Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree anyone who can demonstrate the proper knowledge and maturity should be able to own a shotgun or rifle for sporting purposes. There's really no case to be made for most handguns or assault weapons however. Relying on a loaded firearm as protection against a home invasion dramatically increases the chances that a family member will be shot -- either a suicide or domestic violence. There is a reason for the state to step in to prevent those, just as it requires seat belts in cars.
the constitution of the united states does not limit you to a sporting gun.
Read above in my post about what the definition of assault weapon is. It is only based on how a weapon looks, not anything else.
My Arisaka type 90 is considered an assault rifle, it is a 5 shot bolt action rifle. I can go and get a more power full rifle that is NOT considered an assault weapon that can hold up to a 15 round magazine and is semi automatic because it does not meet the visual qualifications of being considered an assault rifle. It is based purely on looks and not on function
Armed citizens have no ability to keep the government in check. That's perhaps the silliest argument around.
they did, and if needed, we will again.
the period of our country's founding, the newly formed country relied on citizens with their own firearms to protect itself from then the most powerful nation on the earth. It worked very well.
Tell that to the Vietnamese, Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, American colonists against the British Empire, etc. With the correct tactics and will power average people can definately fight against governments and win.
not to mention that the peoples of the united states outnumber any of its armed forces (in which I know many that would NOT work with the government if they see our rights being trumped, they join to uphold the constitution)
Sporting purposes are not the only reasons for owning firearms. Handguns are excellent for self-defense when carrying a long gun is impractical. Even for hunting: I carry a big handgun for defense against animals or people when I've only got a .22 rifle while hunting small game or checking my trapline.
How is the state preventing home invasions? By their definition home invasions are violent with harm intended if someone is home. Rendering the occupants defenseless merely allows the attackers to do whatever they please. The police are only minutes away when seconds count, or, in the case of my property, hours away. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that citizens are responsible for their own protection. In fact, one of the recent cases, involved your own city's police department saying they had no such duty to protect citizens, saying it was the responsibility of the citizens themselves, and the court agreed.
And please cite your sources instead of just saying "studies..."
to add to this, the supreme court has already ruled that the police are not there to protect the individual but society as a whole. They have no duty to save your life if it is being threatened, thus leaving your own protection in your hands. Why would you strip people of the right to protect themselves? It would be like taking away a porcupines quills and placing that poor animal in a wolfs den.
Until recently, insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a pretty good job of resisting the best military in the world with crude weapons and homemade bombs.
Armed citizens have no ability to keep the government in check. That's perhaps the silliest argument around.
no, hold on, everyone. i'm sure that there is some logical explanation that we have not yet understood as to why church thinks that we would not be able to resist the government should it come to that, and i would like to hear the reason. i'm gonna give church the benefit of the doubt that he/she did not simply discount history, or post before deeply thinking about it.
go ahead, church. what about it makes it the silliest argument around? i do not promise to agree with your stance, but i will give it fair consideration.
Tell that to the Vietnamese, Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, American colonists against the British Empire, etc. With the correct tactics and will power average people can definately fight against governments and win.
David Koresh didn't do so well when he decided to "fight city hall." Randy Weaver's effort produced similar results.
That's just plain wrong. Can you display a source for thise stats?
Sure look these up:
Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72.
Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
