Let's talk gun politics.

[puddingkip]

Several things I like to bring up. "What if the burglar has a gun?" If you're a burglar and you can't break into a house without being caught, you're retarded. I know of hearsay that its allowed to buy any kind of weapon in some Southern states with no license. That's retarded. Why would I need an ak47 when I'm a dentist?

 

No civilian should be able to buy a big gun. If you'd use it to defend your house, you'll have shot it to pieces. Not smart. And smaller weapons like pistols should be allowed for the cops. Who need to have proper training and thorough mental check.

 

As about rapists. How would you rape somebody whilst threatening them at gunpoint. That's not possible. A pocket knife would be much more useful. And I'm sure some Texans claim they need it to protect them from the wild animals. Your most threatening land animal is the mountain lion I guess. Which only lives in a few states in almost uninhabited areas. Oh and they're not vicious killers. Unless you want to be attacked, I strongly doubt you will be.

 

So ban all guns. Yes, they occasionally help. Sadly in 95% of the cases, they're doing the bad thing. You do not need a gun to be safe. You'll do fine with some common sense and your fists if you do ever get in trouble

[Pyrocide]

Oooo, oooo I love this topic.

 

Things that need change:

 

1. Completely black in color shotguns are illegal in some states while rifles that have a shooting range of +1000yds are not. 

2. Putting a pistol grip on the forearm of certain pistols, namely the Kriss Vector Pistol, makes it illegal. However, a pistol grip on the forearm of the Kriss Vector Carbine is perfectly fine. 

3. Even if you are licensed CHL you cannot carry a registered firearm (even behind locked area) across state lines. Immediate felony and seizure of CHL and all weapons registered. The catch-22? If stopped by a cop, as a CHL holder you HAVE to inform them that you have a firearm regardless of where its at. If you don't arrested and booked with seizure of CHL and weapon. 

 

My biggest thing with gun laws is that a lot of people dont understand that the US has very strict gun laws. However, a lot of the crimes committed by guns are done by people who do not abide by the gun laws in place. This in turn puts a lot of legitimate gun owners on trial by peers because of misinformation. 

 

I own several firearms. Have i had to use one other than target shooting? Never. That does not stop me from purchasing or teaching my wife how to properly use one in case of emergencies. I pick firearms for home defense with 2 things in mind. Over penetration and accuracy. .45 Talons do an effective job at putting someone down for good. 

 

I have several handguns, one for carry and one specifically by bedside. Other are in a locked at all times safe with my 2 semi-auto rifles and a couple of old collector's weapons. 

 

Puddingkip, while it is true you can buy guns in private sales from people without any sort of background check or license that is true in every state. 

 

What is missing from your hearsay, is that you cannot buy a gun from a store without proper background check, at least in Texas. 

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

So ban all guns. Yes, they occasionally help. Sadly in 95% of the cases, they're doing the bad thing. You do not need a gun to be safe. You'll do fine with some common sense and your fists if you do ever get in trouble

No, not at all. The majority of the time they do good; it just doesn't end up on the news. The only thing that ends up on the news is mass killings. In case you haven't noticed, the media is a tad biased. If you base opinions on what you hear on the news then you'd have to assume that all new yorkers are murderers and muggers. 

 

Also, something to keep in mind, i live in New Jersey, which happens to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and guess what---there are still plenty of crimes involving guns (99% of which are illegal).

 

 

What is missing from your hearsay, is that you cannot buy a gun from a store without proper background check, at least in Texas. 

Or in any state afaik. iirc in New Jersey you have to apply for a gun license for every single hand-gun that you buy, and you have to wait several days between buying the gun/license and actually being able to pick it up and own it. I'm not sure if the same grace period applies with non-concealable weapons (i.e. shotguns), but you still do need a license do own one. 

[Hatch Rawer Beryl]

So all teachers should carry and rifle with them all the time? That's where the big medial shootings occur.

 

A 45 caliber pistol in the hands of every teacher wouldn't go amiss in my book. Someone comes in wanting to shoot the teacher or the students? Bam. Dead. Problem solved.

[puddingkip]

No, not at all. The majority of the time they do good; it just doesn't end up on the news. The only thing that ends up on the news is mass killings. In case you haven't noticed, the media is a tad biased. If you base opinions on what you hear on the news then you'd have to assume that all new yorkers are murderers and muggers. 

 

Also, something to keep in mind, i live in New Jersey, which happens to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and guess what---there are still plenty of crimes involving guns (99% of which are illegal).

 

Or in any state afaik. iirc in New Jersey you have to apply for a gun license for every single hand-gun that you buy, and you have to wait several days between buying the gun/license and actually being able to pick it up and own it. I'm not sure if the same grace period applies with non-concealable weapons (i.e. shotguns), but you still do need a license do own one. 

I know the media is super biased. I'm slightly less stupid than I seem. And no not all New Yorkers are murderers. But you can not deny the fact that the % of gun related crimes is higher in countries that allow them.

And the problem is not that you in New Jersey can't get them easily. The problem is that whilst you can't get it, your friend from Texas/Louisiana can. And he can just drive them to you and give you them. Weapons do not magically appear. They have to be manufactured and transported.

This is where the government needs to step in. And I know a lot of Americans don't like government control. But there are not many people who can make guns. So if you regulate manufacturing and only allow the state to hand them out, you can regulate this. This crosses your deepest beliefs and maybe your constitution, but this is what I think is best. Control manufacturing, and since you only have 2 borders, controlling import shouldn't be hard either. Yes, the Netherlands has  guns. And those licenses. How hard is it to get one. And who can get one? The average dentist, truck driver or 9 to 5-er doesn't need a gun. So why allow him to have one?

Puddingkip, while it is true you can buy guns in private sales from people without any sort of background check or license that is true in every state. 

 

What is missing from your hearsay, is that you cannot buy a gun from a store without proper background check, at least in Texas. 

Alright, well if something about guns is illegal in Texas, I doubt any other state allows it as Texas is the most "redneck" state. My knowledge is limited, so thanks for explaining me.

 

I still however do not think you need a gun. If there are a lot of illegal guns going around: Why is that? And why isn't something done about it?

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

since you only have 2 borders, controlling import shouldn't be hard either.

Yes, the Netherlands has  guns. And those licenses. How hard is it to get one. And who can get one? The average dentist, truck driver or 9 to 5-er doesn't need a gun. So why allow him to have one?

Alright, well if something about guns is illegal in Texas, I doubt any other state allows it as Texas is the most "redneck" state. My knowledge is limited, so thanks for explaining me.

 

I still however do not think you need a gun. If there are a lot of illegal guns going around: Why is that? And why isn't something done about it?

Two Massive boarders totaling to about 5000 miles of border to patrol/protect. Theres a reason why illegal immigration is so prevalent. Not to mention theres a lot of water boarders allowing easy access to smugglers, and then theres the underground tunnel system that connects Mexico and parts of New mexico, arizona, california, and texas.

 

Keep that in mind the next time a fascist government (or any government) tries to take over. One of the first things Hitler did was remove guns from the people--Why? Because its a LOT easier to control an unarmed group of people then an armed group. The reason why the second amendment (the right to bear arms) is in place is to give people the ability to fight back against a radical government. 

[Pyrocide]

Puddingkip, I am on the side that thinks we are heading to a second civil war in the next 20-30 years, with more and more liberties being taken away from citizen that politicians do not follow themselves why should I?

 

Iceland JUST had their first fatal shooting in 200+ years by police. Thats a pretty impressive record. Even the police force apologized to the family. 

 

The states are a very different collective of people and mindsets. 

 

Most "rednecks" you see are not of the mindset "shoot first ask questions later". I and most of my friends who own guns (legitimately mind you) would actually prefer to NOT use guns where possible. So please don't jumble your misinformation about the lower states, rednecks and illegal guns.

 

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

[puddingkip]

Puddingkip, I am on the side that thinks we are heading to a second civil war in the next 20-30 years, with more and more liberties being taken away from citizen that politicians do not follow themselves why should I?

 

Iceland JUST had their first fatal shooting in 200+ years by police. Thats a pretty impressive record. Even the police force apologized to the family. 

 

The states are a very different collective of people and mindsets. 

 

Most "rednecks" you see are not of the mindset "shoot first ask questions later". I and most of my friends who own guns (legitimately mind you) would actually prefer to NOT use guns where possible. So please don't jumble your misinformation about the lower states, rednecks and illegal guns.

 

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

I never said you were a redneck. I never said all gun-owning people are rednecks. But they are a stereotype Texan. If I were to ask 100 Dutch people to draw a Texan, he would be very fat, standing with his back against a pick-up truck with a shotgun in his hands sporting cowboy boots and a hat. It's not true for most Texans (except for Rodeo day) but that's the stereotype Texan and redneck.

 

And sorry but I thoroughly disbelieve an American civil war will happen again, because what's so civil about war anyways? (sorry mandatory G'nR reference), that's just not how today works.

And Netherlands and Iceland do both have a different police, and a different society. I called the cops because a guy was stealing a bike. They arrived, saw him cut the lock. They stopped him, and then let him go "because they can't arrest him unless I had filed an official complaint". That's not what your police would do, but it does give a more peaceful society. Meeting violence with violence will end to even more violence. 

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[Pyrocide]

I think that the stereotypical "redneck" you, and probably the 100 dutch, describe with the cowboy boots and hat is actually a rancher. 

 

 

The redneck is the (sometimes) fat slob in camo everything with a complete disregard for social responsibility and personal hygiene. 

 

 

I took no offense to anything you said, I am not trying to pick a fight on this one. The south is known for rednecks. However, the term redneck has been used to blanket call anyone from the south by foreigners and yanks that do not know the term for a farmer/rancher vs redneck dipshits.

 

Just informing ya the difference between the two so as to use the term correctly. 

 

As for the Civil War 2. You are aware that the first one happened largely in part of the states vs federal laws + differences in the north and south, and the newly elected president, Lincoln, correct? That is exactly what is happening now in the white house. A good portion of the southern states do not like nor do they intend to bend to political pressure from capitol hill and what Obama/Obama's Administration says. My brother, before his second tour in Afghanistan, told me he saw more than 20-30 from his platoon, enlisted and officers alike, be taken off by MPs when they refused to salute Obama. If career military is defying the Command in Chief, why then would civilians not? Agree to disagree.

[jjjon123]

American heritage plays a HUGE part in gun rights and it is what makes our country so different from others like Canada or Australia. If the government tried to go the way of Australia or Netherlands overnight, all hell would break loose.

 

First things first, Fully automatic assault rifles are completely legal in most states! A m16, ak-47, tommy gun, or the very concealable mac-10 is completely legal to buy and own in the united states! They just cost loads of money. But that was not always so, before 1986, all you had to do is pay a $200 tax + the cost of the gun, and wait a few months to purchase a fully automatic weapon. Yet violent crimes committed with fully automatic weapons, legal or illegal since the registration was enacted in 1934 are extremely rare.

 

The main controversy surrounds semi-automatic rifles.

 

Bringing up the point I made earlier, American heritage plays a large role in our gun culture. Our second amendment specifically addresses owning firearms as a right of a citizen. The Winchester repeating rifle (and to a lesser extent, colt sing-action army) is known as "The Gun that Won the West" and practically every household out west owned one of these rifles. Getting to around the time of ww1 & 2 you had great inventors such as Browning, Thomson, and Garand which were brilliant men and fashioned weapons so iconic, they are recognized by millions to this day.

 

Those from Australia, the Netherlands, and other European countries do not have the same history with guns that we Americans do. Your laws may make complete sense to you, and work perfectly fine where you are but here in America, gun ownership is much different over here.

[Professional Map Painter]

The main controversy surrounds semi-automatic rifles.

 

 Getting to around the time of ww1 & 2 you had great inventors such as Browning, Thomson, and Garand which were brilliant men and fashioned weapons so iconic, they are recognized by millions to this day.

 

Those from Australia, the Netherlands, and other European countries do not have the same history with guns that we Americans do. Your laws may make complete sense to you, and work perfectly fine where you are but here in America, gun ownership is much different over here.

Most countries had produced a semi-automatic rifle by 1918, the Mexicans had invented the Mondragon in 1891. The Garand itself had compeitors - the Russian SVT-40 and German G-41/3. It's the same with the Tommy Gun - the Ppsh-41, MP40, Sten Gun etc are all just as iconic. Heck, the AK-47 may be even more iconic.

 

Some European countries, like America, were born in a bloody revolution (Soviet Union, France, Spain). Yet their gun laws are completely different, designed to protect citizens, and I can guess which countries have a lower gun crime rate. America may have a history of lax gun laws (and look at all the mass school killings that come with this) , but does your history justify them?

[The 4th Harbringer]

ITT a lot of people want to lose their freedoms/protections to our government overlords

[There]

It's very easy to get an illegal weapon. I imagine that we are mostly focusing on mass shooting, and in most cases legal weapons are used. However, if the perpetrator could not get a weapon legally, what's to say that they wouldn't get one illegally? These are fucking insane mass murderers. They're not law abiding citizens. They're not going to say "but it's against the law" to illegally purchasing a weapon right before they go and murder 30 children.

Basically, I think that the logic behind gun control is "people aren't following the law, we better make new laws."

 

I will say, though, that if we could successfully remove all firearms from the country, it should be done as soon as possible. But there is no way to do this. The best we can do is put weapons in the hands of those who will use them correctly. 

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

and look at all the mass school killings that come with this....

"All" 

 

There have only been 10 mass shootings in the past 13 years. Considering that there are 360 million people around, 10 is quite a low number. 

 

And lets not forget all the lives that were saved by people owning guns---but guess what, those never end up in the headlines. Thank you biased media. 

[Pyrocide]

First things first, Fully automatic assault rifles are completely legal in most states!.

 

IIRC, they are only legal if they were made before mid-80 (1986?) They cost upwards of 10-50+ grand and fees out the ass. Those made after 1986 are not legal to purchase without a permit, believe class 3?

[There]

lol attack on puddingkip

 

I called the cops because a guy was stealing a bike. They arrived, saw him cut the lock. They stopped him, and then let him go "because they can't arrest him unless I had filed an official complaint". That's not what your police would do, but it does give a more peaceful society. Meeting violence with violence will end to even more violence. 

 

That's really stupid. First, you don't meet them with violence. You meet them with punishment, and if they respond violently, THEN violence is justified.

 

As you obviously do not care whether laws are enforced or not, it seems ridiculous for you to suggest that we limit guns even more when these laws are obviously not going to be enforced, just like our current gun laws.

 

Several things I like to bring up. "What if the burglar has a gun?" If you're a burglar and you can't break into a house without being caught, you're retarded. I know of hearsay that its allowed to buy any kind of weapon in some Southern states with no license. That's retarded. Why would I need an ak47 when I'm a dentist?

No civilian should be able to buy a big gun. If you'd use it to defend your house, you'll have shot it to pieces. Not smart. And smaller weapons like pistols should be allowed for the cops. Who need to have proper training and thorough mental check.

As about rapists. How would you rape somebody whilst threatening them at gunpoint. That's not possible. A pocket knife would be much more useful. And I'm sure some Texans claim they need it to protect them from the wild animals. Your most threatening land animal is the mountain lion I guess. Which only lives in a few states in almost uninhabited areas. Oh and they're not vicious killers. Unless you want to be attacked, I strongly doubt you will be.

So ban all guns. Yes, they occasionally help. Sadly in 95% of the cases, they're doing the bad thing. You do not need a gun to be safe. You'll do fine with some common sense and your fists if you do ever get in trouble

 

1. Burglar is retarded. They can still kill the homeowner with a gun if they have one. This is a completely invalid argument. Why would you need an AK47 when you're a dentist? I dunno. But assault weapons like the AK47 are not the problem. The 3 or so "mass shootings" I can think of off of the top of my head were done with a pistol, and not a machine gun.

 

2. Depends how you define big gun. AK47, etc, I agree. But a shotgun? Who knows.

 

3. Are you saying that guns are bad because you have a better means of raping someone that doesn't involve a gun?

 

4. 95% is an extremely exaggerated number. 

 

Ban all guns? I wish we could. But we can't.

 

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Besides, since when do government enforced laws ever actually work? 

 

Prohibition--the ban on alcohol that was put in place in the early 20th century in America--Yet there was still an abundance of alcohol and drinking going on. 

 

Drugs--pot, cocaine, meth, heroin....all readily available, all illegal to own/use/possess. 

 

So why would a prohibition on guns be any different than a prohibition of drugs/alcohol? 

[qazz42]

Let's ban marijuana to stop marijuana use! And while we're at it, LET'S BAN ALCOHOL!

 

Such gud idea.

 

AwesomeMcCoolName: While it seems I don't agree with you on pretty much any other topic aside from drugs and guns, at least you're cool on the guns.

 

I applaud you for not being THAT blue-pilled

 

I find it interesting that gun control is an issue that most liberals are split on, form what I've seen. Only the REAL "muh feels" SJW tumblr warriors seem to be behind gun control.

[Crocoduck]

Omfg I hate this issue, I think it's so incredibly stupid and the answer is so clear to me that I don't understand why it's still an issue.

 

OF COURSE we need stricter gun control. Here, I'm going to make my points and attack the most common points people make in defense of lax gun control.

 

First of all, who in the hell needs an assault rifle?

 

Why in the name of all the shits could you possibly need an assault rifle for? Why would you need something with armor penetrating bullets? Why the hell do you need weapons made to maximize lethality? Because it's a hobby? Well, what if I decided collecting drugs and drug paraphenelia would be my new hobby, does that mean we have to make that legal too? It's absolutely silly to make an overall claim saying government should butt out of gun regulation.

 

Secondly, what could possibly be bad about better background checks?

 

Regardless of your views on guns and gun control, can you seriously make any legit argument that would make it not a good thing to have stricter psychological checks and background checks on those that wish to buy guns? The only one you could attempt to make is privacy, but that's silly because it's a very mild invasion of privacy that would be done using information in public record anyways.

 

Now to tackle some of the stupid points people usually try to make.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

Oh, k. Let's arm all our troops with lollipops then. People will always kill people, that's a no brainer, the question is, how many will they be able to quick and how quickly. You think as many kids would have died if the shooter at sandy hook had gone in with a knife instead? Basically the same week that happened, a man in China pulled the same stunt but with a knife, and I think he killed like 2 and injured 7, but if he had a gun, he would have murdered so many more.

 

We need to protect ourselves from criminals

 

Lol. How many people that own guns have the training to use them in high stakes situations? How many of the rednecks and the wannabe bad asses that buy guns can actually stay calm in a crisis situation long enough to pull their weapon, aim at the criminal and shoot them? Of those people, how many of them would do it only when the criminal deserved it? How many would do it for petty theft like robbery?

 

Guns on civilians merely causes an escalation. Burglars use weapons as a tool of fear, they go into a shop to steal, not to kill. Most cases of armed robbery result in nobody harmed. The second some idiot cowboy decides to pull out his own gun and defend the world with his brilliant sense of justice, however, the burglars shoot back and innocent people, that would have been safe, are now harmed. We also get things like Zimmerman. Idiots that think that because they have a gun, they should use it. Idiots that see threats everywhere and feel they need to defend themselves.

 

And then there's the eternal arms race. The common citizen packing heat isn't going to deter criminals, it's just going to cause the criminals to pack even more heat than the citizens. 

 

We need to defend ourselves against the government

 

Oh, I love this one.

 

First of all, our government is set up in such a way that it simply could not attempt to oppress us in one fluid move. It would take years of public conniving and an outright coup would never work in this country. Secondly, even if it did somehow happen, what do you all think will happen? The rednecks and gun collectors will form an army to protect us? The untrained citizens with access to a tiny percentage of weapons will defend the country? You don't think this oppressive government wouldn't be smart enough to go and destroy all the gun stores before everybody could go and arm themselves?

 

 

Prohibition of guns wouldn't work

 

There's a big difference between banning drugs and banning guns. Count up the people that own guns, then count up the number of people that use drugs or drink alcohol. The prohibition of those two things don't work because of the ridiculous demand that there is for them and how impossible it is to stop it. Drugs can be smuggled in so easily it's not even funny, and once they're in the country, they're unloaded at a mind numbing speed to an even more mind numbing amount of people.

 

Guns on the other hand, are a completely different story. The number of people that own and want guns is already tiny. If gun control were more strict and less people were allowed to have guns, the amount of people that would still try to get them through illegal channels would be INCREDIBLY small. There aren't many that are so obsessed with owning guns that they will go through illegal channels to get them.

 

Criminals would be, of course. But now, getting guns would be so much harder, and with such a small demand, it becomes easier to isolate the incidents of illegal gun trade to criminal organizations. And don't forget that you can't exactly smuggle in a glock through your ass like you can with drugs. Guns would be a lot easier to keep track of and keep under control.

 

Also, you're all forgetting that no sensible person is suggesting a ban on guns entirely, simply much better and stricter gun control laws.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

First of all, who in the hell needs an assault rifle?

Secondly, what could possibly be bad about better background checks?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

Oh, k. Let's arm all our troops with lollipops then. People will always kill people, that's a no brainer, the question is, how many will they be able to quick and how quickly. You think as many kids would have died if the shooter at sandy hook had gone in with a knife instead? Basically the same week that happened, a man in China pulled the same stunt but with a knife, and I think he killed like 2 and injured 7, but if he had a gun, he would have murdered so many more.

 

We need to protect ourselves from criminals

 

Lol. How many people that own guns have the training to use them in high stakes situations? How many of the rednecks and the wannabe bad asses that buy guns can actually stay calm in a crisis situation long enough to pull their weapon, aim at the criminal and shoot them? Of those people, how many of them would do it only when the criminal deserved it? How many would do it for petty theft like robbery?

 

Guns on civilians merely causes an escalation. Burglars use weapons as a tool of fear, they go into a shop to steal, not to kill. Most cases of armed robbery result in nobody harmed. The second some idiot cowboy decides to pull out his own gun and defend the world with his brilliant sense of justice, however, the burglars shoot back and innocent people, that would have been safe, are now harmed. We also get things like Zimmerman. Idiots that think that because they have a gun, they should use it. Idiots that see threats everywhere and feel they need to defend themselves.

 

And then there's the eternal arms race. The common citizen packing heat isn't going to deter criminals, it's just going to cause the criminals to pack even more heat than the citizens. 

 

We need to defend ourselves against the government

 

Oh, I love this one.

 

First of all, our government is set up in such a way that it simply could not attempt to oppress us in one fluid move. It would take years of public conniving and an outright coup would never work in this country. Secondly, even if it did somehow happen, what do you all think will happen? The rednecks and gun collectors will form an army to protect us? The untrained citizens with access to a tiny percentage of weapons will defend the country? You don't think this oppressive government wouldn't be smart enough to go and destroy all the gun stores before everybody could go and arm themselves?

 

 

Prohibition of guns wouldn't work

 

There's a big difference between banning drugs and banning guns. Count up the people that own guns, then count up the number of people that use drugs or drink alcohol. The prohibition of those two things don't work because of the ridiculous demand that there is for them and how impossible it is to stop it. Drugs can be smuggled in so easily it's not even funny, and once they're in the country, they're unloaded at a mind numbing speed to an even more mind numbing amount of people.

 

Guns on the other hand, are a completely different story. The number of people that own and want guns is already tiny. If gun control were more strict and less people were allowed to have guns, the amount of people that would still try to get them through illegal channels would be INCREDIBLY small. There aren't many that are so obsessed with owning guns that they will go through illegal channels to get them.

 

Criminals would be, of course. But now, getting guns would be so much harder, and with such a small demand, it becomes easier to isolate the incidents of illegal gun trade to criminal organizations. And don't forget that you can't exactly smuggle in a glock through your ass like you can with drugs. Guns would be a lot easier to keep track of and keep under control.

 

Also, you're all forgetting that no sensible person is suggesting a ban on guns entirely, simply much better and stricter gun control laws.

1) Agreed, assault rifles aren't necessary in the hands of the general populous. 

2) Stricter gun laws don't just mean better background checks. They make it virtually impossible for anyone to get a gun.

3) Guns are a tool used to kill people, just like pencils are a tool to write words. To say that guns kill people is like saying pencils write essays. The fact of the matter is the person behind the gun still has to choose to pull the trigger. So that person is clearly deranged in some way or another, and will find ALWAYS find another way to kill someone/s.

4) K, let me just leave my front door wide open and invite thieves in, and we can all have a party. Sounds like a fun!

5) Nazi Germany, WW2. You're right, the government can't do anything in one quick move; any move to seize power over the populous would take years, BUT, most people would just accept the changes, not fight back and not leave. Thats exactly what happened during WW2, and one of the reasons why things were so bad. People let the government start to take too much power, and didn't do anything about it; until it was too late, at which point, having guns would've made a HUGE difference. As for the last point here, theres already an ammunition shortage in America from the government supposedly buying up bullets to make stricter gun laws easier to pull off. 

6) Except those stricter laws will make it virtually impossible to get a gun. If stricter gun-laws simply meant better, more thorough, background checks i would whole-heartedly agree; but thats not the case. 

[Hatch Rawer Beryl]

First of all, who in the hell needs an assault rifle?

 

Why in the name of all the shits could you possibly need an assault rifle for? Why would you need something with armor penetrating bullets? Why the hell do you need weapons made to maximize lethality? Because it's a hobby? Well, what if I decided collecting drugs and drug paraphenelia would be my new hobby, does that mean we have to make that legal too? It's absolutely silly to make an overall claim saying government should butt out of gun regulation.

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

 

-Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Why would you need an assault rifle you ask? Well. In the event that the government becomes so tyrannical and awful that it needs to be overthrown.... You would need the same weapons that they have access to in order to do the job. The 2nd amendment was not just meant for protecting against common thugs. That's a side effect. It was meant to empower the people with the ability to maintain freedom and liberty. 

 

"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" -2nd Amendment

[Woifi The Viking]

5) Nazi Germany, WW2. You're right, the government can't do anything in one quick move; any move to seize power over the populous would take years, BUT, most people would just accept the changes, not fight back and not leave. Thats exactly what happened during WW2, and one of the reasons why things were so bad. People let the government start to take too much power, and didn't do anything about it; until it was too late, at which point, having guns would've made a HUGE difference. As for the last point here, theres already an ammunition shortage in America from the government supposedly buying up bullets to make stricter gun laws easier to pull off. 

I'm not sure about this, that could have lead into a civil war, you forget how many people actually liked the nazis.

Just like in the civil war in Austria (1934), where members of both big parties killed each other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Civil_War

[Pyrocide]

Just for the record, Kevlar/Teflon tipped rounds are illegal to possess unless you are either law enforcement or military in hostile territory. 

 

 I have ARs, carbines and lever action rifles. Each have a different use, some are target only, some are hunting some I have just to have one due to the history of the gun. Such as the arisaka.

 

I have never had to use my CHL and don't plan on it. Most confrontations can be either talked down or handled a different way than shooting someone. Most of the gun-control advocates have a similar mindset in that gun owners would rather shoot first than assess the situation which is not how most legitimate gun owners are. CHL classes even teach you not to use any weapon where life is not in imminent danger.

[Crocoduck]

1) Agreed, assault rifles aren't necessary in the hands of the general populous. 

2) Stricter gun laws don't just mean better background checks. They make it virtually impossible for anyone to get a gun.

3) Guns are a tool used to kill people, just like pencils are a tool to write words. To say that guns kill people is like saying pencils write essays. The fact of the matter is the person behind the gun still has to choose to pull the trigger. So that person is clearly deranged in some way or another, and will find ALWAYS find another way to kill someone/s.

4) K, let me just leave my front door wide open and invite thieves in, and we can all have a party. Sounds like a fun!

5) Nazi Germany, WW2. You're right, the government can't do anything in one quick move; any move to seize power over the populous would take years, BUT, most people would just accept the changes, not fight back and not leave. Thats exactly what happened during WW2, and one of the reasons why things were so bad. People let the government start to take too much power, and didn't do anything about it; until it was too late, at which point, having guns would've made a HUGE difference. As for the last point here, theres already an ammunition shortage in America from the government supposedly buying up bullets to make stricter gun laws easier to pull off. 

6) Except those stricter laws will make it virtually impossible to get a gun. If stricter gun-laws simply meant better, more thorough, background checks i would whole-heartedly agree; but thats not the case. 

2) We're not talking about the gun control laws that have been proposed, we're talking about what should be done.

3) You missed the point of what i said. Of course people will always kill and find ways to kill, the thing is, guns make it so much easier for them. A gun makes a crazy man with a knife turn from a serious threat to some of the people around him, to a serious threat to anybody within 30 yards. 

4) Cause that's totally what I said. None of my points made regarding criminals has been rebuttled.

5) WWII is an ENTIRELY different situation. Germany was in a state that no other country has ever been in. Completely stripped of its economy, it's military and it's government. Germany was so bad that you'd get more value out of selling your money as paper than you would using it as actual money. They would have bowed down to satan if he arrived saying this was somebody elses fault and he had a solution on how to fix it.

6) Again, this is about what should be proposed. Even then, I really wouldn't be too bothered if guns were banned outright, the benefits would still far outweigh the negatives.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

 

-Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Why would you need an assault rifle you ask? Well. In the event that the government becomes so tyrannical and awful that it needs to be overthrown.... You would need the same weapons that they have access to in order to do the job. The 2nd amendment was not just meant for protecting against common thugs. That's a side effect. It was meant to empower the people with the ability to maintain freedom and liberty. 

 

"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" -2nd Amendment

 

So glad you didn't read my post past the first sentence. >: ( I answered this in my last point.

 

Just for the record, Kevlar/Teflon tipped rounds are illegal to possess unless you are either law enforcement or military in hostile territory. 

 

 I have ARs, carbines and lever action rifles. Each have a different use, some are target only, some are hunting some I have just to have one due to the history of the gun. Such as the arisaka.

 

I have never had to use my CHL and don't plan on it. Most confrontations can be either talked down or handled a different way than shooting someone. Most of the gun-control advocates have a similar mindset in that gun owners would rather shoot first than assess the situation which is not how most legitimate gun owners are. CHL classes even teach you not to use any weapon where life is not in imminent danger.

It's not a matter of me thinking gun owners are bloodlust cowboys, it's me thinking they're humans. Humans panic, unless they're placed in years of proper training, most people panic when shit hits the fan. That's just how humans function. Do you think Zimmerman thought "Oh look, a black guy. Totally want to kill him." No, he felt like he was in danger and fired. You can scan police reports, this kind of thing happens all the time. More gun-related injuries are caused by innocents to innocents than you'd believe.

[jjjon123]

-snip-

 

1. Assault rifles have rarely ever been used in a violent crime or mass shooting in the past 50 years and they already heavily regulated. What you are referring to are semi-automatic rifles made to look like assault rifles. What the California government bans and the federal government banned in 1994-2004 was how a gun looks. I suggest you read this.

 

If you wanted to actually have an effective law you would have to ban how the weapon operates and not just how it looks which would mean all pistols, double action revolvers, semi-auto shotguns, and semi-auto rifles would have to be banned. I do not think that would go over well with anyone.

 

2. Any stricter background checks would have to make it no harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns nor would it include some kind of central registration. If someone already owns a pistol, a critter-control rifle, and a shotgun, he should not have to wait 10 days or go through a rigorous background check to buy a new high-power hunting rifle.

 

3. Yes, its easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife but you are a few hundred years too late to get rid of guns. Like I said in an earlier post, America by heritage is a pro-gun country and there is a large portion of the population who like guns, if you dont want to live around them then move to europe. There are already way too many guns scattered around for a large-scale regulation/confiscation to occur.

 

4. What you are suggesting here is very disturbing, you are telling me to just roll-over and do nothing when a armed criminal threatens me. You greatly overestimate the sanity and logical thinking of a criminal. When an intruder breaks into my house with a gun or a knife, he is threatening the lives of me and my family. And robbery is not the only threat posed by intruders, there are crack-heads, sick perverts, and crazed individuals out there who would like nothing more than to harm me or my family. How am I supposed to know if the person pointing a gun/knife at me is not crazy enough to use it especially when I start disarming and victimizing myself leaving myself and my family helpless.

 

If an armed intruder breaks into my house and threatens me or my family, I am going to blow his brains out and proceed to wipe him off myself and my furniture as I inform the police of what had just occured

 

Disarming the law-abiding citizens is NEVER the right answer. A helpless population only emboldens criminals and what starts to form is violent organized crime.

 

5. I am less worried about the government and more worried about the desparate people, scavenging clans, and violent gangs that will form after a economic collapse. For that I sure will need to be well armed. A fully automatic m4a1 won't seem so evil when a small gang of bikers is invading your compound for food and water...

 

6. I do not like that you are suggesting to take advantage of the "small" population that is pro-gun in order to further your own opinions about restricting gun own. And Im just going to let you know that the "small" population that likes guns is not as small as you think. It just looks that way because the main-steam media is so against it.