In my home state of Michigan US, it is illegal to have a machinegun. However, we are supposedly guaranteed the right to “bare arms”. In the days when the constitution and bill of rights were written the weapons of the day where items such as the saber, smooth bore flintlock musket and if you had the funds a rifled musket.
Obviously, the forefathers could not have predicted the weapons of today but the reason for guaranteeing the right to bear arms was to allow the people to defend themselves from each other, invasion and of course their own government. Yet, we are not allowed to have the Brown Bess of today. Rather we are simply allowed “civilian” models of weapons such as the m-16 and ak-47 which are not equipped for full automatic or burst fire.
I see no reason that a properly licensed individual should not be aloud such a weapon.
What weapon are you aloud in your home lands? Do you agree with allowing law abiding citizens arming themselves?
Surely one does not need a machine gun to defend themselves. Legal guns do perfectly fine. And I live in Michigan too!
I agree with soul, you dont need much to defend yourself with(at least in the US). Allowing people to have machine guns is just asking for problems... because then the police would have to have even bigger guns, etc. The bigger and better war would begin.
So you have experienced this? What type of situation? How did you maintain supresive fire?
People don't need guns, it's rediculous the problems in america due to guns. In America There are 30x more deaths due to guns every year than countrys in the UK.
I think its rediculous to own a m-16 ... ak-47 ... there is no need for one unless ur planning on killing ppl... a hand gun is all u need for protection
Why would you want to hunt with a machine gun? thats the only reason that the goverment still allows guns, now what would you hunt with a machine gun? Nothing that would just get rid of any fun(if there ever was) left in the sport. Machine Guns are ment for killing people. Now why do you want one? I really think that guns should be illegal for everyone, except police. It would make america a safer place. Letting people own automatic guns like the AK-47 would just be stupid. It would make the street gangs more powerful, and the mafia more legal. Give me a good reason you think that fully automatic weapons should be legal and ill reconsider my stance
Gangs and the mafia currently have machine guns. Really good ones too. Police also already have machine guns. I’m not talking about people who currently have them illegally. I am talking about people such as my self who will only own one legally.
The constitution gives us the right to bare arms. Not for hunting but for, yes, killing people. People that would harm us with their arms such as gangs, mafia, and the like, also for use against foreign invaders or even our own government, all of which have machine guns.
I have a machine gun. It's my god given right to fire at animals with a machine gun. All good hunters hunt with machine guns - they're some of the stealthiest firearms on the market today. I only wish I could use shoulder-mounted rocket launchers. It's like 100% stealth. I hear ninjas used to use them.
Is this an attempt to partisipate, or are you just board and uninterested?
I'm making a commentary on how there shouldn't be any reason for anyone but the military to have access to sub-machine or fully automatic machine guns. What would you possibly do with them?
For the reasons I have stated above.
One of these reasons is to use the ADAINST the military, if say Bush goes beyond wire tapping. That is one of the reasons the forefathers put it in there. They saw what can happen if the citizens are unable or unequipped to defend them selves.
Another reason is to defend our lands from invading forces. A third is against other citizens (criminals). The military, possible invaders and criminals all have machine guns.
Hunting has nothing to do with machine guns.
Machine guns are also loads of fun to shoot, although they can loosen your fillings and are hard on your coracoid process.
It's laughable that you think you could stop the army from invading your house, though, why they would ever want to - I don't know. "Invading Forces"? Who the hell is going to invade the USA? If anyone's going to make a move against the states, it'll be with nuclear arms, not infantry. Additionally, I highly doubt that you actually have a machine gun. It's more likely that you've gut a submachine gun, such as a MP5KA4, or an MP40, and not a fully-automatic firearm.
Hmm and whats next? Tank? Or maybe a Harrier? This is ridiculous i think the choice of weapons for personal use should be narrowed not the other way.
Where I live, people are all upset about gun control. But you know, around here it makes sense. The idea that guns are for self-defense is totally ridiculous, and not widly supported.
Guns are for hunting. And that's how they're used by just about everyone I know.
And if you need a gun to defend yourself, there's a problem. ANd furthermore, if you're such a crummy marksman that you need a machine gun to defend yourself, I wouldn't go boasting about it!
While we're at it, can I have an RPG???
It never fails to amaze me at how little people read on Ftihost for the amount of writing. Please, quote in my writing where I said I HAD a machine gun.
The fact that I and my fellow citizens would not very well hold up against the current US military and the fact that there is no operant invasion force primed for attack has little to do with my current right to bare arms. Under the US system the fact that the populous have the right to be armed and thus are, is an important balance of power. That it is unapparent in our relatively comfortable time makes it no less important.
