Right to Bear Arms

[Red1530]

Should a person have the right to bear arms. Personally I think a person without a criminal history should be able to bear arms.

 

[.Bastion]

I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end another's life. It may be a bit extreme, but if we didn't have this "right", crime would decrease signifigantly. If you're a hunter or something you can just get a permit to use weapons at a specific hunting ground as an example. The military should obviously keep weapons but as far as the common public goes, I don't think we should have rights to bear arms.

 

[Red1530]

I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end another's life. It may be a bit extreme, but if we didn't have this "right", crime would decrease signifigantly. If your a hunter or something you can just get a permit to use weapons at a specific hunting ground as an example. The military should obviously keep weapons but as far as the common public goes, I don't think we should have rights to bear arms.

I have to disagree with you because if people did have the right to bear arms, crime would go down not up because criminals would think twice about attack if they think someone is armed.

 

[Melody]

I agree...If People were allowed to carry a gun then crime would go down because everyone...well exept for the criminals would be packing heat...XD
But on the flip side...There would be more crime because what if someone loses their temper and pops a couple of rounds into the next guy...which might cause a gunfight like in those westerns XXDD

 

[Phaedrus2401]

"I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end another's life. It may be a bit extreme, but if we didn't have this "right", crime would decrease signifigantly. If your a hunter or something you can just get a permit to use weapons at a specific hunting ground as an example. The military should obviously keep weapons but as far as the common public goes, I don't think we should have rights to bear arms."

I'd like to point out that guns aren't the only thing that can kill you. Do you propose we ban knives, chain saws, blunt objects of all natures, gasoline, cars, roses, Draino, plastic bags, lutefisk, alchohol, pets, paper with sharp edges, cacti, stoves, space heaters, toenail clippers, Aspirin and most other medications, glass, candles, lighters, fireplaces, and hydrogen hydroxide (water) as well?

Didn't think so.

 

[Linoone]

I have to disagree with you because if people did have the right to bear arms, crime would go down not up because criminals would think twice about attack if they think someone is armed.

true, but that'd mean the criminals would also be much better armed, I know you meant persons without a criminal record, but criminals'd get them anyway, they alrady do, they'd just get em much easier, also lack of a criminal record doesn't mean zero risk..

 

[.Bastion]

"I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end another's life. It may be a bit extreme, but if we didn't have this "right", crime would decrease signifigantly. If your a hunter or something you can just get a permit to use weapons at a specific hunting ground as an example. The military should obviously keep weapons but as far as the common public goes, I don't think we should have rights to bear arms."

I'd like to point out that guns aren't the only thing that can kill you. Do you propose we ban knives, chain saws, blunt objects of all natures, gasoline, cars, roses, Draino, plastic bags, lutefisk, alchohol, pets, paper with sharp edges, cacti, stoves, space heaters, toenail clippers, Aspirin and most other medications, glass, candles, lighters, fireplaces, and hydrogen hydroxide (water) as well?

Didn't think so.

Well, considering I didn't even use the word 'gun' in my post...

I wasn't just referring to guns either I guess I should've been more specific when I said 'potentially kill'...

10. bear arms,
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.

11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare.

I don't think we're going to use plastic bags in war. I am referring to things like guns, knives, bombs, things of that nature; not the obscure things on your list.

Even though I feel like we shouldn't bear arms, I think Poketrainer2004 is correct. Overall its a lose lose situation.

 

[Warheart]

"I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end

I'd like to point out that guns aren't the only thing that can kill you. Do you propose we ban knives, chain saws, blunt objects of all natures, gasoline, cars, roses, Draino, plastic bags, lutefisk, alchohol, pets, paper with sharp edges, cacti, stoves, space heaters, toenail clippers, Aspirin and most other medications, glass, candles, lighters, fireplaces, and hydrogen hydroxide (water) as well?

Didn't think so.

