Gun Control

[dangeresque]

Hey there, I was just talking to a friend today about guns, gun laws, etc. And I thought "what does TIF think?" :

 

 

 

So here it is, what are your views on gun control and gun laws? What firearms are acceptable, which aren't? Etc.

 

 

 

My views:

 

~ Automatics & Assault rifle's regulated fairly heavily.

 

~ Hand guns allowed, but permit required.

 

~ 21+ for handgun permit, same age limit maybe older for concealed weapon permit.

 

~ Concealed weapons allowed as long as you have a permit for the gun and for it being concealed, and it can't be visible to the public.

 

~Semi automatic hunting rifle and shotguns allowed, but permit requird (don't think it requires one atm, atleast in the US.)

 

~No handgun permit if you have a semi-serious offense on your criminal record.

 

 

 

I probably have more, can't think of any more atm though. Basically I think that anyone (excluding past criminals) should be able to own a gun, shoot it (not at people ;) ), hunt with it, do whatever as long as it is not harming anyone and is for legal/fun purposes only.

 

 

 

Discuss.

[RichieMcD]

 

My views:

 

~ Automatics & Assault rifle's regulated fairly heavily.

 

~ Hand guns allowed, but permit required.

 

~ 21+ for handgun permit, same age limit maybe older for concealed weapon permit.

 

~ Concealed weapons allowed as long as you have a permit for the gun and for it being concealed, and it can't be visible to the public.

 

~Semi automatic hunting rifle and shotguns allowed, but permit requird (don't think it requires one atm, atleast in the US.)

 

~No handgun permit if you have a semi-serious offense on your criminal record.

 

 

 

I probably have more, can't think of any more atm though. Basically I think that anyone (excluding past criminals) should be able to own a gun, shoot it (not at people ;) ), hunt with it, do whatever as long as it is not harming anyone and is for legal/fun purposes only.

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

1. Absolutely no need for Assault rifles in any way or form other than Police forces, ban them from public ownership completely.

 

2. IMO also ban high power handguns such as Magnum revolvers or Desert Eagles, keep defense simple and reliable such as Glock 9mm or Colt .45, no need to implode the persons head / chest etc.

 

3. Yes, but don't just give them to anyone obviously, strict guidelines and a mandatory mental evaluation at the buyers expense.

 

4. Sounds good, yet once again same as above but stricter mental evaluation and gun control skills type exam.

 

5. Yes, obviously with a permit subject to the same as 3. Allow them only to be used and removed from a carrier bag / box within certain hunting designated areas.

 

6. Obviously, I'd go with a 0 tolerance policy on any form of violent or drug addiction crime.

 

 

 

Instead of attacking the leaves of a large tree, tackle it at the roots. Change attitudes towards guns starting very early with children, their not cool nor manly to own, their serious objects which can play the power of god within the pull of a trigger.

[dangeresque]

 

My views:

 

~ Automatics & Assault rifle's regulated fairly heavily.

 

~ Hand guns allowed, but permit required.

 

~ 21+ for handgun permit, same age limit maybe older for concealed weapon permit.

 

~ Concealed weapons allowed as long as you have a permit for the gun and for it being concealed, and it can't be visible to the public.

 

~Semi automatic hunting rifle and shotguns allowed, but permit requird (don't think it requires one atm, atleast in the US.)

 

~No handgun permit if you have a semi-serious offense on your criminal record.

 

 

 

I probably have more, can't think of any more atm though. Basically I think that anyone (excluding past criminals) should be able to own a gun, shoot it (not at people ;) ), hunt with it, do whatever as long as it is not harming anyone and is for legal/fun purposes only.

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

1. Absolutely no need for Assault rifles in any way or form other than Police forces, ban them from public ownership completely.

 

2. IMO also ban high power handguns such as Magnum revolvers or Desert Eagles, keep defense simple and reliable such as Glock 9mm or Colt .45, no need to implode the persons head / chest etc.

 

1. I was thinking just for shooting ranges and stuff just for fun, no private ownership unless you're a gun collector or it's semi-automatic and you have a liscense for it.

 

 

 

2. Whether you shoot a guy with a .357 or a 9mm in the head he's still gonna die, no reason to exclude magnum's or desert eagle's imo.

 

 

 

Instead of attacking the leaves of a large tree, tackle it at the roots. Change attitudes towards guns starting very early with children, their not cool nor manly to own, their serious objects which can play the power of god within the pull of a trigger.

