is having a gun a right?

Well its a tad out dated. I mean, the whole point of the right to have arms was to allow the people to rebel with them, but technology has come a long way, should we have the right to bare tanks as well? Its definitely not a right I can say I unconditionally support, but I know if I felt like I ever needed a gun I would demand it for no other reason than it is my right to defend myself or what I believe in (in any case myself :P)

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Please try to answer the question. Do you feel that life would cease to exist if cars ceased to exist? If cars were really a requirement for life that is what would happen. We can talk all day about how the world would be a different place if certain very important tools (guns, cars, etc.) didn't exist, but to claim that such tools are a requirement for life is nothing short of silly and ignorant.thegerg

Sounds like a requirement to me.

I think you lost your train of thought in your argument btw.

I think you've completely lost your train of thought btw, if you had one...

I don't think having a gun is a right at all. Some can't handle the responsibility.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

First of all your making the assumption that if the situation described above were to arise, that just because automatic weapons were illegal, that people in a desperate situation against a rogue government would be unable to find and use them. If you think that is true, then it seems you are not acknowledging human history or society as a whole.

Additionally, Syria's situation is completely different, and it's really ridiculous to even compare. Syria represents a dictatorial style of government where un-opposed elections are held, so yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that an identical situation will not arise anytime in the near future in the U.S.

nunovlopes

Actually you don't know a thing about weapons imports.

Why do you think Russia is vetoing UN action in Syria? Weapon sales.

The problem with the USA is it's surrounded by water. It's a logistical nightmare. You would never be able to get the kind of weapons you would need inside the country if they didn't already exist here. Luckily they do.

Second, the reason why we have that right written into the constitution is to prevent a situation like Syria from ever arising. The idea isn't that we can defend our property if some criminal comes along, the very idea of having the right to weapons is so that when you are being pushed you can push right back. It's a massive deterrent. You won't see a situation like Syria because we have the access to guns in the first place.

As for having legal fully automatic weapons it's kind of pointless if you know anything about firearms. There is a reason why the M16A4 rifle doesn't even have a fully automatic mode and no solider outside of a support gunner is going to use fully automatic on any assault rifle that actually supports that mode.

As long as we can buy 5.56x45, 5.56x39, and 7.62x39 ammo and the weapons to fire that ammo, having full auto is a moot point.

Americans really are gun crazy... Just the fact you can accurately name ammo and weapons tells me all I need to know...5.56x45, 5.56x39, and 7.62x39, I have no idea what that means!

This notion that people should have the right to bear arms to fight a rogue government seems a bit silly to me. Basically, whoever controls the military controls the country. A bunch of people would never be able to organize well enough to fight a trained and well-equiped military.

Any COD yeilding pre-teen could tell you about 7.62 and 5.56 ammo types; it's really very common knowledge.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Haha. On what do you base such a statistic? That's just silly. Civilizations existed for thousands and thousands of years before cars. They are neither a requirement for life nor for agriculture. Anyway, even if that were the case, you will still see that cars are not a requirement for life, because life would still exist. Moving on, were guns to be outlawed 98% of the population would be killed. Thus, guns are a requirement for life.thegerg

I think you've completely lost your train of thought btw, if you had one...

Like I said, you're the master of thinking it half throught.

Well its a tad out dated. I mean, the whole point of the right to have arms was to allow the people to rebel with them, but technology has come a long way, should we have the right to bare tanks as well? Its definitely not a right I can say I unconditionally support, but I know if I felt like I ever needed a gun I would demand it for no other reason than it is my right to defend myself or what I believe in (in any case myself :P)

RandomWinner

You can legally own tanks, you don't even need a special permit for a lot of them. They just have to have their weapons disabled.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, that doesn't mean that the majority of the population would die. Food purveyors wouldn't throw in the towel and let their businesses fail, and their customers wouldn't stand around in empty grocery stores waiting for trucks that won't come. You're being silly. People would adapt. You still have yet to support your ignorant claim that cars are a requirement for life. thegerg

Like I said, you're the master of thinking it half throught.

Please try to act like an adult, there is no need for childish insults.

I think you don't know anything about industry or economics on top of guns or cars.

You are literally too stupid to debate with. I'm done.

Owning and carrying, at least a concealed handgun, or openly carrying a rifle or shotgun (Like hunter's do in trucks) should always be a right in America and maybe even the world (this depends on the level of corruption and training) if there is a legit way to train people to handle, carry, fire, and teach the laws of when you can and can't use and when and where you can carry.

Criminals will always be able to find weapons on the black market. People who want to strip all people of their guns as if the police will be everywhere at once is just asinine. On a much lesser note, it's sort of a deterrent if a country decides to invade. Just look at Black Hawk Down and Red Dawn. Don't mess with rebels with guns. lol

You can legally own tanks, you don't even need a special permit for a lot of them. They just have to have their weapons disabled.

Wasdie

if you want to fight the government of the USA with little toy guns and automatic rifles then go ahead. I will be on the other side of canada laughing while the military strikes you with missile launchers, F1 jets, apache helicopters, aircraft carriers, nukes and nuclear submarines. Not to mention armored tanks...lazer beams, satellite tracking, UAV, drones etc etc. The US military isn't a joke...they have almost 1 million men, and those 1 million would probably be enough to wipe out the rest of the 300 million + population if they wanted to. Moral of the story is guns aren't meant for personal protection or right to fight the government. They just make killing too easy and should be banned. If you want to defent your property then buy a katana (japanese sword), machete, crossbow. I don't mind if those are legal

blaznwiipspman1

1) It would not be that easy to just order the US military to fire on the people of the US. 2) The US military will not wipe out 300 million people, if we do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would of ended very diffrently. Also (God forbid) the people of the US start taking up arms, they will not face the military toe to toe.

Also banning firearms is one thing. Keeping them out of the hands of criminals is another. What if someone breaks into you house with an illegal firearm. You little knife, and crossbow is not going to do much.

People lived and died for many a year without the need for vehicles. Until the invention of the wheel there was always a way to move stuff around. As civilization has advanced, we have created more utile instruments for transporting the needed goods. People would start growing more food for themselves again and probably hunt more often (using a multitude of different ways to obtain what they want to eat).

People would live in more compact communities so goods do not need to be transported as far. People would also make more of the clothing they wear. Hmmm, a resurgence of some close to lost arts such as sewing and actually fixing stuff if it has a rip instead of just throwing it out.

There may be some sarcasm in the above, but the fact is, no one really needs to own a car. If someone chooses to live 30 miles from where they work, it is their choice to do so and in the end forces them to have to buy something that could be done away with if they didn't live so far away.

Yes, for those right in the head at least.