It is easy to convince ones self that such things will never be needed. I imagine in 1850 a man squirrel with his eight year old boy new he was training his son for combat against his own government. Or a Jewish family in Germany 1920, being against civil gun ownership, would have imagined being consolidated in a ghetto in 1933 under Nazi German rule (might I add here that Nazi Germany was the first “civilized” county to have strict gun control) would be trading their last family possessions on the black market for that which they thought they would never need in order to stage a last ditch effort to put up a resistance.
If you would like a more resent example let us look at the hurricane disaster in Louisiana, being trapped for days waiting for God knows what. Who knows what atrocities where committed or would have been committed had aide been further postponed or the disaster more wide spread. In these situations the criminals rule, and are also armed despite law.
So I would say ”laughable” would not describe concerns as history often has a habit of repetition, despite our complacency.
WIth proper licensing prcedures and adiquet space for training I don't see why not.
sure... i recommend World Of Warcraft ... awesome game... gonna get you hooked for hours
Anyway, in my country guns are illegal under any circumstances, only hunting rifles are allowed and to get one is really hard. You need to be member of some recognised hunting associations, bla bla bla.
One thing i can say is that we don`t have mailman`s who shoot everybody in their buildings, or small children killing by mistake their parents, or or students who are so upset with their own lifes that they go to highschool and start killing teachers and students alike
Sure, history repeats, and weird awful stuff happens.
But I find it's just plain creepy to take the boy scouts "be prepared" attitude to "Carry a mnachine gun" extremes.
You're trying to rationalize something that is simply not rational.
"The bad guys might come... I need a mahine gun just in case..." Historical anecdotes aside- that's paranoia. Flat out paranoia. ANd one thing I don't want is a bunch of paranoid people running around with machine guns, just because no-one can tell them they can't.
And furthermore... how do you think the Jews having guns would have changed the holocaust? The Nazis would have shot the Jews on the spot, rather than killing them slowly in the concentration camps. But they still would have died. It still would have been genocide: tragic, ugly, and horrible?
And since when was the effect of Nazi rule on the Jews limited to Germany (where gun control was supposed to have been such a factor) Jews all over Europe were brutally killed. I don't see how the Jews in other countries had any advantage, even with the "right to defend themselves"
Sorry, your arguments are flawed. They may sound good. Perfectly educated. But 2+2!=5, no matter how many times you say it, or how many different ways you present it.
Guns are not for self defense. And even if having a gun makes you feel safer, you're not. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Deal with it.
(Sorry, I know I'm sounding harsh, but if you're going to spell it out like that, so am I)
Haha, lucky you. with Northern Irelands history, if I were wanting to buy an air rifle, I'd have to have signed permission from 3 people tha Im 'respectable', a super secure gun cabinat, a liscense, membership to a gun club and probably a lot of other crap.
My point is not to "feel" safe. My point is that the right to bare arms is an important part of the US system of balanced power. Being armed in our day is to be armed with a machinegun and not a hunting rifle.
And to check your history the Jews did, after realizing their plight, put up a fine struggle. Would you be herded, your family in toe, into such camps? The situation with the Jews would have been different had they the rights Americans currently have. I am not saying that if in 1933 suddenly every Jewish male was suddenly issued a weapon things would have turned out entirely different. I am saying, however, that if the current US system was in place the ruling party would have to realize that, in fact if it went beyond taxing tea and stamps or beyond wire taps it would have an armed populous to deal with and in fact wouldn’t.
Look at current dictatorships. They need to control two major things straight away. Military force and information. It is impossible to control all military force with armed citizens. Disarmament is the first natural course of marshal law.
Paranoia, I think does not describe preserving the right to bare arms. I think a better word is deterrent, or balance of power.
Seriously? Crap man. I got my first air rifle when I was nine. I loved the thing, it looked just like an m-16 (the US army rifle). I remember standing in the back yard at the age of ten feeling proud that I couldn’t see anything that I couldn’t plink twice in three trys.
No, paranoia does not describe the right to bare arms.
But it does describe the perceived need to bare arms in order to defend oneself against some vague unnamed threat.
And I'm sorry my friend, but I disagree. I don't think you are keeping your government in line (taxing tea and whatnot) and maintaining the balance of power, by arming the citizens.
Although your citizens may be armed, your government still has you right where they want you. You pay them taxes to arm themselves bigger, better and more. You admit yourself that, using your own historical example, the Jews "put up a good fight" even witout guns and that having guns probably wouldn't have had much effect on the final outcome when the Nazi German government went all out of control. What makes you think it would be any different now? (Yes, history really does repeat itself!)
I don't think there's anything wrong with guns. Guns are a perfectly useful tool.
But I do think there is something wrong with people who think that the function of a gun is self- defense against other people. ANd who believe that that function is an essential and inalienable right.
That's paranoid and creepy (please see beginning of post)
The real question is whether or not civilians should be able to own artillery. I mean, who knows when paratroopers will fall from the sky and you'll be forced to defend yourself, your family and your country. Be patriotic, forget machineguns get a cannon.
