Donald Trump releases position paper on 2nd Amendment Rights - Polidicks

"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," the policy paper says. "What they're really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans." For a total fucking nutter that sound oddly reasonable

[QUOTE=proch;48717234]"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," the policy paper says. "What they're really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans." For a total fucking nutter that sound oddly reasonable[/QUOTE] It's reasonable because it's one billion percent true

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715793]It doesn't seem fit for purpose anymore. Back in the day sure but not now. You are going to need more than handheld guns to bring down the US government. Maybe you should make missiles, fighter jets and armed drones legal to so that you can bring it up to modern day standards?[/QUOTE] It's not necessarily about running over the government. Nobody is expecting that. It's about putting up a fight the government wouldn't be able to afford.

Let me make my stance clear: I believe that a blanket ban on guns that ensures that no one has access to firearms of any kind is the most effective way to reduce gun violence. I mean that in the strictest sense: a ban that removes all existing firearms from the US and prevents any new firearms from entering. Unfortunately such an endeavour is doomed to failure because guns are too deeply ingrained into American culture for people to give them up, and Americans have somehow either resigned themselves to the fact that their police will never be effective enough to enforce such a ban, or distrust their police too much to let them enforce such a ban. The primary argument in favour of guns, of course, is that it is meant as a deterrent to governmental oppression, which stems from the text of the Second Amendment. Ignoring the fact that the Second Amendment is over 200 years old and its relevance needs to be re-looked at, this is clearly not the case because there are dozens of countries which function perfectly fine without giving all citizens the right to bear arms. I think that a functioning democracy with a system of checks and balances is a far more effective tool to deterring governmental oppression, and guns play little to no part in this. The only countries where you see armed rebellions occurring are states where authoritarian regimes have taken hold as a result of poor governance and corrupt institutions. Proch's point that arming citizens will make it too costly for the government to wage war on its citizens is wholly irrelevant. [I]Any[/I] war that the U.S. government wages against its own people is economically unfeasible because it will wreck havoc on the country's means of production and labour force and destroy the economy. Another common argument brought up is that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who responsibly handle their firearms, and complain that gun regulation penalises these legitimate gun owners while leaving criminals untouched. While I don't dispute the fact that most gun owners do responsibly use their guns, I prefer to look at this from another viewpoint: when gun owners insist that guns be freely available, it increases the supply of guns to criminals. This directly affects the lives of innocent bystanders (some of whom would rather not possess a firearm even if available) by fuelling gun violence. Gun owners in this case are selfishly valuing their right to own firearms above the right to personal safety of the general public. The third argument that is often put forth is the right to self-defence. Many see guns as the premier, and indeed only tool for self-defence, whether of person or of property. Thus, guns must be made available to all for the purpose of self-defence. Again, this conflicts with the right to personal safety of the general public who choose not to own guns. Furthermore, I think that guns are counterproductive to self-defence situations. If neither the aggressor nor the victim have firearms, it is more likely that both will walk away unharmed. Giving either or both a firearm will increase the likelihood that grievous bodily harm will come to one or more parties. Guns are not the answer here, more effective policing that reduces crime is. Many also argue that any gun regulation is pointless because criminals will be able to access or produce guns anyway. This is possibly the laziest argument so far because all it does is point out the failure of the state to enforce their laws. People then use this as an excuse to take matters into their own hands by insisting that they be given the right to own guns to handle the criminals themselves, rather than insisting the state beef up enforcement through a better police force. I would sooner trust the police to handle criminals because they are trained to do so, while I am not. To me, most of the above arguments aren't really in favour of gun ownership; rather, they point out some deficiency in the state that people think must be bridged through their own actions rather than insisting that the state remediate these deficiencies. The way I see it, American citizens seem to have a fundamental distrust of their government and are not willing to give the government the powers needed to remediate said deficiencies. This fundamental distrust isn't something that can be reasoned with, so this is probably all I will ever say on this matter.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48717105]How's that? Most law abiding firearm owners that I know are easy going people, don't stick their nose in other people's business and don't try to push pro-gun stuff in everyone's face. Maybe you're just hanging around the wrong people.[/quote] I live in a town that's a 3-minute drive away from the Texas border, trust me, plenty of loons around here. :v: [quote]But then again i'm American, been exposed to gun culture all my life, live in the south with like minded people, and generally stick to my beliefs. So I guess I can understand how people who have not been exposed to the gun culture from a personal level and are looking at it from a strictly logical and statistical standpoint from different countries can jump on gun control, makes sense from their point of view. One thing I can't seem to grasp though is why do foreigners care so much about U.S. gun policy? It can't possibly be hurting them other than giving them one more thing to argue about. Eh, whatever I'm gonna continue enjoying my guns as a hobby.[/QUOTE] I live in the Southwest, raised by Texans/Tennesseeans. Trust me, I've been exposed to gun culture, I just don't get it. Granted I'm not for gun control, that would only end in disaster, but it's also pretty clear that the current system is broken as fuck.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48716871]Oh, you want a modern [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29]example?[/url][/QUOTE] What? The war in Afghanistan is nothing like this. They have a corrupt and shitty army with technology extremely dated by modern standards. The Afghanistan army was just propped up by the US for the longest time. The Taliban and everyone else also controlled the areas for a long time and had time to build infrastructure. In a modern war vs the US government you have mass surveillance, drones, missiles, competent ground forces and probably all sorts of other state of the art technology not available to civilians yet. Good luck winning a war with no infrastructure, less technology, less training, the enemy having surveillance literally everywhere and the inability to securely communicate over a long distance. The only way the US citizens would win over the government would be sheer numbers and when you get to that point it doesn't matter if you have guns or not because you can overwhelm them with sheer numbers regardless.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48717895]Let me make my stance clear: I believe that a blanket ban on guns that ensures that no one has access to firearms of any kind is the most effective way to reduce gun violence. I mean that in the strictest sense: a ban that removes all existing firearms from the US and prevents any new firearms from entering. Unfortunately such an endeavour is doomed to failure because guns are too deeply ingrained into American culture for people to give them up, and Americans have somehow either resigned themselves to the fact that their police will never be effective enough to enforce such a ban, or distrust their police too much to let them enforce such a ban.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and while we're at it, i wish people's mindsets could be changed so that they don't commit crime. If your "good plan" depends on people liking it when they don't, its not a good plan

[QUOTE=Bazsil;48718404]Yeah, and while we're at it, i wish people's mindsets could be changed so that they don't commit crime. If your "good plan" depends on people liking it when they don't, its not a good plan[/QUOTE] [quote]Unfortunately such an endeavour is doomed to failure because guns are too deeply ingrained into American culture for people to give them up[/quote] How to not read: a guide by Bazsil.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48717895]Let me make my stance clear: I believe that a blanket ban on guns that ensures that no one has access to firearms of any kind is the most effective way to reduce gun violence. I mean that in the strictest sense: a ban that removes all existing firearms from the US and prevents any new firearms from entering. Unfortunately such an endeavour is doomed to failure because guns are too deeply ingrained into American culture for people to give them up, and Americans have somehow either resigned themselves to the fact that their police will never be effective enough to enforce such a ban, or distrust their police too much to let them enforce such a ban. The primary argument in favour of guns, of course, is that it is meant as a deterrent to governmental oppression, which stems from the text of the Second Amendment. Ignoring the fact that the Second Amendment is over 200 years old and its relevance needs to be re-looked at, this is clearly not the case because there are dozens of countries which function perfectly fine without giving all citizens the right to bear arms. I think that a functioning democracy with a system of checks and balances is a far more effective tool to deterring governmental oppression, and guns play little to no part in this. The only countries where you see armed rebellions occurring are states where authoritarian regimes have taken hold as a result of poor governance and corrupt institutions. Proch's point that arming citizens will make it too costly for the government to wage war on its citizens is wholly irrelevant. [I]Any[/I] war that the U.S. government wages against its own people is economically unfeasible because it will wreck havoc on the country's means of production and labour force and destroy the economy. Another common argument brought up is that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who responsibly handle their firearms, and complain that gun regulation penalises these legitimate gun owners while leaving criminals untouched. While I don't dispute the fact that most gun owners do responsibly use their guns, I prefer to look at this from another viewpoint: when gun owners insist that guns be freely available, it increases the supply of guns to criminals. This directly affects the lives of innocent bystanders (some of whom would rather not possess a firearm even if available) by fuelling gun violence. Gun owners in this case are selfishly valuing their right to own firearms above the right to personal safety of the general public. The third argument that is often put forth is the right to self-defence. Many see guns as the premier, and indeed only tool for self-defence, whether of person or of property. Thus, guns must be made available to all for the purpose of self-defence. Again, this conflicts with the right to personal safety of the general public who choose not to own guns. Furthermore, I think that guns are counterproductive to self-defence situations. If neither the aggressor nor the victim have firearms, it is more likely that both will walk away unharmed. Giving either or both a firearm will increase the likelihood that grievous bodily harm will come to one or more parties. Guns are not the answer here, more effective policing that reduces crime is. Many also argue that any gun regulation is pointless because criminals will be able to access or produce guns anyway. This is possibly the laziest argument so far because all it does is point out the failure of the state to enforce their laws. People then use this as an excuse to take matters into their own hands by insisting that they be given the right to own guns to handle the criminals themselves, rather than insisting the state beef up enforcement through a better police force. I would sooner trust the police to handle criminals because they are trained to do so, while I am not. To me, most of the above arguments aren't really in favour of gun ownership; rather, they point out some deficiency in the state that people think must be bridged through their own actions rather than insisting that the state remediate these deficiencies. The way I see it, American citizens seem to have a fundamental distrust of their government and are not willing to give the government the powers needed to remediate said deficiencies. This fundamental distrust isn't something that can be reasoned with, so this is probably all I will ever say on this matter.[/QUOTE] You act like if guns went away crime would go away and people would just shake hands every conflict. Owning a gun clearly isn't something you know much about and I feel like you're just a typical "I hate guns so everyone else shouldn't have them" type of person. I live in New York, very hard now to own and purchase firearms without going through a 15 ring hoop, which is fine. I go to ranges often with friends and family, and have a CCW myself. I carry often in public. I also hunt and use guns for hunting deer and Pheasants. Guns are a big part of my family and my area and are used for hobbies and fun stuff to do. My point being just because some people use guns for crime doesn't mean you should get rid of them like this "Blanket" crap idea you have. If you actually were from this country, I think you would understand more other than "I hate them get rid of them" shit stance you have. Especially starting off with "I think no one should be allowed to have a gun".

