Americans & Guns

[tusaki]

Just wondering, could an American explain to me why allowing everyone to have guns is a good thing?

[Tindell]

Just because a man/women has a gone doesn't mean they are going to do harm to something illegally. Which is basically what you were implying.

I'm a little hazy on this, but if you are a convicted fellon than your right to own a gun is revoked. So, no not any ol' lunatic can carry a gun around here.

[tusaki]

Mhh. no not really.. ofcourse.. guns dont kill people, people do. But I was implying that having easier access to guns lowers the bar for people who want to cross the line.

But why is it 'good' to have guns? If allowing everyone to have guns increases death by gunfights 0.0001%, it must be bad right? I mean, I dont know -if- I'me right, but as far as I can tell America is the only country where alot of people are gun-zealots. Let me rephrase that; there is no country but America where guns are loved as much. And I just can't figure out: why? I've never touched a gun in my life and I couldn't ever think of a reason why I would be happy to have one.

Protect! Protect! you would say... well.. is it really that nessicary in America? I've got a feeling it has something to do with people having easy access to guns :) (sorry.. sorry... must remain objective...)

But seriously, what are your reasons?

[suijurisfreeman]

The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamental right of a free Human Being. If you do not have the means to defend yourself, you many very well lose all other rights - like the right to life! Remember I claim absolutley no protection from the State, I assume the responsibility of defending myself. When I'm on my property in Kentucky, the first thing I do after putting my pants on is strap on a pistol - we have lots of rattlesnakes and copperheads in southcentral Kentucky, as well as some of those nasty, greedy people mentioned in another thread. When I ride my mountain bike 9 miles (one-way) to check my mail, I carry a pistol/shotgun or pistol/"assult rifle" with me as a means to protect myself. The last time one of my neighbors called the Sheriff's Department it took over 2 hours for them to arrive, obviously a person might not survive that long without a means to protect themselves. To me, a "gun" is just another tool that I use on a regular basis on my homestead, nothing more!

[JustinGilmore]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Mhh. no not really.. ofcourse.. guns dont kill people, people do. But I was implying that having easier access to guns lowers the bar for people who want to cross the line.

But why is it 'good' to have guns? If allowing everyone to have guns increases death by gunfights 0.0001%, it must be bad right? I mean, I dont know -if- I'me right, but as far as I can tell America is the only country where alot of people are gun-zealots. Let me rephrase that; there is no country but America where guns are loved as much. And I just can't figure out: why? I've never touched a gun in my life and I couldn't ever think of a reason why I would be happy to have one.

Protect! Protect! you would say... well.. is it really that nessicary in America? I've got a feeling it has something to do with people having easy access to guns :) (sorry.. sorry... must remain objective...)

But seriously, what are your reasons?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

First off I'll start by telling you I'm an American, I reside in California. Second, I for one do indeed support a right to own a gun, though for hunting and sport only. Automatic guns, or other guns which are only made to inflict human casualties shouldn't be allowed, I would even venture to say that handguns ought to be illegal. I do like the notion which Brittian has, where guns are illegal, period. However, even though I'm not one to perpetuate stereotypes, many of the southern states want their guns, and I believe a complete ban of firearms would be impossible.

[nature of reality]

Americans realized something a long time ago when the British tried to seize their guns in the early days of the Revolutionary War...




Guns protect man against nature and criminals, and thats gravvy. But most importantly it protects him from the government. That is why we deserve/need assault rifles, etc.

The government is merely a system of men given a monopoly on physical force. Never forgot that. They are not omnipotent. You need one final check, and that is a wary and armed populace.

[Impenitent]

guns? every american should be armed with a bazooka...

[Zeebadee]

If the right to own guns was included in the Bill of Rights in order to enable the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, then why are the guns that would be most useful for that purpose (e.g. assault and other automatic rifles) outlawed? If only "safe" guns are going to be allowed, then we might as well limit the right to own them and require special training and permits for any individual to possess one.

