[Dark]

I feel there's a big difference between America's apparent free-for-all and complete prohibition, though.

Literally every other first world country has lower proliferation of firearms with stricter rules for acquisition, and at a minimum you have to demonstrate that you are responsible enough to not get shot by your own infants because of your negligence.

So "access", but it should be "well-regulated".

[aceman67]

I would first like to point out that any weapon, even your own fists, are lethal weapons when enough force is used.

This next part is my personal opinion, so here goes: There is ZERO argument that you can make that will convince me that a civilian should own military-grade weaponry. None. There is no reason. You do not need an assault rifle, you do not need a light machine gun, you do not need a rifle that fires a round that is designed to pierce the armour of vehicles, let alone be used against another human being.

If you want to own those types of weapons, as their ownership and use as a civilian is purely recreational, they should be stored and only accessible at a licenced gun-club/shooting range. That is how all non-hunting firearms in Canada are required to be stored.

Because of that, Canada's gun crime rate per capita is minuscule, and when it does happen, it's national news because it's just so damn rare. Just because Canada has strong gun regulation, it doesn't make us immune to gun violence. (Link is to a news story about a shooting death that occured today)

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns.

Hand Guns are good for personal protection, provided its legal for you to have/carry one in your area.
Hunting rifles and shotguns are tools as well as being a requirement for farmers and ranch owners. As a Canadian who lives in a rural town and can hear Coyotes cackling every night, they are needed to protect livestock.

But I feel that registration, criminal and mental-health* background checks, and safety training be a requirement for ownership. As law-abiding citizens, you should have no problem with that as it's no different than owning/operating a car, which kill more people per-capita than guns, and at the same time, the government should do its up-most to ensure that the process to obtain a weapon be as painless as possible.

(* This especially, as horrific tragedies like Sandyhook could have easily been avoided, as all the weapons used in that incident were obtained legally, and the perpetrator had a history of mental-health issues.)

People in this thread have said that you can't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is true. It's also a weak ass argument. If someone wants something bad enough, they're going to find a way to get it. But that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't pass legislation to make obtaining a weapon for illicit means through legal channels more difficult. Criminals should not be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Period. They broke the law, and in my eyes, they waived their right to bare arms.

[Bar'ol]

People in this thread have said that you can't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is true. It's also a weak ass argument. If someone wants something bad enough, they're going to find a way to get it. But that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't pass legislation to make obtaining a weapon for illicit means through legal channels more difficult. Criminals should not be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Period. They broke the law, and in my eyes, they waived their right to bare arms.

I disagree that its a weak argument. Criminals will obtain them in any method you can dream of. Pretty scary how easy it is to obtain a gun without going to a gun store. There is a good documentary series about it on Netflix I saw recently about this: Underground Inc. Very first episode talks about the gun market and how criminals obtaining such weapons so easily. Ever heard of a ghost gun? check it out if you are interested.

[Bar'ol]

In regards to trump comment: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...d=ansmsnnews11

This is why guns are not allowed. This is just one incident happening of violence this rallies. Can you think what would of happened if a bunch of dues were carrying? Be small little battle going on literally, lol. Violence will probably just get worse closer we get to election sadly.

[Chase]

This is obviously from my perspective as an American. But law abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves if they so choose to do so. I believe if one (Tyrant or Dictator) takes away that right, then the voice and freedoms of said citizens is very easily trounced upon. History has proved this time after time.

I am going to try to avoid the current gun law debate and stick to a philosophical or ideological perspective, but Silynn, this is absolutely correct. Without our right to bear arms, every single other freedom that we feel like we have is as fragile as the paper its written on. With one signature, one executive order our right to free speech can be taken away. Our freedom of religion can be taken away if the civilian population does not have access to lethal weapons. American forefathers put in the 2nd Amendment as a check to ensure no government could completely control its population. Our right can be seen as insurance that we actually have every other single right. Some of you may ask how does the civilians ability to own a lethal weapons act as a check on the government in today world with militaries having access to incredibly high-tech and powerful weapons?

As a current United States Marine Corps Officer, I can assure you that no military would be able to forcibly occupy the United States without incurring an inexcusable amount of causality on both sides. That unfortunately cannot be said by many countries around the world. Recent history has shown how effective insurgency forces are against large standing armies. Many Officers, myself included, would also resign our Commissions if ever ordered to forcibly disarm our civilian population in anyway. When I swore my Oath of Office on the day I was Commissioned as a 2nd Lt, I swore to "defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and Domestic" It sure is nice to assume that that could never happen in today's world, but the facts are governments oppressing an unarmed civilian population has been the norm for centuries and it can be said, "History tends to repeat its self"

From a Star Trek perspective, look at every single "Peaceful" civilization that doesn't believe in owning lethal weapons. Ask yourself how that would have turned out if the armed Federation didn't step in. To answer the original discussion question of if civilians should have access to potentially lethal weapons. Yes, I feel it is without question, the most important right of a free society.

[Christopher Halsey]

In regards to trump comment: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...d=ansmsnnews11

This is why guns are not allowed. This is just one incident happening of violence this rallies. Can you think what would of happened if a bunch of dues were carrying? Be small little battle going on literally, lol. Violence will probably just get worse closer we get to election sadly.

I asked the question regarding Trump and I get that he has the ability to generate rather strong feeling about him but I'm still not sure the article answers the questions.

There is the potential that people might use weapons irresponsibly at such an event but isn't that why people have weapons so that they can defend against such people?

I remember a recent petition about being able to take guns to a rally Donald Trump was holding and guns not being allowed. To an extent that makes sense but really isn't there actually a double standard there? If people have these weapons for self defence then why is it not safe for them to have them at a rally? Where is that line between weapons being essential for self defence to them being deemed a risk? Now I know that is to do with policy in one very specific example but the reason I bring it up is because as explained above I'm curious about the fact that your need to defend yourself or the potential risk to others seems to vary which suggests somewhere there is a line that separates one situation from another and I'm really interested to hear people's thoughts about whether such a line should exist, where it is and where they think it should be.

[Christopher Halsey]

I am going to try to avoid the current gun law debate and stick to a philosophical or ideological perspective, but Silynn, this is absolutely correct. Without our right to bear arms, every single other freedom that we feel like we have is as fragile as the paper its written on. With one signature, one executive order our right to free speech can be taken away. Our freedom of religion can be taken away if the civilian population does not have access to lethal weapons. American forefathers put in the 2nd Amendment as a check to ensure no government could completely control its population. Our right can be seen as insurance that we actually have every other single right. Some of you may ask how does the civilians ability to own a lethal weapons act as a check on the government in today world with militaries having access to incredibly high-tech and powerful weapons?

As a current United States Marine Corps Officer, I can assure you that no military would be able to forcibly occupy the United States without incurring an inexcusable amount of causality on both sides. That unfortunately cannot be said by many countries around the world. Recent history has shown how effective insurgency forces are against large standing armies. Many Officers, myself included, would also resign our Commissions if ever ordered to forcibly disarm our civilian population in anyway. When I swore my Oath of Office on the day I was Commissioned as a 2nd Lt, I swore to "defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and Domestic" It sure is nice to assume that that could never happen in today's world, but the facts are governments oppressing an unarmed civilian population has been the norm for centuries and it can be said, "History tends to repeat its self".

I understand in that specific case of weapons being allowed in order to empower the population to protect certain rights. At what point does it become justifiable to use those weapons for that reason? Is it at a certain level in terms of changes of laws or rights or is it when a certain percentage of the population agrees? As far as I am aware we've never really seen that so I'm really curious as to at what point something escalates to that level.

[Bar'ol]

I dont think the article was a direct respond to answer any questions but a example of what is happening at those rallies. Anything related to politics has rules against people having weapons except those who are authorized to have them with those particular events. I rather have train professions handle that situation then some random jo.

[Chase]

I understand in that specific case of weapons being allowed in order to empower the population to protect certain rights. At what point does it become justifiable to use those weapons for that reason? Is it at a certain level in terms of changes of laws or rights or is it when a certain percentage of the population agrees? As far as I am aware we've never really seen that so I'm really curious as to at what point something escalates to that level.

That is kind of the whole idea, it's different for each person. It's kind a question that everyone thought history has had to ask themselves. How much are your rights and freedoms worth to you? Many people throughout history are perfectly fine with living without any freedoms or limited freedoms. Some people see any infringement as a threat, many others are in between. When enough people feel the same, revolutions can and have occurred throughout history. The right to bear arms, give you as a free person the ability to make that decision. You also have to be willing to pay for the consequences of such decision.

[Silynn]

I understand in that specific case of weapons being allowed in order to empower the population to protect certain rights. At what point does it become justifiable to use those weapons for that reason? Is it at a certain level in terms of changes of laws or rights or is it when a certain percentage of the population agrees? As far as I am aware we've never really seen that so I'm really curious as to at what point something escalates to that level.

The point when armed uprising and action is justified would be pretty hard to nail down concretely. I believe that point usually occurs after many incidents which one incident finally breaks the proverbial camel's back. That point will be different for different situations, cultures, perspectives, and a multitude of other factors unknown until hindsight becomes available.

The American and French Revolutions provide some good historical references and studies on what points were crossed to cause armed rebellion. American colonials resistance to taxation culminated into the "Boston Tea Party" which caused punitive edicts. That caused more resistance and more formalized rebellion, leading to more punitive actions, eventually leading to armed conflict.

Heavy taxation, Strict Laws, Starving population, Ruler/Royal/Noble Absolutism, and new enlightenment/spread of foreign ideals are past causes for armed uprising and revolution. I acknowledge that it is a very generalist and broad statement, but I don't want to detract from the main topic too much. I just wanted to comment on your above question, as I feel it does apply to the question of the right or belief that civilians should be able to arm themselves.

[Christopher Halsey]

When enough people feel the same, revolutions can and have occurred throughout history. The right to bear arms, give you as a free person the ability to make that decision. You also have to be willing to pay for the consequences of such decision.

