Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

Should gun laws be weaker or stronger or remain the same? Let's hear some opinions, shall we?

I personally believe that guns shouldn't be allowed in the public hands period. All you need is one wacko out of a group of decent gun owners to reak havoc and kill innocent bystanders. It's weapons such as automatic rifles and machine pistols that I have a real problem with; as you done go hunting with those sorts of weapons... unless you have a VERY odd sense of fun.

=]

And all it takes is one psycho construction worker to go on a rampage with a hammer, does it mean we need tighter hammer control? :o Also, the guns you mentioned there are supposed to be illegal. Assault weapons and all. I don't know about you in south africa, but in the US part of the constitution grants us the right to arm bears- er, the right to bear arms, and this right cannot be taken away from us. So no matter what you do, there'll always be a way in america for someone to get some kind of gun. :P

Erm.... How many deaths are credited to builders with hammer? Compared to guns I mean.

And for the last Frikken time: These are my views, I'm not trying to get into an argument over anything.

"To arm bears and bear arms and all points inbetween, I mean who ever heard of a bear causing trouble?"

Dk, without angering you, the American constitution is hundreds of years old, things have changed. Also, I am a pasifist, you know, the kind that have the heck beaten out of them?:D . thats why I don't like guns. I DO KNOW that guns are unavoidable in such a stupid world, but this is what I believe. I really don't like the thought of vigilantes.

=]

The constitution is something I'd rather not see this country ignore, because the day we lose any of the basic rights given us by it is the day this whole country goes to hell. And anyway, what about th other four out of those five people that woiuld pull their gun and shoot the madman before he kills anyone else? :P

Not ignore, but perhaps review; as political landscapes change over time.

=]

Note: Automatic weapons require an automatic weapons liscence that in most cases only law enforcement and government personell can attain. Most firearms that you are thinking of are semi-automatic versions of military or LE grade weapons. Some of these, such as the AK-47 can be altered from the semiauto version to be able to fire fullu auto, which is of course, illegal unless you have a machine gun liscence

Another Note: Although I, nor no one alive can not know the intentions of the founding fathers, what I and others believe is that the "right to bear arms" clause was created at a point in time where we had no army, so civillians partaking in milita activity was common place. The legality to use a firearm at that time was not only favorable for America, it was necessary to defend the nation in its infancy.

My thoughts: Now that our country is country is stable, personal fire arms are no longer required to protect the nation, and are now used for recreational reasons such as hunting or sport shooting, However, people have found that having a gun in a situation where their neighbor does not gives them an advantage, (Such as robbing them). Because of this, to "level the playing field", some people take up arms in an isolationist methood of self defense. Since this has been the case, our populus is now paranoid of eachother, and this is where we are at right now...

Strengthened, stop selling those damn bullets that are made to go through police armor, definitely not abolish all guns, and very, very closely monitor all sales of guns, if not being done allready.

The problem is, once we let one thing like that be changed, there are people who would do everything in their power to take away other rights granted us by the constitution. Benjamin Franklin said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." and I agree with this whole heartedly. The minute we start giving up freedoms for security is the minute everything goes to hell. I for one don't want to give up my right to bear arms just so some people can feel safer.

the question is, did ben Franklin, washington, adams, jeffeson, etc think that far ahead, did they plan for a world so fast paced, so huddled, so isolationist and paraniod that the very words they wrote would be picked at, twisted, spun, etc? Did they expect the arms to be so fast firing, so, powerful that with a single wrong thought, the wrong person could take out a whole lot of people

When things are banned, then the black market simply booms with 'em. Anyone research banning of alchohol in the early 20th century? What happened then? Exactly.

I, personally, feel safer with weapons in public hands than without. For example, if someone is robbing a bank, they are already about to commit a crime- why not commit two? Many criminals/murderers already put silencers on their weapons, which is illegal- does that law stop them? Nope.

So, we'll strike a deal. When you can take the weapons away from people who want them enough to break the law to get them, then you can have my gun. Because if you want a gun for anything illegal, such as killing/robbing/ransoming etc., a gun law won't stop you.

Yes, they did, but there is no way they can stop their words from being twisted a hundred years later. But I'm not going to talk much more as I think Mea summed up the rest of my position pretty well. :P

(\/)ea(ulpa basically summed up my own feelings to the note. There really is no practical way to stop someone that determined from getting a gun, so taking them away from the people who AREN'T intending them for malice is effectively lining them up for the proverbial fire squad.

Well too late now-- We need guns to stop the crazy people with guns... unfortunately crazy seems to spread like wildfire so we need more guns to get rid of more crazy people. Its a vicious cycle-- one that usually ends with bacon and eggs for dinner.

Ok really now-- The Constitution is outdated-- the whole bearing arms was to protect ourselves- we never thought we could have a defense force for every place in the country-- now we actually can-- and do-- unfortunately its slower in some areas but we dont NEED guns-- if we did get rid of them well crime would drop, no thin poor guy is going to kill 20 people with his bear hands in a bank when theres several trained guards with a stick, a tazer, and maybe even a bean bag shotgun or even armed with a tranqulizer gun-- now maybe a football team could-- but they dont need to...

But yeah-- we always think-- what if a giant man comes into the house-- and no one can call the cops? your screwed-- thats why people wont get rid of guns-- as unlikely as it is that a man will enter your home unarmed wanting to steal stuff (really the only things worth stealling would be TVs, DVDs, Game systems- etc because they are harder to trace and can be sold for a lot quickly-- Jewlry is much harder to sell without raising alarms- and not many people carry more than a couple hundred dollars at ANY time-- heck i only carry around 20-40 dollars max and my debit card-- and i would break that before handing it over to anyone-- wouldnt cost me anything to replace it :P )

So-- why still have guns? Well idiots want to keep em for that "just incase" moment- like if aliens came to earth and demanded all of our hot women-- thats when we dont ask questions and shoot...
Or if war breaks out on home soil (which is really unlikely unless its a civil war or riots from a mass blackout or disaster, any other attacks would probably be long range missles- good luck using guns against that).

And the only other good reason to own guns-- hunting is a sport and a national past time-- still-- you do not need an Uzi to take down a duck or a dear...

sorry but 50 Cal. Sniper Rifles are over kill for taking out a couple of Bambi's parents

Most people don't keep automatic weapons of any sort, as previously stated, because of laws. It's possible to own an uzi, but that's markedly more difficult than a simple Beretta pistol, say. Uzis are excessive, indeed, and at the moment, I can't think of anything other than physical assault that they'd be used for (If someone else can, please do let me know. That kind of thing would be new information to me.).

Also, as a side note, .50 caliber rifles are not legal. I believe that there was a conference of some sort that largely outlawed that size from even para-military and some military use. Although that belief relies on some decidedly old information, and I could very well be mistaken.