Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

the clockmaker:

Sixthly, what makes a gun cool? is a firing pin cool? is the gas return system cool? If I were to hand you the bolt of a F89, would it send shivers down your spine? I contend that what makes a gun cool is the connotations that it has, we think that an M4 with a suppressor, eotech sight, surefire torch and a bunch of superfluous rails is cool because it is wielded by who are cool. Sascats, Swat and SOG, SEALs, SFOD-D, Marines. We think tan sprayed F88 with a grenade launcher and EOS is beast because it looks beast in the hands of a digger overseas. What you are doing by buying guns 'because they are cool' is trying to become cool by association, trying to buy and image that others have earned. That is not cool.

The gun has cool connotations for a reason. Firing a gun is fun. Way more enjoyable than an FPS, and those are quite fun too. Racking a round is an adrenaline-laced feeling; like flooring it on an open stretch of highway. Guns are an engineering marvel, and I want to be able to own one. People can get hurt a thousand different ways, and that won't change if guns are harder to get. Certain restrictions make sense. A waiting period is totally logical. No guns for illegal immigrants, criminals, or people not proven mentally competent is a good law. But overall, I want to live in a country where a respectable, tax-paying citizens can own a gun with minimal government oversight.

the clockmaker:

I don't make a habit of giving out my precise address over the internet, but in general I have lived in the following places,
-Inner city Melbourne
-Inner city Sydney
-Sydney suburbs
-Small town Victoria
-Isolated Rural Victoria
-Darwin
-Semi-rural NT
-California
-North Queensland

Most of that is Australia. Different country, different legal precidents, different situation.

Where in California did you live? If it's rural and you still got a 2-3 minute response time by police, I'm doubting you were up in the mountains....

AR-15's are the least of our worries..

Hands and feet kill more people than rifles do. So why are we worried about rifles so much?

Citation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

the clockmaker:

GunsmithKitten:

the clockmaker:

See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem.

Where do you live, precisely? Is it urban or rural?

I don't make a habit of giving out my precise address over the internet, but in general I have lived in the following places,
-Inner city Melbourne
-Inner city Sydney
-Sydney suburbs
-Small town Victoria
-Isolated Rural Victoria
-Darwin
-Semi-rural NT
-California
-North Queensland

My experience has been fairly consistent.

Ultratwinkie:

You are talking about taking away a part of the bill of rights.

Again, stop putting the US constitution on a pedestal, it is a piece of two century old legislation. Simply saying, it is in the bill of rights, does not defend it to someone who lives under a different set of laws. I am not claiming that many of the rights that it enumerates are not valid, only that I dispute the validity of some, primarily and most relevant the 'right to bear arms

A right to compensation for when property is confiscated.

I do note that it says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use' for public use So far as I can see, there is no intent for these weapons to be put to the public use after their confiscation (and I am also not entirely sure that confiscation is necessary or that it should be the sole focus of this legislation.) as such, I see not contradiction between the seizure of illegal firearms for the purpose of destruction and the amendment that you have indicated.

On top of taking out the 2nd amendment, another section of the bill of rights.

again, I dispute that firearm ownership is actually a right and I don't give two fifths of a fuck if some yank politician said it was centuries ago.

Taking out an entire amendment, and you approaching another. Like that won't send a bad message to America.

So we have gone from 'it will be the death of democracy' to 'it will look bad' hmmmm.

Even temporarily, no one in their right mind would even want to touch the 5th amendment. Touching the legal foundation "for the greater good" in America is liable to kill the democratic party outright along with gun control.

see above, from what I can see, there is no requirement to touch the fifth amendment, and again, when a law itself becomes more powerful than the legislature, then it has a tendency to become overly static.

Secondly, cops are already at city centers and trying to "befriend" the city. They just can't handle the work load in its full capacity.

again, if your police are overwhelmed, you need to reform your policing system. Holy shit man, when the sewers overflow do you just say 'oh well the sanitation department is overwhelmed' and give up?

"responsibility"

It has been stated several times that the police in the US don't seem to see themselves as responsible for the safety of those under their protection. They need ot be made responsible for that therefore, responsibility

and "engagement"

The police are seen by many, including a fair whack of this site, as an outside influence. In this situation, they are seen as A-unreliable and B-likely to abuse power, therefore, they need to be brought in not as what could be called an external force and rather a force organic to the community. Therefore, engagement

are just buzzwords that mean nothing.

Just because you do not understand them does not make them meaningless. blue parrot green soda mike seventeen is meaningless, The police needing to be responsible for and engaged with the community is a fair statement.

Just because you never had an issue with cop response times doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Sigh, its that reading comprehension coming back again, here is what I said
See I have never had an issue with police response times which indicates to me that there is a solution to that specific problem. Now, in case you don't seem to understand it, here it is in point form
-Response times are a problem
-I have not experienced that problem
-This indicates to me that there exists a solution to the problem.
Honestly, you seem pretty desperate to think me an idiot, desperate enough to simply ignore what I say

American cops have shit to do,

implying that other nation's cops do not, implying, once again, that America is super special

and often they need to go where they are needed most. If they have to abandon a call, so be it.

Now I may not be a cop, but situations that threaten life or limb seem to be at the top of my priority list.

That's why they aren't legally obligated to answer your call. Because something else more important may come up, and if it does, you are screwed.

See that is a broken system, something that needs to be fixed.

1. Public use also covers confiscation, all they need is to take it. If the government takes a piece of property, it is a right to have that property be compensated to its full value. If the government takes it, it is for "public use." Its called eminent domain.

2. American cops are responsible for the people under their watch, usually the people that are arrested but they are not obligated to go to every single call. Because America is so huge no amount of cops will ever be able to handle the work load. Especially since the cops handle worse problems than other nations like unbeatable gangs that have almost unlimited money.

"reforming" is a cheap word that does nothing.

How do you reform? Concentrate? More cops? I have yet to see you use anything specific other than "engage, reform."

3. Important compared to what? The gang war in downtown? The bank robbery in the suburb? A gunman at a hospital?

4. Of course it will be the death of democracy. Approaching the 5th is something that no one wants to do. You've seen how much shit people kick up for approaching internet law and gun laws. Imagine how people will react when you approach something important.

Gashad:

Jegsimmons:

May be a good argument if Kennesaw Georgia Didnt have a bigger population and was 3 times denser than East St. Louis which is in the top 3 most dangerous cities in the US which also has gun control.

Oddly enough in the list of top ten most dangerous cities in the US only 2 are in red states, and those cities are fairly Blue anyway. Also all the cities have a higher percentage of Minorities, especially african americans.
Combine this knowledge with the fact most victims have a previous record of violence, and so do the shooters, this can only mean one thing.....

Gang Culture.

Yep, Gangbanger culture is my theory on why crime in the US is high, especially in urban areas.

but aside from that, when the nation is 65% GUN OWNERS and we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and only suffer 8K murders with fire arms and that rate is dropping as the gun ownership rate is skyrocketing....

i say...Gun are not a problem, guns have never been a problem, just like video games dont inspire people to commit crime.
its individuals and fucked up upbringing.

