ITT: Gun Control - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=JDK721;29521919]no where'd you hear that from?[/QUOTE] I guess it was something I heard about the US when I lived in Poland. I'm pretty sure you do need a license for any kind of gun though. [editline]29th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman V;29522043]post a pic of your USP brah[/QUOTE] internet's going out in about 20 seconds, so

[QUOTE=cccritical;29522057]internet's going out in about 20 seconds, so[/QUOTE] Liar Though his point is still valid.

[QUOTE=cccritical;29522057]I guess it was something I heard about the US when I lived in Poland. I'm pretty sure you do need a license for any kind of gun though. [editline]29th April 2011[/editline] internet's going out in about 20 seconds, so[/QUOTE] Wait huh. You live in the US and apparently own a gun but you don't even know the basics of their gun laws... FISHY STORY BUD. No you do not need any licenses for firearms in the US (unless you live in one of the few shit tier states)

[QUOTE=Aman V;29521748]The amount of sheltered nanny state Euro's in this thread is really worrying. I don't see how you find firearm prohibition as a good thing It is your government stripping you of your right/way to defend yourself and if need be to rebel against the government. [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] What the fuck kind of logic is that? You realise how much those cost right? They run in the range of $5000 ish, and ammo is expensive as fuck. Why in hell would a citizen who DOES NOT break laws and follows them and jumps through all the legal hoops to obtain said gun just to rob a store with it? Your logic: A person who pays for a blazing fast internet speed MUST be torrenting child porn/illegal content! Why else would they want a fast connection!? I want to know every person who has a fast internet connection and have their names on a list so we can get big brother to watch them![/QUOTE] I'm all for gun ownership, and fewer gun bans, but a .50 can be damaging, and just the mentality about the size of the thing. I think they should unban them, but add them by calibre to the restricted list. It's not about robbing a store, it's things like political/corporate assassinations with them that worry me a bit, and the fact that they can punch through virtually anything. That being said, if I run into more money than I have brains I'd like to pick one up, mostly for bragging rights, but I've heard firing the thing can give you a migraine because of the recoil compensation blowback off the barrel (I think, that's what it seemed like the dude at the gun store was describing anyways, a showckwave off the barrel hitting your forehead).

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29522097]I'm all for gun ownership, and fewer gun bans, but a .50 can be damaging, and just the mentality about the size of the thing. I think they should unban them, but add them by calibre to the restricted list. It's not about robbing a store, it's things like political/corporate assassinations with them that worry me a bit, and the fact that they can punch through virtually anything. That being said, if I run into more money than I have brains I'd like to pick one up, mostly for bragging rights, but I've heard firing the thing can give you a migraine because of the recoil compensation blowback off the barrel (I think, that's what it seemed like the dude at the gun store was describing anyways, a showckwave off the barrel hitting your forehead).[/QUOTE] So much wrong in one paragraph. [I]"but a .50 can be damaging,"[/I] Uh no shit, a .17HMR can be damaging, its a bullet [I] ", and just the mentality about the size of the thing."[/I] IT'S BIG SO THEREFORE IT'S SCARY! That's like a neanderthals level of thinking. Damn I hope you never see a hummer driving down the highway. [I] " it's things like political/corporate assassinations with them that worry me a bit,"[/I] What? Seriously what the fuck? Name a single assassination that used a .50 rifle. Name a single damn crime where a .50 was used. You realize ANY bullet can kill someone? Guess we have to ban every caliber cause they can potentially kill someone :downs: [I] "and the fact that they can punch through virtually anything."[/I] Maybe in your imagination [I] "That being said, if I run into more money than I have brains I'd like to pick one up, mostly for bragging rights, " [/I] With your lack of gun knowledge I'd be scared if you ever even had a PAL... [I]"but I've heard firing the thing can give you a migraine because of the recoil compensation blowback off the barrel (I think, that's what it seemed like the dude at the gun store was describing anyways, a showckwave off the barrel hitting your forehead)."[/I] No. It does not work like that.

I've never even heard of a .50 BMG being used in a crime. The price of the weapon and ammunition alone makes it absurd.

[QUOTE=cccritical;29522057]I guess it was something I heard about the US when I lived in Poland. I'm pretty sure you do need a license for any kind of gun though. [editline]29th April 2011[/editline] internet's going out in about 20 seconds, so[/QUOTE] so you own a gun in the US yet you don't know that there isn't a license required to own a gun lol calling bs on your story once again

[QUOTE=cccritical;29521932]just going to take a wild guess and say you've never been mugged without my usp .45 I would be dead right now, I handled it in a way that nobody got harmed and what right do you have to tell me it'd be better if I didn't have a firearm on that day, and what right do you have to say I'd be better off dead?[/QUOTE] hah bullshit [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;29522057]internet's going out in about 20 seconds, so[/QUOTE] double bullshit you're still on here

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;29512223]I just gotta ask you people who are pro-firearms and are argumenting with "It's good for protecting your home and property etc. etc." Would you be able to live with the blood of another man on your hands for something as trivial as some of your earthly belongings? I could see that you would like your stuff not being stolen, but killing someone for it? inb4 box rain[/QUOTE] The way I see, it is my property, and I worked hard to get it. Why should that thug get it just because he wants it and sees I have it? I'd take no pleasure in shooting someone for my posessions, but if you say "it's just a tv" and let them go with it, that starts a slippery slope to "it's just my car," "it's just my wife," etc...

I need to buy a gun so I can shoot the guy trying to shoot me with the gun he bought

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522427]The way I see, it is my property, and I worked hard to get it. Why should that thug get it just because he wants it and sees I have it? I'd take no pleasure in shooting someone for my posessions, but if you say "it's just a tv" and let them go with it, that starts a slippery slope to "it's just my car," "it's just my wife," etc...[/QUOTE] are you calling your wife a possession

[QUOTE=kaine123;29517437]This thread is ripe with both informed individuals and total dumbasses, I'm not convinced on either side of the argument because this doesn't affect me too much personally. Go ahead Facepunch, convince me to your side. Is anyone even going to say anything?[/QUOTE] Banning alcohol in the United States led to a massive underground that sold liquor covertly and killed those who got in the way. Banning crime has done little to abate it's presence. [editline]29th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mon;29522447]are you calling your wife a possession[/QUOTE] No, I'm suggesting that people will start leaning towards "it's just a rape, nobody needs to die over this" But it WAS poorly worded

[QUOTE=Aman V;29522160]So much wrong in one paragraph. [I]"but a .50 can be damaging,"[/I] Uh no shit, a .17HMR can be damaging, its a bullet [I] ", and just the mentality about the size of the thing."[/I] IT'S BIG SO THEREFORE IT'S SCARY! That's like a neanderthals level of thinking. Damn I hope you never see a hummer driving down the highway. [I] " it's things like political/corporate assassinations with them that worry me a bit,"[/I] What? Seriously what the fuck? Name a single assassination that used a .50 rifle. Name a single damn crime where a .50 was used. You realize ANY bullet can kill someone? Guess we have to ban every caliber cause they can potentially kill someone :downs: [I] "and the fact that they can punch through virtually anything."[/I] Maybe in your imagination [I] "That being said, if I run into more money than I have brains I'd like to pick one up, mostly for bragging rights, " [/I] With your lack of gun knowledge I'd be scared if you ever even had a PAL... [I]"but I've heard firing the thing can give you a migraine because of the recoil compensation blowback off the barrel (I think, that's what it seemed like the dude at the gun store was describing anyways, a showckwave off the barrel hitting your forehead)."[/I] No. It does not work like that.[/QUOTE] People like who who seem to have no respect whatsoever for others' opinions and go straight to insulting them really disappoint me. It really ruins a good argument. For one, it is designed as an anti-materiel bullet/rifle, it's designed to break through shit. It's designed to cause a substantial amount of damage. The guns are also heavy, difficult to handle, expensive, and generally impractical for civilian ownership. They're designed for the military, using such a gun for hunting seems impractical and stupid, considering any game that can be taken down with a .50 can probably be taken down with a .30 of some sort just as easily. As for the PAL, I got 96% on the written (screwed up a few questions about shotguns) and 100% on the practical. For the being "scared of big things", I drive a minivan and an SUV, seeing a Hummer just makes me think of how little it fits in on the highway, the thing's not designed to be a luxury SUV, and recent versions make it an impractical off-road vehicle. My ideal model for gun control involves less band but tighter regulations of the firearms that are legal, and possibly mandatory re-testing when the license expires for things like autos and "purse pistols." This is why I support a tighter hold on .50s, they're military-grade weapons, and designed for use originally in military machine guns, then later for use in long-range sniping. The fact that they have an effective range of 2 kilometres makes them a danger if a discharge accident does occur, and it worries me that you can display such a high-calibre weapon openly in your home legally by the storage regulations surrounding non-restricteds. Non-restricted are, or at least, should be firearms used for hunting, and while people do hunt with a .50, it's needless, dangerous, and excessive, and I feel that, while more of them should technically be available, there should be tighter restrictions on them. I know what's practical and what's not, as I said, if I have more money than brains I'd like one, because they're way too fucking expensive to be a regular range-day item, not to mention the difficulty in booking the 1km range at CFB Borden to fire it at. I'm likely to get a 12-gauge single-shot break as my first gun, and pick myself up a cheap .22 target pistol, or if I have the money a 9mm Glock or Beretta when I get my restricted. Ammo for these is relatively cheap, the pistols would be good for target shooting and the 9mm all I would need for home defence, and the shotgun would serve my needs for hunting. I'd like to pick up an SKS soon after getting my PAL as well, the ammo is dirt cheap and so is the gun, and it's got a good enough range for me to hone my skills at both 100m and 300m ranges. I'm not just throwing around uneducated opinions here (though you'll likely just insult me again and disagree with me), I don't think it should be non-restricted, but I also don't think it should be prohibited. I've seen two .50s in my life, and to be honest they are huge and a little intimidating, mostly from a firing standpoint, I'm worried about recoil hurting my shoulder mostly, because I'm a skinny guy. I know they're supposed to have recoil suppression, but knowing their power I can't help but think it's still going to hurt, and kick back like a bitch.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29522543]People like who who seem to have no respect whatsoever for others' opinions and go straight to insulting them really disappoint me. It really ruins a good argument. For one, it is designed as an anti-materiel bullet/rifle, it's designed to break through shit. It's designed to cause a substantial amount of damage. The guns are also heavy, difficult to handle, expensive, and generally impractical for civilian ownership. They're designed for the military, using such a gun for hunting seems impractical and stupid, considering any game that can be taken down with a .50 can probably be taken down with a .30 of some sort just as easily. As for the PAL, I got 96% on the written (screwed up a few questions about shotguns) and 100% on the practical. For the being "scared of big things", I drive a minivan and an SUV, seeing a Hummer just makes me think of how little it fits in on the highway, the thing's not designed to be a luxury SUV, and recent versions make it an impractical off-road vehicle. My ideal model for gun control involves less band but tighter regulations of the firearms that are legal, and possibly mandatory re-testing when the license expires for things like autos and "purse pistols." This is why I support a tighter hold on .50s, they're military-grade weapons, and designed for use originally in military machine guns, then later for use in long-range sniping. The fact that they have an effective range of 2 kilometres makes them a danger if a discharge accident does occur, and it worries me that you can display such a high-calibre weapon openly in your home legally by the storage regulations surrounding non-restricteds. Non-restricted are, or at least, should be firearms used for hunting, and while people do hunt with a .50, it's needless, dangerous, and excessive, and I feel that, while more of them should technically be available, there should be tighter restrictions on them. I know what's practical and what's not, as I said, if I have more money than brains I'd like one, because they're way too fucking expensive to be a regular range-day item, not to mention the difficulty in booking the 1km range at CFB Borden to fire it at. I'm likely to get a 12-gauge single-shot break as my first gun, and pick myself up a cheap .22 target pistol, or if I have the money a 9mm Glock or Beretta when I get my restricted. Ammo for these is relatively cheap, the pistols would be good for target shooting and the 9mm all I would need for home defence, and the shotgun would serve my needs for hunting. I'd like to pick up an SKS soon after getting my PAL as well, the ammo is dirt cheap and so is the gun, and it's got a good enough range for me to hone my skills at both 100m and 300m ranges. I'm not just throwing around uneducated opinions here (though you'll likely just insult me again and disagree with me), I don't think it should be non-restricted, but I also don't think it should be prohibited. I've seen two .50s in my life, and to be honest they are huge and a little intimidating, mostly from a firing standpoint, I'm worried about recoil hurting my shoulder mostly, because I'm a skinny guy. I know they're supposed to have recoil suppression, but knowing their power I can't help but think it's still going to hurt, and kick back like a bitch.[/QUOTE] You got to get over the fear of a .50 man it's just a caliber. And all/most guns were designed originally for the military so that argument is void

[QUOTE=Aman V;29522093] No you do not need any licenses for firearms in the US (unless you live in one of the few shit tier states)[/QUOTE] Do you support driver's licenses

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29523892]Do you support driver's licenses[/QUOTE] Do you think that a person should pass a test in order to buy / own a car? Do you think that all car purchasers should be subject to a background check prior to taking delivery of a car? Do you think that car owners should be registered in the same manner as convicted sex offenders? Do you think that a car owner should be held liable if his car is stolen and subsequently used in a crime? Do you think that a person subject to a restraining order, or with a misdemeanor domestic violence arrest should be prohibited from possessing a car? Do you think that car owners should have their cars confiscated when they get caught speeding? If you don't have your car locked properly at any given time, should the police be allowed to confiscate it? If you ever do anything wrong with your car, should you be prohibited from ever owning one again in your life? Do you think that you should not be allowed to have a car in the parking lot of an educational institution? You don't need a license to own a car You don't need a license to drive a car on private property etc etc. The car=gun argument is stupid and overused

I think shotguns should be banned unless you are a licensed hunter. Edit: Also it's critical to have a license system for firearms complete with some simple psychological tests and maybe a respectable voucher.

[QUOTE=Falchion;29523935]I think shotguns should be banned unless you are a licensed hunter. [/QUOTE] Where is the reasoning (or lack there of) behind this? [quote]Dear Ms. Lethbridge, I would be most enlightened if you would explain to me, in simple terms, as I am but a simple man, exactly how registering guns or cars enhances public safety. Oh, I know you /believe/ it does, but pray do tell how? Please be factual and provide evidence. You see, I think you are somewhat confused, and at the very least are mixing up your terms. Registration refers to informing the State that you or something you own exists, usually (as in the case of automobiles) for tax collection purposes or less often so we may avail ourselves of a government service. While there may be some justification for licensing lawful gun owners like drivers - to show that that they have been trained and security vetted, for example - no such reason exists for registering each and every legally held firearm in the country. Unlike driving cars on public roads paid for by fuel taxes and registration fees, there is no similar cost to the State when lawful gun owners use their guns. And unlike gun owners, car owners do not face criminal sanction when they drive unregistered vehicles on private property. Even the few benefits of gun owner licensing are questionable, given that all the same screening and training requirements existed under the prior certification, which came into full effect in 1979. The main and crucial differences are that under a certification program no one was going to haul you off to jail or confiscate your personal property if your papers were not in order, and in addition unlike the current system, the FAC program had the enthusiastic support and consent of those it governed. It is largely moot anyway because those responsible for most of the gun violence in Canada are career criminals who don’t try to license or register and couldn’t even if they did. Most have Court orders prohibiting them from owning firearms, but that never stops them from causing harm with guns or any other thing that comes to hand. That is because our current Firearms Act spends all its time regulating the millions of law-abiding sport shooters, and does absolutely nothing to track the relatively few violent criminal abusers of guns. Guess where we would get most bang for our gun control buck? Unfortunately, and despite our opponents claims to the contrary, the one thing a gun registry does do very well is to allow for the widespread confiscation of firearms, again only from the lawful. This has happened repeatedly globally and historically, and has already taken place in Canada with the prohibition of .32 and .25 caliber and small barreled hand guns, namely those in use in Olympic competition and most suitable for women. So getting back to your car analogy, how would you like it if your vehicle registration was used to prohibit, model by model, most of the cars you have ever wanted to drive? How would you like it if the drunk drivers still had no trouble getting behind the wheel of say a Mini Cooper, but lawful driver like you was denied one because the drunk had caused a crash. You would be even more outraged if the already prohibited repeat drunk driver got less punishment for his crime than you would for letting your vehicle registration lapse. As to your claim that guns are solely designed for killing, there must be something terribly amiss with all of mine because after 47 years and many hundreds of thousands of shots fired no one has ever died by one of them! You see, they are designed to allow for friendly competition and enhance camaraderie, provide food for my table, and yes even to defend me and those under my guardianship against the immediate threat of deadly assault if need be, as we wait for the police to arrive. In this way they are life affirming devices. Certainly they do share features with specifically designed military hardware, but then so do your car, kitchen knives, the plane you fly to vacation on and any of the numerous other tools and sporting gear you use every day. All can be abused by the ignorant, misguided, or malicious to cause harm, but that in no way justifies the far reaching intrusions into your personal and private affairs that the current Firearms Act does nor the arbitrary prohibition and confiscation of your legally acquired and harmlessly held personal property. Now I will leave you with one last thought, again based on your automobile analogy: When you are driving home tonight after work, consider the trust you place in the other drives you share the road with. As the car approaching you at 100 km/h closes the gap, how sure are you that the driver isn’t despondent and suicidal, homicidal, tired, drunk, or distracted by her kids, the radio, or her Big Mac and fries? You trust them implicitly to do the right thing and pass you safely by, this despite the fact that fully 3000 people die in vehicular accidents annually compared with combined murder and accidental gun deaths of only 200. You trust them with your children’s lives as they hurtle by in their 2000 kg steel juggernauts! I submit to you that if you trust your fellow Canadians to use their cars safely, you should be even more trusting of us who use firearms to do so safely. M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician [/quote] A great letter discussing the licensing and registration issue.

[QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that a person should pass a test in order to buy / own a car? Do you think that all car purchasers should be subject to a background check prior to taking delivery of a car?[/quote] Both kind of already happen in varying degrees since vehicles are registered unless it's going to be sitting in a garage never used [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that car owners should be registered in the same manner as convicted sex offenders?[/quote] What do sex offenders have to do with this Arguing that any form of registration is the same as treating people like sex offenders is stupid [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that a car owner should be held liable if his car is stolen and subsequently used in a crime?[/quote] No and I don't think that should be the case with guns either [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that a person subject to a restraining order, or with a misdemeanor domestic violence arrest should be prohibited from possessing a car?[/quote] No but I think people with DUI convictions should be, for a period of time at least Restraining orders and domestic violence charges don't go hand-in-hand with cars as they do with guns [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that car owners should have their cars confiscated when they get caught speeding?[/quote] That can happen already [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]If you don't have your car locked properly at any given time, should the police be allowed to confiscate it?[/quote] Do they do that with guns in the US? [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]If you ever do anything wrong with your car, should you be prohibited from ever owning one again in your life?[/quote] Depends on the degree of "doing wrong" If you plow through a farmer's market, absolutely If you hit a garbage can, no Same logic should be applied to guns [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]Do you think that you should not be allowed to have a car in the parking lot of an educational institution?[/quote] It should be up to the educational institution I guess [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]You don't need a license to own a car You don't need a license to drive a car on private property[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the second one varies by area

[QUOTE=Aman V;29523964]Where is the reasoning (or lack there of) behind this? [/QUOTE] You don't need a fucking cannon to protect yourself. You sound like a gun nut man.

I'm ok with background checks, but I'm opposed against any gun control that limits my freedoms. Criminals lose their freedoms when they commit a crime, hence the background check. Some guns like the ones that are fully automatic should require a license of some sort. That's reasonable.

[QUOTE=V12US;29503333]Better legalize murder too, then. The law doesn't really hold criminals back from murdering people, anyway. And if you need a gun to protect yourself, I seriously have to question why you still live in the US. If a sane person felt threathened enough to the point where he might want to carry a gun, he would get the fuck out of there. It's one of those fucked up things that Americans think is perfectly normal.[/QUOTE] When I lived in England, looking someone in the eyes essentially meant that you wanted to fight. There are bigger problems than people carrying guns, namely; the lack of trust in modern society. When you can't say hello to someone or look them in the eyes without implying violence, something needs to be done.

[QUOTE=Aman V;29521748]The amount of sheltered nanny state Euro's in this thread is really worrying. I don't see how you find firearm prohibition as a good thing It is your government stripping you of your right/way to defend yourself and if need be to rebel against the government. [/QUOTE] I'm not a bloody communist or anarchist, I don't endorse revolutions or armed rebellion against the government. I live in a democracy, which was imposed without the need to do a revolution, I seriously doubt that I'd ever need a gun to defend myself against my country's government. If I feel my rights are being violated I can simply vote for another party.

And what do you do when the party in power refuses to step down and declares itself absolute? Apparently, you're going to do fuck-all about it, because refugee immigrant status isn't that easy to get, and when a country does something like that, they usually ban emigration. You'll then be stuck in a dictatorship, harsh and oppressive, and unable to do anything about it.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29526220]And what do you do when the party in power refuses to step down and declares itself absolute? [/QUOTE] P(party refusing to step down after losing an election in this country) = 0.00%

[QUOTE=Ridge;29522427]The way I see, it is my property, and I worked hard to get it. Why should that thug get it just because he wants it and sees I have it? I'd take no pleasure in shooting someone for my posessions, but if you say "it's just a tv" and let them go with it, that starts a slippery slope to "it's just my car," "it's just my wife," etc...[/QUOTE] So you'd rather kill someone who, for all you know, might be stealing your stuff to pay for medicine for his sick child, than get a new stuff from your insurance? [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] Seriously, that is so fucked up. [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman V;29523923]*long list*[/QUOTE] The difference between cars and guns is, that cars were not made specifically to kill and/or seriously injure other people. [editline]30th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman V;29521748]The amount of sheltered nanny state Euro's in this thread is really worrying. I don't see how you find firearm prohibition as a good thing It is your government stripping you of your right/way to defend yourself and if need be to rebel against the government. [/QUOTE] What about when the government is doing a great job and some citizens just want more power and use their guns to overthrow the government and insert a theocratic dictatorship?

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;29491747]Personally, I think guns should require licenses like cars with mandatory education on gun discipline and gun laws before you use them. Anyone crazy enough to commit a crime using a weapon will probably get the job done by any other means anyway but there are plenty of idiots who inadvertently danger others by not using guns and ammo correctly.[/QUOTE] This.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29526003]I'm not a bloody communist or anarchist, I don't endorse revolutions or armed rebellion against the government. I live in a democracy, which was imposed without the need to do a revolution, I seriously doubt that I'd ever need a gun to defend myself against my country's government. If I feel my rights are being violated I can simply vote for another party.[/QUOTE] Hitler and his party were elected as the leaders of Germany. They then stopped the elections and took over the country. You silly gun control nuts think that democracy is free and guaranteed... clearly, none of you have any grasp on history: democracy is NOT a right, governments CAN and HAVE taken it away from people, and the only thing that can stop them from doing so is FEAR (well, that and an educated populace). Democracy was earned with blood, but that doesn't mean the fight is over yet.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;29527414]Hitler and his party were elected as the leaders of Germany. They then stopped the elections and took over the country. You silly gun control nuts think that democracy is free and guaranteed... clearly, none of you have any grasp on history: democracy is NOT a right, governments CAN and HAVE taken it away from people, and the only thing that can stop them from doing so is FEAR (well, that and an educated populace). Democracy was earned with blood, but that doesn't mean the fight is over yet.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sp00ks;29526608] What about when the government is doing a great job and some citizens just want more power and use their guns to overthrow the government and insert a theocratic dictatorship?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;29527414]Hitler and his party were elected as the leaders of Germany. They then stopped the elections and took over the country. You silly gun control nuts think that democracy is free and guaranteed... clearly, none of you have any grasp on history: democracy is NOT a right, governments CAN and HAVE taken it away from people, and the only thing that can stop them from doing so is FEAR (well, that and an educated populace). Democracy was earned with blood, but that doesn't mean the fight is over yet.[/QUOTE] Democracy was NOT earned with blood in my country, it was achieved peacefully with gradual reforms over some decades. Furthermore, only a complete retard would abolish democracy, because Sweden would suffer GREATLY from it. We would get kicked out from the EU, trade and international relationships would hurt our economy. The party who abolished democracy would witness demonstrations all over the country, and the military would probably not be very loyal towards the government. Not a very good idea to abolish democracy, with or without gun control. Besides, the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt were kicked out without armed rebellion, if there were an armed rebellion in Egypt far more people would have died because the military would have engaged in firefights wherever.