Poll: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear arms?

[Commander PK]

Should Americans have the right to keep and bear arms?

Keep in mind, I'm not asking opinions if that's what the 2nd Ammendment states. I asking if, in YOUR OPINION Americans should, or should not, be allowed to keep and bear arms.

I believe that the right to bear arms, goes in with the right to defend yourself, so Yes. I wholeheartedly believe that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that no matter how much legislation is passed to try to ban this gun or that gun, criminals are still going to get them. Gun makers would just sell them illegally, Gunsmiths would become new kingpins. You cannot stop the making of Guns unless you take away the technology, and know how. Gun bans only take away from the law-abiding citizen who only uses the weapon for recreation, and self-defense.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Absolutley, 100 percent yes.

[chiefhogskin48]

YES. After all, you don't have to if you don't want to. It's a RIGHT, like free speech or freedom of religion that you don't have to exercise but it's damn nice to have.

[Maxito]

I voted for some arms. Not all, The only thing that I think that people should not buy is thos military guns.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by G-Train

I believe that no matter how much legislation is passed to try to ban this gun or that gun, criminals are still going to get them. Gun makers would just sell them illegally, Gunsmiths would become new kingpins. You cannot stop the making of Guns unless you take away the technology, and know how. Gun bans only take away from the law-abiding citizen who only uses the weapon for recreation, and self-defense.

Ever been to Great Britain? Neither have I, but they and their complete ban on firearms is the antithesis of what you describe.

Not that I'm advocating the complete banning of guns, after all, American culture is different than British, but I just don't see how one can put enough faith into American society to stop new gun laws, let alone relax them.

[luckydevil]

Chooper Dave

You do realize crime is on the rise in Great Britain

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Chooper Dave

You do realize crime is on the rise in Great Britain

Since it's on the wane in Australia, I wonder if that has anything to do with poverty rates, youth depression, the British economic morass, or Blur.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by G-Train

I believe that the right to bear arms, goes in with the right to defend yourself, so Yes. I wholeheartedly believe that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that no matter how much legislation is passed to try to ban this gun or that gun, criminals are still going to get them. Gun makers would just sell them illegally, Gunsmiths would become new kingpins. You cannot stop the making of Guns unless you take away the technology, and know how. Gun bans only take away from the law-abiding citizen who only uses the weapon for recreation, and self-defense.

If that's the argument, shouldn't we also legalize drugs, since criminals will get it anyways, and regular citizens want it for recreation and sometimes health reasons?

...and even staying on the topic of guns - should it be legal to have machine guns? bazookas? artillery cannons?

I'm not sure I support the Assault Weapons Ban, but it seems like we have to draw the line somewhere, and that there is a very reasonable place to draw the line without turning gunsmiths into kingpins...

[luckydevil]

looking through my links

found this( from 2002)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html

England has worst crime rate in world

By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent

(Filed: 01/12/2002)

England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.

During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.

Last night Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said: "This does rather blow a hole in David Blunkett's claim that New Labour has crime under control. It is a damning picture."

The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.

Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

A Home Office spokesman said that officials had not yet seen the report and so could not comment.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Riding the subway in London at noon is scarier than walking through downtown New Orleans at 2am.

[luckydevil]

nm

[Sea Bass]

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

Gun control is only working to fix one of the symptoms, and not the root of the problem.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

If that's the argument, shouldn't we also legalize drugs, since criminals will get it anyways, and regular citizens want it for recreation and sometimes health reasons?

2 different scenerio's, which do not parallel each other, drug's eventually harm everyone who uses them, one way or the other, you can't combate drug's, with drug's.

where as gun's can be used for many safe activities, as well as defense against those who will use them unlawfully, and commit crimes against the innocent, G-train's point was, so long as there are unscrupulous individual's out there, they will alway's manage to gain access to a gun regardless of the law, then we have to have the right to defend ourselves, Why? Because only law abiding citizen's will obey the gun law's anyway, so why limit the ability of law abiding citizen's to protect themselves from people who pray on the defenseless.

personally I don't believe for one minute that the left is concerned for the saftey of other's, believing that's why they want to do away with gun's, they use that as an excuse, to tug at the heart string's of the people, to convince them to do away with gun's, the real reasoning behind their effort's is to disarm America and leave the people defenseless against our own gov't. it's the typical commi. mindset, so as their policies eventually grind society into despair, they don't have to worry about any kind of a revolt, just like Russia, cuba, china, pretty much any where you find a terrornist gov't, you know, leader's who want the people to serve them, rather than serving the people.