Check mate.

Yet if you compare the number of gun homicides in every US state(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) with that of most European countries(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) you see that the state with the lowest gun homicide rate has more than twice that of many western European countries(admittedly the US statistics are from 2004 but couldn't find any better ones). The one common denominator these states have compared to European country is their gun culture, and said culture seems to cause a massive amount of deaths.

Ultimately all American gun control is so weak that it is debatable that any of it can prevent gun violence. However in countries with strong gun control and no gun culture you see a much lower gun homicide rate.

You cant compare like that because there are too many variables.
For start all of Europe from greece and westward has strict gun control, and dont tend to border third world countries and gangbanger culture.
Plus those are out of date stats, 2010 and later are acceptable.
Plus you also have the advantage of a homogeneous society which tend to be more peaceful in first world nations (don't shoot the messenger, im only stating facts.)
Plus gun control in the US has the opposite effect of crime and murder rates, this has actually been proven many time from history. Hell chicago as i said earlier has the highest murder rate of any city (or states for that matter)and has the strictest gun control in the country.

Plus, i wouldn't use europe as a good example to compare america too, because if we woke up tomorrow and had the same rights as say BRITAIN along with the same restrictions....well, lets just say the countries leaders would have to take a plane to the other side of the planet.
I say this because to us Britain is a police state that doesn't even have free speech, or a written constitution. It also has a higher crime rate than us.

And as i said before a solid 60% of murders in the US are gang related.

For those who say "you don't need guns to protect yourself. You have plenty of police officers." It doesn't work that way in the U.S. There was a Supreme Court case that stated that police officers cannot be held responsible for not showing up to a distress call within a certain time. In other words, cops have no real reason to get there as fast as possible. My school did a drill for the idea of a gunman entering in the school to shoot people. We were told to sit in our chairs and wait. The doors are not a large piece of wood or metal with a small window. They have multiple windows that are about 6" high and 14" long. And there are two doors for almost every room. Smash the glass and its a shooting gallery. It also took the police (who were already at the school) well over eight minutes to clear the campus. This isn't good at all. We would be on our own for well over ten minutes with a nut job. I would want a gun in that scenario. Forget these "bulletproof backpacks." Those will only buy time rather than end the problem right then and there. The students and teachers are not allowed to have guns but if a loon comes in we have to call in people WITH GUNS to solve the problem.

Jegsimmons:

I say this because to us Britain is a police state that doesn't even have free speech, or a written constitution. It also has a higher crime rate than us.

Thats an interesting amount of lies and bollocks you have there. Unless you have credible sources ofcourse.

the clockmaker:
And I do not agree that firearm ownership is a right, so don't 'fix' my posts.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

So yes, it is a right.

SNIP

I love how you call some of us "armchair insurgents". Awfully big words coming from an Armchair Congressmen.

But hey, thanks for proving my point that passing any serious gun laws will split the nation in two. Really appreciate it.

Because we have to delete laws wholesale and there is no such thing as 'an amendment', any sort of legislation must involve removing the right to a fair trial, all firearm seizures would be conducted in a door kick fashion (I listed an alternate method previously, but this post is already running on), any law would be solely about seizure and none of these are in any way hyperbolic bullshit thoughts in any way.

But no, please explain to me how banning the use of FDWTPOEAHL necessitates the removal of free trials and the death of democracy.

Congratulations! You have no turned 80 million plus people into felons! Now you have to clothe and feed them for as long as their sentence is and spend trillions of dollars in doing so, further putting the country in debt at the very least! Do I need to go into worse scenarios?

Assassin Xaero:
People just want any gun that looks scary to be illegal. You can basically just change how the gun looks and people would say it should now be illegal. If you want to watch it, you can skip to 5:55 to see where he makes that point:

Looking scary is not the real issue, labeling them as assault weapons is inaccurate and it could be argued that the media are using the term to sensationalize instead of it being simple ignorance. I would agree with those arguments in a lot of cases too, the term has traction and weight behind it now so its not going to go away no matter how hard people try to reeducate others about it. Media often miss labels weapons and military hardware anyway, like the way anything with armour and a gun becomes a "tank". Even the accurate terms for those weapons has scary connotations, the second semi automatic rifle he demonstrated is not an assault rifle its a battle rifle. Compare "hunting rifle" to "battle rifle" and the differance is obvious.

But again how scary the terminology or how scary it appears is not the real issue. These guns are often military rifles nerfed to fit the assault weapons legislation and allow civilian sales, sometimes like the officer demonstrated you can take the action and barrel of a weapon and fit new furniture and grips. These things can make a huge difference in the lethality of the weapon.

The AR-15 for example had one purpose in its design, to be as light and easy to use as possible and as cost effective as possible. The ergonomics are designed so that is comfortable and natural when aiming and firing, it does not take much practice to be lethal and effective as possible. To an extent rifles like that do not need any training, you just hold it, aim it and squeeze the trigger and you can easily hit a person sized target at 30m or less with most rounds. Many handguns are the same, the are designed naturally fit in the hand and extend natural aiming. You just aim your hand and arm and again squeeze the trigger and easily hit a person at close range. Noone is ever going to be a marksman that way but they can certainly kill, a small amount of training and practice makes them even deadlier. Hunting rifles are dangerous and kill too but they are clunky and unwieldy and take skill to use effectively, your average joe that goes on a rampage and has no real experience with firearms will be much more dangerous with the easy to use ergonomic battle/combat rifle than with a specialized hunting rifle that needs a certain amount of skill to be effective with.

J Tyran:
The AR-15 for example had one purpose in its design, to be as light and easy to use as possible and as cost effective as possible. The ergonomics are designed so that is comfortable and natural when aiming and firing, it does not take much practice to be lethal and effective as possible. To an extent rifles like that do not need any training, you just hold it, aim it and squeeze the trigger and you can easily hit a person sized target at 30m or less with most rounds. Many handguns are the same, the are designed naturally fit in the hand and extend natural aiming. You just aim your hand and arm and again squeeze the trigger and easily hit a person at close range.

A person sized target, perhaps, but people firing at other people tend to miss with lots of rounds, according to police statistics.

thaluikhain:

J Tyran:
The AR-15 for example had one purpose in its design, to be as light and easy to use as possible and as cost effective as possible. The ergonomics are designed so that is comfortable and natural when aiming and firing, it does not take much practice to be lethal and effective as possible. To an extent rifles like that do not need any training, you just hold it, aim it and squeeze the trigger and you can easily hit a person sized target at 30m or less with most rounds. Many handguns are the same, the are designed naturally fit in the hand and extend natural aiming. You just aim your hand and arm and again squeeze the trigger and easily hit a person at close range.

A person sized target, perhaps, but people firing at other people tend to miss with lots of rounds, according to police statistics.

