Second Amendment and Gun Control

Many believe that guns are very unnecessary in today's society and should be either very limited, or completely eliminated. This controversy mainly revolves around the second amendment, the Right to Bear Arms. The problem is, this amendment is gun enthusiasts greatest weapon, but it can also be their downfall. Here we have an amendment solely based around to the right to own firearms that was crafted back in the late 1700's when guns didn't go too far beyond some very poor firearms. The main problem is, the amendment is vague.The amendment covers nothing in detail about what kinds of firearms can be owned, how many can be owned, or even what they are to be used for. It is so vague it has yet to be fully incorporated by the Supreme Court, yet it continues to be the only thing that gun enthusiasts truly have to combat gun control with.When this amendment was created, they didn't have P90's, M16's, sniper rifles of all varieties, and countless other firearms that could do much more damage than the guns they had back then. Was this amendment ever meant to cover guns that could literally blow a person's head (or even parts of their head) straight off their shoulders and into oblivion? I understand that old guns were no play things, they could do serious damage. The problem is, their guns could shoot very few times in a minute, were very inaccurate, and just poor guns overall. To top it off, not just everybody could afford to buy and maintain a gun in those days. Anymore, many people own at least one gun.Gun Homicide Facts
Why People Own GunsHonestly, using a gun for "protection" is the worst reason for owning a gun. Chances are, you're hoping that when you flash the gun, the house invader, petty thief, etc., will get scared and run away. Chances are, this will have the opposite affect. Than what do you do? Are you really going to shoot another human with that firearm you bought for the purpose of "protection"? When you bought your gun, did you prepare yourself for taking the life of another human, or even sending a potentially fatal or disabling bullet into them? Chances are, that civilian that has a gun has never gotten more than some basic gun training and maybe a little target shooting on the side. That is not proper preparation to use it in a defensive situation where you have little to no choice but to shoot the perpetrator.I support owning guns. I do not support "owning one for protection", but I do support hunting and recreational shooting. I love recreational shooting, it is really fun to just shoot at some random targets.Do you feel gun control is necessary?
Do you feel it may need to go as far as nullifying the second amendment?Now, I realize many of you are not Americans, but through simple research, you can get a grasp on how bad guns are getting in some areas in terms of violent crimes. This research can also give you an adequate view on how they can be used for recreation too.What do you all think?

I think people should be able to own guns.I personally want to buy a 12 gauge shotgun someday. (Remington)
And a double action Ruger revolver!!!
[me=ace1o1]drools[/me]Uh-hum!
Anyways... ::)I think people with a criminal record should not be able to buy arms.
If not, then have more laws and regulations and crack-down on the arms dealers who sell the felons the guns.Oh! And Guns DON'T kill people.PEOPLE kill people with PROJECTILES fired from the gun.You can throw all the shit about guns kill people you want, but I'm still going to say that guns don't kill people. :P

I doubt a lot of crimes using guns, are even legal, meaning there's no registration, no nothing.If guns were illegal for a group, they'd have other ways to get it (and they do).I don't see a reason to own a gun besides hunting and recreational shooting. I know in Canada most people don't own guns because the registration laws for guns are so bothersome that not a lot of people bother (you have to renew the license or something every year I think).

they should be legal only if they have registration oh yeah i always wanted a
model 1887 a.k.a the terminator shotgun

Replying to #4

But I can go to a street dealer and get whatever I want.However I do follow the laws of the real world and not the digital world.I would go to a legal gun vendor personally and buy my Ruger Double-Action revolver.