This is so wrong, it's not even funny. All other items you went on listen all had some practical use outside of being designed soley for the purpose of killing. I mean seriously, do you honestly think any of those items play any mojor role in ending someone's life as a gun does? In fact, most of them play a role in our everyday life to benifit us in a comfortable life style. I mean dude; "Fireplaces? Plastic bags?" Next time you try to make an intellegent debatable remark against someone else's claim, please make sure overlook what you say before posting it, so you don't just ending up making yourself look ignorent. Thanks.

Anyways, I am really undecided in this topic as of right now; I don't think guns should be sold to anyone without a badge of authority, but there always will be people who would go against that, so I'm not sure if it would be good in terms of "Self-Defense."

 

[Gunn]

I truly do not know the reason of the existence of guns. Ago, they were commonly used for killing. I'm guessing thats how the thought of guns brought it to the association of death, seeing the anyone with the ownership of a gun could use this right inappropriately.

Criminals do have the same chance of getting a gun as much any general citizen. But I find the criminal background check a good idea. It is not like we can have crime rates come to a complete stop, I fail to understand why anyone would do that, but at least bring them to a minimal. So far, the only restriction I know of purchasing a gun is age restriction.

"I don't think so. I don't think we should have a 'right' to own something that can potentially end

I'd like to point out that guns aren't the only thing that can kill you. Do you propose we ban knives, chain saws, blunt objects of all natures, gasoline, cars, roses, Draino, plastic bags, lutefisk, alchohol, pets, paper with sharp edges, cacti, stoves, space heaters, toenail clippers, Aspirin and most other medications, glass, candles, lighters, fireplaces, and hydrogen hydroxide (water) as well?

Didn't think so.

Deary, that's dihydrogen monoxide. Try reviewing yourself before posting so you know what you're talking about.

 

[Phaedrus2401]

The list of items was to show that it doesn't take a gun to kill someone.

And I've heard it as both hydrogen hydroxide and dihydrogen monoxide, as well as a couple of other ways.


It's true; guns were designed to kill and injure people, and that remains their primary purpose. I'd point out that they can also be used in target shooting, a sport I much enjoy, but most people obviously don't give a **** about that, so I won't bother. Instead I'll point out the problems with gun control.

Gun control laws are Quixotic. Think about it. So you make a gun illegal. So what? Most criminals won't care. They'll buy guns illegaly. You can buy a gun with no records, with the serial number filed off, and with no need for a Federal Firearms License in the heart of almost every big city. Criminals don't give a ****. They'll buy weapons anyways.
Now, control laws do have their uses. They keep guns out of the hands of most children, they help prevent people buying guns specifically to murder someone on the spur of the moment (though that doesn't stop them from using something else), and they help keep especially dangerous munitions, such as full-auto weapons, armor piercing ammo, and explosive rounds out of the hands of the public.

I believe that there should be some restrictions on guns, but to remove them from the public's hands entirely is stupid, misguided, and foolish.

 

[GrovyleGamer2007]

If we ban guns, then we're violating a constitutional right set by our forefathers. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If a gun is sitting on the table, it's not going to kill anyone unless a person is ignorant enough to pick it up and pull the trigger on someone.

 

[Mr.Altosax]

How about we take away all of the guns, period. Same with Knives, and Arrows, etc. Any lethal item will be illegal to possess, create, or distribute. You may ask me, "Mr.Altosax, without those items, which are sometimes used for hunting, won't we have less food," well I say Ahem. I was not finished yet. In the matter of hunting, we will have professional hunters. Instead of people taking guns out, and shooting animals at random, we'd eliminate illegal hunting as well. We'd give people with the occupation of hunting some guns, they go out into special government owned habitats, used for maintaining species, hunt a certain number of a species. Then we have food.

Then of course, there are military personel, and law enforcement who will also carry guns for the common good.

 

[Shiny Umbreon]

Everybody has no criminal history at the beginning, you know?

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

Why shouldn't someone be able to have bear arms? I mean, without the rest of the bear, the arms seem pretty harmless, unless, of course, you start flinging them around and claw someone's eyes out.

