• Harvard concludes gun bans are ineffective/useless
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=scout1;40255949]You also have a huge porous land border with the state that produces the most firearms in the world That may have something to do with it[/QUOTE] That's true, but it also doesn't lend any support for more extensive gun control. If having a porous land border with the state that produces the most firearms in the world is enough to result in easily available firearms, then how much easier will it be in the state that produces the most firearms in the world?
take that gun grabbers =)
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] Violently. I would treat such an act as a declaration of war against the citizenry, and wage guerrilla warfare in return. Chlorine gas is just as deadly as firearms, and is much easier to make. Thermite, which burns hot enough to melt through steel, is just as easy.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40259136]that's not what disenfranchisement is [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] just an fyi[/QUOTE] yea it is, disenfranchisement is when rights are taken away from a person. it's generally specifically applied to voting but it can also apply to other rights.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] Banning firearms and confiscating them from the people would be a very blatant contravention of the Second Amendment and would be an unmistakable sign that the government is becoming corrupt and is on the verge of tyranny. I would prepare for war, because one would almost definitely and imminently ensue.
[QUOTE=E-102 Gamma;40264027]Banning firearms and confiscating them from the people would be a very blatant contravention of the Second Amendment and would be an unmistakable sign that the government is becoming corrupt and is on the verge of tyranny. I would prepare for war, because one would almost definitely and imminently ensue.[/QUOTE] They said the same thing about income tax, slavery and giving women the vote.
And because Harvard said it, it must be true.
[QUOTE=E-102 Gamma;40264027]Banning firearms and confiscating them from the people would be a very blatant contravention of the Second Amendment and would be an unmistakable sign that the government is becoming corrupt and is on the verge of tyranny. I would prepare for war, because one would almost definitely and imminently ensue.[/QUOTE] a war? really? the only people who would be willing to actually fight a war against the US government are rednecks, psychopaths, and psychopathic rednecks - exactly the kind of people who shouldn't have guns in the first place. i mean really, do you think the average gun-owner, in all his regular, gun-owning activities that gun owners apparently do with, indeed, their guns, is going to actually shoot a dude? either the majority of gun owners have a hidden psycho side which - as i'm sure you'd agree - is a silly concept, or they'll sit, angered but nonetheless unwilling to commit violent acts against their fellow men and women of America. and i find it hilarious that THIS is supposedly the straw that will break the camel's back and result in civil warfare. apparently your government isn't [I]totally[/I] corrupt until they come for your guns - seems all that shit about corporate lobbyism and steadily rising surveillance can just be safely ignored so long as you can go to the firing range once every fortnight.
If someone came to strip me of roughly $3000 worth of property, I'd be a little beyond "pissed off"
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;40257100]At least a lack of a gun would level the playing field or even stop mass killings. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] Quick question to American's, if your Government did ban your guns entirely and then took the ones you have now off you, how would you react?[/QUOTE] Very, very badly, and I'm not the only one. I'm no fighter, I wouldn't just kill everyone who tried to take them (plus I don't have anything worth taking), but if there ever is a broad no-questions-asked confiscation scheme a [i]lot[/i] of people trying to enforce it are probably going to get hurt. Plus, if the government ever tried anything like that, it truly would send the message that they treat rights as disposable and only applicable if they agree with them, which is utterly unacceptable.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40278190]Very, very badly, and I'm not the only one. I'm no fighter, I wouldn't just kill everyone who tried to take them (plus I don't have anything worth taking), but if there ever is a broad no-questions-asked confiscation scheme a [i]lot[/i] of people trying to enforce it are probably going to get hurt. Plus, if the government ever tried anything like that, it truly would send the message that they treat rights as disposable and only applicable if they agree with them, which is utterly unacceptable.[/QUOTE]Ideally, there wouldn't be any fighting. It would just be some regular dudes who happen to be armed walking into the White House and the Capitol building and saying, "Yeah, you're... kinda not being very good at your job, so we're firing you. Uh, yeah, so I hope it works out for you and stuff, and maybe when things are different in your personal life you can put in another application." And then all these politicians just wander around for a bit before tweeting about how they got fired and then go home and cry. And you know they'd tweet about it, they're all trying to be hip and cool with their twitter accounts and facebooks and stuff.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40275845]They said the same thing about income tax, slavery and giving women the vote.[/QUOTE] Oh boy here we go.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40275845][QUOTE=E-102 Gamma;40264027]Banning firearms and confiscating them from the people would be a very blatant contravention of the Second Amendment and would be an unmistakable sign that the government is becoming corrupt and is on the verge of tyranny. I would prepare for war, because one would almost definitely and imminently ensue.[/QUOTE] They said the same thing about income tax, slavery and giving women the vote.[/QUOTE] Those three issues were resolved by amendments to the Constitution, and as far as I can tell, were never unconstitutional in the first place. :v: If an Amendment was passed that repealed the Second Amendment, there most likely would not be a civil war (or a widespread one, at any rate), as the Amendment would have to have been passed by [I]three fourths of the states[/I] (Article V). Of course, I sincerely doubt three quarters of the states would stand for such an Amendment, so this strikes me as a bit of a moot point. [QUOTE=Cone;40276574]a war? really? the only people who would be willing to actually fight a war against the US government are rednecks, psychopaths, and psychopathic rednecks - exactly the kind of people who shouldn't have guns in the first place. i mean really, do you think the average gun-owner, in all his regular, gun-owning activities that gun owners apparently do with, indeed, their guns, is going to actually shoot a dude? either the majority of gun owners have a hidden psycho side which - as i'm sure you'd agree - is a silly concept, or they'll sit, angered but nonetheless unwilling to commit violent acts against their fellow men and women of America.[/QUOTE] War does not necessarily imply violence. Blockades, for instance, can be acts of war, and yet, no shots may very well end up being fired. You don't have to shoot a gun in order for it to be useful to you. Seeing as how the people have government officials vastly outnumbered, widespread blockades of government buildings seem to me to be the most likely outcome should the government instigate a civil war by trying to impose a blanket gun ban. It's pretty hard for a government office to function properly when nobody can get in or out of it. And if too many government buildings are effectively shut down in this manner, the government as a whole starts to have a hard time functioning as well. Eventually, it will either concede or collapse. Then it will either be reformed or rebuilt from the ground up, depending on its ultimate fate. [QUOTE=Cone;40276574]and i find it hilarious that THIS is supposedly [B]the straw that will break the camel's back[/B] and result in civil warfare. apparently your government isn't [I]totally[/I] corrupt until they come for your guns - seems all that shit about corporate lobbyism and steadily rising surveillance can just be safely ignored so long as you can go to the firing range once every fortnight.[/QUOTE] Implying that a blatant infringement by the federal government on the people's Second Amendment rights is insignificant and inconsequential? You seem to be downplaying the severity of this scenario. If the people is disarmed, the government becomes much more sound, and doesn't have to care about the needs, the wants, and the will of the people as much. In extreme cases, the people can be so out-gunned by the government (so to speak) that the government achieves absolute power (see: North Korea). And you know what they say about absolute power... Part of the reason that the operative clause of the Second Amendment was written was to help ensure that the government would remain subject to the people. If the government fears a revolt, it will hold the people with a lot more respect and hopefully won't do stupid stuff to them. This is why the right to bear arms is such a big deal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40275845]They said the same thing about income tax, slavery and giving women the vote.[/QUOTE] lmao no they didn't run along sobotnik
[QUOTE=E-102 Gamma;40282841]Those three issues were resolved by amendments to the Constitution, and as far as I can tell, were never unconstitutional in the first place. :v: If an Amendment was passed that repealed the Second Amendment, there most likely would not be a civil war (or a widespread one, at any rate), as the Amendment would have to have been passed by [I]three fourths of the states[/I] (Article V). Of course, I sincerely doubt three quarters of the states would stand for such an Amendment, so this strikes me as a bit of a moot point.[/QUOTE] The point i'm making is that if the second amendment were rid of, the problems caused by it are massively exaggerated. Those examples I cited were held back often because it was seen as a slippery slope towards tyranny.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.