Are you saying the right to bare arms is in order to defend ones self against a clear threat having a name? That is absurd. What then will your grandchildren face? Please describe it clearly and by name.
Certainly not by simply arming citizens, there are many balances. The right to bare arms is just one. One reserved for the dark days experienced by our forefathers, and should not be a banded simply because we experience a few decades of prosperity and relative peace and decide that it is paranoid not to assume that it will last for ever.
This is an opinion that you must have included because you falsely think that I perceive my government as a threat. My point is that the right to bare arms is one of many mechanisms of prevention.
I admit, I could have written more plainly, but please read carefully before you accuse me of contradicting myself.
Even though there are people who think a gun is a tool to take from people?
This may be because you have not experienced tyranny. I have no idea. Our forefathers however did, and saw worse, so they made a special effort to ensure that the citizens of the US would be guaranteed this right, essentially and inalienably. I tend to agree.
Well, it seems there is a time for all things to come to an end. Discussions come to an end for me, when the participants resort to repeating themselves loudly whenever someone disagrees with them.
I have read your posts. THouroughly. And I would thank you to not make assumptions about my actions or my background.
Your arguments however, have not been adequately coherent or persuasive to convince me that your point of view is reasonable. You are entitled to it, but I disagree.
I would like to clearly state my point of view before I sign off, however. I do believe that guns are a useful tool. (as I have said previously) I would own a few myself, but have resorted to hunting with a crossbow, as the gun control laws in my own country are a little silly (because of all the problems you folks are having in your big cities, mostly) and I can't be bothered with the expense and the paperwork.
Which brings us to an interesting point. Perhaps our different opinions are due to a difference in background. While I doubt your experience of tyranny is unique or tragic, relative to my own (I'm only assuming you've always lived in the US, I may be wrong...) our daily experience is still probably very different.
I am not surrounded by paranoid submachine gun toting americans who think they're right about everything and have to shout whenever someone doesn't see things their way. My government doesn't go around pissing people off causing conflict... my people are welcome in most foreign nations, as our culture is not stereotyped as the "personification of evil". Who do I need to defend myself against?
And furthermore, if the paratroopers did "fall from the sky" they'd do it in your backyard, not mine. And when they made their way up here, I'd be waiting for them. I can hide out in the bush for a LOONNG time. And I'm a good marksman. I don't need a machine gun to defend myself.
So maybe you need a machine gun. You're still paranoid. But it doesn't mean nobody's after you, I guess.
As for me, I have nothing to fear. And I'm proud of it.
Say what you will, you're the one with the problem.
And I'm going to step out now, and leave it to the other members of the forum to tell you that.
I'm sorry you feel it so important to be right. I am unconcerned with it to be honest. I was enjoying our discussion and am disappointed it has to end. I guess I will not come to an understanding of your point of view or mine.
This is what frustrates me. Can't anyone hold a discussion? The object of the discussion is not to come out right or wrong for crying out loud. I know allot of people come here just to whine and bitch, hell you know I do from time to time. I don't care if you disagree with me, I just want to know why and for you to understand my points as well.
This is crap.
I don't think it would be safe to allow individuals to posses assault rifles. Although some may use them for hunting, to me it appears that this kind of defies the sport. I mean I can't imagine someone running after a rabbit while shooting an AK-47 auto all over. Some may use it for self-defence, but come on WWII has been over for a while now. Furthermore, it cannot be avoided that a large percent of the guns will fall in the hands of criminals. Though you may say that some already have them, their number is not as great, and their cost and inaccessibility reduces their number. Although the 2nd Amendment does protect the right to bear arms, it does not protect the right to have any kind of weapon at home. I mean can you imagine if someone wanted to mount a Howitzer on their roof for protection, or a flak cannon outside their home?
Truly sorry if I've offended horseatingweeds. To be honest, I feel the same way. I guees I just have a different idea about what conversation is.
I really enjoy a good debate. But when we start going in circles and repeating ourselves, it's not really a discussion anymore.
And I think I really have explained a difference in point of view.
I live a peaceful quiet life in a rural area (I live in a village of about 1000 people, near a town of 5000... the next towns of equal size are 250km in either direction. Cities of 20,000 are over 600km away.) I am surrounded in mountains, rivers, trees. The threat of war, invasion, violence from a neighbour, is very small.
And, while some would accuse me of complacency, this is far from the case. I merely feel prepared.
My family and most of my neighbours are quite comfortable hiding out in the bush, should the situation demand it. Most of us are hunters, or know someone who is. Many own guns, some do not. But NO-ONE thinks of their gun as a weapon for purposes of self defense.
It's totally unnecessary. We don't need guns for self defense because we've chosen a lifestyle that leaves us pretty well prepared. It WOULD take something on the scale of paratroopers falling from the sky, or Nazi Germany to "get us", as it were. ANd if that happens, having a "stash" in the cellar isn't going to make much difference.
