NationStates

Big Jim P wrote:The only "rights" that exist are those you are willing to fight for, thus the need for guns.

I knew the poor had no rights.

Ostronopolis wrote:So do you think that people should be allowed to bear arms, or do you think it should be reserved for the military and police?

I'll give you three guesses as to my opinion on the Second Amendment.

Trippoli wrote:There should be a larger tax on Assault Rifles and other large weapons, but at the same time let them own them.

Assault rifles are thousands of dollars to begin with, since civilians are only allowed to own full auto/select fire weapons manufactured before 1986 (a pre '86 M16 is upwards of $14,000). I'm not sure what you mean by large weapons. Are you talking physical size, caliber, mean looking firearms, etc?

With all due respect, how can anyone have answered the poll question "yes" without qualification?

You believe children, the criminal insane, convicted serial killers, etc, all have a "right to bear arms"?

I can think of only two explanations for voting "yes." One, you picked the answer you thought was closest to your view without thinking it throught. Two, you believe everyone has the right to bear arms but the state's interest in protecting the populace, etc, overrides that right in certain cases -- such as individuals that shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

I wish I thought more of you actually thought through the second point.

Saint Clair Island wrote:

Hayteria wrote:

Saint Clair Island wrote:I agree with this sentiment. While the existence of a police and military means that citizens should not be required to keep and bear arms, it does mean that they should have the right to maintain them (especially if they have served in the military) in case of foreign invasion or civil unrest.

I also support the right of people to own firearms for sport or home defense, although I don't see the appeal in the former and the logic in the latter, simply because it makes them feel better -- and happy people are more likely to support their community in difficult times, after all.

You don't see the appeal in having a gun to protect yourself?

No, I don't see the appeal in hunting or target shooting. I don't see the logic in having a gun to protect yourself.

Target shooting is fun. Especially if you're competing against someone (it's even better if it's a friend or relative you're competing against). My brother in law, on the other hand, enjoys hunting (he's been hunting for years though, and has 4 children with my sister).

The Cat-Tribe wrote:With all due respect, how can anyone have answered the poll question "yes" without qualification?

You believe children, the criminal insane, convicted serial killers, etc, all have a "right to bear arms"?

I can think of only two explanations for voting "yes." One, you picked the answer you thought was closest to your view without thinking it throught. Two, you believe everyone has the right to bear arms but the state's interest in protecting the populace, etc, overrides that right in certain cases -- such as individuals that shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

I wish I thought more of you actually thought through the second point.

It's because of the OP:

The OP wrote:So do you think that people should be allowed to bear arms, or do you think it should be reserved for the military and police?

This is the question most people were answering. The poll itself is actually made of complete and utter fail, as it becomes one of those delicious "either/or" dilemmas that don't exist. By answering "no" to the poll, you were implying that you believe that guns should only be in the hands of the military and police. By answering "yes"... well, you already addressed that.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Derscon wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:We do things that you think "infringe property rights" all the time. Some of that is inherent in having social order. See Locke, Hobbes, etc.

This is the brunt of your post, so I'll just respond to that.

Yes we do. Those actions are illegitimate.

Without any limitations on "rights", where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... han-c.html)

(Similarly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

But there is a limitation on what rights need be taken and it is mostly to protect against DIRECT threats to another's liberty. Taking one's guns or limiting their accessibility because there is a possibility that it may or may not be used to injure another is too general of reasoning and is dangerous to liberty as a whole. Limiting rights because someone may or may not do something to injure another with those rights is a one way ticket to oppression.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:With all due respect, how can anyone have answered the poll question "yes" without qualification?

You believe children, the criminal insane, convicted serial killers, etc, all have a "right to bear arms"?

I can think of only two explanations for voting "yes." One, you picked the answer you thought was closest to your view without thinking it throught. Two, you believe everyone has the right to bear arms but the state's interest in protecting the populace, etc, overrides that right in certain cases -- such as individuals that shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

I wish I thought more of you actually thought through the second point.

Personally I didn't vote. I think the OP can edit the poll on this new fangled forum, so I'll hold off until a "Yes, but with some restrictions" comes up.

JuNii wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Food for thought: Should everyone be required to pass a test and get a license in order to possess a gun? Should you be required to have insurance for any harm you cause with said gun?

that's a good idea.

increase the cost of a gun to the tens of thousands of dollars... enforce a system where every year, gun owners have to take their guns in to be checked and any found with their numbers removed face fines and jail time... and should they be unable to pass the vision test, they lose their right to own a gun.

I LIKE THIS!!!

