Why do Gun owners think that the right to bear arms intitles them to?
June 3rd, 2010 by eranio
Does the right to bear arms mean that gun owners should have the right to own military weapons? Does it mean that machine guns, 50 ca.sniper rifles ak 47s m16s etc are included in the bill of rights ? where do we draw the line on COMMON SENSE and responsible gun ownership ? why do some groups always take it to the extreem?
Posted in Military Rifles
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
some of the people who own weapons like that are ex-military and are trained to use them, also, with some guns there is a fine line between the gun being an assault weapons, one type of gun, the only difference between it’s assault and non-assault version is that the non-assault version doesn’t have an automatic mode, but some gun control groups don’t recognize the difference. (by recognize I mean acknowledge, not that they are not capable of seeing a difference, although some are.) restricting what guns are "too dangerous" for people to own is a slippery slope, and of course the founding fathers didn’t have those types of weapons in mind when they wrote the constitution, they didn’t exist back then
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
I do not believe our forefathers, when they wrote the amendments, had assault weapons on their minds. The gun nuts will wrangle the heck out of bearing arms.
Arm bears, I say!
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Yes. Common sense says that since the founding fathers wrote that the intended purpose of the 2nd was for military arms, that they are permitted. Common sense says that since they are the most effective personal weapon to defend oneself from a hostile government (the largest threat, having killed many times more people than simple criminals ever have), that they should be permitted. Common sense says that since the highest law in America (the Constitution) says that we may have them, then as long as the Constitution stands, there is no way to legally prohibit them.
Then again, common sense isn’t always so common.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Some of us believe that if you are a responsible gun owner, it does not matter what arms you have in your possession.
If you have an automatic weapon, carry it safely to a firing range, use it, carry it safely back, and no one is injured in the process, has anyone’s rights been violated? Theoretically, no. Responsible gun ownership is also responsible gun use.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think everyone should have automatic weapons, and I certainly don’t object to laws making possession of them at least VERY financially straining (for example, $100,000 per weapon and $50,000 per round of ammunition… if you are inclined to be a law abiding citizen, you really won’t be using it alot, will you?).
However, common sense is needed from both sides. Please don’t punish the gun, or the responsible gun owner, for what a criminal does.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
i agree,but the issue here is if you allow government to take away these rights,where do they stop??
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Courts exist to determine what are the limits of the extreme. The first amendment exists to allow people to advocate their position concerning the meaning of the second amendment, and the courts exist to then resolve that debate.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
You did not read the amendment, did you. Most constitutional scholars agree that the only guns protected under the second amendment are military class weapons. This means that the constitution guaranties you the right to have a selective fire rifle, but does not give you the right to have a single shot hunting gun.
What, by the way, do you think constitutes common sense gun regulation. There are at this time over 20,000 laws on the books regulating gun ownership. There are Federal laws, there are State laws, there are County laws, and there are City laws. There are already so many laws on the books that there is no way to know when you are not violating a law.
Please also note, unless you want to spend tremendous amounts of money and go through an extensive background check you can not own a true military class rifle. There are some guns on the market that look like military guns, but they are not in the same class. It’s much like someone who takes a car and sticks all the decals on it so that it looks like something from Nascar. It looks like a race car, but the looks are only skin deep.
On a final point, at the time of the writing of the constitution, a large part of the American population were better armed than the military. They were armed with rifled gun, while the military had only smooth bore muskets. The difference is this, the rifle of the period had an effective range of 200 yards or more, the musket was only effective at about 50 yards. The rate of fire between the two gun types was the same, so the population was armed with a gun that was four to five times more lethal than the military rifle of the period. Our founding fathers would approve of the average civilian having a selective fire rifle and a sub machine gun.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
First of all there are no spaces in for a question mark in a question, and second of all the supreme court and some wise men made document that says you have a right to protest but they has a right to their AK-47.
Let me make you a deal I will give my Uzi if you give my your right to speak this foolishness!
You see my point?
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Part of your responsibility of being a citizen of a free democratic government is to police your government. To elect responsible leaders and vote our corrupt ones. From time to time in any government things can get out of hand. Dictators rise up, juntas take over, military coups and such. It is your job to correct these things if it goes that far. If all else fails you are the last chance for survival of this country. Well state militias and national guards actually. In the days of our founding fathers those groups were mainly volunteers. In fact the revolutionary army was mostly volunteers who brought their own weapons. Thank god that England had not outlawed everything but sling shots. Lucky was the officer who had a volunteer that collected cannons. What would happen if someone fired off a couple of nukes in the Iraqi green zone where much of our military is stationed? Or anywhere that a great number of our troops are? What then? Ever watch the movie Red Dawn? Impossible? Even more possible today. Russia is getting stronger every day and heading swiftly back to the communist nation they once were. China is HUGE and has a huge army. They do not have to hate you to try to take over your country. War is a sad fact of life. Since the dawn of man. Oh and by the way, sniper rifles are not .50cal. Too big. Usually it is a tiny .22 caliber that the snipers use. High velicity, very accurate. I can shoot mistletoe out of the top of a tree with a .22 without a scope. The "assault rifles" are a great caliber for deer hunting. The round is small .223 or perhaps 7.62×39. Wont mess up much meat and travels quickly.
So you want specifics in the Bill of Rights? What about religion. They did not list religions individually? Perhaps we could start outlawing a few of them? Or how about free speech, maybe there should be some thing you should not be allowed to say. Chip chip away at out freedoms and they will disappear.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
it should mean that the people can have any weapons the government has. otherwise, what is the point of it?
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Most military fully automatic weapons are already prohibited unless you have a gun dealers license or are a collector. We don’t draw the line, because guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Most gun owners are trained in the safe use of firearms and yes a few accidents do happen, but so do car accidents. With the escalating home invasions in most of the larger cities, the cops are impotent and everyone should have a gun for protection of their life and property. If one person at V-tech, Columbine, and Lubys Cafe in Texas had been armed maybe so many innocent people wouldn’t have lost their lives.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Yes, the right to bear arms means that gun owners have the right to own military weapons.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
ARMS in 1775 was defined as light infantry fire arms, so any arm that is defined this way in 2008 should be what the founders meant. they knew that weapons technology would improve. if you want to feel safe stop driving and try Canada
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Because that was the intent of the people who wrote the constitution. They feared a standing army, that it would become a tool of imperialism for the government. Instead they wanted the citizens to be their own military, to respond in times of emergency, and not go looking for trouble in other parts of the world.
If you look at Switzerland, their citizens do have military weapons, they do train with them. Switzerland is hardly a nation of extremists.
One of the reasons the colonialists were able to defeat the British was that they had weapons as good as or even better than those fielded by the British.
Where do we draw the line on common sense? How about somewhere short of the surrendering to the federal authorities the prerogative of full military power. It is that weakening of the power of the citizens to the gain of the power of the federal executive that has made our wars of empire so easy to start. You support the war in Iraq, I oppose it, this is part of the equation.