I think that yes, we have the right to bear arms. However, as far as acquiring it, I think we need to go through rigorous mental testing, which leads to another serious issue. The mental health system in our society is broken and that means that people who need help are on the streets with guns. Ugh...it's such a big problem with so many complexities...
you gotts love a dictator/communist country. at leat that's what america will be if obama*cough*osama breaks another amendment he's broken the fourth with body scanners in airports. and he's on his way to breaking the second. right to bear arms. this qoute is very true from a person form twitter, "the gov't killed dem kids just like 9/11" the gov't is trying to act as the hero and take our guns away and become a socialist/dictatorship or a communist country well that's my take on it. shalom alechem!:)
The UK, Austrailia, Germany, Japan, and Canada all have gun control laws, and they aren't communist dictatorships by any stretch of the imagination.
The far right often associates Communism with anything they don't like (however irrelevant). Also, 'Communism' and 'dictatorship' are not synonomous. Don't pull the Communism card unless you actually know what it means and can connect it to the topic at hand.
what i'm saying is that's either one of the things that america will become i'll start another thread fot that:) and yes the govern ment IS trying to take our guns away it's all part of the one world order.
I second Imagine's post on January 15th.
ht tp://bit.ly/Y6blvL (made in 2012, I believe)
Another arguement I hear goes something along the lines of: "We need er guns to pertect er raights to pertect erselfs aginst de governt!" (Translates roughly as: "We need our guns to protect our rights to protect ourselves against the government").
And while I'm not necessarily arguing for gun restriction (most everyone would go beserk since it would violate the 2nd Amendment), I do think that idea is silly. If the government really wanted to wage some war against its citizens, it could kill us in a heartbeat, with weaponry much more advanced than a mere gun-- but I don't see people ever complaining about not having the right to carry nuclear warheads around to protect themselves.
leaf: your argument is way to far fecthed. we need our guns to protect our families. how would you feel if someone broke in your house and threatened to ki.ll your kid and you had no gun?
The government doesn't need guns to wage a war against us. They already won, they have a country full of people that believe their every word, and pay them taxes for just being in charge. I want a gun to protect myself and others from threats. Threats can be anything from another person, to a wild animal, to corrupt power hungry political systems, you name it. If the government is worried about us rebelling, maybe they're doing something wrong. No one has a right to harm another person, no one has a right to control another person. The government can't even follow it's own rules, why should we have to follow their rules? People who are against guns aren't against firearms, they are against taking a stand. They want someone else to protect them and die for them, but they are to cowardly to defend themselves of their country. If we didn't have guns, we wouldn't have the U.S.A, we would be English colony number 4,788, and still be under a monarch's rule.
^^^i second sorla's paragraph!
Leafy wasn't arguing that we shouldn't have guns. She said so explicitly in her post actually...
She was saying that there should be gun regulations. Meaning we shouldn't let 13 year olds with violent mental disorders have guns. Of course we should have pistols and such, we don't need an AK-47 to fight off a robber though -_-
Not to sound too needy or anything, but a relevant response to my post would be much appreciated.
Hey, nah. I don' tal' li' durt. Quit wi' dat panss on a groun' ibounics foolushness. *Grumbles* Dem teachu ladies don' beat dem' kids 'nuff no more.
*Cough* *Resumes concious effort not to sound like a hick*
Something like 95% of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are from handguns. The number of people mowing civilians down with AK's is drastically low. What if it's The Mob and there's like 42 robbers? Need that sweet automatic firepower so me's an' Jim-Bob can plow em from the front while Uncle Willy puts em down from the upstairs winduh with some scopage.
I think it's time for bed . . .
Collin I laughed out loud in real life! Ohmygosh, that last sentence had me cracking up :P
Ah, that 95% is because 95% of people only use handguns because they're realistic.
Consider this, the gun used in the Conneticut shooting last December was an Automatic Rifle, which is largely the reason why the death and injury rate was so high.
oh give me a break breece. if he had a handgun with more magazines it would of done the same thing. he was a good aimer. he could've done it with a 22 if he wanted!
Mmm, you're saying that a handgun is just as effective as an automatic rifle? I'm sorry but that's blatantly false.
There's a reason they make automatic rifles, it's because they shoot faster. What kind of gun he had would not have changed how long it took them to finally stop him, what would have mattered is how quickly his weapon would let him kill them.
I'm not saying that people won't have school shootings with handguns or that it can't be done.
What I'm saying is that when you give a mentally estranged person an automatic weapon, it makes these kinds of things 10 times worse.
believe me if he was good with a gun all it takes is a shot click.click shot. he could do it very quick. adn there is semi-automatic hand guns too. and there are plenty of shootings with handguns. he knew what he was doing i think that he worked for the government. but that's my opinion.
Leafy: You've been here so long I'm a little surprised you still expect that. :)
packerbacker: But what if he wasn't good with a gun? Not everyone is. If he was a poor shot (or even just average, like most people) then there's a chance that using a handgun as opposed to an automatic rifle would have made a huge difference. Refusing to ban assualt weapons because it won't make a difference for the top, say, 10% of shooters is a really poor argument. Obviously the other 90% don't matter- they'll never be a problem!
i'm just trying to say that gun violence won't go down if we take away automatic weapons we'll still haveshootings and mu.rders. don't get a misunderstanding i DO believe we' should have guns.
Criminals normally don't listen to the law, so obviously gun violence isn't going away.