More importantly, I'm not willing to waste TODAY, worrying about what someone might do to me TOMORROW.
And our biggest mode of self defense is to work as a community. That's right, we simply don't go around pissing people off.
If it really is an understanding of another point of view you're looking for, maybe there's something in that for you.
But really, I've said my bit. That's where I'm coming from. And I just can't support your point of view. I don't understand your points. They don't make sense to me. I've tried, and will continue to read, and continue to try. But I couldn't live that way. I just htink it's whacked. And you probably think the same of me. Oh well.
I feel that a machinegun falls under our right to bear arms. The problem is where to draw the line. It would be bad for an infividual to have a weapon of mass destruction, or something of that sort. At the same time though, we need to be able to protect ourselves. The bottom line is any appropriate weapons should be okay, even reccommended, for the public to have. I can tell you right now, I am going out and buying a rifle when I turn 18. I don't want a president to mess up really bad and have something like Katrina occur here in Atlanta. Also, since I live in Atlanta, protection is an issue. Unfortuately, I can't carry a pistol until I am 21...
o_0 you do realise that you can`t blame one single person for a natural desaster right?
I'm supposing you have never fired a machine gun...
It's very fun. Also, who says they aren't hunting weapons?
A five round burst would make a hit much more likely.
I would not draw the line. Civilian ownership of nukes would be great. The right to bear arms was instituted so that Americans could defend themselves as a militia, and for that to be accomplished today they need access to all types of weapons from pellet guns to stealth bombers carrying nukes. So long as they can afford it, of course.
My dad already owns an AK 101 so....Yeah I guess
A surgeon is allowed a scalpel,
An offshore fisherman is allowed a speargun.
Police in most countries carry some weapons.
Just there's no reason why the mass public should need guns, they're dangerous.
horseatingweeds... You've presented a clear and objective point of view. I like your intellectual honesty and openness to think about ideas without feeling the need to assassinagte the other person's character.
Simple debate and attack the idea, not the person. When ideas withstand scrutiny and debate, it will rise to a higher level.
Related to the topic, I kind of like the overworn adage: "Guns don't kill, people do." Speaking only for myself as a US citizen, I believe we should all have the choice whether or not to bear arms (tanks and artillery included, if you can afford it). If "people" kill using those arms, then deal with that problem and enforce the laws that prohibit homicide.
I've been told, (but I can't verify the claim) that Israelis keep their automatic weapon after completing their military service. If that is true, is there evidence that their society has a rampant, unmanageable problem with machine gun owners running amuck? If the answer is, "No," then isn't this a case that rebuts the argument made in previous replies above and debunks the claim that machine gun owners are assuredly a threat to society, peace, law and order?
Who made that claim?
You go right ahead. A gun's what people need during hurricanes.
That's right: you can keep away looters and police.
(The looters won't respond to anything but threats, and the police would want you to leave and let the looters do what they like.)
You can also veny your frustration by shooting at the hurricane (very helpfull).
In deed, they are dangerous but so are sports cars, SUVs and motor boats. Your opinion there is no use is just that. Many people find such weapon very recreational. Additionally, the fact that currently in the US the average citizen, as I have attempted to iterate previously, is not under a current threat does not mean they never will. The fact is, and absent of paranoia, that eventually our countries people will face times of crisis where citizens will need to defend themselves.
This is a good example, however I would hope that ocalhoun would use his weapon to protect himself from the looter until the police showed up. This way he and his family will only get azzraped by his insurance company.
Yes, these are my sentiments and I currently find not valid argument against them.
My current understanding is that all Israelite me are required to serve a time in the military. Whether they keep there weapons, which I am fairly certain is the UZI 9mm, I am not sure. It would only make sense to cycle these weapons out as they would need to be replaced anyway. I have heard that Israeli soldiers are required to keep their weapon in toe at all times, even on leave. A Jewish friend of mine says when he visits there the soldiers tend to push the other fellows around, knowing that no one messes with an individual openly carrying a submachine gun. Apparently, the Israeli people feel the more Israeli men possessing a machinegun the better, in their situation I certainly would agree.
This also serves as a good example. Israel’s climate is of one as such. The US climate is certainly not so but one day could.
Also, the claim or insinuation that allowing machinegun ownership would result is a rampant, unmanageable problem with machine gun owners running amuck is somewhat typical of anti-gun enthusiasts. I think this very unlikely and more of a concern if citizens were all issued weapons, but that is indeed up for debate and I welcome any examples or statistics.
psycosquirrel and ocalhoun bring up a great point. Where do we draw the line? Where does allowing citizens the right to bear arms encroach on the other rights of citizens?
In this case the Supreme Court has deemed the word “infringed” to be a more flexible term.
