|
Everyone should carry a gun with which to defend one's life, liberty, and property from intrusion of
every kind. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Come on people! Let's face the facts. Guns are the most accurate way to protect ones self. If they
are studied and are learned how to use, they can be successful in helping to protect yourself from
those dangerous crazy people out there.
IF Guns are outlawed, that would just be stupid. People are still going to get them, and then only
the dangerous people will have them. Those are the people that shouldn't have guns, not the common
citizen!!
Wake up, and stop thinking dumbly. Think about the future and the next generation....if there is
one. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It says in the Bill of rights that we have the right to own guns |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If guns are banned people will still own then
for example drugs they are illegal but people still use them.
You need a gun for protection bottom line |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The right to defend yourself is surely the most basic of all human rights. Yet without a weapon most
people can only defend themselves to a very limited extent. The limit is imposed by their own
physique. In world where aggression and defence takes place through bodily force alone, the strong
oppress the weak, the many oppress the few and men oppress women. A gun is a leveller. With it,
anyone can defend themselves against anyone. Why should someone who is physically puny, or unfit or
a woman have to go through life afraid, hoping that the police will be there to protect them if
needed?
Everyone should have a right to keep and bear arms. The argument that the widespread availability of
guns simply creates more gun crime also doesn't stand up. Look at Switzerland. Every Swiss male is
forced to join the military. On joining he receives an automatic rifle and ammunition and is
required to store it in his home, ready for use if the country is ever invaded. Perhaps for this
reason, there is hardly any crime in Switzerland at all. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
It's a good idea for citizens to have an alarm.
If you've never used that thing before, and it's 2:00 in the morning, you ain't gonna scare some
robber or murderer off. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
First the second amendment has been debated for a long time but the Supreme court in its few rulings
on the meaning of the amendment has stated that it describes the right of states to form militias.
All appeals court rulings have said the same thing until very recently, 2 activist judges on the
appeals court for Washington DC have ruled against the right of the citizens of DC to ban the
ownership of guns. This will no doubt bring a ruling by the Supreme Court. The precedent that these
2 judges overturns has held sway for 200 years. Of course the right wing loves this kind of judicial
activism.
Even if the Supreme court upholds that an absolute ban is not allowed it is not likely to say that
local governments are not allowed to selectively ban some kinds of weapons.
Anyone who is willing to look at the statistics will see that the ready availability of guns
contributes to the much higher murder rate in the US than in any other European or developed
country. The Swiss argument is a red herring since we aren't talking about any type of gun being
available there. Only guns suitable for being part of the local militia are allowed. That excludes
so many weapons that are the weapons of choice for criminals.
The murder rate overall is much higher in the US than in UK, Germany, Canada and Japan for instance.
The murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than Germany, 5 times higher than the UK, 4.5 times
higher than Canada and 15 times higher than Japan. The murder rate with firearms in the US is 30
times higher than that of Germany, 10 times that of Canada, 50 times higher than the UK and 200
times higher than Japan.
More than 25,000 people die in the US from firearms in the US and nearly 60,000 are wounded every
year, many of them permanently disabled. Weigh that against the supposed freedom to be able to buy
your gun of choice. For me the choice is so obvious. I prefer the freedom of living in a civilized
country where one has a very small likelihood of facing a criminal armed with a weapon - a gun-that
I have no defence against. That means I would never vote for a politician such as John McCain who is
a radical on this issue. He is against banning any weapons including assault rifles. He is a long
time supporter of the NRA and supports the notion that the second amendment guarantees the right of
an individual to buy any kind of gun he wants. While he is promoting himself as the man who can best
defend this country from the threat of Al Queda he seems to have little concern for the 100,000
Americans who have died from gun violence in the last 5 years. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I wouldn't endorse guns or ongoing social draft. However, they do complement each other. I have
much less of an issue with an officer owning a gun, or a hunter for that matter.
Basically for me what it comes down to is the gun itself. I think the deadliest weapon that should
be legally allowed is a standard handgun. Self-defense still being this sort of anamolous paranoia
the most rational of my friends seem to be iron-curtainly aligned with.
My issue with self-defense is of course that no one seems to take accidents into account. In fact,
a certain disdain is taken toward people who make innocent mistakes, and the angle of arguing
unfortunate mistakes are viewed as contemptible rather than a legitamate tragedy. And why? So that
if another person with a gun sneaks into your home trying to kill you you have a gun and can kill
them first. Crazy.
I really think it's an ego thing. "it's my constitution and you can't change it." i'm sure george
washington has his arm around st peter smiling down seeing us all and saying 'yup i knew they'd make
a glock one of these days. Damn im proud, buddy." just crazy.
Muskets... Rifles... Those were the arms we were intended to bear. I believe we may truly be coming
to a point in time where we can arguably refrain from continuing a line of technology. How big of
the gun movement would it be to admit they've reached their peak? It would send a message ringing
with anti-artificial-intelligence people, and I believe truly reflect the nature of the typical
gun-owning community: Well-intentioned, humble, passionate people wishing they had a stronger voice
for the world they may not fully understand, if not clearly alienated from. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If guns are banned there will be less chance of them being used!
I live in England, where possession of guns is illegal and as a result, gun crime is rare. However,
as you rightly said; criminals are still able to get guns, but they only tend to be used by gangs,
so if you stay away from gangs, you should have nothing to fear.
Having said that, perhaps social issues do have something to do with the problem. Nevertheless, if
you remove the weapon, you make the crime more difficult to commit, so where's the harm in
trying?
As for your argument that you need to protect yourselves with guns, if there are fewer guns on the
streets, the risk will obviously be lower! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
25 Feb 2008 20:05
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
