Gun Control In The United States

[Deleted]

That logic equates to suggesting the American Revolution should have required the Americans to use only renaissance era swords against the British firearms. The concept of the people being armed was tied to the prevention of tyranny, for the people to be able to fight against their own government. The founding fathers were actually concerned with the government, even the one they were establishing, becoming the exact thing they were seeking to be free of.

However, I think across the board, we've allowed the government to become so heavily bloated that it's far beyond what was envisioned and we continue to offer more control to the government.

i don't really get why the early U.S people should have used swords. and secondly i PERSONALLY think the second amendmend is crap its utter bullshit.
today there are many factors which prevent a tyranny like the ones that have been in the past (except for isolationistic countries like NK)

[Spectral]

The problem I have with lack of gun control is I fear it no longer serves a purpose. Allowing citizens to own firearms to defend against criminals, sure I can see the reasoning and other countries would argue they have less violent crime from criminals with guns.

Defending against tyranny? It feels like that's not feasible. Handguns, rifles, even semi-automatics against full assault rifles, tanks, helicopters, and just for kicks, missile capabilities?

If the US government went sci-fi level apeshit alien mind control crazy tyrranical, armed citizens would be hard pressed to stand against its own military might.

I'll play devil's advocate - in a circumstance where citizens were rising en masse in armed rebellion, it wouldn't be straightforward to target them with heavy weaponry such as missiles and tanks. I don't doubt that those weapons would be used, but they'd strike in a fairly haphazard fashion, as there wouldn't be centralized command structure or infrastructure to take down. While it's hard to imagine the shape such a modern rebellion would take, I'd say tens of millions of armed and able bodied civilians (many of whom had military experience) could affect some sort of significant change.

Note: I'm not going full wingnut and claiming this is happening. Just saying, it's not wildly implausible in the event of totalitarian takeover.

[Deleted]

but the event of totalitarian takeover of this scale is sooo impropable that any thinking about this is redundant.
its better to design a constitution which makes totalitarian takover hard/impossible. problem solved.

[Spectral]

but the event of totalitarian takeover of this scale is sooo impropable that any thinking about this is redundant.
its bette to design the constitution which makes totalitarian takover hard/impossible. problem solved.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to mention that one advantage of a heavily armed nation is that it's likely more difficult to control for a dictator. Different people will weight that differently, but it's still a thing that has some value.

[schwarzkopf]

For me Gun Control means TWO things:

1. Keeping guns out of crazy people's hands
2. Keeping guns out of untrained people's hands

If you are trained, and not crazy (i.e. shoot because you plan to shoot, and shoot what you planned to shoot), then the rest will take care of itself.

Full Disclosure : I live in Australia, where we basically went for almost no guns at all - but then our recent history isn't one of depending on guns to turf out tyrants.

[Deleted]

For me Gun Control means TWO things:

1. Keeping guns out of crazy people's hands
2. Keeping guns out of untrained people's hands

If you are trained, and not crazy (i.e. shoot because you plan to shoot, and shoot what you planned to shoot), then the rest will take care of itself.

Full Disclosure : I live in Australia, where we basically went for almost no guns at all - but then our recent history isn't one of depending on guns to turf out tyrants.

sane people can become crazy/loose control.

[SirRobin]

Oh I do feel that responsible and accountable gun ownership can be a very good thing. I borderline think that it should just about be mandatory. The same with voting. What I've noticed more than anything else, since Reagan was elected, is a growing "abdication of accountability." Being responsible, and accountable, for what can easily become a lethal implement, could provide many "opportunities for personal growth." Yet as my previous posts in his previous thread implied. Firearms are not nearly the "equalizers" they once were. Especially in tyranny situations. Not only are there far more efficient and lethal ways to suppress hostiles than there used to be. Surveillance capabilities are vastly superior as well. Satellites, drones, wire taps, infrareds, etc, etc, etc...

So not only are those believing Obama will "take their guns," ignoring a variety of reality's facets. Like the political power of the NRA. They are also placing far to much confidence in the tactical and strategic value of the commonly available firearms. If they want to see how well a partisan group handles a well equipped and lead force, take a gander at Afghanistan. Their deadliest weapon is the improvised explosive device and I don't recall "IED" being listed in the second amendment.

[schwarzkopf]

sane people can become crazy/loose control.

Which is why I believe anything with more than 2 shots between reloads shouldn't be in public hands ... but that is just MY opinion. Make a gun as dangerous as a knife, and people who want to ban guns would have to ban knives too.

[Greeney]

OP, even though I don't agree with you. Thank you for putting the necessary effort into providing an argument why you feel Obama is coming after your guns.

For me Gun Control means TWO things:

1. Keeping guns out of crazy people's hands
2. Keeping guns out of untrained people's hands

If you are trained, and not crazy (i.e. shoot because you plan to shoot, and shoot what you planned to shoot), then the rest will take care of itself.

I agree 100%. As I said in the other thread, guns should at the very least be licensed and there should be heavy punishments for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't be permitted to have one.

Guns should at the very least be treated in a similar manner as a car. You shouldn't be allowed to use one until you can prove to someone that you're not too retarded to own one. It's not necessarily about becoming a totalitarian state, it's about (at the very least) making sure people respect such a deadly tool before using it. If you lend someone your gun, who doesn't have some sort of permit, they should lose their right to own a gun as well. At this point it's too late to try and remove guns from the U.S.A., but IMO it needs to be appreciated enough so that people can't just sell/lend a gun to anyone else.

[Deleted]

Which is why I believe anything with more than 2 shots between reloads shouldn't be in public hands ... but that is just MY opinion. Make a gun as dangerous as a knife, and people who want to ban guns would have to ban knives too.

agreed, i could live with that.

[Raidenx]

Obama won't take away your guns. He knows it will be political suicide, and the NRA wouldn't let him. The American people still respect the 2nd amendment and rightfully so.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

-Gun Sales have been increasing under Obama
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...ime-down-again
-Guns are a good thing, and it's a good thing out government trusts it's own people (for the most part)
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (with FBI citations and other credible sources)


Our country has a healthy history of hunting and a healthy culture of guns. If you don't want guns in your country that's fine, but we like that freedom. It also gives us a fighting chance against our government, no matter how small. Most of us don't believe the Governmet should have a monopoly on violence

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 04:11 PM ----------

OP, even though I don't agree with you. Thank you for putting the necessary effort into providing an argument why you feel Obama is coming after your guns.



I agree 100%. As I said in the other thread, guns should at the very least be licensed and there should be heavy punishments for selling a gun to someone who shouldn't be permitted to have one.

Cars aren't a right. You don't have a right to drive but you do have a right to defend yourself, which coincides with having guns here

For clarification: I do not own guns and only support gun restriction for the mentally ill and those with a history of violent crime. Having training wouldn't be a bad idea, but it's not necessary. "Well-regulated" doesn't mean by government

[Deleted]

Obama won't take away your guns. He knows it will be political suicide, and the NRA wouldn't let him. The American people still respect the 2nd amendment and rightfully so.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

-Gun Sales have been increasing under Obama
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...ime-down-again
-Guns are a good thing, and it's a good thing out government trusts it's own people (for the most part)
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (with FBI citations and other credible sources)

gallup.. you know how accurate gallup presidential polls were.. yea

[Spectral]

Cars aren't a right. You don't have a right to drive but you do have a right to defend yourself, which coincides with having guns here

You can defend yourself without a gun, much in the same fashion that you can have freedom of mobility without a car. Really, a car is more practically necessary for the bulk of Americans than a gun.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 11:15 AM ----------

gallup.. you know how accurate gallup presidential polls were.. yea

Gallup shouldn't suddenly be ignored as a result of crummy polling data in one specific instance. Their final poll of registered voters resulted in Obama+3, they just had crappy methodology on determining who was a "likely voter".

[Raidenx]

You can defend yourself without a gun, much in the same fashion that you can have freedom of mobility without a car. Really, a car is more practically necessary for the bulk of Americans than a gun.

In this country arms are a right, built upon the idea to defend oneself.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 04:16 PM ----------

gallup.. you know how accurate gallup presidential polls were.. yea

Apples and oranges

Trust me, Americans love guns by and large

[Deleted]

Our country has a healthy history of hunting and a healthy culture of guns. If you don't want guns in your country that's fine, but we like that freedom. It also gives us a fighting chance against our government, no matter how small. Most of us don't believe the Governmet should have a monopoly on violence

in a globalized world this argument is worth nothing.. your weapons end up in the wrong places as do "our" weapons and tanks, and i'm ashamed because of this (atleast a lil bit).

[Spectral]

In this country arms are a right, built upon the idea to defend oneself.

So is the freedom of mobility, for a number of obvious reasons. I'm not arguing against the idea that being armed is a right, I'm saying that it doesn't mean that every single person gets to arm themselves with absolutely no restrictions. Cars are necessary, guns are (arguably) necessary. Both can and should require some basic testing to determine fitness.

[apepi]

Here is something that we passed in Louisiana, calling for strict scrutiny for gun laws.

If Washington and Colorado could legalize something illegal(weed), I think even if guns were made illegal, the state could just legalize it.

[SirRobin]

Would add to my earlier post that another key to partisan groups surviving in Afghanistan, is safe havens in Pakistan. So "if" a similar environment occurred in the United States, I just don't see Canada or Mexico being able to fill Pakistan's role, for partisans, on this side of the pond. So even if reality decided to "take a nap," the belief that their firearms would be a major factor strategically or tactically is, well, full of beans.

[Jaxi]

sane people can become crazy/loose control.

That is a very slippery slope.

[Deleted]

That is a very slippery slope.

infact its not. strange things happen in the heat of the moment, and if you have access to a weapon the chance that something bad happens is higher. and the problem is guns: a potential deadly weapon serve no other use than to harm or kill so why not remove any chance that something bad happens?

Edit: either way the slippery slope fallacy is kinda meh t.b.h. im not saying every person loosing control will go on rampage, but they COULD and the higher the saturation of guns is the higher the chance is easy as that.