In my opinion much of these worries can be relieved through license and regulation. For instance I see no reason a citizen or group of citizens should not be aloud to own and operate a tank or artillery battery as long as certain stipulations are followed. The individuals obviously would need the space to operate the equipment with a suitable safety parameter and such. Target such as scrap cars would need to be striped and drained to protect the environment, warning signs posted, ect. If one can own equally useless and in my opinion more dangerous equipment such as speed boats and semi trucks why can’t I start a Sherman restoration club and have a yearly WWII reenactment with live ammo and scrap voots vagganz?
As for nukes, this falls under international law as well as biological and chemical weapons and land mines and would certainly not be allowed. The question I propose, and I think it an easy one, is what for the weapons of malice such as shoulder fired missiles that are capable of downing aircraft. A case could certainly be made for their usefulness in some future dark day but their quick, easy and almost certain use for malice or terror I think outweigh it.
So, may I have a machinegun?
I wanted to stay out of this discussion, but it's just so darned interesting when people have such different backgrounds and opinions...
Some very good points.
I agree that herein lies the problem MOST people do use their guns appropriately, but it's the drawing the line question... which never seems to be resolvable... that presents problems.
SO I have some questions:
If it is an inalienable right for people to own and carry firearms in order to protect themselves, can everyone carry a gun?
Should Iraquis be allowed to carry guns?
Should convicted criminals be allowed to carry guns?
Should PLO members be allowed to carry guns (the PLO of course, being the legitimate governing body that came to power after freeing their people from tyranny and opression by blowing up airplanes)?
What about Tutsi tribesman? Are they allowed machineguns?
I think, particularly in today's soicio-political climate, it's an awfully fine line between defending yourself and being a terrorist. It kind of depends which side you're on.
For me, to say that some people are defending their rights, and others are terrrorists is hypocritical. I'd rather just not settle things that way. I'd rather call all people who settle disputes that way terroists... sanctioned or not. Or better yet, no-one at all.
There ARE NO good guys and bad guys. There are merely people trying to survive. I firmly believe that I can survive as well without a machine gun as with one. That may not always be the case. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
"the right to bear arms"
Well, if you want to base the issue of whether or not we can own a machine gun on that alone, then why don't I have a rocket launcher and more fun toys in my house?
I highly doubt the founding fathers who established that constitution knew of the treacherous weapons that would be designed in the modern world. And I don't think any sensible person would allow the ownership of such potent weapons.
If you are concerned about having a gun for self-defense, you really don't need a machine gun to blow an assailant into a million pieces, all you really need is a nifty hand gun or something.
People would do stupid things.
I agree that citizens should be able to bear arms but I think assault rifles are insane. I see no reason why you couldn't defend yourself with anything other than an assault rifle. Modified or stock. Of all the choices in the world, why settle on an assault rifle?Do you plan on helping the police when the next riot hits? Are you planning some big offesive of your own? Why not leave those types of guns in the hands of professionals and go to the shooting range with enough regularity to improve your marksmanship so you won't have to rely on a streetsweeper to clear out your tresspassers?
You know, around here, that's what most of us need to defend ourselves against!!!
(and a brain works SO much better than a gun now, doesn't it!)
What is the point in owning a gun? You might say that someone might mug you... but why would you carry a loaded weapon around with you? It's sure to get you some reall hassle if the police stop you, but even if somebody does mug you, what are you going to do? Shoot them? Then go to jail for murder.
I don't live in the US, and I don't understand the national fascination with guns, but each to their own. What I find really hard to accept is the amount of gun violence in the US. In Canada, the gun ownership per head is virtually the same as the US, but the number of deaths (again per head of the population) from gun violence every year is only somewhere around 1 or 2% of the amount in America.
You have the right to bear arms. You also have the right to bury yourself alive with a scorpion in your pocket provided you are on your own property. Just because you have the right, it doesn't make it a good idea.
Lets break this down
close quarters combat
Trap shooting and close quarters combat
Granted theres other uses, but this coveres the jist of it.
If the law enforcement officers have to contend with machineguns, they are gonna go bigger and start slinging what .50 cal rounds? 7.62? whats stopping you? tanks and missles? what are they going to have to get to take u down if u misuse it. but then we get back to arguement if we have the right o bear arms whats stoping you from having what the cops do. Its a never ending self perpetuating circle.
Bear all the arms you want. Hopefully you will create your own form of population control while I sit relatively safe in upstate NY where people, for whatever reason, don't feel the need to arm themselves against the community.
The morale of a pro gun advocate: We need to stick together as a country to fight terra, but don't get too close or I'll blow yer head off. Yeee haw, get that turkey buzzard with the sub Denny! *TAT TAT TAT TAT TAT*
well the second amendment says you can bare arms
but, you dont need them all that much a shot gun is very poweful and could get the job done a machine gun would mean more deaths to innocent people you should think about things from the other viewpoint too not saying you havn't though
Certainly, currently most US states allow some form of carried weapon. Also, these weapons improperly used and I am not aware of even a single instance of an individual being convicted of a crime using their licensed weapon, such as in the “good guy, bad day scenario”.
This will be up to their new government but I do not see why not, once stability forms.
They have forgone such rights. This, however does not limmit their ability to arm themselves ilegaly.
If you are refering to the Palastinians this is a whole other discusion as to who would be doing the "allowing".
I see no one who would affectively disallow the Tutsis. The Hutus on the other hand are a great example. If they where armed even one tenth as well as the Tutsis or the army I don’t believe the slaughter would have initiated. Had it, the Hutus could have fought back. But this is my point exactly, they would not have had to fight because they are able to fight. (the first think a young gung-fu student learns)
A few points I would like to make due to some apparent misunderstandings here.
America is not an especially violent country. Only in our movies. The violence that we do have is not initiated by legal weapons or law abiding citizens. Much of the violence involves illegal weapons and drug trafficking.
Disallowing weapons will NOT disarm the criminals. Nor will it affect how police are armed. Our police currently care what you see our soldiers caring. They just hid it in the trunk.
The fact that you currently see no apparent need for yourself to be armed with a machine gun is irrelevant to the question of whether citizens should be aloud to properly arm themselves.
Allowing arms does not instantly are all individuals.
The right to bear arms has little to do with defense against criminals and more to do with an important “check” in our system of government.
Finally, the notion that we can be armed with a lesser efficient weapon that today’s common weapons and still be considered to be bearing arms as it is stated in the constitution is an uneducated notion. The proper implementation of an assault weapon, contrary to movies and games, is to fire a short burst at a single target. In a combat situation marksmanship, nerve and life expectance are reduced, as well as bowl control and atheism. The assault weapon becomes a great advantage.
Thankyou for your response. You've obviously put a lot of thought into yor point of view. That makes it so much essier to respectfully agree to disagree.
Still enjoying the discussion, there's another point I'm curious about.
Your response is more liberal than I expected... you obviously feel that most people should be allowed to carry guns.
But here's my question. If the right to carry a gun can be revoked based on one's past:
Based on one's location:
Based on one's political affiliations:
Or if it can be revoked based on any other factor, it's not really a right, but a privilege.
If gun ownership is a privilege available to some citizens and not others, as you've suggested, who may have one and who may not? How many mya you have? How must gun ownership be regulated?
I think you have to decide... privilege, or right. You just can't have it both ways. ANd I know very few people that actually want everyone to carry a machinegun. (A point of view which is more tenable than "I can have one, but others can't")
How does that fit in with/affect your position?
By this rationalization any “right” would be considered a “privilege”. Convicted criminals have shown that they are willing to us their rights to remove rights from their fellow citizens. For this reason their rights are limited in many areas. In some cases the right to live and breath.
With regard to political association and location, I see no reason to limit bearing rights. Unless by political association you mean a terrorist organization or location you mean the white house, school, hospital or other area where a person may live that has its own regulations.
There is also the issue of the mentally ill. Such rights should also be limited here. An interesting note about Michigan US weapons law, cross bows are illegal except for those disabled were unable to operate a bow, but you can purchase an assault rifle. Just not not a real one.
The right to bare arms has little to do with arming every citizen. Currently, in my community a machinegun would most likely not prove useful very often. Nor do I personally believe everyone should currently have a machine gun. A machinegun is a big responsibility.
I do however believe that the right for any and all citizens should have the right to arm themselves to the teeth. The reason being that it is an important mechanism in our system of government and for the fact that in my nation’s history the citizens have been forced to take up arms and eventually they will again.
On the contrary, a right is available to all citizens. A convicted criminal (who has not been sentenced to the death penalty) still has the right to vote, the right to the "pursuit of happiness" and so-on. Priveliges are granted to some, but not all citizens. These are very different things.
If the mentally ill, those living in unstable countries, those suspected of terrorism, those living near schools and the white house etc., need to be restricted then it's not a right, it's a privilege.
Voting is a right. Education is a right. Access to food, water and basic health care are rights. Driving is a privilege. For goodness sake, hairdressing and plumbing are licensed privileges! By your own description, gun ownership is also a privilege.
[Interesting point about Michigan law. I wonder why that is... maybe a difference in demographics? Probably not a lot of bowhunters? Probably not a lot of assault rifle hunters either, I guess. Perhaps it's just a stupid law.