Philip Luty and everyone else that make their own firearm(s) said hi. As an added benefit, the government won't know that you have them, and home manufactured firearms don't have serial numbers unless the maker puts one on.

Capricana wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Without any limitations on "rights", where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... han-c.html)

(Similarly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

But there is a limitation on what rights need be taken and it is mostly to protect against DIRECT threats to another's liberty. Taking one's guns or limiting their accessibility because there is a possibility that it may or may not be used to injure another is too general of reasoning and is dangerous to liberty as a whole. Limiting rights because someone may or may not do something to injure another with those rights is a one way ticket to oppression.

Meh. Limiting rights in some circumstances to protect the rights (among them life) of others is not a "one-way ticket to oppression." To the contrary, rights are limited by the social contract to maximize everyone's freedom.

That said, be clear that I generally believe in the right to bear arms and don't think everyone's guns should be taken away. But it isn't an either/or proposition. There is TONS of middle ground.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Ostronopolis wrote:So do you think that people should be allowed to bear arms, or do you think it should be reserved for the military and police?

I'll give you three guesses as to my opinion on the Second Amendment.

You're in favor of abolishing it entirely.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

JuNii wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Food for thought: Should everyone be required to pass a test and get a license in order to possess a gun? Should you be required to have insurance for any harm you cause with said gun?

that's a good idea.

increase the cost of a gun to the tens of thousands of dollars... enforce a system where every year, gun owners have to take their guns in to be checked and any found with their numbers removed face fines and jail time... and should they be unable to pass the vision test, they lose their right to own a gun.

I LIKE THIS!!!

Philip Luty and everyone else that make their own firearm(s) said hi. As an added benefit, the government won't know that you have them, and home manufactured firearms don't have serial numbers unless the maker puts one on.

You can manufacture lots of things at home that we regulate or ban. Crystal meth, some chemical/biological weapons, etc.

This isn't really a good argument against regulating, taxing, or banning things. It is really just a "but you'd have to make another law against making your own too" argument.

JuNii wrote:

Baycosa wrote:I would agree on this but rather more expensive bullets instead of expensive guns.

why rather... why not 'And'?

3 dollars for a clip's worth...

Well, my AR15 uses magazines, but $3 for a magazine's worth of ammo would equate to $0.10/round (30 round magazines). So that would actually be cheaper than I currently pay. Thanks.

Ostronopolis wrote:So do you think that people should be allowed to bear arms, or do you think it should be reserved for the military and police?

it is my right and evey one in the US right to bear arms! the US gov't is became GAY!!!!

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

JuNii wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Food for thought: Should everyone be required to pass a test and get a license in order to possess a gun? Should you be required to have insurance for any harm you cause with said gun?

that's a good idea.

increase the cost of a gun to the tens of thousands of dollars... enforce a system where every year, gun owners have to take their guns in to be checked and any found with their numbers removed face fines and jail time... and should they be unable to pass the vision test, they lose their right to own a gun.

I LIKE THIS!!!

Philip Luty and everyone else that make their own firearm(s) said hi. As an added benefit, the government won't know that you have them, and home manufactured firearms don't have serial numbers unless the maker puts one on.

A problem easily addressed by making the carrying of a non-registered gun a death-penalty crime.

Greater Americania wrote:I have no problem with the government issueing permits for carrying weapons such as handguns and bolt-action rifles but under no circumstance should individuals be permitted to own assault rifles or any other form of military grade equipment.

Why the hell not? Legally owned full auto/select fire weapons aren't used in crimes, due to how expensive they are to purchase.

Baycosa wrote:If everyone has guns, don't we have equal power?

Thats the idea, thats wyh the republicans refuse to restrict them because they feel that a gun is a security measure and if everyone has 1 no one will kil anyone because no one is threatend by another person as they have a gun of there own. Please note the ammendment does not state what type of arms you can bear so if i bought a tank should that still be legal, the question is not wheter we should or shouldnt bear arms but what type of arms we may bear

Keep in mind that the second amendment was written when the flintlock rifle was the most powerfull weapon available and the 2nd ammendment states that they only have the right to bear arms to form a militia as at the time the USA did not have a standing army and they needed people to be armed so as to repulse an attack

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Derscon wrote:Guns are objects, property to be owned. As owning a gun does not harm anyone else, any and all ownership of weapons should be legal. It's that simple. Any further "complication" of the issue, or any attempt to ban %n type of firearm because "it's dangerous" is an undue infringement on property rights. Banning weapons is, frankly, immature and childish.

