I think we should have as little gun control as possible because the second amendment saysâ¦
AMENDMENT II 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. This pretty much means to things #1 we need firearms to defend ourselves from our government (if it gets to oppressive) #2 we need firearms to defend ourselves from other people (like in ww2 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they could have easily invaded America and could not have been stopped until Nevada )
I think there should be almost no gun control what do you think?
In my last post I said the law would only hurt gun collectors. I should have said that the law will primarily hurt gun collectors.
Having a set criteria or standards to have something doesn't assume that everyone is guilty. However, guns ARE easily capable of inflicting harm, thus you can't have everyone running around with them because they may well be irresponsible. As it's the government's job to protect it's people, this is a necessary part of society in that we place restrictions on things.
We don't let 13 year olds drive. Why not? It's not because we assume they'll go Grand Theft Auto and starting running everyone down they see. It's because a car can be dangerous and requires a higher level of responsibility and attention than what most 13 year olds possess.
I have no problem with having an age restriction on guns. I have no problem with people being required to provide ID to buy a gun. I don't even have a problem with people being required to have a permit to carry a gun around in public or to even buy a gun. I do have a problem with people being forced to provide a reason to own a gun, because any reason that isn't to harm another person should be an acceptable reason. If you're only allowed to buy guns for self-defense, then everyone will buy guns in the name of self-defense and those who want more guns for their personal collection will either have to go without them because they're considered a possible criminal or they'll have to turn to the black market, something that many criminals resort to using.
Actually, the point of needing to have a reason to own a gun is moot. One could simply say that the reason they want to own a gun is so that they are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment right!
That aside, I think that guns should not be allowed to be concealed, unless you are part of a police force. Too many bad things could happen if we just let people walk around with weapons under their clothes.
Noting what NoName and zakyman said, it's true that simply having to give a reason doesn't make much sense. I would think that instead of giving a reason, one should have to pass a psychological test to acquire a firearm permit, and maybe have to do an official shooting training once a year or so.
At least in theory. In practice I sadly know how well psychological tests work.. which is not as good as should be. But we could hope that it's good enough to at least make things a bit better, and to sensibilize people on how/when to use their guns.
My biggest problem is that fanatism about shooting/hunting and so on. You could just subscribe to a shooting range club, where you get your gun and can practice whenever you want as a member, and you don't need a private home arsenal since it'd be in the club. Additionally to this you'd be allowed one gun at home for defence. Wouldn't this be better?
I'm not necessarily for or against guns, I just have a simple question. Where do you people who "need to protect your family" live that your lives are in such peril that can only be solved with a gun?
Where do you people who "need to protect your family" live that your lives are in such peril that can only be solved with a gun?
That could be nearly anywhere in America sadly enough. Even where I live, a small relatively peaceful suburb of Chicago. I live far enough away to avoid Chicago gang violence, but there are other gangs nearby along with the random criminal that is near everyone.
And all of you that support gun rights Iâm with you! P.S. it is the second amendment that talks about gun rights not the fifth. (I saw 2-3 comments that said Iâm so glad that we have the Fifth Amendment to protect our gun rights!)
That could be nearly anywhere in America sadly enough. Even where I live, a small relatively peaceful suburb of Chicago. I live far enough away to avoid Chicago gang violence, but there are other gangs nearby along with the random criminal that is near everyone.
Well I guess if it makes you feel safe. Just to point this out, I don't live in a cushy little suburb. I live in a city where there's crime and gang activity and I have never felt endangered because my family lacks a gun.
Why shouldn't it be the business of the government to at least be made aware of why someone is choosing to possess a deadly weapon?
What's wrong with assuming that, given the high amount of gun crime that goes on the USA, the citizens have bad intentions and should prove otherwise before being able to get a weapon?
I'm still not seeing why the 'law abiding citizenry' need guns in the first place - the UK seems to manage more than admirably without firearms in the hands of the general public.
And if it's a case of 'what a person has in their own home is their own business' then where does one draw the line exactly? Should we allow a person to amass a veritable armoury of weaponry without at least looking into their intentions for keeping it - if not limiting just what and how much they can have?
I have multiple problems with this and you should too.
First of all, you're committing a burden of proof fallacy. It is the job of the person making the claim that the government should know to provide reasoning why, not the job of the gun owners to reason for why the government shouldn't know.
