Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

I agree with background checks, nothing wrong with them; responsible gun owners DO have their guns secured (maybe better education for the not so responsible is an idea); Black on Black crime wont be solved with gun bans (Chicago, sir); And what is this 'American Idol' of which you speak?

Just an American show with singers trying to make it. Nothing meaningful will come of the deaths of a couple six and seven year olds filled with lead, which is tragic, because they were six and seven.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 08:28 PM ----------

I think its even funnier that you think American service men would open fire on their own people. Marines are Americans.

I mean who wouldn't want to think that? Could you imagine how dead we would all be if the brainwashed elite fighters in our military were ordered to eliminate American citizens? I mean our military has killed American citizens before.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 08:29 PM ----------

you are assuming said military would also be on board with a full scale martial law attack on u.s. citizens. Come on, have more faith in them than that. You have no obligation to exercise and unconstitutional order.

You are also assuming they would just risk leveling cities. It would be a ground war, gun to gun. But still, i have some faith the military would stand against them.

It might be an even 50/50 or a 60/40. That is where most of the bloodshed would be, rivaling generals in all military branches, some loyal to the federal government, the others would be loyal to their community, but they would be at a large disadvantage because they wouldn't have the resources as the federal loyalists would. Either way a lot of gun owner militias would be used as body shields for the anti-loyalists reserve troops against the federal troops.

[Seranthor]

Just an American show with singers trying to make it. Nothing meaningful will come of the deaths of a couple six and seven year olds filled with lead, which is tragic, because they were six and seven.

Thing is, Sir, I believe the solution is solving the problem, not wasting time at 'solving' the method. You cant and wont solve a problem if you refuse to accept that it exists. The problem isn't the existence of the gun, the problem is the person holding it. Realize that, and then we'll be making progress toward solving the problem.

[Deleted]

Why would you tell people you own a firearm? It should be private.

Yeah, so how is my mentally ill brother going to find out about me having a gun? Your whole cross-reference idea is just bad.

Sorry I don't think mentally ill people should be given the same rights as you.

Sorry I don't think pedophiles should be allowed to work in kindergartens. I also don't think rape should be legalized.

[Daelak]

Yeah, so how is my mentally ill brother going to find out about me having a gun? Your whole cross-reference idea is just bad.

Sorry I don't think pedophiles should be allowed to work in kindergartens. I also don't think rape should be legalized.

Because he is your brother? He will be in your domicile, and could potentially find the weapon if you don't have it stored.

I don't think pedo's should be in schools nor should rape be legalized. We are in complete agreement there lol .

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 08:35 PM ----------

Thing is, Sir, I believe the solution is solving the problem, not wasting time at 'solving' the method. You cant and wont solve a problem if you refuse to accept that it exists. The problem isn't the existence of the gun, the problem is the person holding it. Realize that, and then we'll be making progress toward solving the problem.

Well we can't euthanize mentally ill people out of the gene pool. We can revoke their rights as a human being during their developmental phase is over ~22, even a closer eye if they are a male.

[Deleted]

Because he is your brother? He will be in your domicile, and could potentially find the weapon if you don't have it stored.

Why would he live with me?

We can revoke their rights as a human being during their developmental phase is over ~22, even a closer eye if they are a male.

What the fuck?

[Daelak]

Why would he live with me?


What the fuck?

It's not that he would live with you, but he will be over there during the holidays, maybe the weekends. Do you not keep regular contact with your family?

If someone shows signs of anti-social, pyscho-social disorders, such as deaths threats, self mutilation, torture and killing of animals, verbal and physical abuse of peers, fixation on violence, blood, and death, extreme manipulative behaviors towards their peers and elders, then their human rights should be revoked.

[bergmann620]

It might be an even 50/50 or a 60/40. That is where most of the bloodshed would be, rivaling generals in all military branches, some loyal to the federal government, the others would be loyal to their community, but they would be at a large disadvantage because they wouldn't have the resources as the federal loyalists would. Either way a lot of gun owner militias would be used as body shields for the anti-loyalists reserve troops against the federal troops.

Why wouldn't they have the resources of the federal forces? Would they just leave them behind?

I get that people on this board seem to love this whole, "Could Spiderman beat up Goku" nonsense... If you're going to present it though, at least apply some thought or logic to it.

Further, we all get it that there would be mass bloodshed. Some of us just believe that the price of freedom must unfortunately be paid in blood from time to time.. Whether it is the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the civil rights battles, Libya, Syria... We are lucky enough to be born in a time when our battles occur in the press, courts, and during election season. If we refuse to fight for freedom by remaining vigilant at the ballot box, someday, we might end up with a bloody fight. That's no good, but it is what it is.

[Daelak]

Why wouldn't they have the resources of the federal forces? Would they just leave them behind?

I get that people on this board seem to love this whole, "Could Spiderman beat up Goku" nonsense... If you're going to present it though, at least apply some thought or logic to it.

Further, we all get it that there would be mass bloodshed. Some of us just believe that the price of freedom must unfortunately be paid in blood from time to time.. Whether it is the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the civil rights battles, Libya, Syria... We are lucky enough to be born in a time when our battles occur in the press, courts, and during election season. If we refuse to fight for freedom by remaining vigilant at the ballot box, someday, we might end up with a bloody fight. That's no good, but it is what it is.

Well the first major battles that would be critical to both sides are the oil supply lines. Since we import most of our oil for the military, whoever has more Navy generals that are loyal to their cause would fight to keep those supply lines via the ocean up and running. The federal forces would let non-essential armories and reserve centers, but would probably garrison the pentagon, all the air force bases in the mid-atlantic, and on the west coast.

After the initial skirmishes between the generals in all branches were over, and the battle lines were drawn, there would be the give and take of destruction of every major US city until one side bows down to martial law, and the resulting genocide.

I think a civil war in this country would be a great stimulus for the global economy. Sure there would be tens of millions of civilian casualties, but they were dependent on the producers in the country anyways.

But the fact of the matter is, all the civilians with small arms would just be lined up in gas chambers and have their firearms confiscated for the war effort. No militia would be formed, they would be drafted into each sides' military. Hell most of those weapons would be melted down for their larger, more effective weaponry.

[bergmann620]

If someone shows signs of anti-social, pyscho-social disorders, such as deaths threats, self mutilation, torture and killing of animals, verbal and physical abuse of peers, fixation on violence, blood, and death, extreme manipulative behaviors towards their peers and elders, then their human rights should be revoked.

That's a very Progressive attitude on rights. I'm impressed =)

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 03:53 PM ----------

After the initial skirmishes between the generals in all branches were over, and the battle lines were drawn, there would be the give and take of destruction of every major US city until one side bows down to martial law, and the resulting genocide.

Do you know what genocide means?

[IGassman]

I'm not real big on Average Joe wannabes having access to assault weapons, but you can go only so far with licensing and registration requirements before you begin to infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear Arms. Your proposal does just that.

So what needs to be proposed is a gun license law that requires you to have a yearly renewal that requires a psych evaluation and a revoke of the license if [you] fail the test, are not on [your] meds, or are convicted/arrested for anything, like battery or assault. Losing your license, therefore, means your weapons will be [seized] by the state and if you are found to own, or be in possession of, a weapon without a license or while you're on probation, you will be arrested and fined. If you want your weapons back you have to have medical proof, pay your fees to get the weapons back, have your renewal accepted by the state, then pay a license fee (just like DUI's have, too), and finally you have to have proof of [responsibility] (like u said, a weapons locker)

That's wrong on too many levels to even bother trying to refute it. For instance, lose your license merely because you were arrested? That would never fly.

[Daelak]

That's a very Progressive attitude on rights. I'm impressed =)

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 03:53 PM ----------



Do you know what genocide means?

Well they would enslave and/or kill the stragglers of the losing side. I would call that genocide.

mentally ill people that are a danger to themselves and others should not have rights. That's common sense.

[Prime017]

It's not that he would live with you, but he will be over there during the holidays, maybe the weekends. Do you not keep regular contact with your family?

If someone shows signs of anti-social, pyscho-social disorders, such as deaths threats, self mutilation, torture and killing of animals, verbal and physical abuse of peers, fixation on violence, blood, and death, extreme manipulative behaviors towards their peers and elders, then their human rights should be revoked.

Innocent until proven guilty? Last I heard, having dark thought wasn't illegal. Certainly unsettling, but not illegal. And nothing justifies removing a human beings rights. That's why we have protections against cruel and unusual punishments and illegal search and seizures. Even criminals have rights so as to protect them from overly emotional public reactions. What your describing is a witch hunt and only dehumanizes people with problems based on what they might do, rather than what they have actually done. Now the kind of behavior you're describing certainly needs to be addressed, but your prescription for the problem could easily be construed as a call to violence.

[Deleted]

It's not that he would live with you, but he will be over there during the holidays, maybe the weekends. Do you not keep regular contact with your family?

And so would a lot of other people. You're just grasping at straws.

If someone shows signs of anti-social, pyscho-social disorders, such as deaths threats, self mutilation, torture and killing of animals, verbal and physical abuse of peers, fixation on violence, blood, and death, extreme manipulative behaviors towards their peers and elders, then their human rights should be revoked.

No they shouldn't. Just like pedophiles shouldn't be locked up unless they act on their impulses.

(Death threats however are criminal)

[bergmann620]

Well they would enslave and/or kill the stragglers of the losing side. I would call that genocide.

Why? Is that what we did after the Civil War? This isn't Mesopotamia 2500 years ago.

mentally ill people that are a danger to themselves and others should not have rights. That's common sense.

I'm glad most people don't have your common sense.

[KURUFAL]

Thing is, Sir, I believe the solution is solving the problem, not wasting time at 'solving' the method. You cant and wont solve a problem if you refuse to accept that it exists. The problem isn't the existence of the gun, the problem is the person holding it. Realize that, and then we'll be making progress toward solving the problem.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

And so would a lot of other people. You're just grasping at straws.

No they shouldn't. Just like pedophiles shouldn't be locked up unless they act on their impulses.

(Death threats however are criminal)

TL;DR

I agree with this post, innocent until proven guilty.

I would rather set 10 guilty people free than put one innocent person in prison. Don't punish me because of another person's actions.

If you had the choice to put two people into prison, one was guilty and the other was definitely innocent, would you either send both of them to prison or set both of them free?

[Daelak]

And so would a lot of other people. You're just grasping at straws.

No they shouldn't. Just like pedophiles shouldn't be locked up unless they act on their impulses.

(Death threats however are criminal)

If your hypothetical brother had said/done the terms I said above, you would definitely keep it in a safe.

So if they experience all these behaviors, including the killing and maiming of animals for fun, they should be allowed in society?

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 09:10 PM ----------

Innocent until proven guilty? Last I heard, having dark thought wasn't illegal. Certainly unsettling, but not illegal. And nothing justifies removing a human beings rights. That's why we have protections against cruel and unusual punishments and illegal search and seizures. Even criminals have rights so as to protect them from overly emotional public reactions. What your describing is a witch hunt and only dehumanizes people with problems based on what they might do, rather than what they have actually done. Now the kind of behavior you're describing certainly needs to be addressed, but your prescription for the problem could easily be construed as a call to violence.

Dark thoughts are not the same thing as death threats towards peers and loved ones, nor is it the same as killing and maiming animals for fun.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 09:11 PM ----------

Why? Is that what we did after the Civil War? This isn't Mesopotamia 2500 years ago.



I'm glad most people don't have your common sense.

What, you think the winners of a hypothetical war in the states, would automatically restore rights bestowed upon them from the constitution? Sorry my faith in humanity, especially during wartime, is close to nil.

You want mentally ill people with a propensity to commit violent acts in society?

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 09:12 PM ----------

This cannot be emphasized enough.



TL;DR

I agree with this post, innocent until proven guilty.

I would rather set 10 guilty people free than put one innocent person in prison. Don't punish me because of another person's actions.

If you had the choice to put two people into prison, one was guilty and the other was definitely innocent, would you either send both of them to prison or set both of them free?

But this isn't about guilt, it's about having an unstable mind that could harm normal people.

[KURUFAL]

But this isn't about guilt, it's about having an unstable mind that could harm normal people.

You have the right to protect your person and your property. You will never know if that person has the competency to walk to to anybody and hold a conversation of any sort if they have homicidal tenancies. Nor do you know if that completely normal person is trying to make a quick buck by selling it to that homicidal person.

[i personally think this should be the debate of this thread, not whether guns should be in houses or not]

The problem is HOW, how do we control this? We can't just take away guns from the people, that will never happen or work. background checks on an 18 or 21 year old won't do any good. They are fresh into life and probably have no history.

[bergmann620]

You want mentally ill people with a propensity to commit violent acts in society?

Until they have committed and been convicted of a crime? Yea. Unless they choose to seek help.

But this isn't about guilt, it's about having an unstable mind that could harm normal people.

When we get to the point that we're convicting people of thought crime, well, I'll be finding somewhere to move.

[Prime017]

You want mentally ill people with a propensity to commit violent acts in society?

I want them treated with respect and afforded the rights that we have established under our current laws to protect them in a way that allows for fair treatment with the chance of correcting the behavior. What would you do with them? You want to cast them out of society? How? You obviously hold them in contempt so I doubt you would afford them with much dignity.

[KURUFAL]

When we get to the point that we're convicting people of thought crime, well, I'll be finding somewhere to move.

[mostly agree]

The only stipulation with that is, has it harmed someone before? and with that we already don't allow convicted felons to have weapons.

Otherwise i go back to my original statement, innocent until proven guilty.

I want them treated with respect and afforded the rights that we have established under our current laws to protect them in a way that allows for fair treatment with the chance of correcting the behavior. What would you do with them? You want to cast them out of society? How? You obviously hold them in contempt so I doubt you would afford them with much dignity.

And the fact that this actually needs to be argued is ridiculous. You will NEVER take away a person rights because of something like this.