Let's talk gun politics.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

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.

Well, regulations against rifles are already relatively lax--at least in comparison to pistols (concealable weapons) [at least in NJ]).

 

But yea, i do agree, it is strange that you need to be "re-approved" for every gun (of the same type) that you buy. I could understand needing to get "re-approved" if you currently own a shotgun, and want to buy a pistol, but buying multiple pistols shouldn't require multiple "approvals".

[puddingkip]

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. 

This is more a problem of mass media than of gun laws. People were corrupted by Nazi-controlled mass media and liked them. Until 1942, everybody in Germany and like 40% of the Netherlands LIKED Hitler. He showed those French pussies (we didn't like the French. Neither did the Germans). He won virtually all battles. The newspapers and radio spammed messages about how great and glorious he was. Many got influenced, and organised and armed resistance only started AFTER D-Day. Hitler didn't grab power with arms. He was elected (after which he DID use arms to improve his power, but not really that many people cared). 

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

This is more a problem of mass media than of gun laws. People were corrupted by Nazi-controlled mass media and liked them. Until 1942, everybody in Germany and like 40% of the Netherlands LIKED Hitler. He showed those French pussies (we didn't like the French. Neither did the Germans). He won virtually all battles. The newspapers and radio spammed messages about how great and glorious he was. Many got influenced, and organised and armed resistance only started AFTER D-Day. Hitler didn't grab power with arms. He was elected (after which he DID use arms to improve his power, but not really that many people cared). 

And if everyone had weapons it would have been a lot harder for the Nazis to maintain that control. Its very hard to maintain power when you're fighting an internal and external war. 

[puddingkip]

And if everyone had weapons it would have been a lot harder for the Nazis to maintain that control. Its very hard to maintain power when you're fighting an internal and external war. 

which internal war? The Germans liked Hitler. Only after 1943 people started to dislike him. But his war was lost already (thank you Soviets)

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

which internal war? The Germans liked Hitler. Only after 1943 people started to dislike him. But his war was lost already (thank you Soviets)

Not exactly. The Germans were actually doing quite well until 1944, and most Germans knew things were about to go really bad by 1942. 

[There]

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.

 

I think Awesome is the least blue pilled of all of us lol

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

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

With the exception of supporting Israel, i'm not liberal in the least (and thats not even a liberals-only thing) :3 

[Professional Map Painter]

"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

"To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff." - George Washington, 1st US President

[Crocoduck]

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.

 

1. The initial shot at assault rifles was simply to those that I constantly hear complaining about the banning of ALL guns. The continued cry against assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons isn't because of how many people they've killed in the US, it's about the principle. The fact that there are so many guns that no American should ever need to own, guns that maximize their potential to kill humans.

 

2. Say that this pistol owner has a huge shift in his life. Loses his job, becomes a drug addict and becomes increasingly unstable. Or like many of the people with issues such as schizophrenia, his symptoms only show up late in his life with little to no trigger. This is something that happens ALL the time. People that aren't unstable, weren't always unstable, for the most part. Of course we always have to do background checks.

 

3. Of course collecting all the guns would be close to impossible, but we can easily stop supplying MORE guns into the populace. We can do the programs that have always been done for gun collection, and we can make it official contraband so that whenever it appears, they're confiscated. But for sure, you're right that a complete recall would be impossible. Regulation, however, is far from impossible.

 

4. And you greatly underestimate the abilities of the common person. The common person will, in a panic, blow the brains out of the slightest danger they feel. Or they will shoot, miss (because they have no proper training) and escalate their situation greatly. And this situation you describe is pretty clear cut, that's a person coming into your home. What about the common petty thefts that happen every day? Or how about the times when people percieve threat when there's absolutely none. I'll search for it later if you like, but there's a large statistic on how many people have discharged their weapon on an innocent, thinking tehy were a threat. Like that one woman that shot her husband when he was coming in through the back door of their house at night, because she thought he was a murderer coming into killer. That may sound crazy, but it is far from an isolated incident.What about a hostage situation or a common robbery? For sure if there was a super cop in there with a gun, that'd be great. However, put average joe with a gun, and you've just caused a shit show. He discharges his weapon and turns a bad situation with the potential to harm people into a deadly situation with several innocents gunned down because the criminals panicked and returned fire.

 

 

 

 

And if everyone had weapons it would have been a lot harder for the Nazis to maintain that control. Its very hard to maintain power when you're fighting an internal and external war. 

Everyone having weapons wouldn't change the fact that they'd be fighting an army. And if lack of weapons was all that the germans lacked to fight the Nazi's, then we'd at least have some evidence of a rebellion within germany itself, a faction that was still trying to fight against their government, because that always happens when an oppressive regime appears. But there wasn't. Most germans weren't too happy about the whole genocide thing, at least I'd like to think they weren't, but they were certainly happy with how much their standard of living had improved under Hitler's rule.

 

Not exactly. The Germans were actually doing quite well until 1944, and most Germans knew things were about to go really bad by 1942. 

Germany was a shitbox within a shitbox by the time Hitler stepped onto the stage. A shitbox that had its legs, arms and head cut off by the world, and that's before factoring in the lifetime of debt that hey been pushed into. No army. No economy. No effective leadership, and a whole fuckton of poverty, hunger and anger. Anger that one man managed to channel very well into his cause. Hitler was not a dictator or a rebel, he was elected to power and people wanted to keep him in power. The citizens being armed would have made no difference.

[Hatch Rawer Beryl]

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.

 

 

"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.

 

 

Could you perhaps point out the part where you "answered" what I said?

[Hatch Rawer Beryl]

"To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff." - George Washington, 1st US President

 

My bad, I wasn't very specific with why I put that in bold. I wanted to point out the the founding fathers recognized that common citizens being armed is very important to freedom and security. So much so, that they included that sentiment in the 2nd amendment.

 

Definition of militia: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

And if lack of weapons was all that the germans lacked to fight the Nazi's, then we'd at least have some evidence of a rebellion within germany itself, a faction that was still trying to fight against their government, because that always happens when an oppressive regime appears. But there wasn't. Most germans weren't too happy about the whole genocide thing, at least I'd like to think they weren't, but they were certainly happy with how much their standard of living had improved under Hitler's rule.

There were many attempts at a rebellion, but there simply weren't enough weapons to pull it off. 

 

Ever heard of the movie Valkyrie or Defiance?

[There]

There were many attempts at a rebellion, but there simply weren't enough weapons to pull it off. 

 

Ever heard of the movie Valkyrie or Defiance?

 

Many? I only knew of one, but I believe Hitler was arrested in it. We should've given him a gun.

 

Yeah I know i'll shut up now

[Professional Map Painter]

There were many attempts at a rebellion, but there simply weren't enough weapons to pull it off. 

 

Ever heard of the movie Valkyrie or Defiance?

Valkyrie used the German Army's own weapons and soldiers.  Other resistance movements, mainly organised by students, were quickly defeated.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

id like it to be like we have here in sweden. its strict as fuck to get to have a gun. you cant have assault rifles at all. nor mini assault rifles like mp5 etc. nor can you have shotguns unless you have hunters license.

so how much retarded kills with guns do we have? barely any with registred guns. the large majority is from people who illegally got them. even with strict or non strict laws, they'd still attack. so that law doesnt help there.

the place it helps is for regular people. i dont have to be scared that the dude next to me on the subway is carrying. nor do i need to fear that my desk neighbor at work is carrying a piece. in some states in usa you can even see people packing to school.

 

i love swedens laws about guns. you dont get shot randomly, you dont have to fear every single second. we dont have the huge fear of terrorists fucking everywhere.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

in some states in usa you can even see people packing to school.

 

i love swedens laws about guns. you dont get shot randomly, you dont have to fear every single second. we dont have the huge fear of terrorists fucking everywhere.

afaik, a gun is illegal in ALL schools (with the exception of security guards).

 

I've never once feared being shot, nor am i constantly afraid of terrorists anywhere. These events are few and far between. 

[puddingkip]

id like it to be like we have here in sweden. its strict as fuck to get to have a gun. you cant have assault rifles at all. nor mini assault rifles like mp5 etc. nor can you have shotguns unless you have hunters license.

so how much retarded kills with guns do we have? barely any with registred guns. the large majority is from people who illegally got them. even with strict or non strict laws, they'd still attack. so that law doesnt help there.

the place it helps is for regular people. i dont have to be scared that the dude next to me on the subway is carrying. nor do i need to fear that my desk neighbor at work is carrying a piece. in some states in usa you can even see people packing to school.

 

i love swedens laws about guns. you dont get shot randomly, you dont have to fear every single second. we dont have the huge fear of terrorists fucking everywhere.

the terrorist part also is because, quite frankly, Sweden isn't interesting. A suicide bomber in Sweden? Maybe the world press will spend a day on the headlines and 3 on page 8. Suicide bomber in New York? Headlines for weeks.

 

So suicide bombing in New York nets you with more attention (and kills as welp, Sweden isn't too densely populated whilst New York is)

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Now, i'm going to sound incredibly racist, and i really don't mean anything racist by it...

 

I live right outside NYC, and the majority of the time when you hear about a murder it was either gang related, or involved someone who was either African American or Hispanic (obviously i'm not saying murders don't involve white people, but statistically more blacks/hispanics are involved). And thats one thing that really sets America apart from most other countries---is that the African American/Hispanic population is quite high. 

 

What are the reasons behind this? 

Well, its more common for blacks/hispanics to live in densely packed poor areas with a bad education system; which results in a lot of drop outs, which results in more crime--which ultimately results in more drop-outs as drug rates/desire/"need" to join a gang increase. So you end up with a relatively densely packed area filled with people who dropped out of school, and got involved with drugs/gangs. So what else do they have to do other then stay with the gang? They can't exactly just leave a gang and try to get a real (good) job without an education and with a potentially bad (criminal) history. 

 

 

I'm not saying there aren't quite a few white committed murders; afaik most of the actual mass murders involve a white shooter (at least the ones i can remember).

But areas like:

• Paterson, NJ
• Newark, NJ
• Trenton, NJ 
• Bronx, NY 
• Harlem, NY 

its pretty much suicide to walk around, especially at night. 

 

On another note, the largest group of murderers are people under the age of 24; whereas most people who own guns are over that age. This group accounts for 11%~ of gun owners, yet 35%~ of murders. 

 

On a further side note, the vast majority of homicides actually doesn't involve assault rifles/rifles/shotguns. The biggest danger comes from hand-guns (i.e. concealable weapons). So if anything it would make more sense to outlaw hand-guns, and let shotguns/rifles remain legal.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

the terrorist part also is because, quite frankly, Sweden isn't interesting. A suicide bomber in Sweden? Maybe the world press will spend a day on the headlines and 3 on page 8. Suicide bomber in New York? Headlines for weeks.

 

So suicide bombing in New York nets you with more attention (and kills as welp, Sweden isn't too densely populated whilst New York is)

doesnt matter if the bombing would be in new york or some random city noone ever heard of in ohio. a bombing in USA will ALWAYS take up more space in the papers and for much longer times because its USA.

for example, swedish newspapers wouldnt let the boston marathon bombing be, but the terrorbombing on the spannish and english subway got like 3 headlines and then noone even cared anymore.

 

and yeah, we do have suicide bombers here in sweden. for some reason a large portion of sweden are racists, so you get those extremists which will target us.

like 2 years ago in the christmas shopping, an extreme islamist blew himself up right in the crowd killing quite the crowd.

^have you ever heard of that? probably not. because its not usa

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

doesnt matter if the bombing would be in new york or some random city noone ever heard of in ohio. a bombing in USA will ALWAYS take up more space in the papers and for much longer times because its USA.

for example, swedish newspapers wouldnt let the boston marathon bombing be, but the terrorbombing on the spannish and english subway got like 3 headlines and then noone even cared anymore.

 

and yeah, we do have suicide bombers here in sweden. for some reason a large portion of sweden are racists, so you get those extremists which will target us.

like 2 years ago in the christmas shopping, an extreme islamist blew himself up right in the crowd killing quite the crowd.

^have you ever heard of that? probably not. because its not usa

It also doesn't help that sweden has a relatively large islamic population (as do many European countries--e.g. France/Britain especially) 

[Christley </3 Peelz]

It also doesn't help that sweden has a relatively large islamic population (as does many European countries--e.g. France/Britain especially) 

yeah we do. why does that mean people stop caring? because so many people and newspapers are racists

[There]

Is this a rant about the media? Have you ever heard of the Sikh Temple Shooting in (I believe) Wisconson? Many people died, but I would be shocked if you had heard of it. Geographically, NYC is in the US. But practically, NYC is global. People of all countries live there, and that is one of the reasons why it is 1) so popular and 2) subject of many terrorist attacks. There's a reason you've heard of NYC, and there's a reason you hear when there is a terrorist attack in it.

[puddingkip]

Is this a rant about the media? Have you ever heard of the Sikh Temple Shooting in (I believe) Wisconson? Many people died, but I would be shocked if you had heard of it. Geographically, NYC is in the US. But practically, NYC is global. People of all countries live there, and that is one of the reasons why it is 1) so popular and 2) subject of many terrorist attacks. There's a reason you've heard of NYC, and there's a reason you hear when there is a terrorist attack in it.

There is also a reason (well 2) why you all know Amsterdam. Marihuana and prostitutes

[Raven]

Sweden, a country with almost no shootings and a relative low crime rate, but an interesting fact is that we have loads of guns, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns to be precise, but we have incredibly quite strict laws on hand guns.

tell me if you are to rob someone or kill someone do you rather do it with a small gun that you can hide in your jacket or a massive gun that you cant hide at all?

So what do you guys think?

 

also crime is a sign of poverty 

 

and the media creates the copy cat effect and creates more shooting in the us

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Sweden, a country with almost no shootings and a relative low crime rate, but an interesting fact is that we have loads of guns, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns to be precise, but we have incredibly quite strict laws on hand guns.

tell me if you are to rob someone or kill someone do you rather do it with a small gun that you can hide in your jacket or a massive gun that you cant hide at all?

So what do you guys think?

 

also crime is a sign of poverty 

 

and the media creates the copy cat effect and creates more shooting in the us

I actually brought that up earlier--if any guns should be banned it would be handguns--allow people to own assault rifles/snipers/shotguns/etc... Its concealed weapons that are involved in most killings. 

 

And if i'm not mistaken, there is a LOT more poverty in the US then there is in most other developed countries. Mostly due to the shear size of the US. Governments are piss poor at running a business and it gets even worse with size. On a small scale a government can get away with reducing poverty, but as countries get larger and larger they run into monetary issues.