Guns

[John Dibble]

Handguns - people should be allowed to keep concealed on their person.

Rifles - proper storage, license to carry(main use for carrying is hunting anyways, so a hunting license would be sufficient).

Automatic Weapons - people should be allowed to have, but not allowed to carry in public. Switzerland gives them out to people, plus 72 rounds, which must be kept sealed up except in military emergencies. Good system.

[John Dibble]

Handguns - people should be allowed to keep concealed on their person.

People have a right to keep concealed on their person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  A license implies the government pardoning you and giving you a right to do something unlawful.  It is similar to a letter of marque on sea, except on sea you are governed by Admiralty Law, not Common Law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not carry in public?  If the man has committed no crime, why are you infringing on his rights?

1. I meant people have the right to carry. Pardon me if my language doesn't satisfy you. Handguns are the most practical weapons for self-protection in most cases outside of military situations.

2, 3. I only say those things because a guy walking down a city sidewalk with a rifle or machine gun is likely to cause a panic - try it and see what happens. I believe people have the rights to these arms, but rights do come with responsibilities - you must use common sense with these things. Lack of a license to carry a rifle, or a hunting license in this case, does not say they can't have the rifle within their own homes for self-protection. Machine guns have little practical use outside of military, or extreme law enforcement, situations, so I see no reason to risk a panic by having people carrying them out in the open - if they can be concealed that may be another story. Once again, people have the right to have these weapons, but they must be used in a responsible manner.

[John Dibble]

Automatic Weapons - people should be allowed to have, but not allowed to carry in public. Switzerland gives them out to people, plus 72 rounds, which must be kept sealed up except in military emergencies. Good system.

"Gives them out" gives the wrong impression... "Forcing people to have them because the Swiss Government is too Goddamned miserly to bother with a proper Army" would be more accurate.

The system seems to work pretty damn well - when is the last time someone invaded them?

[John Dibble]

Automatic Weapons - people should be allowed to have, but not allowed to carry in public. Switzerland gives them out to people, plus 72 rounds, which must be kept sealed up except in military emergencies. Good system.

"Gives them out" gives the wrong impression... "Forcing people to have them because the Swiss Government is too Goddamned miserly to bother with a proper Army" would be more accurate.

The system seems to work pretty damn well - when is the last time someone invaded them?

Napoleon IIRC... but the main reason for that is all those banks. Most agressive world leaders like to have Swiss bank accounts etc. etc.

"Neutrality"=Bribery. Works well but is extremely immoral.

Yeah, Napoleon, read about that - 1,400 bowmen against 44,000 armed French, and they fought to the last man, refusing to surrender. Imagine if the Swiss forces had been armed comparably to how they are today, with every battle worthy man having a weapon.

And, I ask you, why did Hitler, a conquering madman, not attack the Swiss? It's actually true they had plans for it - but they knew they couldn't do it until after conquering the rest of Europe, as the country would provide a lot of trouble.

[John Dibble]

Guns are tools of the weak. That being said, I still believe in the second amendment.

Well, guns are indeed tools. Like all tools they can be used for good or evil purposes. There are many kinds of weakness as well - physical, moral, mental, ect. The physically weak may use these tools to equalize things against a physically strong person of weak character who means them harm. But, being an equalizer, a weak person of body and mind can use it to oppress the physically strong - so the strong may need to use them as well.

Of course, guns wouldn't be necessary in today's society, except maybe for putting down a rabid dog or something running about, if there were no evil people. Since there are evil people in the world, we just have to live with it.

[John Dibble]

People don't die or even get damaged from occasionally coming into contact with smokers.

The vast number of anti-smoking zealots would tell you otherwise.

Handguns have a very legitamite use - protecting yourself from burgalars who would be burgalars even without guns. I can also use a handgun to protect myself from muggers and the like, I don't think I'll be able to carry around a shotgun or rifle all the time for that purpose - reaction time and turning is somewhat decreased with long guns if I am not mistaken, and it'll be clear who should be mugged(the ones not carrying guns). With hanguns available, criminals know they take a risk when mugging people, so they would be less likely to do it when there are more people carrying.

Like it or not, crime will always exist. Get rid of handguns and criminals will use knives(or illegally obtained guns). Get rid of knives(yeah, right) and they'll use shanks(or illegally obtained guns and knives). Get my drift? The technology exists and is widely known, and criminals will be able to obtain it through various means. So, to equalize things, law abiding citizens must have this technology as well in order to adequately defend themselves. If I'm confronted by an armed criminal, my best way of ensuring survival is having the means by which I can kill him instead of him killing me - better that I, the honest citizen who doesn't go out of my way to hurt people, survive than the criminal, who even if he doesn't harm me will go on to rob and likely eventually kill someone else.