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

[skrump]

Then won't we need tanks, jets, battleships, and submarines...?

No we won't, the politicians that need to be overthrown will not be hiding in tanks, submarines or Jet's.

Their is however the battleships that they could choose to take refuge on but hell if we have them on the Run they cannot effectively rule over us or enforce the laws they created now can they.

Even our military would be unsuccessful in quelling mass rebellion nationwide simple because I don't think their is many people in the military who would willingly commit mass genocide on their own countrymen. (sure their is a few though)

[Felya]

No we won't, the politicians that need to be overthrown will not be hiding in tanks, submarines or Jet's.

Their is however the battleships that they could choose to take refuge on but hell if we have them on the Run they cannot effectively rule over us or enforce the laws they created now can they.

Even our military would be unsuccessful in quelling mass rebellion nationwide simple because I don't think their is many people in the military who would willingly commit mass genocide on their own countrymen. (sure their is a few though)

If you don't think many in the millitary would go after US citizens, what's the point to guns? You need protection from gun wielding judges and senators?

[tombstoner139]

The second amendment was circumvented when the federal government nationalized state militias. The national guard of your state is actually part of the federal government. The usurpation of state military power guaranteed by the second amendment was achieved by the creation of the state defense force. This satisfied the second amendment but created a serious power imbalance between the federal and state government. in fact the federal government cant allocate funding for a military for a period of no more then two years. so to get around that little detail in the constitution they do so each and every year. The federal government was not intended to have a massively overpowering military relative to the states. So yes a citizen militia should have access to the highest level of military weaponry avalable. in the context of a state controlled entity not as a private individual. how ever since the police are not obligated to protect us http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...tus.html?_r=1& we need to do it for ourselves.

[skrump]

If you don't think many in the millitary would go after US citizens, what's the point to guns? You need protection from gun wielding judges and senators?

If you have protestors without guns they will get arrested for public misconduct or w/e which will put a end to the angry mobs thus they will never grow, they will carry no influence and the rebellion will remain nothing more than a hope. (not to mention why the hell would your government be afraid of your protesting), they simply hang a patsy out to dry and keep going on with daily business.)

But yeah as the rebellion movement experiences it's initial growth I am pretty certain their will be conflicts with various law enforcement agencies as well as the military who would use lethal force in an effort to keep order.

I mean yeah I could see our military gunning down 50 or so armed protestors in an isolated incident, but I highly doubt the majority of them would be on the governments side when they realized it was a nationwide rebellion formed of nothing more then very pissed off people who otherwise had little to nothing in common.

[Dabrix32]

Just went over to my local gun store to buy something with a gift certificate I got for Christmas. All of his AK-47s and AR-15s were off the shelves. Someone has to stop those Nazi assholes in Washington by any means necessary. This has gone too far.

[Puck]

I always find it amusing how Americans feel as though gun regulation is impeding upon heir freedoms and oppressing them, mostly because the notion of owning guns is so entrenched in their society. And then the country right above them has gun regulations and they couldn't care less.

It's odd how societies can differ so much even when they're neighbours.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 11:50 AM ----------

Just went over to my local gun store to buy something with a gift certificate I got for Christmas. All of his AK-47s and AR-15s were off the shelves. Someone has to stop those Nazi assholes in Washington by any means necessary. This has gone too far.

Well, that was a logical and not emotionally driven response!

[cz75fan]

I always find it amusing how Americans feel as though gun regulation is impeding upon heir freedoms and oppressing them, mostly because the notion of owning guns is so entrenched in their society. And then the country right above them has gun regulations and they couldn't care less.

It's odd how societies can differ so much even when they're neighbours.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 11:50 AM ----------



Well, that was a logical and not emotionally driven response!

I always find it funny that non Americans can't understand or are not educated enough to know the difference between a Regulation and a Ban.

[Puck]

I always find it funny that non Americans can't understand or are not educated enough to know the difference between a Regulation and a Ban.

We aren't allowed to own Assault rifles either. They are completely banned.

I feel so not free right now! I'm scared the government is going to take my baby!