I was given firearms training in South Africa as a student volunteer on a game reserve. We had to be prepared for the possibility that we may have encountered armed poachers that opened fire on us and incapacitated the ranger in our group. In that situation one of us would have had to return fire. No matter where on the reserve we were, or what we were doing, we had a rifle in easy reach. We were also given basic training with shotguns and semi automatic weapons, even though the rifle we usually had was a bolt-action. The dedicated anti-poaching squad had automatic weapons. I personally carried a large knife, which came in handy a number of times during the course of our work, on one occasion being used to perform a mercy killing on a turtle that had been run over by a car.Had we been in a situation of having to discharge a firearm, then yes it would have been shoot to kill, but it would have been in response to a potentially deadly threat; the professional ranger was the one carrying the rifle, we would only have discharged it in the event of their death or incapacitation, if the danger persisted. With this experience behind me, I can fully appreciate the need for a firearm to protect oneself or a colleague; however I fail to see why ordinary citizens require assault rifles or (fully) automatic weapons for protection. indeed I can't see that a rifle of any description would be much use, and a shotgun would only have limited use at close quarters.The american 2nd amendment is ambiguous, it could be debated whether or not it even applies to regular citizens.As for your statement about old guns having a poor rate of fire; that isn't necessarily true, they could fire pretty rapidly, it just depended on the skill of the marksman. It's hazy now, but I seem to remember being told that in the Boer War, a Boer woman could achieve 22 rounds a minute with a musket. (Boer men were slower, and white men were slower still, but there was only about 6-8 rounds per minute between the white men and the boer women). The South African that told me that said it was down to the woman's ability to concentrate on the different stages of firing, reloading, priming individually, whereas the men tended to rush the reloading and priming, which led to them suffering more jams. He said that in some cases the boer men would have two muskets, they would fire one and hand it to their wife to reload while they fired the other. He also gave a us a demonstration of firing a musket. He was a large, well built man, but the recoil threw him back a good two-three yards.Also you need to remember that guns being illegal does not stop criminals obtaining and using them.

ace1o1 · #2I think people should be able to own guns.I personally want to buy a 12 gauge shotgun someday. (Remington)
And a double action Ruger revolver!!!
[me=ace1o1]drools[/me]Uh-hum!
Anyways... ::)I think people with a criminal record should not be able to buy arms.
If not, then have more laws and regulations and crack-down on the arms dealers who sell the felons the guns.Oh! And Guns DON'T kill people.PEOPLE kill people with PROJECTILES fired from the gun.You can throw all the shit about guns kill people you want, but I'm still going to say that guns don't kill people. :P

Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home from work early do. (da da dum *ching*)

Replying to #7

XDI personally love guns, but a bullet fired from a gun killed my great grandpa...but he was drunk and wanted to kill someone, so he did. ::)

Loonylion · #6I was given firearms training in South Africa as a student volunteer on a game reserve. We had to be prepared for the possibility that we may have encountered armed poachers that opened fire on us and incapacitated the ranger in our group. In that situation one of us would have had to return fire. No matter where on the reserve we were, or what we were doing, we had a rifle in easy reach. We were also given basic training with shotguns and semi automatic weapons, even though the rifle we usually had was a bolt-action. The dedicated anti-poaching squad had automatic weapons. I personally carried a large knife, which came in handy a number of times during the course of our work, on one occasion being used to perform a mercy killing on a turtle that had been run over by a car.Had we been in a situation of having to discharge a firearm, then yes it would have been shoot to kill, but it would have been in response to a potentially deadly threat; the professional ranger was the one carrying the rifle, we would only have discharged it in the event of their death or incapacitation, if the danger persisted. With this experience behind me, I can fully appreciate the need for a firearm to protect oneself or a colleague; however I fail to see why ordinary citizens require assault rifles or (fully) automatic weapons for protection. indeed I can't see that a rifle of any description would be much use, and a shotgun would only have limited use at close quarters.The american 2nd amendment is ambiguous, it could be debated whether or not it even applies to regular citizens.As for your statement about old guns having a poor rate of fire; that isn't necessarily true, they could fire pretty rapidly, it just depended on the skill of the marksman. It's hazy now, but I seem to remember being told that in the Boer War, a Boer woman could achieve 22 rounds a minute with a musket. (Boer men were slower, and white men were slower still, but there was only about 6-8 rounds per minute between the white men and the boer women). The South African that told me that said it was down to the woman's ability to concentrate on the different stages of firing, reloading, priming individually, whereas the men tended to rush the reloading and priming, which led to them suffering more jams. He said that in some cases the boer men would have two muskets, they would fire one and hand it to their wife to reload while they fired the other. He also gave a us a demonstration of firing a musket. He was a large, well built man, but the recoil threw him back a good two-three yards.Also you need to remember that guns being illegal does not stop criminals obtaining and using them.

