Somethings been bothering about these gun "ban" talks...

[Xanjori]

Everytime you see someone tell you that Hitler disarmed his nation though its a great sign. A sign you should just leave them alone.

[Puremallace]

So lets plan this out. I am crazy and want to make a statement. Do I bring a 9mm with a small clip? Of course not. I get my hand on the most deadly gun that shoots the fastest on the market and requires the smallest amount of reloads.

The defense for having a ar-15 is stupid on some insane level. If this was Syria, then yeah having that type of weapon really does make sense.

[ptwonline]

You do realise that Hitler didn't disarm his country? This has been proven wrong more times than I care to remember. You may shout "5,000,000 Jews would argue with that" however it took Almost all of Western Europe, along with the USA AND Russia to defeat his army. What fucking chance would a standard Jewish man, woman or child with a gun stand against the Nazi's?

He actually repealed a law banning German citizens from owning weapons (dating back to the end of WWI), relaxed all laws regarding restrictions on German citizens buying weapons (reduced waiting period, reduce minimum age etc.) because it gave them a reason to vote him in. Once most of the population were armed, they were drafted in to the Nazi war machine and look how well that ended up. If you feel the need to post meme's atleast make sure they are factually accurate because otherwise you just look stupid.

Hitler also raised a massive paramilitary force to effectively crush all rivals, silence opposition voices, and take control of the country in the first place. It wasn't tyranny STOPPED by guns, but tyranny ENABLED by guns held by private citizens. It works both ways.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Keep your archaic Second Amendment but only allow weapons available when it was written. Any weapon more modern than that should not be allowed.
If you don't get why this would be a solution. They only had Flintlock pistols and Flintlock Muskets at that time. Flintlock muskets were the mainstay of European armies between 1660 and 1840. A musket was a muzzle-loading smoothbore long gun that was loaded with a round lead ball, but it could also be loaded with shot for hunting. For military purposes, the weapon was loaded with ball, or a mixture of ball with several large shot (called buck and ball), and had an effective range of about 75 to 100 meters. Misfires were common. The flint had to be properly maintained, as a dull or poorly napped piece of flint would not make as much of a spark and would increase the misfire rate dramatically. Moisture was a problem, since moisture on the frizzen or damp powder would prevent the weapon from firing. This meant that flintlock weapons could not be used in rainy or damp weather.

That's the weapon they where talking about. They where allowing people to have this:

False. If you don't like guns, don't own one. But don't tread on my right to own one. With this logic, the right to free speech shouldn't cover the internet or television, since back then they only had printable paper as a source for speech, besides of course form the mouth.

I agree, research is key here. My points on the fear that Obama will ban guns is just that, an unjustified fear with no evidence to support it. He has yet to do anything whilst President (over four years now) to suggest he will ban guns, and I have pointed out the fact that he has done the exact opposite of this which seems to be being missed. 17 years is a long time in politics, and I am not arguing that from research I have done, along with the article you provided he is not anti-gun - he is! However, I do believe it is fear mongering to say "HE WILL BAN OUR GUNS JUST YOU WAIT" going on four votes in 17 years. It just doesn't sit with me as enough, if that makes sense? The law prevents him from doing this, and I'm pretty sure he is aware of how much litteral shit it would cause in the USA if he even tried, despite his opinion. Maybe, because I am not America, I'm just naive about him from not dealing with his policies in day to day life?

One thing though, please do not bring in the circular argument regarding cars. Apples and oranges come to mind, and in my view his EO's actually move gun ownership closer to car ownership with regards to registration and training. Car accidents should never be compared to gun homicides in my view.

I'm sorry if you thought I was against research in some way or another, that is not true.

The media here might be making a bigger deal out of this than needs to be, but you never know. After the recent gun related shootings here, many democrats are actually trying to slam the gun control hammer. With the President on their side, this could turn the tide for them.

I believe the circular argument between cars-guns fits. If the only argument AGAINST responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns would be DEATHS, then cars, and many other objects should be banned as well. I will not mention it again if you dislike it that much though.

[Csnyder]

we all know criminals do not follow guns laws, it wont eliminate them at all. they made drugs illegal and kids can get them at school, prisoners can get them very easily.
its prohibition which made criminals rich and the common man was made into a criminal. why should the masses be hindered based off of the actions of a few?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So lets plan this out. I am crazy and want to make a statement. Do I bring a 9mm with a small clip? Of course not. I get my hand on the most deadly gun that shoots the fastest on the market and requires the smallest amount of reloads.

The defense for having a ar-15 is stupid on some insane level. If this was Syria, then yeah having that type of weapon really does make sense.

AR-15's are semi-automatic, and shoot as "fast" as any other semi-auto.

[kleinlax21]

So lets plan this out. I am crazy and want to make a statement. Do I bring a 9mm with a small clip? Of course not. I get my hand on the most deadly gun that shoots the fastest on the market and requires the smallest amount of reloads.

The defense for having a ar-15 is stupid on some insane level. If this was Syria, then yeah having that type of weapon really does make sense.

Either will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. You can't purchase full-auto AR's in your local gun shop.

Also, your finger tires after about 20-30 trigger pulls done as quickly as possible.

In the hands of law-abiding citizens, it's the most poignant weapon for self-defense purposes, far surpassing the inaccuracy of handguns and shotguns, and much more effective than bolt-action long guns.

[Beefsquatch]

This is basically all my opinions and thoughts on the matter. He says it better than I could.

[Kryos]

False. If you don't like guns, don't own one. But don't tread on my right to own one. With this logic, the right to free speech shouldn't cover the internet or television, since back then they only had printable paper as a source for speech, besides of course form the mouth.

So ignore all context the law was written? With that logic everybody (no background checks, they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment) should be allowed to have a fully armed M65 Atomic Cannon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon ) in your backyard if you can afford it, right? It's arms... fuck the context.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So ignore all context the law was written? With that logic everybody (no background checks, they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment) should be allowed to have a fully armed M65 Atomic Cannon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon ) in your backyard if you can afford it, right? It's arms... fuck the context.

Way to warp what I said =] What context am I ignoring exactly?


I was only using his logic to apply to a different amendment. He said it should only apply to the current counter part of the time the amendment was written. For the first regarding free speech, with his logic this would exclude laws covering the internet and many other things.

[Deleted]

However you want to look at it is fine. However, I do not want to hear anyone saying "No one is talking about banning guns" anymore because - yes - there ARE a lot of people talking about banning guns. As I've said before - for now (for now!) it is just a bunch of blowhards like Modine. These are celebrities, pundits like Piers Morgan, and so forth. However, there ARE politicians in places of power that are also not only advocating gun bans but they are moving on ENACTING them. In some cases they already have.

The point is that it is sophistry to say that "no one" is talking about banning guns when in fact there are a LOT of people that are both talking about it and DOING it. Dismissing the anti-gun-contol argument with a breezy, "Oh - you're just being paranoid... No one is REALLY talking about banning guns..." is total bullcrap.

Congratulations, you win the award for the most stupid and hyperbolic images posted on mmo-champ

[Kryos]

Way to warp what I said =] What context am I ignoring exactly?


I was only using his logic to apply to a different amendment. He said it should only apply to the current counter part of the time the amendment was written. For the first regarding free speech, with his logic this would exclude laws covering the internet and many other things.

Free speech is the same free speech you had back then. It's opinions and you can tell them. And yes they are regulated. Every private forum like this one can censor whatever they like.

The guns (arms) back then and the guns today are worlds appart. It's a day and night difference. So you logic is flawed.

They could not shoot more than twice at that time had a horrible bad aiming system and then had to reload (and that took long). So with a weapon that is only a little bit more dangerous than a knife or a knife on a long stick it's easy to allow that. But guns that can kill people from a distance, hitting them before they even hear the shot or guns that can kill 10+ people in a few seconds are just not the same and should not be in the hands of civilians. If you don't see the context and the difference you just don't WANT to see it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Free speech is the same free speech you had back then. It's opinions and you can tell them. And yes they are regulated. Every private forum like this one can censor whatever they like.

The guns (arms) back then and the guns today are worlds appart. It's a day and night difference. So you logic is flawed.

They could not shoot more than twice at that time had a horrible bad aiming system and then had to reload (and that took long). So with a weapon that is only a little bit more dangerous than a knife or a knife on a long stick it's easy to allow that. But guns that can kill people from a distance, hitting them before they even hear the shot or guns that can kill 10+ people in a few seconds are just not the same and should not be in the hands of civilians. If you don't see the context and the difference you just don't WANT to see it.

Mediums to spread speech are worlds apart as well. They did not have something as advanced as the internet at all. Private "forums" back then were also regulated, so that point is moot.

Where in the 2nd amendment does it state guns should be (or can be) regulated by killing power, reload speed or anything like that at all?

You are just shooting off opinions here. If you don't see that, you don't WANT to see it.

don't take away my freedoms or liberties because you are afraid or think they are stupid. Don't disarm me because bad guys do bad things. Disarming me will not stop that, or even hinder it. Thats already been shown.

[High Octane]

Regardless if you care to admit it or not, we live in a violent culture. We are a country that loves our guns (5 million NRA supporters can't be wrong). It is incredibly naive to think those whom which these proposed bans are pertaining to will actually comply with them. I don't see the "assault rifles" missing from the urban areas if Chicago, and they have some of the most stringent laws in the country. The only thing a proposed ban would do is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens... Which is something true Patriots will not stand for.
I have read most of the threads in this post, and I have learned this: liberals will be liberals, conservatives will be conservatives. Just as the case with topics such as pro-life/pro-choice and religion, neither side will ever see the side of the other, and both think the other is either misinformed or ignorant.
All I can speak for is myself. Having served in the US Army and being issued an M4,it is the weapon I am most comfortable with. I can maintain it, fix it and shoot it accurately. Though owning a military-issue M4 isn't an option, those that feel the same as I do have the option of owning the (single shot) civilization variant. If you feel that owning a (Imo mislabeled) "assault rifle"... Don't buy one. If you don't support firearms in general... Don't buy those, either. Ultimately, it is your decision on how you chose to defend yourself and your family (if you would even do so), so the choice is yours. That is freedom.
What happened in Sandy Hook was both unforgettable and unforgivable. God only knows I couldn't live knowing I lost a child. But at the same time, is it best to honor the lives of the little ones by stripping the rights (and tools of defense) that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died to defend??? I'd like to think not...
In the end, all that matters is that you stand up for what you believe in. Whether you're anti-gun, or an active 2nd amendment supporter, we have fought for that right to chose our side, which is why our country is so great. We have the right to decide. Just remember to stick to your guns (metaphorically)... Always stand for what you believe in, even if you're standing alone.

[emmascott]

Obama says he will consider invoking executive order to pass some of these measures into law. In the wake of that news, gun sales have increased. In the meantime, the White House is meeting great resistance form the Countrywide Rifle Association gun lobby. The NRA could be a mouthpiece for the country's $12 billion-a-year weapons market. Pay for your gun with a cash advance

[Prokne]

A question nobody seemed to ask, is how a scrawny nerd like Adam Lanza is able to carry 4 pistols, an AR-15 and enough ammo that he was able to shoot his victims repeatedly. That's just one of many inconsistencies...

You would have to be pretty weak to not be able to carry a 6lb rifle, 2 2lb handguns and 5lbs of ammo(a lot of ammo). He also had a vest for holding the ammo and probably either used holsters for the pistols or had them in pockets/waistband. Child soldiers carry AK rifles and ammo(which weigh more) so Im pretty sure he could handle it.

The final report is that he used the AR, thats all that matters, not the screwed up reporting that went out so they could get the scoop.

[Fitzgerald77]

People still watch Piers Morgan and actually care about what that fucknut thinks? He's quite possibly the worst interviewer on TV right now. If you don't agree with him 100% on any little thing he whines and complains because you think differently. I miss Larry King The guy that he was interviewing was wasting his breath because you can't talk any sense to that assclown.

[Prokne]

Either will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. You can't purchase full-auto AR's in your local gun shop.

Also, your finger tires after about 20-30 trigger pulls done as quickly as possible.

In the hands of law-abiding citizens, it's the most poignant weapon for self-defense purposes, far surpassing the inaccuracy of handguns and shotguns, and much more effective than bolt-action long guns.

I consider shotguns much more reliable than semi auto carbines for self defense. First of all shotguns freak people out when they see them because they are big. Second you are much more likely to hit someone with a shotgun since it has an area of effect pattern instead of a single bullet(dont use slugs). And last, they are pretty easy to aim down the barrel or shoot from the hip and still hit something without a lot of practice.

[Bakis]

You do realize that a Hand gun can be turned into a fully automatic weapon right. So what happens if they ban assault rifles and then ppl start murdering masses w/ full auto hand guns? Ban hand guns next?

Also the problem w/ adding regulation on mental illness is, wheres the line drawn on what is and isn't mental illness. Did you know that ADD and ADHD is classified as a mental illness?Addiction to nicotine is a mental illness? Stupid I know but that means the government gets to basically take a gun from anyone they want and claim they have a mental illness.

A gun isn't made to be full auto and will hence cock up, at least the assault weapons based on military grade are made to offer full auto.