Possession of firearms?

[Foilin]

no, it doesn't need to change. the thing is even if its a "You have the right if..." those people will get them weather you like it or not. the cartels in NM and Mexico are decapitating people, you don't need a gun to commit a fuckedup crime. and there are already regulations on who can and cant buy a gun, and you have to have a license to conceal the weapon. you have to remember there were just as many crimes back when the constitution was written so they know how it goes. murder and crime will be here as long as humans walk the earth.

[Reise]

Some fools do buy guns here without a clue on how to use them, and keep them for the sake of feeling safe. Smart people buy guns, and when they aren't around the house for the defense factor, they're out at ranges learning how to get better with them and be more responsible.

2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. It's part of what makes the US a "free country". Europeans of all people should know that bans don't do squat.

Bans or limiting of firearms?

One could say limitations are just as bad as bans. This is a civil right we're talking about.

So basicly the 2nd amendment needs to be changed to "You have the right if... ", or doesn't it work like that. And obviously it seem it old, times then where different. But since then it became common to own a gun.

I have tons of quotes from the founders on the topic. Many of them say quite clearly that every person should be armed for the safety of a free nation. The only people who have trouble reading the constitution are the people against it.

[Cruor]

"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."

If you took that literally, then civilians should have the right to keep and bear anything short of a nuclear warhead.

[Foilin]

"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."

If you took that literally, then civilians should have the right to keep and bear anything short of a nuclear warhead.

So im not supposed to take the 2nd Amendment literally? You're just being totally ridicules.

[Reise]

"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."

If you took that literally, then civilians should have the right to keep and bear anything short of a nuclear warhead.

And they should.

If they aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

[Jstar1]

"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."

If you took that literally, then civilians should have the right to keep and bear anything short of a nuclear warhead.

And they should.

If they aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

true, but the problem arises from the fact that their potential to hurt someone grows exponentially. A person who has an anger management problem is hard enough to deal with, but if that same guy has a gun and gets angry he might as well shoot up all his coworkers or friends at a party.

[Reise]

You may think that.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing harm to others. You can build a bomb in your basement and blow up your work even with restrictions, and bans, and background checks. You could drive into a crowd of people, set fires to houses, unleash all sorts of hurt on people. And that's without the dreaded black assault rifles only the bad guys have.

The only real deterrent is what happens after you do these things. Do you get sent to jail for the rest of your life? Do they just fry your ass instead, or even kill you before you can be apprehended?

The US is a free country. You're free to f*ck people up, and we're free to f*ck you up back.

[Cruor]

And they should.

If they aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

So you don't see the problem with everyone owning tanks and explosives? Have you ever looked at the kind of countries where that is the norm?

There are two parts to the second amendment. The first part is self defense and recreation, but pistols are sufficient for self defense. The second part has to do with forming militias if necessary, and that's where the assault rifles come in. The question is whether militias are still relevant. Do we still face the sort of existential threats that were all too real to the Framers? I don't know about you, but I can't exactly imagine finding Chinese paratroopers on my lawn tomorrow morning. Few countries even come close to the United States in power projection, so my reasoning is that it is no longer necessary to keep weapons for reasons other than self defense and recreation.

The only sort of case where I can see assault rifles being needed is if someone like Foilin wanted to form a militia with his community to do something about those pesky Mexican drug dealers, but we all know that won't happen.

[user]

@Cruor what about fighting the domestic enemies? what if the government imposes something that is against the constitution? won't you want something with a bigger bang than a pistol? you gotta remember that when they wrote the constitution, they just finished a bloody war fending themselves against an unjust government, firearm and militia freedom were deemed to protect the people in case the government gets too excited again

true, but the problem arises from the fact that their potential to hurt someone grows exponentially. A person who has an anger management problem is hard enough to deal with, but if that same guy has a gun and gets angry he might as well shoot up all his coworkers or friends at a party.

true, but what if everyone at the part is packing heat? it'll be like bring a knife to rob a gun store. not everyone can speak sense, but anyone can speak gun. you know to chill the fck out when you see guns pointing at you

[Cruor]

@Cruor what about fighting the domestic enemies? what if the government imposes something that is against the constitution? won't you want something with a bigger bang than a pistol? you gotta remember that when they wrote the constitution, they just finished a bloody war fending themselves against an unjust government, firearm and militia freedom were deemed to protect the people in case the government gets too excited again

Like I said before, this is improbable and deregulating heavy arms is impractical. If we allow any civilian (and any criminal) access to the sort of weapons the military keeps, then we are creating a domestic security issue. It is no longer reasonable for citizens to defend themselves against government, and we have only ourselves to blame for electing authoritarian leaders.