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Just wondering, could an American explain to me why allowing everyone to have guns is a good thing?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

"allowing everyone to have guns" Perhaps the question that should be asked is, by what lawful authority does "government" presume to regulate the people's natural, inherent and inalienable right to bear arms? If we are going to believe the illusion that "government" is the agent/servant of the sovereign people, then that "agent" cannot lawfully exercise powers that were never delegated. All sovereignity resides in "the people", when "civil society" was formed, the sovereign people delegated a limited portion of their power to their agent/government to perform certain, limited functions. Today in the united States of America we have a government that far exceeds its delegated authority, it's all ass backwards! The agent/servant has now become the master.
"allowing everyone to have guns"? WTF, why do the American people allow their government to violate their natural, inherent and inalienable rights? On other boards I have posted all 50 State's Bill of Rights, I would suggest that everyone do a google search, look up all 50 State's Bill of Rights, print them off, read each and every one of them, [/b]read them and weep![b] How could we have strayed so far from the fundamental principles that this country was supposed to be founded on? Sad, truely sad! Americans today are satisfied with the illusion of freedom, after isn't it just as good as freedom itself?

[John]

Here in Australia we have fairly strict gun control laws, it all came about after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996 I believe. A man named Martyn Bryant walked into the complex with all kinds of guns, mainly semi automatic rifles, he ended up killing 35 people.

A few months later stricter gun laws came in. It is now illegal to own a semi automatic rifle, for those who don't know, it is a rifle that re-cocks itself after a shot is fired, making it ready to make another shot in less than a second.

This is what I went through to obtain my licence and obtain a .22 bolt action 5 shot repeater and a .22M 8 shot lever action repeater.
1. Do a firearms safety course ($20)
2. Obtain an application from the police station. On the application you have to have a valid reason as to why you need a firearm. I have a mate who lives on a huge property, I had him write me a letter giving me permission to shoot feral animals. The letter also has to have strict property details such as size and surrounding features.
3. Hand the application back to the police station ($20)
4. You recieve ur licence in the mail a few months later.
5. Obtain a permit to aquire a firearm, fill out the form stating what firearm you wish to purchase. ($15 each, i had 2, so $30)
6. Hand it to the police station, who sends it to weapons licencing.
7. A few weeks later you get an approval letter.
8. You then purchase your rifle(free for me)
9. The rifle serial numbers have to be inspected by a gun dealer ($11 per weapon, so $22 for me)

Look at all those fees and difficulties in obtaining a weapon in Australia. Yet shootings still happen.. Go figure..

When the laws came into place we had a gun buy back scheme. Now you can't tell me that criminals would hand in their rifles, you only get the good honest people hand them in. Such a stupid move by the government

[suijurisfreeman]

Does a free Human Being have the right of self-defense? As a free Human Being, I claim that right, I declare that right, I exercise that right and I will defend that right!

My son had an incident with a Sheriff's deputy back in July of 2003, the deputy asked him why are you carrying a weapon. My son then handed him a copy of Constructive Notice which states that he was in fact exercising his natural, inherent and inalienable right to do so. Either we are free Human Beings, with certain and inalienable rights or we're not! Either we exercise those rights or we choose not to - I choose to exercise mine on a daily basis!

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,)
If the right to own guns was included in the Bill of Rights in order to enable the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, then why are the guns that would be most useful for that purpose (e.g. assault and other automatic rifles) outlawed? If only "safe" guns are going to be allowed, then we might as well limit the right to own them and require special training and permits for any individual to possess one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Why not let the people arm themselves with bombs? Grenades? Or nuclear bombs?

Thats because to use "unsafe" guns requires a lot of training. Otherwise you're just going to end up shooting your entire family and friends during Christmas.


Would YOU feel safe if every teenager walked on the street armed with an AKSU assault rifle? Or grenades? Or nuclear weapons?

Why not let the common people arm themselves with nukes so they can overthrow the US government and kill themselves in the process?

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,)
If the right to own guns was included in the Bill of Rights in order to enable the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, then why are the guns that would be most useful for that purpose (e.g. assault and other automatic rifles) outlawed? If only "safe" guns are going to be allowed, then we might as well limit the right to own them and require special training and permits for any individual to possess one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Why not let the people arm themselves with bombs? Grenades? Or nuclear bombs?

Thats because to use "unsafe" guns requires a lot of training. Otherwise you're just going to end up shooting your entire family and friends during Christmas.


Would YOU feel safe if every teenager walked on the street armed with an AKSU assault rifle? Or grenades? Or nuclear weapons?

Why not let the common people arm themselves with nukes so they can overthrow the US government and kill themselves in the process?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

"let", "let the common people"? By what lawful authority does the government presume to "let" or "not let" the "common people" do that which is the right of a free and sovereign Human Being?

Exactly who, what is "the common people"? Do free Human Beings exist in your world castille? Perhaps you've abducated your natural, inherent and inalienable rights, but I have not! A brief quote from Samuel Adams: "It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it would be in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principle of which are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." (Quoted in Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:504.)

[Pooeypants]

Well over here in UK, gun crime is on the rise, but nothing close to the scale in the US. A Police being killed by a handgun would easily reach the headlines (not sure if thats the case in US).
Most ppl I know don't believe that civilians should have the right to possess firearms but I do think that all police in metropolitan areas should be armed.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)
The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamental right of a free Human Being. If you do not have the means to defend yourself, you many very well lose all other rights - like the right to life! Remember I claim absolutley no protection from the State, I assume the responsibility of defending myself. When I'm on my property in Kentucky, the first thing I do after putting my pants on is strap on a pistol - we have lots of rattlesnakes and copperheads in southcentral Kentucky, as well as some of those nasty, greedy people mentioned in another thread. When I ride my mountain bike 9 miles (one-way) to check my mail, I carry a pistol/shotgun or pistol/"assult rifle" with me as a means to protect myself. The last time one of my neighbors called the Sheriff's Department it took over 2 hours for them to arrive, obviously a person might not survive that long without a means to protect themselves. To me, a "gun" is just another tool that I use on a regular basis on my homestead, nothing more!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, I DO claim protection from the state, and particularly from people who pull on a gun before belting their pants. Not that I think you might do something, but some people like that are predators. And, yes, I claim a right to self-defense; but having a gun is one of the worst ways I can imagine of trying to exercise that right -- by having one, I would likely create much more hazard for myself and those around me than they or I otherwise face. But those are my feelings -- what about rights?

It's usually all pinned on the 2nd Amendment; and it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is stated in very general words. This has generally been a good thing, because it has allowed shifting interpretations over the years, as American society has reinvented its rights. But it creates a lot of space for contention, especially re Amendment # 2. Some claim that it gives individuals unfettered rights to own, and some claim to use, firearms. Others claim that it only gives a collective right for 'well-organized militias.' Well, the Constitution is just what the latest SCOTUS ruling says it is; but I still cannot see how the 2nd Amendment can be read as doing something other than giving both an individual and a collective right. Militias were how communities protected themselves, and the Framers undoubtedly saw them as an alternative to a standing military. Now, we have a long-established, massive standing military, and for nearly a century most (but not all) militrias have been folded into the National Guard; but the collective right for a civilian-based alternative is still there.

Likewise, guns were important to individual protection back then, as well as individually-owned guns to the stocking of militias, so I can't see how the Framers wouldn't have intended an individual right as well. As a public health person, I see unfortunate aspects of this, because of the harm that widespread gun ownership has done to this country, but there it is in the Constitution. But how far does that right extend? Actually, it is stated as for the purposes of a 'well-regulated militia,' so I don't think that the intent was to apply the protection to each and every member of society -- but then, some of the other rights were not so extended (in fact, none to slaves), so such limitations might best go by the wayside. Still, other rights, such as to common protection, also weigh in -- so I am sure the Framers would have supported such things as denying guns to those convicted of violent felonies, to the mentally-ill and so on. Moreover, a right to own a gun in no way ensures a right to own any and every kind of weapon -- so I have no problem with banning assault rifles. It does not ensure the right to carry the gun under all circumstances -- and I strongly support bans on concealed carry, on guns in certain public places, and so on. And a right to possession does not mean a prohibition on requirements for registration, for record-keeping of sales, and so on. And I strongly support registration laws, restrictions on sales, and record-keeping (and long-term retention) about sales.

There. I often wish the 2nd Amendment did not exist, but it does. So, I'm for working around it to try to ameliorate the horrible influences that widespread gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, have had on our society.

Ready to be flamed.

[suijurisfreeman]

damnrad,
As I stated, a "gun" is just another tool that I use on my homestead. Perhaps the fact that I have a axe for chopping firewood makes me an axe murderer? I've got two chainsaws, I don't live in Texas, but maybe I'm the Kentucky chainsaw murderer. The fact that some people can't conduct their affairs in a responsible manner isn't my problem. I have exercised my rights for over 10 years now without harming another Human Being, their rights or property. If guns scare you, then it's probably just as well that you avoid them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
My claim of a right to defend myself is not dependent on nor derived from any Constitution. The right of self-defense is a natural right. If a "gun" is my choice of weapon to exercise that right then that's what I'll use.

Perhaps you're not aware that LEO's have absolutely no legal obligation to "protect" the individual, just to uphold the peace in general. If they did have the obligation to protect each and every "citizen" there would be a LEO for each citizen. I don't have the court cases in front of me at the moment, but I'll attempt to find that information. Many State's Bill of Rights do recognize self-defense as a natural, inherent right, for instance Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights .... First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...."

If you don't choose to use a "gun" while exercising your right of self-defense that's your choice, I've always heard that you don't take a knife to a gun fight. I could also use a knife to cut down a tree, but my chainsaw is more effective. I haven't heard of anyone in Monroe County, Kentucky being alarmed at the sight of me packing, but then again it's not unusual to see rifles on racks in pick-up trucks either! Different strokes for different folks!

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Well over here in UK, gun crime is on the rise, but nothing close to the scale in the US. A Police being killed by a handgun would easily reach the headlines (not sure if thats the case in US).
Most ppl I know don't believe that civilians should have the right to possess firearms but I do think that all police in metropolitan areas should be armed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think that our normal bobbies should be armed with anything more than their truncheons, at least while the populace is unarmed. Otherwise, in what way is the power in the hands of the people, as it should be in a democracy? If your British you will know damn well that your government doesn't care about you, look at Orgreave. They deployed the army in police uniform against the miners. If the police weren't there to begin with there would have been no violence. But no. They came out, rank and file. Squadrans on horseback, chasing down kids and 50 year olds. The older miners had served in WWII, and didn't think the police would actually beat up people who were exercising their rights. The kids knew better and dodged out of the way, while the 50 year olds got their heads smashed in.

I believe I have every right to defend myself, and while the normal bobbies have just got hand weapons I'll stick to being fit and my martial arts. But the moment they all get armed, I'm arming up. Don't trust our police Pooeypants, they follow orders like automotons, and they can get away with it when they break the law.

[eburchelli]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
But why is it 'good' to have guns? If allowing everyone to have guns increases death by gunfights 0.0001%, it must be bad right? I mean, I dont know -if- I'me right, but as far as I can tell America is the only country where alot of people are gun-zealots. But seriously, what are your reasons?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What gunfights are you referring to? The only gunfights I know about are between gang members, who are often using stolen guns. Once upon a time in the old west, there were gunfights. That went out of practice a long time ago.

[Suburbanite]

Americans like Guns because if we didn't have them someone like George Bush could be president for more than two terms and we wouldn't be able to put him down.

[castille]

G Adams, next time you're being killed, don't call the police. Since you hate them and see them as evil Nazi fascist Communist killers, then obviously you aren't in need of their services.

I've got several friends working in the police force, and their job calls for more stress, thanks to morons like you. Firstly, when a special weapons unit officer wounds an ARMED suspect, he gets suspended without pay for one month. Killing or injuring a civilian would get instant dismissal, even for regular police.

A small percentage of the police are corrupt, but most are just regular citizens trying to keep up the law.


Maybe you enjoy mob rule (al la witch burnings), but I'd rather have a trained police officer protect me than some crazy witch-burning mob.


You're like one of those people who get on trains without buying a ticket, then complain when you get fined. Police in Europe are much softer than anywhere else, they're like little pin cushions.