Do you believe in the right to bear arms?
Yes, every type of weapon possible. (i.e. Howitzer in backyard)
25.9% (120)
25.9% (120)
Yes, but limited to handguns, non-automatic rifles, and shotguns
36.9% (171)
36.9% (171)
Not at all.
37.1% (172)
37.1% (172)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

The function of the Second Amendment is to guarantee an armed civilian force. The United States did not always have a large standing military, nor is it necessarily likely to have one in future.

The civilians of the Founders' era, and well after, were not only expected to have access to military-class weaponry but at one point were actually required to. They had howitzers then, too...and civilians owned, operated, and went to war with them.

Further, the 1939 "US v. Miller" Supreme Court decision ruled against Miller primarily because it was not shown to the Court that a sawed-off shotgun had "utility as a militia weapon". Note also that the United States Militia is made up of two catgories: "organized" and "unorganized". It is from the ranks of the "unorganized" that draftees are selected, when the draft is in effect.

So as long as a draft is legal, so is owning a howitzer in your backyard.

I enjoy the right, but I think its good that Civilians shouldn own tanks and stuff 9that cant fire, cause goddamnit if i want to drive a tank down the street, I just need to make sure it has the tags/plates and no working weaponry).

I dont know, I always grew up around weapons, fighting, and violence. so I know my way around. I dont rely on guns, just cause i dont like they way they feel so impersonal when compared to my knife, sword, or tomahawk, but I'll use one if I need.

The second amendment was written back when America was the new frontier. The rest of the world has moved on, but the Good ol' US of A is still stuck in the 1800's. Please.



I saw the 'hardest country to invade' thread and it made me thing about the 2nd amendment. I always believed in the right to bear arms, but that thread gave me a whole new perspective on it. Because if you're trying to invade America, and you somehow get past its military, you have an army of citizens literally 3 or 4 times bigger than the Army, but just as well armed waiting for you. And I think that is just another reason that it is important to be able to own guns. Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on other countries policies on guns?

Thats a silly notion. Owning a pistol does not somehow magically make you as well armed and trained as a soldier.

Actually, pistols are the least commonly owned firearm in the US. Its rifles, then shotguns, then pistols. And even if you aren't trained in military tactics, if you outnumber the enemy 3 or 4 times, that doesn't matter too much.

Rifles or pistols. It doesn't really make a huge difference. Sure, you may outnumber the enemy 3 to 1, but that doesn't really matter all that much when you're a bunch of untrained civilians with no clear command structure, and the enemy is professional army with armor, artillery and air support.

If you can afford it, and if you can show that you know how to use it and be responsible with it, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own it. I don't own any guns and I don't want to, personally. I'm not a big fan of guns. But my general rule is, as long as you're not hurting anyone, you should have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. I might buy a katana at some point because it'll look cool on my wall, and that's my business and it should stay that way.

While I think my country (the United States) seriously needs to tone down the attraction to violence to some degree, I do fully support the 2nd amendment. Sure, it's unlikely that the US government will ever turn on it's people due to how fast we can relay information out nowadays, but nonetheless I still think guns are feasible under certain criteria; that being:
1) For sport
2) For hunting
3) For personal protection

That said, I do fully support the notion of restricting certain weapons. No one seriously needs a fully automatic weapon. However, I do not think restricting certain guns because of certain tragedies (I'm speaking of the AR-15 in particular here) is a feasible way of trying to stop future tragedies.

If we want the violence to go down, we need better background checks, to suspend or ban certain individuals from firearms (based off of a history of violence, mental illness, etc.), and that we need to stop deifying violence so much. I'm not blaming the media for anything; I watch plenty of violent things, and it hasn't turned me into a psychopath (at least not yet). But that said, we do need to start deifying other things instead, such as compassion and generosity. Those are things that are seriously deprived in this nation (if not the world), and would lead to a better America (and a better world) if we started turning to that instead of violence.

However I doubt the attraction to violence will die down that much, so I'll gladly just take the better screening instead.

This was kind of interesting. (WARNING, MATURE CONTENT)

I think it's more important to hold a truth as your belief, not a written statement. As such, I believe good people should be allowed to secure and possess arms in order to preserve country, life and property.

Terrible poll aside, the fundamental understanding of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is securing a free state, a role making militias necessary, and ensuring the people have the same right for their own liberty.

The idea is that the government couldn't slap its hands together and say, "OK, war is over, you people do not need these things anymore" and start passing laws to take them away. It's so good that it needed to be second only to things like speech and religion. That says a lot about what the Framers learned after a revolution.

And by the way, people didn't have siege weaponry in their backyards and no one today is asking for this. What people are asking for is to preserve access to small arms without being impeded or blocked for no other reason than governments have declared them "unnecessary" for civilians, and further arguing the case against reckless regulations that devalue citizens and accomplish nothing of value.

Here, let me just leave these two songs and a quote from another thread and you can decide for yourself.

I am ok with people owning ANYTHING they want short of heavy artillery and guided missiles. That is actually how it is in my state (Kansas). Machine Guns are fully legalized here, so as far as the government of Kansas is concerned

should be just as easy to own as

and we have a lower murder rate than the US average and haven't had a mass killing in 150 years.....and that one used a broadsword. You are also allowed to own Tanks, with the condition that you can't drive it on public roads (due to being a hazard to other drivers and the weight of the tank). And you can own ANYTHING gun-wise as long as it shoots a shell at/less than 40mm in diameter (meaning your M-60 Patton with its 90mm gun must be disarmed, but your M-8 Greyhound can keep its 37mm gun....and can drive on the road due to having wheels instead of tracks.) You can also use explosives as well, but there are 2 conditions: A) You are on 20 acres of land with the owners consent and B) You have permission from the fire chief of your area (ie, there is no Fire warning, the wind is light, etc to reduce chance of fire) and have fire crews on standby (small fireworks are excempt unless there is a Fire Warning).

Oh yes, did I mention the only things above that require a state level permit is the tanks......and said permit is a drivers license. Of course, for the machine guns and other automatic weapons, you still need to fill out all the federal paperwork (and even though we ALLOW newer than 1984 full autos, they are even harder to find than Pre-1984 full autos).

God, I love Kansas.

Hopefully, that will be enough to tell.

Wait, I chose the wrong option. Why can't I be okay with automatics but not okay with artillery?

I'm actually okay with militias in idea, but too often their ideology is "Take back America for the Christian whiteys!", so at the same time I hope they're prepared for an ass-whupping.

I acknowledge that it exists and its need to be protected (just as much as any other amendment), though I think it is a bit strange how feverent people are for the second amendment while being totally willing (maybe not them personally, but to the rule in general) to get a cavity search at an airport.[1]

I don't personally use my 2nd amendment rights as I don't think of them as an equaliser in all situations and think they can cause situations to escalate.[2] Though, that's true of any weapon. The most 'dangerous' thing I've ever carried on my person is a Swiss army knife with a 1" (or so) blade for cutting packaging and such.

[1] A bit of hyperbole
[2] Warning: Personal opinion which may be partial wrong or completely.

I do fully support the right for bears to have arms, indeed! Or for people to have bear arms, either way!

On a more serious note, I'm Canadian. We don't have much of a gun culture, even in the Texas of Canada (Alberta). Never touched a firearm in my life, never shot one and probably never will. Just isn't something that I can come to terms with, most crimes that happen where I live involve little to no firearms whatsoever. Usually just knives or physical attacks (fists).

I wouldn't bother to try to remove an American from their gun, however, considering how (to me, creepily) influential and "sacred" guns are in American culture.

I'm not an American, but no. I don't believe in in. Well, I would if we were still talking about the point in time in which it was actually written and to it's specific wording, but that's a long time ago both in terms of time but also in terms of societal advancement.

I think that the law does not suit modern times. It's a revolutionary law. Times change.


Why, man? Just why? It's not a modern thread, either.

I am not a US citizen but I do not think the second amendment would have much impact on any potential invasion on the US mainland at all, why not?

Firstly having so many guns about doesn't really make all that much difference in regards to resistance groups forming or arming themselves, history has shown time and time again that rebellions and resistance groups do find a way even in countries where firearms where not all that common. It does expedite the process but its not necessary.

Secondly having a load of guns doesn't make civilians soldiers, US citizens that are willing to fight would still largely (apart from gangs, paramilitary groups and survivalists ofc) need to go through the same process of learning how to fight and how to stay alive during a resistance movement that every other group in history has gone through.

Thirdly it might make things worse, America has some deep divisions and again if we look at history resistance groups in divided nations do not all align behind a single patriotic banner. They often fight each other, or hoard weapons for the day the fighting is over so they can turn them on others in the power vacuum that follows. Sometimes they even rat other groups out or collaborate in return for some advantage over other groups, power, food/medicine or the release of captives.


I should also add that if any nation or alliance of nations can fight its way through the entire US armed forces and any NATO allies left no amount of resistance or militias could achieve much besides making the body count worse on all sides.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked