The right to bear arms.

[Roger Dodger]

i don't get rid of it because it did cost alot and, i like going to the range. and, this thing is under heavy lock and key and, def in a secret place where no one would ever think of looking.

the post was started to see what folks thought. everyone has an opinion. no opinion is wrong.

i think it's more of an agree to disagree thing.

i would like to obtain a pistol but, that has been in the making for over 5 yrs. i go i look i leave. just can't seem to decide what i want. sometimes i end up going in the middle of the night to do work in extremely high crime areas and, i would feel safer if i did carry. i am a small person 5 ft tall 115lbs. wouldn't know how to measure that in stones.
i am qualified and trained and i have a carry permit for the state.
i am know enough martial arts to keep myself alive and put some distance between me and an attacker.

[radiojake]

i am know enough martial arts to keep myself alive and put some distance between me and an attacker.

then why the gun?

I'm not a violent person, but I think martial art training is perfectly acceptable and adequate for self defense.

[Roger Dodger]

because i'm 48 yrs old and my superpowers are not what they used to be. haven't really needed to use the arts since i was 19 yrs old.

[Symmetry]

That's fair enough, RD. I do understand why you want a gun, and I don't consider you to be unreasonable.
It's not a stance that I can agree with. Everyone who owns a gun would, I would guess, claim that they have a right to it.

I'll stick to your original intentions for the thread, and simply state my opinion then. I hate it when these threads dissolve to far into personal criticism and lose sight of the main issue.

The "Right to Bear Arms" is an important part of US culture. At the moment, and as is clear from the way this discussion has gone, this is usually interpreted as being a right to bear any kind of gun. There are many arms that are already restricted by this interpretation. I would argue that first, assault rifles and weaponry purposefully designed for killing large numbers of people should be restricted.
If that results in a decrease in crime in the US (as I suspect it would, given that an increase in the availability of these weapons seems to coincide with an increase in crime), then more guns could be phased out.

I would rather my children live in a future where there was no need for a metal detector in every public place, rather than one where you knew that the person sitting opposite you is able to kill you in an instant.

A move towards greater restrictions on guns would lead to one of these futures, and a move towards arming the population would lead to the other.

I'll leave it at that, although I'll still reply if anyone would really like to have further debate. Thanks

[Symmetry]

Actually, I'm a liar... I forget to add this to the end of my last post.

A poem by a very funny American poet called Billy Collins:


http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/another-reason-why-i-don-t-keep-a-gun-in-the-hou/