Gun Policy

[Shellhound]

The idea that guns will be useless if there ever is need for a revolution or the gov. uses the military against us is quite simply silly. There are terrorists in Afghanistan fighting against our military using homemade bombs and old Ak-47's, and for the record I'd rather go down fighting with an AK than with a kitchen knife. Is the US system perfect? !@#$ no. Is the answer to ban all guns? !@#$ no.

[WISD0MTREE]

The "right to bear arms" does not mean that every man, woman, and child should be armed to the teeth.

 And the "right to free religion" only allows government officials to chose their religion. Everyone else has to be atheist. /sarcasm

 

That argument is invalid, although you do have some good points in there. I could get behind that IF it wasn't too hard to get a gun. 

 

The idea that guns will be useless if there ever is need for a revolution or the gov. uses the military against us is quite simply silly. There are terrorists in Afghanistan fighting against our military using homemade bombs and old Ak-47's, and for the record I'd rather go down fighting with an AK than with a kitchen knife. Is the US system perfect? !@#$ no. Is the answer to ban all guns? !@#$ no.

Exactly this. In commie China, if you had the option to shoot some oppressors or stand in front of a tank, which would you do? In Germany in the 1940s, band together and defend or run? What if you had no place to run to?

[Grillick]

 In commie China, if you had the option to shoot some oppressors or stand in front of a tank, which would you do?

I'd stand in front of the tank.

[Solomon]

... Is the US system perfect? !@#$ no. Is the answer to ban all guns? !@#$ no.

The US system is far from perfect but nobody in this thread has suggested that guns should be banned entirely, only that when a system isn't working well it's better in the long term to fix it. There'll be some wailing and gnashing of teeth at first but when people see things are better, they'll get over it.

[Shellhound]

The US system is far from perfect but nobody in this thread has suggested that guns should be banned entirely, only that when a system isn't working well it's better in the long term to fix it. There'll be some wailing and gnashing of teeth at first but when people see things are better, they'll get over it.

I believe Keegoz was suggesting that, but I mostly skimmed the majority of the posts around page 2.

[WISD0MTREE]

I'd stand in front of the tank.

I doubt it.

 

Also,

Edited July 27, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Grillick]

I doubt it.

Doubt all you want, but if those are the only options, I'm deadly serious. More likely, I'd just lay back and take it, as long as I had food, shelter, and the internet.

 

As for the latter, YouTube isn't a source. Give me something I can read.

[WISD0MTREE]

Doubt all you want, but if those are the only options, I'm deadly serious. More likely, I'd just lay back and take it, as long as I had food, shelter, and the internet.

 

As for the latter, YouTube isn't a source. Give me something I can read.

Ok, I'm doubting all I want. Also, would commie China allow freedom in the internet?

 

He has sources in there. Actual sources, like the CDC. If you don't want flash or something like that, it is basically what most Reps with a brain are saying. There are a few stories about people with guns stopping mass shootings, talks about shootings in gun sensitive countries, and also stabbings. He was proving the guy arguing for gun control isn't saying the facts right. Then he did bring up something that most people who fight for gun control didn't think about. How do we remove all guns? Even people in CALIFORNIA are refusing to turn in their newly illegal guns. I would provide a source there, but KGB Propaganda Today Russia Today was the source. 

[sly]

to all thos saying make a gun license. there is no amendment in the bill of rights that garentees you the right to drive a car or transporation. the is one that protects our right to own guns. the supreme court ruled that it is a individual right.

 

all the things you talk about do is make gun ownsership a thing for the wealthy only. you punish the poor who live in bad areas, the people who need guns to defend themselves. you punsih the people who had guns passed down to them .

 

in my state you don't have to report a car stolen. just as I don't have to report any of my other property stolen. you do so to get it back.

 

how is a 15 any different then a ruger mini 14 or a 10/22. yet one you call a assualt weapon(made up term) and the others not. despite that they are all simi auto rifles that take magazines.  a man in a tower with a bolt action gun can kill more poeple.

 

all these new ideas for regulations are are feel good things that do nothing. just as a sign that says gun free sone makes you feel good, but does nothing to stop a guy walking in and shooting. but you feel safe until it happens.

 

like the silly sign down the road that says tsanmue safe zone, caus the road that goes along the beach went up 2 feet, yeah the giant wave sure will look at that sign and stop.

 

none of these things will happen thankfully to people who stand up and fight for what is right. I will never understand this irrational fear of guns so many people have.

 

"guns are bad"

why are they bad

"cause..... guns are bad"

[Ayayay]

"guns are bad"

why are they bad

"cause..... guns are bad"

Oh looky, a Strawman! No one says guns are bad "because they are bad" they say guns should be restricted because their sole purpose is to kill.

[Karl Marx]

to all thos saying make a gun license. there is no amendment in the bill of rights that garentees you the right to drive a car or transporation. the is one that protects our right to own guns. the supreme court ruled that it is a individual right.

 

all the things you talk about do is make gun ownsership a thing for the wealthy only. you punish the poor who live in bad areas, the people who need guns to defend themselves. you punsih the people who had guns passed down to them .

 

in my state you don't have to report a car stolen. just as I don't have to report any of my other property stolen. you do so to get it back.

 

how is a 15 any different then a ruger mini 14 or a 10/22. yet one you call a assualt weapon(made up term) and the others not. despite that they are all simi auto rifles that take magazines.  a man in a tower with a bolt action gun can kill more poeple.

 

all these new ideas for regulations are are feel good things that do nothing. just as a sign that says gun free sone makes you feel good, but does nothing to stop a guy walking in and shooting. but you feel safe until it happens.

 

like the silly sign down the road that says tsanmue safe zone, caus the road that goes along the beach went up 2 feet, yeah the giant wave sure will look at that sign and stop.

 

none of these things will happen thankfully to people who stand up and fight for what is right. I will never understand this irrational fear of guns so many people have.

 

"guns are bad"

why are they bad

"cause..... guns are bad"

 

What if we made the licenses free? I agree that money shouldn't factor into self defense (although I usually take it further and include education, housing, etc.).

 

I don't selectively use terminology like "assault weapon" (when you think about it, aren't all weapons designed for some kind of assault?) in an attempt to have certain guns banned. Yet, because I support licensing, you assume that I do use terminology in such a manner. Not everyone who advocates such policies is your typical American liberal.

 

Gun licensing and no-gun-zones aren't the best things to compare, but I can see how this is an easy mistake to make. I personally do not support licensing because I've been duped into thinking that the state can keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. It is because those who choose to own a firearm should know how to safely use, store, and maintain it. Think of gun licensing as being like a lock. Honest folks see a lock and know not to tamper with it. Malicious people are going to find a way around a lock, some fairly easily. Honest folks will gain valuable knowledge in the process of obtaining their license. Malicious people are going to find a way to get their guns, as well.

[Shellhound]

http://www.glockstore.com/glock-factory-handguns

 

I think the fact that guns cost a few hundred-a few thousand dollars punishes poor people, not a license that would most likely cost a couple bucks. Nobody's going to go "Damn, I was going to buy this gun that costs 500$ but I don't know if I can afford that 20$ licence.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Shellhound

[sly]

http://www.glockstore.com/glock-factory-handguns

 

I think the fact that guns cost a few hundred-a few thousand dollars punishes poor people, not a license that would most likely cost a couple bucks. Nobody's going to go "Damn, I was going to buy this gun that costs 500$ but I don't know if I can afford that 20$ licence.

 

guns can cost as low as $50

 

a very popular gun the hipoints cost around 120-160

 

if you knew about guns you would know the whole guns are expensive is false. they can be a scar 17 cost 3,500. I don't buy scar 17s.

 

and my dl cost $60. also I bought my guns years ago when I could afford to save for them, now I can't which is why I haven't bought any in years. ohters can inherit guns or be gifted them.

 

glocks are pricy, but compare them to sigs or others and you see they are more in the moderate pricing. s&w makes similar guns for 50 dollars les. then there are other brands that copy the design somewhat and sell for 200.  alot of the price of glocks is for the brand. glocks probably cost 150 to make. they give them away for free to cops and charge more to civilians to cover the cost.

[sly]

What if we made the licenses free? I agree that money shouldn't factor into self defense (although I usually take it further and include education, housing, etc.).

 

I don't selectively use terminology like "assault weapon" (when you think about it, aren't all weapons designed for some kind of assault?) in an attempt to have certain guns banned. Yet, because I support licensing, you assume that I do use terminology in such a manner. Not everyone who advocates such policies is your typical American liberal.

 

Gun licensing and no-gun-zones aren't the best things to compare, but I can see how this is an easy mistake to make. I personally do not support licensing because I've been duped into thinking that the state can keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. It is because those who choose to own a firearm should know how to safely use, store, and maintain it. Think of gun licensing as being like a lock. Honest folks see a lock and know not to tamper with it. Malicious people are going to find a way around a lock, some fairly easily. Honest folks will gain valuable knowledge in the process of obtaining their license. Malicious people are going to find a way to get their guns, as well.

 

wasn't directed solely at you.

 

I compared all the regulations attempted in the last 2 years to gun free zones. look how well registration has worked in CT. millions just refused to register. the state fearing what would happen if they chose to enforce it have chosen to ingore the now criminals. if you ban mags the mags won't disapear, if they ban guns the guns won't vanish. I and millions and millions of others will refuse to comply. we won't register them, we won't get a license for a right(will we next get 1st amdendment licenses?) we won't turn them in, we won't buy gun insurance(unless it insures the guns from lost)

 

thats the bottom line. we have half who wants no guns the other half wants guns. I sometimeswonder if we would not be better off as two nations given how half the nation disagrees witht he other half on so many matters.

 

I take the live and let live. ie let others do what they want and do what you want. don't force others to live like you or bow to your ideas .

I don't like smoking or weed, i think both should be legal. I don't like motorcyles they are dangerous, I don't think they should be banned. though they aren't protected by the consitiuition. guns are. so when you are ok with creating licenses for freedom of speech, where you have 10 levels. 1 one is limtied to his house, level 2 can talk at work, 3 general public, 4 forums relating to his hobbies 5. facebook..... and so on.

but everyone would be like no thats a voilation of our rights. you can't do that. you can't make us have a id to vote, you can't make us have a license to avoid unwarrented searchs.

 

all rights are equally protected not just the ones you like.

 

freedom is risky, freedom isn't free, and freedom can be deadly but to live without freedom is no life at all.

[Ayayay]

I think people are overlooking the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it is so that we can fight off the government at all times therefore we should have the same equipment as them. I demand to be able to own a B-52 Stratofortress and Thermonuclear weapons so that I can protect myself from the governments tyranny.

[RedArmy BushMan]

I think people are overlooking the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it is so that we can fight off the government at all times therefore we should have the same equipment as them. I demand to be able to own a B-52 Stratofortress and Thermonuclear weapons so that I can protect myself from the governments tyranny.

Well that's a gross exageration. We the people do not need those kinds of weapons because if the need to defend ourselves from the government arose the government and military wouldn't be able to fight at full strength. They couldn't use drones, airstrikes, or missiles because of the risk of hitting noncombatants. It would be similar is not harder for them here than what's going on in the middle east..

The IRA was able to fight off and be a huge thorne in the British governments ass and they were mostly using stuff that is available to US citizens, improvised or not.

 

And guns aren't just for the sole purpose of human killing. Hunting, sports shooting, private security, comercial security, protection of farm land, home security, historical collecting, movie props (yes real guns converted to only fire blanks are used in movies), military collecting, and recreational shoot are all things that guns are for.

 

Also gun prices can range from $50-$50,000 depending on what you are looking for. My Mosin Nagant was only $150 before shipping and FFL fees, if I had gotten it in a gun shop in a little rough condition I could have gotten it or $130.

[Grillick]

And guns aren't just for the sole purpose of human killing. Hunting, sports shooting, private security, comercial security, protection of farm land, home security, historical collecting, movie props (yes real guns converted to only fire blanks are used in movies), military collecting, and recreational shoot are all things that guns are for.

Killing, practicing killing, threatening to kill, threatening to kill, threatening to kill, threatening to kill, collecting, pretending to kill, collecting, practicing to kill.

 

Yeah, you've definitely pointed out a variety of purposes guns have other than to kill.

 

And don't get me started on the First Amendment. You think you're strengthening your case by comparing to it, but you really aren't.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Grillick

[Shellhound]

guns can cost as low as $50

 

a very popular gun the hipoints cost around 120-160

 

if you knew about guns you would know the whole guns are expensive is false. they can be a scar 17 cost 3,500. I don't buy scar 17s.

 

and my dl cost $60. also I bought my guns years ago when I could afford to save for them, now I can't which is why I haven't bought any in years. ohters can inherit guns or be gifted them.

 

glocks are pricy, but compare them to sigs or others and you see they are more in the moderate pricing. s&w makes similar guns for 50 dollars les. then there are other brands that copy the design somewhat and sell for 200.  alot of the price of glocks is for the brand. glocks probably cost 150 to make. they give them away for free to cops and charge more to civilians to cover the cost.

You can get some fairly cheap guns true, but the point still stands, if you can buy a 75 dollar gun but can't afford a 20$ license (although I believe license's should be free, just making an overall point here) something is seriously wrong with your budgeting skills or you don't have a stable job or a job at all. In which case you should focus on more quintessential things, like food.

 

And yes, the 2nd amendment is meant for fighting against a future tyrannical government. The founding father's didn't make it so we could go hunting, they made it to fight a possibly corrupt government. That is it's purpose. Does this mean we should be able to own nuclear arsenals? Don't be silly. Some claim we can't hold them back with what we have, but again, people have done far more with far less. Let's assume even 5% of the population decides that the government is seriously !@#$ed up and we need another revolution, that's still 16M people. Al-Qaeda would have a !@#$ing orgasm if they had that many people, even at their peak. 

[Solomon]

And yes, the 2nd amendment is meant for fighting against a future tyrannical government.

Maybe at the time, there was a possibility of a tyrannical government and armed militias could have been a way to overthrow it but it's a huge stretch nowadays to imagine that scenario in developed countries. You can understand why the gun industry/NRA uses it but it takes paranoia to believe the 2nd amendment has any relevance today.

[Shellhound]

I don't think it's too far of a stretch of the imagination to be perfectly honest, not right now this very second of course, but 20, 30, 40 years down the road? I can see it being a possibility. The point though, eventually it WILL happen. Countries don't last forever, that's something recorded history has shown us, anyone can fall and one day we'll be thankful for the 2nd amendment, will it be in our life times? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd rather have the security of knowing we have it in place if such an event were to happen.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Shellhound

[Grillick]

Countries don't last forever, that's something recorded history has shown us, anyone can fall and one day we'll be thankful for the 2nd amendment, will it be in our life times?

"Past performance does not indicate future success [or failure]." - Every analyst ever.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

A gun is like an insurance policy.  You hope you never need it, but if you do, it would suck if you didn't have it.  Governments don't outlaw insurance, but they do regulate it.  I'm comfortable with rational and reasonable regulation so long as the intended purpose is regulation and not covert denial of the underlying right.

 

In my state, I already have to "register" to own a gun.  It isn't onerous to have to do so.  The concerning thing I see is anytime a "gun owner" gets served a warrant, especially if he's black, the popo think its good to send in the SWAT team, which leads to terrible problems.  So, I think the list of gun owners should be limited to law enforcement related to enforcing gun laws.  So, if you want to search my house for drugs, you shouldn't get access to whether or not I am a licensed gun owner, but if you're investing me for gun running, you should.  So, that's a restriction on government I'm proposing.

 

Age and gun education seem like relevant things that can/should be restricted.  No "everybody gets to carry a gun in their pocket without some classes"

 

Finally, no one needs a 50 cal machine gun or a shoulder fired surface to air missile.  Nobody needs a fully automatic rifle.  These could be restricted without unduly restricting our freedom to own guns.  As long as we stick to rational restrictions (The democrats in the 90's were F'in ridiculious saying "its a scary looking weapon, we should ban it" or "it seems militaristic")

So, 

Age

Weapon Education

Registration with limits on what databases can be used for.

Weapon Type

 

That's what I think are reasonable restrictions.

[Crash Mann]

My 2 cents

 

I found it unbelievable how when a few nut jobs go over board and EVERY hard working American must pay the price, because a bunch of bleeding hearts do not know what to do about it besides cry.

[Solomon]

My 2 cents

 

I found it unbelievable how when a few nut jobs go over board and EVERY hard working American must pay the price, because a bunch of bleeding hearts do not know what to do about it besides cry.

Brilliant set of cliches: "My 2 cents", "a few nut jobs", "EVERY hard working American", "bunch of bleeding hearts".

Keep it coming.

[WISD0MTREE]

"Past performance does not indicate future success [or failure]." - Every analyst ever.

Prove it. (The part of Shellhound being wrong, not analysts saying that.) Edited August 21, 2014 by WISD0MTREE