We can't get rid of guns in America - General

Oh fuck no, not another gun control debate thread...

[QUOTE=Battlefrank1111;16575337]Oh fuck no, not another gun control debate thread...[/QUOTE] :argh: Get out

[QUOTE=Slasha00;16571725]Not really. Also one of the foundations of the American government is that if the population does not like it they can raise a rebellion and start over. The founding fathers KNEW that if the citzens had no way to fight back they could be controlled and they government they stood for and worked for could be change into something perverted. Some say that it HAS changed to something perverted now. The point is that the goverment is not afraid of more power; it's afraid of what the American population will do if they try to do anything we really, really don't like.[/QUOTE] Not so much for the purposes of carrying out a surgically precise rebellion but moreso the ability to cause mass, aimless havoc, destruction and death come the time we are angry enough as a people. If you look at things written by good old T. Jeff and all the other Founding Fathers (except Washington because he's a prick), there are a LOT more references to blood and general violence than there is justice. Rebellion implies a just cause, whereas things like the "Blood of patriots and tyrants" more implies simply wreaking havoc on a national scale to force the government into what its people want. Come time the First Amendment fails in addressing the woes of the people, the Second Amendment does not fail. Thus, government will always ensure its populace is as happy as reasonably possible, else they face an angry and armed mob marching through a federal building. Then again, you're pulling this "some say" shit. When somebody says "some say" what they really mean is "I say but I'm too pussy to admit it." Who the fuck is "some" aside from yourself? If you think the government we live under now is worth rebelling against and costing millions of lives, you need your head checked. We're living under an incompetent regime, not a tyrannical one. It's less that our government forces us to do things and more that we are forced to help our government tie its own shoes. Our government isn't evil and maniacal, it's bumbling and incompetent and sometimes it says stupid things. Seinfeld analogy: Our government is Kramer, not Newman. [editline]02:21AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;16571789]Watch this video, it is of a song of how cocaine and other drugs end up in the US. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJfumftYyxY[/url] This could eventually apply to guns getting into the country illegally if they are outlawed. Long story short drugs should be legalized to cause less damage to the people who are treated as slaves making it aswell as guns should not be outlawed because the same thing would happen.[/QUOTE] Even setting the Constitution aside which ensures the right to such things on a philosophical level, on a purely rational level banning a substance or type of possession on a federal level has never resulted in that thing going away, or even diminishing in the slightest. All it does is create an enormous and dangerous criminal industry built around that particular contraband. Look at the Prohibition. People like Al Capone would never have ruled the streets had they not been given a product people were willing to buy. But no, we banned alcohol, and instead of going sober people went to dangerous criminals for their booze. Instead of funding legitimate businesses run by tax-paying, law abiding citizens, alcohol money funded crime rings and violence. Gun control and the war on drugs have an identical effect. Where money could be going to legitimate businesses and peaceful individuals it goes to violent criminals who fight in the streets for turf. I would much rather two industrial giants fight in Wallstreet than actual streets. [editline]02:22AM[/editline] In essence, when we ban things, we CREATE criminals where there were none before. Most people think banning drugs and guns decreases crime, when in reality it's the opposite. By creating new legislation you create new crimes, and therefore new criminals. The US Government was entirely responsible for scum like Capone's rise to power, and don't think it won't breed even more violence if we decide to repeat our mistakes. We'll clog our prisons with innocent people and litter our streets with blood if we continue in the direction of mass contraband.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16576016] In essence, when we ban things, we CREATE criminals where there were none before. Most people think banning drugs and guns decreases crime, when in reality it's the opposite. By creating new legislation you create new crimes, and therefore new criminals. The US Government was entirely responsible for scum like Capone's rise to power, and don't think it won't breed even more violence if we decide to repeat our mistakes. We'll clog our prisons with innocent people and litter our streets with blood if we continue in the direction of mass contraband.[/QUOTE] Exactly, What does weed actually create in crime? Oh wait, It doesn't create crime, It creates delusional drowsy people, just like alcohol would. And now we've even put it into our medical system. Plus, it's the same with tobacco, If we don't want people on tobacco, just warn the GP about the effects of tobacco, and the majority of people will stay away. We don't have to make anything bad Illegal because there's a chance bad things will come out of it, we just need to let people know what could happen, and most likely they'll will stay away. Banning things will just make things worse. Of course my argument stands not justifying going against the law, It's just in the case of certain bans, currently the biggest one, drugs.

