Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

Then why haven't you taken up arms?

Me personally? My life doesn't afford the opportunity of joining a militia and fighting. I have greater responsibilities that I can't just drop because the country I live in is following a contradictory path to my ideals. However, I have plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

I thought that's what the second amendment was for. Keeping the government in check. You guys seem to be doing a pretty shitty job.

I don't like it when you use this sort of a tactic to invalidate the arguments of others. The Constitution wasn't written to keep the government in check. It was written to guarantee the powers of the people to establish a government by the people, for the people; a government with limited powers that could be changed by the people as they saw fit. The entire point of it was to establish the people's power, the government was never supposed to have enough power to warrant being 'kept in check.'

I more or less agree with some of what you're saying, but the fact remains: if everyone voted for Joe Blow instead of Romney or Obama, Joe Blow would be President. If Obama or Romney were tyrannical (they're not), I have full confidence in the American public to vote for Joe Blow.

Okay, but how does Joe Blow get elected? In order for enough people to even know about him he either has to a) have the money to campaign on a national level just like the other candidates or b) become the party nominee. There's no way the average person can do either of these things, even if they are qualified, educated, and have the people's interest in mind. Joe Blow will never get elected because he can't afford the platform to do so. Even if Joe Blow somehow won the electoral vote, he would not be allowed to take office so long as there was even the slightest loophole congress or the supreme court could manipulate to prevent it. At best, Joe Blow would be an ineffective president, hindered by an uncooperative congress/senate, much like Obama has been.

Again, the problem is the monied interest having a monopoly on our government. 9/10 elected officials win because they spent more campaign money than their opposition.

Both of those wars were hugely supported by the American public at their inception.

Both of those wars were perpetrated by a government who misled the American people by withholding facts or outright lying. In fact, by the time the truth came out, most of the American people were not only against these wars, but the approval rating of the administrations who started them slipped so far a cockroach would have a better shot at reelection.

I'm sorry but dictionaries aren't authorities on the definitions of words.

1. I used Google, not a dictionary.

2. It's okay to use a dictionary as a reference for clarification.

Blah blah blah,

That's an extremely compelling counter argument, not sure what I'm going to do about it.

if the US military wanted to kill us all, it could.

1. The US military is comprised entirely of US citizens. GL convincing them to kill all their family members and friends.

2. The US military is not a mindless robot drone that just does whatever the government commands. The last 13 years have been an eye opening experience for many troops, leading a great many of them to disapprove of this administration's leadership.

3. We live in the age of information technoloy, where anything can be uploaded to the internet and broadcast worldwide in a matter of seconds. The minute our government ordered the military to 'kill us all,' you would have a worldwide revolt of every on duty soldier on the planet. I repeat, no one is going to take an order to kill their friends and family.

But we don't live in a tyrannical state like South Sudan. We live in the US, the largest first world country in the world.

We don't live in the kind of Tyrannical state like North Korea, where you're lucky if you don't get murdered by a death squad or imprisoned in a labor camp. We aren't denied contact with the outside world and brainwashed to believe our president is God. No, you're right to say we don't live in that kind of a tyrannical government. Instead, we live in the kind of tyrannical government where people are pacified by technology and media. Where freedom of speech cannot effect change because the people do not have the power they need.

If tomorrow we all woke up and Obama decided to go to war with Russia, we would be at war with Russia and nothing could be done by our people to stop it. The simple fact of the matter is that there are many issues where the diplomatic way of solving them just aren't effective. You've seen our president struggle just to get anything done in office, with a congress that opposes him on nearly every issue, and this is a president who gamed the system to get into office in the first place. Obama had everything, the support of the DNC, money, and he outspent Romney and McCain in both elections.

We can't even stop our banks, corporations, or wall street from raping us of trillions of dollars and forcing people into poverty with bad loans and foreclosures. If one of our financial institutions makes so many mistakes it goes bankrupt, our government just bails them out with trillions of dollars we don't have. How many Americans in their right mind support any of this?

The fact of the matter is that if we could stop it or change it, we would have done so already. The Occupy movement didn't do anything except give the police a reason to use force and shut down the efforts of protests across the nation. Freedom of speech doesn't matter if you can be silenced by teargas and riot police. What exactly do you suggest we do to fix our country? I know, let's just give up our 2nd amendment rights to the fear mongering liberals who think that guns are evil!

That will fix it!

We live in the worst kind of tyranny: the kind where people are too preoccupied with their Desperate Housewives and Facebook to give a shit about their country.

You are already completely reliant on the federal government for your protection against nuclear, chemical, and good old fashioned bombings. You can't defend yourself against the armies of the 21st century. Stop living in a fucking fantasy, there is nothing patriotic about rounding up anti-government militias and putting women in front of you as human shields when you don't agree with a court order.

So much wrong with this logic.

We rely on diplomacy with other countries for protection against attacks. IE, being nice prevents us from being attacked. The Boston Bombing and 9/11 clearly demonstrated that our government doesn't have the ability to prevent attacks against it's own people. The only reason why those efforts weren't more successful was because the people who perpetrated them did not have the technology or manpower to do something bigger. If another country actually attacked us, we'd be pretty fucked.

Being patriotic isn't about rounding up a bunch of anti government fanatics and attacking the government. Being patriotic is standing up for liberty and organizing intelligent and disciplined people who are willing to fight for it, even when a particular version of the government stands in their way. This administration is not the be-all, end-all of governments. Those people can be taken out of office, by force, if necessary.

The simple fact that you're sitting here saying 'you have to do what the government says no matter what!' is proof that we live in a tyrannical country.

[Deleted]

You realize all that would do is increase private sales (which is the opposite of what you want I believe).

So you highlight the 2nd option, but you don't bother to read the first one eh?

[Tinykong]

Would you rather have your wallet stolen with a non-lethal weapon, or a lethal weapon? I mean, that's really what it comes down to.

If non-lethal weapons do increase crime, it's not going to be drastic. And surely we'll have other advances in technology that will help prevent these types of crimes (video cameras everywhere, better policing, etc).

It's interesting to think about.

When you remove the moral dilemma of possibly killing someone by your means of facilitating crime, imo, you make crime easier to commit. Not only that, but you also remove the issue of having to overpower your victim with either fear or physical extertion.

Whether or not that translates into a drastic change or not, I don't know, but I can tell you with certainty that if this hypothetical phaser weapon existed, I would be carrying one everywhere I went.

[TZucchini]

Me personally? My life doesn't afford the opportunity of joining a militia and fighting. I have greater responsibilities that I can't just drop because the country I live in is following a contradictory path to my ideals.

See. This is the crux of the problem. You can talk all you'd like about how our politicians are bought and sold by major corporations, how our military is engaging in wars that the general public wants no part of, or how the original intention of the Constitution was to limit the power of government.

But when it comes down to it, just as you have admitted, the general public is entirely too comfortable and entirely too preoccupied by their own personal matters to really give a shit. Life is good. We got food on our tables, roofs over our heads, roads and bridges that are functional, clean drinking water, and a government safety net that will catch us if we fall.

Is all of that perfect? Fuck no. But it's damn well good enough for people like you to not take up arms.

- - - Updated - - -

When you remove the moral dilemma of possibly killing someone by your means of facilitating crime, imo, you make crime easier to commit. Not only that, but you also remove the issue of having to overpower your victim with either fear or physical extertion.

Whether or not that translates into a drastic change or not, I don't know, but I can tell you with certainty that if this hypothetical phaser weapon existed, I would be carrying one everywhere I went.

Sure. The possibility is exists.

However, in the next 100 years, I really think crime is going to be a rarity. At least physical methods of criminology. I mean we already have crime predicting algorithms being introduced in major cities And it seems like some of them are actually working.

We've seen crime rates dropping drastically since the 90's. How much of that can be attributed to our current technological advances?

It's all hypothetical, but it's also very interesting. I do believe that in the next 100 years, there's a very real possibility that metal projectiles and gun powder will no longer be accessible to the general public. There will just be no need.

[Tinykong]

Sure. The possibility is exists.

However, in the next 100 years, I really think crime is going to be a rarity. At least physical methods of criminology. I mean we already have crime predicting algorithms being introduced in major cities And it seems like some of them are actually working.

We've seen crime rates dropping drastically since the 90's. How much of that can be attributed to our current technological advances?

It's all hypothetical, but it's also very interesting. I do believe that in the next 100 years, there's a very real possibility that metal projectiles and gun powder will no longer be accessible to the general public. There will just be no need.

To me, the firearm is just a way to multiply force and meet force with force. Whether that force is a metal projectile, a laser beam, a sonic wave, or some other type of technology doesn't exist, that's what the "right to bear arms" grants; the ability to defend one's self against force.

The killing of a person is an unfortunate side effect of the technology we have.

[Ghostpanther]

To me, the firearm is just a way to multiply force and meet force with force. Whether that force is a metal projectile, a laser beam, a sonic wave, or some other type of technology doesn't exist, that's what the "right to bear arms" grants; the ability to defend one's self against force.

The killing of a person is an unfortunate side effect of the technology we have.

This is true. Well said. I will stop having a gun to defend myself when the crooks no longer have access to them. And if something better is available and the crooks are using it, so will I. But then again.....even if the crook does not have say a gun. What if they have a knife? or know Judo and can kill you fast with their bare hands? On second thought, I will keep the gun, until I have something better to make them no longer a threat.

[TwoNineMarine]

So you highlight the 2nd option, but you don't bother to read the first one eh?

I didn't talk about it because it's impossible to stop that. And you know it.

"Hey guys. Don't sell firearms privately."

"No."

"...ok."

[Rooflesstoofless]

So you highlight the 2nd option, but you don't bother to read the first one eh?

Your first option has holes in it because its not going to prevent people that want a gun from getting one. Its just going to create a lucrative black market.

[lockedout]

You could stop private sales without it being an infringement.
You could increase tax on firearms like crazy without it being an infringement.
You could outlaw all advertisement for firearm sales (like tobacco) without it being an infringement.

I asked what you WOULD consider an infringement and you list things you think AREN'T?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I didn't talk about it because it's impossible to stop that. And you know it.

"Hey guys. Don't sell firearms privately."

"No."

"...ok."

In fairness there's a lot of the private industry that needs reigning in.

[lockedout]

In fairness there's a lot of the private industry that needs reigning in.

What parts and why?

[Eroginous]

See. This is the crux of the problem. You can talk all you'd like about how our politicians are bought and sold by major corporations, how our military is engaging in wars that the general public wants no part of, or how the original intention of the Constitution was to limit the power of government.

But when it comes down to it, just as you have admitted, the general public is entirely too comfortable and entirely too preoccupied by their own personal matters to really give a shit. Life is good. We got food on our tables, roofs over our heads, roads and bridges that are functional, clean drinking water, and a government safety net that will catch us if we fall.

Is all of that perfect? Fuck no. But it's damn well good enough for people like you to not take up arms.

Well, this is a discussion forum. We are supposed to talk about stuff here, up to and including our opinions of things. Again, you keep trying to invalidate an opinion by essentially saying 'see? you're not willing to do anything about the problem, you should just shut up!' I'm currently a father to a young child, far too busy to stop what I'm doing and go on crusade. My values don't allow me to just sacrifice my child's upbringing so I can go 'fight the man' on seven different fronts and be a 'crusader mom' that doesn't actually pay attention to her kids.

However, I'm not one of those people who are just too preoccupied with their social media and reality TV to give a shit. I'm well aware of the problems we face as a country and I'm concerned about it on a fundamental level. I fully expect to become more active in the future, and I'm going to need my right to bear arms in order to do that.

[Roxinius]

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/ind...-more-or-less/

im sure all 14 of the members of the bloomberg mouthpiece group delivered on their agenda. love the point where they said they will fearlessly go after then NRA from 1.4 miles away from the convention lolololololololol

[lockedout]

love the point where they said they will fearlessly go after then NRA from 1.4 miles away from the convention lolololololololol

Is that where the first amendment area is?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Well, this is a discussion forum. We are supposed to talk about stuff here, up to and including our opinions of things. Again, you keep trying to invalidate an opinion by essentially saying 'see? you're not willing to do anything about the problem, you should just shut up!' I'm currently a father to a young child, far too busy to stop what I'm doing and go on crusade. My values don't allow me to just sacrifice my child's upbringing so I can go 'fight the man' on seven different fronts and be a 'crusader mom' that doesn't actually pay attention to her kids.

However, I'm not one of those people who are just too preoccupied with their social media and reality TV to give a shit. I'm well aware of the problems we face as a country and I'm concerned about it on a fundamental level. I fully expect to become more active in the future, and I'm going to need my right to bear arms in order to do that.

You leave my Wife Swap out of this! QQ

[Aleksej89]

Things are always more exciting in the south.

Racism, homophobia, common hate speeches, zealous religion, violent beat-up squads attacking anyone looking remotely gay/different, pistols for everybody, maximum environmental pollution, borderline no women rights of education and personal choice, abortions forbidden, common mass shootings in schools, conveniently available assault rifles and even sniper rifles for civilians...

[lockedout]

conveniently available assault rifles and even sniper rifles for civilians...

Yet the majority of shootings happen with a pistol.

[Shinra1]

Guns need to go.

[lockedout]

Guns need to go.

Such a plethora of information as to why they need to go. Excellent post.

[TwoNineMarine]

Guns need to go.

That is a very well thought out and compelling argument.

*golf clap*