Absolutely, even trained soldiers miss. The psychology aspect is a lot muddier and I am not willing to go there as its out of my experience to be honest. There is plenty of good research into these aspects like the way hit rates improve if humanoid shapes or images are used as targets instead of simple bullseyes when training, I am not really able to comment on them though but its interesting none the less. Generally I am just referring to the technical aspects that make a military assault/battle/combat rifle easier to hold, aim and shoot.

Ultratwinkie:

1. Public use also covers confiscation, all they need is to take it. If the government takes a piece of property, it is a right to have that property be compensated to its full value. If the government takes it, it is for "public use." Its called eminent domain.

2. American cops are responsible for the people under their watch, usually the people that are arrested but they are not obligated to go to every single call. Because America is so huge no amount of cops will ever be able to handle the work load. Especially since the cops handle worse problems than other nations like unbeatable gangs that have almost unlimited money.

"reforming" is a cheap word that does nothing.

How do you reform? Concentrate? More cops? I have yet to see you use anything specific other than "engage, reform."

3. Important compared to what? The gang war in downtown? The bank robbery in the suburb? A gunman at a hospital?

4. Of course it will be the death of democracy. Approaching the 5th is something that no one wants to do. You've seen how much shit people kick up for approaching internet law and gun laws. Imagine how people will react when you approach something important.

Dude, first off, if someone has a long post, please put a

snip

for spaces sake if nothing else.

1. Explain every other form of seizure of illegal property then, do drug dealers get compensated for their meth? Also, the word use, indicates to me that if it is not going to be used, then it does not fall under the provision
2. I will concede that I do not have a full plan to reform the police, but making them responsible for the safety of those in their AO would be a good start, having more accountability as to their actions would be good, increasing entrance requirements, being less likely to go for the hard option as a first option, using the police officer as a force organic to the community as opposed to one that is external. Reform can start just about anywhere, but it has to start.
3. Well mate, if fire fights between gang members, heat style bank robberies and crazed fucking gunmen are common enough overwhelm your police force, mungkin there shouldn't be guns everywhere. I mean really, you need your gun because there are crazed gunmen everywhere?
4. You have failed to indicate how it will be the death of democracy, simply repeating something does not make it true.

GunsmithKitten:

Most of that is Australia. Different country, different legal precidents, different situation.

my point is that there are good policing practices that work across a multitude of environments and that many of the same practices can be adapted, not taken rote but adapted to the American situation. The situation is not good, but the discussion needs to start being about how we can improve it.

Where in California did you live? If it's rural and you still got a 2-3 minute response time by police, I'm doubting you were up in the mountains....

We spent most of our time between San Diego and LA. Also, I feel that it bears mentioning that I have spent time in a few other nations and in those the policing was shit, so I have experienced shit policing as well.

Smagmuck_:

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

So yes, it is a right.

Sweetheart, I could give two fifths of a fuck what an old piece of US legislation says, I mean, my country it is legally not a right, but do you see me quoting my fucking laws as a....
Two secs mate, I feel that I should point out that swearing, culturally for us is not a sign of hostility, but more punctuation, so please do not feel that I am getting angry or hostile towards you, it is just my natural mode of speech.
...You don't see me quoting my laws by rote and just saying, some old dead fucker in my country says it, so it is fucking true.

I love how you call some of us "armchair insurgents". Awfully big words coming from an Armchair Congressmen.

What the fuck does that even mean, I mean, I have a response prepared, but I... what the fuck do you think a Armchair Congressmen is? Someone who has an opinion? because from where I am standing all I am doing is putting forth an opinion, while you are trying to make authoritative statements about something that you clearly know nothing about, something that you have just fucking ignored here and something that you and people like you continually post on this site and in other places, That an A- the taliban insurgency is in anyway succsessful B- That Americans can just pick up their guns and become Muj and C- That it is in any way a desirable fucking thing.
Back That Shit UP.

And if anything, I am an Armchair MP.

hey, thanks for proving my point that passing any serious gun laws will split the nation in two. Really appreciate it.

Me- Increased firearms legislation is on balance a good thing
You- If you so much as fucking try people like me would burn this place to the ground
Me- A- No you won't and B- That's a terrible fucking idea
You- I know, so if you don't want people like me to burn this fucking place to the ground, don't even try.
?Not seeing the proving of your point here, is your point that gun owners are inherently violent right wing militia nuts, because I don't think your average gun owner is fucked in the head enough to start gunning for uniforms the second a piece of legislation that they don't like passes the floor.

Congratulations! You have no turned 80 million plus people into felons! Now you have to clothe and feed them for as long as their sentence is and spend trillions of dollars in doing so, further putting the country in debt at the very least! Do I need to go into worse scenarios?

Because that totally doesn't ignore the piece that you quoted.

Listen mate, I am assuming that you are not a complete fucking idiot, please extend to me the same courtesy, No the government does not start rounding up everybody with a NRA card, legislation has to be passed and enforced with a clear understanding that you are inconveniencing people and you need to make the transition as non aggressive and mutually acceptable as you can while still completing your objective. It needs to be done in graduated stages with plenty of opportunities for the firearm owners to balance their own situations.

I mean, why are you assuming that the government would instantly arrest everyone, do you not even fucking think about where the other side may be coming from?

1- the law is passed and all citizens are made aware of its elements
2- The buyback/amnesty period/tax incentive/whatever to trade in for a legal weapon/whatever method used to begin to filter out the undesired weapons occurs.
3- Sticking point occurs, a person is known to have a weapon, but does not wish to surrender it.
3a- The firearm owner is notified by letter that their weapon has been deemed illegal and that they are required to dispose of it through one of the discussed methods, if they do not comply then...
3b- An unarmed civil servant comes and politely knocks on their door asking to discuss the issue with them. The person is, again made aware that they are in breach of the law and are informed of how they are able to proceed. This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue. They are given another set period in which to move into compliance, the weapon is not seized by force if they do not comply then...
3c- A follow up visit is conducted by an unarmed civil servant who informs the owner that they have exhausted their time and are required to surrender the weapon. If the owner still refuses, they are made aware that the police will be in attendance at the next visit. The civil servant does not try and take the weapon by force. If they do not comply then...
3d- The police visit the owner and are armed as if for any patrol. They do not kick in the door, they knock and inform the owner that they are conducting a seizure of the weapon under the blahblahblah act of blah blah, that charges are not being pressed against them but will be in the event that they resist. If they do not comply then...
3e- The owner is arrested as anyone else in breach of the law would be, however if they attempt to threaten force against the arresting officers...
3f- the police conduct standard procedure as they would against any other violent offender, if the offender cannot be talked down...
3g- the police physically subdue the offender, if the offender is armed
3h- the police draw weapons and attempt to defuse the situation as they would any other armed offender, if the offender cannot be talked down and remains a lethal threat...
3i- then and only then will they be combated using lethal force.

that is a very very rough schedule for seizure of weapons, and as I have fucking stated multiple fucking times, I am not even sure that a full seizure is the answer.

So no, ain't noone being arrested unless you start shooting at cops, and well mate, you are shooting at fucking cops, what the hell did you expect.

the clockmaker:
This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue.

I'd have a good time with this one, hearing mr. paperpusher explain to me how I'm just as safe with a weapon that either is unreliable in it's stopping power or requires me to get into close quarters with someone who is in all likelihood far larger and much more suited to close combat with me.

And even funnier when he tries to equate my self defense means with a "hobby". No Mr. Beuracrat, my video game playing and my Dungeons and Dragons are HOBBIES. My Bursa .380 is my PROTECTION. You know, that thing that your government refuses to give me?

the clockmaker:

Ultratwinkie:

1. Public use also covers confiscation, all they need is to take it. If the government takes a piece of property, it is a right to have that property be compensated to its full value. If the government takes it, it is for "public use." Its called eminent domain.

2. American cops are responsible for the people under their watch, usually the people that are arrested but they are not obligated to go to every single call. Because America is so huge no amount of cops will ever be able to handle the work load. Especially since the cops handle worse problems than other nations like unbeatable gangs that have almost unlimited money.

"reforming" is a cheap word that does nothing.

How do you reform? Concentrate? More cops? I have yet to see you use anything specific other than "engage, reform."

3. Important compared to what? The gang war in downtown? The bank robbery in the suburb? A gunman at a hospital?

4. Of course it will be the death of democracy. Approaching the 5th is something that no one wants to do. You've seen how much shit people kick up for approaching internet law and gun laws. Imagine how people will react when you approach something important.

Dude, first off, if someone has a long post, please put a

snip

for spaces sake if nothing else.

1. Explain every other form of seizure of illegal property then, do drug dealers get compensated for their meth? Also, the word use, indicates to me that if it is not going to be used, then it does not fall under the provision
2. I will concede that I do not have a full plan to reform the police, but making them responsible for the safety of those in their AO would be a good start, having more accountability as to their actions would be good, increasing entrance requirements, being less likely to go for the hard option as a first option, using the police officer as a force organic to the community as opposed to one that is external. Reform can start just about anywhere, but it has to start.
3. Well mate, if fire fights between gang members, heat style bank robberies and crazed fucking gunmen are common enough overwhelm your police force, mungkin there shouldn't be guns everywhere. I mean really, you need your gun because there are crazed gunmen everywhere?
4. You have failed to indicate how it will be the death of democracy, simply repeating something does not make it true.

GunsmithKitten:

Most of that is Australia. Different country, different legal precidents, different situation.

my point is that there are good policing practices that work across a multitude of environments and that many of the same practices can be adapted, not taken rote but adapted to the American situation. The situation is not good, but the discussion needs to start being about how we can improve it.

Where in California did you live? If it's rural and you still got a 2-3 minute response time by police, I'm doubting you were up in the mountains....

We spent most of our time between San Diego and LA. Also, I feel that it bears mentioning that I have spent time in a few other nations and in those the policing was shit, so I have experienced shit policing as well.

Smagmuck_:

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

So yes, it is a right.

Sweetheart, I could give two fifths of a fuck what an old piece of US legislation says, I mean, my country it is legally not a right, but do you see me quoting my fucking laws as a....
Two secs mate, I feel that I should point out that swearing, culturally for us is not a sign of hostility, but more punctuation, so please do not feel that I am getting angry or hostile towards you, it is just my natural mode of speech.
...You don't see me quoting my laws by rote and just saying, some old dead fucker in my country says it, so it is fucking true.

I love how you call some of us "armchair insurgents". Awfully big words coming from an Armchair Congressmen.

What the fuck does that even mean, I mean, I have a response prepared, but I... what the fuck do you think a Armchair Congressmen is? Someone who has an opinion? because from where I am standing all I am doing is putting forth an opinion, while you are trying to make authoritative statements about something that you clearly know nothing about, something that you have just fucking ignored here and something that you and people like you continually post on this site and in other places, That an A- the taliban insurgency is in anyway succsessful B- That Americans can just pick up their guns and become Muj and C- That it is in any way a desirable fucking thing.
Back That Shit UP.

And if anything, I am an Armchair MP.

hey, thanks for proving my point that passing any serious gun laws will split the nation in two. Really appreciate it.

Me- Increased firearms legislation is on balance a good thing
You- If you so much as fucking try people like me would burn this place to the ground
Me- A- No you won't and B- That's a terrible fucking idea
You- I know, so if you don't want people like me to burn this fucking place to the ground, don't even try.
?Not seeing the proving of your point here, is your point that gun owners are inherently violent right wing militia nuts, because I don't think your average gun owner is fucked in the head enough to start gunning for uniforms the second a piece of legislation that they don't like passes the floor.

Congratulations! You have no turned 80 million plus people into felons! Now you have to clothe and feed them for as long as their sentence is and spend trillions of dollars in doing so, further putting the country in debt at the very least! Do I need to go into worse scenarios?

Because that totally doesn't ignore the piece that you quoted.

Listen mate, I am assuming that you are not a complete fucking idiot, please extend to me the same courtesy, No the government does not start rounding up everybody with a NRA card, legislation has to be passed and enforced with a clear understanding that you are inconveniencing people and you need to make the transition as non aggressive and mutually acceptable as you can while still completing your objective. It needs to be done in graduated stages with plenty of opportunities for the firearm owners to balance their own situations.

I mean, why are you assuming that the government would instantly arrest everyone, do you not even fucking think about where the other side may be coming from?

1- the law is passed and all citizens are made aware of its elements
2- The buyback/amnesty period/tax incentive/whatever to trade in for a legal weapon/whatever method used to begin to filter out the undesired weapons occurs.
3- Sticking point occurs, a person is known to have a weapon, but does not wish to surrender it.
3a- The firearm owner is notified by letter that their weapon has been deemed illegal and that they are required to dispose of it through one of the discussed methods, if they do not comply then...
3b- An unarmed civil servant comes and politely knocks on their door asking to discuss the issue with them. The person is, again made aware that they are in breach of the law and are informed of how they are able to proceed. This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue. They are given another set period in which to move into compliance, the weapon is not seized by force if they do not comply then...
3c- A follow up visit is conducted by an unarmed civil servant who informs the owner that they have exhausted their time and are required to surrender the weapon. If the owner still refuses, they are made aware that the police will be in attendance at the next visit. The civil servant does not try and take the weapon by force. If they do not comply then...
3d- The police visit the owner and are armed as if for any patrol. They do not kick in the door, they knock and inform the owner that they are conducting a seizure of the weapon under the blahblahblah act of blah blah, that charges are not being pressed against them but will be in the event that they resist. If they do not comply then...
3e- The owner is arrested as anyone else in breach of the law would be, however if they attempt to threaten force against the arresting officers...
3f- the police conduct standard procedure as they would against any other violent offender, if the offender cannot be talked down...
3g- the police physically subdue the offender, if the offender is armed
3h- the police draw weapons and attempt to defuse the situation as they would any other armed offender, if the offender cannot be talked down and remains a lethal threat...
3i- then and only then will they be combated using lethal force.

that is a very very rough schedule for seizure of weapons, and as I have fucking stated multiple fucking times, I am not even sure that a full seizure is the answer.