Slaves are objects, property to be owned. As owning a slave does not harm anyone else, any and all ownership of slaves should be legal. It's that simple. Any further "complication" of the issue, or any attempt to ban %n type of slavery because "it's inhumane" is an undue infringement on property rights. Banning slavery is, frankly, immature and childish

Not even close to the same thing. A firearm is an inanimate object made of metal, wood and/or plastic. A slave is a living, breathing, sapient human.

Pressinius wrote:
Thats the idea, thats wyh the republicans refuse to restrict them because they feel that a gun is a security measure and if everyone has 1 no one will kil anyone because no one is threatend by another person as they have a gun of there own.

Nobody is myopic enough to believe that ALL crime will stop. The better argument is that while there may be a deterrent effect, a citizen can defend himself or herself against a forcible felony with any reasonable means necessary, including shooting the criminal.

Please note the ammendment does not state what type of arms you can bear so if i bought a tank should that still be legal, the question is not wheter we should or shouldnt bear arms but what type of arms we may bear

That's an interesting truth. It may interest you to know that rocket launchers, grenades, and other so-called "destructive devices" are perfectly legal. The federal government only requires a $200 tax stamp per device. Do you want your own tank gun? If so, go buy one.

I am unaware of any civilian ownership of weapons of mass destruction.

Keep in mind that the second amendment was written when the flintlock rifle was the most powerfull weapon available and the 2nd ammendment states that they only have the right to bear arms to form a militia as at the time the USA did not have a standing army and they needed people to be armed so as to repulse an attack

They didn't have cannons back then?

As a point of interest, note that under U.S. law, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, the definition of "firearm" is something designed to expel a projectile from a cartridge with the use of smokeless powder, or something to that effect. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, black powder weapons are not considered to be firearms and may be ordered in bulk on the internet or otherwise purchased without any red tape. A black powder pistol can just as easily kill someone as a Glock or 1911.

For a reading on the background of the Second Amendment, see District of Columbia v. Heller. The text of the opinion may be found at the following link.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Saint Clair Island wrote:

Der Teutoniker wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:If it's between everyone having the right, or just the government and police, which would you choose?

Everyone.

Though I'd rather gun ownership be mandatory (except for felons/mentally unfit).

Mandatory gun ownership? Unless they gave me the gun for free, no thanks. I'm not going to shell out $500 for something I'll never use, plus the costs of maintenance, ammunition, and training in how to use it properly. And the risk that someone will steal it while I'm at work. And so on, and so forth.

You can get firearms cheaper than $500 (a Ruger 10/22 is probably around $200 for a basic model). And I don't worry about someone stealing my rifle, it spends most of its time in a locked case, inside a locked gun safe. In order to get my rifle, the thieves would have to use a torch to cut open my safe. Since my ammunition is also in the safe, applying enough heat to torch it open may not be the safest course of action for thieves.

Dyakovo wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Ostronopolis wrote:So do you think that people should be allowed to bear arms, or do you think it should be reserved for the military and police?

I'll give you three guesses as to my opinion on the Second Amendment.

You're in favor of abolishing it entirely.

Actually, I quite like the Second Amendment. I should, I own a firearm (specifically, an AR-15).

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:I'll give you three guesses as to my opinion on the Second Amendment.

You're in favor of abolishing it entirely.

Actually, I quite like the Second Amendment. I should, I own a firearm (specifically, an AR-15).

I know, but you said I had 3 guesses, I was going to use them all, but now you ruined it...

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

JuNii wrote:
that's a good idea.

increase the cost of a gun to the tens of thousands of dollars... enforce a system where every year, gun owners have to take their guns in to be checked and any found with their numbers removed face fines and jail time... and should they be unable to pass the vision test, they lose their right to own a gun.

I LIKE THIS!!!

Philip Luty and everyone else that make their own firearm(s) said hi. As an added benefit, the government won't know that you have them, and home manufactured firearms don't have serial numbers unless the maker puts one on.

A problem easily addressed by making the carrying of a non-registered gun a death-penalty crime.

A firearms registration law would be hard enough to push through, your suggestion would never make it through.

Dyakovo wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:You're in favor of abolishing it entirely.

Actually, I quite like the Second Amendment. I should, I own a firearm (specifically, an AR-15).

I know, but you said I had 3 guesses, I was going to use them all, but now you ruined it...

Sorry.


Well, you could still guess. Of course, it's be an educated guess (since I already told you my opinion).

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I know, but you said I had 3 guesses, I was going to use them all, but now you ruined it...

Sorry.


Well, you could still guess. Of course, it's be an educated guess (since I already told you my opinion).

It was an educated guess anyways, since I already knew your stance from similar discussions on Jolt.