Gun Rights

[SOLDIERis1337]

A gun? If only there was gun control right? People seem to think that having gun control in place will only effect people buying guns legally. First rule of economics = Scarcity, this effects everyone.

You do realize that street gangs in every major city are armed to the teeth with illegal guns, right? Current gun control laws prevent anyone from owning fully automatic weapons and short barreled rifles or shotguns from being owned by anyone without registering it and paying the $200 tax. None of these criminals who own these weapons have done this. Current gun control laws prevent anyone convicted of a felony from purchasing or owning a firearm. Guess who many convicted drug dealers and gang bangers are walking down the streets with guns they got illegally.

Maybe in your universe no one could possibly use drugs because they're illegal, but here in reality anyone with enough cash can walk up to a dealer and get whatever kind of high they want. Making things illegal doesn't prevent criminals from doing them anyway, if they aren't going to obey the laws on theft, drugs, rape and murder why in God's name would they follow the gun laws?

The sole purpose of a gun is to cause death.

Once again, please stop speaking from ignorance. Firearms have many purposes, most of them sporting. Javelins were also used as weapons, but the fact that they're an Olympic event means they aren't "solely for killing."

Well good for grandparents, mine have, but ya know someone had to defeat Facism.

Oh, so it's fine to sit up on your high horse and say its immoral for me to defend me and my families life in my own home, but its perfectly OK to kill people who have an unpopular political belief or one you don't agree with. Look, sport, the fact is that gun control simply doesn't work.

The Cho killings and the Columbine massacre both happened in "gun free zones," and the Columbine guns were obtained illegally. They were not old enough to purchase guns in the first place, and straw purchases are illegal already.

You simply can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's insane. Watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on gun control and you'll see the facts here. Here's a link: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/60509/detail/

 

[Donald Trump]

You do realize that street gangs in every major city are armed to the teeth with illegal guns, right? Current gun control laws prevent anyone from owning fully automatic weapons and short barreled rifles or shotguns from being owned by anyone without registering it and paying the $200 tax. None of these criminals who own these weapons have done this. Current gun control laws prevent anyone convicted of a felony from purchasing or owning a firearm. Guess who many convicted drug dealers and gang bangers are walking down the streets with guns they got illegally.

Maybe in your universe no one could possibly use drugs because they're illegal, but here in reality anyone with enough cash can walk up to a dealer and get whatever kind of high they want. Making things illegal doesn't prevent criminals from doing them anyway, if they aren't going to obey the laws on theft, drugs, rape and murder why in God's name would they follow the gun laws?

Here's Eco 101 for you.
Gun Control, reduces the availability of guns and ease with they can be transported and sold, illegally. That reduces supply, which therefore leads to a rise in price, which again means that guns a more difficult to get because they're more expensive to buy illegally.

Once again, please stop speaking from ignorance. Firearms have many purposes, most of them sporting. Javelins were also used as weapons, but the fact that they're an Olympic event means they aren't "solely for killing

Just because people have invented other uses doesn't change the fact that they're sole design purpose is to kill. Sure I can use my phone to hit people with, it was still designed for communicating with other people.

Oh, so it's fine to sit up on your high horse and say its immoral for me to defend me and my families life in my own home, but its perfectly OK to kill people who have an unpopular political belief or one you don't agree with

So basically, you support Hitler.

Look, sport, the fact is that gun control simply doesn't work.

Hey Rolf, just because you say something doesn't make it true.
Protip: Try facts not condescension.

The Cho killings and the Columbine massacre both happened in "gun free zones," and the Columbine guns were obtained illegally. They were not old enough to purchase guns in the first place, and straw purchases are illegal alr

So what you're saying if the sale of guns was subject to stricter laws, then these massacres wouldn't have happened?
Wait a minute, that's gun control ZOMG

You simply can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's insane

Except that it's trying to prevent all gun crime as opposed to batshit insane people with guns.

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

Here's Eco 101 for you.
Gun Control, reduces the availability of guns and ease with they can be transported and sold, illegally. That reduces supply, which therefore leads to a rise in price, which again means that guns a more difficult to get because they're more expensive to buy illegally.

Here's reality 101 for you. Making guns illegal doesn't make them disappear. Even if the US government managed to round up every last gun in this country they would be imported from other countries. The third world is full of illegal guns that organized crime would adore to sell to criminals in the US. You're incredibly naive if you actually think banning guns would make them go away. Look at the war on drugs.

Just because people have invented other uses doesn't change the fact that they're sole design purpose is to kill. Sure I can use my phone to hit people with, it was still designed for communicating with other people.

Please, for the sake of your own appearance, do a little research before posting. A 410 shotgun is designed to shoot clay pigeons, target pistols and rifles are designed solely for competition use. You're only showing your own ignorance when you make posts like this.

So basically, you support Hitler.

I'm glad to see that you've realized there's no use in defending your own hypocrisy. I'd rather you pathetically attempt to insult me than try to say its fine to shoot people you don't agree with but not someone who threatened another man's family.

Hey Rolf, just because you say something doesn't make it true.
Protip: Try facts not condescension.

I've done nothing but post facts, silly. You, on the other hand, have one nothing but spout rhetoric that real life has disproved time and time again. Watch the video, it shows the argument from all sides and shows the facts, all of which show that gun control is unconstitutional and completely ineffective.

So what you're saying if the sale of guns was subject to stricter laws, then these massacres wouldn't have happened?
Wait a minute, that's gun control ZOMG

Are you even reading my posts anymore? Columbine and the Cho shootings prove that gun control DOESN'T work. Cho brought guns into a place that was "gun free," and the Columbine guns were purchased illegally. If gun control worked neither of these would have happened because they both violated gun control laws. Stricter laws won't change anything, there are more shootings now than there were before there was any gun control in place.

Except that it's trying to prevent all gun crime as opposed to batshit insane people with guns.

Newsflash: If you ban all guns only the batshit insane people will have them. Once again, criminals already own guns that are banned, they already own stockpiles of illegal drugs, they show no respect to laws against rape and murder, etc. If gun control worked there would be no street gangs with fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Banning them all just removes them from the hands of the responsible owners. Please, please, pleeeeeease watch the video before you reply to this, it has all the facts and will show the truth in a simple to understand way. Here's the link again.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/60509/detail/

 

[Shu]

Actually I'm not going to put any thought into this. Gun Laws are all situational to me. I will base this off of opinion alone, nothing to back it at all.

I believe gun laws will never be able to be enforced correctly. Let's humor it though and say it was possible to take all guns away, even those of police officers and live in a time like Demolition Man. Let's say though that you only isolate one country with these laws. Do you see any weaknesses right away with this?

Guns are tools of destruction. They could of been made as an excuse to hunt back in the day, but primarily they are used to kill/severely injure other people in self defense. I don't exactly care about gun laws since I don't own one but I respect people's rights. I hate that our nation has become so politically correct in the past 90 years. I understand the need to get rid of sexism and racism. I don't understand the need to apply all these laws to things that should be pretty straight forward in general. I don't like the fact that we have to watch what we say, have to watch what we wear, watch who we worship, and stuck to the same Bullshit media we have today. It makes for a less creative atmosphere, everything is monitored, we are a very paranoid nation now.

So by applying gun laws we are feeding this need to restrict people's rights once more. I mean I agree there should be more licensing and such, but most of that is already out there. There will always be gun shows, until there is a gun ban. Even then there will be more illegal operation than our government will know what to do with. Just think of drugs. Guns will always be around, and they will get more powerful, for no good reason. It is scary us humans have to have bigger and better guns, to gun our brothers and sisters down. Such a damn shame.