[Lockon Stratos]

Just went over to my local gun store to buy something with a gift certificate I got for Christmas. All of his AK-47s and AR-15s were off the shelves. Someone has to stop those Nazi assholes in Washington by any means necessary. This has gone too far.

AKs and AR-15s are sold out everywhere. Ammo is really scarce too, you can't even find ammo for long rifles.

[Tikaru]

I think it's a slippery slope.

First people will want assault weapons banned, because of the horrible shootings that are in the media right now, but what happens when there's another school/theatre/library shooting involving handguns?

I don't think taking away guns, of any kind, is the way to go. Making the more dangerous guns more difficult to obtain? Sure, I'll get behind that 100%, but I won't support taking away guns from sane, responsible adults.

I think we need to put more effort in enforcing current gun laws, making the current penalties more serious, and stop with stupid f***ing operations like Fast and Furious.

[Scot]

I always find it amusing how Americans feel as though gun regulation is impeding upon heir freedoms and oppressing them, mostly because the notion of owning guns is so entrenched in their society. And then the country right above them has gun regulations and they couldn't care less.

It's odd how societies can differ so much even when they're neighbours.

American don't feel as though gun regulation impedes their freedom. It does. You can't argue that. The only point of contention is whether it is a reasonable impediment.

[skrump]

We aren't allowed to own Assault rifles either. They are completely banned.

I feel so not free right now! I'm scared the government is going to take my baby!

The fact of the matter is if they ever decided they wanted to take your baby they are also more capable of accomplishing that task now that you don't have access to fully automatic assault rifles.

I dunno about you but I quite like the idea of having even or superior firepower than my potential enemies, I mean I am a mellow guy and don't seek trouble but if someone invades my house the last thing they will ever feel is a clip of bullets being unloaded into them.

Furthermore If I remain in a rational frame of mind I am going to make them suffer for their actions by using those bullets to cripple them and then let them bleed to death. (Might just use several clips to Successfully detach some limbs from the bastards)

And yeah we all know criminals don't follow the laws and I refuse to have inferior firepower when face to face with one.

[Puck]

The fact of the matter is if they ever decided they wanted to take your baby they are also more capable of accomplishing that task now that you don't have access to fully automatic assault rifles.

If they want your baby they're going to take your baby. You won;t be able to stop them.

I dunno about you but I quite like the idea of having even or superior firepower than my potential enemies, I mean I am a mellow guy and don't seek trouble but if someone invades my house the last thing they will ever feel is a clip of bullets being unloaded into them.

Shoot first, ask questions later. How primitive.

Furthermore If I remain in a rational frame of mind I am going to make them suffer for their actions by using those bullets to cripple them and then let them bleed to death. (Might just use several clips to Successfully detach some limbs from the bastards)

Right, so you're a psychopath. Nothing you just said is rational in the least.

And yeah we all know criminals don't follow the laws and I refuse to have inferior firepower when face to face with one.

Judging from what you said above I don't feel you're in a position to chastise criminals for breaking the law. There is something wrong with you. You legitimately scare me.

[Maneo]

I support Gun Ownership.

I own several firearms myself some of those certain politicians would love to ban.

This is a very interesting video in my opinion with very little spin and lots of great stats. Dealing with the level of violent crimes, in comparison to that of Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[Kujako]

American don't feel as though gun regulation impedes their freedom. It does. You can't argue that. The only point of contention is whether it is a reasonable impediment.

Not being able to own guns impedes my freedom. However, everyone else being able to own guns also impedes my freedom. Balance is needed. My freedoms end where they interfere with my neighbors.

[ptwonline]

I support Gun Ownership.

I own several firearms myself some of those certain politicians would love to ban.

This is a very interesting video in my opinion with very little spin and lots of great stats. Dealing with the level of violent crimes, in comparison to that of Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

The argument being made in that video seems flawed. He's complaining about "picking and choosing stats", and then picks and chooses two different stats: the British definition of violent crime is more encompassing than the US definition. So that means if the rates of the same crimes were equal between the two, then the British numbers would show as higher becuse they include more in their defintion of "violent crime".

He also leaves out the fact that violent crime rates in more densely populated areas are also plummeting. Instead he just points out that they are still higher. But wait, if they are plumeting both in and outside of cities then there must be a different major factor at work, no?

He complains that the Piers Morgans and Diane Feinsteins of the world are offering up solutions without knowing the problem, and then he offers up solutions when he actually doesn't know what the problem is because he HASN'T looked at enough of the data.

Violent crime rates jumped in the 60's and have dropped sharply since the mid-90's. Echoes of the baby boom producing many young men and the bad economic times should--under conventional wisdom--indicate that crime rates should soar. But they have not. Movies and video games are more violent than ever, and the age of them becoming ultraviolent--the late 90's--coincides with the start of the DROP in violent crime. So it's not that either. It's something different than just demographics and poverty levels and the media. Certainly those do have some effect, but when you're talking about violent crime rate drops that are so dramatic and lasting, there's something else that is the major factor.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The biggest problem with the "pro-gun movement" is a huge part of their group.

I am not talking about any of the users here.
What I am talking about are those paranoid people who want to start a civil war every day.
With people like that it's almost impossible to win the political debate.

In my opinion the only reason those guns aren't banned yet is because of the serious threat that these people are.

Banning guns without the appropriate constitutional amendment (the method that most people talk about using simply being a federal ban with no constitutional amendment to make it legitamite) WOULD be reason for a civil war.

[DEATHETERNAL]

When people say "ban all guns" they mean "take all legal steps and than ban guns".

No, mostly they simply want a federal law enacted.

[Daerio]

First off I'm going to say, a lot of people responding to the thread without having a clue what the thread is about. I feel like responsible moderation would include deleting all of the posts about the Alex Jones v Piers Morgan thing from people who didn't bother even clicking the link and felt the need to respond. I don't feel like an infraction would be out of line either, it would probably do a lot to help these forums as a whole. There are other threads discussing that, after all.

Being a child isn't "destroying" someone. He's falling back on "Government tyranny rising in the country in the next 50-100 years.". XD And why "my grandparents in Europe are now ashes"? Where are his "grandparents" from? I want to hear this.

I can't believe how ignorant some people are. He's talking about the JEWS. There was this thing not that long ago, called the HOLOCAUST, you may have heard of it. To the guy saying, "Oh, but gun laws were relaxed in Germany! Only THE JEWS COULDN'T HAVE THEM!" - you're utterly ridiculous, sir.

Here's what I think is the full debate between the two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs Not just a 3 minute clip, it's 14 minutes. My favorite part starts at 11:15 - Morgan - "You come in, you brandish your little book as if I don't know what's in there..." Shapiro - "My little book? That's the Constitution of the United States, our founding document, Piers."

Morgan's argument includes asking the exact same question 3 times after Shapiro answers it. This seems a popular tactic to 'win debates' from the anti-gun group. In my view, this also demonstrates how his opponent completely destroyed him on an intellectual level, reducing him to "LALALA I'm not listening!" As other people have pointed out, it's hilarious that Morgan is here because he was essentially forced out of the UK, then comes over here and advocates the destruction of our Constitution, and like a lot of people, consider it "just some old piece of parchment." I guess I'm in the minority, because I'm educated enough to know how instrumental it was, and is, to our country and society.

[Daerio]

There's also the "slippery slope" thing, and I think it's pretty key to the discussion. Some people think it's a bad argument. Well, maybe that's fair when it comes to some subjects. I don't think it is when it comes to this one.

There are OBVIOUSLY people who want all guns banned, period. They're in this thread, they're in the media, they're in our government. This is the "stepping stone" as they call it. That's synonymous with slippery slope - the only difference is positive vs negative connotation. They see this as the first step to getting rid of all the guns, and why wouldn't they?

There are also plenty of people in this thread, and on these forums, that would apparently be ecstatic if they banned guns in America - even though they don't live here, never have and never will. I don't really understand it, not sure if it's just forum trolling with this superior attitude, "Look, we're better than you because we don't trust our citizens to responsibly own guns" or what.

To see this ban as something other than a slippery slope is to be naive. It's the first step to banning all guns. That's what "the left" (as it's said in the video [even though I truly don't care about political parties in this country]) want. For now, they want to keep that on the "down low" and just talk about the recent shootings - even though statistically, they're meaningless.