• Obama to ban assault weapons.
    1,785 replies, posted
Note how just about every post on each side of the argument have (more or less) the same exact people rating it dumb/agree depending on which side it takes. It seems like we're just saying "They're dumb because they're on the other side of this debate", rather than "They're dumb because their argument is flawed".
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894323]you've proven a billion times that you know nothing about gun politics and you actually called gun owners all future rapists pedophiles and baby killers so you'd be best off not commenting on this situation[/QUOTE] Except this is utterly irrelevant. You could have said "I was wrong" about the grandfather clause.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38894584]Except this is utterly irrelevant. You could have said "I was wrong" about the grandfather clause.[/QUOTE] You can never admit when you lose an argument, can you?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38894318]Its still insane, if it goes through that means new assault rifles won't be allowed to be bought and the entire gun industry will suffer as a result.[/QUOTE] It's still not a law I would be pushing for. The point is that he lied about the severity of it. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38894619]You can never admit when you lose an argument, can you?[/QUOTE] Erm he lost the argument about the grandfather clause being removed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38888567]Honestly, trying to enforce a ban on all guns would be opening pandoras box. You think this shooting is bad? There are as many as 60,000 citizens belonging to nearly a hundred different militia groups in the US, and at least a handfull of these are right wing nationalists who [I]will[/I] fight back. We'd have more Ruby Ridges, more Waco Sieges, more Oklahoma City bombings. It'd be a law enforcement nightmare, we may even need the assistance of the national guard. Plus then there are the non-militia members who will resist as well. In the end, it's also political suicide. Any politician that would help pass a total gun ban might as well say "Fuck your amendments, I do as I please", and that does [I]not[/I] go over well with people in this country.[/QUOTE] I don't even own a firearm and I'd be mad as all fuck over that. [QUOTE=iTrolol;38894506]Note how just about every post on each side of the argument have (more or less) the same exact people rating it dumb/agree depending on which side it takes. It seems like we're just saying "They're dumb because they're on the other side of this debate", rather than "They're dumb because their argument is flawed".[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. A good portion of the people here have nothing against reasonable regulation. The problem lies in defining regulation, and this isn't reasonable regulation. It's not "you are dumb because you are on the other side," it's "You are fucking stupid and/or delusional if you think this legislation is going to do anything constructive."
My issue is their banning guns over how they look, and how many rounds they can carry in detachable magazines. It's stupid. You want to lower gun crime? Introduce actual regulation, not this so called 'sane regulation'. The way the Czech Republic does it's gun laws is incredibly straight forward, and with a few modifications it could easily be adapted to the United States. Take the way the Czech Republic does it, and abolish the NFA, FOPA, and GCA. Allow people to legally purchase automatics, suppresors/muzzle brakes, and to legally import/export from ex-Soviet Bloc countries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38894584]Except this is utterly irrelevant. You could have said "I was wrong" about the grandfather clause.[/QUOTE] Except I wasn't wrong, the rumor was. I outright said it was a baseless rumor to begin with
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38889630]yes you're absolutely correct. if you study the history of gun control in other countries, you'll see that it works.[/QUOTE] "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38894760]It's still not a law I would be pushing for. The point is that he lied about the severity of it. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Erm he lost the argument about the grandfather clause being removed.[/QUOTE] It's not even about that at this point. You've been wrong about so many things in this thread.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38894760]It's still not a law I would be pushing for. The point is that he lied about the severity of it. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Erm he lost the argument about the grandfather clause being removed.[/QUOTE] No, I'd say you lost for knowing less than a typical politician and making stupid assumptions when it comes to gun owners. Such as but not limited to the one I mentioned a few posts back.
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895061]"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."[/QUOTE] How much can this be attributed to gun control? The Soviet Union happily murdered dissidents for 12 years before 1929. And the Jews already were a marginalized group, subject to propaganda and hatred by the state in the years preceding 1938. And China wasn't even a coherent state in 1935. How many people even owned guns in each of those cases? I doubt 20 million political dissidents in China would have owned firearms. In fact, blaming gun control for practically all genocides in the 20th century is a fucking joke. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Really, I'm not for this AWB, but saying that gun control caused 56 million people in all those countries to die is ignorance of the highest order that bends recorded history to match your narrowminded and self-centered views.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38895080]It's not even about that at this point. You've been wrong about so many things in this thread.[/QUOTE] I think it's the fedora.
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895061]"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."[/QUOTE] Lol, if you actually believe this then you're beyond any possiblity of a sane argument
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895061]"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."[/QUOTE] if they had guns, the ones that had guns (the minority) would just be shot in their house. Also it happens to armed people too [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litene[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38895191]How much can this be attributed to gun control? The Soviet Union happily murdered dissidents for 12 years before 1929. And the Jews already were a marginalized group, subject to propaganda and hatred by the state in the years preceding 1938. And China wasn't even a coherent state in 1935. How many people even owned guns in each of those cases? I doubt 20 million political dissidents in China would have owned firearms. In fact, blaming gun control for practically all genocides in the 20th century is a fucking joke. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] Really, I'm not for this AWB, but saying that gun control caused 56 million people in all those countries to die is ignorance of the highest order that bends recorded history to match your narrowminded and self-centered views.[/QUOTE] It's not my view. This was written by someone else. But I'm sure quite a large amount of people [I]have[/I] died as a result of gun bans, and you can be damn sure that every one of these situations coincided with a number of different acts that made their lives a living hell. America's economy is in the shitter. Social life is changing drastically. People are living in fear of the rest of the world. Castrating the citizens by taking their guns away makes it that much easier to manipulate them.
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895061]"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century [b]during[/b] gun control: 56 million."[/QUOTE] I fixed it for you. Saying they were all killed because they had no guns is rather ignorant, most people probably wouldn't do much against the government even if they had guns. They probably brought in the army and whatnot, but them having guns definately would've stopped them from being taken away by a superior military force... In addition, these were generally periods of political turmoil, I can't imagine any authoritative figure would get away with this should gun control be enacted in the U.S.
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895435]It's not my view. This was written by someone else. But I'm sure quite a large amount of people [I]have[/I] died as a result of gun bans, and you can be damn sure that every one of these situations coincided with a number of different acts that made their lives a living hell. America's economy is in the shitter. Social life is changing drastically. People are living in fear of the rest of the world. Castrating the citizens by taking their guns away makes it that much easier to manipulate them.[/QUOTE] in the shitter? it's recovering. Social life is changing drastically? how? just because your neighbor smokes weed doesn't mean he's a bad person People are living in fear of the rest of the world? [B]because of their own ignorance[/B]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38895467]in the shitter? it's recovering. Social life is changing drastically? how? just because your neighbor smokes weed doesn't mean he's a bad person People are living in fear of the rest of the world? [B]because of their own ignorance[/B][/QUOTE] Seriously, you're deluded if you want to own guns because of "Social life changing", not because of any of the other legit reasons.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38894760]Erm he lost the argument about the grandfather clause being removed.[/QUOTE] I don't recall that being an argument. He simply stated that there were rumors going around that it was. That part was accurate. That said, the rumors were wrong. That does not mean he lost the argument, it means he was right about something that was incorrect. There [i]were[/i] rumors.
On a related note, Peirs Morgan is a fucking moron and I wish Jeremy Clarkson would pummel him in the face again
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38895801]I don't recall that being an argument. He simply stated that there were rumors going around that it was. That part was accurate. That said, the rumors were wrong. That does not mean he lost the argument, it means he was right about something that was incorrect. There [i]were[/i] rumors.[/QUOTE] There was no reason to mention it in the first place
As far as I've seen, gun laws are good where they're at. In New York: -You can't own automatic weapons -You can't use suppressors -You can't have flash hiders -The barrel length has a minimal requirement -You have to obtain a license to own a pistol and a whole multitude of other restrictions. All of which are reasonable. The idea of banning specific guns, banning AR-style rifles because they [I]look[/I] like military weapons, and getting rid of all semi-autos, that's a bunch of bullshit. It is non enforceable. Criminals will get illegal weapons illegally, law-abiding citizens will not get weapons at all. We can't all afford armed security (which is what many politicians tend to forget), and there sure as hell won't be a cop posted at the end of everyone's street. Nutjobs will be nutjobs, and if all this gun banning shit even [I]works[/I], which I highly doubt it won't, said nutjobs won't be needing guns to kill scores of people anyway. [URL]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/news/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214[/URL] Lanza did not legally [U]possess[/U] these "legal weapons". These weapons were legal to his mother, who purchased them for her own use. Lanza was mentally unstable, and it showed on his record. He was barred access from purchasing his own rifle in the events leading up to the shooting. ANY firearm in his hands were illegal. Quick side note: Video games don't make normal people commit mass murder. Readily available firearms don't either. Nor do large kitchen knives or axes, which most houses have, and both have been used repeatedly in murder. What needs to be fixed is two things: legal practices in purchasing and owning firearms, and securing public places. For all gun owners, background checks and mental health screenings should be conducted yearly. And the day a hospital develops records that an individual's mental health makes them a hazard to themselves or others, they should be barred access to their firearms. Same with criminal records. Direct private sale of firearms should not be legal. Transfer of firearms from private seller to buyer should be conducted through a certified dealer so that a background check and firearm registration can take place. That way we can ensure that the purchaser is not one of a multitude of would-be criminals. As far as gun-free zones go, they should really be eradicated. Identifying a specific place as "gun free" simply declares that everyone within the perimeter will be unable to defend themselves from armed attackers. This invites trouble. While many people may disagree with this, at the very least there should be some form of armed security present in these places. There is nothing wrong with placing a couple of armed police officers in a movie theater or in their car outside a school as part of their patrol. Malls, theaters, schools, they are all high-density areas were the population is largely unarmed. I don't know how it is with you guys but over here movie theaters and schools almost never have cops present. Quite frankly over the last few days I've spoken to teachers about my views. I expressed my belief that all schools need some form of armed security. I was told that 1. Schools are no place for guns 2. Schools are [I]the[/I] safest place for any student (I live a stone's throw from Connecticut) 3. To arm guards in schools is to submit to a fear that plagues our society, so we should remain disarmed to, in a way, stand up to that fear ([I]very[/I] reasonable) 4. We should instead put faith in eachother, and [I]hope[/I] that what happened in Sandy Hook doesn't happen here or anywhere else. While I'm all for the "have faith in humanity", "stand up to fear", and "nobody should ever have to hurt anyone else for any reason" ideas, they are quite unrealistic. Let me remind everyone that many, many anti-gun politicians rely on armed security. A handful own firearms themselves. These people will never know what it's like to lock themselves in a room praying that the cops will get there in time. Anyway, rant of the day. Sorry about the previous post that was obviously a little flawed. Oh, and one more thing: securing firearms is another big thing nobody seems to address. Lanza was living with his mother. She knew he had problems. She knew he had violent tenancies. She knew he was mentally unstable. The fact that she didn't think to secure her weapons in a locked container, [I]knowing [/I]that there was a [U]mentally deranged [/U] individual living in her house makes me question if she isn't also responsible for the actions that took place, to a degree. It is common sense that if you have guns and violent people or kids in the same house [B]you secure your weapon[/B]. There is not one gun-owner with any degree of common sense who will say anything to the contrary. And this should be law: If anyone living in the house can not legally own and use the firearms in the house, then the weapons should be secured in a locked container where the other residents cannot gain access to them. Lanza's mother was a law-abiding citizen. If this were law, Lanza may have never gotten those weapons in the first place.
not the dreaded flash hider!
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38893352]nopnopnop a gun ban didn't stop some teenager from going on a stabbing spree, killing 8 and injuring 5 more in China: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9446242/Chinese-teenager-stabs-8-people-to-death.html[/url][/QUOTE] that's because it's a gun ban and not a knife ban dummy
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38896251]that's because it's a gun ban and not a knife ban dummy[/QUOTE] Missing the point If you want to kill someone gun control isn't going to stop you
[QUOTE=viper720666;38895984]As far as I've seen, gun laws are good where they're at. In New York: -You can't own automatic weapons -You can't use suppressors -You can't have flash hiders -The barrel length has a minimal requirement -You have to obtain a license to own a pistol and a whole multitude of other restrictions. All of which are reasonable. The idea of banning specific guns, banning AR-style rifles because they [I]look[/I] like military weapons, and getting rid of all semi-autos, that's a bunch of bullshit. It is non enforceable. Criminals will get illegal weapons illegally, law-abiding citizens will not get weapons at all. We can't all afford armed security (which is what many politicians tend to forget), and there sure as hell won't be a cop posted at the end of everyone's street. Nutjobs will be nutjobs, and if all this gun banning shit even [I]works[/I], which I highly doubt it won't, said nutjobs won't be needing guns to kill scores of people anyway. [URL]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/news/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214[/URL] Lanza did not legally [U]possess[/U] these "legal weapons". These weapons were legal to his mother, who purchased them for her own use. Lanza was mentally unstable, and it showed on his record. He was barred access from purchasing his own rifle in the events leading up to the shooting. ANY firearm in his hands were illegal. Quick side note: Video games don't make normal people commit mass murder. Readily available firearms don't either. Nor do large kitchen knives or axes, which most houses have, and both have been used repeatedly in murder. What needs to be fixed is two things: legal practices in purchasing and owning firearms, and securing public places. For all gun owners, background checks and mental health screenings should be conducted yearly. And the day a hospital develops records that an individual's mental health makes them a hazard to themselves or others, they should be barred access to their firearms. Same with criminal records. Direct private sale of firearms should not be legal. Transfer of firearms from private seller to buyer should be conducted through a certified dealer so that a background check and firearm registration can take place. That way we can ensure that the purchaser is not one of a multitude of would-be criminals. As far as gun-free zones go, they should really be eradicated. Identifying a specific place as "gun free" simply declares that everyone within the perimeter will be unable to defend themselves from armed attackers. This invites trouble. While many people may disagree with this, at the very least there should be some form of armed security present in these places. There is nothing wrong with placing a couple of armed police officers in a movie theater or in their car outside a school as part of their patrol. Malls, theaters, schools, they are all high-density areas were the population is largely unarmed. I don't know how it is with you guys but over here movie theaters and schools almost never have cops present. Quite frankly over the last few days I've spoken to teachers about my views. I expressed my belief that all schools need some form of armed security. I was told that 1. Schools are no place for guns 2. Schools are [I]the[/I] safest place for any student (I live a stone's throw from Connecticut) 3. To arm guards in schools is to submit to a fear that plagues our society, so we should remain disarmed to, in a way, stand up to that fear ([I]very[/I] reasonable) 4. We should instead put faith in eachother, and [I]hope[/I] that what happened in Sandy Hook doesn't happen here or anywhere else. While I'm all for the "have faith in humanity", "stand up to fear", and "nobody should ever have to hurt anyone else for any reason" ideas, they are quite unrealistic. Let me remind everyone that many, many anti-gun politicians rely on armed security. A handful own firearms themselves. These people will never know what it's like to lock themselves in a room praying that the cops will get there in time. Anyway, rant of the day. Sorry about the previous post that was obviously a little flawed. Oh, and one more thing: securing firearms is another big thing nobody seems to address. Lanza was living with his mother. She knew he had problems. She knew he had violent tenancies. She knew he was mentally unstable. The fact that she didn't think to secure her weapons in a locked container, [I]knowing [/I]that there was a [U]mentally deranged [/U] individual living in her house makes me question if she isn't also responsible for the actions that took place, to a degree. It is common sense that if you have guns and violent people or kids in the same house [B]you secure your weapon[/B]. There is not one gun-owner with any degree of common sense who will say anything to the contrary. And this should be law: If anyone living in the house can not legally own and use the firearms in the house, then the weapons should be secured in a locked container where the other residents cannot gain access to them. Lanza's mother was a law-abiding citizen. If this were law, Lanza may have never gotten those weapons in the first place.[/QUOTE] the "hope" part is really idiotic
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;38896342]the "hope" part is really idiotic[/QUOTE] Oh yes, indeed. I'd be lying if I said my jaw didn't lower an inch or two when I was told that. I'm also going to go blow all the money in my wallet and [I]hope[/I] that it magically comes back at the end of the day.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894323]you've proven a billion times that you know nothing about gun politics and you actually called gun owners all future rapists pedophiles and baby killers so you'd be best off not commenting on this situation[/QUOTE] Hang on a mo, when the hell did I call gun owners "future rapists pedophiles and baby killers"?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38896470]Hang on a mo, when the hell did I call gun owners "future rapists pedophiles and baby killers"?[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1233292[/url]
If I recall correctly, Germany during the German Empire period and the Weimar Republic had massive gun bans and regulations already. That "gun ban" in Nazi Germany in the early 30s was just them reestablishing the German norm there under their laws so that point about the Jews is pointless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.