The founding father's gave us the right to bare arm's, not to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from a potentially evil gov't!

http://www.njguns.com/father.htm

[Ignatius J.]

drugs eventually harm everyone who uses them?

um. no.

try harder.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

drugs eventually harm everyone who uses them?

um. no.

try harder.

It seem's there all ready at work.

[Thiebear]

3 out of 5 criminals agree: They would rather rob someone or do a home invasion in D.C. than in Virginia.

The same 3 out of 5 criminals would also rather be caught by a cop than a citizen with a gun....

If you want to compare apples to crab apples D.C. vs. Virginia would be about right? Any better examples?

I believe any gun short of automatic fire and under 10 rounds.

That way if someone goes crazy you can jump'em when they are switchin the clip ...

[DarkLadyRaven]

I thought it was because there seem to be more avaliable cops in VA than in DC ( DC cops are always busy)

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Lothar of the Hill People

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

Gun control is only working to fix one of the symptoms, and not the root of the problem.

Exactly, if people didn't have guns (if you could somehow magically make them all go away) people would find other ways to kill.

I have lots and lots of guns, I'm all for them.

[Mr. S]

I think handgun sales should be limited hardcore or even taken out. However, the right to bear arms as in rifles and long barrel guns and whatnot should stay. People mainly use them for hunting and I feel thats what was originially meant by the 2nd ammendment, in order to form a militia, rifles were needed.

edit: history major here, just realized they had smoothbore muskets during the time of the revoloution, rifled guns did not come til later.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Mr. S

I think handgun sales should be limited hardcore or even taken out. However, the right to bear arms as in rifles and long barrel guns and whatnot should stay. People mainly use them for hunting and I feel thats what was originially meant by the 2nd ammendment, in order to form a militia, rifles were needed.

edit: history major here, just realized they had smoothbore muskets during the time of the revoloution, rifled guns did not come til later.

IMO, the second amendment was addressing the need for the average citizens to be able to be armed to defend themselves from attack or to "rebel" as we did against the British.

IN today's terms, assault weapons would be what the forefathers had in mind, IMO.

[Skinsfan1966]

Actually James madison addresses the need for the people to have weapons in Federalist Paper #46.

At the time there was a serious concern that a standing military might take over the country. His solution was to ensure that the public in general was well armed.

At the time the there was the assumption that a US standing army would number 20-30,000

this would be balanced By the arm that people owned.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

[Destino]

This debate is too often had dishonestly by both parties. The question here is not should you be able to own weapons, it's where shoud the line be drawn. Only the scariest of extremist would suggest no limit, and only a man with poor understanding/appreciation of american culture would suggest no firearms at all.

I support a assault weapons ban, which I believe is the reason this thread exists. I don't think AK-47's are needed nor serve any useful purpose. I do however support the sales of firearms for defensive purposes. Hand guns, shotguns, rifles etc do serve a function in defense and other weapons are used used for hunting.

That is where in my mind the line should be drawn. You are of course free to disagree.

BTW - if we ever get no limit at all I'll be the first to landmine my front yard and post a faded warning sign for effect. The chics would dig it.

[skinsfan44]

YES. YES. YES.

Without the 2nd Ammendment, there would not be a 1st Ammendment, and the Bill of Rights would no longer excist.

Without the Bill of Rights, the US would be a communist country.

And yes, I am a LIFE member of the NRA.

[Burgold]

Unfortunately, yes we should be able to keep and bare arms. I do believe in limitations to that though. I think background checks make sense. I believe mandatory safety locks make sense in case the children get into the cupboard. I believe registration for every weapon sold is not a bad idea either.

As for hunters... I'd rather hunters use bow and arrow or knife... if it is sport give the animal a sporting chance, make it about skill, and more equal danger to both parties.

Skinsfan44,

lifelong NRA Member, gun owner, and you saying that beer is the breakfast of champions seems a worriesome combo... maybe it's just me.

[TheSteve]

Originally posted by Mr. S

I think handgun sales should be limited hardcore or even taken out. However, the right to bear arms as in rifles and long barrel guns and whatnot should stay. People mainly use them for hunting and I feel thats what was originially meant by the 2nd ammendment, in order to form a militia, rifles were needed.

edit: history major here, just realized they had smoothbore muskets during the time of the revoloution, rifled guns did not come til later.

And banning most handgun sales would accomplish what? These criminals and kids on the street don't buy their guns legally. :doh:

If you want to ban guns that's fine, but it boggles my mind why people think that will drastically cut down on crimes with guns involved. Do people seriously not believe there is a black market for guns out there?