"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics

• 

  cedars

  Pterist

  The American far right argument is that they need to defend themselves from their own government if need be. However, if that's the case they will need to purchase a couple of dozen nuclear war heads to keep up.

  Great point. Unless you own a few sherman tanks and a fully-stocked aircaft carrier, the odds would be stacked against you.

  Nobody needs an automatic riffle and the likes that are not even used for hunting.

  ...and if they do need or want to own an automatic rifle, what's so bad about paying for a license and undergoing periodic checks of your criminal record and psychological state? Especially if it helps to ensure that Sandy Hook massacre is less likely to happen again.

  Cedars
• 

  Yohan

  If I take up arms against my government due to it being totalitarian, I guarantee you at least 75% of our armed forces will be standing side by side with me. That argument that we wouldn't have a chance against our military is a falicy because things would have to be so bad that the majority of Americans (including our armed forces) would be in favor of an overthrow. We certainly aren't any where near that right now in this country but it's certainly possible that it could happen in the future.
• 

  TD

  Cedars

  Bingo, there you have it. You've completely fail to grasped what gun control is all about. I suspect you're not the only one on the pro-gun side under such a misconception.

  As much as I love the Brits, you don't define the issue in America to Americans. It's defined by the nature of the disputes that are brought before our courts and occur on the floor of our legislative bodies. And when it comes to guns and gun ownership, those disputes have very often revolved around the question of whether cities, townships and borroughs may enact legislation effectively curtailing ownership of guns by private citizens without exception.

  I can cite examples, if you like, but you do appear to feel that you are up to speed on this issue.

  I don't know if this is the case with British law or not, but in America, the cases that actually make their way to court, especially on matters of Constitutional law tend to be the most black and white, yes or no cases that can be found. I guess that makes the issue more clear cut, but decisions resulting from those cases tend to be more far reaching as a result.
• 

  cofty

  Semi-auto's and high capacity weapons are needed in case we need to overthrow a totalitarian government

  You make it sound like a nation of frightened people.

  We just vote our government out of office if they get too big for their boots.
• 

  TD

  Besty

  Something in the USA is broken and eventually - when enough Joe Sixpacks and Hockey Moms want it - a solution will be imposed by regulation, and part of that will most likely include tighter controls on who has the right to own what.

  On that we agree.
• 

  Simon

  If I take up arms against my government due to it being totalitarian, I guarantee you at least 75% of our armed forces will be standing side by side with me. That argument that we wouldn't have a chance against our military is a falicy because things would have to be so bad that the majority of Americans (including our armed forces) would be in favor of an overthrow. We certainly aren't any where near that right now in this country but it's certainly possible that it could happen in the future.

  You'll just be the first ones they round up and shoot.

  BTW, in case you haven't noticed ... your military IS your government. They'll be the ones you have to fight. Good luck with that.
• 

  Finkelstein

  The fact that so many of these mass-shootings are done with legally obtained mass-fire weapons is proof enough that limiting their availability should make a different.

  Including hand guns.

  I would agree with that Simon
• 

  Talk22

  we shoot back
• 

  keyser soze

  I guarantee you at least 75% of our armed forces will be standing side by side with me.

  If that statistic is accurate, what need would you have to take up arms? 75 percent of our armed forces should more than suffice. Isn't that what our armed forces are for? To protect it's citizens against totalitarian governments?
• 

  PSacramento

  There seems to be an under current of fear here...