But it does raise a valid point. Weapons are weapons and human nature is what it is. Some people would still kill even without guns. They'd use rocks and sticks if we took away everything else. (Which doesn't change my point of view, or the statistics on guns and violent crime)]
I think there is soon to be a war in this country (US) and if we have an out of control situation that military and law enforcement can't handle, who's left? The civilians. If the gov't takes away that because of a few leftist extremists, we won't have as much fire power. I live in Washington where it's illegal to own machine guns, but I will soon be living in the good state of Montana where they are legal. The places with the most gun control are the places with the most crime. there is very little crime in gun owner places like Montana or Georgia to name a few because the criminals are afraid of getting shot. New York city has crime through the roof because the people aren't allowed to have guns, so the criminal isn't afraid, he has a gun, you have a knife, who wins?. I almost got carjacked until I pulled my shotgun on the jackass, he ran like a bat out of hell, and I fired a few rounds into the ground just to scare him. Tell me guns are bad and I will tell WHY they are good. I own several guns, My friends have many guns too.
Fine riv_, a right with limitations would be considered a privilege.
See frihosters, in the beginning of this post I claimed that I believed in guaranteeing the “right” to bare arms. Through this discussion, particularly with riv_, I have concluded that I indeed do not. What I do believe in is guaranteeing the right to bear arms with limitations with regard to criminal record, mental illness and residence (residence in situations where additional rules apply such as hospitals schools etc.), which would best be described as a “privilege”. I am now a slightly less unenlightened individual. I wouldn’t say I would agree with disallowing people in unstable countries to have weapons. In the case of Iraq, my thought was that immediately allowing weaponry would make it more difficult for Iraqi and coalition forces to disarm the bad guys.
Arming the citizens, however may very well facilitate things. From what I hear coming out of Iraq, from credible sources, is that the Iraqis want to get things cleaned up and the insurgents or “suiciders” out. I have no idea if this would be a good idea though, I am not ever sure how well Iraqis are armed. I just assume the law abiding citizens would not be armed due to the universal need of oppressive dictators to disarm their population.
I think throwing stars are ilegal here too. Must be to keep out ninjas.
Some good points. Additionally, laws neither arm nor disarm criminals.
“If we outlaw catapults, only outlaws will have catapults.”
Just to clarify, who on this board has been shot, or threatened by a gun, or been in a situation where, had they been armed with an automatic rifle, they would be alive today... in other words, who of you has died because your right to bear arms was stifled? I'm just wondering.
I know there may be a time in which your freedom will be threatened, but I believe the King of England no longer presents the same threat he did at the time your forefathers were scrawling their freedom notes. My only real concern with the gratuitous bearing of arms is that it typically involves a great deal of escalation. I know this has been mentioned before, but you must realize that this right of yours is an insatiable beast. Where do you stop? The ability to bear, sadly, doesn't produce forbearance. While you may know the place for a weapon (again, I'm not sure the place of an automatic rifle in a civilian home), there will be those who don't have the same patience and discretion.
If no one in your country had a gun, would you need a gun to protect yourself? I understand weapons are often matched (the problem of escalation), but I'm less concerned about knife wielding than gun wielding. Any coward can shoot a man, but it takes a special kind of coward to gut someone.
I've been dead three years for just such a cause.
again and again the constitution is bent and twisted.
the right to bear arms isn't about individuals having weapons in their houses. it's about keeping an organized militia(say, a standing Army), which you can freely join if you want to keep and bear arms. you do have the right to bear arms, and you may freely enter the public service in a Policing or Militaristic role in order to excercise that right.
Presuming the assailant was using a weapon to mug you, I believe you wouldn't go to jail for using "reasonable" force to stop the assailant. That would be categorized as self defense.
In the extreme case, if a mugger pulled a weapon on me and threatened me and I perceived I had that choice to passively die there, or shoot him/her in self defense and spend the rest of my day in jail alive. I think I'd rather live.
So, in other words our forefathers didn’t need to attach that silly little amendment. They had the right to bare arms; all they had to do was freely join the red-coats.
The right to bear arms and form a militia is a mechanism to counteract military and police from seizing illegal powers. We have seen this in the past; currently can observe it on foreign soils and will no doubt eventually see it on our own.
The question of escalation does not currently concern non law abiding citizens and police. Law does not affect this escalation as non law abiding citizens do not follow law. Eventually there may be an escalation between the regular law abiding citizen and this day will show the importance of preserving such a right.
nice discussion going on. i decided to do my research project on gun control (for and against). nothing exactly factual here but opinions are always useful info when writing a huge essay...
That is true, I guess, But you would have to be an American born citizen with no crime record, to keep them in safe hands with a permit. There is NOWHERE in this constitution that says you cannot own a certain type of weapon, however it does say you have the right to bear arms, that the citizens are a militia in case the military, police, or government cannot control a situation. If we have gun control and illegal immigrants have guns, what are we gonna use, a cuisinart?
You might be confusing air rifles with airsoft. Well, here an 'Air Rifle' is classed as something that fires .227 led pellets. An 'Airsoft' is something that fires 6mm pellets, probably like the M-16 you were talking about.
