Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

Ok small history lesson time. During the previous ban there were so many loopholes that you could still buy modified assault rifles. Colt match target rifle rings a bell. You could still get your hands on the 24 million cartridges that weren't illegal before the ban. Really don't understand why you'd be mad when there will be loopholes again?

My problem is that everyone is focusing on the tools of the massacre while not worrying about the causes.

[Jtbrig7390]

Hey Captain Confused, you need to go back and read. Hilarious.

You Said:

Sorry friend but you already lost ground in the censoring of video games. Games were more violent 15 years ago so its already been toned down once. Also a gun is a tool it doesn't make you kill someone or affect your mind. Violent media on the other hand does.

Then I prove you wrong that games where not more violent 15 years ago and nothing got toned down. But please do keep on adding to your trolling.

The ESRB rating system was put into place because of the first mortal combat game that had a little blood and some special kills in it. So you trying to tell me that the first mortal combat 15 years ago was more violent then gears of war now..

I'm done replying to this clear troll.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

No. It says that because (at the time) the militia was needed in the event of national defense (Because the founding fathers were against a standing military as they were of the opinion that any nation with a standing military became tyranical), the right of civilians to bear arms should not be infringed.

A couple of things.

1) We have a standing army. Quite a large one.
2) We no longer rely upon the militia for defense of the nation.
3) No where in the amendment does it signify what amount or type of arms cannot be infringed, nor what is or is not acceptable.
4) If the Originalists want to take the constitution word for word as written and it cannot be changed, then they can have flint-lock and muzzle-loading weapons, just like the founding fathers intended.

This entire argument seems to miss the point where, the types that could not be infringed, were, well all of them? Arms. encompasses everything.

[Barnabas]

My problem is that everyone is focusing on the tools of the massacre while not worrying about the causes.

You can't just give a guy a psych exam and hope in 5 years he doesn't get mad at society.

[starlord]

My problem is that everyone is focusing on the tools of the massacre while not worrying about the causes.

how do you suggest forcing people to seek psychiatric treatment?

[Moadar]

You Said: QUOTE=Moadar;19496241]Sorry friend but you already lost ground in the censoring of video games. Games were more violent 15 years ago so its already been toned down once. Also a gun is a tool it doesn't make you kill someone or affect your mind. Violent media on the other hand does.

Then I prove you wrong that games where not more violent 15 years ago and nothing got toned down. But please do keep on adding to your trolling.

The ESRB rating system was put into place because of the first mortal combat game that had a little blood and some special kills in it. So you trying to tell me that the first mortal combat 15 years ago was more violent then gears of war now..

I'm don't replying to this clear troll.

You didn't quote, or obviously read the whole post.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

If they banned ownership of all guns then yes that would be against the constitution, no where in the constitution does it say the government cant ban one type of gun.
There's a difference.

Banning a single gun, is infringing. Making it unconstitutional.

[Barnabas]

how do you suggest forcing people to seek psychiatric treatment?

How do you force people to lock their guns and not have one by the computer, another on the kitchen counter and another by the xbox?

[starlord]

This entire argument seems to miss the point where, the types that could not be infringed, were, well all of them? Arms. encompasses everything.

including nuclear weapons. which are banned, as well as "live" jets, tanks, missles, etc. but for someone with so much knowledge you seem rather baffled by how that is so.

[obdigore]

This entire argument seems to miss the point where, the types that could not be infringed, were, well all of them? Arms. encompasses everything.

So you are cool with a civilian owning a nuclear weapon? Those are 'infringed'. The 'assault weapons ban' was not struck down as unconstitutional. Why not? If I had the money, could I own an Aircraft Carrier, all the military hardware including fighter wing that goes with it? It does not say 'all weapons'. We can give everyone in the country a flintlock pistol, and guess what, their right to bear arms isn't infringed.

[starlord]

How do you force people to lock their guns and not have one by the computer, another on the kitchen counter and another by the xbox?

by not giving them guns.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

Ok I will give you that but I have been told many times from a manger I know of they get cough selling minors M rated games that they can be fined and shutdown maybe it depends each state Not sure. So ill admit its not worded in there but this is what I was told and he was told from his boss.

I don't see that being a city or state enforcement thing, though I suppose it could be. It most likely is a company thing.