I'll go ahead and take this in order:You had firearms training, good. You were told what potential situations the use of said firearms would be used in, also good. In the end though, how many of you were absolutely ready to shoot to kill another human? I understand their is the "fight or flight" response as one of the basic human reactions to a dangerous situation that quickly induces a high amount of stress, but most of the time the body will say flight. Regardless of the training, most people can't just pick up a firearm and shoot another human unless they were absolutely trained to do so. (ie: military of pretty much any sort).If you wanted to take the 2nd Amendment literally, it would be very easy to decide who got guns. The 2nd Amendment says this:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Taken at face value, you would find this to mean that guns are only to be given to members of militias that are necessary to the protection of the State. In the end, it is too vague and either needs to be expanded upon, or just clarified down to bare bones (ie: right to bear arms, period, nothing about militias or anything of the like).Also, the guns themselves still had very poor fire rates, it was the people firing them that were fast. For example, you could have a pistol. In its self, it can be fired very quickly. The entire clip could be expelled in well under 20 seconds. All because a person fires it slowly does not mean the gun has a poor fire rate, it just means the person is slow. The reverse holds true for the older guns. Although they took awhile to reload, thus they would be deemed to have a slow fire rate, the people firing the guns were very efficient at what they did.

Replying to #9

While you are correct that its not easy to pick up a weapon and kill someone (in most cases), people behave very differently when in mortal danger. Knowing that the situation is kill or be killed, I imagine most of us would have been able to do it because self preservation is a strong instinct.

I have a couple of shotguns and a bren, ive never killed anyone, or done an armed robbery, or any firearms offences.
Theres a gun club about 500m away from my dads house so i know quite a lot of people that own guns.
Guns are ok in the right hands, anyone with any kind of criminal record should not be able to own one, same as anyone with mental problems should be unable to own one.

ace1o1 · #2I think people with a criminal record should not be able to buy arms.
If not, then have more laws and regulations and crack-down on the arms dealers who sell the felons the guns.

But criminals still get them, no matter what stupid law is imposed upon them. You're only making easy targets out of the people who actually follow the rules. Gun free zones are perfect opportunities for a criminal to walk in and wreak havoc knowing that the area is gun free.With every law, there is a way around it. With every law, there is a criminal that does not follow it.

I dont hate people owning gun. What I hate is when people point that thing on you. I had someone, a relative, pointed a gun on me so i know the feeling. I would love to own one in the future an release some bullets in a target range, but i wont be able to bring it with me outside because as someone up there, people with mental issues should not be allowed to carry one.

Replying to #13

This is one case of guns being used very poorly. People who joke around with guns as if they are toys should never be able to even be with in ten feet of one.

insanecrazy07 · #12But criminals still get them, no matter what stupid law is imposed upon them. You're only making easy targets out of the people who actually follow the rules. Gun free zones are perfect opportunities for a criminal to walk in and wreak havoc knowing that the area is gun free.With every law, there is a way around it. With every law, there is a criminal that does not follow it.

Once again, gun free zones are completely out of the question. As guns were invented, there is no real way to create a "gun free zone". Even people with in the zone would have guns for the exact reasoning listed. At least one person would see this as an opportunity to go wreak havoc and get what they want. People don't want to be left completely defenseless, but the odds of the person actually being able to react in time to the robber with their own gun is already very slim. Here we run into the "I buy guns to protect myself" issue again.If you truly wanted to protect yourself, you wouldn't buy a gun. You would buy a home security system, some form of defense that would make your home that much more difficult to break into, and that much less of a target. In no way do you need a gun for home protection.

Watch Joe wong on Youtube.
You might get a good laugh out of the second amendment."What is the second amendment?".
Joe wong: hermm! The reason, our convenience store get robbed.

LuckyTrouble77 · #14This is one case of guns being used very poorly. People who joke around with guns as if they are toys should never be able to even be with in ten feet of one.Once again, gun free zones are completely out of the question. As guns were invented, there is no real way to create a "gun free zone". Even people with in the zone would have guns for the exact reasoning listed. At least one person would see this as an opportunity to go wreak havoc and get what they want. People don't want to be left completely defenseless, but the odds of the person actually being able to react in time to the robber with their own gun is already very slim. Here we run into the "I buy guns to protect myself" issue again.If you truly wanted to protect yourself, you wouldn't buy a gun. You would buy a home security system, some form of defense that would make your home that much more difficult to break into, and that much less of a target. In no way do you need a gun for home protection.

