Poll

Should owning and using a gun be a "privledge" instead of a "right"?

Yes
5 (71.4%)
No
2 (28.6%)
Undecided
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 7

Author Topic: Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?  (Read 138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 27438
Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?
« on: August 04, 2019, 12:40:56 pm »
More mass shootings in America.  :'( You can read about it here:
https://forums.furtopia.org/news-forum/2-mass-shootings-in-less-than-24-hours!/

All these shootings and more have made me think about the following: Should owning and using a gun be a "privledge" rather than a "right"?

Nearly 250 years ago, the Founding Fathers of America when they wrote the Constitution of the United States put in the 2nd Amendment which states:

Quote
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.

When that was written and added, it was during a time of "rebellion" against the King of England. It was also a time of colonization and people needing protection against Indian attacks, slave uprisings, and other various things.

But is the 2nd Amendment a bit "antiquated and outdated"? Should it be amended or removed?

I can't help but wonder if gun ownership and usage should be treated more like owning and using a car. Owning and using a car is a privledge. Not a "right". You need to take tests and have a driver's license before you can own and operate a vehicle.
Should the same be done for guns? Should gun ownership be a "privledge" instead where you need to EARN the right to use a gun by taking tests, safety classes, etc. before you can get a license to go out and buy/own a gun?

And should penalties for abusing guns be the same/similar as they are for cars where your guns and/or license may be taken away, or you have to retake tests or shooting classes?

Cast your vote in the poll. What are your thoughts and opinions?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 12:42:39 pm by Kobuk »
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline charcoal

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Pitbull
  • artwork done by saiyu
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1177
Re: Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2019, 12:53:50 pm »
As a liscensed hunter and fishermen I agree guns should be regulated  and assault weapons are to extreme for civilian use a good Remington 20 gauge and .22 rifle is more then enough to get the job done and you should also go in for a psychological evaluation before you even get to touch a bullet  and it makes cry to see news like this and I hope people who abuse guns get beaten bad by law enforcement or the victems families and tossed in jail for a long time
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 12:57:46 pm by charcoal »
imageanation is more important than knowlage elbert einstein

Offline Jade Sinapu

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Wolf / GSD
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 539
Re: Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2019, 09:39:07 pm »
I will break this down how I read it.

The PINK text means to me that , way back in our day, we had a rag-tag bunch of people who were not organized, possibly feuding, and were an ineffective fighting force. People were spread out and had differing armaments and different skills.  Now that we do have several branches of the military who are experts in defending us, and have infinite resources compared to a lone individual, is there any need for a "militia"?  Even when the 9-11 event happened, did we see real organized militias spring into action?  And what did we see?  I saw a bunch of hooligans with ranting and raving that "those people" were coming into USA and taking us over.  Yet, I saw our military attempting to be organized and get ready for a next-threat event.  I saw much more protection and help occur via ham-radio operators.  This is a case of where Intelligence and planning using a structure was more effective.  We need no militia, that is all dead in the past. 

The PURPLE text means to me that we were not a land of people who were free of the king of england.  That is over now.

The ORANGE text means to me that the forefathers intended to bestow upon the citizens of this newly (or about to become newly) free country (free from king of england), a way to achieve said freedom, and to have firearms was what they thought was required at that time.

"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."

The GREEN  text means to me, that, all of the previous statements shall not be infringed as a whole.  That the forefathers saw that all of those things were true at the time they wrote it.


But I say the whole statement is no longer true and should have been changed once America believed we were under no further threat of losing our freedom to another force. (specifically when we became free)  Even in WWII , and someone educate me honestly if I am wrong, did USA need to activate an organized militia?  And if Axis Powers did make it to USA homeland, how effective would my 9mm , or my friends AR-15, or my other friends 50 cal be against a tank?  Or 45 tanks?  Or how about a bomber with thermonuclear warheads?

Now get these groups ready , and i bet they can do more than a city of unorganized people with pea-shooters
    United States Army.
    United States Marine Corps.
    United States Navy.
    United States Air Force.
    United States Coast Guard.

The second amendment needs to be revised but I do not know how.