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48718447]How to not read: a guide by Bazsil.[/QUOTE] Which is literally exactly what I was replying to Once again, if your plan depends on people adopting an entirely new culture, essentially requiring them to not be who they are, it's not a good plan. I hate to break it to you, but plans such as these need to be tailored to the people they're meant to govern, not the other way around. At least you got in an epic zinger though!

[QUOTE=Terragen;48718479]You act like if guns went away crime would go away and people would just shake hands every conflict. Owning a gun clearly isn't something you know much about and I feel like you're just a typical "I hate guns so everyone else shouldn't have them" type of person. I live in New York, very hard now to own and purchase firearms without going through a 15 ring hoop, which is fine. I go to ranges often with friends and family, and have a CCW myself. I carry often in public. I also hunt and use guns for hunting deer and Pheasants. Guns are a big part of my family and my area and are used for hobbies and fun stuff to do. My point being just because some people use guns for crime doesn't mean you should get rid of them like this "Blanket" crap idea you have. If you actually were from this country, I think you would understand more other than "I hate them get rid of them" shit stance you have. Especially starting off with "I think no one should be allowed to have a gun".[/QUOTE] No, a gun being involved in a crime makes the crime more likely to end up with someone severely injured or killed. Yeah, guns are fun. I get it. They are also a deadly weapon that criminals like to use. If me having fun means that more people get killed, then I'd rather not have that fun. I could equally say that if you were from my country, you would understand why I have this stance against guns. [QUOTE=Bazsil;48718527]Which is literally exactly what I was replying to Once again, if your plan depends on people adopting an entirely new culture, essentially requiring them to not be who they are, it's not a good plan. I hate to break it to you, but plans such as these need to be tailored to the people they're meant to govern, not the other way around. At least you got in an epic zinger though![/QUOTE] I literally said that it was a bad plan because it wouldn't work. How dense can you be?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48718548] I literally said that it was a bad plan because it wouldn't work. How dense can you be?[/QUOTE] "I believe that a blanket ban on guns ... is the most effective way to reduce gun violence" so its effective if you ignore the part where it isn't...? maybe if you spent less time slinging hostilities and more time paying attention

[QUOTE=Bazsil;48718567]"I believe that a blanket ban on guns ... is the most effective way to reduce gun violence" so its effective if you ignore the part where it isn't...? maybe if you spent less time slinging hostilities and more time paying attention[/QUOTE] I said that a blanket ban on guns is the most effective, [i]if[/i] it could actually be implemented.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48717204]Most of the Republican nominees are for an AWB sadly.[/QUOTE] Wait, really?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48718579]I said that a blanket ban on guns is the most effective, [i]if[/i] it could actually be implemented.[/QUOTE] I whole-heartily cannot understand the logic behind this argument. It has never worked in any situation that it has ever been implemented in. I know how repeated this is, but it does hold some truth, but we have bans on drugs, yet I am pretty sure we have those being sold pretty frequently. As for weapons, lets blanket ban all knives that aren't made by Pampered Chef, that way people can only eat with them and not stab each other. Criminals definitely won't find a way to get them, or even go so far as to produce them. Bans are like cherry cough syrup. They don't really do shit except mask the symptoms, and everyone fucking hates them. Gun violence isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. It doesn't solve anything.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;48719799]I whole-heartily cannot understand the logic behind this argument. It has never worked in any situation that it has ever been implemented in. I know how repeated this is, but it does hold some truth, but we have bans on drugs, yet I am pretty sure we have those being sold pretty frequently. As for weapons, lets blanket ban all knives that aren't made by Pampered Chef, that way people can only eat with them and not stab each other. Criminals definitely won't find a way to get them, or even go so far as to produce them. Bans are like cherry cough syrup. They don't really do shit except mask the symptoms, and everyone fucking hates them. Gun violence isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. It doesn't solve anything.[/QUOTE] pretty certain he knows all of this which is why he literally said a ban could not be enacted for exactly these reasons [editline]19th September[/editline] i don't really see what's so hard to understand about this. he thinks a ban would be nice but A) it's impossible to do and B) even if it were plausible it would be the [I]last[/I] thing you do after probably several decades of continuous effort, you don't start with an AWB and then work your way back until it's effective.

[QUOTE=Cone;48719833]pretty certain he knows all of this which is why he literally said a ban could not be enacted for exactly these reasons [editline]19th September[/editline] i don't really see what's so hard to understand about this. he thinks a ban would be nice but A) it's impossible to do and B) even if it were plausible it would be the [I]last[/I] thing you do after probably several decades of continuous effort, you don't start with an AWB and then work your way back until it's effective.[/QUOTE] My point was if it is obviously implausible, then why are we arguing it anyways? The secondary point was taking guns away is not the solution, it's the people that need the attention. (Mental health, etc.) He seemed to be advocating for the removal of guns, even without a complete blanket ban.

[QUOTE=Morgen;48718259]What? The war in Afghanistan is nothing like this. They have a corrupt and shitty army with technology extremely dated by modern standards. The Afghanistan army was just propped up by the US for the longest time. The Taliban and everyone else also controlled the areas for a long time and had time to build infrastructure.[/QUOTE]Way to completely miss the point, even after I clarified what I meant [i]in the same post.[/i] Why don't you quote that too? I'm not talking about the ANA as an equivalent to an armed population so bringing them up is pointless, I'm talking about the peasants who take up fighting with obsolete weapons, no combat or logistical support, and absolutely no training. Most of the Taliban is not made up of these hardened badasses who were trained in some super secret terrorist camp and augmented by some mad scientist, they're just sadistic religious nutters. Meanwhile there's an active shooting culture in the US and a lot of "combat-oriented" activities that you might as well consider elite paramilitary training when you compare it to the years of [i]nothing[/i] most insurgents get. Why do you think US troops take to their training so quickly anyway? Years and years of video games, contact sports, and living in a culture that more or less romanticizes military life is probably a good place to start if you want to answer that. Hell, teaching recruits how to do [i]pushups and jumping jacks[/i] is a task in itself for the US trainers of the ANA. [QUOTE=Morgen;48718259]In a modern war vs the US government you have mass surveillance, drones, missiles, competent ground forces and probably all sorts of other state of the art technology not available to civilians yet.[/QUOTE]Most of what the military uses is almost the exact same as commercial equipment, they don't have some super duper secret gear. That's bullshit you see in movies and in video games, it's not actually true aside from some really specific things. [QUOTE=Morgen;48718259]Good luck winning a war with no infrastructure, less technology, less training, the enemy having surveillance literally everywhere and the inability to securely communicate over a long distance.[/QUOTE]Hm, seems like insurgencies around the world manage just fine and, again, the vast majority of people who would join in an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government are [b]military veterans.[/b] Unless the military sucks the training and experience out of their heads when they collect that EAS check, your argument doesn't really hold water. [QUOTE=Morgen;48718259]The only way the US citizens would win over the government would be sheer numbers and when you get to that point it doesn't matter if you have guns or not because you can overwhelm them with sheer numbers regardless.[/QUOTE]So wait, all that "advanced military technology" doesn't count anymore in this part of your argument but it does everywhere else? Why couldn't a slightly smaller force [i]with guns[/i] do the same thing? I mean, if guns are so terrible then why wouldn't that work? See here's where the argument falls apart again. So either guns are these magic boomsticks that can enable normal untrained people to kill hundreds of innocent people, or they're simple weapons that don't make a difference so you have to pick one of these mutually exclusive points to make. Either way both statements are detached from reality so I don't care which one you go with. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] oh and I forgot something: There would be elements of the military who would join in the rebellion.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48720099] oh and I forgot something: There would be elements of the military who would join in the rebellion.[/QUOTE] I would venture to say that if it ever got to the point of full out rebellion then a large chunk of the military would defect.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48718579]I said that a blanket ban on guns is the most effective, [I]if[/I] it could actually be implemented.[/QUOTE] Something being impossible to implement is like the definition of not being effective. It's like saying that the most effective way to stop theft is to get rid of all scarcity, if it could actually be implemented. I mean, sure, but it's a totally useless statement.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48719631]Wait, really?[/QUOTE] Yup. I'd say atleast 75% of them are for having an Assault Weapon Ban, and all the major Democrat nominees such as Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden are for high capacity magazine bans, bullet buttons, and no pistol grips.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48721176]Yup. I'd say atleast 75% of them are for having an Assault Weapon Ban, and all the major Democrat nominees such as Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden are for high capacity magazine bans, bullet buttons, [B][U][I]and no pistol grips[/I][/U][/B].[/QUOTE] How is this even a thing ;-; [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;48716886]American obsession with firearms which borders on being downright sexually fetishistic.[/QUOTE] Every time it comes down to sexual fetishes for some dumb reason Seriously where does this idea even come from? maybe YOU can fit your dick down a gun barrel but this is untrue for the rest of us

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48719631]Wait, really?[/QUOTE] Gotta earn dem brownie points, son.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48720553]Something being impossible to implement is like the definition of not being effective. It's like saying that the most effective way to stop theft is to get rid of all scarcity, if it could actually be implemented. I mean, sure, but it's a totally useless statement.[/QUOTE] It's worked in many countries, hence it can be effective. However, it cannot be employed in the US because guns are too deeply ingrained in American culture. [editline]20th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;48719900]My point was if it is obviously implausible, then why are we arguing it anyways? The secondary point was taking guns away is not the solution, it's the people that need the attention. (Mental health, etc.) He seemed to be advocating for the removal of guns, even without a complete blanket ban.[/QUOTE] No, I put forth my arguments why removing guns is a good thing, but it can't be done in the US because people love their guns too damn much.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48723257]It's worked in many countries, hence it can be effective. However, it cannot be employed in the US because guns are too deeply ingrained in American culture.[/QUOTE] We're talking about the US. So what I said still applies.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48723268]We're talking about the US. So what I said still applies.[/QUOTE] I know? I never argued for a gun ban in the US. I said that I think a gun ban is a good thing, but one that the US will never be able to have because of certain reasons.

[QUOTE=DuCT;48720530]I would venture to say that if it ever got to the point of full out rebellion then a large chunk of the military would defect.[/QUOTE]Honestly over half likely would, most of the military is right-leaning and the "oathkeepers" movement is pretty strong in and outside the military. Those types are the ones who would absolutely lose their shit if the government tried to do something inappropriate. All of that aside, it's pretty obvious the government isn't interested at all in fucking with the citizens. There was an armed standoff between armed citizens and federal agents during that whole Bundy vs BLM thing and the government was like, "actually no, this is stupid, we're out of here." A truly tyrannical government would have likely opened fire, and if the protesters were unarmed they would have [i]definitely[/i] lost, so the 2nd Amendment does work. (even if Bundy was absolutely in the wrong and dodging his taxes like an asshole)

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48714735]I personally believe that if you are commiting a crime with a weapon, with said weapon used as a tool of intimidation it should definitely add to your punishment. Granted if the weapon is on your body when you are doing something like a house breakin, it should also count against you. But if it's something like... Oh I was smoking pot and I had a gun on me. That's pretty shotty. Context is needed, but I believe it's a good idea to reintroduce Project Exile across the country. Also another thing which caught my interest was the mention of how the only people with mental illnesses that need to be dealt with are realistically the unstable and violent rather then the cleansweeping regulations that goes against anyone under a certain alignment. IIRC, some of the current nominees actually called for expanded background checks that disallow those with PTSD from owning firearms.[/QUOTE] That would make acknowledging, diagnosing and treating PTSD a conflict of interest to owning guns. A lot of veterans would be put in a bad spot becaue of this, because they'd rather tough out whatever's going wrong with their head then lose their right to weapons.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48716621]I can see it in the case of hunting rifles/shotguns. I mean, anything can be a deadly weapon if you know how to use it. There are several things we must contemplate when talking about gun control. The first is do guns serve a practical purpose outside of their intended purpose (which is killing people, let's not sugarcoat it). For many firearms, that is a yes. Hunting is an important staple of American society that serves a valuable ecological role. It keeps the natural order in balance as a lack of natural predators would lead to unsustainable populations among many animals. However, some guns do not fulfill this purpose. Civilian versions of military weapons are not really practical for hunting, but the biggest offender (and the one that the Department of Justice says is involved in [URL="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf"]90% of nonfatal firearm crime and 70-80% firearm homicides[/URL]) is the handgun. Handguns are impractical for hunting for numerous reasons and really only exist to incapacitate or kill individuals. Considering the vast majority of firearm-related crimes are committed with handguns, maybe they are the subject that needs the most reproach? Let's take into account another factor. Mass shootings in the US tend to captivate the media but a majority of firearm-related crime and homicide does not qualify as a mass shooting. Usually firearm homicide is targeted at one or several specific individuals. Referencing that report again, the individuals most likely to be involved in a firearm homicide are black males ages 18 to 24. That group is one of the poorest in our society, and a number of social factors like drugs, gang violence, and poverty play a significant role in the crimes they commit. So to bring us to a conclusion, how does gun control fit into all this? Well, outright bans on weapons doesn't seem to have any real affect on crime rates, positive or negative. It doesn't seem to matter a great deal in major metropolitan areas were illegal firearms are abundant for purchase. Chicago had effectively banned handguns prior to 2010. Throughout the 21st Century, their crime rates decreased, indicating a potential drop due to the ban. However, federal courts overturned the ban in 2010, yet crime rates [URL="https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf"]still decreased (pg. 14)[/URL]. This trend seems to be independent of the ban, as crime rates have [URL="http://crime.chicagotribune.com/"]continued to decline[/URL] even without the ban. So if the ban is ineffectual, what helps? During the 21st Century, America had a variety of federal court rulings and legislation passed. Most of these validated American's right to own and carry a weapon, but some legislation put more stringent background checks for potential gun owners. Throughout the 21st Century, firearm-related crime rates have steadily decreased from a high in 1993. The difficulty is that America was in an objectively better socio-economic position in 1993, so in theory gun violence should have been [I]down[/I] due to less socio-economic pressure on the impoverished group mentioned above. Despite a worsening of conditions since 1993 for many Americans, firearm crime rates have decreased. This displays several current trends. The first is that our police forces receive far more funding, which has been increasing their effectiveness in halting these crimes and possibly acting a deterrent. The second is that the legislation passed is actually effectual. Taking all of this into account, I believe that gun control through the means of banning weapons is not a solution. We have evidence in the past that it is largely independent of gun-related crime and mostly harms legal gun owners. However, background checks, especially where mental health is involved, are still limited due to privacy protections. You cannot fairly determine if your customer has a mental illness or has had one, and thus you cannot be sure what their state of mind is. I think this would cut down on the number of mass shootings that occur. However, to really combat the problem, we need to target the most important -yet unspoken- element of gun crime: gun culture. Firearms are ingrained into American culture in a way few items are, and that becomes problematic and many view firearms as more than a tool. Our reverence of firearms is the problem in and of itself. I think disarming America starts with our acceptance that firearms are not toys or collectibles but something to be treated seriously. It is important to remember that the majority of firearms used in gun crimes are legally purchased according to the Department of Justice, despite the reduction in legally purchased firearms in gun crimes in recent years. I would also like to point out the insipidity of basing our laws entirely off of a 200 year old document written in a vastly different time by people who could be just as incorrect as the rest of us. Taking the Constitution as unequivocal fact is damaging due to its vagueness. The different conditions of the 18th century must also make us question whether the Second Amendment is even applicable in a world where one gun can kill tens of individuals while being lightweight and concealable, as back in the 18th century firearms were far, far more limited in their capacity to kill. I cannot personally claim to have all the answers, but hopefully the facts presented in my post can be useful to some. As a personal conclusion, I believe that firearms do need stricter regulation in some way, but to fix the issue we must reconcile the issues from which gun crime stems; poverty, inequality, racism, drug abuse, and gang violence. Each of these issues has their own solutions I may propose, but this is not the post to do so. [editline]potato[/editline] And concerning Trump; don't vote for this asshole just because of his stance of gun control. There are far more important issues affecting the United States today than whether or not you get to own an AR-15. You should be worried about our abhorrent wages, lack of worker protections, anti-union crusade, rampant inequality, increasingly expensive healthcare and college education, and a decreasingly wealthy society. Guns are an extremely minute issue in the grand puzzle that is America, and to let them define your vote is nothing more than pure idiocy.[/QUOTE] You put an awful lot of effort into this. The reasoning for the second amendment was really quite simple. It even explains it in the wording of the amendment itself. Because a government backed military force is a necessity for a nation to function, the people should also own guns. They included it because we had just fought a war against the militia. While the British regulars were also present, a massive percentage were local loyalist forces. They viewed the militia (now the national guard) as a necessary evil for maintaining order and defense, but they also knew that it was a weapon that would be turned on the people if the government ever descended into corruption. They safe guarded against this by also arming the people. Hunting implements being banned would have never even crossed their mind. That was just straight up how much of America fed their families. They were safe guarding armaments. Things you use to kill people specifically. Corruption is hardly something that has disappeared in the past 200 years. You can talk about how air strikes and tanks would crush people wielding small arms, but the truth of the matter is one we have had to learn time and time again in warfare: you need people on the ground. Without people on the ground, you don't have control. You can't enforce laws or collect taxes. You aren't a government without people. All that said: fuck trump. I'd sooner melt all my guns into slag than vote for that shitlord.