LOL we're talking about two COMPLETELY different issues.
1. Defending the homestead.
2. Defending yourself outside of your own home.Good luck defending yourself when someone points a gun in your face and you have...well nothing, except your wallet. I should become a professional thief just because I know there's a ton of ignorant people out there who REFUSE to own a gun for self-defense and claim that guns "are part of the problem, not the solution." Thanks for making their jobs easier. HOWEVER...if a thief knew that 4 out of 5 people carry a gun, as opposed to 1 out of 5, I'm pretty sure he would give up that profession real quick. People don't get to their guns quick enough because they've done some poor planning and not have gotten the proper equipment/setup and just fumble around with it. Women carry them in their purses and that is 1, 2, 3, 4 seconds...way too much time spent digging it out of there. It should be kept in a holster and within easy reach. For the retards that point guns at people just for fun should not have the privilege of owning a gun in the first place.Oh, and for the record, home security systems don't neutralize intruders. They just make a shit ton of noise. By the time cops get to your house, you're dead. Good luck making your house burglar-proof. Any window is easy enough to smash in (or shoot at) and since you refuse to get a gun, you're now either easy targets or hostages.You have just proven my point that gun-free zones don't work by reiterating what I had already said.

I always thought the Second Amendment's purpose was to give the states the right to maintain a militia and call them to arms should the situation arise.Prohibition only fuels black markets, so I say that ownership of guns should be a right, as long as you're not a convicted felon or something.A gun is just one of the many tools a person can use to kill another. I think what's most important is making sure that individuals never become motivated to commit murder in the first place.

insanecrazy07 · #16LOL we're talking about two COMPLETELY different issues.
1. Defending the homestead.
2. Defending yourself outside of your own home.Good luck defending yourself when someone points a gun in your face and you have...well nothing, except your wallet. I should become a professional thief just because I know there's a ton of ignorant people out there who REFUSE to own a gun for self-defense and claim that guns "are part of the problem, not the solution." Thanks for making their jobs easier. HOWEVER...if a thief knew that 4 out of 5 people carry a gun, as opposed to 1 out of 5, I'm pretty sure he would give up that profession real quick. People don't get to their guns quick enough because they've done some poor planning and not have gotten the proper equipment/setup and just fumble around with it. Women carry them in their purses and that is 1, 2, 3, 4 seconds...way too much time spent digging it out of there. It should be kept in a holster and within easy reach. For the retards that point guns at people just for fun should not have the privilege of owning a gun in the first place.Oh, and for the record, home security systems don't neutralize intruders. They just make a shit ton of noise. By the time cops get to your house, you're dead. Good luck making your house burglar-proof. Any window is easy enough to smash in (or shoot at) and since you refuse to get a gun, you're now either easy targets or hostages.You have just proven my point that gun-free zones don't work by reiterating what I had already said.

There is a pretty gaping whole in your argument.You're outside of your home, you happen to have a gun on you, more than likely concealed since you aren't going to see most people openly carrying around a 9mm. Now, you're walking down the street, somebody points a gun at you and tells you to give them everything of value you have. Unless you are special forces or something, you aren't going to be able to out maneuver the thief, get your gun out, and disable him. Once the gun has been pointed at you, your gun is completely useless. As soon as the thief saw you had a gun (whether you got it out of the holster, the front or back of your pants), they would more than likely shoot you to disable or kill, and run off. Look at the good your gun did there, you just screwed yourself over. (By the way, talking most likely situation since I HIGHLY doubt the average gun owner has super human reflexes and training)Also, if you live in a high crime area, you should have more than a home security system set up, sure. There a gun could potentially help you, as you are now fully aware that for a fact, there is somebody in your home. The problem is, people will think a gun is enough and won't spend the extra cash to set up a home security system, as they have now deemed it unnecessary because they have the almighty bullet on their side. A gun in conjunction with other measures, great, but a gun on its own is as useless in a home invasion as it is on the street unless you live in a big enough house where you will get the jump.Plus, the home security system has the added effect that it could scare the potential home invader off. When they know armed police are coming, they don't have a whole lot of time to do much of anything. Even then, if they stay, they will probably become careless in their actions in such a way that you could get the jump on them with something as simple as a golf club or baseball bat.I have yet to support "gun free zones", they are an awful idea, leave the area defenseless if everybody in that area were to actually follow the law, and would probably make crime rates spike in that area for a long while. Being more caring about the fact that a gun shop just sold the person a gun would probably be a better measure. Anybody who buys a gun and says it is for protection should have to go through a rigorous training course on how to use that gun to its fullest extent. If they bought if for protection, they better know how to use it for just that.