It's wrong to assume that the average gun owner has bad intentions and should be limited because it's simply statistically wrong. If most gun owners committed gun crime, it would be different. But are you really going to make the argument that most gun owners commit gun crime?
Why do we question the necessity of this civil right and this civil right alone? To use Zeno's example, people don't need chairs, so why not limit them? Why should we let people own as many chairs as they want? First of all, burden of proof is on those claiming that we should limit them (which is you in this case). Second of all, property is kind of an inalienable right as defined by the United Nations, which is a compelling reason to allow people to own what they want--but we don't need this justification because the burden of proof fallacy renders your argument invalid anyway.
Last paragraph is a drawing the line fallacy. Not much else to say there except that it's totally fallacious.
Honestly if they would take away our guns they take themm allllll away. Whether hunting guns, or for self defence. Now yes think about all the bad guns have done over years but now think about all the good they have done. Peoples lives have been saved because they had a gun to save them self.
First of all, you're committing a burden of proof fallacy. It is the job of the person making the claim that the government should know to provide reasoning why, not the job of the gun owners to reason for why the government shouldn't know.
Really? I'd have thought the burden of proof would be on the people asserting the claim that they need a gun.
If most gun owners committed gun crime, it would be different. But are you really going to make the argument that most gun owners commit gun crime?
I'm not saying that most gun owners commit gun crime but that a statistically significant number of gun owners do - even compared to other countries that have laws allowing gun ownership by private citizens.
There's a difference between guns and chairs in that a chair has a single, reasonable and pre-defined purpose - to be used for the purpose of sitting. People may decide to stack their chairs in a heap or something but the majority of chairs are used to sit.
Also, why should gun ownership be considered a 'right' at all? It's a privilege and should be treated as such, not as some entrenched right.
There's a difference between guns and chairs in that a chair has a single, reasonable and pre-defined purpose - to be used for the purpose of sitting. People may decide to stack their chairs in a heap or something but the majority of chairs are used to sit.
Everything is dangerous. People can us chairs as a weapon. The wind is dangerous. It can blow you away. A car is dangerous. It can hit you. Paper is dangerous. It can cut you. Everything is dangerous. So why not ban everything.
Everything is dangerous. People can us chairs as a weapon. The wind is dangerous. It can blow you away. A car is dangerous. It can hit you. Paper is dangerous. It can cut you. Everything is dangerous. So why not ban everything.
Because a gun is made the express purpose of being able to shoot, it is intended to cause harm, whether in defence, or as an aggressive tool. A chair isn't meant for that. You sit your *** on it and make yourself comfy; that's what the designers and most people use it for, not to swing it around to harm people.
I do target shooting with my dad. He has an m1 carbine and a bolt action 22. rifle. I would hate it if they took them away. Target shooting is the most fun thing in the world to me.
Because a gun is made the express purpose of being able to shoot, it is intended to cause harm, whether in defence, or as an aggressive tool. A chair isn't meant for that. You sit your *** on it and make yourself comfy; that's what the designers and most people use it for, not to swing it around to harm people.
Whatever the reason and what the object is originally designed to do, it can still be used to do harm. A car can be just as dangerous as a gun. See someone on the sidewalk? Run em' over!
I do target shooting with my dad. He has an m1 carbine and a bolt action 22. rifle. I would hate it if they took them away. Target shooting is the most fun thing in the world to me.
I love guns. I love the 5th amendment.
I HATE GUN CONTROL
The government should prioritise and take away guns if phasing out guns bit by bit will reduce domestic violence and crime as Avorne has mentioned. Sacrificing a bit of fun for more safety overall is a pittance, unless you have your priorities wrong, which you clearly have.
Whatever the reason and what the object is originally designed to do, it can still be used to do harm. A car can be just as dangerous as a gun. See someone on the sidewalk? Run em' over!
Why gun control and no car control?
I think I made it quite clear up there. Read, put for your perennial lack of understanding, and infinite obstinacy as in all the threads you post, I'm going to do you a favour.
Because, a gun is created explicitly, explicitly to cause harm in one form or another, that's the purpose it was created for. A car is created for one to drive from one place to another, not as a tool to harm, and most, if not almost all people use cars not for harming others.
Also, another failing in logic people always seem to have is that, bringing in ''all other things harm people, so why can't we ban them too'' as an argument is dodging the main point; the main point being about guns solely. Whether we ban or not ban guns is inconsequential to whether we ban other objects, vice versa.
