So, why are guns necessary?

So far, I've seen a lot of Americans defending their right to own a firearm. Before I start my tirade on gun control, I'll just ask a few questions. My question is, why do you need a firearm? For protection? Fine, let's say that you need it for protection http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/image...s/rolleyes.gif. But why do people need assault rifles with high capacity magazines? Why wont a simple Glock suffice?

The 2nd amendment states "Protects the right to bear arms". So, why doesn't America recall of its firearms and issue everyone with an 18th century musket, since that's basically what America had when this amendment was made?

And why is this the 2nd amendment, while the amendment regarding the right to a fair trial is 6th? Both amendments were written on the same day, but the one about guns was given priority?

This makes no sense to me. The nation that has the highest homicide rate of any developed country is so wrapped up in the affairs of other nations, and hardly makes an attempt at rectifying their own. To be fair, America is protecting their "assets", not playing the role of "moral" arbiter they would like the rest of the world to believe. Well, that's a completely different issue.

Let's turn that around, why shouldn't be allowed to own an assault-rifle. Not something you can easily put in your pocket if you are going for a walk. A pistol is much more dangerous, it can be concealed.

Guns are a purely defensive tool and therefore should be allowed for everyone, just like landmines.

If you have no criminal record I don't see the problem. Laws in the US are kinda strange though, in some states a blowpipe is illegal but you can have an AK. If it was allowed here to have an AK here it would proudly hanging on my wall just because it's awesome. What is not to like about a gun, it's noisy and it makes holes in things.

Editing is too hard for an iPad it doesn't unerstand it.

But shooting at things is just fun. I am not allowed to have one but you can make a mess with a bow as well. I killed my Smeg fridge, and many bottles.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...psdaafe936.jpg

Gimme that AK I can do better

You're really wondering why a blowpipe is illegal? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're really wondering why a blowpipe is illegal? ~;)

---

Link doesn't work. But they are legal here as long as you are on your own turf.

Why do you hate freedom and support terrorism and communism, spanky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're really wondering why a blowpipe is illegal? ~;)

---

Exactly. Blowpipes are illegal because they're crap and don't work, and have been superseded by more modern weaponry like javelins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Exactly. Blowpipes are illegal because they're crap and don't work, and have been superseded by more modern weaponry like javelins.

---

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you

---

Oh yes, a blowpipe would go right through you even though it's bad as Pannonian says. I fixed the original link, suppose the forum linkage wizard was naughty and added an extra "http://".

But a really important issue I want to discuss is trespassing. Often dogs are allowed to enter private property and poop on it. This can be very hard to fight but landmines would take care of this as well as roaming robbers and other people trying to break in. Landmines are a purely defensive weapon unless you throw them into someone's face, but even that you would only do if that someone tried to attack you.

There is really no reason why people can't have landmines and yet they can't. Why is that?

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

---

Exactly. A truck is a weapon. You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

That's insanity.

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

---

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Exactly. A truck is a weapon.

---

lmfsbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

---

Is your right to own trucks protected by the constitution? Therein lies the difference. Regulation is control. There is a fine line between obeying the constitution and protecting people, and violating the constitution and giving a dictator all the tools he needs to rule your country unopposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

---

It already is regulated (way too regulated in some respects)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

---

I mostly agree with you here. If your crime is not paying taxes or getting in a barroom brawl when you were in college though, then it is ridiculous. With proper and reasonable excepts being made, I agree with you on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

---

Again, agreed with logical exceptions. If you are a child who loves to play and cannot sit still, and you doctor diagnoses you with ADHD, it makes no sense that you should no longer be able to own a gun when you grow up. We classify so much as mental illnesses, and we over-diagnose so many of them that you would have to be reasonable with exceptions again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

---

Here is where we cease to agree. You should not need to register your weapon. What the government does not know can save your life. We should perform background checks, and if someone fails one we should keep the record of that in a registry. If they pass, than the record should be thrown out and the government should not record that they had the background check done or purchased the weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

---

Again, I disagree. For most gun crimes (armed robbery, murder, attempted murder, etc) I would say death. That would stop repeat offenders and put the fear of God into the hearts of those who would be criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.

---

I agree that sometimes the NRA has been misguided and stood in the way of good legislation, but before you condemn them for it you should keep several things in mind. First of all, for the most part the policies they advocate and good. Second of all, the knee-jerk reaction they have to gun control legislation has been trained into them by decades worth of rabid gun grabbers trying to disarm the country. (all in the name of saving children and stopping crime, of course) Gun grabbers for the last few decades have stopped going for broke and turned to a policy of incrementalism. The NRA knows that if it gives an inch, they will take a foot.
People talk about compromise, but look at how many times gun owners have compromised. Look at the absurd number of gun control laws already on the books, including absurd and outdated ones like those that put a limit on barrel length. Freedom is not something to compromise.

EDIT: And BTW OP, contrary to what the left may be telling you, the shooter did not have an assault rifle in the naval yard shooting. He had what you thought was reasonable: a pistol. (as well as a shotgun) He apparently came there with just the shotgun (you remember the thing Joe Biden said was the reasonable gun for home defense, and not the scary military one), shot guards with pistols and took their pistols, and shot a guard with an AR-15 and took that. That is right, a dude with a pistol got in a shoot out with a dude with an AR-15, and the all-mighty, bullet spitting AR-15 did not win the day.

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

---

"A well defended sea being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to be surrounded by lots of water shall not be infringed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

---

That is just the thing. You can march an army onto enemy soil, but in order for you to do anything there you need to control the population. That is much less possible when they are armed.

As far as it not being a deterrent in WWII, there is good evidence that Isoroku Yamamoto said:

Quote:

---

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

---

There is no proof that he said it, but Douglas McArthur's chief biographer claims he did. It is one of those things that is likely, but not provable.

Why not have a gun? I don't have one but I honestly don't mind. I find it funny how nobody came up with a compromise or something yet in the USA.Not too sure as to me politics is a annoyance in life most of the time to bother with. Imo. :shrug:

Though of course I read up on politics, so I'm not too dull.

(I'm American just so you know)

Plus with a gun I'll feel less paranoid about those monsters in the closet. :creep:


Still I wonder what's with all these gun politics... All these gun deaths reminds me how everyday in the news somebody dies in Roxbury MA in some sort of fight and later on the news stopped reporting that stuff since it's like everyday.


I think pistols are more deadly in a urban environment with civilians where you can sneak it around without being caught unlike slugging around a Mosin Nagant or something.

Perhaps it's just the ideology of many Americans is screwed up compared to other countries which have a lot of guns. I know Switzerland has state armed militia but not much people run around blasting each other. Probably because before they can they'd get shot or perhaps Switzerland is smaller and the population has more similar ideology thus less violence.

Don't know much on these matters, enlighten me. :2thumbsup: :bow:

I know where I live now the gun laws are less strict and I check out some shops once in a while and eat some ribs while I'm at it.

Switzerland is a very different country. You can't really compare it, even if a lot of people try to.

Yeah I know and I tried to explain some differences in an extremely simplified manner. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

What the government does not know can save your life.

---

And that is one reason why the dictator argument is ridiculous given how little outrage the NSA scandal has caused.

As for the whole thing about Russians, how often did the population even try/want to get rid of the communist government?

Because the law says we can own firearms....

Why do we need to vote?
Why do we need worker protections?
Why do we need free assembly?

I'm for certain restrictions on firearms. I also own and shoot firearms. I also think most of you are idiots.

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?
“What about pointed knives?” If you run faster than you aggressor, you survive the aggression by knife. Not a chance against a rifle, even the biggest of the obese get you.
“an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion” When and where?

I honestly don't get why some people are really against guns... The media perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?

---

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

---

Tsk...tsk. Couldn't resist could you?


Regarding the OP:

The first ten amendments were promulgated as one document. That document was generated in order to assuage the concerns of numerous critics of the Constitution who had noted -- correctly -- that the Constitution in its original form does rather little to spell out the limitations of the government vis-à-vis individual rights. There was an agreement made that 1st Congress would put forward this Bill of Rights among its first items of business -- without that assurance, the Constitution would likely not have been ratified. The language of each amendment was much argued at the time. The prominence of the right to bear arms reflected the then-common belief that an armed citizenry was its own best defense against tyranny by the federal government.

I would assert, as a personal belief, that "arms" was viewed as an all-inclusive category at the time. Moreover, that the ultimate purpose of said arms was not personal defense -- though this was respected -- but the defense of the local community against federal tyranny. While there were extant views at the time that dispute my interpretation, I believe a majority of the primary source material available supports that view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over...

---

This is mostly incorrect.
Cossacks, yes, those guys were armed to the teeth, Siberian frontiersmen, yes. Everybody else -- hell no.

It should be noted that the shooter did not use an 'assault rifle'. Reports yesterday to the contrary were blatant efforts by select media organizations to create a false narrative. In any event, I do not really understand the fascination with assault rifles among the fearful sheeple that push gun control. As has been mentioned, pistols are far less expensive and more concealable, and are thus used in upwards of 95% of gun related crimes. Of course, if one is ignorant enough to believe that a gun ban would work in the US, one likely doesn't have a complete understanding of the situation. :shrug:

No ar-15 involved, bandwagon riders! Assembled shotgun and 2 handguns. Non law enforcement was barred the use of firearms on premises and it took police 3 minutes to arrive - 3 minutes where 11 innocent, defenseless people were killed. Firearm ended the assault. Perp held a secret clearance with the DoD with recent investigation, yet people believe that the background check law would have prevented the shooting.... Oh, and also he had a background check a few days before the shooting - in the gun store where he legally purchased the shotgun.

Keep sacrificing the sheep and the monster will keep eating.


PS - this is why the NRA keeps it's mouths shut for 48 hours - while antigunners are grasping at any straw possible, we come in after information has been vetted and don't sound like we've been writing a fantasy novel. Anti-gunners are pathetic manipulators of truth, but fortunately Americans arnt buying their crap on this issue.