[Plutonium]

"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."

If you took that literally, then civilians should have the right to keep and bear anything short of a nuclear warhead.

i have a few AK47s in my basements and collections of guns and stuff. there's nothing wrong with people owning nuclear warheads... they have to right under the 2nd amendment. if it's legal to buy chemical weapons, tanks, missiles, you bet i will buy those shit too just in case i need to unleash it to defend myself. this is America... we are a violent nation. dont like it? get out of America.

[Cruor]

i have a few AK47s in my basements and collections of guns and stuff. there's nothing wrong with people owning nuclear warheads... they have to right under the 2nd amendment. if it's legal to buy chemical weapons, tanks, missiles, you bet i will buy those shit too just in case i need to unleash it to defend myself. this is America... we are a violent nation. dont like it? get out of America.

Ever heard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? If not, that's pretty ignorant of you. If you want to live in a violent nation, there's plenty in Africa.

[dom]

Most people that defend the right to own weapons to the end sound like religious extremists. If you own a weapon to protect yourself you are not in the right mindframe to own a weapon. If you own guns for recreational purposes (hunting, hobby, etc.) then i'm all for it.

The kind of people determined enough to harm other people with their guns would be determined to find a way to harm them without.

[Jstar1]

You may think that.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing harm to others. You can build a bomb in your basement and blow up your work even with restrictions, and bans, and background checks. You could drive into a crowd of people, set fires to houses, unleash all sorts of hurt on people. And that's without the dreaded black assault rifles only the bad guys have.

No shit, I could think of 30000 ways to kill people. But the reason why people focus on guns is because you can kill so many people so easily and so quickly. A baseball bat or a truck can only do so much and bombs are hard to make. If they were easy to make like you say, then muslim terrorists should have already blown up the white house by now.

Theres no problem with handguns or shotguns, theres a problem with assault rifles. There aren't 20 thieves raiding your house every 3 months.

[Reise]

Here's my last words on the subject:

I own and use guns for sport and for the extra benefit of being defensive tools should the need arise. I respect others' rights to do the same as me, and encourage others to as well. I know that criminals do not give a shit about laws, and bans and tighter restrictions will only punish others like me who have done nothing wrong. We already have background checks and registration, anything more than that and it becomes personally intrusive. Finally, I believe all small arms available to the military should also be available to common lawful citizens, WITHOUT the heavy taxing and special licensing currently in place. If you have a problem with any of that, I don't much give a shit.

If you can't understand that it's a right of the people of this country to own guns then I'm not going to commit any more time to try to help you understand. It's clear as day in the constitution, and has been justified many, MANY times by the forefathers as a fundamental part of this country. Use them as a home defense weapon, use them as a sporting weapon, use them to dig holes in the ground, use them to prop up your table, use them to kill people. It's your choice, we have laws for a reason. Most people know how to live without breaking them. Those who choose not to? Enjoy the consequences.

[XemnasXD]

To deprive the people of weapons would increase the power of the establishment. But reckless gun ownership is the reason why things like columbine and V tech are possible. I guess it comes to who you fear of having more power, your fellow man or your gov't.

[Riptide]

To deprive the people of weapons would increase the power of the establishment. But reckless gun ownership is the reason why things like columbine and V tech are possible. I guess it comes to who you fear of having more power, your fellow man or your gov't.

So if you don't have a gun you don't count?

[Foilin]

To deprive the people of weapons would increase the power of the establishment. But reckless gun ownership is the reason why things like columbine and V tech are possible. I guess it comes to who you fear of having more power, your fellow man or your gov't.

So if you don't have a gun you don't count?

No he means the Govmnt. by disarming the people you make them unable to defend their own freedoms.

@ Cruor, in this day and age i would wanna risk being unarmed :[ its unfortunate but thats the way it is. and What do you consider an assault rifle?