Debate:Do Americans have a right to own firearms?

From RationalWiki

This is a Debate Page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story
But keep it civil or we will like totally do... something involving something that could be considered in some way hurtful. This Debate was created by HeartOfGold

---

Do Americans have a right to own firearms?

Contents 1 Initial negotiations 2 Yes 2.1 HeartOfGold's shot 2.2 MountainTiger's qualification 2.3 Some IP & Human's perspective 2.4 Of course 2.5 Yes, but "Rights" don't have to be unlimited 2.6 Capercorn's spin on things 3 No 4 Yes and no

[edit] Initial negotiations

From the way the question is framed I'd guess it refers to small arms. But below what caliber - and why? And humans - presumably over - what - 15? So I also think the question needs to be sharpened up. I also feel the proposer needs to refine the question - not the respondents.--Bob_M (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I made this debate to appease others who wanted to debate. If you don't want to debate, fine...do some real research on the second amendment then. Heart♥Gold^{Call me a name} 21:04, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

If you want a moral debate the question should be: "Should adults have the right to own lethal weapons?" (Where lethal weapons are defined as "instruments whose sole or main purpose is to kill or injure people".)--Bob_M (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Yes

[edit] HeartOfGold's shot

Yes. And the Bill of rights recognizes this right. However, like most of the "rights" in the Bill of Rights, the right to self defense exists whether or not a government recogizes it. Heart♥Gold^{Deny you're a communist} 21:22, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] MountainTiger's qualification

Obviously yes, but the Second Amendment does not necessarily disallow regulation entirely.--MountainTiger 22:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Obviously, the Supreme Court and Congress agree. Also, the practical issue of regulation gets thorny. Heart♥Gold^{Illustrate effects of HRT overdose} 22:04, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I do believe in the right to own firearms, even though I own none. However, I believe that the right also confers upon states the ability to make regulations as they feel necessary. (One of the reasons I supported Howard Dean was because of his common sense view on this--let each state and locality make it's own rules.) Researcher 03:30, 22 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Some IP & Human's perspective

Yes, but only weapons from the era it was written in. People shouldn't have the right to a sub machine gun just because some piece of paper written in an era of 5-minute-reload-time-guns says they should have 'arms'--142.68.54.241 18:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I agree, the right own and carry muzzleloaders and flintlocks is clearly enshrined. What about cannon, though? I guess they aren't very easy to move around, or even aim, of course. human ^{- over 12 edits!} 19:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Of course

Otherways, how's them supposed to kill people? --127.0.0.1 12:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

The old fashioned way, you BURN them! CЯacke® 15:34, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Wait, u dont use FIREarms fur BURNzing? Oh.. --256.384.444.999 08:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)

The idea of political revolution is what comes to mind. I hate hunting; I loathe street violence. I am not a big fan of guns, however with a gun comes power. This power cannot be concentrated in one place without it being abused. ^{— Unsigned, by: 128.208.37.113 / talk / contribs}

[edit] Yes, but "Rights" don't have to be unlimited

Hey, even free speech has its limits, as in rules against slander and the classic "You can't falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" principle. It's not taking away anyone's rights to own guns to:

1. Require that every gun be registered and that registrations be kept current, as with cars
2. Place partial liability on the owner of a gun for it's improper use by others (friends/kids/crooks), unless the gun was reported as stolen/missing first.
3. Require that any gun owner pass a safety test and be licensed, as with cars
4. Require that all ammunition sold be tagged in a way to make their distribution traceable
5. Limit the types of guns that individuals can own. If cars have to be "street-legal", then so can guns, by banning automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, etc.
6. Regulate where & how they are allowed to be carried at the state level - if my state wants to ban concealed carry and yours doesn't, or my city wants to allow rifles but ban handguns, have a party.

Outside of that, it seems like there's a lot of latitude for expressing one's love of guns (sadly).--SpinyNorman 21:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. -The Almighty Tuna 08:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Capercorn's spin on things

As a gun owner my self, I must say that most forms of firearms should be legal for persons capable of using brains. But if you screw up, as in, shoot somebody, commit a fealony, or are declared mentally insane, you shouldn't have a firearm. In additon, some firearms who's sale should be restricted are: Fully Automatic weapons (not semi-auto or handguns). Explosive ammunition. These should be banned from normal folks (except in instances where one has a warrant from the Government to carry such things, or those with BATFE permits allowing) I am a hunter, among other things, but if your out in the boonies, I can tell you this, bears hurt and bears need quite a bit of umph to take down. For this reason, Pilots in Alaska are required to carry .50 caliber handguns while flying, for the express purpose of taking down polar bears if forced to make an emergency landing. For those who don't know, Polar Bears are Homo sapians sapians only natural preadator. As another intersting note, those with concealed-carry weapons permits from various states are one of the fewest crime commiting demographics in the country. People who legally procure firearms rarely use them for malevolent, illegal purposes. Capercorn 22:05, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] No

.."endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Constitution makes no such similar claim.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:52, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I am confused. The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are two different documents, but I do not understand how their difference led you to your "no" stance. Heart♥Gold^{Illustrate effects of HRT overdose} 21:58, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

"the right to self defense exists whether or not a government recogizes it"..a natural law argument, made in the Declaration, but explicitly left out of the Constitution in favor of a more detailed document.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:03, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't really understand your point. The DOI declared independance, and also provided a rational basis for this independance. The Constitution defined the government and enumerated the power of that government. Later, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, which was a hot button topic, with some arguing that it was completely unnecessary in light of the DOI, and enumerated powers. Heart♥Gold^{Preach to somebody not in the choir} 22:07, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Given that the BOR was ratified, and is a major part of modern american law, why did the framers, who thought out every word very carefully, mention a well-regulated militia??--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:10, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I see. It was a rational basis. The wording was debated from what I remember from my studies. In any vent, the militia is not the right--keeping and bearing arms is. The militia was "a" or "the" rational basis of the right, but not the right. And, if your view is that it we don't need militias anymore (I think we do, especially along the Mexican border), then amend the constitution. It's easy. It's been done. And in at least one case, undone. Heart♥Gold^{Cry Like a little girl} 22:18, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

