2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.

I personally think it boils down to common sense, why would somebody need a belt fed, tripod positioned, mini railgun in their living room? I understand a handgun or a hunting weapon, but some of the firearms people keep in their house are just too much. Not to mention, those who wrote the bill of rights (also known as the first 10 amendments) weren't really anticipating people wanting to keep a machine gun that; through use of magnetism to increase velocity, can punch through 5-6 neighborhoods and still be lethal enough to leave a crater in somebody's skull.

and yes, by neighborhoods, i mean about 10-15 houses per neighborhood, brick walls and all

 

Common sense. Ex-fucking-cactly. Thanks noro.

 

We've been over why. And you're creating a strawman argument by positing people keep it in their living room and are going to shoot up an entire neighborhood with it.

How many crimes have been committed with a minigun?

And also? No one has a mini railgun. No one. Not a civilian, in any case. I'd also wager the military doesn't have a mini railgun. Because there aren't any.

You saw a post that a cursory examination of indicates it is against my position, and for yours, you automatically slap it with your agreement and support.

And totally forgot to stop and think about what you just read.

 

I was initially reluctant to express my opinions on this forum as a new member. I have now realized that it does not matter what I say as a new member as my opinions will simply be shot down by one or both sides. I was was expecting an analyzed and reasonable debate from what I had heard about these forums. So far only two people have gone through the trouble of stating their opinion in a reasonable manner in most of their posts.(I will not name names) Everyone else has been rebutting the other opinion's argument with references to how the other guy is not thinking straight or is a !@#$ing psychopath.

This is not reasoned discussion, this is people hard set in their views and who will never change their opinions creating a large stream of responses without getting anything done. This entire thread has not had any constructive criticism apart from the two people who I alluded to before. This thread has put me off to posting on these forums as my opinions will be ripped apart and never analyzed. With that I will give my opinion below.

I believe that someone can own a gun for protection, hunting, or preparedness as I believe that the world might slip into a world where having an assault rifle is adequate protection. (I'm cynical) However, I also believe that there need to be strict laws regarding who can acquire these weapons. I do not want another nutjob to get an assault rifle because there was inadequate background checking. I am realistic, I recognize that we cannot eliminate guns from this world, but we can at least attempt to prevent those with major psychological problems from acquiring guns.

There is my opinion, feel free to rip at it and tear at it as I will not reply. This is the last post I will put on this thread. You convinced me to only post once on a thread therefore limiting my vocal power. Good Job!

(However if the response to this post shows some improvement in the way that arguments will be treated, I will gladly start posting regularly)

 

I'm not completely sure, but I think we gone too far in this debate that the only way to get back would be to lock the thread or ignore it.

Seriously, here, I mean that everything you write now, has already been written by you or others in this debate!

 

How would you know i didn't read it? I totally agree with it, while you didn't get his argument and "falsified" it while not getting his point. Which was "you don't need an assault rifle if you have a handgun to defend yourself". Like sk said, you don't argue, you just look for weakpoints in other arguments and ride them until we give up, leaving you as the winner. That's not debating, bro.

 

You obviously haven't seen my neighbor's basement, her father collects guns like glitch collects solars, the dude has a mini railgun; which is essentially a spingun that accelerates the bullets through a combination of the bullet's natural explosive force, and magnetism

 

You say that I, nor anyone else, needs an assault rifle to defend ourselves against either direct threats such as thugs, thieves, and others seeking to do us harm, and existential threats such as a government gone bad that seeks to take away my freedom, liberty, and the like through actual and real force (a tyrannical government).

I say that not you, nor anyone else, has the right to tell me what I need. I further state that a handgun will only get you so far against a government seeking to strip you of your freedoms, life, and property, and that an assault rifle is more up to the task. Further, what you call an assault rifle are used also as hunting rifles.

You focus so firmly on assault rifles, only they are widely owned and only very rarely involved in any actual crime. Why? And I want you to respond to this, Madness, YOU: Why do you think rifles should not be allowed to be owned?

There are millions of guns in circulation in the United States alone. Millions. Reportedly in the hundreds of millions. Of that, the number involved in actual murder is not even 7 thousand. I do not think there is a violent crime problem with guns, when that many are owned, used, and only that number of crime happens. Further, as I have said, the crime trends are trending down: the laws we already have are working, and perhaps should be enforced better.

Sandy Hook was actually a case where the law worked. But what happened is he killed his mother and stole her guns out of her gun safe. What law do you want that will prevent that? And should such a law be written? If you think it should be written, why?

I personally think that the harm that comes from our culture allowing so many guns in circulation is negligible compared to the good that comes from allowing so many guns in circulation. An armed society is a polite society, because anyone who wants to cause harm, inflict pain and suffering, must contend with the reality that any one of his potential targets/victims may be armed and more than capable of defending themselves.

Self defense is alive and well in this country, but is not generally tracked as a statistic.

I stand corrected. A cursory search reveals some quaint little guides to make one, but I repeat myself: How many crimes have been committed with a minigun, let alone a miniature railgun? Why do you not want anyone to have one? What actual reason do you have for saying no one should own one? (I don't like them, and don't want anyone to have them is not a reason I will consider reasonable.)

Edit: It IS tracked as a statistic, and there are a number of studies/surveys that have been conducted in the last few decades that put defensive use of guns at well over 1 million/year.

 

I agree completely. I see no problem in that.

 

Can I pls..

 

I think everyone should be allowed to have bear arms

 

Wearing a tank-top: Exercising my rights to bare arms

wait, wrong form, oh well, english language is too confusing

 

I've always loved that quote. Interpret it how you will.

In the end the bottom line will always be that I personally am safer with access to a properly handled gun than without one.

 

Not if you give a potential mass murderer a gun too. Lol. That's what it boils down to - are you safer with you, having a gun (which you still can have when gun control is enabled) or a potential bad guy not having a gun, and therefore not becoming a bad guy and looking for psychological help instead.

 

My arguments say yes. What say you to my arguments, Madness, or are you going to continue to pretend I never posted?

(As to your idea that you can still have a gun with gun control... please see UK and Australia. The gun control efforts in the US must necessarily be incremental, because the population at large doesn't really want it, and is quite vociferous about it.)

 

Yes, i like to pretend that you never posted. I don't like arguing with you. Why, i explained several times.

 

Yes, whenever it's convenient to ignore. But you haven't presented arguments or responded to counter arguments from pretty much anyone in this thread, sir. Just endlessly going on about psychopaths.

 

Look, no matter what, a gun is a gun, and it can be used to kill people no matter what type of gun it is.

 

Oh my God, the horror.

So? Look, no matter what, a knife is a knife, and it can be used to kill people, no matter what type of knife it is. Look, no matter what, a car is a car, and it can be used to kill people, no matter what type of car it is. Look, a baseball bat is a baseball bat, and it can be used to kill people, no matter what type of baseball bat it is. Look, a person is a person, and they can kill people, no matter what kind of person they are. Look, a... do you see my point? Or should I go on...

I mean, just because something can cause harm is hardly an argument for why it should not be available. Or else we'd all be living in padded boxes that we never exited because everything that you can pick up can be turned into a weapon.

 

But.. knifes are used to cut food and stuff. cars are used for driving, baseball bats are used to play baseball..
Guns are used to kill