The Right to Bear Arms. Period.

[Ashes Like Rain]

There are many liberals nowadays who try to ban all guns believing that we carry miniguns on the streets.

[Alazon]

I'm naturally biased in favor of stricter gun control and more thorough background checks mostly because my friend's girlfriend was attacked by a mentally unstable man with a gun that he'd legally purchased only a couple of weeks prior to the incident. Luckily she managed to escape with non-fatal injuries because he forgot to load the thing and had to settle for beating her up, but her family's still wondering who would sell a firearm to a mentally unstable man.

And no, gun control is not the same as banning all guns. That makes absolutely no sense and any attempts to do so will most likely throw the country into civil war.

[Arch Avian]

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).

Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.

I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.

[Arch Avian]

Alazon

I'm naturally biased in favor of stricter gun control and more thorough background checks mostly because my friend's girlfriend was attacked by a mentally unstable man with a gun that he'd legally purchased only a couple of weeks prior to the incident. Luckily she managed to escape with non-fatal injuries because he forgot to load the thing and had to settle for beating her up, but her family's still wondering who would sell a firearm to a mentally unstable man.

And no, gun control is not the same as banning all guns. That makes absolutely no sense and any attempts to do so will most likely throw the country into civil war.

I'm sorry for what happened to her. I too know personally what that is like.

I certainly do not believe in selling guns to the mentally unstabled. There should be control in THAT area. Selling guns to those with a criminal record, with mental instabilities, unacceptable!

Please realize that this is extremely rare, however. As Purell, law-abiding, mentally stable gun owners are the 99.9%. Yet, there's always that last germ, correct? As in everything.

However, Obama has proposed over his career that removing military grade firearms from everyone is a good decision. Yet, either he has failed to see or more likely completely ignored the warnings and clear disapproval from our founding fathers concerning this issue. They made it clear, and Jefferson more recently, that there needs to be equal weaponry access between the government and civilians, so as to protect us from tyranny.

This is not at all far-fetched. If you look throughout history, you can find many, many instances in which equal arms has saved innocent people from a power-hungry government.

However, we also see the other side. When the citizenry is unarmed, as in the 1950s: 68 million people died because of a tyrannical government that attacked them, unarmed.

As long as the public has equal arms, they can readily rebel in the case that the government infringes or compromises their freedoms or livelihood, or lives. Obama acting this way has set us up for disaster.

It's something he knows yet he hides behind the guises of his words and makes it sound better to the public. And when he blatantly stated during the debates what he was going to do, THEN things got extremely heated and many Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, panicked.

[Arch Avian]

X_Torric_X

And to the people posting on how civilians shouldn't own military-grade weapons:
Soldiers are trained to hit and kill a target from 300 meters. And if, for some oddball reason (which is a valid reason in its own for the government), should the government decide to declare martial law on its civilians with force, I'd wanna neutralize my target before they target me first.
But, I keep forgetting that there's like 1,000,000 anti-gun people on Gaia, and it appears that they should expect me to just stand in the middle of the street with a big neon sign that says "3 shots - $1".

So I propose this: instead of taking everyone's rights away because obviously you don't care, how about we call up Nerf and have them develop a toy gun that shoots cupcakes for the pacifists. Maybe, if you're lucky, you can give one of the soldiers cavities.

Though very rough, thank you!

Someone speaks some sense on this site.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Hero Rising

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).

Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.

I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.

But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.

[Arch Avian]

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).

Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.

I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.

But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.

If my big statement on guns keeping us out of control of the government and causing MORE violence was not enough, here is some practical reasons for you simpletons out there.

1) Boosts the economy. Greatly. American weapons are unmatched. Of course, there are German guns, but American riflery remains one of the greatest forces on earth. A consistent consumer in the people buying and manufacturing military grade firearms ensures a steady flow of income for the country as a whole, and also reinforcement for our allies. Without consumers in the people for these weapons, the system simply would be far less imposing for our enemies, and far less beneficial and efficient for our allies.

2) Protects you. And you think, how are criminals going to get their hands on military grade firearms? Just as they steal everything else, hun. And the law-abiding, those who will not steal the soon-to-be illegal military grade weapons, will be at the mercy of these people.

Tying all of this together, dearie, brings a recipe for violence greater than if we were to balance the weaponry as an evenly distributed central "foundationary" force founded solely in the people.

We are the original homeland security. As of now, the average gun ownner is better armed than soldiers in other countries.

Prevents more violence than it causes.

Happy now?

[Divine_Malevolence]

Hero Rising

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).

Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.

I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.

But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.

If my big statement on guns keeping us out of control of the government and causing MORE violence was not enough, here is some practical reasons for you simpletons out there.

1) Boosts the economy. Greatly. American weapons are unmatched. Of course, there are German guns, but American riflery remains one of the greatest forces on earth. A consistent consumer in the people buying and manufacturing military grade firearms ensures a steady flow of income for the country as a whole, and also reinforcement for our allies. Without consumers in the people for these weapons, the system simply would be far less imposing for our enemies, and far less beneficial and efficient for our allies.

2) Protects you. And you think, how are criminals going to get their hands on military grade firearms? Just as they steal everything else, hun. And the law-abiding, those who will not steal the soon-to-be illegal military grade weapons, will be at the mercy of these people.

Tying all of this together, dearie, brings a recipe for violence greater than if we were to balance the weaponry as an evenly distributed central "foundationary" force founded solely in the people.

We are the original homeland security. As of now, the average gun ownner is better armed than soldiers in other countries.

Prevents more violence than it causes.

Happy now?

So, since we've already proven that number two is crap, the only thing you've got is that it's a business.
We're willing to let public shootings take place because people want money.


That.
Is.
A.
Joke.

A solution to prevent mass violence whilst also keeping the positives of the two, in two seconds!
Change the gun companies into companies that produce and improve not guns, but crowd control implements that utilize non-fatal methods of incapacitating people. With the number of crazies out there it would still be quite the business, possibly even more so because it'd also attract the brand of crazies that don't fancy busting a cap in someone's a**.
And it would keep the public safer, because unlike guns you don't really need to hit the right spot to incapacitate someone, and unlike guns they can't be used in drivebys. The potential research into the field of potential non-fatal incapacitation methods could even provide an even greater boost to the economy!

I mean, they're being used for peace keeping, non? Lets keep the war toys in the war zone and keep the peacekeeping toys in our treasure chest!
Because believe it or not, selling death leads directly to more death. And that's a bad thing.

I mean, you don't particularly care what happens to the guy so long as he's not killing you, non? And I'm decently sure they could easily provide a more effective method for removing the harmful ability of an assailant than blowing a hole in him.

[Evane Lierist]

Personally I am all for the right to bear arms. There are various reasons that many have mentioned prior that included protection (whether from wild animals, a faulty government, or "evil" people), recreational (to shoot for fun or to test their skills like the television show "Top Gun" ), and hunting. The list can go on, and I do believe the people have such a right to have those arms.

My only stance that gun control should be stricter if not more enforced and also perhaps the introduction to gun education. I don't mind people buying higher grade weapons (unless they are explosives, rocket launchers and so forth), but I think weapons meant to aid us against tyranny fall a bit too easily to those that wish for destruction.

1. Firearm registration. I see this as very similar to being voter registration and believe it would be a better aid to stopping crime and perhaps making the process of purchasing a firearm easier for both the dealer and customer. I already know that dealers have to do certain things before selling a weapon to customer (background checks, having their name and other information along with information of the exact weapon they are purchasing), and I think registration would make this process simpler.
2. Permits and licenses? I don't really know so much about. Licenses to sell firearms to the public and so forth makes a lot of sense just as a waitress is required to have a alcohol license to sell alcohol to the public. It would make sense to make a person have permits if they are going to carry a concealed firearm in public, but wouldn't be ideal/necessary if the people were simply using it to protect their homes or for hunting (considering I think people need a hunting license in order to hunt particular game anyway) It varies but still could be good to have.
3. Gun Education. For this, I would find to beneficial just as I think it is highly important to teach sex education. The more people know about handling a firearm, the possible dangers and power behind weapons, why we are able to carry firearms, and so forth will prove to better educate the youth and possibly help them to make better decisions about using firearms. For safety reasons and the law, the guns in the classroom would be fake or no ammunition on sight. If the parents don't want their children to learn about guns, they should have the option to opt their child out of it. When to give this type of education? I ideally say in high school (probably more suited for 11th and 12th graders).

[Verne the Vaudevillian]

I'm all for supporting this right. It's a constitutionally granted right that every single one of us can follow if we so choose, and it should stay that way. That said, while I do support the constitution and everything it entails, I hate guns. And I do mean hate them. No, not because they are used to kill. I don't have qualms about killing in a situation where it's really necessary. I thoroughly feel that, outside of use by police forces, the military, or in situations where you honestly need them (i.e. you live in the Yukon and need them to hunt and survive), guns are a coward's tool. They make it easy for anyone and everyone to become a threat to be reckoned with, and as a species they have made us weaker. I mean, why fight to protect what you love when you can just get a gun?

Call me crazy for thinking this. I'm serious, do it, because I probably am. But I would much rather try to protect those I love with my own strength than rely on something as cowardly as a gun.

[Mayor Gravity]

I think you should be able to carry a weapon, assuming you have a permit to carry said weapon.

[Mayor Gravity]

Hero Rising

Alazon

I'm naturally biased in favor of stricter gun control and more thorough background checks mostly because my friend's girlfriend was attacked by a mentally unstable man with a gun that he'd legally purchased only a couple of weeks prior to the incident. Luckily she managed to escape with non-fatal injuries because he forgot to load the thing and had to settle for beating her up, but her family's still wondering who would sell a firearm to a mentally unstable man.

And no, gun control is not the same as banning all guns. That makes absolutely no sense and any attempts to do so will most likely throw the country into civil war.

I'm sorry for what happened to her. I too know personally what that is like.

I certainly do not believe in selling guns to the mentally unstabled. There should be control in THAT area. Selling guns to those with a criminal record, with mental instabilities, unacceptable!

Please realize that this is extremely rare, however. As Purell, law-abiding, mentally stable gun owners are the 99.9%. Yet, there's always that last germ, correct? As in everything.

However, Obama has proposed over his career that removing military grade firearms from everyone is a good decision. Yet, either he has failed to see or more likely completely ignored the warnings and clear disapproval from our founding fathers concerning this issue. They made it clear, and Jefferson more recently, that there needs to be equal weaponry access between the government and civilians, so as to protect us from tyranny.

This is not at all far-fetched. If you look throughout history, you can find many, many instances in which equal arms has saved innocent people from a power-hungry government.

However, we also see the other side. When the citizenry is unarmed, as in the 1950s: 68 million people died because of a tyrannical government that attacked them, unarmed.

As long as the public has equal arms, they can readily rebel in the case that the government infringes or compromises their freedoms or livelihood, or lives. Obama acting this way has set us up for disaster.

It's something he knows yet he hides behind the guises of his words and makes it sound better to the public. And when he blatantly stated during the debates what he was going to do, THEN things got extremely heated and many Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, panicked.

I'm not opposed to civilians carrying weapons, but I think they only people who need military grade weapons, are the military, I don't believe civilians need them.

[Mayor Gravity]

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

Divine_Malevolence

Hero Rising

No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).

Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.

I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.

But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.

How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.

[The rose in spring]

Hero Rising

Kolyatt

Hero Rising

Kolyatt

I'm very liberal.

But even I believe in the right to bear arms. I've never shot a gun before but I have one to protect my family with.

There are some military grade weapon's that should be restricted however, unless you can prove there is a legitimate reason to have one.

I don't believe in grenades and explosives if that's where you're going. Heavy artillery (tanks, trunk-top machines, etc.)

But AK47's, AR15s, (All ARs) and every other rifle (anything semi-auto) should be allowed.

If the government and military together have any advantage over the people, and gun control grows, corruption follows in suit.

This is the original homeland security, part of what makes America great: when the average American citizen is better armed than the soldiers in other countries and we can say "BRING IT ON BRITISH"

Suddenly...homeland security is an issue.

I'm no where near an expert on guns or control on it.

But I fail to see how an AK-47 in our home is more effective against terrorism and takeover than our military's wonderbomb emporium. I have a hunting rifle to protect from intruders and wolves and bears (because I live out in the country) but a military grade AR is pretty ridiculous.

I really would rather not say "Bring it on British." I don't want to taunt or flaunt my weapons, I don't want to encourage dominance but establish equality. I have faith in my military and government to protect me as a citizen. Really if they couldn't I would be smart enough to know I'm royally ******** anyway. AK-47 or not.

I'm not suggesting you flaunt weapons (that's actually frowned upon greatly in the world of gun-ownership).

"A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be. "

This is what I meant.

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.

[Mayor Gravity]

Evane Lierist

Personally I am all for the right to bear arms. There are various reasons that many have mentioned prior that included protection (whether from wild animals, a faulty government, or "evil" people), recreational (to shoot for fun or to test their skills like the television show "Top Gun" ), and hunting. The list can go on, and I do believe the people have such a right to have those arms.

My only stance that gun control should be stricter if not more enforced and also perhaps the introduction to gun education. I don't mind people buying higher grade weapons (unless they are explosives, rocket launchers and so forth), but I think weapons meant to aid us against tyranny fall a bit too easily to those that wish for destruction.

1. Firearm registration. I see this as very similar to being voter registration and believe it would be a better aid to stopping crime and perhaps making the process of purchasing a firearm easier for both the dealer and customer. I already know that dealers have to do certain things before selling a weapon to customer (background checks, having their name and other information along with information of the exact weapon they are purchasing), and I think registration would make this process simpler.
2. Permits and licenses? I don't really know so much about. Licenses to sell firearms to the public and so forth makes a lot of sense just as a waitress is required to have a alcohol license to sell alcohol to the public. It would make sense to make a person have permits if they are going to carry a concealed firearm in public, but wouldn't be ideal/necessary if the people were simply using it to protect their homes or for hunting (considering I think people need a hunting license in order to hunt particular game anyway) It varies but still could be good to have.
3. Gun Education. For this, I would find to beneficial just as I think it is highly important to teach sex education. The more people know about handling a firearm, the possible dangers and power behind weapons, why we are able to carry firearms, and so forth will prove to better educate the youth and possibly help them to make better decisions about using firearms. For safety reasons and the law, the guns in the classroom would be fake or no ammunition on sight. If the parents don't want their children to learn about guns, they should have the option to opt their child out of it. When to give this type of education? I ideally say in high school (probably more suited for 11th and 12th graders).

In 11th/12th grade, I think it should be up the the students on wither they want to learn gun control, not the parents.