We can get airsoft OK, but air rifles, difficult. Shotguns, even more difficult. Handguns and Assult rifles, totally out of the question. I don't think we can legally obtain a handgun here unless your in the police
Personaly I don't see the need for an individule to own an automatic weapon. Call it self or home defense, whatever the need...it's just plain overkill (pardon the pun).
But on the other hand...if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.
Well my opinion is that we should only be allowed to have hunting weapons because if people had machine guns around in a big city there would be a whole lot of drive bys and it would tempt little kids even more in my opinion. So what I'm saying is that as long as it isnt a machine gun you should be able to own and use a gun for non illegal reasons such as hunting and protection is some cases.
Nope, air rifle.
It blew holes is all kind of stuff..... Thats why I liked it. It could shoot steel "BB" or an asortment of palets. My favorite where the pointed ones.
I live in california(where automatic weapons are illegal) people are trying harder and harder not only to make it impossible to get automatic weapons, but harder to get regular semi-automatic weapons, I would like to say that Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States...Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. It is not the problem with the guns....we just need to educate people on using guns properly...and plus if i was going to break into a house....and knew that everyone had a gun it would make it hell of a lot harder to rob or steal.
I hate to rain on anybodys parade here, but you can legally own a machine gun in the US! It requires a special permit called an FFL (Federal Firearms License) and for the general public you must be registered with the FBI as either a collector or a gun dealer in order to get such a license. So you actually can own one, and since Federal law superceeds State law, the State laws don't apply to ownership under those circumstances. You wouldn't be able to carry it around, or even shoot it at a target range, but you'd be able to own one. God help you if you shot a burgler with it though...you'd be the criminal then.
Funny how that works out....only in America.
I personally like guns and always have. My father taught me how to handle them safely when I was a small kid together with knives, bows etc..
Being a bit of a purist I believe in "one shot one kill" but a .60, a MAC10 or an AK47 at full blast is for me like listening to Wagner (unless I'm in the receiving end,,,,,) =))
Hunting with a machine gun or a sub such does seem a bit sad for the receiving squirrel ! =)
I don't hunt myself as I don't like killing animals (the neighbor is another matter!,,,, JOKE!!!!!!) but each to his own as long as they don't hunt on my land.
There is nothing wrong with guns, just some people and it might seem that some people really should'nt have access to them, however no matter where, the "wrong people" always seem to find a way anyway.
Looks like I'm a step closer.
I agree. Guns don't kill. People kill. One could use many more tools than just guns to kill people. Take guns away, and there will always be other ways. Think however it will need more than education to educate people on using guns properly. Violence seems to be knitted into the fabric of society wherever you go. So much violence in movies. Abuse in families. Violence in society. One would have to re-invent all, start from scratch as from the moment a baby is born it emulates its mother and father, the role models in society, the movies it gets to see, the games it is taught to play. But yes, taking guns away is not going to solve this problem. Will take something much more disciplined than that.
Americans may have been given the "right to bare" arms, but the Constitution never says what kind of weapons you're allowed to have. That's left open to interpretation. So as long as some form of gun/weapon is kept legal, then it's not exactly unconstitutional.
Nice logic Afaceinthematrix. Have you ever read Animal Farm? So - as long as some form of free speech is legal, a law banning all other forms is not exactly unconstitutional? So we can make non-government media illegal, except for media printed on file cards and locked in a box, and that's not unconstitutional?
The reason the forefathers didn't specify weapon type was that they meant whatever is available - whatever enemies, criminals, bandits, hostile natives have - and also whatever any state controlled army might have (to prevent tyranny). That was the main idea, to prevent tyranny.
You logic is correct deanhills, guns are just tools. Making a law against them doesn't take them from people that don't follow laws, it just make only people who don't follow laws have guns.
Here in the UK people have long accepted that we're not allowed to have firearms unless strictly licensed like shotguns for farmers and single shot rifle's for target shooting clubs or military-style youth cadet forces. We lost our pistol shooting Olympic teams after a ban on hand guns a few years ago, and they are only really held illegally by criminals or legally by government agencies now.
It's not an issue for the average citizen here, we don't have a huge amount of gun crime thankfully, and although official statistics make it look quite high with number of offenses each year, what people forget is that if you held up a store with a banana disguised in a cloth or something, that crime would still be recorded as a firearms offense!!!
I'm glad our police don't routinely carry guns, just having a specialist team in each area on call for emergencies, and I'm glad the average criminal around here doesn't carry them or have easy access to them.
Not necessary at all, no normal person could have a reasonable justification for owning one. If you say that you want to have one to be prepared for all situations, why stop at machine guns? Why not have some sarin gas, or a nuclear weapon or two, just in case?
Alright. While I would love to own a machine gun and think they're the coolest things ever, I do not think the constitution guarantees you the right to own one. While you have a right to bear arms, you don't have a right to bear and darn arms you want. If your neighbor wanted a nuclear cannon, would you be cool with that?