insanecrazy07 · #12But criminals still get them, no matter what stupid law is imposed upon them. You're only making easy targets out of the people who actually follow the rules. Gun free zones are perfect opportunities for a criminal to walk in and wreak havoc knowing that the area is gun free.With every law, there is a way around it. With every law, there is a criminal that does not follow it.

But if said dealers were actually a respectable gun dealer, then they wouldn't have sold a criminal a weapon.
But yes, there are plenty of places to get a 50 cal on the streets. :P

LuckyTrouble77 · #18There is a pretty gaping whole in your argument.You're outside of your home, you happen to have a gun on you, more than likely concealed since you aren't going to see most people openly carrying around a 9mm. Now, you're walking down the street, somebody points a gun at you and tells you to give them everything of value you have. Unless you are special forces or something, you aren't going to be able to out maneuver the thief, get your gun out, and disable him. Once the gun has been pointed at you, your gun is completely useless. As soon as the thief saw you had a gun (whether you got it out of the holster, the front or back of your pants), they would more than likely shoot you to disable or kill, and run off. Look at the good your gun did there, you just screwed yourself over. (By the way, talking most likely situation since I HIGHLY doubt the average gun owner has super human reflexes and training)Also, if you live in a high crime area, you should have more than a home security system set up, sure. There a gun could potentially help you, as you are now fully aware that for a fact, there is somebody in your home. The problem is, people will think a gun is enough and won't spend the extra cash to set up a home security system, as they have now deemed it unnecessary because they have the almighty bullet on their side. A gun in conjunction with other measures, great, but a gun on its own is as useless in a home invasion as it is on the street unless you live in a big enough house where you will get the jump.Plus, the home security system has the added effect that it could scare the potential home invader off. When they know armed police are coming, they don't have a whole lot of time to do much of anything. Even then, if they stay, they will probably become careless in their actions in such a way that you could get the jump on them with something as simple as a golf club or baseball bat.I have yet to support "gun free zones", they are an awful idea, leave the area defenseless if everybody in that area were to actually follow the law, and would probably make crime rates spike in that area for a long while. Being more caring about the fact that a gun shop just sold the person a gun would probably be a better measure. Anybody who buys a gun and says it is for protection should have to go through a rigorous training course on how to use that gun to its fullest extent. If they bought if for protection, they better know how to use it for just that.

You're outside your home and you just happen to have a gun on you? You mean, always have a gun on you?
No gaping hole...This is why we take self-defense classes. You do not put your hands up because that gives the thief an easier time seeing where your hands go. If he asks for your wallet, he's already expecting you to move your hands so this is the perfect time to "reach for your wallet" and actually reach for the gun. Some guns are specially designed to fit in the back of your pocket like a wallet and can be as large as a .380. If you're smart, you won't even need to do that since your hand will already be wrapped around the gun before the thief even approaches you. I'd rather have options than be unarmed and have none. Who's to say that the thief will let you go after you've given him everything that you have? Who's to say that he won't kill you anyway?These methods don't work if you are inexperienced with handling weaponry and have no training in self-defense tactics. Duh. You even admitted that you need rigorous training to do this. What good is buying a gun that you've never fired and you have no clue on how to use it?Living where I live, especially when I go to Detroit, there are NO cops and the average response time is godawful. This is why 50% of all of the people who commute to Detroit carry because relying on police is a bad idea. Relying on police is ALWAYS a bad idea. Are you going to rely on police that are miles away when someone has you at gunpoint? No!