I do agree that criminals shouldn't have bear arms, or any other kind of arms, for that matter. Who knows what they could do with them.

I think cutting the arms off a bear is kinda cruel, though. I mean, how will they eat, or walk?

 

[kohei]

If we ban guns, then we're violating a constitutional right set by our forefathers. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If a gun is sitting on the table, it's not going to kill anyone unless a person is ignorant enough to pick it up and pull the trigger on someone.

Well said. A famous pyscho from a certain game once said: "Guns don't kill people. I do!"
While quoting from a game is stupid, it captures the essence of the argument.

 

[Red1530]

I have to say this is one of the most stimulating debates I have seen on this forum and I am glad to see people interested in and have opinion on hot - button issues like gun control.

 

[Pokedragonfire]

If a gun is sitting on the table, it's not going to kill anyone unless a person is ignorant enough to pick it up and pull the trigger on someone.

A.K.A. Children, who ARE ignorant enough to do that, and it's happened a lot. People shouldn't own guns unless they prove they are responsible enough to own them, they know how to use them, they store them away from children, they don't "play" with their gun, etc.

I wish our society could live without guns entirely, but at the very least, I think the path to obtaining a gun should be MUCH MUCH more difficult than it is. Even if you don't have a criminal history. I just don't like how much cultural emphasis is put on guns in the United States today. I mean, look at Japan. They ban guns, and have a very low crime rate. But that's because their culture does not accept guns like America's so openly does.

Did you hear the story of the baby with a gun license? There are no age restrictions or anything on a gun license! I don't even think you need to know how to use a gun properly to own one. It's ridiculous. The laws need to be changed.

I mean, to learn to drive, you have to take driver's ed, right? Well I think we need that for guns too.

 

[Red1530]

Did you hear the story of the baby with a gun license? There are no age restrictions or anything on a gun license! I don't even think you need to know how to use a gun properly to own one. It's ridiculous. The laws need to be changed.

I heard the same story but the gun is being kept at a relatives house until the child is a teen.

 

[Pokedragonfire]

I heard the same story but the gun is being kept at a relatives house until the child is a teen.

I know, but I'm just saying, legally older children could get a hold of a gun and use it illegally and maliciously, and that isn't right.

 

[Melody]

Right...I agree There needs to be age limits on getting a licence to carry....But I also feel that adults who have the licence to carry should be able to do so.
The right to bear arms is a right set forth by our ancestors to make sure that we can defend ourselves in times of peril.
but there are also whackos out there that will shoot someone over nothing. And in allowing guns to protect us when our homes are invaded also gives them to lunatics who will carry it around and shoot anyone when angered or upset.
Guns give power. Power can corrupt!
So here is what I propose...Allow people who come of age...(21 is responsible enough Dont you agree?) to get a licence to carry a gun...However, if any violation of the gun laws is committed then his/her licence to have a gun should be revoked...
Minor offenses means you lose it for a year and repeat minor offesnes just quadruple the time up until the 3rd time
A major offense like attempted murder or useage of the weapon to mug somebody
Ex:if you flash your gun at the guy you are mugging you lose your gun licence forever and if you commit any felony even if it doesnt relate to guns then you still lose the right to carry a gun...
for those who fear that felons still should have some protection just give them a non-letal weapon like a strong tazer or maybe a tranqilizer dart gun...
Those would be better than a real gun any day of the week....and you could regulate such non lethal weapons let strictly to allow younger people to carry them...Ex: 15 to carry a nonlethal weapon that has a maximum of 3 tranquilizer darts in it...carrying more would cause you to lose the licence for weapons...these could be regulated in the same way guns could be..by allowing only a certain ammount of ammunition to be carried with you...The only exception to this rule would be if you are hunting or are an official law enforcer or serving in the military under orders to keep ammo on you to protect national security(Ex: you know a access code to launch a nuclear missle)
I'm all for people being allowed to carry guns but I also dont want them getting into a criminal's hands...