[editline]07:47AM[/editline] [QUOTE=jjsullivan;16576928]Exactly, What does weed actually create in crime? Oh wait, It doesn't create crime, It creates delusional drowsy people, just like alcohol would. And now we've even put it into our medical system. Plus, it's the same with tobacco, If we don't want people on tobacco, just warn the GP about the effects of tobacco, and the majority of people will stay away. We don't have to make anything bad Illegal because there's a chance bad things will come out of it, we just need to let people know what could happen, and most likely they'll will stay away. Banning things will just make things worse. Of course my argument stands not justifying going against the law, It's just in the case of certain bans, currently the biggest one, drugs.[/QUOTE] Weed is better than tobacco for your health, why is it illegal? Oh yeah the greedy reasons. And yeah, some people could deal with drugs being legal, but as most of the people are spineless fuckwits (Like eating cheetos so much that they weight over 400kg) bad things will ensue. People are stupid and need parenting as in the form of government.

Why can't we just have reasonable weapons. Hunting rifles are great for sportsmen, but isn't useful for robberies and shootings. Shotguns aren't either, but offer great domestic protection. I mean I don't want people to have nuclear weapons and miniguns, but I don't want to destroy the second amendment.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;16577140]Why can't we just have reasonable weapons. Hunting rifles are great for sportsmen, but isn't useful for robberies and shootings. Shotguns aren't either, but offer great domestic protection. I mean I don't want people to have nuclear weapons and miniguns, but I don't want to destroy the second amendment.[/QUOTE] Well you're in luck because both of those are illegal for civilians to own.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16577166]Well you're in luck because both of those are illegal for civilians to own.[/QUOTE] When I talk to people they always want one end of that spectrum or the other. It just bothers me, that's all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16577166]Well you're in luck because both of those are illegal for civilians to own.[/QUOTE] If you are referring to America, what? Are you talking about the nuclear weapons and mini guns or the hunting rifles and shotguns :p Specify please.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;16577189]I know, but when I talk to people they always want one end of that spectrum or the other.[/QUOTE] Welcome to wanting what you want instead of a shitty compromise. [editline]08:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ca5bah;16577190]If you are referring to America, what?[/QUOTE] Nukes and Miniguns need hellova licenses at least. [editline]08:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ca5bah;16577190]If you are referring to America, what? Are you talking about the nuclear weapons and mini guns or the hunting rifles and shotguns :p Specify please.[/QUOTE] :downs:

[QUOTE=evilking1;16577195]Welcome to wanting what you want instead of a shitty compromise. [editline]08:12AM[/editline] Nukes and Miniguns need hellova licenses at least.[/QUOTE] I felt the strong urge to just yell [quote]There's nothing sadder than a puppet without a ghost, especially the kind with red blood running through them.[/quote]

I'm indifferent about gun-control. On one side, I support it, and on another I don't.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16577166]Well you're in luck because both of those are illegal for civilians to own.[/QUOTE] ....What? I'll have to surrender my airsoft rifle :frown:

[QUOTE=Ca5bah;16577190]If you are referring to America, what? Are you talking about the nuclear weapons and mini guns or the hunting rifles and shotguns :p Specify please.[/QUOTE] If you can't figure that out on your own there is no hope for you.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16577577]If you can't figure that out on your own there is no hope for you.[/QUOTE] There were 4 weapons mentioned in the referenced post. The person to comment said something about two weapons. How am I to know if he is referencing America or another country, hence the question. Arrogant prick.

[QUOTE=Bengley;16556418]True, but it's much easier to kill someone with a gun. Lots of people could defend themselves from a knife, but bullet dodging isn't widely practised today.[/QUOTE] Trust me killing some idiot with a knife is alot quicker then a gun. All you have to do is stab them in the chest once then in the throat and they're good as dead.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577707]Trust me killing some idiot with a knife is alot quicker then a gun. All you have to do is stab them in the chest once then in the throat and they're good as dead.[/QUOTE] And watch out that they don't spot you before you do that, and if you are not experienced stabber, the one being stabbed can still kick your ass.

True but if you get them before they get you, well you get the idea. At least when your stabbing someone it auctually takes skills over a gun where you can hide in a bush a mile away and pop someones brains out.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577790]True but if you get them before they get you, well you get the idea. At least when your stabbing someone it auctually takes skills over a gun where you can hide in a bush a mile away and pop someones brains out.[/QUOTE] There are no knife-levels IRL, camping in that bush doesn't get the CT:s call you a noob.

2nd Amendment is just in case we have to engage in guerrilla warfare against the US gov. That's what it is. So get rid of the NFA act and the '86 ban on new rifles with auto functions. I think that every politician should be quivering when they try and push a bullshit plan into law.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577707]Trust me killing some idiot with a knife is alot quicker then a gun. All you have to do is stab them in the chest once then in the throat and they're good as dead.[/QUOTE] you can also deflect bullets with them right [editline]05:44AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ca5bah;16577643]There were 4 weapons mentioned in the referenced post. The person to comment said something about two weapons. How am I to know if he is referencing America or another country, hence the question. Arrogant prick.[/QUOTE] The thread has "America" in the title. Are you illiterate?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577707]Trust me killing some idiot with a knife is alot quicker then a gun. All you have to do is stab them in the chest once then in the throat and they're good as dead.[/QUOTE] hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahah That is the greatest thing I've read all week. [editline]09:47AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577790]True but if you get them before they get you, well you get the idea. At least when your stabbing someone it auctually takes skills over a gun where you can hide in a bush a mile away and pop someones brains out.[/QUOTE] hahahahahahaha This is the second greatest thing I've read all week.

There will always be corruption in the world.

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;16555798]In response to the Obama gun banning thread, there is no way we can get rid of all the guns he says. It doesn't matter if something is illegal. It always ends in more violence than the first place. For example, back in the day when the Government banned alcohol. It made way more violence with gangs and moonshiners transporting alcohol and everyone still got it and the Government ended up lifting the ban as we all know. Another is drugs. Weed, heroin, crack and so on is all banned and illegal but people can still get it. Easily, very easily. If those guns were banned people would still get them. They can't contain it. I don't see how the Government always seems to overlook this.[/QUOTE] Think of the UK and how strict they are, especially about guns. The only type of gun you can legally own only with a private license is either a rifle or shotgun. Everything and anything else is illegal. To obtain a license, the following steps need to be taken in the UK: You will need to send an application to your local police station who after thoroughly checking your background will visit you for a personal interview and will make sure that: A) You have secure methods of storage for guns and ammunition. B) That also means a locked safe that nobody but the licence holder has access to either the keys or the combination. This is rechecked on each renewal. For instance: Keeping a loaded shotgun under the bed would result in confiscation of the gun, certificate revocation and probable criminal charges. And using a gun in self defence is not considered 'reasonable force' and would therefore more than likely result in a manslaughter or attempted murder charge being brought against the gun owner. In the UK self defence is not a valid (or even legal) reason for owning a gun. Even our regular police officers aren't armed. Even owning an empty shotgun or ammunition shell is an offense. Now compare this to the USA. Simple rules as these can be brought upon in the USA, although not completely banning guns, just simply minimizing it to a perhaps more safer level to which most would feel comfortable with. tl;dr Put limitations on them, not ban them completely.

You dont need to get rid of them, just put limitations. Hunters dont need 50. BMG rounds and full-auto rifles. Australia has some pretty strict rules and theres not much gun-crime (These laws were put in place after the Port Arthur massacre)

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;16578356]Think of the UK and how strict they are, especially about guns. The only type of gun you can legally own only with a private license is either a rifle or shotgun. Everything and anything else is illegal. To obtain a license, the following steps need to be taken in the UK: You will need to send an application to your local police station who after thoroughly checking your background will visit you for a personal interview and will make sure that: A) You have secure methods of storage for guns and ammunition. B) That also means a locked safe that nobody but the licence holder has access to either the keys or the combination. This is rechecked on each renewal. For instance: Keeping a loaded shotgun under the bed would result in confiscation of the gun, certificate revocation and probable criminal charges. And using a gun in self defence is not considered 'reasonable force' and would therefore more than likely result in a manslaughter or attempted murder charge being brought against the gun owner. In the UK self defence is not a valid (or even legal) reason for owning a gun. Even our regular police officers aren't armed. Even owning an empty shotgun or ammunition shell is an offense. Now compare this to the USA. Simple rules as these can be brought upon in the USA, although not completely banning guns, just simply minimizing it to a perhaps more safer level to which most would feel comfortable with. tl;dr Put limitations, not ban them completely.[/QUOTE] That's what happened in the lead-up to the prohibition of both alcohol and marijuana. Marijuana, for instance. It was taxed heavily, then you needed to get special permission to grow hemp, then you needed to jump through more hoops, then it was banned entirely. You don't seem to understand that it is a progression. Let alone the fact that when you pull shit like that you turn a right into a privilege. The second amendment is not a privilege, it is a right. You don't need special permission from the government to do something completely within your constitutional rights. That would be like saying you can only plead the fifth if you called ahead of time before you were arrested to tell the police that you want to reserve the ability to not-incriminate yourself.

