Do Americans need guns?

Posted by: sgillum97

Why do we even need guns? The 2nd Amendment says "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." Keep that in mind.

Poll closed on 4/6/2014 at 1:00AM.
Vote
28 Total Votes
1
VOTING CLOSED

Yes, we do need guns because...

8 votes
5 comments
2
VOTING CLOSED

No, we don't need guns because...

8 votes
3 comments
3
VOTING CLOSED

It depends on the reason

8 votes
2 comments
4
VOTING CLOSED

Hell yes!

The 2nd Amendment is just like the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is a right that is not to be infringed and one that every American has a right to. It's sole purpose is to preserve the country, Constitution, liberties, and freedoms...  we had. If the government is tyrannical, the American people have the right to bear arms. It is extremely ignorant to say that history will not repeat itself here in America   more
2 votes
0 comments
5
VOTING CLOSED

Everyone needs guns

1 vote
0 comments
6
VOTING CLOSED

No we can beat people to death with our burgers

1 vote
0 comments
7
VOTING CLOSED

STFU or I'll shoot you in the face!

0 votes
0 comments
8
VOTING CLOSED

Phasers?

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
jery1569 says2014-04-03T12:41:08.0742145-05:00
@sgillum97-"...The right of the people..." What did you think that meant?
johnnyamundson says2014-04-03T13:02:48.1764459-05:00
Jery, what do you think 'need' means? The question isn't whether owning a gun is a right or not, but whether people in the United States have a need for guns.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T13:05:40.0572459-05:00
When the constitution was made it allowed the average citizen to acquire a musket which was by far the strongest weapon at the time. This allowed anyone to rebel against an oppressive government and was great for liberty I only wish the government hadn't got to the point in which it had nuclear bombs (chaos would ensue if citizens had nuclear warheads at their disposal.)
jery1569 says2014-04-03T15:17:04.9205939-05:00
@johnnyamundson-Yes I know that. I posted what I posted because of what he wrote below his question.
AdamKG says2014-04-03T15:21:45.0012924-05:00
@Actionsspeak According to your statement you should have voted for "It depends on the reason". I think everybody would agree here that we need more gun regulation; it is just about what regulations and how much more that is debatable. Having virtually no restriction on who can get a gun and what kind is inviting violence and chaos. @everyone else: All of this needing guns to fight an "oppressive government uprising" is ridiculous! We have a volunteer military force that would not obey orders from the government to violently oppress their own people. I have spoken with many members of the military and they all say they would sooner rise against the government giving the orders than attack its own people. Our military is not filled with mindless zombies who would obey any order their government gave without question. From my experience it is actually filled with rather intelligent and educated people. So... Why exactly do all of us untrained and non-professionals need all of these weapons outside of licensed hunting? Even hunting weapons don't need to be automatic and tactical to perform its function.
jery1569 says2014-04-03T15:36:19.6796155-05:00
@AdamKG & N80211-Don't you guys believe in law abiding citizens protecting themselves and their families?
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T15:39:15.5228155-05:00
@jery ---- Just one great reason of many, for the case of gun rights
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T15:43:05.8978001-05:00
Double standards are also complicated matter with this. Democrats believe allowing citizens access to guns will only result in crime, meanwhile they believe allowing citizens access to drugs will only decrease crime (source: prohibition).
jery1569 says2014-04-03T15:45:03.4981781-05:00
That's because democrats are idiots.
jery1569 says2014-04-03T15:47:17.5023386-05:00
Actually they're half right. Access to both would decrease crime, but they should only legalize marijuana.
Venusara says2014-04-03T16:05:15.5099232-05:00
Holy generalizations
IamPlato says2014-04-03T16:57:05.9670619-05:00
Jery1569 by your logic, if democrats are idiots, then republicans are slobbering inbred, hypocritical, hate filled, greed mongering, bible thumping, poverty imposing, self righteous, women hating, ideology unknowing, narrow mined, scheming, scamming, political backstabbing half wits? Yes?
AdamKG says2014-04-03T17:39:53.0000620-05:00
@jery1569: Of course, I believe in people being able to defend themselves and their families. Everyone has the right to self defense. A firearm is a very powerful weapon that can cause massive amounts of destruction, especially with the ability to fire large amounts of ammunition in automatic. I do not understand why people feel they need such weapons to such simple purposes that any other type of weapon would suffice such as a manually operated weapon with no detachable magazine. Automatic and tactical weapons should be restricted to professionals who are trained and intended to use them. When you see advertisements for such weapons like ones made by LWRCI or Daniel Defense you see them in the hands of professional law enforcement and soldiers; that is because those are the people the engineers who designed the weapon intended them to be used by. There is no logical reason for non-professional people to be armed with automatic and tactical weapons. As for defending your home, I would suggest having a family plan made out, much like a fire escape plan, to escape from your home in the event of a break-in. Let police handle armed criminals because unless you are a trained professional you have no clue what you are doing and for all you know the armed criminal (or criminals) does. You are just endangering you are your family more by trying.
cucommonsense says2014-04-03T17:46:23.6524213-05:00
@AdamKG, The idea that history will repeat itself as the Founding Fathers knew and that they tried to prepare future Americans for that time, that's ridiculous? Are you joking? I'm sorry, but I think I'll take the word of the people who founded this country and fought for their liberties. The 2nd Amendment is absolutely no exception.
AdamKG says2014-04-03T17:58:39.0574166-05:00
@cucommonsense, you do realize the time period that was written in, right? 1787; 227 years ago! While I am by no means suggesting we throw it out because it is vitally important (minus two outdated amendments) and because our founding fathers were brilliant and enlightened people, but this still has to be considered as well. The Constitution was written back when the musket was the top-of-the-line military weapon and could not at all cause the immense destruction that modern weapons can cause. All of the deadly shootings that has happened could not have been caused by a 18th century musket. I think if our founding fathers could see our nation now they would be wondering why the hell do we still have almost completely unrestricted rights to firearms. That amendment was also written when our government was fragile and still subject to negative oppressive government reform. I think we are safe from that now seeing that our government has remained as it is for over two hundred years. You also have to consider my previous argument; we have nothing to fear from our government because they do not possess the ability to oppress us. Our military would not obey orders to violently oppress us and would sooner turn on a government who would try.
cucommonsense says2014-04-03T20:25:44.4443547-05:00
@AdamKG, Really? That's not how it was in Nazi Germany, people WILLINGLY followed Hitler into war AND genocide. Saying that the Founding Fathers did not envision the future is also completely incorrect. Take the puckle gun for example, invented in 1718 (an "autocannon"). Obviously they were looking to the future because that's why they added the Bill of Rights in order to preserve the Constitution and keep the power in the people's hands.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T20:41:08.6994778-05:00
@Adam ---- You fail to understand the constitution was made to grant citizens basic human rights that have been essential in a free nation for +2 centuries and will be essential for centuries to come. It was even made so that it would never fall out of date and have to be replaced, their is even room for amendments to be added as time passes. Also many of the shootings could be fixed with a slightly increased school staff or a more humanitarian. (Note: a musket could kill just as many people as a gun today it would simply take longer, and back them response to crime was much much slower so just as much damage or more would be done then in the event of an assault.)
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T20:51:57.7557933-05:00
@cucommonsense ---- The effects of a gun ban in america wouldn't be comparable to the effects of German'y ban if 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs were detonated then the smoke would block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. ---- The U.S. Currently has 7,700 nuclear bombs.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-03T20:54:23.3684248-05:00
I have alot of US strength statistics listed at the end of round 4 in this debate, if you wish to check this out. ---- http://www.Debate.Org/debates/Should-Americans-promote-the-use-of-nuclear-weapons/1/
AdamKG says2014-04-03T23:26:58.4926891-05:00
@Actionsspeak: "...The constitution was made to grant citizens basic human rights that have been essential in a free nation for +2 centuries and will be essential for centuries to come." I understand that completely as I said earlier "I am by no means suggesting we throw it out because it is vitally important". If I was among the founding fathers I would have supported the amendment as well because it was important for the time and they didn't have the incredible deadly firearms we have today. However, I do not consider owning overly powerful weapons a basic human right as I do believe in a person's right to live more. Allowing these weapons to overflow the public to end up falling into the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable violates peoples' right to live safely which is a basic human right. "It was even made so that it would never fall out of date and have to be replaced, their is even room for amendments to be added as time passes." I believe almost everything falls out of date at some point in the future including ideas; it just depends on when. I think it is ignorant to think something will never fall out of date at some point. As great as our founding fathers were you cannot assume they knew everything or account for everything. They were not all-knowing gods and could not tell the future. Even they knew this which is why they made the amendment process. I believe the Second Amendment should be modified to limit it within reason to only give professional people (soldiers, law enforcement, and security contractors) and licensed hunters the right to bear arms. Competition shooters may be included as well. "Also many of the shootings could be fixed with a slightly increased school staff or a more humanitarian." I am not sure what you mean by this, but I would like to see your explanation behind this statement. The humanitarian idea sounds interesting. "a musket could kill just as many people as a gun today it would simply take longer..." That is exactly my point. A shooter, especially in close quarters, would be far less successful in a shooting where it would take him/her nearly a minute to fire between shots. It would also probably be less attractive of a crime as well if they couldn't have the firepower and efficiency of a modern automatic weapon. "...Back them response to crime was much much slower so just as much damage or more would be done then in the event of an assault." I think that would be greatly dependent on the given situation and the many different variables that would be involved. I question the credibility of that statement. Also, it is an obvious fact that shootings is a much bigger issue today than it was at any time in American history. Shootings wasn't really an issue back then. Shootings didn't really become a major issue in the U.S. until about the 1980's when some of the deadliest were committed. It has only progressed since then. One of the obvious variables that has changed since then is a the availability of advanced firearms to the general public.
jery1569 says2014-04-04T21:02:44.9824899-05:00
@IamPlato-I agree 100%. That's why I'm an independent centrist.
jery1569 says2014-04-04T21:08:06.2197491-05:00
@AdamKG-How would you suggest taking fully automatic weapons away from gangbangers? Gun control laws won't do that. Law abiding citizens can't buy a Mac-10 or a Tec-9 because they're not sold at gun stores or gun shows, but gangbangers can get them on the streets. That's why law abiding citizens feel safer with a semi-automatic AR-15. Especially if they live in high crime areas.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.