I think that point about consequences is a very good one.

If you look at Syria as an example, a considerable amount of the population weren't happy with al-Assad so took up arms. We're now several years in to that civil war with numerous different factions wanting different things one of which is ISIS (or IS, or ISIL, or Danish or whatever they are being called this week), you also have numerous foreign countries getting involved who are supporting some factions and attacking others. We still don't know what all the consequences will be but certainly a number of them haven't been what most people would consider good.

When you look at something like the French Revolution there were undoubtedly a lot of good things that came from it but the regime that followed it is still considered by many to be a dictatorship and higher estimates put the deaths directly caused from the Napoleon Wars which followed as high as 6.5 million which is well up there with some of the people and regimes considered evil by history and it is still something which is heavily debated to this day.

I don't know how accurate this is but apparently non-violent civic resistance played a critical role in 50 of 67 transitions from authoritarianism between 1966 and 1999 which seems to heavily suggest that in the majority of cases having access to potentially lethal weapons isn't required in order to force change and protect rights. Do you think that perhaps that is only applicable in certain situations or that perhaps non-violent means should be the first option with violent means being a last resort and therefore being something people have to be prepared for?

[Dark]

Frankly, I find the argument that an armed citizenry is necessary to prevent tyranny to be utterly deluded and ludicrous, a strawman with absolutely zero relevance or resemblance to any possible scenario that could ever occur.

Any government system that allows for an armed citizenry is not one that would have a military willing to enforce tyranny.

Syria for example did not grant a right to bear arms, and had strict restrictions on private ownership.

[Bar'ol]

If there is a way to resolve a conflict without fighting that's a win win.

[Silynn]

I don't know how accurate this is but apparently non-violent civic resistance played a critical role in 50 of 67 transitions from authoritarianism between 1966 and 1999 which seems to heavily suggest that in the majority of cases having access to potentially lethal weapons isn't required in order to force change and protect rights. Do you think that perhaps that is only applicable in certain situations or that perhaps non-violent means should be the first option with violent means being a last resort and therefore being something people have to be prepared for?

That is an interesting number and fact. I'd be curious with those 50 transitions, how many of them had some outside influence or pressure that affected those outcomes. In today's world, soldiers firing on unarmed civilians is a sure way to bring about some serious consequences. The Libyan Civil War is a recent example of this.

An example of a 'somewhat' peaceful (no armed uprising) is South Korea. After the Korean War armistice South Korea was essentially a military dictatorship with flavors of democracy. Eventually, the enlightened population (university students) started to want more freedom and democracy. These students protested, often violently with the 'Riot Police'. However, due to the military dictatorship, no lethal weapons available to the students, thus only "non-lethal" weapons were employed (rocks, molotov ♥♥♥♥tails, water cannons, tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, etc). It wasn't until 1992 when South Korean had it's first true democratic leader. 1998 marked the first time they had a peaceful transition of leaders (i.e. popular democratic election).

In 1989, students in the People's Republic of China tried to peacefully push for a democratic government. Well, the PRC Communist Leaders responded with tanks. We all know what happened next. Movement crushed. Though, had the students had access to weapons, I'm not sure if it would have changed the outcome. Other than more people being killed.

Should violent means be the last resort... absolutely yes. And history shows us that it usually is... either from people wishing for easier change (killings and deaths makes things difficult) or due to the lack of resources for an armed rebellion. The American colonists were proud to be British subjects. They sent letters and representatives to the King (and his representatives). Yet, while hoping for a amicable resolution, they felt pushed to prepare for armed rebellion. A moden example is the students in Tiananmen Square were idealistically hoping that the soldiers and population would support their grass-roots peaceful movement. Things didn't work out so well there. Conversely, the South Korean students were a bit more successful in their non-lethal uprising. Korean student protestors of the late 70s and 80s grew-up and by the 90s saw that their democracy movement to replace the Military Junta leaders finally succeed.

History is quite fascinating, I know that I may have taken this topic a little off track, but seeing the historical outcomes among different cultures and perspective can be helpful in seeing this debate topic in different light(s).

[Stormy]

Well, I'm going to take a slightly different approach. I'm going to ride the fence (sort of).

I believe civilians have every right to own and carry weapons if they so choose. Most of the reasons for this have already been well stated, so I'll just say I agree with a majority of what has already been said in favor of this.

I also believe civilians have every right not to own and carry weapons if they so choose. There are places in the U.S. which require people to own and carry weapons. Violent crime in those places is virtually non-existent. That being said, I wouldn't force something like this on someone who was opposed to it.

Personally, I so choose to own guns.

Now, if you're one of those people who opt not to own and carry a weapon but respect my right to do so, call me if there's trouble and I'll grab my gun and come a'runnin'. On the other hand, if you're one of those people who chooses not to own a weapon and attempt to prevent me from owning one, you best find someone else to call when trouble comes and hope they're close by 'cause I'm jus' gonna sit back and watch.