Do you think average citizens of any state should have the right to bear weapons (e.g. guns)?

As a firearms safety instructor and small arms shooting coach. I see no problem with anyone owning a firearm. As long as its used in a safe and responsible manner. No firearm has ever killed someone by its self. Until a human becomes involved a firearm is just another tool used by a number of professions and sports alike. The problem as i see it is how people have taken the Constitution and twisted its meaning. so that they feel they can do just about anything they want when it comes to firearms.

The Constitution gives persons the right to keep and bear arms in aid of the common defence. IE to raise a volunteer army and assist in defending the country. It doesn't say you can own a MAC 10 or SPEC 9 and hose down your nabours at will. Or shoot the guy across the street for stealing your paper on sunday mornings.

dels replies

NO NO NO NO who do they need to defend against. You cant legislate for nutters.

camilla h

No. How do you define the 'average' citizen and who decides if they are fit to bear weapons?

Clown Knows

Our Constitution guarantees the right to own and bear arms.

The Constitution was written that way to prevent the creation of a dictatorship, not necessarily just to hunt.

Politicians and gun control advocates in recent years have been arrested for illegally owning guns while living in Washington DC. They said that they should be exempt from the laws when arrested.

jjc92787

I think gun ownership and licensing should be similar to driving. You should have to take a written test and then a test in a simulated environment to show that you are capable of owning a gun. There should also be some kind of monitoring system on the gun so that it is known where you have the gun and what you are using it for.

Venice Girl

No. The right to bear arms was a law that was written over 200 years ago when we were fighting for our right to be an independent country on this soil and also when we had to use guns to hunt for food and to fend off wild animals. We do not have any of these needs or threats any longer. Laws and rules do not and cannot remain the same forever. As people and societies change, so too should our laws.

amsterdam

No, it shouldn't be a right. Perhaps it should be a privilege, for which a hard-won licence is required. I'm always terrified when in the US, because so many are armed. But interesting to see that those in favour of guns for all are also totally contemptuous of the UK. Well, the rest of humanity, really, poor souls.

Steveo, while your heart is in the right place, my love, the right to "bare arms" isn't at all the same thing !

earl

you have a right to defend your castle.if an intruder is armed,so you have the right to be armed.lets not fool ourselves.you can buy a gun in a lot of undercounter places if one really wanted to.

The Instructor

Yes but people need to be taught more about them and better training and control and most of all RESPECT FOR THEM! i think some americans cant differenciate films from reality. Most of these massacres happen in america. Whereas countries like switzerland, austrailia and new zealand dont have this problem or its not anywhere near the same scale. even look across the border to canada you can buy guns but hardly if ever any massarces. Also if its another of these emo/goth types i think legeslation should be brought in to evaluate this culture(same as it should gansta rap) to see why these people do this.

mr_sinister

i don't have a problem with well regulated gun ownership per se, it's just the time of weapons that seem to be legal in some states of the US, like assault weapons. If you want to shoot those, join the army.

I live in London U.K.

And i think that gun controls in this country should be even tighter than they already are!

No one should have the right to indiscriminately kill others. And whilst i have no doubt that lots of Americans don't feel that's the way it is, all we ever see of America on the news here seems to do with gun crime because crazy people buy them and go on a "spree" (like today) or kids have got hold the parents loaded weapons and killed their siblings/friends/themselves it's all such a terrible shame and a needless waste of life that could easily be stopped if no one was allowed to carry weapons like that.

I know you can't cut it out altogether, But you can at least try.

ThaiGold

O.K. so the government outlaws guns, everyone else is happy. It lasts for awhile. But today Castro's brother (now declared presidente of Cuba) decides he wants the FLA Keys for his land, or the Commies come back and invade our motherland. How do we defend our land? How can I stop that invader from coming into my house killing me raping my wife and children and burning my town to the ground. I was forced to give all my guns to the Senator in a "get guns off the street" campaign. So now I have a Bowie knife to defend myself NOW against an invading force with M-16's, And the military is still 10 hours away preparing a counter operation. Is that how you want it to go down? Our forefather's wrote that article of the Bill Of Rights with the specific intention of a single man being able to defend his god-given right to live when someone is trying to take it away. Whether it be another person, a foreign, or a local government, they did not want the people of this country unable to defend themselves. And at the time it was written we DID have a national defense, you may remember a word called militia. It doesn't just mean drug smugglers in South America. It also refers to the men who banded in the colonies to defend their land, somewhat like the Coast Guard. Yes it is true our government has more defense for us now then we ever could alone, but how likely is it that they will think in our interest if we only have voices. That was another one of their checks and balances you might've heard of (if you stayed in school). If the government gets to corrupt we still have the ability to rise up and revolt, which is something they thought about and intended. It is illegal guns and criminals with them that we should worry about. Just so you know, I very strongly agree with the legislation being talked about, stating a legal gun owner will face severe charges if he does not report a lost, stolen, or sold gun. That is a good step forward, not the outright banning of guns. I read someone elses answer elsewhere, he made a good point. What about that guy who purposely drove his car into a crowd of people and injured more than 20 killing some. Oh my god Ban cars, they are killers. We have planes and trains and buses to get around, why do we still need them. To the people who say we have other people to defend us, I say I laugh at the day you are waiting for someone else to come rescue or protect you.

Older&Wiser

No - too many people can't be trusted with firearms.

Mr Sceptic

Do the sums.

USA where everyone has a gun, 15000 + homicides by shooting per year.

UK with gun control, less than 100 homicides by shooting per year.

But you'd be a fool and a communist to suggest there was any link between having a gun and shooting someone, and not having a gun and not shooting them.

Henry VIII

Most people who own firearms are responsible citizens who have no intentions of going around having shoot outs with police or shooting up colleges. Unfortunately the kooks that do such things rekindles a debate about firearm possession.

For protection of their homes and for recreational purposes there is nothing wrong with owning firearms. I don't believe the average citizen needs an UZI, AK47 or a Bazooka but a couple of rifles, a shot gun and/or a pistol or two should be plenty for anyone. Gun enthusiasts should have special licenses to go beyone a reasonable amount of firearm ownership or to own any of the exotic firearms I mentioned above. The purpose would be to be able to track the firearm if it is stolen or somehow falls into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime. If one takes care of normal firearms, handles them properly in the proper setting there should be no problem at all.

Personally I don't care about the people across the pond and what laws they have. It is because of those people across the pond that our Constitution has the Second Amendment. A dictator has a much tougher time taking control of an armed society than one that has systematically been disarmed. The founding fathers knew this and it is as relevant today as it was then.

Steveo G

no, the whole bare arms thing was needed at the time when America wasn't formed yet and there was no real national defence or police. That's why citizens could be called apon as militia and they needed guns for that. Now guns are nothing but trouble.

naseldrip

People who live in the U.K.have gradually become prisoners and inmates in their own country with no freedoms,their government is watching every move they make and the sad thing is they have accepted this, so their government will become gradually more and more oppressive,the next move is cameras and microphones in every home so they can watch and listen to them every second of their lives,yes you should be allowed to own guns,the guns are still flowing into the U.K.despite the idiotic gun laws.

mudmarine

That's across the POND, totally irrelevant in America.

GARY C

Yes..............
Perhaps the people that own cell phones, or Internet connections need to be regulated....But not guns!

Scenario A:

Crazed crackhead enters the home with intent to kill, rape, steal.............You call the cops and patiently wait the forty five minutes for them to arrive...And twittle the time away by lets say being bludgeoned to death....

Then the funeral.

Scenario B

Crazed crackhead enters my home with intent to kill, rape, steal.............I take the shotgun from in front of the door (I'm looking at right now.) Put a hole through the torso about the size of a watermelon.......
Call the cops....
Stand trial and be found not guilty....(Justifiable homicide)

Then the funeral..

I prefer to choose who's funeral its going to be!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: