user created polls & quizzes      

We want your opinion!
Please vote on the ballot you see below.
No registration required.

choices : culture :
[+] serious ballot by steelhamster

Written into the US constitution is the right to bear arms and the NRA andgun lobby continually hit people over the head with it, whenever someone tries to make some sensible suggestions, like a 7 day cooling off period, to check if the purchaser is a pychotic. I live in the UK, where only a few specialist police officers carry guns and we have around 200 gun related deaths a year. Drive by shootings are unheard of, and the thought of children running amok in our schools [a la Columbine] would never happen.

Do you believe that the gun laws in the US are credible given the amount of death they bring, or is it time to take the gun away?

Yes - remove all guns
Yes - remove all privately held guns
Make possessing any fire arm a 10 year prison sentence
Allow guns, but with police checks every year
Keep the status quo
Make the requirements to own much tougher
Hell no! This is a fundamental Right
I believe in the right to arm bears
Yes, but only if their arm pits don't stink.
Someone already said my joke :(
Arms No, Breasts Yes
Only for Yanks, it keeps their population in check
Ask Michael Moore
usa bullies world,armed people cant be bullied
Yes I think bears should have arms
They will pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.
Kerry is a war criminal
yes, but not automatic weapons
Register to submit choices

Ballot #35972 : SEE RESULTS

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?


Welcome, You landed on! Please Vote on the ballot on the left!

I know quite a few soldiers, and I know without a doubt that if they were ordered to fire on US citizens they'd refuse. A few would follow orders, certainly, but most would not. So we wouldn't be (in this hypothetical situation, I'm not a backwoods militia type) fighting the entire US military, only a portion of it. And small arms in the hands of a determined populace can beat a large, advanced military. They did in vietnam against the US, they did in afghanistan against the soviets. And in both cases the soldiers were fighting foriegners, with no reason to not shoot their enemies. They weren't in a position where they'd have to shoot their own countrymen.

entered by : herzog
Submitted on : Jun 06,2004 5:29:18 am

as a english man i think gun should only be in the army or for hunting. not even for the police, public with guns oh not good.

I agree with matje
WTF ?? My comment didnt get thru.

Those who wrote the Constitution weren't out of their mind. How can disarmed people defend their freedom against a govt that turn tyrannic (police state), no country is unexposed to this possibility.

And BTW its fucking easy to get black market firearms if you look for them. People sell 12ga pump shotgun and pelletgun everywhere, and its not hard to come accross AK-47 imports... My point is that only criminals, even the small ones, will get those.

I don't agree with everyone should have a firearm and depends what kind.I own a rifle but i use it for hunting alot of people here have one usually we dont kill eachother with them.I dont agree with pistols and automatics because those are designed to kill people and only promote violence.Usually places especialy in the states where there are more weapons murders go up.Its all to do with culture aswell americans are alot more violent than the British or Canadians.I think Canada has one and a half more murders than Britain and the united states has ten times more than Canada.
Its also easy to buy a private owned gun.If ya don't want to get shot,heed the no trespassing sign.If Conan doesn't get you I will!
The govenment, police and secret services can no longer be trusted anywhere in the world due to corruption.
The people must be able to bear arms in order to protect themselves and their families even if some criminals or lunatics do get out of control and kill innocent people.
None of us want innocent people killed but we must still maintain that right to protect ourselves from oppression.
Beware the New World Order for they are the corruptors and the oppressers who will enslave the world for their own evil greedy ends.

If we keep imposing new rules to the constitutional amendments then the USA will someday be a nation of tyranny in the guise of protecting the people. If someone doesn't want to follow the guns laws, they can illegally get a gun in a back alley somewhere. This is true of anything someone wants bad enough. All these laws keeping people from common objects and substances are futile since there is always a black market for these things anyway. Its the bad people who are the problem no the inanimate gun.
good ballot to view global perspectives...subversion you are living in a police state assuming you're from the US...i'm in australia myself, where gun laws have been severely tightened over past decade...however they're now much more common black market and much more prevalent in crime...the sole and only reason i own a gun is because other people have them...if anyone enters my property uninvited bearing firearms i don't want them to have an advantage over me by being armed...if no-ne else had one i would'nt have one either.
I'm hoping that someone breaks into my house. I want to see what the little .22lr round does to someones forehead.
.45 Taurus or the slingshot
The US allows it's citizens to own guns and you call us a police state? Please.
The idea behind the right to bear arms is to keep the Government in check. There is a system of Checks and Balances between government agencies, but the ultimate check to the Government trying to opress the people is the people's right to rebel. When you take away guns from the people, you take away the very last check to the expansion of government powers.

It has little or nothing to do with someone trying to break into your house...

IT IS our duty as citizens to watch government and police the Police.
I was actually asking if you think some sort of restriction on psychotics owning 'legal' guns. Granted you cant stop people buying black market weapons. If you were to impose heavy sentences for even possessing one, this would surely be a deterent.

As to the 'we must guard against the government' argument, I was led to believe from countless polls on this site that the US was the bastion of freedom and democracy. Surely it doesnt need overthrowing?

. . . the US was the bastion of freedom and democracy. Surely it doesnt need overthrowing

It is, and it doesn't, currently. But any government, if given the oppurtunity, will become despotic. We have a constitution and a government that follows it (mostly). We have guns to make sure it stays that way.

Yes, people should be able to bear their arms, even if they need a tan. Get bare naked for all I care.
'......It is, and it doesn't, currently. But any government, if given the oppurtunity, will become despotic'

But if the self said government was elected by the people, how is it in the remit of a few militia to overthrow it? I seem to remember Adolf Hitler was elected to office by the people . Many Germans supported him, and only a few opposed him. I know Im arguing against myself here, but can anyone legitimately overthrow an elected government, no matter how distasteful we may find it.

I have just realised this is WAY off the polls original purpose, so sorry if it sounds like I am waffling lol.

1. Hitler was appointed, not elected.
2. One of the first things he did once seizing power was to disarm the public.
3. The constitution clearly states that it is the citizens duty to overthrow an oppressive government. It doesn't matter how many people voted for it. Now if they lose they'll be hanged as traitors, but that's the same risk our founding fathers took.

But the mere fact that there are about 40 million gun owners in this country who value their rights is enough to discourage any movement by the government towards totalitarianism.

I think you will find he was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg so as to appease the industrialists who felt that communism was a bigger threat, but he did get a significant portion of the vote in the 1933 election.

But this is a whole other question.

I would like to ask how an armed populace could possibly stand against the US military complex?

Would it not be like shooting peas at a tank?

I know quite a few soldiers, and I know without a doubt that if they were ordered to fire on US citizens they'd refuse. A few would follow orders, certainly, but most would not. So we wouldn't be (in this hypothetical situation, I'm not a backwoods militia type) fighting the entire US military, only a portion of it.

And small arms in the hands of a determined populace can beat a large, advanced military. They did in vietnam against the US, they did in afghanistan against the soviets. And in both cases the soldiers were fighting foriegners, with no reason to not shoot their enemies. They weren't in a position where they'd have to shoot their own countrymen.

Actually Steelhamster .Its more possible than ever before with urbanisation.
The populace will overthrow the state the first chance it gets.It is a combination of the economy collapsing and guerilla warfare.The military cant operate without an economy and the Zapatista's , the Vietnamese , the afghans against Russia showed how it works.Numbers wont be an issue.Were talking about HUGE numbers.Entire communities, youth generally, blacks, latinos , the unemployed,prison population, armed gangs, militias, seceding states and a ton of soldiers and patriots.Civil war is a must and an inevitability.

The Russians and South America would most likely join in as well
attempts to create alternative economies, ones that truly work for everyone have been systematically destroyed by states..Thatchers declaration to "exterminate the Travelers" , the Battle of Beanfield etc were enough to make it clear.ww3 is for real and is being waged now
yes, but ban ethnic minorities from them, seeing as they commit most of the gun crime
Given the hypothetical situation of the US Gov becomes despotic, how wouldyou defend yourself from the nuclear arsenal.

Surely a government that became tyranical would stop at nothing to destroy its enemies?

Just thought Id throw that in there and see where it leads lol.

Myth: After a nuclear exchange the earth will no longer be suitable for human habitation.
Fact: This is completely false. According to one scientist (quoted in John McPee's The Curve of Binding Energy) "The largest bomb that has ever been exploded anywhere was 60 megatons, and that is one-thousandth the force of an earthquake, one-thousandth the force of a hurricane. We have lived with earthquakes and hurricanes for a long time." Another scientist adds, "It is often assumed that a full blown nuclear war would be the end of life on earth. That is far from the truth. To end life on earth would take at least a thousand times the total yield of all the nuclear explosives existing in the world, and probably a lot more." Even if humans succumbed, many forms of life would survive a nuclear free-for-all, cockroaches, certain forms of bacteria, and lichens, for instance.
  Myth: Radiation is bad for you.
Fact: Everything is bad for you if you have too much of it. If you eat too many bananas you'll get a stomach-ache. If you get too much sun you can get sunburned (or even skin cancer). Same thing with radiation. Too much may make you feel under the weather, but nuclear industry officials insist that there is no evidence that low-level radiation has any really serious adverse effects. And, high-level radiation may bring unexpected benefits. It speeds up evolution by weeding out unwanted genetic types and creating new ones. (Remember the old saying, "Two heads are better than one.") Nearer to home, it's plain that radiation will get rid of pesky crab grass and weeds, and teenagers will find that brief exposure to a nuclear burst vaporizes acne and other skin blemishes. (Many survivors of the Hiroshima bomb found that they were free from skin and its attendant problems forever.)

umm ,maybe we'd win when they bomb themselves seeing as its on home turf
Definitely. We gota protect ourselves, and guns are not going to disappear if we outlaw them.
*Could you imagine a world where only CRIMINALS were the ones with the guns? Pretty scary...
at the end of the day. more guns in the public hands just means more death.
At the end of the day more cars in the public hands just means more death. At the end of the day more fast food in public hands just means more death. At the end of the day more cigarettes in public hands just means more death. All these things are responsible for many times the number of deaths caused by handguns (especially if you factor in the lives saved, and subtract suicides). Perhaps they should all be banned, for the children (tm).
Good Point Herzog. But these guys just wont listen. They see guns, they think action movies, they think vigilantism and irresponsibility, so they blame the inanimate object. Your reason meets their propaganda, but they just keep saying the same shit over and over and over.....
As I am from a country that severely restricts gun ownership, I can only ask the questions about other cultures. Herzogs point about cigarettes, cars etc is a cogent paradigm, I understand that in the US and other like minded cultures, the gun is as much the part of the culture as hot dogs and drive in movies.

I guess that as an 'outsider' looking in, I and many non Americans find it difficult to grasp the whole gun culture. I guess one would have to live in the country to appreciate the love of the gun.

I suppose non Brits will never understand our little foibles, so its a case of c'est la vie, or what ever the 'US Freedom' word de jour is this week. *Grin*

You don't see anything wrong with the government 'severly restricting' your right to defend yourself?

What if next they were to severly restrict your right to protest, in the name of public safety, wouldn't that bother you? Not trying to be argumenative here, but there are certain rights which the public must have in order to remain free, and gun ownership is one of them.

Well, I would argue to wether anyone is truly free in a world where your every move is either electronically or by means of CCTV. Freedom is mostly an illusion as we are governed by laws, that severely restrict our 'freedom'. For instance, you need a passport to travel anywhere, you need a driving licence to operate a car or have to own a piece of land in order to walk on it.

Guns give people the illusion of power and makes even the most inadequate secure. The restricting of guns in the UK has been mostly positive and its not the government that say we cant, if you ask the majority of its citizens wether guns should be made very difficult to own, I would bet that it would be in the high 90% or more that would agree.

I would like to know what a similar ballot in the US would say. Is the voice of gun ownership unanimous, or like many 'pressure' groups of its kind, are the gun lobbyists the loudest?

I am all for vox populi, so if it is truly the will of the majority within a country, who am I to argue, I would suggest that most reasonable people would like to see gun ownership restricted.

okay you have your guns, you go kill each other. and we don't need guns to defend ourself cause we don't have a daft ass law leting everyone own one. okay so smoking and fast food kill, but i've never seen anyone have there head blown of with a kfc, or a lucky strike. by letting people defend them selfs with guns, you open up the market, for anyone to own a gun.
maybe your right, maybe not. ????

So you're against private gun ownership not simply because they kill people, but because they blow peoples heads off? Well at least your argument isn't based on rhetoric and emotion . . .
by letting people defend them selfs with guns, you open up the market, for anyone to own a gun.

By outlawing them you close down the market to everyone but criminals.

Then why doesnt every criminal in Europe carry a gun?

Surely the tight restrictions on guns would make it more difficult to obtain, and having draconian laws on possessing them would reduce their proliferation.

I just find it hard to understand the obsession about guns, I know lots of people use them for so called 'home-defence' but what are they defending themselves from?

If you create a society of haves and have nots and the have nots become a bigger majority, the risk of more lawlessness is inevitable.

By making guns so easy to obtain through legal or non legal means, its is a recipe for disaster. What if the person you fear has a gun and you have a gun, but he shoots first, youre dead. Your illusion of safety is removed.

This isnt a personal attack or anything, I just find it hard as a European to understand the logic of a gun owning nation.

The Right to Bear Arms is not originally for normal criminality defense.
It is about keeping a balance of power between the govt and the people for obvious reason.
God, people want to be sheep or what.

NOW, for the Xth time. Banning legal guns for people, tighter laws on possession WON'T change the fact that you can buy them on the black market and usually illegal gun owners don't expose their gun.

Why wont it?

You still havent answered my question, we dont have the same sort of love for the gun in Europe?

You just keep saying it wont stop the criminals getting them.

Are the people in the US different to every other western civilisation?

" Why wont it? "

Damn, you have a strange concept of " black market ". Does banning drugs reduce the drugs black market ?

as for the "love for the gun" i think its a stereotype.

Americans had this individual freedom as granted and now that the govt start cracking down on guns you hear a couple of loudmouth complaining . But most people think " guns are bad " as much as in europe .

It is not the case in europe. It's just not part of the culture, trust more their govts and think all the violence mentality in america stems from people with too much guns.

But america has prolly the most fucked up society compared to other rich countries.

Another repressive law won't change that. The way to reduce crime is having a more sensible government like in europe (on authority and economy) .

I believe a bear has the right to have arms..
No, ban the right for bears to have arms.
Armed bears kill people.

yer and they pinch your food when your having a picknick
but it's in the Constitution...bears need their arms...
The latest international survey shows that 6 people out of 10 voted " BAN GUNS ".
Therefore not applying Constitution is OK.

oops... they voted " BAN ARMS ON BEAR "
Hunters should be allowed to have hunting rifles and handguns. However there should be back round checks. No one with a felony should be allowed a firearm and body armour should be illegal.

As for needing guns to keep your freedoms what do you thnk a gun can do if the government flys a B-52 over your home and bombs it back to the stone age, if you want to change things and preserve your freedoms run for office somewhere, otherwise shut up.

lol you're a naive individual. How do you explain all those guerilla people all over the world fighting against militaries ? Maybe they're just stupid and you're right, the armies just have to drop a couple bombs.
Why did Hitler disarm the population if he could just easily bomb them to the stone age anyway ?
Yes, that what I thought, you think people are sheep and the government has magical powers.
Man, they can't just level off the whole country.

I agree that guns are not a solution in themselves. But if there are no gun, there can be no solution.
Go read some history books.

Where did I say weapons are the method of choice to improve society ?
I'm talking about self-defense here, having the possibility to protect the most basic rights. Not improving the economy or whatnot.

It's because of a defeatist mentality like yours that people give up every bit of power to a " higher authority "... and It's not specific to guns.

The maxim " those who can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it " applies here.

Guess what, most militia are not supported by the main public. Those out right revolts and resiatance form across the world have the support of the masses, the militia are viewed as nuts.

As for the remarks about my kind of naive poele, I am some one who believe that words are better than bullets

the french resistances under nazism was considered terrorists : they sabotaged, bombed, embushed, etc.
But they were fighting for a good cause so the "good" population supported them.

words are better then bullets, but sometimes you have to use bullets.

Im blown away by Irish Scandinavians comment, he believes that the US has a lower crime rate than the UK.

I have read a few of this persons comments, so I guess I shouldnt be too surprised by his level of ignorance.

Anyway, I think I have had the answers to my questions in the main. I just hope the gun owners among you dont suffer from the sorts of tragedies I hear about, when kids get hold of 'home protection' firearms, I hope some of those who so wholeheartedly support gun ownership remember some of your comments here.

bears should have arms and legs too. yer they need to walk and stuff.
Guns solve problems. You will never be able to eliminate them it is an ignorant argument. I own one and when I find myself leaving a movie theater at midnight after a movie and i see the people hanging around outside im glad i carry it. Because they probably have one too. Handguns are for protection only, thats why its a right.
Bears should not be allowed guns, period!
When it comes down to it , its not a matter of a particular law but the Law itself.Somewhere along the line a vigilante group was created to be used as a sheriff in case of obvious crisis.But that group has turned into both a criminal operation and some kind of mystical brotherhood that thinks cop means Law.It was the PEOPLE as real communities that were to uphold the law.Coppers actually believe they have some kind of actual real authority that is to be recognised and they sound to me like the ones who are trying to get rid of personal gun ownership.Anyone that knows about Martin Bryant knows it was not a conspiracy theory and was used to disarm the populace.
First of , know one can tell you or Indians or anyone what to do and how to live.Keep guns and store em if you got em.

I think its a joke though the way people talk about killing"intruders'.I mean, shit .Ive caught people redhanded trying to nick stuff and I understand totally what they are doing and why.Killing them for flogging a video recorder .Spare me.
yer and bears with m16. come on
Irish-Scandinavian has some temerity calling anyone an idiot, his ignorance is just mind boggling, and I dont particularly care if your spelling or grammar is correct, its your total lack of IQ points that is the problem.

When all you can do is call people names Irish, instead of making a cogent argument, it makes me believe that if you are the typical gun owner, god help your neighbours.

If there was no threat and no need to use as a war weapon (A true war, not phony) then people probably shouldnt and wouldnt have them
bears with guns,
bears with guns,
bears with guns, hi hi hi come on give them bears guns man....

i belive we should have the right to bare arms, otherwise, how would we get a tan?
Regulate bullets.Make em cost a ton so people will not want to fire em unless needed.Or make em out of something that just maims or gives a nasty pinch
I don't know ... I'd like to say Yes, but there are so many people out there who shouldn't have the right to bear children, much less guns.
herzog writes: The US allows it's citizens to own guns and you call us a police state? Please.

Cathexis: Well, no one said it was a SMART police state. ;)

The propaganda spread by the US government is that guns are legal so you can protect yourself against a corrupt government.

Well the one you've got looks pretty damn corrupt to me. And if they decided to take you out, you wouldn't last ten seconds, however well-armed you are.

But the superstructures are likely to collapse soon and would have prior to the gangster attack on yugoslavia.

So meanwhile , lets just sit back eating our popcorn......

if you abolish guns some asshole will find a way to get one.

guns in the wrong hands are bad, very bad.

i don't own a gun; never have, and never fired one. i don't even know what a gun looks like.

Armed citizens are not a problem,to the contrary.Criminals who will always have access to guns and people willing to forfit all power over to government are what's dangerous.The facts do not support the left's case at all.
Also guns get a bad rap alot by the unimformed but if you campare the crime rates in counties/cities where legal ownership is high to where gun ownership rules are strict or forbiden there is a very clear pattern that exists.Gun control has the reverse effect of it's intentions.I'm sick of bleeding hearts emoting who aren't in possesion of the facts.
I almost forgot to add the fact that the large majority of gun related deaths in America are from illegally owned guns in the hands of non whites,mostly black and hispanic.Among the stat #'s are also the cases of ligitimate self defense cases.
Bear Arms? I've always worn short sleeved shirts.
Bear arms.Furry & with Claws~

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 All Rights Reserved