Gun Rights


#1

Given our recent topic on whether or not you’ve used a gun before, figured this would be appropriate.

Should there be restrictions on the right to bear arms? If so, how far should these go? Should guns be banned entirely?

In my opinion the current status quo in the U.S is fine, current liberal pushes for more gun restrictions are annoying and I’m not convinced they’re very effective.

@liberalofthenorth
@Champion


#2

Yes… guns kill end off… in the USA u can within theory walk around with a gun that dangerous and it only take one spark for it all to go mad


#3

What do you mean by that?

And how would banning guns help when so many people already own them? Don’t you think there would be a lot of pushback from people? Perhaps violence?


#4

depends… I think for the USA its hard to stamp it out because of that but I think if u have a criminal record you property should be searched and u should be banned for owning a gun… of course for countries that don’t have these issues that because they got it right in the first place


#5

This is probably the biggest cultural difference between the US and the UK. I, and many other Brits, just can’t understand this opinion.

It was written in a time when America was a frontier state, practically lawless in some areas, and the fear of both a dictatorial government and the possibility of bandits razing entire villages to the ground was very real. Meanwhile, the most common guns around were muskets, which were ridiculously inaccurate and needed reloading after every shot; not great for a school shooting, as modern assault weapons are. It is anachronistic and needs to be changed. There is no reason why people with criminal records, mental illnesses or reasonable suspicion of being terrorists should be able to freely keep and bear arms. Perhaps another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech will tell persuade more people of this.

I’d be in favour of trying to introduce a new amendment which alters the Second Amendment, although gun control itself is not inherently unconstitutional. The SC ruled in 2008 that “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose […] The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”


#6

Felons cannot own guns. I forgot about the mental illness thing, people that are “mentally defective” aren’t allowed to own guns but that isn’t far enough IMO.

Do you not see the danger in allowing the government to arbitrarily label people terrorists and remove their right to bear arms? The U.S does not have a good record as far as treatment of political dissent goes.


#7

Its not a human right to bear arms :smiley: A constitution written under totally different condition has caused that. Americans need to realise that their constitution needs to move with the times its the benefit of having an unwritten one like in the UK (u make it up as you go along and people wont complain) people in USA dedicate them self to preserving this (republicans) and peoples lifes are in danger by allowing anyone to just carry a gun… and thus school shootings happens


#8

I think UKlaws for gun ownership are fine, the US situation is completely bizarre to me


#9

How does carrying a gun cause a risk of life? What about self defense against attackers, and what about people that will have guns illegally anyway?

Do you think there’s an issue with the state, with its main purpose being preserving capitalism, having arms while the working class does not? Many socialists and communists support the right to bear arms on the basis that the rich or the state would be able to still have guns while the working class cannot.


#10

The state has arms to protect against invasion on your point about socialists/communists allowing arms no you only take up and bear arms against the government if they are causing mass misery and are directly effecting human rights

“I’m a physcopathic twat (who happens to not of been diagnosed with anything)” "I also happen to be part of the KKK"
I then go and gun down and entire school full of young students… me being allowed a gun in that situation caused that risk to life… if I was not allowed a gun the most deadly weapon he would of got was a knife (or a lesser gun such has a pistol)


#11

Sure I do, but this isn’t a case of two absolutes. There’s a balance to be a struck. We can have a clear legal definition of what constitutes a “terrorist”, for example, and we could even adopt a definition enshrined in international law if we’re worried about the US government changing the definition to suit its needs. And, there’s always the requirement for court approval to impose a limit on governmental power.


#12

Human rights aren’t inalienable, they’re malleable and retractable. That goes for ALL ‘human rights’.


#13

to bear a lethal weapon is not exactly safe :smiley: As I say a lot “you have the right to do anything until the points of purpose self harm to your self or to your peers”


#14

It can be extremely safe.

Might as knives then, all the way from butterfly knives to steak knives, they can be given the same purpose. Their purpose is not innate.


#15

I don’t think Gun Control is a bad thing but downright outlawing the ability to own a Gun, I think would be dangerous to our Freedoms.


#16

True but kitchen knives should only be taken out of the house unless they are being transported within the proper safe bagging…

How can carrying a weapon be safe? All it takes if for someone to piss u off for that to turn into a man slaughter case.


#17

Despite what you may think Americans do not go on shooting sprees when they get pissed off, if something like that happens you were probably not legally able to own a firearm anyway.


#18

Lol good luck regulating that

>implying no-one has any self-restraint at all

I’ve been pissed off with someone with a felling axe in my hand, I didn’t chop their head off.


#19

No but there are people out there who will… and we know that from school killing sprees it happens

Always a possibility tho


#20

Extremely little amount can be prevent without removing all firearms.

There are 87,000 glassing attacks per year in the UK, I don’t see you wanting to ban glasses.

People don’t go on sprees just because “muh annoyed”