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

[Purlina]

The point i was more trying to prove was that the govt can and has committed tyranny against its citizens.

Yeah, but my point is that a few guns won't make enough of a difference.

[Felya]

It wouldn't matter if they had guns...

Yes, and the gun laws back then were leaner than they are now. It shows that even leaner gun laws than we have now, would not help if government came for you. It proves that having guns no longer has the intended effect, because just like technological advances changed what guns people have, the weapons government has is much more advanced.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:07 PM ----------

The point i was more trying to prove was that the govt can and has committed tyranny against its citizens.

Were gun laws leaner or more tight at that time?

[vaeevictiss]

Yes, and the gun laws back then were leaner than they are now. It shows that even leaner gun laws than we have now, would not help if government came for you. It proves that having guns no longer has the intended effect, because just like technological advances changed what guns people have, the weapons government has is much more advanced.

You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.

Were gun laws leaner or more tight at that time?

Gun laws being leaner or tighter are one thing, gun laws being leaner or tighter for japanese americans is another.

[Felya]

Here is what I know. I know that my government conducts its self with little to no accountability. I know that my government has committed war crimes and violations against civil liberties, rights, and the Constitution before and currently. What I also know is that many in the Global Economic circle are predicting a complete collapse of the US Economy and a move from the USD by the World Bank (Most likely to Yuan but who knows.) What I also know is what happened to the UK the last time something like this happened with the British Sterling.

What I DO NOT KNOW is the future and because I do not know that I prefer to reflect back on history and make decisions based on constant repeats in order to avoid a predictable future.

You don't know the future, yet use a prediction to demonstrate what you know?

The constitucion has been amended many times, but that includes voting rights for minorities. You simply cannot hinge the changing of the constitucion on solely negative view, unless you have an irrational destain for government.

[Purlina]

You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.

Why would a tyrannical government care about dropping a few bombs / collateral damage?

[oblivionx]

Why would a tyrannical government care about dropping a few bombs / collateral damage?

The only reason they would care is if they were to continue allowing people to vote in unrigged elections.

[dacoolist]

It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.

For one, a ban on assault weapons is only logical. There is no reason for citizens to own an assault weapon. Yes, they will still be around due to a black market, but at least it removes some of the market (and the easily obtained market of rob person, now you have assault weapon).

If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own assault weapons, then the government already controls it's people with NO POSSIBLE way to overthrow mislead/corrupted government that's in power. As much as I'd LOVE to protect my family with a single loading daisy bb-gun - I think one person with ANY type of fully auto weapon would be 10 to 1 ratio of actual RAW POWER vs, single action... Whatever, I'm sure I just added into the flame

[Felya]

You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.

No, that's your assumption. My assumption is simply based on trained personal using guns that you cannot afford. I am assuming that US millitary outnumbers you and has more resources. I am assuming that it would be much easier to get any armed to the teeth American citizen, than an armed to the teeth Bin Ladin in Pakistan.

Gun laws being leaner or tighter are one thing, gun laws being leaner or tighter for japanese americans is another.

Who is proposing such a law? The laws were leaner than they are now, before Pearl Harbor. Yet, they did not help with either the Japanese being put in camps or the attack it self.

[oblivionx]

There was a gun control act right after the repeal of prohibition that outlawed all gangster style weapons, notably the Thompson Machinegun. So that has to be early 30's.

[Felya]

If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own assault weapons, then the government already controls it's people with NO POSSIBLE way to overthrow mislead/corrupted government that's in power. As much as I'd LOVE to protect my family with a single loading daisy bb-gun - I think one person with ANY type of fully auto weapon would be 10 to 1 ratio of actual RAW POWER vs, single action... Whatever, I'm sure I just added into the flame

The government already controls it's people. Who do you think enforces the laws we have? Even with assault weapons, you do not have the ability to go to a war with a country that is capable of having 2 wars against whole countries, while having troops in just about every part of the world. Going up against the government is a delusion of grandeur... They have unmanned drones... Aircraft carriers... Trained personal... Bigger guns than you can afford and they are trained to use them...

[vaeevictiss]

The government already controls it's people. Who do you think enforces the laws we have? Even with assault weapons, you do not have the ability to go to a war with a country that is capable of having 2 wars against whole countries, while having troops in just about every part of the world. Going up against the government is a delusion of grandeur... They have unmanned drones... Aircraft carriers... Trained personal... Bigger guns than you can afford and they are trained to use them...

you are also assuming the military would go right along with it.