So I say that gun ownership should be like a car drivers license.  A privilege that most all can obtain.  I lived well without any firearms, never used them for self defense and only a few times for hunting (against my choice).  And now that I am free of my oppressive force (my bad neighbor) I do not need my firearm. 

If I do something wrong, and government (who gave me a lot) asks for it back, I will give it back.  Because I know that the second amendment was written for us to become free, and we are.  And our armed forces will ensure that continues.

Now take away my car, and honestly where I live, I will suffer many times more than if I lose a gun.
My car takes me to a job (when I get one), and ensures I have food and connects me to people, services, places.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 09:43:05 pm by Jade Sinapu »
If at first you don't succeed, you have the diode backwards, again! -- Me.

RIP Heidi 11.5yrs, 07/08/2019, 2000 UTC.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 27438
Re: Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2019, 04:27:04 pm »
I will break this down how I read it.

The PINK text means to me that , way back in our day, we had a rag-tag bunch of people who were not organized, possibly feuding, and were an ineffective fighting force. People were spread out and had differing armaments and different skills.  Now that we do have several branches of the military who are experts in defending us, and have infinite resources compared to a lone individual, is there any need for a "militia"?  Even when the 9-11 event happened, did we see real organized militias spring into action?  And what did we see?  I saw a bunch of hooligans with ranting and raving that "those people" were coming into USA and taking us over.  Yet, I saw our military attempting to be organized and get ready for a next-threat event.  I saw much more protection and help occur via ham-radio operators.  This is a case of where Intelligence and planning using a structure was more effective.  We need no militia, that is all dead in the past. 

The PURPLE text means to me that we were not a land of people who were free of the king of england.  That is over now.

The ORANGE text means to me that the forefathers intended to bestow upon the citizens of this newly (or about to become newly) free country (free from king of england), a way to achieve said freedom, and to have firearms was what they thought was required at that time.

"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."

The GREEN  text means to me, that, all of the previous statements shall not be infringed as a whole.  That the forefathers saw that all of those things were true at the time they wrote it.

Both items highlighted in bold yellow by me. It was necessary to have the 2nd Amendment during that time period long, long ago. But now? Maybe not so much.


But I say the whole statement is no longer true and should have been changed once America believed we were under no further threat of losing our freedom to another force. (specifically when we became free)  Even in WWII , and someone educate me honestly if I am wrong, did USA need to activate an organized militia?  And if Axis Powers did make it to USA homeland, how effective would my 9mm , or my friends AR-15, or my other friends 50 cal be against a tank?  Or 45 tanks?  Or how about a bomber with thermonuclear warheads?

^  The U.S. has not been invaded since the War of 1812 when the British were fighting Americans over territories, trade, and other issues. There have been other "close" times when America could have been invaded by hostile forces, but wasn't. Whether this would have necessitated the need for an armed populace forming into militia groups is uncertain. It is likely that some militias were formed during the following events.
1. Japanese invasion of Alaskan islands during World War II. Alaska was not a state of the United States until the 1950's. But during WWII, Alaska was a "territory" of the United States. This is probably, at least in my opinion, the last time any enemy force got close enough to actually invading the continental United States.
2. German uboat submarines were attacking and sinking merchant ships off the American eastern seaboard in WWII. Not actually an invasion per se.
3. Japanese planes bomb Pearl Harbor in WWII. Not an actual invasion per se. And Hawaii did not become an official state of the United States until the late 1950's. Before that, it was a "territory" of the U.S..
4. It is possible militia groups may have formed during the 1950's during the "Red Scare" when we believed and felt threatened that Soviet communist forces might invade the U.S. in a war.
5. Same thing as above during the 1960's Cuban Missile Crisis.


Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Jade Sinapu

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Wolf / GSD
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 539
Re: Gun "Right" vs. Gun "Privledge"?
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2019, 05:28:28 pm »
Wow Kobuk, thank you for the info here!
I can see a few potentially militia causing events like you described.
If at first you don't succeed, you have the diode backwards, again! -- Me.

RIP Heidi 11.5yrs, 07/08/2019, 2000 UTC.