The Bill of Rights refers to the arms of that time and age, and does not apply to .50 caliber 3-mile range arms. What possible purpose could they serve? ✡ ՔՎɌ⟰

True. I think the second amendment enshrines the right of all rural farmers to own and have at the ready muzzle-loaded rifles and reasonably accurate (a three feet) flintlock pistols. Obviously. human ^{be in} 00:55, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Yes and no

First, I must say this:

Follow the Constitution? Pshaw. Such a thing is eligible to change anyways. It's not logical to answer the question brought forth by pointing to the Constitution as if it were an answer when we're supposed to be debating the rationale of the question and the rationale of the right granted by the 2nd Amendment. I think we have to look at this from a standpoint that excludes the Constitution to do so. The debate's wording calls for the status quo, but does not call for us to look at the Constitution per se. It says, "Do Americans have a right", which leads me to believe it asks us for our moral standpoint on the issue, as opposed to (if it had read): "Do Americans have the right", which the answer would be yes, because the Constitution says we do and leaves us with less to debate about.

There is no whole "yes" or "no" answer. I think it's circumstantial really.

I've personally never liked firearms, perhaps from a moral standpoint; I don't believe the best response to violence is violence, though I'm not a pacifist. I don't think that firearms themselves are to blame for crime, but do they enable violent criminal activities? Sure. Are firearms also used for recreational purposes which I am subjectively against? Yes. But I think cost-benefit analysis is what we have to look at here. If Americans don't have a right to own firearms, what is lost? There is no trade-off of liberty for safety here, because an effective law enforcement and a strong military would still be provided and there is no solid evidence to support the claim that the ownership of a gun makes an individual more safe. Additionally, guns are not the only means by which individuals protect themselves, so I ask you, do you see a trade-off between liberty and safety? I do not.

But what's gained? As I said before, the evidence is arguable. I'm quite happy with the status quo. I think that every right is conditional, whether it be the freedom of speech or the right to bare arms. I support strong gun control. --e|m|c ^[TALK] 20:14, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Well, the US is never gonna get "gun-free" - ther are too many for that solution. Recreational use? Under controlled circumstances? All good and well. Joe Jackass out hunting who shoots a woman in her backyard because "he thought she was deer"? (this actually happened). At the very least, Joe Jackass should not ever be allowed to own a firearm again (PS, he was acquitted, by a jury of... his cousins?). I'm fine with "people" being allowed to arm themselves. But if they ever, ever, ever screw up, I call for the blocked in cell - no door. And I include Dick Cheney among that number. OK if you handle it, cool. Hunt, target practice, all cool. You "screw up" and shoot something (a person?) that is not a target? Bye bye gun rights. human ^bean 21:14, 16 February 2008 (EST)

People should and do have the right to own guns, however, like any rights, it is not absolute, nor should it be. I don't think people should be able to buy guns they way they buy toilet paper, and I think most people agree with this general statement (for those who don't, would you really want a Mohammad Atta buying a few 24-packs of AK-47s without so much as a second look?). The question comes down to do you regulate guns, and if so, how much and what sort, and do you ban some outright? We regulate and register cars in this country, to do so with guns does not seem too unreasonable. I see nothing wrong with people having shotguns and semi-automatic rifles (bit not fully automatic), for sport, recreation, and defense. I don't own any myself, but a friend of mine has quite a few, and I've enjoyed target shooting with him on occasion.

As for people walking around the streets with handguns, well, in a perfect world, that might be fine, but I do not feel comfortable with that or the simple reason that I do not trust people. Way too many people are awful beings don't think their actions have consequences. The idea that not knowing who does and doesn't have a gun make criminals less likely to victimize random people has a certain appeal, but it makes the assumption that people behave rationally. 23 seconds on Conservapedia will quickly confirm they do not. Muggings would probably decrease, but there are still far too many examples of people completely losing it over minor things and blowing peoples brains out over road rage, minor slights, and general stupid bullshit, and these only increase as more and more people carry guns in their daily lives. Assfly might think kids carrying guns in schools would be a good idea because they could stop Columbines from happening, but I really doubt anyone else thinks it would work. How many os those daily fistfights would turn into weekly gunfights? Too many. It would also not serve as a deterrent for those killers at Columbine and NIU where they kill themselves anyway. Too many adults are just overgrown schoolkids; the idea of most of them walking around packing heat is just scary. The idea that an armed population wouldn't be targeted by criminals is also contradicted by looking at urban gangs. Their primary targets are rival gang members, so you have some of the most well armed people in the country targeting other well armed people. Sort of runs contrary to the Schlafly hypothesis.

I don't think automatic weapons should be allowed, perhaps with very few exceptions. Some people may think this is a violation of the second amendment, but keep in mind the second amendment does not mention guns, it mentions "arms". By strict adherence to the second amendment, I should be allowed to own nuclear arms. Does anyone really argue for that? Yeah, some probably do.

Finally, the idea of localities making their own rules would be fine, except that it does nothing to keep guns off the street in one place when people can easily bypass local law by driving a half hour to the next state/locality and guy a couple dozen saturday night specials. That sort of thing happens all the time, as people drive to the south and run guns to New York and such places, raking in quite a profit. The bottom line is that something should be done to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Laissez-faire does not work for this. DickTurpis 22:09, 16 February 2008 (EST)

See: Virginia human^ities 22:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)