So no, ain't noone being arrested unless you start shooting at cops, and well mate, you are shooting at fucking cops, what the hell did you expect.

1. Drugs were illegal for a long time. Guns aren't illegal. Do I honestly need to explain that, in a country with a right to have guns, that guns are not *gasp* illegal?

If you want to take something away by banning it or just taking it, you need adequate compensation. At full value, or its not adequate compensation. Drugs are not an example of compensation.

3. You won't stop gang members, because the FBI has said they are so big now they can just steal from armories, and pretty much anywhere. You can't stop them, not even with a gun ban. Secondly,I neever saidthose were the main reasons it over powered the police, I stated those are much more important than, say, a mugger.

4. It will be the death of American democracy when 2/3rds of the states are willing to throw a part of the fundamental part of the American legal system away.

To do that, it becomes incredibly obvious the states are far beyond caring about people. After all, taking that part out would send the message that the state no longer has to answer to its own legal system and beyond the scope of its power.

Semes:

Jegsimmons:

I say this because to us Britain is a police state that doesn't even have free speech, or a written constitution. It also has a higher crime rate than us.

Thats an interesting amount of lies and bollocks you have there. Unless you have credible sources ofcourse.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20104567/in-uk-twitter-facebook-rants-land-some-in-jail

thats proof enough for me....mean or hateful speech or not, no one should be censored....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4682185/Britain-is-sleepwalking-into-becoming-a-police-state-and-few-seem-to-care.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-great-britain-becoming-a-police-state-as-we-speak

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/28/terrorism.humanrights1

maby police state was a bit strong, but you have to admit they have fewer basic liberties that america is blessed with.

Ultratwinkie:

1. Drugs were illegal for a long time. Guns aren't illegal. Do I honestly need to explain that, in a country with a right to have guns, that guns are not *gasp* illegal?

If you want to take something away by banning it or just taking it, you need adequate compensation. At full value, or its not adequate compensation. Drugs are not an example of compensation.

3. You won't stop gang members, because the FBI has said they are so big now they can just steal from armories, and pretty much anywhere. You can't stop them, not even with a gun ban. Secondly,I neever saidthose were the main reasons it over powered the police, I stated those are much more important than, say, a mugger.

4. It will be the death of American democracy when 2/3rds of the states are willing to throw a part of the fundamental part of the American legal system away.

To do that, it becomes incredibly obvious the states are far beyond caring about people. After all, taking that part out would send the message that the state no longer has to answer to its own legal system and beyond the scope of its power.

i like you. you think 3 dimensionally.

GunsmithKitten:

the clockmaker:
This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue.

I'd have a good time with this one, hearing mr. paperpusher explain to me how I'm just as safe with a weapon that either is unreliable in it's stopping power or requires me to get into close quarters with someone who is in all likelihood far larger and much more suited to close combat with me.

And even funnier when he tries to equate my self defense means with a "hobby". No Mr. Beuracrat, my video game playing and my Dungeons and Dragons are HOBBIES. My Bursa .380 is my PROTECTION. You know, that thing that your government refuses to give me?

We have been over this, obviously any firearm legislation needs to be coupled with a corresponding increase in police/government protection of the people.

Also, just because they are a civil servant, does not make them a penpushing fuckhead, I know civil servants who were liaisons in Afghan and saw more combat than most soldiers, I know civil servants who lived in the settlements in the territory, and trust me they did not push pens.

Also, can we get a memorandum on the 'you are in favour of firearm legislation, therefore you are immediately ignorant and can't tell a gas plug from a gas spring' bullshit.

Ultratwinkie:

1. Drugs were illegal for a long time. Guns aren't illegal. Do I honestly need to explain that, in a country with a right to have guns, that guns are not *gasp* illegal?

If you want to take something away by banning it or just taking it, you need adequate compensation. At full value, or its not adequate compensation. Drugs are not an example of compensation.

3. You won't stop gang members, because the FBI has said they are so big now they can just steal from armories, and pretty much anywhere. You can't stop them, not even with a gun ban. Secondly,I neever saidthose were the main reasons it over powered the police, I stated those are much more important than, say, a mugger.

4. It will be the death of American democracy when 2/3rds of the states are willing to throw a part of the fundamental part of the American legal system away.

To do that, it becomes incredibly obvious the states are far beyond caring about people. After all, taking that part out would send the message that the state no longer has to answer to its own legal system and beyond the scope of its power.

For fucks sake mate, just fucking snip my post when you quote it, my posts have a tendency to be long and people should not have to suffer through them twice.
1- There was a point that drugs were legal, then they were criminalised, and now they are seized. If firearms of the type that we are discussing were criminalised then the situation would be much the same.

2- hooray for ignoring points when your simplistic non-arguments are shown to be that.

3- Holy shit mate, if you think that there are gangs out there already more powerful than your police and your government can do buggery to stop it, don't you think that your democracy is already fucked?

4- So democratically changing a law indicates that laws are worthless? I am seriously getting tired of the religious fervour that a lot of yanks treat their constitution with. Laws do not need to be static, and voting to change a law, even when you don't fucking agree with it is not the motherfucking death of democracy.
-Amending a law does not mean throwing it away, I mean you'd think somebody who is so bloody enamoured with amendments would understand what an amendment is.

the clockmaker:

GunsmithKitten:

the clockmaker:
This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue.

I'd have a good time with this one, hearing mr. paperpusher explain to me how I'm just as safe with a weapon that either is unreliable in it's stopping power or requires me to get into close quarters with someone who is in all likelihood far larger and much more suited to close combat with me.

And even funnier when he tries to equate my self defense means with a "hobby". No Mr. Beuracrat, my video game playing and my Dungeons and Dragons are HOBBIES. My Bursa .380 is my PROTECTION. You know, that thing that your government refuses to give me?

We have been over this, obviously any firearm legislation needs to be coupled with a corresponding increase in police/government protection of the people.

And what about the people protecting themselves from having their guns taken away? I know that many people in the military own guns so I'm sure if a gun ban passed they'd also defend their guns with their guns. If cops were smart they'd be too scared to enforce a law like that and it would get repealed due to too many negative consequences.

Xan Krieger:

the clockmaker:

GunsmithKitten:

I'd have a good time with this one, hearing mr. paperpusher explain to me how I'm just as safe with a weapon that either is unreliable in it's stopping power or requires me to get into close quarters with someone who is in all likelihood far larger and much more suited to close combat with me.

And even funnier when he tries to equate my self defense means with a "hobby". No Mr. Beuracrat, my video game playing and my Dungeons and Dragons are HOBBIES. My Bursa .380 is my PROTECTION. You know, that thing that your government refuses to give me?

We have been over this, obviously any firearm legislation needs to be coupled with a corresponding increase in police/government protection of the people.

And what about the people protecting themselves from having their guns taken away? I know that many people in the military own guns so I'm sure if a gun ban passed they'd also defend their guns with their guns. If cops were smart they'd be too scared to enforce a law like that and it would get repealed due to too many negative consequences.

I hope that the people of the US are not going to start gunning down cops because they want to keep their guns, because if that is the position of the anti-legislation lobby then they are fundamentally un-democratic. I mean, the other side of the oft-quoted bullshit that random civilians are going to protect the nation from a dictatorship is the wind up int he situation that we have now, with the firearm lobby holding the nation to ransom because they did not like a law that was passed. What happens if that same lobby decides that the majority of the people voted in the wrong president, what happens if they decide that anyone who disagrees with them is a threat to the oh-so vague 'liberty'.

And again, if some dumb fuck does pop a few off, well that will not end well for him.

Maybe that is where the key misunderstanding is here between the two groups, those who want to use democracy to solve the issue and those who rely on the ability to shoot those who think differently from them.

Note that the rhetoric defend their guns with their guns, I think for a lot of people, (kitten being the notable exception as she clearly sees her weapons as a means to an end) the weapons themselves have become the end. Or maybe it is that many Americans cannot get over the persecution complex that the redcoats or the russians will ride over the hill, or suddenly apropos of nothing everyone will be nazis. It is a wearying and depressing thought.

the clockmaker:

Xan Krieger:

the clockmaker:

We have been over this, obviously any firearm legislation needs to be coupled with a corresponding increase in police/government protection of the people.

And what about the people protecting themselves from having their guns taken away? I know that many people in the military own guns so I'm sure if a gun ban passed they'd also defend their guns with their guns. If cops were smart they'd be too scared to enforce a law like that and it would get repealed due to too many negative consequences.

I hope that the people of the US are not going to start gunning down cops because they want to keep their guns, because if that is the position of the anti-legislation lobby then they are fundamentally un-democratic. I mean, the other side of the oft-quoted bullshit that random civilians are going to protect the nation from a dictatorship is the wind up int he situation that we have now, with the firearm lobby holding the nation to ransom because they did not like a law that was passed. What happens if that same lobby decides that the majority of the people voted in the wrong president, what happens if they decide that anyone who disagrees with them is a threat to the oh-so vague 'liberty'.

And again, if some dumb fuck does pop a few off, well that will not end well for him.

Maybe that is where the key misunderstanding is here between the two groups, those who want to use democracy to solve the issue and those who rely on the ability to shoot those who think differently from them.

Note that the rhetoric defend their guns with their guns, I think for a lot of people, (kitten being the notable exception as she clearly sees her weapons as a means to an end) the weapons themselves have become the end. Or maybe it is that many Americans cannot get over the persecution complex that the redcoats or the russians will ride over the hill, or suddenly apropos of nothing everyone will be nazis. It is a wearying and depressing thought.

I think the way it should be is that the people should be able to hold the government by the balls. They should know if they try to take too much power it will end horribly. If the people are armed with crossbows they can't do that. It's all about keeping the government in check (and being able to defend yourself and your property).

the clockmaker:

snip

1. 1920-1930 America was much more willing to let things slide. keep in mind prohibition in America was helped by religion, that banning alcohol as "the commandment from god." The modern world isn't the same, this isn't 1920 anymore. Why? Because ideas and what is considered acceptable has changed. You are now less and less able to use religion as a crutch. A lot of things have changed and standards have gotten higher.

To hold America to its 1920s standards is to hold Australia to its penal colony standards.

2. You conceded that you had no actual plan. That's what I wanted.

3. Not necessarily, because the reason they CAN steal from us is their income from drugs. Income we have done nothing about, and have instead glorified. Since no one in America wants to deal with gangs, the gangs have free reign.

Since the cops can't do much about the drug problem anymore, its up to the political system now.

Oh yeah, and its not "thinking" its pretty much fact.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/

The FBI have said this for 3 years now.

4. The I-X amendments of the constitution are not so much law but the general ideas, basic rights. Thats why its called the bill of rights. Ideas that are widely believed in and will only be taken out when the ideas no longer believed in. One of the most basic and better ideas was the 5th. Culturally, the 5th is what America considers a basic right, much like a right to life. It is what Americans consider the bare minimum.

There is a reason no one goes after the bill of rights. Ever.

America cannot even think of not having the any of the rights given by the 5th amendment. Anything less is considered barbaric. Suspending the 5th, even partly, is still throwing it away. There is no "ends justify the means" here. In American culture, that is considered barbaric.

The constitution can be changed, but the bill of rights is the part no one fucks with, and for good reason. Any benefit from suspending rights will be nullified by the negative effects.

the clockmaker:

We have been over this, obviously any firearm legislation needs to be coupled with a corresponding increase in police/government protection of the people.

Considering that confiscating handguns will be even less of a Herculean labor than somehow making all of rural America able to have police protection and fast response times, I'm counting on that happening and not the latter.

But make no mistake, if it happened, I'd surrender my firearm. Prison would be a lingering and fright filled death even more so than dying at the hands of some psycho. Thus, I'd pile on the barricades even deeper and simply become a shut in. I'm not going out there naked.

Also, can we get a memorandum on the 'you are in favour of firearm legislation, therefore you are immediately ignorant and can't tell a gas plug from a gas spring' bullshit.

Didn't really say that, though if one is to compare my CC weapon to a hobby I might mean that insultingly. Oh, and also, firearms are my LIVING as well, so this idea of yours leaves me unemployed.

3- Holy shit mate, if you think that there are gangs out there already more powerful than your police and your government can do buggery to stop it, don't you think that your democracy is already fucked?

There are, especially the Russian mafia, and who says it isn't already fucked?

GunsmithKitten:
Didn't really say that, though if one is to compare my CC weapon to a hobby I might mean that insultingly. Oh, and also, firearms are my LIVING as well, so this idea of yours leaves me unemployed.

Yeah, being prohibited from selling death would sooooo unfair.... Just like it was unfair that liberating the nazi concentration camps put some of those poor producers of toxic gas out of business.

GunsmithKitten:
I'd have a good time with this one, hearing mr. paperpusher explain to me how I'm just as safe with a weapon that either is unreliable in it's stopping power or requires me to get into close quarters with someone who is in all likelihood far larger and much more suited to close combat with me.

Haven't we been over that a million times before? Guns disempower, they do not empower. Guns do not provide security at all, in fact they add danger. It doesn't matter that you can arm up, because anyone seriously meaning you harm also is armed, and there's even less you can do to defend yourself that way.

Now to save us some time:
You're now predictably going to recite the anecdote of how you threatened someone with murder because you felt scared again, but for each of those, there's a thousand shootings to offset them, and you can't defend how your false sense of security is worth sacrificing thousands of lives, so you lose the argument in favour of perpetrating gun violence again.

Xan Krieger:
I think the way it should be is that the people should be able to hold the government by the balls. They should know if they try to take too much power it will end horribly. If the people are armed with crossbows they can't do that. It's all about keeping the government in check (and being able to defend yourself and your property).

Should be, perhaps, but it wouldn't be "the people" doing that, it'd be a large militant faction of gun owners holding the government and everyone else by the balls, and most people wouldn't be part of that group. Likewise, it wouldn't necessarily be a response to the government taking too much power, but anything that faction happened not to like enough to prompt it to impose its will over the nation as a whole.

Xan Krieger:
I think the way it should be is that the people should be able to hold the government by the balls. They should know if they try to take too much power it will end horribly. If the people are armed with crossbows they can't do that. It's all about keeping the government in check (and being able to defend yourself and your property).

Keep your government in check by, I don't know...voting them out of the office when their term is up if they did nothing by mess up? Get politically active, find better people, organize, endorse, campaign, get loud.

If someone is doing a shitty job, you fire them, you do not fire at them. But if you're so complacent, as a society, that you can't even get together and send a message to your government that you don't like them via opposition campaigning and vote count, and instead keep voting for the same sods with approval rating in single digits, then it's your bloody fault that you have a shitty government and you deserve a shitty government.

But I understand, getting politically active takes more effort than waving guns and threatening to shoot up the place if the government does something you don't like.

Welgo Rodimus:
Do you believe the government should be allowed to turn off your electricity from time to time, even if it means saving on electricity and utility costs? I for one don't understand why some people care so much about the 2nd amendment, we don't even need it! It's a pretty pointless amendment when you don't even need a gun. It's something tough guys like to have to show people they're tough, but they won't look so tough when the president passes a law that makes it illegal to own guns!

You don't stop buying homeowner's insurance just because your house hasn't caught on fire in the past year.

Mr.Cynic88:
America's Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, but they also wrote that black slaves were 3/5ths of a person, so the gun control argument should not be about the past, but rather, the future. In this future, should properly vetted individuals have the right to carry and collect potentially dangerous firearms? Should they be allowed to purchase knives, fireworks, or poisonous chemicals? What do American freedoms actually entail?

This is a stupid basis for discussion. On multiple fronts. Item number one, slavery was originally going to be outlawed, but the southern states refused to back the new constitution. The northern Colonies would have never held against the British on their own. Number 2, the 3/5 compromise was to keep the southern states from having the full voting power of the slaves which didn't actually have any say in how the "franchise" was used. Pointing it out as something bad is fucking asinine. Unless you think having a vastly more politically powerful South would have been a good thing come the Civil War. Number 3, the Founders engineered into the Constitution a political time bomb that was guaranteed to end slavery sooner or later, which came to fruition in the Civil War itself.

Smagmuck_:
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

So yes, it is a right.

It's been well debated and decisively lost by the gun lobby. The second amendment doesn't mention an absolute right to have any sort of firearm and any sort of accesory and use it without any restrictions. Not only that, but law interpretations can change.

randomsix:
You don't stop buying homeowner's insurance just because your house hasn't caught on fire in the past year.

You're a million times more likely to have your house catch on fire then you are to defend yourself with a firearm though.

Blablahb:
It's been well debated and decisively lost by the gun lobby.

You're right. They lost not one, but two supreme court decisions that held that the second amendment did not apply to individuals.

That's why DC and Chicago's handgungun ban is still in effect.

Oh wait, that DIDN'T HAPPEN

Perhaps you have a different definition of "decisively lost". The second amendment applies to individuals. Period. End of discussion

im definitely on the civilians dont really need firearms to defend themselves from rampaging hordes of (insert group you dislike here) kicking down their front door to murder, rape and loot but ive got alot of respect for someone who drops all the pretence and excuses and outright jumps to the heart of the matter and just says "guns are cool thats why we want them"

ravenshrike:

Mr.Cynic88:
America's Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, but they also wrote that black slaves were 3/5ths of a person, so the gun control argument should not be about the past, but rather, the future. In this future, should properly vetted individuals have the right to carry and collect potentially dangerous firearms? Should they be allowed to purchase knives, fireworks, or poisonous chemicals? What do American freedoms actually entail?

This is a stupid basis for discussion. On multiple fronts. Item number one, slavery was originally going to be outlawed, but the southern states refused to back the new constitution. The northern Colonies would have never held against the British on their own. Number 2, the 3/5 compromise was to keep the southern states from having the full voting power of the slaves which didn't actually have any say in how the "franchise" was used. Pointing it out as something bad is fucking asinine. Unless you think having a vastly more politically powerful South would have been a good thing come the Civil War. Number 3, the Founders engineered into the Constitution a political time bomb that was guaranteed to end slavery sooner or later, which came to fruition in the Civil War itself.

I'm aware of the history of slavery. I'm saying in that paragraph that "the second amendment" isn't the best argument against gun control because those laws were written in a substantially different context. The argument should be about today's time, not the 18th century. Which is why I contend that guns should really be legal because people want them.

Mr.Cynic88:
Which is why I contend that guns should really be legal because people want them.

I guarantee that I want a tiger far more than anyone wants a gun. That doesn't mean that it is a good idea. A tiger, like a gun, is a killing machine. And no matter how careful I am with it, both are more dangerous for me and those around me than if no one had them.

"It is cool" or "I really want one" isn't a rational argument.

Aris Khandr:

Mr.Cynic88:
Which is why I contend that guns should really be legal because people want them.

I guarantee that I want a tiger far more than anyone wants a gun. That doesn't mean that it is a good idea. A tiger, like a gun, is a killing machine. And no matter how careful I am with it, both are more dangerous for me and those around me than if no one had them.

"It is cool" or "I really want one" isn't a rational argument.

Well, I would contend that you, after taking the proper safety precautions and getting the right permit, should have the right to own a tiger. Those famous magicians own tigers, and yes, eventually one of them did get hurt, but we didn't make all tigers illegal in America, now did we?

Why isn't "it is cool" a rational argument? Why produce fireworks? Why sell elaborate katanas? Humans should have the right to rationally pursue their interests, as long as they are not specifically hurting somebody else.

wombat_of_war:
im definitely on the civilians dont really need firearms to defend themselves from rampaging hordes of (insert group you dislike here) kicking down their front door to murder, rape and loot

Oh? Tell me more about how the 1992 LA riots didn't include murder, looting, and property destruction, and how the police so effectively defended Korean shopkeepers.

It is a fallacy to assume that you will never need something simply because you do not need it now.

Xan Krieger:
I think the way it should be is that the people should be able to hold the government by the balls. They should know if they try to take too much power it will end horribly. If the people are armed with crossbows they can't do that. It's all about keeping the government in check (and being able to defend yourself and your property).

But that is too far dependent on a united populace. Fuck mate, even Hitler had the support of a fair whack of the populace right up until the reds kicked down his front door. If I agree with the government and you do not, which one of us is the people, fuck, lets say you agree with the government and I do not, same question. On top of that, a system wherein the national command authority rose out of a violent movement by the populace is going to be heavily weighted towards those who excel in the application of violence; this is why so many countries see military or militia leaders take power after a rebellion, this is why the rule of law fails so often after a revolution and this is why the taboo on governmental violence fades in the wake of one. Once the militia becomes the power, they are unlikely to revert to free and open trials after seeing their cause so buoyed by the at will application of violence to those that are a threat to 'liberty'.

And this raises a further question, when does a threat to 'liberty' actually constitute, because at the start of the debate it was jackboots on the national mall, a few threads ago it became any legislation that discusses regulation of firearms and now I am wondering how long it is before anyone who even talks about that legislation is deemed a threat to these fringe groups. Note that I am not calling all firearm owners militia men, but I am saying that those who wish to overthrow the democratically elected government of their nation due to legislation that they disagree with are fringe groups.

Besides, the 'people should not be afraid of their government, a government should be afraid of the people' is a false dichotomy, neither party should be in fear of the other. The people should be able live their lives and the government should be free in creating the framework for them to do so without fear of some fuckhead who thinks that he is a Muj just because he has a firearm gunning them down.

Ultratwinkie:

1. 1920-1930 America was much more willing to let things slide. keep in mind prohibition in America was helped by religion, that banning alcohol as "the commandment from god." The modern world isn't the same, this isn't 1920 any more. Why? Because ideas and what is considered acceptable has changed. You are now less and less able to use religion as a crutch. A lot of things have changed and standards have gotten higher.

Methamphetamine, criminalised in 1983. check.

To hold America to its 1920s standards is to hold Australia to its penal colony standards.

implying that Australia has developed at half the speed that the US has

2. You conceded that you had no actual plan. That's what I wanted.

did you even read the rest of the post? I said that no, I do not have a step by step plan, you know why, because that is incredibly in depth and would likely be somebodies full time job.

3. Not necessarily, because the reason they CAN steal from us is their income from drugs. Income we have done nothing about, and have instead glorified. Since no one in America wants to deal with gangs, the gangs have free reign.

Since the cops can't do much about the drug problem any more, its up to the political system now.

Oh yeah, and its not "thinking" its pretty much fact.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/

The FBI have said this for 3 years now.

mungkin that has something to do with your ineffective recruit screening process.

You seem to think that I and others are of the mind that if we regulate, (not ban) firearms, then everything will immediately become better, this is nonsense, firearm legislation is one facet of the dozens of other issues that need addressing, it just so happens that as this one is a sticking point, people are more obsessed with it.

4. The I-X amendments of the constitution are not so much law but the general ideas, basic rights. Thats why its called the bill of rights. Ideas that are widely believed in and will only be taken out when the ideas no longer believed in. One of the most basic and better ideas was the 5th. Culturally, the 5th is what America considers a basic right, much like a right to life. It is what Americans consider the bare minimum.

never generalise. You know what the one thing that you can say 'Americans' do is, that is hold an American citizenship. From what I can see, there is still no conflict with the fifth amendment other than your insistence that 'it just does okay'. And dude, passed by legislators, argued by judges and kept in records with other laws, it is a mother fucking law. Just because it happened in your super special country does not put it above legislation passed in other nations.

America cannot even think of not having the any of the rights given by the 5th amendment. Anything less is considered barbaric.

hooray for calling countries that don't let you leave your weapon unattended on a counter in a house with kids barbaric

Suspending the 5th, even partly, is still throwing it away.

hooray for thinking that amending a law (which you have still not shown that we need to do) throwing it away

There is no "ends justify the means" here.

hooray for ignoring the masses of fucked up shit (a fair whack of which I agree with) which was done and is being done by the US under exactly that mentality. I mean, sure you could argue that that mentality is in lesser degrees than in other nations. You would be wrong, just not as bull-shitty as the statement that you just made

In American culture, that is considered barbaric.

hooray for the vaguely racist idea that nations that don't conform with your (imaginary) idea of America are barbaric and hooray for your treatment of the US as some shangri la that foreigners simply don't understand, which is nonsense because A- We are all exposed to US culture and news on a daily basis and B- I used to fucking live there.

The constitution can be changed, but the bill of rights is the part no one fucks with, and for good reason. Any benefit from suspending rights will be nullified by the negative effects.

Show me some actual negative effects, stops saying you cannot change it because it will be changed.

GunsmithKitten:

Considering that confiscating handguns will be even less of a Herculean labour than somehow making all of rural America able to have police protection and fast response times, I'm counting on that happening and not the latter.

this is not the wild west, if I can get a reasonable response time in rural Vic and Rural NT, it can occur in Rural Ohio.

But make no mistake, if it happened, I'd surrender my firearm. Prison would be a lingering and fright filled death even more so than dying at the hands of some psycho.

I have to say, I would not be surprised if you found away to bring a gun into prison.

Thus, I'd pile on the barricades even deeper and simply become a shut in. I'm not going out there naked.

and that is unfortunate. Now I do not mean this as a point in any way, I see this as removed from the debate that we are having now, but have you talked to someone about these fears, because while there are dangers in the world (I got chased by an angry gang (though I still insist that it was a mob, far too many people to be a gain) in a South African township once) you are clearly letting your fears control your life.
I mean I know what it is like to feel like some malevolent power wants to wipe you out. After black Saturday, when we lost people that we knew, when mates lost houses and others lost lively hoods, when one of the towns that I considered almost a second home was wiped off of the map, when the emergency services were unable to stop the inferno coming our way. For a long time all I could think about was getting away from the bush and away from anything that could burn to that extent ever again. I was hating seeing nothing but black when I went for runs and seeing destroyed property wherever I went. My friends and my family got me through that, so perhaps you need to find someone who can help you.

You are clearly smart, and from what I can see a decent person (ignore Blah) and the world has few enough of those things to lose more because you are afraid.

Didn't really say that

Sorry, I have just had too many anti-legislation types treat me like I know nothing just because I disagree with them. Many of those who do this have far less experience with firearms than I do, as was shown when one insisted that how you cycled the action after a round had been fired affected the energy transference of the round

though if one is to compare my CC weapon to a hobby I might mean that insultingly.

No, that part is not a hobby, I am referring to actual hobbies, in any scenario where seizure of illegal weapons is taking place, it is first necessary to remove the need, perceived or otherwise for the necessity of lethal self defence on a regular basis.

Oh, and also, firearms are my LIVING as well, so this idea of yours leaves me unemployed.

Hunting rifles, target rifles, restoration of historically important pieces, target pistols, the list goes on.

There are, especially the Russian mafia, and who says it isn't already fucked?

I would like to see where you are getting this from, because everything that I have seen, in news and articles, indicates that television and film have vastly overblown their power.

I do like the diversity of positions that you three have taken, Kitten on self defence, Krieger (whom I cannot help but see as the doctor from archer) on the balance of power between Govt. and people and winkie on constitutional sanctity. Genuine pat on the back guys, it goes a long way toward showing that your position is not hegemony.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked