The Right to Bear Arms

[species5478]

Well...

 

I'm a gun owner, myself. I own a rifle, and two handguns. I love going to the range, and practicing my aim on targets. I'm among the best there but I suppose that's besides the point...I don't think any nation needs to have weapons of any sorts. We should as human beings, be intelligent enough to solve our differences in ways that don't involve violence. But I also think it's a fantasy to expect people not to kill each other, and nations not to war with one another. So I would rather have the right to bear arms, than not.

 

And for me, everything doesn't revolve around protecting oneself from the government. I like having a weapon in my home, just to protect myself from possible intruders. Thankfully, I've never had to defend my home, and hope I never have to. But there are other scenerios...

 

Not long ago, (a matter of decades) America was attacked by the Empire of Japan. Had their forces landed on American soil, I'm sure it would have been intimidating to know, that any number of citizens, (along with the military) could be armed. It's hard to invade AND dominate a country whose citizens serve as an inadvertent secondary line of defense

 

So in summation...I think the right to bear arms is a necessity.

[Balagor]

In DK we haven´t had any tradition for carrying firearms. Over the last 2 decades however violence has increased, and due to opening of many EU borders criminal activity has been more international. Violence with firearms has also increased, it is no guarentee that keeping firearms illegal, will keep the use of them at a low scale. Gang members from the most notorious gang in the world, have far much better firearms than our police.

Situation is worse in big cities, and I still feel save since I live in the countryside. Should I have the right to carry a cun now? I really don´t know. I would not feel much safer. Since I have no tradition for it, would I use it? Would I s::it in my pants, when facing someone ready to use it at me? Would the situation escalate, and the criminals, well knowning that if I carry a hand gun, they will carry an automatic gun, et, etc?

[LHammonds]

And for me, everything doesn't revolve around protecting oneself from the government.

That maybe true but the 2nd Amendment was obviously created for that very purpose. Anything else is just extra really.

 

Not long ago, (a matter of decades) America was attacked by the Empire of Japan. Had their forces landed on American soil, I'm sure it would have been intimidating to know, that any number of citizens, (along with the military) could be armed. It's hard to invade AND dominate a country whose citizens serve as an inadvertent secondary line of defense

I think it was more of a matter of logistics of invading such a large land mass with mountain lines, deserts and thousands of miles for a supply line...and in such a well-populated country too. ;) Japan is about the size of Texas. They simply don't have the manpower to wage such a campaign in the traditional sense...China however, it is different scenario. :ninja:

 

Not really debating you, just commenting.

 

LHammonds

[species5478]

And for me, everything doesn't revolve around protecting oneself from the government.

That maybe true but the 2nd Amendment was obviously created for that very purpose. Anything else is just extra really.

 

Not long ago, (a matter of decades) America was attacked by the Empire of Japan. Had their forces landed on American soil, I'm sure it would have been intimidating to know, that any number of citizens, (along with the military) could be armed. It's hard to invade AND dominate a country whose citizens serve as an inadvertent secondary line of defense

I think it was more of a matter of logistics of invading such a large land mass with mountain lines, deserts and thousands of miles for a supply line...and in such a well-populated country too. ;) Japan is about the size of Texas. They simply don't have the manpower to wage such a campaign in the traditional sense...China however, it is different scenario. :ninja:

 

Not really debating you, just commenting.

 

LHammonds

 

Those are valid points that I think are worth elaborating on...

 

I recently finished a paper on Henry Thoreau who, as I'm sure you know, probably embodies the reasoning behind the right to bear arms. My focus was on his theories of Civil Disobedience, which my professor defined as - A deliberate violation of the law; committed in order to draw attention to, or rectify perceived injustices of the law or policy of the state.

 

I won't go into intense details here but I want to quote something from Thoreau-

 

...legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part: and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.

If, as you mentioned, a government is given unchecked power, they're liable to abuse that power and then claim the abuse is for the benefit of the citizens that it's abusing. It's happened many times throughout history. The tools we have as American citizens; voting, protesting; etc. are preliminary measures to using the right to bear arms to correct impending injustices of the State, and acts as a deterrent. (for the most part) I'd have it no other way.

 

As a side note...

Sadly, I don't know all I should about World War 1 or 2. I've read books on both, but only pertaining to actual battles and tactics. I've been watching an HBO series called the Pacific, which is adding to my overall understanding of the conflict. I still don't comprehend the full reasoning behind their attack though. It couldn't be just to cut off supply lines...China is indeed large, but I don't think their citizens have a right to bear arms. Couldn't under a communist regime. Their army however, is freakin huge so invasion by a force like that, would probably demand drafts and citizen participation.