[oblivionx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[Scot]

I suggest most of you gun control advocates educate yourselves before opening your mouths and sounding like idiots. Here's a starting point:

1) The term "Assault Rifle" refers to select fire (choice between semi auto and full auto usually) rifles that are in use in the military and HEAVILY regulated and restricted for civilian use. These literally have nothing to do with the current discussion as they are not relevant to the recent incident that sparked all of this jibber jabber.

2) The term "Assault Weapon" is a term that politicians made up to make certain types of firearms sound scary and is based primarily on cosmetic features which have little to do with the function or lethality of a firearm.

3) Semi automatic means that you pull the trigger every time you fire. It is impossible for semi automatic firearms to fire more than 1 shot for each trigger pull.

[Felya]

you are also assuming the military would go right along with it.

So are you... If we assume millitary does not go along with it, what enforsment are your guns protecting you from? The millitary, is the only federal enforsment tool. If you remove them from the equation, than there is nothing to protect your self from that stems from the government. You think senators and judges will pick up arms against US millitary?

[madwabbit]

Ban guns. I'm sure it'll make them magically disappear from closets and cabinets. Ban assault weapons- we see how well banning cocaine and heroine have worked. Ultimately- put it on paper if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... my guns not going anywhere.

[Felya]

Ban guns. I'm sure it'll make them magically disappear from closets and cabinets. Ban assault weapons- we see how well banning cocaine and heroine have worked. Ultimately- put it on paper if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... my guns not going anywhere.

Are you addicted to guns? Do guns create an addiction where the consumer's body craves another hit, to the point where the cost of manufacturing is incredibly slanted due to the demand? If you honestly think guns and drugs are the same, you have a problem and should not be permitted to own guns. People who have a physical craving for guns due to a dependance, should go to rehab before they are permitted to own a gun.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:51 PM ----------

Than and then can eat my ass... I'm aknowledging it, but not fixing it...

[Fenixdown]

damage done in mass shootings would be greatly reduced if they had hand guns thats the point

No it wouldn't. Anyone that wants to shoot up a school or government building or anything else for that matter would still have access to any tool they desired to have access to. Just because something becomes illegal does not mean people stop having access to it. Cocaine is illegal. Yet you still see people ODing on the stuff, don't you.

Also, someone earlier made a VERY valid point. Some of the largest mass murders in history were done without the use of guns. Hell, two planes were crashed into two of the tallest structures in the world with only the use of BOX CUTTERS. Should we outlaw box cutters because of 9/11?

Banning automatic weapons does nothing to solve the problem. I mean, think about it this way. Remember Columbine? Tragic, am I right? Where did parents put the blame? Video games. Did we start banning violent video games from being made because of it? Last time I checked, the games only got more graphic and more violent as the years have gone forward. Yet for some crazy reason, there's not a "mass high school shooting of the week" segment on ABC news as a result of that very "necessary" ban.

Crazy people do crazy shit, and there's nothing you're going to do and no law you're going to pass to stop them. Period. The best solution is better security at public schools.

[oblivionx]

No it wouldn't.

How do you know that?

[Tyler-Stormrage]

To everyone saying that banning assault weapons won't reduce murder rates... Come on now.
If an item is banned, that means that it no longer can be sold publicly, and must be acquired on a black-market esq level.
When you buy something like that, It becomes MORE EXPENSIVE because of the prohibitive nature of the product. It also in many cases will become less effective.
Everyday joe shmoes will never come into contact with the banned gun, because they can no longer go out and buy one to shoot for fun in the same way that they can today. Professional criminals will have a significantly harder time getting the guns, thus indirectly lowering the death toll.

Example: Gun A. is banned. Normally, Eric could go and buy gun A from a local armory. Since that armory can no longer carry that gun, Eric can no longer obtain it. John, a thief who would have possibly stolen the gun when he broke into Eric's house should he actually aquired the gun, now no longer gets ahold of gun A. John can then no longer use that gun to rob the nearest place with a cash register as he would have with the gun, regardless of the fact that given the opportunity, John would have ignored the gun ban law.

[Felya]

How about this for common sense. Keep everything as legal as it is now. At the same time increase police everywhere. I do mean everywhere, pretend I'm doing the 'every out house, dog house' scene from the fugitive. In malls, pre-schools, theater, colleges, donut shops, gas stations, I mean everywhere. The only change? Increase taxes on all gun products to pay for every bit of spending that has to happen to keep the public safe. This is also the low end of the spectrum, I'd prefer a tax on all gun products that would net a surplus. Keep everything as legal as it is, but make those who buy guns pay to keep the public safe from the small chance that one is used to comit crime. Those with guns already will see no impact on them, unless they by more than they already have. All new gun owners will have a huge impact on public safety, which is all they want anyway.