Right to bear arms...Are you for or aginst it?

In this day and age it's a NECESSARY evil. If "they" have them, I'll have them.

I used to be strongly against it, but seeing what the US, russian and chinese governments are doing to their own people, I no longer think its a easy choice to say yes or no to that question.

Governments are supposed to be afraid of its people, not the other way around. Otherwise democracy turns into tyranny.

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
- John F. Kennedy


[edit on 12-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by tac109


As someone that lives in England i USED to think that Amercians should give up there guns it would i belived lead to less people getting shot it made simple sense to me

But now i say DONT ever give up your Right to bear arms one day you may need to use them against your govenment as i may need for mine

Peace


EDIT: Speeling

[edit on 12-10-2007 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]

I own firearms for a variety of reasons, none of them very complicated. My rifles and shotguns are for hunting, though I don't do as much of that as I would like. My handgun is for putting between me, my family, and anyone dumb enough to try and hurt them. See? Not very complicated at all.

Furthered firearms education...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
source

As I stated in my previous post... there's a reason for the 2nd Amendment, and the responsibilities that go along with it.

I view guns more as a way for citizens to defend themselves or their property against other citizens or as a form of recreation more than I view them as a way to resist an oppressive government. It's not like small arms are going to save the people of America from the might of the military.

A government has a responsibility to try to bring down the level of arms. A person has to make their own judgement.

For a government, the issue is, if two people have a gun, one is more likely to get hurt than if neither has one. For a person, if 'I think he has a gun, i'd better have one.

Government needs to ensure sufficient protection from the state before it can start with arms handover amnesties. A person needs to see it.

But bottom line, a society that can maintain itself without guns is safer than one that cannot.

reply to post by redled


You can prove it's safer how?

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by redled

 

You can prove it's safer how?

Murder rates per 100,000 of the population. Try google.

reply to post by redled


Switzerland has a low rate of violent crime and MANDATORY gun ownership for male citizens that are of age. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by redled

 

Switzerland has a low rate of violent crime and MANDATORY gun ownership for male citizens that are of age. Your argument doesn't hold water.

An exception to break the rule, try correlating things. That is how statistics work, even in measurement of physical phenomena. I maybe should have said on average, I'll accept that and make suitable apologies.

I would love to have some bear arms. The strength boost would be NICE.



As far as the right to own and carry firearms, I am right there with you brother.


The day they make firearms illegal, you will no FOR CERTAIN that they are implementing the, much debated, NWO plans.



Jasn

No, NWO requires you to not think and follow the order that they tell you. If they are determined to take your rights, there are always guns that can be found....... its about not having them out when you really don't need them, like most people most lives. Crime will ensure guns, but if you question the sods, NWO does not come into it, and nor does guns.

I have question for those who support the notion that people have the right to own fire arms and please don't flame me for asking this.

Isn't a well regulated militia and the right bear in arms an oxymoron ?
Well exactly does the regulated bit come in and wouldn't it get in the way of the right to bear arms ?

Our Canadian 'Constituion' forbids it.

Such is Legislature.

reply to post by xpert11


Here's the deal-a militia is a defensive army of CIVILIANS. Civilians must have the ability to own guns in order for a militia to be effective.

reply to post by uberarcanist


Because Canucks don't have a (ahem) proper military...You stand unopposed.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Here's the deal-a militia is a defensive army of CIVILIANS. Civilians must have the ability to own guns in order for a militia to be effective.

So in other words in order for civilians to be able to form militia they have the right to bear arms ?
So it doesn't matter if someone is a member of a militia or not they still have the right to bear arms.

deleted

[edit on 12-10-2007 by TheDuckster]

reply to post by xpert11


What about other countries? Those who haven't the Right to bear arms?

I was telling uber about 'my country', and the fact that it isn't written in our constitution for us to 'bear arms'.

Yet, there is a Canadian militia. It is voluntary, not manditory.