Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums  
Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.

Quick Site Nav
Navigation
Worldofwar.Net
WoW Forums
WoWDigger WoW Database
Articles
Community Blogs
WoW Info
Wrath of the Lich King Info
Primary Professions
Secondary Professions
Maps
Classes
PvP
A-Z Index
Guides
Submit Guides
List Guides
UI/Mods
Latest Mods
Submit Mod
List Macros
Submit Macro
Media Gallery
Gallery Home
Upload Pics
Community WoW Shots
Community BC Shots
Player Pics
Official WoW Shots
Official BC Shots


Donate and get extra forum perks
Support WoW:IncGamers

Go Back   Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums > WoW Community Forums > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27-09-2004, 08:55 PM   #1
vid
Member
 
vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Right to bear arms

I was just wondering (and stirring) what Americans thought of the right to bear arms. Is it just most of the rest of the world that thinks it is a ludicrous law, or do alot of north Americans agree?

I mean it's not like the king of England or the USSR are going to invade you ;)
vid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 08:59 PM   #2
Pietoro
WorldofWar.Net Member
 
Pietoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 311
I think the mentality behind it is, if private citizens have guns, its not just the police/army/criminals that are packing.
Pietoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 09:02 PM   #3
SpiritWalker
WoW: IncGamers Member
 
SpiritWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ronin
Posts: 1,295
I think it is my right to have a bear in my arms.. to have arms even! :flip:
SpiritWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 09:31 PM   #4
Lazzmodai
Member
 
Lazzmodai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 175
The most misunderstood line of the constitution.. silly americans.
Lazzmodai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 09:53 PM   #5
TheDagdaMor145
WorldofWar.Net Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 374
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."




i dunno, that doesnt seem to say to me that people are only allowed to bear arms if they are in a militia. if you are obeying the letter of the law, the bill of rights simply says that this right of the people shall not be infringed.

perhaps the king of england and the russians will never invade. however, the possibility of some kind of invasion into the country does exist and will always exist. and in a far less dramatic sense, the property of people could be invaded upon by people who break the law. therefore, if for no other reason, people should have the right to defend themselves and therefore have the right to bear arms.

perhaps it is because everyone in my family hunts, but i think that people should be allowed to own guns. however, i do not see any reason why civillians need to own something along the lines of an assualt rifle, uzi, sniper rifle, etc.
TheDagdaMor145 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 10:10 PM   #6
Drakeon
WWN Americas Guild Master
 
Drakeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Constantly changing..
Posts: 2,053
From how my political science teacher expained it, the reason that they have that amendment is to make sure the government doesn't ever become too powerful. In the case that it does, you have guns to protect yourself and something to fight back with. Granted that may seem silly to some, but it made sense to me.

I fully support the 2nd amendment BTW. I guess we could have a little stricter gun control laws, but nothing too severe.
Drakeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 10:14 PM   #7
Eiger
WorldofWar.Net Member
 
Eiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 3,346
Umm, we just did this topic a month+ ago. See this thread: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread....ight=amendment

As always, the constitution is one of those documents that is interpreted to create law. The current interpretation is found in post 12 of the above thread.

In short, the current law of the land is (from said post 12): "The rub is that with the single exception of one non-holding case (US v. Emerson in 2001), every circuit court has adhered to the legal principle that there is no right to personally bear firearms unless it is related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. And, while Miller is now well over 60 years old, the Supreme Court has refused certiorari for at least 9 circuit cases where the court refused a personal right to bear arms, indicating continued support for the collective right interpretation."
Eiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 27-09-2004, 10:18 PM   #8
Eiger
WorldofWar.Net Member
 
Eiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 3,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDagdaMor145
perhaps it is because everyone in my family hunts, but i think that people should be allowed to own guns. however, i do not see any reason why civillians need to own something along the lines of an assualt rifle, uzi, sniper rifle, etc.
I don't think you'll ever have to worry about gun control laws taking away your hunting rifles. Just ain't ever going to happen. Hopefully, we'll eventually get smart on assault rifles and put a ban in place that doesn't have the loopholes of the previous ban which recently expired. Handguns, who knows, I doubt they'll ever be banned, but additional controls, tracking and such would certainly be helpful.
Eiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 10:19 PM   #9
Bhs Crew
Banned
 
Bhs Crew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazzmodai
The most misunderstood line of the constitution.. silly americans.
Yes it is, but it is the liberals who misunderstand it.

It means exactly what it says it does. Many of the founding fathers (especially the more freedom based ones who got the bill of rights passed) felt that the more checks against power put into the constitution the better.

One of the main things it was supposed to do was keep the federal government from ever being able to invade and force a state under its control (though they didn't count on Lincoln throwing waves of immigrants against his enemies).

The second amendment supports Jefferson's often stated idea that the people should control the government and if it ever stops serving the people it is their DUTY to take it down and set up a new one. Plus as we've found out in Iraq, an armed populace is really good at causing trouble to an occupying power.
Bhs Crew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2004, 10:25 PM   #10
Drakeon
WWN Americas Guild Master
 
Drakeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Constantly changing..
Posts: 2,053
Hah looks like what I said was right, as BHS just restated it :D
Drakeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.5 By   Branden