[LHammonds]

I recently finished a paper on Henry Thoreau who, as I'm sure you know, probably embodies the reasoning behind the right to bear arms. My focus was on his theories of Civil Disobedience, which my professor defined as - A deliberate violation of the law; committed in order to draw attention to, or rectify perceived injustices of the law or policy of the state.

I actually visited his hand-made shack by the lake where he exercised said disobedience and wrote his book.

 

The tools we have as American citizens; voting, protesting; etc. are preliminary measures to using the right to bear arms to correct impending injustices of the State, and acts as a deterrent. (for the most part) I'd have it no other way.

Yes, you'd have to be considered a whack job if you took up arms against the state without exhausting the many lawful and peaceful measures first...and there are quite a few creative ones now with the Internet. It is surprising how influential things such as Facebook, Twitter, digg and such have become when concerning the government. It is also worth mentioning that much of the reasons to "take up arms" would be against the federal government much more than the state or local government. It is crazy how much the states are having to resist from the federal government recently...to the point of waving a particular amendment around about breaking off from the US. :teehee:

 

Sadly, I don't know all I should about World War 1 or 2. I've read books on both, but only pertaining to actual battles and tactics.

Keep in mind that most of history is written by the "winners" so you will actually NEVER get the full story...probably not even if you were part of it. Here is a quote I have had on my email sig for years now:

 

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

It is a constant reminder for me to never take things for face value...even if written and accepted as fact by the general populace. Remember the "we evolved from monkeys" theory that the scientific and general community embraced for so long? hehehe.

 

LHammonds

[Maxwell the Fool]

To me the only purpose that's important is it's original intent: protection from tyranny. My father is a little extreme on the issue..... He always says that if any of his (immensely mild..... 22 caliber and similar) weapons was ever outlawed they'd have to pry them out of his cold, dead hands.

 

I'm not quite that extreme....... I believe that if the government were to overstep it's bounds it would be the obligation of all armed members of the public to take action, not that these bounds are all that strict........ As long as there are no open Nazis serving and getting things passed I'd probably be fine.

[Keanumoreira]

The right to bear arms? Well yes and no. Yes because of security issues, but no because of the idiots who use it inproperly. For example, I was watching 1000 ways to die last night, and some idiot decided to shot three cigirates at his friend through a shotgun since he wanted them so bad. You can imagine what happened. There I post. :)

[LHammonds]

Yes because of security issues

Then you agree that civilians should have the right to own and bear arms.

 

but no because of the idiots who use it inproperly.

You are confused. This is about the "right" to own and bear arms. If that "right" is removed, then nobody can own guns...including those that need them. The idiot part is quite simply handled by law enforcement.

 

Just because there are idiots that drink and drive, that does not mean the government should step in to "protect me" by taking away my car. The idiots that drink and drive should have their right removed from "them", not everyone.

 

LHammonds

[Surenas]

This comparison is flawed - and you know that. This isn't the nickelodeon channel anymore.

And pls don't sell us the armed civilian as an integral part of a workable national defense,

cos that's humbug at its best - we're no longer living in the Wild Wild West or under Civil War

conditions. And the Buffalo Bill Show is outdated since long...

You need a gun? For what exactly? or better: as an ersatz for what? Tell me, my man. bzzzzzt.

There seems to be less confidence in the achievements of the modern age and its distribution

of roles. Back to the always glorious past, I guess.

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif

[Maharg67]

2ND AMENDMENT of the CONSTITUTION

"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. "

 

As far as I can see, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in a various ways. If taken as a whole, could it not mean that the people have a right to create and run local militias seperate from total government control? The right of the people to keep and bare arms may or may not be taken as individual ownership of guns.

 

Back when the amendment was created, American society was quite different from what it is today. Back then many people needed guns to survive every day as they hunted or defended their properties in territories where law enforcement was scarcer.

 

In today's context should the people be allowed to 'keep and bear Arms' with no regulations at all? The amendment does not seem to preclude a certain amount of regulation such as keeping guns out of the hands of children or those with violent criminal records or those who are poorly trained and not properly regulated by efficient non government organisations such as gun owner's clubs. Regulations can also be about the need to keep guns in locked storage and to keep some kind of common sense like not allowing blind people to own a gun. A blind adult is not allowed to drive a car so why let one use a gun?

 

As for military class weapons, civilians will rarely need them when a revolver or pump-action shotgun can be used for home defence. As for defending against government oppression, trained and carefully regulated local militias might do so successfully but a whole lot of gung-ho inviduals, no!

 

Just something to think about.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Maharg67