[Moadar]

how do you suggest forcing people to seek psychiatric treatment?

Look for common threads amongst the killers. If violent media is one such thread then it should be addressed. Some countries already ban or censor it, if we follow their example with the firearms ban then maybe they are right about media as well?

[Latetomyownfuneral]

So you are cool with a civilian owning a nuclear weapon? Those are 'infringed'. The 'assault weapons ban' was not struck down as unconstitutional. Why not? If I had the money, could I own an Aircraft Carrier, all the military hardware including fighter wing that goes with it? It does not say 'all weapons'. We can give everyone in the country a flintlock pistol, and guess what, their right to bear arms isn't infringed.

I'm fine with every citizen owning a nuclear weapon actually. So long as there isn't a radiation leak problem from them. The assault weapon ban didn't make it to the supreme court? If you want to own an Aircraft Carrier, have at it. Arms = all weapons. Yeah, we could give everyone flintlocks and it wouldn't be infringing, it would be a gift. Now if you meant, limiting the entire populace to these things, then it is infringed.

[starlord]

Look for common threads amongst the killers. If violent media is one such thread then it should be addressed. Some countries already ban or censor it, if we follow their example with the firearms ban then maybe they are right about media as well?

if its the media, why are they almost all white, male, and with an average age of 35?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...-shootings-map

[Goatfish]

Even though I very much doubt it has even the slightest chance of passing, I support it. I always thought the original ban should have been renewed. Honestly can't see a legitimate reason for private citizens in general to need assault weapons.

Last I checked, we allow people to own mediocre weapons of war because of the ability to employ a militia to rebel against domination by the government. If we ever get too oppressed those weapons of war are the only things that might allow us the slightest chance to break free without outside assistance. Granted the world has evolved a long ways in 250 years since that was put into place, there was indeed a reason for it being in there. Just look at the Civil War as a good example of why that law is in place.

Honestly, looking at the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised to see either another civil or world war within my lifetime. Whether it is fought with guns or computers is the real question remaining.

[Extrazero8]

If reinstating a law on these weapons MIGHT prevent another shooting like the ones we've seen, then i don't see the problem with sacrificing a certain type of weapon obtained by hobbyists.

Of course you don't see a problem with sacrificing other peoples property. This is a very easy thing for some people because it requires you to do nothing but the thought that it MIGHT do something at some unknown date makes you feel justified in supporting it.

I'm not willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars in personal property biased on feel-good whims and guesses. Are you?

If it were provable that it wouldn't matter, then i would be against the ban. Just like I hope if it were provable that it would prevent more shootings that no one would oppose it. With that said, I think we should see how the ban effects shooting related deaths after X amount of time and go from there.

That's going to be a problem. "Assault Weapons" are oddities in day to day crime. It will not have an impact in crime or gun violence because those guns are rarely used as it is.

Also, we already tried this once. It was called the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. It did nothing and was a huge waste of time and money. But it made people who don't like guns feel as if they were making a difference. Because the scary guns were banned and it was more about feelings than actually doing anything.

[obdigore]

I'm fine with every citizen owning a nuclear weapon actually. So long as there isn't a radiation leak problem from them. The assault weapon ban didn't make it to the supreme court? If you want to own an Aircraft Carrier, have at it. Arms = all weapons. Yeah, we could give everyone flintlocks and it wouldn't be infringing, it would be a gift. Now if you meant, limiting the entire populace to these things, then it is infringed.

Nope. You don't understand the amendment or how the federal government works. As I said, Libertarians generally are out of touch with the reality the rest of us live in.

[Moadar]

if its the media, why are they almost all white, male, and with an average age of 35?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...-shootings-map

"Despite how the news media [continue] to portray the effects of media violence, the re- search is clear: youth who view violent tele- vision tend to become more aggressive adults." http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byr...-massacre-why/

Isn't the average age of video gamers in the US 30?

[Extrazero8]

Ok small history lesson time. During the previous ban there were so many loopholes that you could still buy modified assault rifles. Colt match target rifle rings a bell. You could still get your hands on the 24 million cartridges that weren't illegal before the ban. Really don't understand why you'd be mad when there will be loopholes again?

Why should I have to jump through hoops so other people can feel like what they are doing actually does anything?