Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Gothicshark]

i do not feel safe in a nation that does not allow its citizens to carry guns.

I don't feel safe in a nation where any idiot can own a gun, but can't drive a car.

[Mandible]

That would require a constitutional amendment, not going to happen.

No it wouldn´t since it doesn´t say what type of guns or how many - as such you have a "right to bear arms" which could be one gun.

Anyways the author of the topic seems to make it out to be all over the country when its only some select states that are going to do this, and besides if it hits criminals the most it should work out for the best.



---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 06:37 AM ----------

i do not feel safe in a nation that does not allow its citizens to carry guns.

You don´t travel outside your country then I guess.

[Gothicshark]

That would require a constitutional amendment, not going to happen.

Actually no, it just needs a Majority Liberal Judge pool in the Supreme Court, and a legal test of the second amendment. T

[breadisfunny]

Holy shit! This is soooooooooooooooo redundant. Nobody is banning your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regulation does not mean ban.

Why do you gun nuts keep making polls with no compromise? What is wrong with you? Can you not see that this is not an all or nothing issue? WTF is so difficult about this?

i dont mind regulation....i welcome regulation when people start talking about banning guns period.....thats when i take issue. i agree guns need to be regulated....they DO NOT need to be banned. banning guns will not stop the criminals.

[Giants41]

i dont mind regulation....i welcome regulation when people start talking about banning guns period.....thats when i take issue. i agree guns need to be regulated....they DO NOT need to be banned. banning guns will not stop the criminals.

And they won't be.

[Zhangfei]

i do not feel safe in a nation that does not allow its citizens to carry guns.

But the statistics show you're more likely to be shot and killed in the USA than nearly all other First World nations and even some Third World ones. You may feel that way, but you're far more likely to be murdered here.

It certainly makes me feel quite unsafe in America where the metro area I live in of about 200k people has almost as many gun deaths annually as the entire UK with 61m people.

Edit: My take is it won't happen, but supposing it would then the government should offer a buyback scheme. Most gun owners bought their guns in good faith, and their property shouldn't just be stolen.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

i dont mind regulation....i welcome regulation when people start talking about banning guns period.....thats when i take issue. i agree guns need to be regulated....they DO NOT need to be banned. banning guns will not stop the criminals.

Why do people think that no guns that were obtained illegally were not also legally obtained at some point?

Banning guns would stop criminals. Not ALL criminals, of course. The question is whether that tradeoff is worth it and that question has never been answered one way or the other.

[Pandamists]

Maybe everything but small handguns like pistols, with literally NOTHING I would feel a little scared if the government came and took EVERYTHING.

[Captainplanet]

Hunting- yes
Target shooting- I'm sorry, but most of the folks standing up for the "Its our hobby!" line of bullcrap are the same ones who actively stand in the way of legalization of drugs. What makes one hobby worse than the other?
Competitive shooting- Pellets
Vermin/pest control- I'll file it under hunting. Also traps, poison, and dozens of other devices exist for this purpose.
Capability of revolting- Hey look the completely thick headed 2nd amendment argument. Do you honestly think for one second this country could have any sort of revolution against the government that will simply run them over with tanks, bomb them with drones, etc. This isn't the 1800s.

I had to read this to believe it, I even dusted off my old account for this.

You must be retarded to not see why the anti tyranny argument is valid. They will HAVE to use the armed forces, because they simply do not have enough automated machines to wipe out everyone, even if 5% of the population revolted (doubt it will be that low) thats 15 MILLION people they have to deal with. And all the soldiers and police I know and have seen around the country will NOT enforce any of this.

I doubt it will come to civil war but damn you must be mentally challenged to ignore the human element in all of this.

[Underverse]

I had to read this to believe it, I even dusted off my old account for this.

You must be retarded to not see why the anti tyranny argument is valid. They will HAVE to use the armed forces, because they simply do not have enough automated machines to wipe out everyone, even if 5% of the population revolted (doubt it will be that low) thats 6 MILLION people they have to deal with. And all the soldiers and police I know and have seen around the country will NOT enforce any of this.

I doubt it will come to civil war but damn you must be mentally challenged to ignore the human element in all of this.

so if the armed forces won't enforce a civilian lockdown (which I think you're spot on about that), what do we have to worry about? The army will be on our side.

Peaceful protests have had this sort of effect throughout history - soldiers unwilling to turn their guns on their own people. The tyranny argument is invalid not only because it will probably never happen, but if it did, the army (with all the guns) would defer to the side of the people.

[Captainplanet]

I believe in the United States that we should be allowed to purchase and own anything we can afford.

At the Same time I also believe in strict regulations, licensing and metal/physical health screening on all things which can harm others. So no I do not believe in out right banning and round ups, however forcing gun owners to prove the maturity to own and possess the tools designed for killing would be good. Sadly neither side is talking about required training and license for gun ownership, it is an 'all or nothing attitude' which is damming the American way of life. Life is a bunch of shades of colors not just black and white.

Problem is none of the current proposed legislation has any of that, its all on the weapons themselves that are neutered, with features taken off and banned/prohibited. Im sure if the ATF and the state police paid more attention to their firearms licensing tests (particularly the psychological portions) then they would avoid a nice big majority of these media hyped school shootings done by nut cases. Hardcore criminals on the other hand are a different story, they get most of their guns illegally through theft or shady deals. Going after private transfers (they make up ~40% of all gun sales in the US) that require no paperwork might be a good place to start, but then I fear many honest people selling guns to each other will be targeted. This would be the case had my grandma chose to move out in March of this year, she gave me her Armscor M200 revolver as a present. Per the proposed legislation, that would be illegal and the ATF would have no problem giving me the party van treatment.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 06:07 AM ----------

The only reason its an issue is because it has happened before in other countries, do not forget the lessons of history.

[Plutarch78]

Confiscate guns? That should work as much as drug prohibition.

[Captainplanet]

so if the armed forces won't enforce a civilian lockdown (which I think you're spot on about that), what do we have to worry about? The army will be on our side.

Peaceful protests have had this sort of effect throughout history - soldiers unwilling to turn their guns on their own people. The tyranny argument is invalid not only because it will probably never happen, but if it did, the army (with all the guns) would defer to the side of the people.

The reason this is an issue is because it has happened in other countries throughout history, particularly in Germany and Cambodia. Anyways, the increased counter "terrorism" drills on the part of regular police and army units says otherwise. Regular army doctrine does not provide provision for these kinds of exercises, which means they are preparing to deal with an insurgency that we have not seen yet.

[Sky High]

You must be retarded to not see why the anti tyranny argument is valid.

the tyranny argument is the retarded one here. there is no way the government would try to use excessive force if force at all against the population. to do so would not only turn more civilians against them but the majority if not 99.9% of the army would switch sides. they signed up to PROTECT american lives not end them. so this boogyman idea of an armed government lockdown is beyond absurd.

[Underverse]

The reason this is an issue is because it has happened in other countries throughout history, particularly in Germany and Cambodia. Anyways, the increased counter "terrorism" drills on the part of regular police and army units says otherwise. Regular army doctrine does not provide provision for these kinds of exercises, which means they are preparing to deal with an insurgency that we have not seen yet.

I'm not convince that these counterterrorism drills are part of a larger conspiracy.

As for other instances of tyranny, German gun laws became more relaxed before the events of the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich. Hitler encouraged his citizens to carry guns.

I don't know anything about Cambodia.

[Sky High]

The reason this is an issue is because it has happened in other countries throughout history, particularly in Germany and Cambodia. Anyways, the increased counter "terrorism" drills on the part of regular police and army units says otherwise. Regular army doctrine does not provide provision for these kinds of exercises, which means they are preparing to deal with an insurgency that we have not seen yet.

Germany wasn't a takeover when a majority of the population elected the party into power in the first place. if you want to bring up the fact that these people will be using terrorist like strategies then why shouldn't the government treat them as such? so i have to ask are we talking about here, locking down on the population or a bunch of assholes that start blowing things up in the name of acting against a "tyrannical" government?

[Captainplanet]

I'm not convince that these counterterrorism drills are part of a larger conspiracy.

As for other instances of tyranny, German gun laws became more relaxed before the events of the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich. Hitler encouraged his citizens to carry guns.

I don't know anything about Cambodia.

Ignoring the territories that he took, Germany was pretty much clean of his blacklisted demographics when he started steamrolling through the rest of Europe. They got all the rough laws and the confiscations, regular German citizens were obedient so he gave them some leniency. Europe is his and then the roundups begin and they get shipped off to the US, at the time we refused and then Hitler came up with his final solution.

[KrazyK923]

I enjoy how people like the OP tie "more gun regulation" to "ZOMG THE GUBBERMENT GUNNA COME TAKE ALL YER GUNS!"

[Deleted]

No I don't support this.

Anyway, even if I was for gun control, this would be a horrible way to do it.

bad shit would happen.

[Captainplanet]

Germany wasn't a takeover when a majority of the population elected the party into power in the first place. if you want to bring up the fact that these people will be using terrorist like strategies then why shouldn't the government treat them as such? so i have to ask are we talking about here, locking down on the population or a bunch of assholes that start blowing things up in the name of acting against a "tyrannical" government?

Gun owners pretty much are terrorists in their minds, trust is a very finite thing to have, especially concerning the government and its people. I would think a lockdown of the population is reason enough to stop sitting it out, this country never has taken strong government very well. Anyways, why would they pass laws they cant enforce conventionally? Why is this all happening? I seriously doubt they are too stupid to not read up on FBI studies, CDC publications and information from the CIA and the Census Bureau that proves none of this is logical or effective.