause death. It is more likely that when 2 firearms are involved there will be an injury/death.

Originally posted by Ice Demon44
If you were being serious...
9mm is not weak. No gun is weak... A .22 can kill.

Hence the Counterstrike comment, I was joking. ;)

Guys, I can see most of you don't hunt. I own many guns. 2 shotguns, 2 hanguns, 3 rifles, and 1 black powder. I love my gun collection. 1 of my shotguns was past down to me from my grandfather. Just because somebody takes advantage of a right, does not mean we ban it. I really don't see a use for assault rifles for a civilian, except for fun on the weekends, maybe if you can afford the ammo. But that does not mean we take them away. I have played around with a assault rifle, and it is fun to shoot. My friend has a couple. But guys guns don't kill people, people kill people. And as far as accidents go with firearms, if you are trained, and teach your children gun safety, you will not have accident. Parents hide their guns from their kids, so naturally the child will be curious. You show your child the guns, show them what it can do, and teach them about it, you will have no accidents.

Oh and Crazy.... You have to be 21 years old to get a handgun. And have to have a permit.
All long guns (rifles, shotguns) you have to be 18. And with both types you get a background check. They check for felonys etc....

Oh and a shotgun is used in hunting.

Never hide a gun from a child!!!! They will find it. Teach the child gun safety, show him\her what is can do. They will understand.

You don't ban guns, you make them harder to get. I hate guns shows. Put more preasure on gun makers.Etc...

Oh and if someone breaks into my house with me there, they are not there to steal. If it comes down to me or them, you bet your ass it will be them.

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
You show your child the guns, show them what it can do, and teach them about it, you will have no accidents.


"Son, let me teach you how we kill people entering our house."

:rolleyes:



I find it quite odd that Americans NEED guns so much.

"Son, let me teach you how we kill people entering our house."

What?
If someone breaks in your house while your there, say at night, there not there to steal. Stupid comment. And I said you teach your child about gun safety, not show them how to shoot someone.

I find it quite odd that Americans NEED guns so much.
Why is it odd, I hunt with my guns. Thats like saying I thinks it's odd that Americans NEED a PC.:rolleyes:

You need 2 shotguns, 2 hanguns, 3 rifles, and 1 black powder just to hunt? I don't buy it.

And how often is somebody going to break into your house if they aren't going to steal something? Unless you're like...a world leader or some mafia don and you have assassins trying to kill you. :dozey:

Or insanely paranoid.

Looks like you got a lot of enemies. It's easier to make friends you know.


I'd rather teach them about safety by not touching guns.

You need 2 shotguns, 2 hanguns, 3 rifles, and 1 black powder just to hunt? I don't buy it.

No, but it is my collection. Like someone would collect cars, or Star Wars memorabilia. I really only use one shotgun for dove season, and rifle for deer season. Maybe my bow sometimes. Liek I said earlier, one of my shotguns was pasted down to me. It's almost a hundread years old. It's very expensive. It's worth over a $1,000. Do you play games, I'm sure you do sence your on this board. How many do you have. Do you play them all all of the time. No it's a collection. Do you need all of those games to play or your PC, or PS2, or whatever. NO!

And how often is somebody going to break into your house if they aren't going to steal something?

Alot more often than you think.
About 2.1 million a year, thats about 740 occurances per 100,000 people.

I'd rather teach them about safety by not touching guns.
Your children are gonna be curious. You can tell them not to smoke, but they will come across it someday. Same with a gun, he'll go to a friends house whos father has a gun, and he did not teach your child friend gun safety. Your child will be curious, and sence you did not teach your child safety as well, BOOM! Accidents happen.

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
No, but it is my collection. Like someone would collect cars, or Star Wars memorabilia. except those things couldn't fall into the wrong hands and kill someone, a gun on the otherhand can.

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
Do you play them all all of the time. No it's a collection. Do you need all of those games to play or your PC, or PS2, or whatever. NO!
The difference being, of course, that my video games cannot be used to kill someone, intentionally or not. (well, I guess you COULD pull it off if you really wanted too, though I really don't know how you'd do it)
Originally posted by THE BADGER:
Alot more often than you think.
About 2.1 million a year, thats about 740 occurances per 100,000 people.
2.1 million people break into a house with no intention of stealing anything? What are they breaking in for? Just interested in killing somebody while they sleep? And if that's their game then how are you going to use your guns to defend you against someone breaking into your house while you're asleep? Unless you sleep with one of those handguns tucked under your pillow your guns will do nothing for you.
Originally posted by THE BADGER:
Your children are gonna be curious. You can tell them not to smoke, but they will come across it someday. Same with a gun, he'll go to a friends house whos father has a gun, and he did not teach your child friend gun safety. Your child will be curious, and sence you did not teach your child safety as well, BOOM! Accidents happen.
So by your logic the only way to safely teach children about smoking is to let them smoke? My dad never had me fire a gun to learn to be safe with it. He told me that guns were dangerous and could kill people, and it seems to have worked out fine for me :dozey:

4 words: More.Thorough.Background.Checks.

except those things couldn't fall into the wrong hands and kill someone, a gun on the otherhand can.I dunno, an early nineties rancor figure has some pretty sharp edges, you could seriously gouge someone with the claws on its right foot.

2.1 million people break into a house with no intention of stealing anything? What are they breaking in for? Um... to molest people in a sexual manner? :confused:

So by your logic the only way to safely teach children about smoking is to let them smoke?Funny you should mention that. In the old days a dad who caught his son smoking might actually force him to smoke an entire pack, in the hope that the horrid experience would put him off smoking.

Always wondered whether that would work... might do.

My dad never had me fire a gun to learn to be safe with it. He told me that guns were dangerous and could kill people, and it seems to have worked out fine for me The man's right, you physically can't be safer with a gun than when you're refusing to hold it at all.

Guns are tools to kill, full stop. I still believe that decent, law abiding people should have the right to possess certain non-military firearms though, because let's face it, criminals can get their hands on them easily. Why shouldn't law abiding folks have the edge? :)

Originally posted by Spider AL
Um... to molest people in a sexual manner? :confused:
Seems to me if you're planning on sexual molestation your best bet is to prowl in dark alleys and parks, where you're less likely to be seen by a neighbor breaking in...but I can't say that I understand how a rapists mind works..

Originally posted by Spider AL
Funny you should mention that. In the old days a dad who caught his son smoking might actually force him to smoke an entire pack, in the hope that the horrid experience would put him off smoking.

Always wondered whether that would work... might do.
It might...or it might just get them addicted to nicotine...one or the other ;)

It might...or it might just get them addicted to nicotine...Well one cigarette contains enough (usually enhanced) nicotine to get you addicted to it. Maybe a whole pack would be enough to put you off it. Worth experimentation anyway.

Anyone got some wayward kids we can try this on? Preferably ones with good health insurance...

Yup. Go to Canada, pick some thirteen years old and you're good to go.

Yup. Go to Canada, pick some thirteen years old and you're good to go.Disturbing. Now all we need is for a moderator to change the thread topic to "Where Can I Find True Love???" and we can get lukeiamyourdad arrested. :D

Bah, they can always try!

:xp: