What say you? Are you for or against this right? Do you feel that the right to "bear arms" is something age old, and we the "people" don't really need guns? Do you feel that the "militia," for which this amendment was "intended," no longer exists, therefore we no longer need this amendment?

I am FOR the bearing of arms. If we give up this right, there is NO stopping the government of stripping our rights, and they will continue to take away.

I'm for it.

For it. It is common sense.

If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's going to be empty."

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous.. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."

I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~ Thomas Jefferson

ernest_t_bass wrote: If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

Because a lot of people don't have any common sense. Most of them lie on the left. There are statistics that show crime going up in cities that ban guns.
Here is what happened in Australia, where the city of Victoria gun homicides rose 300% after the ban!! http://current.com/1eu9m4c

iclfan2 wrote: For it. It is common sense.

what makes it common sense?

Glory Days wrote:

iclfan2 wrote: For it. It is common sense.

what makes it common sense?

I'd say, provide why it is NOT common sense in your question to iclfan.

It's common sense because some of us like to be able to protect ourselves from people breaking into our house or just like to go hunting. The left live in this fantasy world where people tell intruders to get off their property and they leave without a tussle. It's pretty shitty that because inner city kids pack heat and shoot other kids the rest of us may have to suffer without the right to own a gun for recreation or protection.

Glory Days wrote:

iclfan2 wrote: For it. It is common sense.

what makes it common sense?

Well one would be to be able to hunt your own food should you ever need to. 2nd would be to protect your property from intruders. 3rd would be what it says, to protect yourself from government takeover. There is no reason I can even think of to not have a gun, because criminals and the government will always have one, so the public (barring being a felon and things like that) should be allowed to have one too.

There should be a law that says every household should have a firearm.

We can play the statistics game all day. I really dont have much of a problem with guns, but i like to point out the other side of the story.

States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Not going to pay to read the article, here is the abstract:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed at Least 9 Law Enforcement Officers, 98 Private Citizens Since May 2007
http://www.vpc.org/press/0912ccw.htm

I am FOR the right to bear arms, also. And, I've already exercised my right.

Main reason: It can take up to 45 minutes for the sheriff to get to my house on a good run. If somebody broke into my house and attacked me/my family, my blood would be jelly by the time the police got to my house.
OR
Best case scenario: Somebody breaks into my house and attacked me/my family, at the very least I can fire a warning shot and scare them off. Plan B of this scenario is that the intruder's blood is congealed by the time the police got to my house.

Either way, I hope neither case EVER happens. But, if it does, I'll at least have the means to protect myself and my family.

Not everybody wants to have a gun(s) in their home, and that is fine. I have no interest in brow-beating those people.
But we all know that there are groups of people out there who want to brow-beat gun owners into submission to THEIR ideology, and frankly, it is none of their business.

You should have the right to defend yourself and not have to rely on others to do so for you. The 2nd amendment IMO is correct. To note I own no guns and really do not even like them in any way however I am a fan of liberty and those who enjoy guns should have the right to own them and for that matter carry them in public if they like. I favor CC.

iclfan2 wrote:3rd would be what it says, to protect yourself from government takeover.

THIS would be my main reason for owning one, if and when I do.

CenterBHSFan wrote: .

Not everybody wants to have a gun(s) in their home, and that is fine. I have no interest in brow-beating those people.
But we all know that there are groups of people out there who want to brow-beat gun owners into submission to THEIR ideology, and frankly, it is none of their business.

Yes brow beaters who wish to force others into their ideology are wrong. Liberty should reign in ALL the issues that do not harm anyone. Flag burning, gun ownership etc.

Glory Days wrote: We can play the statistics game all day. I really dont have much of a problem with guns, but i like to point out the other side of the story.

States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Not going to pay to read the article, here is the abstract:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed at Least 9 Law Enforcement Officers, 98 Private Citizens Since May 2007
http://www.vpc.org/press/0912ccw.htm

I don't feel like going through those statistics, but I will say that my rights shouldn't be based on how others may abuse a right.

Those who argue for gun control should also argue for strict alcohol control since drunk drivers kill a good number of people.

But you are also missing the statistic that shows where guns are used more than 1,000 times a day in the defense of property.

The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world and it's because guns are so involved in their culture. Criminals would think twice if all households had someone living there willing to use a gun to protect themselves.

Besides, owning a gun is the people's last defense against a tyrannical government. You can't take that away from people.

Seems that most agree with the right to own guns.

Now do you think they should all be registered?

Completely for it.

No, it should not have to be registered. Just another way for the government to watch over you and actually discourage people from getting guns to protect themselves. Criminals don't buy guns at gun stores, they buy them off the black market. Registration only hurts the people who aren't criminals (i.e. our tax dollars funding another government intrusion, discouraging ownership of guns, etc.).

bigmanbt wrote: The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world and it's because guns are so involved in their culture. Criminals would think twice if all households had someone living there willing to use a gun to protect themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

Homicides per 100,000 pop
Australia 1.3
England 1.6
Switzerland 2.9
USA 5.9

Homicides per 100,000 pop
Australia 1.3
England 1.6
Switzerland 2.9
USA 5.9

^^^^^All caused by gunshot wounds are were these figures a tally of a combination of reasons? I only scanned down through your link.

Definitely in favor of the 2nd amendment...I won two guns and would like to buy another one.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to ask him what his intentions are. Also, like many others, I live in the country and it would be a while before the police got here. Shoot first, ask questions later.

I own guns for hunting and personal protection. I'm not going to stop a government takeover with my 12 gauge shotgun and .22 pistol.