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;16578356]Think of the UK and how strict they are, especially about guns. The only type of gun you can legally own only with a private license is either a rifle or shotgun. Everything and anything else is illegal. To obtain a license, the following steps need to be taken in the UK: You will need to send an application to your local police station who after thoroughly checking your background will visit you for a personal interview and will make sure that: A) You have secure methods of storage for guns and ammunition. B) That also means a locked safe that nobody but the licence holder has access to either the keys or the combination. This is rechecked on each renewal. For instance: Keeping a loaded shotgun under the bed would result in confiscation of the gun, certificate revocation and probable criminal charges. And using a gun in self defence is not considered 'reasonable force' and would therefore more than likely result in a manslaughter or attempted murder charge being brought against the gun owner. In the UK self defence is not a valid (or even legal) reason for owning a gun. Even our regular police officers aren't armed. Even owning an empty shotgun or ammunition shell is an offense. Now compare this to the USA. Simple rules as these can be brought upon in the USA, although not completely banning guns, just simply minimizing it to a perhaps more safer level to which most would feel comfortable with. tl;dr Put limitations on them, not ban them completely.[/QUOTE] Fuck, I can't get a police officer with a gun willing to help me 24/7 all the time with any potential needs for defense that only costs 2,000 dollars for the rest of my life. Unless that happens, I'll take the gun. Keep in mind that what we need to do is find the batshit insane people. Not take away guns. If a gang busted in with pistols, would you rather have a loaded rifle with 30 round mags at the ready, or a phone? I'll take the rifle, you can take the phone.

[QUOTE=Squeaken;16578430]Hunters dont need 50. BMG rounds and full-auto rifles.[/QUOTE] FYI those are illegal without jumping through hoops for a license, and that is only for collectors and recreational purposes. It is illegal no matter what to use a gun that big to hunt with or for self defense. They are for collection purposes only. You don't seem to realize that there is a long list of guns you are and are not allowed to hunt with, and the list changes depending on when and what you are hunting. [editline]07:01AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;16578499]Fuck, I can't get a police officer with a gun willing to help me 24/7 all the time with any potential needs for defense that only costs 2,000 dollars for the rest of my life. Unless that happens, I'll take the gun. Keep in mind that what we need to do is find the batshit insane people. Not take away guns. If a gang busted in with pistols, would you rather have a loaded rifle with 30 round mags at the ready, or a phone? I'll take the rifle, you can take the phone.[/QUOTE] The Second Amendment is not about self defense. Self defense is a bad argument that is easily refuted with better policing and preventing crimes before they happen. You are a detriment to the cause and you are diluting the issue with bullshit.

[QUOTE=Squeaken;16578430]You dont need to get rid of them, just put limitations. Hunters dont need 50. BMG rounds and full-auto rifles.[/QUOTE] Yeah how dare they have those evil cop killing car stopper rounds and those full auto weapons of mass destruction. [QUOTE=Squeaken;16578430]Australia has some pretty strict rules and theres not much gun-crime (These laws were put in place after the Port Arthur massacre)[/QUOTE] News flash: Australia's populace is a fraction that of the US.

Newsflash: Australia's economy isn't very reliant on their manufacturing and selling of both civilian and military grade firearms. [editline]07:11AM[/editline] The US and other nations like Austria (Glock) get a bit of a boost to their respective economies from the US civilian gun market. Not to imply that trumps the philosophical aspect of the argument for gun ownership, it's just a nice little plus. [editline]07:12AM[/editline] Germany's H&K also gets a bit of a share in that market. [editline]07:12AM[/editline] And several large US gun manufacturers have been bought out by European interests.