Are you armed?

[dmoore19]

I like what Chris Rock said about solving this problem....don't try to regulate guns, just make bullets cost several thousands of dollars. It'll certainly make you think before shooting something.

The price of ammunition is already going sky high. With the current political winds blowing this could even get worse. Those who are for gun control are willing to just take one baby step at a time to get what they want. If anything like this occurrs it will be just one more right that will be taken away. And it will be replaced with an entitlement (from money made off of ammunition sales that will die off and we will be looking to replace that with what? more taxes?). Besides how well did making a pack of smokes unaffordable in Canada? Worked well didn't it. (not) Sorry couldn't resist that one. I really don't know if it has reduced smoking in Canada or not. Taxing the crap out of them here he doesn't seem to have made any difference. AT least from what I have seen.

The "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" attitude is around because others seem to think that it's ok let them make assult weapons illegal, its ok let them make mandatory registration of firearms the rule. One step at a time and pretty soon the attitude of "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" will be the only one left if you own or want to freely own firearms of any kind. I for one have firearms and have had them in my family my entire life. Before my constitutional rights are taken away from me are you ready? "They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers"

 

[DiverBeth]

I'll jump in. I'm not a big fan of guns. But I have to admit gun control is a tough subject. One of the big problems with gun ownership is separating the responsible gun owners from the rest. Some of the gun owners I know are very responsible and I have no problems with their gun ownership. Others I know scare the s&*t out of me. I've been at a couple of people's homes where the host had to show off their gun by waving it around and commenting that it's loaded. In one case when asked to put the gun away the "host" was offended (he wasn't drinking btw)

The people I know in both groups are law abiding citizens so where do we draw the line? Why would a private citizen need an assault rifle? To protect themselves from the government? If the government wants to get you an assault rifle will not stop them.

I know some people like to hunt or target shoot. I've shot a handgun at a pistol range and skeet a couple of times and yea it was kind of fun.

Many gun owners say they have a Constitutional right to "bear arms". What about the well regulated militia part?

Does gun ownership actually make us safer? I can quote statistics on both sides of this question. And yes criminals will always be able to get guns no matter what laws are on the books and the police can't be everywhere. Believe it or not criminals in the former Soviet Union (other then the government) had guns. I don't think the government really wants to take your guns away maybe with the exception of assault rifles and the like.

OK I've rambled on a bit. I know some wanted to hear from someone who wants to to take your guns away but these are my opinions.

 

[it_mike]

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." How many people serve within their state militia/guard programs instead of just 'wanting their right to have guns'?

Since you're Canadian, you may not know the American definition of militia:

10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

The operative part is section b(2). All U.S. Citizens are, by definition, members of the 'unorganized militia'.

The people I know in both groups are law abiding citizens so where do we draw the line? Why would a private citizen need an assault rifle? To protect themselves from the government? If the government wants to get you an assault rifle will not stop them.

The presumption is that they can't take all of us. The active armed forces is minuscule when compared to the citizenry of this nation. Also considering that a significant number of the armed forces would not take up arms against the citizenry, and you see where those rifles (not assault weapons) can tip the balance. There's a reason the Army has a standing program to arm and train citizens in OH.

 

[ekremer]

Maybe as an 'outsider'/non-American (look North and you'll get there), I can't see why there is such fervor to maintain access to assault-style weapons.

The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How many people serve within their state militia/guard programs instead of just 'wanting their right to have guns'?

Before the arrows fly...I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 5 years, and I grew up in a rural setting where firearms were a part of our lives. I have hunted on several occasions, and have several friends who are competitive target-shooters. I am not anti-gun. I am not targeting the hunters or competitors who use their firearms on a licensed range....You don't see them with assault-style weapons (at least I haven't).

I guess I wonder why, in this day and age, there is still the 'out of my cold, dead hands' mentality. How many people need to die each day in the States before that position will be re-examined.

I like what Chris Rock said about solving this problem....don't try to regulate guns, just make bullets cost several thousands of dollars. It'll certainly make you think before shooting something.

As for the colour of yellow (I think someone implied cowardice) for those suggesting that we get rid of guns....who needs more courage, the guy with the gun?

I will forgive you since you are Canadian, but you are asking the wrong question. We are the land of the free. A reason should be given for taking away our rights, instead of giving them. You basically stated that you can't see a reason to keep "assault style weapons" (that term I will get to in a moment), but the correct question to ask in a land of the free is what is it about an "Assault style weapon" that should be banned.

As for the term Assault style or Assault weapon, this makes no sense, is a Ruger 22 Long Rifle (Ruger 10/22®  Autoloading Rifles) a Assault style weapon? usually no. However, this works exactly the same as an AR-15, a semi auto weapon that fires relativly small cartridges. The difference is the looks, since when do we ban things based on the looks? (BTW canada allows AR-15's and Bull pup rifles ) An assault rifle is required by its definition to be automatic, those have been very hard to legally obtain since the ban on new automatic weapons in 1986.

And finally the 2nd Amendment. A militia as defined in this country as understood during the writing of this amendment can be found in the following text Militia Acts of 1792

Basically every citizen of the united states over the age of 18 is part of the militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms refers to the people, not the state, not the government. Anti 2A's will try to paint a different picture, but if you try to redefine the people it makes the constitution make no sense.
For instance the preamble "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" how can we the people refer to anything other than the individuals trying to create this goverment.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." if the People doesn't refer to individuals then MAN have we been doing elections wrong all these years.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If you use any of the other meanings of the people for the 1A assembling would get complicated. and who would they file their grievences.

etc. etc.

Now back to the 2A. The final phrase not looked at is "being necessary to the security of a free State" Which means, to me at least that the government banning equipment that would make it harder to defend the state from the federal government (like the 1986 automatic weapons ban) would be Illegal. but obviously im wrong here as the bill exists and has for a while.


Now for the overall reason on why I carry, let me first start with a ruling by the supreme court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
The headlines reads : "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone "

If the police have no duty to protect you then the only one that you can rely on when bad things happen is you, and it is a very good idea to be ready. Even if this was the case, when something bad happens it happens very quickly and it would be impossible for the police to help 99.9% of the time. Sure they have the potential to catch the guy after the fact, but to bad your already DEAD!

Some articles from my local rag:
Miramar murders: Multiple slaying victims found in house in Miramar -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Miramar police identify two victims in triple-slaying at house

Davie pool hall shooting: Pembroke Pines man denied bail in fatal shooting Monday morning -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Bail denied for man accused in fatal Davie pool hall shooting

Dunkin' Donuts customers shot in robberies in Delray Beach and Tamarac
Dunkin' Donuts robbed, customer shot in Tamarac a day after Delray shooting

Etc Etc Etc. You are responsible for you. No one else is. How you defend yourself is all up to you. I hope that my gun never leaves its holster outside of the range, but if it has to I am ready. Just like you keep a fire extinguisher to be ready in case of a fire, you hope it never happens to you, but in case it does its there.

 

[ekremer]

I'll jump in. I'm not a big fan of guns. But I have to admit gun control is a tough subject. One of the big problems with gun ownership is separating the responsible gun owners from the rest. Some of the gun owners I know are very responsible and I have no problems with their gun ownership. Others I know scare the s&*t out of me. I've been at a couple of people's homes where the host had to show off their gun by waving it around and commenting that it's loaded. In one case when asked to put the gun away the "host" was offended (he wasn't drinking btw)

The people I know in both groups are law abiding citizens so where do we draw the line? Why would a private citizen need an assault rifle? To protect themselves from the government? If the government wants to get you an assault rifle will not stop them.

I know some people like to hunt or target shoot. I've shot a handgun at a pistol range and skeet a couple of times and yea it was kind of fun.

Many gun owners say they have a Constitutional right to "bear arms". What about the well regulated militia part?

Does gun ownership actually make us safer? I can quote statistics on both sides of this question. And yes criminals will always be able to get guns no matter what laws are on the books and the police can't be everywhere. Believe it or not criminals in the former Soviet Union (other then the government) had guns. I don't think the government really wants to take your guns away maybe with the exception of assault rifles and the like.

OK I've rambled on a bit. I know some wanted to hear from someone who wants to to take your guns away but these are my opinions.

I am sorry you had an idiot waving a gun it happens, that is no reason to take my gun away. I try to be very safe at all times with my firearm.

Why would a private citizen need an assault rifle?
THIS HAS BEEN STATED A FEW TIMES IN THIS THREAD ALONE, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE ILLEGAL, WHAT YOU THINK IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE IS A SEMI AUTO RIFLE THAT LOOKS SCARY. ONCE YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE TERM ASSAULT RIFLE IS MADE TO SCARE YOU, HOPEFULLY YOU WILL STOP BEING SCARED.


As for need, Like I say above how can you be an American, from the land of the free and want to ask why should the government give you the right to own a certain type of firearm. The reason needs to be made on why you shouldn't. So why should I be barred from owning a semi-automatic AR-15?

Many gun owners say they have a Constitutional right to "bear arms". What about the well regulated militia part?

Learn your history, with Wikipedia its easy. I used to think like you, but a militia is everybody over the age of 18. its an age restriction not a who restriction. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The people means us as individuals, nothing else makes sense when you look at the constitution as a whole.


Does gun ownership actually make us safer?
Lets think about this. You are a criminal, your intent is to get money by taking others. You want to get the most money that you can for the least amount of risk. Would you prefer to go to A) Washington D.C. where gun ownership is nearly a crime or B) South Florida with several million Carry concealed weapons license holders walking around?

Criminals are looking for easy marks, and they want to go home alive. This in itself has been shown to lower crime, especially violent crime.


Now don't take it the wrong way. I do appreciate your side. You are trying to think of the good of the populace, you see the crime that happens with guns and you feel that removing that element will make everyone safer, but I wanted to clear up your misconseptions, and remove the garbage the media feeds us for years and years.

I used to think like that, I was very much against gun ownership as little as 2 years ago, however I realized that a person who has gone through the trouble of getting your finger prints, a mug shot, $170, and 6 months to be legally allowed to carry is going to try to do the right thing, and is not a threat.

Hell if you met me on the street you would not have a clue that I had a firearm on me.

 

[Wayward Son]

actually, true assault rifles are not illegal under federal law, nor that of most states. They do require special taxes & paperwork, but we can own them. We can own anything manufactured or imported prior to a specific date in the 2nd half of the 1980's. Thank you, bunghole bush 41.

Criminals do not go hat in hand to beg for permission to arm themselves, so why should I?

 

[divingbuddy]

Seems to me that I can say what I want...pray where I want...and heck, I could even marry another guy if I wanted too (and was gay, and wasn't already married to my wife).

So...how does my lack of a right to a smorgasborg of guns prevent me from being truly free?

Good try though...

let them take away our rights to bear arms..... then the rights to free speech will be next.

followed closely to rights to freedom of religion.

 

[divingbuddy]

Besides how well did making a pack of smokes unaffordable in Canada? Worked well didn't it. (not) Sorry couldn't resist that one. I really don't know if it has reduced smoking in Canada or not. Taxing the crap out of them here he doesn't seem to have made any difference. AT least from what I have seen.

Statistics Canada has repeatedly shown a strong correlation between higher prices and lower cigarette sales, particularly among the 16-24 year old group...but hey, we need the tax revenue!

The "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" attitude is around because others seeQUOTE=dmoom to think that it's ok let them make assult weapons illegal, its ok let them make mandatory registration of firearms the rule.

For what purpose do you truly need an assault style weapon? Maybe life is significantly different from where I live to where you live....I mean, there are only about 5 or 6 million people from over 100 different countries living within a half hour radius of my house, so I just might not be exposed to the elements of life that necessitate owning an assault style weapon....

I for one have firearms and have had them in my family my entire life.

Me too.

 

[divingbuddy]

Since you're Canadian, you may not know the American definition of militia:

10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

The operative part is section b(2). All U.S. Citizens are, by definition, members of the 'unorganized militia'.

Certainly makes it easy for those who don't want to commit to join an 'organized militia'. If only the framers of your country could have foreseen that times might change over the course of the next couple of centuries...In Canada, if you want to call yourself part of the militia, you sign up, get proper military training, and are bound by the rule of the Department of Defence. As an American, you might not know that.

 

[Wayward Son]

Canadians can do whatever they want, I won't interfere.

I'm an American. I'll fight to retain my rights, and yes, there are people organized & working in an effort to take them away.