 

Yes, they're not manly or cool, but they are a good source of fun if you're at a target range, or hunting or something of the like.

 

 

 

Remember, people kill people, GUNS DON'T.

[BlueLancer]

 

2. IMO also ban high power handguns such as Magnum revolvers or Desert Eagles, keep defense simple and reliable such as Glock 9mm or Colt .45, no need to implode the persons head / chest etc.

 

1. I was thinking just for shooting ranges and stuff just for fun, no private ownership unless you're a gun collector or it's semi-automatic and you have a liscense for it.

 

 

 

2. Whether you shoot a guy with a .357 or a 9mm in the head he's still gonna die, no reason to exclude magnum's or desert eagle's imo.

 

 

 

 

A weapon such as the Desert Eagle uses .50 caliber ammunition (with the exception of some low-production models with lesser calibers). There is absolutely no rational or logical excuse for owning one as a private citizen for any purpose except as a collector's item/in a museum.

 

 

 

Here's a pretty good comparison of ammunition sizes. The far right one is the .50cal ammunition such a weapon uses

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

Please, even a single reason for a citizen to own one. People claim it's for target shooting and hunting which sounds a bit far fetched considering the giant recoil

[Lenticular_J]

The average person would hardly be able to fire an Eagle. I almost broke my nose firing one.

 

 

 

Heavy permits, I say. I like my hunting. And keeping a Glock close to hand always makes me feel safer (Even though I keep the safety on, magazine out, and several of the more important parts disassembled on my Winchester under the bed.).

 

 

 

(And I don't own a Glock.)

[Roberthree]

 

Remember, people kill people, GUNS DON'T.

 

 

 

People with guns kill people. Good luck killing someone barehanded.

 

 

 

And I shudder to think of all the households that have both guns and young children.

 

 

 

IMO guns need to be STRICTLY regulated or banned totally.

[raven_gaurd0]

My philosophy: if you wouldn't trust the person with a sword right next to you, don't give them a gun.

 

 

 

I wish we could just get rid of guns, and I truly wish I could just say 'No more guns RAWR FOREVER' and that be the case, but with a country like America with millions qualified to carry a firearm, it's impractical. Therefore, I must logically go to the path that regulates but allows gun control.

 

 

 

Assault rifles and such are regulated the same as handguns, with the exceptions of ammo. Ammo regulation should step up infinitely more.

 

 

 

A gun without ammo can't kill any more than a baseball bat can.

 

 

 

Handguns will always be a principle of safety, therefore should be allowed, but assault rifle ammo should only be available at commercial shooting ranges and gun clubs, because, for guts' sake, you don't need an AK or an M16A4 to take down a robber. A 9mm, and if you feel vicious, a .50, will do just fine.

 

 

 

What's most important to consider is rate of fire.

[Lenticular_J]

People with guns kill people. Good luck killing someone barehanded.

 

...Do you seriously think it's hard?

 

 

 

Even if it was, there are baseball bats. Knives. Chairs. Bottles. Lamps. Pillows. Sticks. Pieces of lumber. Tables.

 

 

 

I could keep going for a very long time.

[raven_gaurd0]

People with guns kill people. Good luck killing someone barehanded.

 

...Do you seriously think it's hard?

 

 

 

Even if it was, there are baseball bats. Knives. Chairs. Bottles. Lamps. Pillows. Sticks. Pieces of lumber. Tables.

 

 

 

I could keep going for a very long time.

 

 

 

Rocks. And barehanded, with your damn fists, ain't that hard either. It's called 'the face'. Hit it a lot, and whoever possess it shall be dead soon.

[Roberthree]

Respond to the other line in my post and you'll see the main reason I disprove of guns. The first line was just because I hate that saying.

 

 

 

and don't even try to convince me a guy's fist is as lethal as a gun. you can flee from a fistfight easily. try that with a gun and you'll be shot in the back.

 

 

 

at the very least it deserves a test run. confiscate all guns for 10 years and see what happens. act from there.

[Lenticular_J]

Young children have access to sticks, too.

 

 

 

THE HORROR

 

 

 

Seriously, kids raised around guns will know more about gun safety than most others. Do you think parents throw a loaded AK-47 at their kids with the safety off and tape targets on their heads?

