Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Begrudge]

I am a democrat and I do NOT support this in anyway shape or form. This is where I draw the party line, noone and I mean noone will infringe on my right to have an assault rifle. And I can just keep making them if the government outlaws them, all this is going to do is fuel more hatred and division. And it wont fix the problem anyway. If 80% of the country owns a gun I bet there are a few people out there with assault rifles that feel the way i do. I will not give up the right to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND MYSELF.

[Gahagan]

The Second Amendment was INTENDED to provide citizens with legal access to the same types of weaponry that the government holds, should it become necessary to overthrow an unjust government. But where's the outcry for citizens to legally own, oh, I don't know:

* fighter jets
* unmanned drones
* tear gas
* atomic weaponry
* conventional missiles
* stealth technology
* robotic combatants
* sniper rifles
* corner shots
* vehicle-mounted machine guns
* railguns

If you think having a Glock around is going to protect you when the government shows up...well, you probably won't even see them show up, since warfare has moved past using guns.

The second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of history. When we wrote the Bill of Rights, we wrote it in a time when the guy who showed up with more guns still had a good chance of winning the war. We were just starting to figure out how to use bombs, and how we shouldn't all line up shoulder to shoulder and fire at one another across an open plain. Combat has changed, and so to say that the second amendment is to protect you from an oppressive government is blatantly anachronistic.

There's plenty of reasons to advocate for legal gun ownership. But the Second Amendment isn't a very good one, since it's about 150 years old and deals specifically with the rights of militias.

[Wells]

Actually, Miss, I see nothing 'left' or 'socialist' in what Eisenhower had in his 52 platform. And, that said, your vaunted Democratic party would spit on JFK. JFK was for personal responsibility and doing for the country... the left now demands that the country do for them... JFK would without a doubt be run out of the Democratic party for not being left enough.

You do know its really condescending and fairly sexist to refer to people as "miss" when you're disagreeing with them right?

[Seranthor]

Oh and republicans also want to take away your rights to vote(voter ID)

You had me agreeing with you until you said this garbage... How is showing ID taking away your right to vote? Seriously, its showing ID to make sure someone ELSE doesn't take away your right to have your LEGAL vote counted...

[Beavis]

The Second Amendment was INTENDED to provide citizens with legal access to the same types of weaponry that the government holds, should it become necessary to overthrow an unjust government. But where's the outcry for citizens to legally own, oh, I don't know:

* fighter jets
* unmanned drones
* tear gas
* atomic weaponry
* conventional missiles
* stealth technology
* robotic combatants
* sniper rifles
* corner shots
* vehicle-mounted machine guns
* railguns

If you think having a Glock around is going to protect you when the government shows up...well, you probably won't even see them show up, since warfare has moved past using guns.

The second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of history. When we wrote the Bill of Rights, we wrote it in a time when the guy who showed up with more guns still had a good chance of winning the war. We were just starting to figure out how to use bombs, and how we shouldn't all line up shoulder to shoulder and fire at one another across an open plain. Combat has changed, and so to say that the second amendment is to protect you from an oppressive government is blatantly anachronistic.

There's plenty of reasons to advocate for legal gun ownership. But the Second Amendment isn't a very good one, since it's about 150 years old and deals specifically with the rights of militias.

I've already said this once in this thread, but I'll say it again. Arguing that the military force that government can apply is so powerful that legal civilian arms are insufficient is, in fact, an argument for a dramatic expansion of civilian access to arms. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear: to empower the citizens of the United States with the means to oppose our government should it slip into tyranny. If our government is preventing us from owning the tools necessary to do that, then our 2nd Amendment rights are being curtailed.

[Deleted]

Please explain how if the US Constitution is WRONG, that the US Supreme Court continues, at EVERY challenge, to uphold it... 225 Years worth of challenges. I'm sorry you are wrong, I really am, however, I put more stock and faith into the 9 folks in the black robes than I do in YOU. Period.

It is weird how 'faith' works. After reading some of your replies i would be willing to bet that had those '9 folks in the black robes' desided the oposite , or if they deside the oposite tomorow, you will be calling them '9 assholes in black robes that take away your rights' or something close to it. Not to mention that you did not actually answear his question. How does random person X counts as well regulated militia, what is to stop him from loading the weapon as soon as he gets the bullets ,go in a crowded place and starts target practice ?!

As for the topic of the thread...reasonable/stable people can buy weapons as easily as crazy people. So if taking away their guns is impossible ( which at this point i think it is) why not just compromise and have everyone and i mean EVERYONE, who wants a weapon of w/e kind , go though strict mental evaluation and after that make them responsible for that weapon.

At the end of the day, i think that if you want a weapon you better make sure that weapon is secure in every way possible. If you buy something that can kill people in a blink of an eye you should not have any excuse when it gets....misplaced.

I also have to agree that if the goverment turns on you and keeps the military on their side your fucked. If not...well you have a trained army on your side and thats not even counting help from at least europe.

To close this,even if mass shooting incidents are rare ( cba to look at statistics) , why would anyone not want to take proactive meassures against it ? You know actually stop it before it happens instead of relying on giving guns to everyone and their dog to kill the shooter on sight ?! ( education + gun control are needed...only one of them is not enough)

And please excuse my bad english, i know i need training

[CrazyEyez315]

I agree with the bill to remove weapons that hold more then 10 rounds, at least from Households. Who the fuck needs an assault rifle in their home, where it is more likely to be used by someone that is not the signed owner?

[Atrea]

Legally obtained and then stolen by the criminal from the person who went through the hoops to get them.

False.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

According to the ATF, only 10 to 15 percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

The vast majority are legally purchased.

[Coraulten]

If this passes there will be alot of businesses that will go under.

[Prokne]

The second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of history. When we wrote the Bill of Rights, we wrote it in a time when the guy who showed up with more guns still had a good chance of winning the war. We were just starting to figure out how to use bombs, and how we shouldn't all line up shoulder to shoulder and fire at one another across an open plain. Combat has changed, and so to say that the second amendment is to protect you from an oppressive government is blatantly anachronistic.

There's plenty of reasons to advocate for legal gun ownership. But the Second Amendment isn't a very good one, since it's about 150 years old and deals specifically with the rights of militias.

Well the line of battle style of warfare was around for more than 80 years after the Constitution was created. The Civil War generals used Napoleonic tactics that were solidified 30 years after the Constitution that they learned at West Point. It wasnt really until tanks and planes came around that you couldn't expect to be able to defend yourself against the government with just small arms. Still you could probably argue that having some defense is better than none and you can use guns to get other weapons if necessary.

I dont agree with the argument that we should ban things that are almost always used responsibly in a legal situation just because we are afraid we might get hurt. Its still very very unlikely you will ever be subjected to gun violence anywhere in the US unless you are doing something illegal or looking for trouble.

[Atrea]

I really dislike these extreme knee jerk reactions.

Assault rifles shouldn't be banned. Perhaps firearms in general need more regulation. For example, I know some real crazy fucks with a concealed weapon's license, it kind of worries me that they can legally walk around with a handgun because these are the kind of people that would take it to a bar, get drunk and kill someone. I also think there should be pretty serious punishments for failing to safely secure your guns.

I just don't see why so many people are for an extreme "no guns" policy. Same goes for those who think they should be able to buy an AK-47 at Wal-Mart without any registration process.

Either that, or they'll enter into "vigilante hero mode", and start shooting when they think they see something wrong happening.
All too often, situations are NOT what they appear.

[xindralol]

it won't serve any purpose ...
usually it's about automatic weapons but this shooting just again proved that's not the issue - he did not have full auto weapons

[Matchu]

You had me agreeing with you until you said this garbage... How is showing ID taking away your right to vote? Seriously, its showing ID to make sure someone ELSE doesn't take away your right to have your LEGAL vote counted...

Voter disenfranchisement isn't some myth, it's been used by both parties during history.

[mmines]

I do support this. There's really no reason to have those besides in shooting ranges where you can only rent to use inside of that shooting range.

[fizzbob]

i wouldn't have a problem with this ban, but 26 people just died because of guns that this ban wouldn't include. if they take away guns crazies will buy the stuff they need to make a bomb from wal-mart or lowe's and could take out 26 people in a heartbeat.

the problem is people. people aren't coping with stress because they're being told their whole lives how they're victims or how feeling suicidal isn't normal. it's normal. feeling like you wanna save the world on monday then feeling like blowing it up on tuesday is normal.

the problem is how people are dealing with life and to me, everything they do seems to make it worse. people are soft. it's not a coincidence that most shootings are done by people who are middle class or better. what would these weak willed motherfuckers be doing if they were living pay check to pay check or going hungry a lot of the time? that's something to bitch about. living in a 1.6 million dollar house with your mom who gets $300,000 a year in alimony and spoils you isn't something to stress about

i think a certain level of stress is healthy and people who don't have enough get bored and lose their fucking minds

[Prokne]

I agree with the bill to remove weapons that hold more then 10 rounds, at least from Households. Who the fuck needs an assault rifle in their home, where it is more likely to be used by someone that is not the signed owner?

Most weapons can hold more than 10 rounds with the right accessories that are made for the gun - larger capacity magazines. They can go ahead and restrict those, shooting for fun doesnt need to have huge magazines. You should definitely not be able to buy ones that are larger then the magazine designed primarily for the weapon.

As far as "assault weapons" they mean guns that look like military weapons and use the same caliber rounds. BTW those rounds are small compared to .30 caliber hunting rounds which can also be used in semi automatic rifles. I would much rather be shot by an AR-15 than a Remington 700 using .306 or even worse a magnum caliber. I think the worst gun to be shot by that normal people own is a shotgun. 1oz of steel in a slug or 9+BBs will do much more damage than a single rifle round and its much easier to hit things with a shotgun.

[Deleted]

Well the line of battle style of warfare was around for more than 80 years after the Constitution was created. The Civil War generals used Napoleonic tactics that were solidified 30 years after the Constitution that they learned at West Point. It wasnt really until tanks and planes came around that you couldn't expect to be able to defend yourself against the government with just small arms. Still you could probably argue that having some defense is better than none and you can use guns to get other weapons if necessary.

I dont agree with the argument that we should ban things that are almost always used responsibly in a legal situation just because we are afraid we might get hurt. Its still very very unlikely you will ever be subjected to gun violence anywhere in the US unless you are doing something illegal or looking for trouble.

True but...if anyone can get a weapon as long as he can afford it how do you assure the legal and responsible part ?! If it was about criminals killing each other 90% of the posters here wouldnt care too much. But when you have mass shootings in schools and malls ,however rare they may be , people get mad.

[Prokne]

If this passes there will be alot of businesses that will go under.

They will probably get a good bonus from people buying as many pre ban weapons as they can before it goes through. Then they can use real fear of losing your guns to get people to buy the ones they still can.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 01:47 AM ----------

True but...if anyone can get a weapon as long as he can afford it how do you assure the legal and responsible part ?! If it was about criminals killing each other 90% of the posters here wouldnt care too much. But when you have mass shootings in schools and malls ,however rare they may be , people get mad.

There needs to be more restrictions on who can obtain guns and how they get them. You dont need to ban all guns and punish law abiding people because a few people out of 300million are crazy evil bastards.

[Beavis]

False.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

According to the ATF, only 10 to 15 percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

The vast majority are legally purchased.

Did you even read that? The whole point of that article was to outline the ways that people who shouldn't be having guns get them without theft. There's nothing legal about a strawman purchase or buying a legally obtained gun from some dude on the street.

[Gahagan]

I've already said this once in this thread, but I'll say it again. Arguing that the military force that government can apply is so powerful that legal civilian arms are insufficient is, in fact, an argument for a dramatic expansion of civilian access to arms. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear: to empower the citizens of the United States with the means to oppose our government should it slip into tyranny. If our government is preventing us from owning the tools necessary to do that, then our 2nd Amendment rights are being curtailed.

Go try and buy a Predator drone. Let me know how your rights are doing once you have one.

And if you want to go "Oh, but we don't need a Predator drone to oppose our government! We just need guns!" let's have a chat about Gandhi. But don't bring your Predator or I'll feel threatened.