TopazFusion: Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.
Pathetic? One of the main reasons for a civilian in a democracy to have a gun is to prevent it from becoming a dictatorship.
Yes, it's pathetic.
Pray tell, why is it that other first world countries get by perfectly fine, and democracy works as intended, without this 'need' for guns?
If you honestly think the general public stands any sort of chance against a better trained and better equipped military, you're deluding yourself.
Basically this...
Frission: I'm sick and tired of people bleating that they're being good citizens by threatening to start a shootout. No, to keep democracy alive, your duty is most of all to be well informed and to elect proper officials. To lobby and to either unionize or elect representatives that represent your interests. To try to spread a message. To protest if it's even allowed in the United States.
P.S: If people on this thread really think they are capable of fighting a war they are deluded.
All of this.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you don't like your government...
You. Vote. Them. Out. Of. Office.
That's how democracies work in the REAL world.
It's time the US stopped with this guns obsession, stopped using pathetic excuses, and joined the rest of us in the real world.
Seeing as all the firearms I own are literally twice my age, I imagine that they'd be grandfathered into a law. Failing that, the government can have them. They've been sitting, neglected, in my grandfather's closet for nearly half their lives (about 25 years) until I rescued them and I doubt they even function, at least not safely. Though, since I live in the US and we'd never be able to fully ban firearms, I seriously doubt the government would give a toss if I own weapons whose designs date back 130+ years (two lever-action rifles, a single-action revolver, and a break-action shotgun). They are pretty neat collector's pieces, though.
This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.
Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.
Funny, that.
pretty much this.
Though if this were to happen in the USA (speaking hypothetically), unless there were some sort of compensation for the removal of firearms from private ownership, i think some people would resist quite severely, but to get to the point of passing a law like that would require a rewrite of sections of the Constitution and it would take a massive shift in public acceptance to get there.
This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.
Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.
Funny, that.
Mind you, how many massacres have we ever had even before Port Arthur? And I'm fairly sure crimes went up, not firearm related crimes, but home invasions and other violent crimes :/
I'm just going to put the same rebuttal I did last time somebody used that nonsense source.
me a few weeks ago: Incidence of sexual assault in 1995 1.5 percent incidence in 2010 0.3 percent incidence of physical assault in 95 560 per 100 000 incidence in 2010 270 per 100 000 Source -Australia bureau of Statistics Stop throwing lies out to support your cause, if tighter restrictions on firearms caused an increase, would we not be seeing it here?
And by the way, the vast majority of assaults in Aus are punch ups at pubs and clubs, bad yes, but introducing a gun into a punch up results in deaths instead of a broken nose.
Educate yourself, go out into the world and stop posting nonsense.
edit - and sexual assault covers all forms of inappropriate physical contact, if I were to squeeze your arse, that would be sexual assault, but it would not be rape, it is not, nor has it ever been the equivilent of rape, that major major oversight alone shows how fucking ill informed your source is.
EDIT and another batch of issues with that source -it refers to the ' Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research' an agency which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist, there are several state agencies that go by similar names, but no national agency. -The secondary source makes the claim that Australian women are raped 3 times as often as American women, as statistic that I have seen supported exactly nowhere -The secondary source (by which I mean the source that your source used) made the claim that there was recently a massacre in Australia of 135 people without the use of a firearm, a claim that I shouldn't have to tell you falls somewhere between 'bullshit' and 'fucking nonsense' -Tonally, your source and its source don't seem to be the most unbiased or reliable sites with phrases like 'anti-rights activists' and 'revisionist history' cropping up and the reference to the (non-existent) Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research uses the phrase 'even [they] acknowledges [the statistics]' as if the scary gun control bastards are trying to hide the truth from you.
I fully support anyone who wants to rebel over this. Because you'll get killed for being overly-violent and an outlaw. I'll laugh. Hard. And a lot. Every time.
Afterwards, I'll sit and wait for someone actually intelligent to break the law (but without killing anyone), contest that law and eat an easy win in the federal appeals court. That way I'd be able to get me guns back legally and with less getting executed for murdering federal agents.
Then I'll go to each of you 109, trigger-happy, fools and write "pwn'd" on your gravestones.
...
...except without the getting my guns back part because I don't have, nor have ever needed, a single firearm.
TopazFusion: Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.
Pathetic? One of the main reasons for a civilian in a democracy to have a gun is to prevent it from becoming a dictatorship.
Yes, it's pathetic.
Pray tell, why is it that other first world countries get by perfectly fine, and democracy works as intended, without this 'need' for guns?
luck mostly, or in our case very bad luck.
most first world countries dont have anywhere near the number of problems we have that were mostly out of our hands to begin with.
the very location of our country, where the borders are, who we are near, how our population colonized, the geopgraphy of our nation, the diversity of our nation has screwed us over in the long run in this regard. None of these things were a problem in the begining.
Why dont you have problems? well because you are clumped with other first world nations, you dont have borders with a geography that makes it impossible to defend, you are not near an entire hub of nations who either have no problems with smuggling goods in our country or are unable to stop it, your population is more evenly spread out, etc etc.
It has less to do with culture than it does with basic geography, infrastructure, and who populated where.
I mean, for awhile our nation was basically split into two peices that had nothing to do with borders or a treaty. We had a heavily populated East Coast, a sparsely populated West Coast that was getting a surge of people, and virtually nothing in the middle (with the middle being thousands of miles)
Katatori-kun: We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that. Maybe the kind of people who play tug of war by holding onto the middle of the top, but ultimately there are two sides here- one wants all the guns gone and the other wants whatever they can get their hands on. Neither side wants to give an inch.
So why even bother to talk about what lies in the middle when no one is interested in it? Because it's sensible or logical? Maybe to you, but not to the people on one side or the other of that rope, or maybe neither.
P.S.
I've already decided I'm not registering my AR. Registration just makes confiscation that much easier. I also don't believe there's any justifiable reason for me to register except perhaps one day it might be the law. And yet, I have never even so much as been arrested once in my whole life, never had any trouble.
Katatori-kun: We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment. More humbly, I've discussed that here multiple times. We had an excellent post by another poster recently arguing directly for licensing and enhancements to gun safety.
If you have to lie to make your argument, your argument is wrong. It's sad how often I have had to point that out in anti-gun control threads recently.
I don't own a gun, and have no need for a gun. When some guns (can't remember what they were) were discovered in my late grandfather's house, we turned them in to the police.
Had I kept them, and the law were passed.. still turning that in. I have long been an opponent of the 2nd amendment, which covers the right to bear arms. If I have to give up a gun so that it becomes harder for people to shoot up schools, malls, theaters, etc. then I will give that up.
If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.
1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation. 2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage. 3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.
Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.
Not gonna happen, but in the case of the hypothetical, I'd give 'em up... then I'd apply for Canadian citizenship, move up there to the middle of nowhere and go through the hoops to become a registered gun owner again.
Off topic, I'd actually like to see some sensible registration, storage and mandatory education laws passed here (not useless bans and even more useless magazine size restrictions. The only type of firearm that is more dangerous to the public than any other type of firearm is the handgun. An assault weapons ban would save fewer lives than a knife ban). As a one-time firearms instructor, I think the state of anarchy in US gun ownership right now is a goddamn cluster-time-bomb that's been going off all winter.
Eclectic Dreck: If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.
1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation. 2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage. 3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.
Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.
Okay, let's look at those requests a bit more. 1) alright, seems legit. this would cost the US gov millions, if not billions, but it would be needed if they ever did go ahead. it is probably one of the main reasons no such law will ever pass. 2) really? and how do you prove how much time you spent? think people. this is what makes you look dumb. besides, this would further increace the already monumental cost. 3) again, really? and what would you expect as compensation for this? would it vary depending on how often you went shooting? how would you prove how often you wandered into the woods to shoot?
P.S. of that $10,000 price tag you put on you're guns, how much of that is point 1), and how much is bulls**t 2) and 3)?
Eclectic Dreck: If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.
1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation. 2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage. 3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.
Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.
Okay, let's look at those requests a bit more. 1) alright, seems legit. this would cost the US gov millions, if not billions, but it would be needed if they ever did go ahead. it is probably one of the main reasons no such law will ever pass. 2) really? and how do you prove how much time you spent? think people. this is what makes you look dumb. besides, this would further increace the already monumental cost. 3) again, really? and what would you expect as compensation for this? would it vary depending on how often you went shooting? how would you prove how often you wandered into the woods to shoot?
P.S. of that $10,000 price tag you put on you're guns, how much of that is point 1), and how much is bulls**t 2) and 3)?
My point is simply that, in the unlikely event that law were to pass, I would expect to be compensated. Point three is certainly meaningless - what dollar value does entertainment have anyhow but it remains a concern. Point two is impossible to prove but would nonetheless be an issue raised time and again. Even paying what amounts to a robbery fee (the total actual value of my four guns is about 1500 USD) would bet met with intense resistance.
Thus why the whole "asking for guns back" is such a hard sell. Some people would be reasonable. Some would gouge. Some would refuse and some would refuse violently. Personally, I'd gouge every penny I could get.
you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.
which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.
ill give you a hint, not yours.
does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?
if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.
...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...
Thats a good point the 60 odd year period where guns were slowly banned, was an incredibly turbulent time, to this day if you go to the wrong area you can still get possibly even killed for voicing your opinion if your protestant/catholic unionist/separatist on the wrong side of the divide.
Ryotknife If you don't think there's accusations of institutional racism in the police, or racial tensions in the UK, or crime in general you have a story book idea of the UK. We just don't allow all this to carry on with everyone pimped out like their ready for a mission on saints row.
Also population density? are you aware how small the Uk is compared to how many people live here. How much immigration there is. We also have gangs, but again because of gun control they are not armed to the teeth.
"does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?" In short yes (excluding the borders thing) which again reinforces the point, why on earth are you justifying such easy avaliablity of arms in your country with all these problems?
1. you are going to have to back up your claim that you do ahve the same problems. Show me proof.
2.since we can not stop or even stem the flow of illegal goods, banning guns or heavily restricting them is pointless. All it will do is insure that the criminals will be armed with maximum force while the law abiding citizens will be completely defenseless. Hell Mexico is getting a wee bit pissed at us for this, especially when a government operation was botched and they essentially gave illegal guns to...undesirables...in Mexico in an effort to pinpoint where the illegal guns were flowing from. Then we lost track of our own weapons that we gave them...
3. because of population density and economy, this has a big impact on police response times
4. because of the culture of distrust towards law enforcement and economy, any attempt to vastly increase the police force will be met with stiff resistence both because of the cost and because some people will see it as a method to persecute minorities.
I also justify the availability of arms as it is the only thing proven to work around these problems inside the US. If you want to point out that as a general rule of thumb getting rid of or heavily restricting guns reduces crime in first world countries reduces crime, I would actually agree. UNFORTUNATELY, it does not work in the US. Look at the crime statistics for the cities with strict gun control, then look at the cities of dallas or Austin, well reknown for their lax gun laws.
I WISH we had a silver bullet for crime. I WISH that banning guns would work in the US. unfortunately, gun control does NOT in the US. The data shows the exact opposite.
If we could solve general poverity, especially among certain ethnic groups, if we could get better police response times, if we could stop illegal goods from flowing, if we could spread out our population in a more controlled manner, then maybe gun control would work.
unfortunately, most of those problems are simply beyond our reach without implementing a police state.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.
So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?
Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Well, isn't this precious? Gamers are characterized by the media as gun-crazy lunatics looking for the first opportunity to mow down a crowd of pedestrians. They're the real killers, they say, the real lunatics. Ah, but the more I look into this, the more I see that gamers are in fact limp-wristed nerds who'd rather participate in hundred-thousand-man-strong petitions on a Battlefield 3 forum to "nerf the OMG OP n00bshottys" than be involved in anything actually relevant.
So, wait - if gamers AREN'T obsessed with violence, and are, in fact, TERRIFIED of guns and those who own them, where does that leave us? Hmm? Well, let's entertain THIS possibility, shall we?
Maybe you're BOTH being fed a line.
By who, do you ask? Well, let's follow the trail.
Early in his previous term of office, President Obama stated to the press that he perceived the readily available wealth of information and opinions provided by the internet to be "dangerous" if left unrestricted. That had me very bothered back then, but man did THAT ever get swept under the rug. Point: Obama is YAY PRO CENSORSHIP.
During his initial campaign and repeatedly after being elected into office, Obama took every opportunity to tell Americans they need to "turn off the Playstayytionz and be productive." This was more than an aside. He repeated this diatribe religiously, many times, in many forms, through many media outlets. Point: Obama is anti-expression, or at the very least anti-game.
Obama has stated FREQUENTLY that he believes American citizens should be completely and thoroughly disarmed, and he said in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that American citizens have no right to defend themselves at any time from anyone. So the argument that "they only want to infringe your rights a LITTLE bit" holds absolutely no weight. You anti-gun nuts don't even believe it yourselves. Point: Obama is fighting guns on his own PERSONAL principle, not for some greater, higher, bogus cause, much in the same way I would like to have the individuals responsible for check-out line tabloid rags incarcerated for life.
So here we have the Obama camp pushing for mass censorship and gun confiscation. Suddenly, all at once. Both of these were part of the Democrat agenda for years, WELL before this exercise in cluster-coitus, and now that they have a good, solid catastrophe to exploit, they're pushing to get their way. Because how can you stand up for the side that murders kids? Point: this anti-gun crusade of his was not spawned from the shooting, or any shooting - it was in the oven for years and he's finally using a tragedy for political leverage, now that he's secured his second term. Notice the theater shooting was not used as a political platform during election time? All of you on his fail-train are complicit, and your hands are stained with the blood of those children. Simple. As. That.
Obama is killing two birds with one stone, here, and doing it like a true sociopath. Anyone on his side on anything is now officially morally and intellectually bankrupt. Your entire platform is "because dead babies." Your entire argument is "you are murdering children because you own guns." You pretty much shamelessly take a dump on MILLIONS of people, MILLIONS of gun-owners, and wag a big, fat middle finger their faces, spouting your incomprehensible gibberish whilst simultaneously refusing to acknowledge critical flaws in your stance, and OVERWHELMING evidence against your claims. You, the American "liberal," are a stain on humanity.
I don't even know who said this, but it rings truer today than ever before:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.
Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.
Funny, that.
Exactly. This +1
Gun crime is still committed by criminal gangs. But not the 'youth effected by video game violence' or 'depressives' etc etc. And criminal gangs don't go into schools or malls and shoot people indiscriminately. They tend to have targets in mind (though people get caught in the crossfire). More people with guns = more crossfire = more people hurt.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.
So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?
Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!
It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I read "both sides" in that post up there. I'm wondering which side is which. I'm thinking more like there are four, maybe five sides to this. Look, my point here is, I have a strong feeling that the majority of gamers posting anti-gun rhetoric (and aren't, of course, those funny little British people, who think they should be proud of having half the violent crime rate of the US when they have about a quarter of the US population), are inclined to do so because some...incredible MORON in the NRA decided to use games as a scapegoat.
Instead of rallying two parties together against the shameful act of scapegoating, which would have provided synergy and unity in a public outcry against powers which abuse events for political gain, the NRA chose to...well, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot. And the bullet deflected and struck them in the head. Yeah. Bad, bad move, and a sign the NRA needs new management.
The Obama administration is out for your freedoms, and that's a fact. They're not just after guns. They're not just after games. The NRA should have realized that, and based their campaign on that immutable, singular truth. Instead they point a finger and hide in the closet like a scorned child.
Ryot up there is absolutely on the money. Nobody would object to the notion of individuals requiring background checks and registrations to purchase a firearm. I certainly wouldn't. But that's not what the government is after. It has nothing to do with saving lives. Black-and-white facts - many of which come from the grandaddy of federal wrangling itself, the FBI - prove that guns save lives at a level which is incomprehensible to the TV-obsessed shut-ins of the world. The ratio of gun owners to gun related fatalities is utterly, ridiculously INSANE to the point which gun control claims become absolute fallacy. The ratio is such that fatalities are statistically irrelevant. And before people whine and cry foul about that statement, do realize "statistical relevance" is how LAWS are made in this country.
So, as I said, it's not about saving lives. It's not about common sense. It's about opening a loophole that the government can exploit. It's about getting an inch and taking a mile. Background checks? Sure, we've got those already. But how about five year background checks with a 600 dollar fee? Don't think the rich are getting rid of their guns any time soon, by the way. Mental health screenings? Sure, let's have an out-of-pocked six week clinical evaluation. Hope you've never had a "downer" before, because last I heard, "depression" is a recognized psychological disorder that must be treated with medication.
And while we're on the subject of that...we're living in a country where pharmaceutical companies make literal billions of dollars a year wantonly shoveling pills down kids' throats, drugs that are KNOWN to have the "possibility" of triggering schizophrenic, suicidal, or homicidal behavior. It's not only legal, but practically commonplace. Little wonder people are blaming videogames. I'd be afraid to stand up to the pharma-giants, too!
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.
So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?
Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!
It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because while I do often see the situation that you have proposed, I rarely to never see the response that you contend is put forward by the anti-legislation lobby, indeed, I don't believe that I have seen any of the more anti-legislation people here indicate a desire to compromise. An ideal response to the situation would be 'Okay, I can agree with A and that is something that I think we should move forward on, however, I disagree with B and perhaps we should discuss changing or removing it.' In this, the focus is on the compromise and the intent is to move the discussion forward to a mutually agreeable conclusion. Far too often I see 'You included B?! how dare you?! You clearly have no intent on compromising.' or alternatively, and depressingly commonly, 'You used term X?! Due to that I will disregard both A and B'
In addition, I would not say that one side's deceit has led to the other becoming jaded and cynical, but rather that both sides have deceived in the past, which has led to both sides becoming increasingly wary of the other. If you look at statistics post that I quoted on this page, you can see an example of anti-legislation deceit, but, if you look at some of the more extreme elements of the pro-legislation side, you can see that there is deceit there as well.
A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying.
Katatori-kun: We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment. More humbly, I've discussed that here multiple times. We had an excellent post by another poster recently arguing directly for licensing and enhancements to gun safety.
If you have to lie to make your argument, your argument is wrong. It's sad how often I have had to point that out in anti-gun control threads recently.
You're entirely right, The President and Vice President of the US are discussing that. The point of this thread is also something that should be examined though, what would the reaction be if the right to own guns was written out of the constitution. Democracy is supposed to represent the desires of the majority, so you have to ask all the questions. This thread is simply the OP asking for peoples opinions.
Personnally if the government can't remove the American right to own guns because of an ammendment that was enacted 222 years ago they should make it illegal to own any guns more powerful or more lethal then the guns available at the time. I don't see that any "milita" formed to take arms against the US military would be any more or less effective armed with muskets or semi-automatics.
And finally as I understand it below is the actual wording of the right to bear arms...
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.
Lets assume my unreasonable and unlikely suggestion wasn't taken up. You want to use the second ammendment to justify owning guns... join a Militia. That isn't just a gun club or going to a shooting range. Here in Australia, we call them the Army Reserves, not sure what its called in the US, but its volunteers, trained and giving up their time and called on in times of emergency. But that would make gun ownership a responsibility rather then a fun hobby.
The so-called "bad wording" of that section of the Constitution is in fact nothing more than today's poor education at work. It's a matter of stupid interpretation by stupid people who fail to understand the language of the day. In fact, I've read that the diaries of common rank-and-file, farm-raised Civil War soldiers utterly confound today's English majors.
I shouldn't have to tell you that, though. I don't. You already know. But I will anyway.
If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed. The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity.
You might say America still has that task...
But make no mistake: the founders of the Constitution intended for guns "to be had anywhere, deserving a place among all that is good." They would be right on board with arming the people with fully-automatic assault weapons.
But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.
"A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying."
No. Fluffy talk, well-intentioned, but no. A key thing for both sides to realize is that the anti-gun side of the debate is woefully outmatched by proven data, and presses its point purely for complete personal satisfaction. The attitude is almost always "Oh, we'll show you! Enjoy your temporary gun rights!" There is no desire to compromise, and this entire argument has nothing to do with safety or protection at all. Anti-gun types can't stand "common folk" having rights rights at all, let alone the right to belittle them by owning a firearm.
mastermaniac117: The so-called "bad wording" of that section of the Constitution is in fact nothing more than today's poor education at work. It's a matter of stupid interpretation by stupid people who fail to understand the language of the day. In fact, I've read that the diaries of common rank-and-file, farm-raised Civil War soldiers utterly confound today's English majors.
I shouldn't have to tell you that, though. I don't. You already know. But I will anyway.
If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed. The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity.
You might say America still has that task...
But make no mistake: the founders of the Constitution intended for guns "to be had anywhere, deserving a place among all that is good." They would be right on board with arming the people with fully-automatic assault weapons.
But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.
"A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying."
No. Fluffy talk, well-intentioned, but no. A key thing for both sides to realize is that the anti-gun side of the debate is woefully outmatched by proven data, and presses its point purely for complete personal satisfaction. The attitude is almost always "Oh, we'll show you! Enjoy your temporary gun rights!" There is no desire to compromise, and this entire argument has nothing to do with safety or protection at all. Anti-gun types can't stand "common folk" having rights rights at all, let alone the right to belittle them by owning a firearm.
Yeah, this bit of bad wording? "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" Can you explain to me what your version of a 'well regulated militia" is? it's clearly quite differnt to the real type.
Been reading a few of the pro-gun replies here. Here's a summary of them as far as I can see:
1. It's our right to own them as written in the constitution 2. Because without guns, we can't defend ourselves 3. To prevent a dictatorship, tyranny, etc. Basically to retain our country's freedom
Here's what I say to them:
1. Well yes, it's in your right. But just because you're ALLOWED to doesn't mean you SHOULD.
2. Honestly, I'd rather take the (rather slim) chance that an armed madman storms in and shoots everything s/he sees than walk the streets knowing every person I see has the potential to score a headshot. Sure I can't defend myself, but then again the chances I'd need to defend myself from an M16-toting sociopath is MUCH lower so I don't mind.
3. I laughed at this one. I'm just chalking it up to straight-faced paranoia.
But then again, I don't live in America where, supposedly, the crime rate is ridiculously high and police response ridiculously slow. I actually feel sorry for Americans if that's REALLY the case, and I'm so very glad I don't live in America.
If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed. The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity.
Large, pristine, largely UNEXPLORED land? Yeah, let's just forget everyone who lived in there before the immigrants (the Europeans) came.
And why should you care what the founding fathers wanted? They also wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote. They were people of their time, and the world is different these days.
Ninjafire72: Been reading a few of the pro-gun replies here. Here's a summary of them as far as I can see:
I got one more; hunting. Guns are required for controlling the animal populations, as in most places the natural predators are absent because of humans. Which is why I think it's important to differentiate between gun used for hunting and guns used to shoot humans.
Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!
I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.
EDIT: As for the OP's question
Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
But then again, I don't live in America where, supposedly, the crime rate is ridiculously high and police response ridiculously slow. I actually feel sorry for Americans if that's REALLY the case, and I'm so very glad I don't live in America.
Am I the only one who sees a connection between this. crime rate is high because every street thug can get a gun to feel more manly and act out his plans instead of just thinking about them. then police responce is slow becase they need to move in groups so as to not get shot the minute thay arrive. then if the criminal has a bigger gun than the police they need to call in special backup and wait.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?
Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!
It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because while I do often see the situation that you have proposed, I rarely to never see the response that you contend is put forward by the anti-legislation lobby, indeed, I don't believe that I have seen any of the more anti-legislation people here indicate a desire to compromise. An ideal response to the situation would be 'Okay, I can agree with A and that is something that I think we should move forward on, however, I disagree with B and perhaps we should discuss changing or removing it.' In this, the focus is on the compromise and the intent is to move the discussion forward to a mutually agreeable conclusion. Far too often I see 'You included B?! how dare you?! You clearly have no intent on compromising.' or alternatively, and depressingly commonly, 'You used term X?! Due to that I will disregard both A and B'
In addition, I would not say that one side's deceit has led to the other becoming jaded and cynical, but rather that both sides have deceived in the past, which has led to both sides becoming increasingly wary of the other. If you look at statistics post that I quoted on this page, you can see an example of anti-legislation deceit, but, if you look at some of the more extreme elements of the pro-legislation side, you can see that there is deceit there as well.
A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying.
Oh that would be nice.
That would be so effing nice, and not just for gun control issue either. unfortunately i dont think we will see such a day anytime soon, both sides have become quite polar in the past decade. I would say we are in for more polar bullcrud for at least another 4 years.
When it comes to pro-gun, I think the key is to ask the individual gun owners a question. Specifically "what wouldnt you mind being passed"? As a general rule they may not be for any more gun control, but a lot of them woulndt be angry or mind such things such as (more) registration, background check, mental health checks, closing loopholes, that sort of thing. im generalizing of course.
It is unfortunate that both sides kinda feel that it is 100% victory or nothing in these issues.
Yes, you incredible fool, I indeed said LARGELY UNEXPLORED. Crack open a book. It's good for you.
"They wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote?" No such thing at all. In fact, America pioneered women's rights and was founded based on equality of all men. America was the engine for that change. Just because it didn't BOOM suddenly happen does not invalidate the intent. Remember, black slaves were SOLD, not captured. Rounded up and sold by people with weapons, I might add, who used those weapons to force people into bonds. America made big waves VERY early on, by people who were big fans of guns, no less.
Not that I'm an Ameri-phile. America has a lot of blood on its hands...but you know what, I dare say a LOT less than your European fantasyland, where military takeovers and police states are the order of the day. England is the greatest slime pit in the western Europe, and so far the loudest voice against guns.
And, of course:
1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T, and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so. If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right? - then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?
2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames. In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.
3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,
someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?
Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!
I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.
EDIT: As for the OP's question
Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
ehhh, im no hunter myself, but ive heard stories about the toughness of alligators and bears from hunters. alligators especially seem to be tough sobs.
You should hear some of the stories about the wildlife in Alaska.
bear was shot 16 times (in two separate occassions days apart) before he died, and ate two people. They found bullets from a missing hiker's gun in the bears body, but they said the bullets probably just enraged it further.
ha...hell there are police stories of a group of police firing 30+ rounds into someone and they were still trying to attack the police as they were reloading.
1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T, and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so. If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right? - then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?
2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames. In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.
3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,
someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?
1. You took the words right out of my mouth! I totally said guns are so last century, like it was some sort of fashion style to have a 9mm holstered on your hip. *rolls eyes*
And regarding your analogy... WHY!??? Why the hell do you need a GUN, of all things, to defend your family from a dog??? Why not just use a shovel to ward it off? or a stick? Or even a rock to throw at it? Are you seriously so um-coordinated that you can't handle one dog?
2. You know why I'm defenseless? BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF. I live in a civilised society where 99.9% of people don't carry guns and therefore have the potential to kill. And being defenseless has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with my willingness defend. If I had someone I loved placed in danger, I would do anything and everything I could to protect them. Hell, I'd take a bullet for them.
But then I remember I live in a country where there are no bullets for me to stop. So i don't need to take such drastic measures. And Yes I said headshot. I'm on a video game website, so I thought the humour was relevant. Sorry if that whizzed straight over your head.
3. ...You honestly believe that if they take your guns away, your government will seize the moment and clap irons around your ankles...? Good lord...
EDIT: 2)...and therefore DON'T have the potential to kill. My bad.
If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.
Where would you move? As far as I know the only countries you could then move to are in Africa or the Middle East. I don't know of any "western" countries with gun laws like, 'freedoms' and such as the US.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!
I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.
EDIT: As for the OP's question
Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
ehhh, im no hunter myself, but ive heard stories about the toughness of alligators and bears from hunters. alligators especially seem to be tough sobs.
You should hear some of the stories about the wildlife in Alaska.
bear was shot 16 times (in two separate occassions days apart) before he died, and ate two people. They found bullets from a missing hiker's gun in the bears body, but they said the bullets probably just enraged it further.
Okay, I had no idea bears were such tough bastards. but this is sort of the main danger of hunting. I had heard that alligators were tough, but i don't think they live where many people go hunting. My point remains though because bear repellant works far more effectively in most cases anyway.
mastermaniac117: Yes, you incredible fool, I indeed said LARGELY UNEXPLORED. Crack open a book. It's good for you.
"They wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote?" No such thing at all. In fact, America pioneered women's rights and was founded based on equality of all men. America was the engine for that change. Just because it didn't BOOM suddenly happen does not invalidate the intent. Remember, black slaves were SOLD, not captured. Rounded up and sold by people with weapons, I might add, who used those weapons to force people into bonds. America made big waves VERY early on, by people who were big fans of guns, no less.
Not that I'm an Ameri-phile. America has a lot of blood on its hands...but you know what, I dare say a LOT less than your European fantasyland, where military takeovers and police states are the order of the day. England is the greatest slime pit in the western Europe, and so far the loudest voice against guns.
And, of course:
1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T, and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so. If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right? - then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?
2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames. In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.
3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,
someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?
Okay, let me break apart this vile post for a minute. 1) Are you aware that most europien military takeovers are a direct result of the collapse of the USSR? or that every developed europien country has been stable for at least 70 years? 2) why is England the 'Greatest slime pit"? it has less than a quater of the murders per 100,000 people as America, a functional democracy, tighter gun control, and the only thing i disagree with is how often they support America's bulls**t wars and other plans. 3) your first point made me laugth. killing babies, that's right, make the opposition look stupider than you by mocking them. that's the smart thing to do. and that dog could just as easilly been taken down by a sharp kick between the front legs. i've done that when i came under attack by a rottie. 4) Who is you? and where do they say 'score a headshot'? and why can't they protect themselves without a gun, and why would they need to if most criminals couldn't get a gun. America has a crime rate of almost 4.5 murders per 100,000 people per year, England with tighter gun laws has 1.5 over the same sample population, and Australia with it's tight gun control has 1.6 5)you seem to have stopped taking your medication for this part. your third point makes no sense at all. democracy exists so that everyone has a vote nad can decide who rules them, and make said rulers accountable, NOT so you can shoot up the place if the goverment do something you don't like.
Yes, it's pathetic.
Pray tell, why is it that other first world countries get by perfectly fine, and democracy works as intended, without this 'need' for guns?
If you honestly think the general public stands any sort of chance against a better trained and better equipped military, you're deluding yourself.
Basically this...
All of this.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you don't like your government...
You. Vote. Them. Out. Of. Office.
That's how democracies work in the REAL world.
It's time the US stopped with this guns obsession, stopped using pathetic excuses, and joined the rest of us in the real world.