[dangeresque]

 

2. IMO also ban high power handguns such as Magnum revolvers or Desert Eagles, keep defense simple and reliable such as Glock 9mm or Colt .45, no need to implode the persons head / chest etc.

 

1. I was thinking just for shooting ranges and stuff just for fun, no private ownership unless you're a gun collector or it's semi-automatic and you have a liscense for it.

 

 

 

2. Whether you shoot a guy with a .357 or a 9mm in the head he's still gonna die, no reason to exclude magnum's or desert eagle's imo.

 

 

 

 

A weapon such as the Desert Eagle uses .50 caliber ammunition (with the exception of some low-production models with lesser calibers). There is absolutely no rational or logical excuse for owning one as a private citizen for any purpose except as a collector's item/in a museum.

 

 

 

Here's a pretty good comparison of ammunition sizes. The far right one is the .50cal ammunition such a weapon uses

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

Please, even a single reason for a citizen to own one. People claim it's for target shooting and hunting which sounds a bit far fetched considering the giant recoil

 

The point is, nobody in their right mind would own one for house defense anyways, and pretty much none do. And BTW, the .50 cal refers to the diameter of the bullet, the round pictured in your pic is obviously not going to come out of a handgun if it is 5 inches long -.-.

 

 

 

 

Remember, people kill people, GUNS DON'T.

 

 

 

People with guns kill people. Good luck killing someone barehanded.

 

 

 

And I shudder to think of all the households that have both guns and young children.

 

 

 

IMO guns need to be STRICTLY regulated or banned totally.

 

The guns will keep on coming, legally or illegally if you ban them or not. And a person pulls the trigger, the gun doesn't. If there weren't guns they would use knives, and maybe even barehanded if they really wanted to (some do).

 

 

 

My point is, if some killer is gonna go kill someone, whether he has a gun or not he's still gonna kill the person.

[purfishx]

People with guns kill people. Good luck killing someone barehanded.

 

...Do you seriously think it's hard?

 

 

 

Even if it was, there are baseball bats. Knives. Chairs. Bottles. Lamps. Pillows. Sticks. Pieces of lumber. Tables.

 

 

 

I could keep going for a very long time.

 

 

 

Glass. :twss:

[raven_gaurd0]

Precisely. So why ban the one medium of defense a common citizen has? Yes, we regulate guns for the reason of keeping these undoubtedly infinitely more lethal tools out of psycho's hands, but really, when it comes to regulation, it comes down to this:

 

 

 

RATE. OF. FIRE.

 

 

 

It's easy to disable an interloper with one round with a pistol, and it's hard to kill an entire school with a single glock or USP. You'd need head-shots or heart-shots to ensure fatality. Therefore, we must regulation not the weapon, but the ammo involved, for the big stuff. And, really, for the little stuff. By denying excess munitions, it eliminates psychopaths from going on rampages, but enables a common citizen who only wishes to defend themselves a medium with which to do so.

 

 

 

Munitions sold at gun clubs would also solve the recreational aspect. Search and pat downs on exit, of course.

[runescapeloser22]

And I shudder to think of all the households that have both guns and young children.

 

As long as they don't fight over their chips or hot pockets a lot, it's fine.

[das1330]

 

It's easy to disable an interloper with one round with a pistol, and it's hard to kill an entire school with a single glock or USP.

 

If I remember right, Cho managed to kill something like 34 people with a single Glock 17, and I have heard of several instances of people in Japan killing 10+ people with nothing but a kitchen knife. With enough creativity and determination, you can do practically anything.

 

 

 

Munitions sold at gun clubs would also solve the recreational aspect. Search and pat downs on exit, of course.

 

Literally impossible to implement. I know two people that home make their own ammunition to save on costs. Even if you ban the ammunition, reloading is very very easy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Automatics & Assault rifle's regulated fairly heavily.

 

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated under several different laws. "Assault weapon" is a term made up by gun banners to denote a scary looking, but otherwise harmless gun that they dislike for whatever reason.

 

 

 

 

~ 21+ for handgun permit, same age limit maybe older for concealed weapon permit.

 

The legal limit for owning a handgun in the United States is already 21.

 

 

 

 

~ Concealed weapons allowed as long as you have a permit for the gun and for it being concealed, and it can't be visible to the public.

 

Again, already the law in 46 out of 50 states. Two states ban concealed carry altogether (and consequently have some of the highest crime rates in the union) while in Vermont and Alaska you do not need a permit to carry a gun. (these two states have some of the lowest crime rates)

 

 

 

 

~No handgun permit if you have a semi-serious offense on your criminal record.

 

 

Again, already happens. When you buy any gun your name is automatically run through a national instant background check (the NICS system). If you have ever had certain mental conditions, felony convictions or a handful of other things, you are disqualified from buying the gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A weapon such as the Desert Eagle uses .50 caliber ammunition (with the exception of some low-production models with lesser calibers). There is absolutely no rational or logical excuse for owning one as a private citizen for any purpose except as a collector's item/in a museum.

 

Several things - first of all, most Desert Eagles sold are not chambered in .50 AE - the ammunition is too expensive to shoot regularly, so most people buy the gun chambered in smaller cartridges - the guns chambered in both .357 and .44 mag are by no means "low production models". Second of all, why would anyone need an "excuse" for buying something they have a right to? Even then, an Eagle is a terrible gun to commit a crime with; the thing is huge, heavy, expensive, massively gaudy and hard to hide, and the recoil makes it very difficult to shoot - trust me, I have shot one several times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a pretty good comparison of ammunition sizes. The far right one is the .50cal ammunition such a weapon uses

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

Please oh please have some idea what you are talking about before you post. The picture you provided was of .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) ammunition, used exclusively machine guns and very heavy rifles. Such a round is so big if you tried to put one in a handgun, the recoil would literally rip your arm off. The picture below shows the actual three cartridges the desert eagle is chambered in, from the left, along with several other common handgun calibers. While bigger then common handgun rounds, it is in no way more "dangerous" then any other gun.

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

 

Please, even a single reason for a citizen to own one. People claim it's for target shooting and hunting which sounds a bit far fetched considering the giant recoil

 

Someone does not need a "reason" - it is their right to own one. Even then, a Desert Eagle is a fun range toy; people buy them because they are big, gaudy and look interesting. Other people hunt with them; when facing dangerous game like large wild boars it is necessary to have a gun that will quickly stop the animal before it can hurt the hunter. The same goes for rifles chambered in .50 BMG - some buy them because they are interesting, while others (myself included) enjoy them because they allow for challenging long range shots out beyond 1000 meters that are impossible with smaller weapons.

[raven_gaurd0]

:shock:

 

 

 

Good arguments, mate.

 

 

 

I don't know. Guns are a rather difficult thing to control. Still, the pushing of control legislation is better than the alternative: everybody gains access to guns.

 

 

 

There's really no practical, save-all answer here.

[BlueLancer]

Someone does not need a "reason" - it is their right to own one.

 

people buy them because they are big, gaudy and look interesting

 

 

 

That's why the US has over 16,000 gun-related murders per year, more than all other western industrialized nations combined http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm (66% of US murders are committed with a firearm, compared to 1-5% in other western nations)

 

 

 

In Scandinavian and most European countries, you have to declare a reason for owning a firearm before gaining a license. "Self-protection" or "fun" are not reasons to own 9mm hand guns and assault rifles. In countries such as Japan, a civilian cannot even own a firearm.

 

 

 

Compare the armed robbery statistics between Japan which has roughly 140 million people, and USA which has 300 million people:

 

 

 

Japan has around 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people[1]

 

 

 

Having a firearm just because of 300-year old laws that were intended to protect colonialists from the English isn't an actual "reason". Of course, it's legally unrestricted, but you can see how horribly it works in reality. USA has more crime, murders and prisoners than any industrialized nation [2]

[magekillr]

Ban them; ban every single gun that there is.

 

 

 

Repeal the 2nd amendment, and get rid of this controversy that citizens supposedly have a god-given right to own a firearm, because they don't. They "did" when the US was armed with a militia, and you were a part of said militia (take present day Switzerland for example).

 

 

 

We no longer have a militia, the 2nd amendment no longer has a purpose. Ban the guns, repeal the amendment.

[Quoi_Tu]

Someone does not need a "reason" - it is their right to own one. Even then, a Desert Eagle is a fun range toy; people buy them because they are big, gaudy and look interesting. Other people hunt with them; when facing dangerous game like large wild boars it is necessary to have a gun that will quickly stop the animal before it can hurt the hunter. The same goes for rifles chambered in .50 BMG - some buy them because they are interesting, while others (myself included) enjoy them because they allow for challenging long range shots out beyond 1000 meters that are impossible with smaller weapons.

 

 

 

What is the reason behind the right?

[NoMoreDead]

I've never understood the need to posess a gun. If guns were indeed eliminated from society I think we'd be looking at a much better world. The violent crime rate would drop. Murder rates would drop. Suicides would drop (if only by the slimmest margin).

 

 

 

Guns do more harm then help. Period.

[BlueLancer]

I've never understood the need to posess a gun. If guns were indeed eliminated from society I think we'd be looking at a much better world. The violent crime rate would drop. Murder rates would drop. Suicides would drop (if only by the slimmest margin).

 

 

 

Guns do more harm then help. Period.

 

 

 

I think the crime statistics in the US alone speak for themselves (refer to page 1 for statistics on the US, which commits the most firearms-related murders in the western industrialized world)...

 

 

 

Hunting rifles should be allowed by law though, because they are hard/impossible to conceal and have a legitimate use. Game animals *have* to have their populations kept in check by season hunting to prevent overpopulation. I'd strictly oppose banning weapons like Remington hunting rifles.

 

 

 

Target shooting? .22's that have to be kept at the shooting club like in many other countries would suffice just fine

 

 

 

Gun crime isn't being committed by 'reasonable' weapons. The weapons that are abused are high-caliber concealable handguns that no civilian has the business to carry in private "just because". It's a statistical inevitability that out of the millions of handguns licensed legally, tens thousands of those guns will (and have already) leak to the black market or wrong hands if people get involved in crime, get sudden debts to pay off, etc.

 

 

 

This is exactly what is happening all over America in states with loose gun laws which practically permit anyone to have a firearm: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... pons_x.htm

 

 

 

 

And soon after within days, in a few cases some of these guns began turning up in the wrong hands and the wrong places:

 

 

 

A Raven Arms .25-caliber pistol used in a Brooklyn, N.Y., shooting. A Ruger 9 mm handgun found on a man charged with crack possession in Washington. A Smith & Wesson .40-caliber pistol recovered in Youngstown, Ohio, in a car driven by a man inexplicably wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a winter face mask in May.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

So far, law enforcement has traced 51 guns.

 

 

 

In Silver Spring, Md., a .25-caliber pistol turned up outside a high school. Witnesses said one student pointed the gun at another student's head; the incident was believed connected to the Bloods street gang.

 

 

 

In Minneapolis, a 9 mm pistol was discovered under a trash can by police responding to a report that some young men were pointing guns at people.

 

 

 

In Columbus, a 9 mm pistol was involved in the death of a man in a domestic dispute.

 

 

 

In Newark, N.J., a .22-caliber Derringer ended up in a very strange spot: The Essex County jail property room. A ballistics test was negative. Inmates and staff were interviewed. Cameras were checked. Nothing.

 

 

 

Nelson's weapons have surfaced in six states New York, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maryland and Ohio as well as the District of Columbia and the Canadian border.

 

 

 

Ohio has been known to funnel illegal guns to the East Coast, partly because of its proximity to big cities such as New York and Washington, where it's difficult to buy weapons.

 

 

 

Loose gun laws work against it's own purpose that the NRA keeps repeating, "safety for private citizens"... If anything, loose gun laws have repeatedly been proven to decrease safety and accelerate violent crime and arms trafficking from loose states to tight ones.

[venomai]

If I remember right, Cho managed to kill something like 34 people with a single Glock 17, and I have heard of several instances of people in Japan killing 10+ people with nothing but a kitchen knife. With enough creativity and determination, you can do practically anything.

 

Are you referring to the Osaka school massacre, which left 8 dead from a kitchen knife?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_School_Massacre

 

 

 

I'd imagine it would have been considerably more difficult to kill 34 adults on a stabbing spree than it would be to kill 8 children. :|

[das1330]

Are you referring to the Osaka school massacre, which left 8 dead from a kitchen knife?

 

 

 

That was one of several stabbing sprees actually. One killed 7 people and injured another 10, (source) while in China 5 police officers were killed when a man attacked them in the police station with a knife. Hardly defenseless children. (Source)

 

 

 

 

Hunting rifles should be allowed by law though, because they are hard/impossible to conceal and have a legitimate use. I'd strictly oppose banning weapons like Remington hunting rifles.

 

 

 

Again, banning guns exclusively based on cosmetic features is flawed. If you replace the stock (a 4 minute operation) on a standard Remington 700 hunting rifle, you magically get the M40 sniper rifle, used by the United States Marine Corps, Army and the armies of several other countries. The differences between a hunting rifle and a scary looking "assault weapon" are purely cosmetic.

 

 

 

 

Target shooting? .22's that have to be kept at the shooting club like in many other countries would suffice just fine

 

 

 

So are you suggjesting that non scary looking "hunting rifles" should be kept at home, while scary looking "target weapons" in an ineffective caliber should be banned? Once again, please learn something about guns before you attempt to judge the merits of banning them. The entire reason for the current torrent of useless laws is uninformed politicians attempting to win votes.

 

 

 

 

Gun crime isn't being committed by 'reasonable' weapons.

 

Again, you still lack a definition of "reasonable", other then "not scary looking".

 

 

 

 

The weapons that are abused are high-caliber concealable handguns

 

The above statement is an oxymoron. Before you complain about "high caliber concealable handguns" again, do me a favor. Go to your local shooting range and rent a Desert Eagle. Then try to hide it in your clothes. And walk around effectively.

 

 

 

 

 

that no civilian has the business to carry in private "just because".

 

 

 

It is their business to carry around whatever is necessary to ensure that their rights are not violated.

 

 

 

 

It's a statistical inevitability that out of the millions of handguns licensed legally, tens thousands of those guns will (and have already) leak to the black market or wrong hands if people get involved in crime, get sudden debts to pay off, etc.

 

 

 

It is inevitable that if a criminal wants a gun, or any other weapon for that matter, they will get it. See the statistics I posted on gun use in Britian after they were banned.

 

 

 

 

In Scandinavian and most European countries, you have to declare a reason for owning a firearm before gaining a license. "Self-protection" or "fun" are not reasons to own 9mm hand guns and assault rifles. In countries such as Japan, a civilian cannot even own a firearm.

 

 

 

All of which have the effect of making guns difficult to legally obtain by all but the very rich. Despite the extreme restrictions in place in most of Europe, it obviously does not work very well - the violent crime rate in both Australia (another country with restrictive laws) and Britain is more then double that in the United States. In fact, after handguns were banned completely in Britain in 1997, the proportion of crimes involving guns has more then doubled. (Source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compare the armed robbery statistics between Japan which has roughly 140 million people, and USA which has 300 million people:

 

 

 

Japan has around 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people[1]

 

 

Compare the crime rate in Japan with the crime rate in Switzerland - both have similar (very low) rates of violent crime. In Japan, guns have always been illegal, whereas in Switzerland almost every household is required to posses a SIG 550 select fire rifle. Crime is, and always has been a cultural problem related to poverty, not the availability (or lack of) a particular object. (Source)

 

 

 

Of course, it's legally unrestricted, but you can see how horribly it works in reality. USA has more crime, murders and prisoners than any industrialized nation [2]

 

Uuh, no, I don't see how "horribly" it works. You still haven't provided a single statistic that says people would somehow be safer without the means to protect themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We no longer have a militia, the 2nd amendment no longer has a purpose.

 

 

 

My good Friend Merriam Webster would like to disagree with your first statement, while your second statement has been addressed below:

 

 

 

militia - the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

(Source)

 

Now in the US the Selective Service is the body that determines who is eligible to be called to military service. Even by your (flawed) interpretation of the constitution, any male aged 18-25 is, and always has been, part of the militia.

 

 

 

Not that any of that even matters. Because of the Supreme Court case, the second amendment has been finally settled as being an individual right, not one somehow limited to only males between the ages of 18-25. The entire militia argument is moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the reason behind the right?

 

 

Having a firearm just because of 300-year old laws that were intended to protect colonialists from the English isn't an actual "reason".

 

The actual reason is to give the people of the United States a means to enforce the constitution and uphold their rights. Without any method of backing up the constitution, the rest of the rights listed there are empty words on a piece of paper. Time and time again history has shown that is one group is able to screw another group for their own gain, then they will. The Second Amendment prevents this from happening.

[magekillr]

Not that any of that even matters. Because of the Supreme Court case, the second amendment has been finally settled as being an individual right, not one somehow limited to only males between the ages of 18-25. The entire militia argument is moot.

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of that court case, read the dissenting opinion. It agrees with me. I wouldn't call it a moot point at all, just that we have a lot of assclowns like Scalia on the bench.