The REAL reason we have the right to bear arms - Page 3

I'm not so sure about that. You can't throw a rock in Atlanta without hitting some stupid, self-absorbed parents...

I don't think left alone per se. I have no problem with registering guns. Banning them I have a problem with. And I'm not the guy to ask this about anyway, because I think the government intrudes on people's lives too much. If you want to smoke a pound of weed, I don't care. If you want to cut down every tree on the property you own, doesn't bother me. I'm fine with health standards and car standards because we need those.

We're actually fairly close on this one. I'm not calling for the out & out ban of guns. I certainly wouldn't be upset is there was one, but strict registration law and less unnecessary guns certainly seem like a fair & reachable goal.

I'd vote for that!

(edited to fix quote)

Except what do you consider an unnecessary gun? Like I don't care if you want to smoke the ganj or burn down all the trees on your property, it also doesn't bother me if you own fifteen guns just because you like to look at them.

This amuses me, for some reason. I think I'm going to give up on the postal service and send all my mail via high speed "gun projection."

I don't consider like muskets, or collector's items unnecessary. When I say unnecessary, I mean no one needs a gun that fires three armor-piercing bullets per second.

Yeah, I could go with that.

You know what's bothersome to me? The government was giving trouble not only to assault weapons, but guns that LOOKED like assault weapons. It's either an assault weapon or it isn't, how it looks should have nothing to do with it.

Agreed. That's just more bullshit politician grandstanding.

If I could throw a rock at Atlanta from here I'd be the biggest, baddest mutherfucker on the West Coast...who needs guns then?

I think there should be more rock regulation.

DEA's got a handle on that.

They can take my rock when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Crackheads say the same thing.

I tried to get a "get your rocks off" joke out of that but I couldn't quite make it. *sigh*

See? THAT'S why we love you so much!

Can someone explain to me why having the right to bear arms is a bad thing?

Arguments that are blatantly false and cannot be used: That it would reduce crime, that it would have prevented Columbine, because I am a democrat and you are wrong.

Note: I am for the right to bear arms simply as a freedom. I DO think it should be TOUGHER to buy guns and that no one should be able to buy and AK-47 or something. And I think gun owners should have to take a class to get their permit. But they should have a right to: protect themselves, go hunting (for animals), etc.

And collect simply to collect. It's no different than collecting cars, scrimshaw(although whale teeth are illegal), Blenko glass, or violins.

"Can someone explain to me why having the right to bear arms is a bad thing?"

So many people ignored this thread. The point was to examine what it means to "bear arms". Because of the way it has been written, it can be interepreted in multiple fashions. That does not mean that I think I know the right way, I dont. I dont have a problems with rifles and shotguns...at all. Handguns worry me. That does not mean that I would have them taken away, it just kind of saddens me that so many people desire them. How can you call this country great when you feel civilians need to rely on a weapon who's only purpose is to kill? Doesnt sound so great to me...

"Arguments that are blatantly false and cannot be used: That it would reduce crime"

It might be able to, but I really dont know. I wouldn't argue it because I dont think there would be any real way to tell unless we actually did it.

"that it would have prevented Columbine"

Those kids were sick fucks, no outlawing guns would not have prevented Columbine. However, making it harder for those kids to get guns, may have contributed to a few people not killed, but I will freely admit that, that is complete speculation.

"because I am a democrat and you are wrong."

And of course you have to add the fucking annoying comment. Doesnt add anything to the discussion but just shows how much of a dumbass you are.

"Note: I am for the right to bear arms simply as a freedom. I DO think it should be TOUGHER to buy guns and that no one should be able to buy and AK-47 or something."

Great

"And I think gun owners should have to take a class to get their permit. But they should have a right to: protect themselves, go hunting (for animals)"

Ok.

Dumbass, huh? LOL

You would not believe how often I get that and similar comments. Seriously. I get it all the fucking time from left wingers (and I am NOT a right winger, thought I would point that out). They don't have the balls to say that exactly, but that's what they mean. My opinion is that both sides think they are right and the other side are idiots, but the left is WAY more condescending and dismisses anything from the right as dumb. Just my opinion and way off topic.

"Just my opinion and way off topic."

That was my point. Believe what you want to believe, it really doesnt matter to me. But when you post shit like that is just pisses people off and takes away from the discussion at hand.

You know, if things get any worse in this country, I might just have to join a militia and take up arms.

What wonderful hipocrisy. Freedom of speech is unlimited in every concievable way all the way up to virtual kiddie porn. Seperation of church and state should be so rigid as to deny the word "God".

The second amendment and the right to bear arms? The strictest of strict interpretation and restriction after restriction.

I guess the Founding Fathers only believed in some of those pesky Bill of Rights.

Why is this? I hear this a lot...people will say they have no problem with a shotgun or rifle, but a handgun is more bothersome. Is it because the handgun is concealable? Any of these can be used for killing, and in close range action the shotgun would do more damge than a good number of handguns.

It is because I believe (I understand you may not) that Rifles and Shotguns sole intent is not to kill human beings, on the otherhand I cant think of another use for a handgun.

"What wonderful hipocrisy. Freedom of speech is unlimited in every concievable way all the way up to virtual kiddie porn. Seperation of church and state should be so rigid as to deny the word "God".

The second amendment and the right to bear arms? The strictest of strict interpretation and restriction after restriction.

I guess the Founding Fathers only believed in some of those pesky Bill of Rights."

The constitution changes with time. When it was created, slavery existed...now it does not. I think it is a great thing that the interpretation has changed with time and the fact that the document not only allows for it but encourages it show how truly great it is.

Also, do have a problem with the seperation of Church and State? I dont see it being that rigid considering the President's speech today. Maybe your referring to the prayer thing a while back in California, but even I found that ridiculous...

As for Virtual Kiddie Porn, its not that I am in anyway pro exploitation of minors...but I think it is something we have to live with.

I suppose you're right about that, although whether you get shot by a rifle or a shotgun or a pistol, you still got shot. The intent of what the gun is made for doesn't matter to me, because any gun is dangerous and can be used to shoot people.

Although you could use a pistol as a hammer.

"I suppose you're right about that, although whether you get shot by a rifle or a shotgun or a pistol, you still got shot. The intent of what the gun is made for doesn't matter to me, because any gun is dangerous and can be used to shoot people."

Yeah, but it just makes it a little easier (because of concealability). I guess the big question, and the one regardless of what any of you say is in not way answered in the consitution is where does it end. What is too much? Rifles? Shotguns? 9mm? Ak-47's?

"Although you could use a pistol as a hammer."

And you can use weed to help Glaucoma patients, doesnt make it legal though...

A friend of mine used to live in a farmhouse that was overrun by rats, and he used to shoot them with a pistol. That's kind of like hunting.

Ok, you got me. I'm cool with people having handguns as long as they recieve a rat hunting license.

Wow. That's simplistic. Too bad we're all pretty much in agreement on that, and your post sheds no light on this discussion, whatsoever.

"I have the right to bear arms, because I do".

Impeccable logic.

You'd think a 20-year veteran of the police force would be smarter.

From <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/01/29/tx.girl.shot.ap/index.html" target="_blank">this</a> story on CNN.

An exerpt:

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A Houston police officer's 7-year-old daughter found a revolver in a bedroom of her home and accidentally shot herself to death, authorities said.

Dovie Caroline Hill fired the weapon into her head Monday while her 13-year-old sister was babysitting her and three siblings, police said. The child died at a hospital.

Two loaded revolvers and an unloaded rifle were found in the bedroom, police said.

The guns "were not secured," Deer Park police Lt. Omar G. Akmal said.

No, I have the right to Bear Arms because the Constitution recognizes and says that Government cannot infringe upon my right to do so.

But that right is not defined. You also have the freedom of speech, but you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Why not? Is your freedom being taken away if a police officer arrests you? Does the Constitution specifically say that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater? No.

You have the right to bear arms, but the definition of what arms are is incredibly subjective. Historically you probably could at least argue all of the armaments of the time of the constitution, but that is probably it. Weapons today compared to the weapons of the revolutionary period are obviously vastly changed. They were also incredibly unreliable, a musket would not be much defense of your property. Unelss you can get a time machine you cannot say the framers intended for the people to have the right to bear pistols, or automatic weapons or nukes for that matter.

I was referring to Cosmoline's incisive post which boils down to "I have the right to bear arms, because I have the right to bear arms". Nobody is denying that people have that right, just how that right is defined and where the line is drawn.

Well, if we just keep redefining Rights until they're non-existent then what good is the damned document?

It doesn't say The Right of Government to Keep and Bear Arms. It says The Right of the People. Last time I checked I was one of The People.

And shouting FIRE isn't unconstitutional. It's stupid, and illegal, but not unconstitutional.

By the way, you do have the right to commit crime. And The People have the Right to punish you.

That's Natural Law.

Which is a Political Party I may register under.

I didnt say shouting fire was unconstitutional, but the fact that you can shout fire and then be arrested means that your freedom of speech is not completely protected in the constitution. There is inflammatory speach that is never mentioned in the constitution that can get you arrested. In the same way, arms is never defined in the constitution either. Yeah, people have a right to them...but what are they? It is the people and the courts who define what "arms" truly are.

I am not one of those people who actually believe that the constitution intended for only the Government to have weapons. I may argue it because I prefer it that way but I dont think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have that much of a problem with modern day hunting rifles. However, it is obvious from the constitution that the arms they are referring to could challenge the current Government. A large amount of everyday citizens who were armed would be a real challenege back in the revolutionary period. That is one aspect of the constitution that can no longer apply. We as citizens can no longer challenge our Government in a conventional manner.

Al Queda hit us harder than we dreamed with boxcutters.

We had plenty of trouble in North Vietnam even though we were technically superior.

You get smart people with guns, and they can do a lot of damage. In a straight up fight on a battlefiled they would lose, but there's a lot committed men could do with a few hunting rifles. So I don't think that's entirely accurate.

Well, if it can't be redefined and reappraised to keep it in line with modern developments, what good is the damned document?