 

[Seed]

I don't believe anyone should be able to take guns anywhere outside their own home...but I believe we should be allowed to own them. Regular people took their own guns and fought in both the revolutionary war and the civil war. They are also able to protect their homes with a gun. And banning civilians from owning guns would be stupid imo. The bad guys get guns illegally already. So we'd be taking guns out of the hands of good people and the bad guys will still have them. It may be true that some of them get their guns legally...but we don't ban alcohol just because one guy kills someone while driving drunk. So why do it with guns? I do think it should be really tough to get a gun though. Make sure they aren't crazy and don't have anger issues and stuff like that.

 

[Midnight Memoire]

I personally have never had the desire to carry a gun. That being said, I also do not own one nor am I interested in owning one. I'm by no means against the 2nd Amendment right to bare arms. I do feel that there needs to be more precautions before selling a fire arm to a person though, such as a rather indepth background check and perhaps even a type of personality screening. I know that I feel rather uncomfortable when around a loaded fire arm but I do certainly hope that those in control of that fire arm will not unload on an innocent human being or animal.

As for those who choose to purchase guns illegally, I do believe that those people should be reprimanded just as people are reprimanded for buying illegal tobacco and other substances.

I suppose I am sort of pro-gun control, but as I stated, only for the safety of those purchasing as well as those nearby.

As others before me, I have nothing to back up my ideas as they are simply my own opinion. I'm not entirely interested in guns myself so I've no reason to research them any more than I already know. As I stated before, I've no personal interest in owning a gun and I do feel uncomfortable around guns but I'm also uncomfortable with knives... You don't see them trying to ban kitchenware.

 

[Flagg]

If it's in the constitution then every American has a right to own a firearm. But it seems like it's a justification for people to get trigger happy.

I hear two prevalant arguments for this that "someone could break into my home" and "I need a gun to protect myself from the government".

Firstly, most burglars dont break in to kill you. That's typical FOX propaganda and just creates paranoia and hysteria. There's a reason you have 30,000 gun related deaths a year, far above what Australia or Canada has that have gun laws.

How are a few dickheads with rifles and shotguns going to stop a military take over of your country? How is your "right to own a gun" going to stop the steam rolling tank or being bombed from altitude?

It amazes me how important it is to some of you to own a gun. It boils down to power when you strip away the bullshit justification. People just feel powerful and badass owning a gun, simple as that.

 

[Tipsynaruto]

lulz. Your comment and idea whiole having a Punisher Avvy (that is him right?). But in any case, i agree with ya. The fact that everyone 's guns are going to be a good deal crappier (i think that many guns are restricted to semi only) than the military, i doubt its going to do you much good. Tank vs militia. I wonder who would win?

I myself am a gun nut and i dont mind owning a gun, so im alright with the right to bear arms. However, it just seems a bit too easy to get them. They should at least make it so that its such a hassle that only actual people interested in hunting, and sport will be bothered to get them. At least that can put off the weekend rambo wannabes. It also can make it easier to track too.

 

[Flagg]

lulz. Your comment and idea whiole having a Punisher Avvy (that is him right?). But in any case, i agree with ya. The fact that everyone 's guns are going to be a good deal crappier (i think that many guns are restricted to semi only) than the military, i doubt its going to do you much good. Tank vs militia. I wonder who would win?

I myself am a gun nut and i dont mind owning a gun, so im alright with the right to bear arms. However, it just seems a bit too easy to get them. They should at least make it so that its such a hassle that only actual people interested in hunting, and sport will be bothered to get them. At least that can put off the weekend rambo wannabes. It also can make it easier to track too.

I love The Punisher, especially the MAX Series by Ennis. Its the only comic worth buying these days (besides The Boys and Crossed).

I live in Britain so we've never had a massive gun craze over here and there are plenty of guns id love to own, just to be able to squeeze off at a firing range. But I agree in America it seems too easy to aquire them, so to make gun laws tougher on the normal citizen suggests a shift in power to the criminals who this wont affect at all.

What needs to be done is far tougher punishments for the illegal ownership of a gun. If you are caught in possession of a gun and cannot produce a valid permit to own such gun, then you should be sent straight to prison with a stiff sentence (maybe 5-10 years?). Im not sure what the current situation is with owning guns at the moment is in America, but there was even suggestions of allowing college and university students to carry weapons on them to stop another Columbine incident. I can't even begin to imagine the carnage that allowing something like that would cause.

If you generally appreciate guns and want them to use for target practice at the range, they more power to you. If you want a gun because you need it for protection, that seems to me like you are looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Just my two cents.

 

[Tipsynaruto]

You know what? Thats a fucking brilliant idea. Let the kids bring guns into school so they can prevent other kids from going nuts and shooting each other. That way, when one guy goes nuts and pull his "self protection" gun out and caps a guy, then the friend of the guy he capped can pull their gun out and cap him. Then that guys friend pull their gun out and cap the other guys ass. Brilliant.

Honestly, "i want more protection" isnt an excuse. If we take away all guns, then we're all on even ground. But that will never happen.

On the side note. I really like the WW2 guns like the garand and lee enfield. I would love to have those. Start a collection if i could XD

 

[GBJoker]

Mutually Assured Destrucution
it might make the person carrying the gun feel safer but, they arent safer really. also more guns means its more that people will be killed/shot in the crossfire.

i know the US constitution, or one of its amendments guarantees the right to bear arms.
But FFS move on, the constitution also says negroes arent 'real' people and that they are worth 3/5 of a white person.
the constitution doesnt even allow women to vote, yet they cling to that archaic document as their justification for carrying around an instrument which the sole purpose of it is to kill things.

i could go on, but meh

It also has very clear and strong admendents that state all blacks and indians are equal to whites, and that all women are equal to men in all aspects of political life, ie. voting and running for office. The Constitution was made and worded specifically to be updated at later times as needed. Technically then, it's just under 18 years old. (Latest Admendment added 5-7-1992.)

On topic: Guns are necessary. Guns allowed me to live the way I choose to live, with out reprecussions from others.

And "take away all the guns to be on even ground" is a stupid idea. Any one can pick up a chef's knife and stab you in two seconds. Guns remove the idea of physical strength involved by keeping the opponent at a distance. The only problem is that no one ever bloody shoots the damn thing until the criminal/bad guy/whatever is right in their face.

And Flagg... if you want to get really technical, the 2nd Admendment is not only applicable to small arms. Most naval boats at the time were privately owned, and loaned to whatever country the owner lived in for any random war. I am theorically allowed to buy a F16. The FAA is the only real obstacle for that (besides having no place at the moment to park it.)

 

[lreal]

The Constitution was made and worded specifically to be updated at later times as needed. Technically then, it's just under 18 years old. (Latest Admendment added 5-7-1992.)

Do you know how difficult it is to "update" the Constitution? It was not designed with the intent to change from time to time. Its original purpose is to set up government and limit democracy to a certain extent. If the Constitution could be easily altered that would undermine its very reason for existence. Just under 18 years old...lol?

On topic: Guns are necessary. Guns allowed me to live the way I choose to live, with out reprecussions from others.

You must be a pretty contentious person to need a gun to live the way you want in society without repercussions from others.

 

[GBJoker]

Do you know how difficult it is to "update" the Constitution? It was not designed with the intent to change from time to time. Its original purpose is to set up government and limit democracy to a certain extent. If the Constitution could be easily altered that would undermine its very reason for existence. Just under 18 years old...lol?

Article V - Amendment The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Yeah, it's very hard to modify the Constitution as needed...

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Take a look at date ratified. Just under 18 years ago. Huh. Interesting.

You must be a pretty contentious person to need a gun to live the way you want in society without repercussions from others.

Yeah, because all other countries in the world openly accept gay or bisexual people, or disabled people, or hell, in some, white people.

 

[lreal]

Article V - Amendment The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Read the Article. It's pretty much impossible.

Take a look at date ratified. Just under 18 years ago. Huh. Interesting.

That's like saying a home built over 200 years ago w/ the addition of a dog house put in 18 years ago is 18 years old. That's a pretty moronic way to characterize the age of something.

 

[GBJoker]

Read the Article. It's pretty much impossible.

Only because the country has become so polarized that we can't even agree on what colour the sky is.

That's like saying a home built over 200 years ago w/ the addition of a dog house put in 18 years ago is 18 years old. That's a pretty moronic way to characterize the age of something.

No, it's more like saying that as of 1992, the majority of politicians in office saw no reason to change what was in the Constitution concerning the ability to own weapons or guns. IE, the proposals made 18 years ago agreed with the ones made in the 1770s, therefore, it's just under 18 years old.

You seem to fail to understand that it's not a 200+ year old piece of paper. It's an ideology and an agreement that constantly gets changed, and despite over two hundred years in use, there has been little to change.

 

[lreal]

Only because the country has become so polarized that we can't even agree on what colour the sky is.

No. It's because people are different which create a conflict of interest. We don't live in some fantasy land where right and wrong are well defined.

You seem to fail to understand that it's not a 200+ year old piece of paper. It's an ideology and an agreement that constantly gets changed, and despite over two hundred years in use, there has been little to change.

You fail to understand the Constitution on so many levels...

On the point of constantly changing, just think for a second about the purpose Article V making it so damn difficult to amend the Constitution. It is to prohibit any sudden change simply due to what popular opinion may be. Certain rights must be allowed to survive despite what the current majority may think. This is the preservation of something which transcends the unstable opinion of the public. You don't want the Constitution to constantly change, because, again, it undermines it's exact reason for existence.

 

[GBJoker]

No. It's because people are different which create a conflict of interest. We don't live in some fantasy land where right and wrong are well defined.

Which... has lead to... polarization.

You fail to understand the Constitution on so many levels...

On the point of constantly changing, just think for a second about the purpose Article V making it so damn difficult to amend the Constitution. It is to prohibit any sudden change simply due to what popular opinion may be. Certain rights must be allowed to survive despite what the current majority may think. This is the preservation of something which transcends the unstable opinion of the public. You don't want the Constitution to constantly change, because, again, it undermines it's exact reason for existence.

Which is exactly why there has been no modification to the 2 Amendment. Just because you, and several other people don't like guns, doesn't mean we should write bills into laws to shove down the rest of the population's throats saying they can't own guns.

It's also why the only real changes to the Constitution have been about random demographics voting rights, and what to do about people who are in office and are somehow removed.

 

[Black Butler]

Depends on which country you live in,I live in canada and theres almost no guns their.When I go to the states I get kinda scared around suspicious people cuz they might have guns.Its cuz of American history that the states are #1 for guns,as of the North of the states,I never have seen someone with a gun.

 

[Shu]

^^
Just giving a heads up, please be respectful folks, no need to be condescending about the subject. Keep it civil and on with the debating.

-------

I have no real opinion about this thread since it does not apply to me since I don't specifically own a gun. Do I think people should keep guns? Do I think guns should be taxed more? It's still a free country here in America.. so why not keep them. We were founded on it, I care really not question it. It bores me, because it all comes back to being liberal minded without a care of history if one differs. Times have changed though. The types of guns have become more accurate, penetrate through more substance, and have different modifications which make them more lethal.

Taxing is a must.. but like I said I bore of this talk since I don't own one. So my opinion doesn't matter unless of course my family or I was shot.

 

[lreal]

Which... has lead to... polarization.

Exactly. So why did you not concede the fact that Article V makes the Constitution difficult to update?

Which is exactly why there has been no modification to the 2 Amendment. Just because you, and several other people don't like guns, doesn't mean we should write bills into laws to shove down the rest of the population's throats saying they can't own guns.

What the hell are you now talking about? I never even stated my views on the second Amendment?

It's also why the only real changes to the Constitution have been about random demographics voting rights, and what to do about people who are in office and are somehow removed.

But it looks like I did educate you (since you seem to be supporting it now) about the underlying purpose of the Constitution. That's all my posts were really trying to clarify, not whether "the right to bear arms" should be done away with.

Edit: Might as well add my viewpoint on the issue. Despite what you may believe, I actually do support the right to bear arms. It's a beautiful thing .