Do you like guns or gun control?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GePap


If the government can regulate speech and religion, it can sure as hell regulate gun ownership.

Maybe you have been absent the last few years, but most effective ways of getitng rid of a bad government are carried out peacefully. Anhd most armed revolts against even the most noxious governments fail unless the vast mayority of the populace supports the revolt, or the revolt is also backed by the military.

A bunch of guys with machines guns and explosives would not stand a chance against a trully repressive military bent on their total annahilation and not giving a damn about world opinion.

On top of all of this, most guns used for crime (handguns) are also those less worthwhile for fighting "the government". So lets control handgun ownreship up the ying yang.

Well done. On so many points.

The television is 1000 times more powerful than any weapons.

What gets more sympathy:

An unarmed Boris Yeltsin standing atop a tank?

Or Boris leading a group of armed thugs who are popping off AK-47s (and innocent people dying in the process).

Most of Eastern Europe was overturned peacefully.

[Odin]

To be clear, I am not against people owning guns, I just think there needs to be regulations so that they are safer (trigger locks, for example), and so criminals and terrorists can get thier hands on semi-automatic rifles and other millitary equipment.

[Shi Huangdi]

The government has the right to regualte speech and religion. It has the right to prosecute use of speech which is harmful, such as incitement to violence or defamation. It has the right to regulate use of religion which is harmful, such as if it were to involve a harmful act, such as a pastor who claims beating children is the will of God. The Government also has the right to regulate harmful uses of guns, such as murdering people.

I believe self-defense is a basic right which the government ought not to take away from us.

[lightblue]

From my point of view (and I am obviously not an US Constitutional expert), the first few words mention a well-regulated militia. Well-regulated suggest that the people bearing these arms are a/ registered as such by the state (not federally) b/ under the command of the state (and not federally). So I guess the National Guard comes closest, though it should really be more of a State Guard with no ties to federal whims and wants.

I don't think the intention was to have everyone armed, everywhere with whatever weapons, but rather to have certain amount of the menfolk in any village/city/state have the ability to take up arms, under leadership. So loners off the grid in Montana with an arsenal in his cellar doesn't really count.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Freedom of speech is not clearly defined, nor freedom of the press..... the second amendment could not possibly be written any more plain.

You're a know-nothing, really. Why not read up on the history of the debate over gun regulation and get back to us, eh?

If the 2nd ammendment were so clear, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's among the most contentious ammendments there is, so that right there proves you wrong.

I see nothing in the text that prohibits gun control regulation. In fact, the "well-regulated" part seems to indicate otherwise, to me.

And "Militia" has consistently been interpreted to refer to the national guard, despite your protests. In fact, Article 2, Section 2 explicitley says the President of the U.S. has authority over the "Militia." Whether or not the "Militia" is the national guard (sure sounds like it) is irrelevant, since the use of "militia" in both this section and the 2nd ammendment indicates that this is exactly as to what that ammendment is referring. The right to collectively bear arms for the purposes of this militia is what is guaranteed, not individual rights. So as I see it, the Fed government can pass whatever regulation it wants against individual arms holding (but I'm not saying it should, mind you).

BTW,

Almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional because the point of the second amendment is to let us take out an oppresive federal goverment.

Well, it's a good thing most gun control laws are actually enacted at a state level, then. So "almost all" is also incorrect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And "Militia" has consistently been interpreted to refer to the national guard

Not really. The Supreme Court said it was so back in the 1930s, but since that time, Circuit courts have split, with some (the 5th in particular) saying it is an individual right. The Supreme Court has not decided among these differing opinions.

[BlackCat]

Maybe it's because i'm a non US, but hasn't the second outlived it's purpose ? As I understand it, it was a tool to prevent external enemies to take control over US and not as a tool to fight against disliked presidents since that is covered in other parts of the constitution.

Shotrly said, the second was reasonable when US was a feeble power, but with it's current position as unsurpassed, then the second is null and void ?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And "Militia" has consistently been interpreted to refer to the national guard

Not really. The Supreme Court said it was so back in the 1930s, but since that time, Circuit courts have split, with some (the 5th in particular) saying it is an individual right. The Supreme Court has not decided among these differing opinions.

In fact the Supreme has never taken on the 2nd Amendment. Even the most liberal member of Congress will not attack the 2nd head on. They just pass little laws here and there to chip aways our rights to bear arms.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I believe self-defense is a basic right which the government ought not to take away from us.

Hell, I don't care if people carry handguns in public as long as they they have the proper training, permits, trigger locks so a stolen gun is useless, etc.

[BlackCat]

I know that there are several ways to lock guns so only the owner can fire a gun, but if I'm not wrong then it's fought harshly by NRA. Primarily because NRA thinks that everybody has the right to shoot anyone else, but besides this, what are their arguments ?

[Flip McWho]

All you really have to do is look at other countries and how they deal with it, America's pretty damn unique its gun control crap.

Most other (western) countries have some form of gun control or another but people can still bear arms if they so wish.

Hell with the term bear arms, well its pretty vague. Couldn't just whoever argue every weapon down to regulatedness, except maybe a few brands of handguns or something. I mean in the end you're still got a right to "bear arms" don't you? It can't be unconstitutional when you can still bear arms surely?

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Primarily because NRA thinks that everybody has the right to shoot anyone else, but besides this, what are their arguments ?

I think they try to emphasize the "slippery slope" argument in which one form of gun control will lead to another until all guns are banned.

[Frankychan]

Guns should be banned...except for the hunting rifles that are used to hunt for food. Hand guns---->out. Only hunting rifles should be allowed, and have a lot of restrictions to them.

We should get rid of "The Right to Bear Arms." It's an obsolete rule made by our forefathers to help defend against England. And when was the last time the King George decided to invade our a**?



But keep guns in law enforcement, military, etc.

[MrFun]

Does anyone else see the stupidity in thinking that an average Joe citizen with a handgun can defend himself against an Abrams tank?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Joseph
In fact the Supreme has never taken on the 2nd Amendment. Even the most liberal member of Congress will not attack the 2nd head on. They just pass little laws here and there to chip aways our rights to bear arms.

Well that isn't true either. The Supreme Court in Miller (IIRC), back in the 1930s read the 2nd Amendment as a collective right. Though there hasn't been a Supreme Court case since then on the 2nd Amendment and no one is sure what to do with the old precedent.

One day the Supreme Court will have to clear things up.