• Up to 53% of Americans believe background checks for guns could lead to confiscation of legally owne
    130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HkSniper;40192209]Why do they keep bringing up background checks? Most people buy their firearms through an FFL in which you already do a background check. What more do they want? For people to be pulled into a back room with mirrors and FBI agents interrogating you?[/QUOTE] Private sales
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40190346]Because the US government has a very extensive history of doing shady bullshit and lying to the public and eventually causes us issues in the future because of it (literally everything the US did in the cold war). For some, it's not a very big stretch that they would do something sinister involving US citizens, like attacking them with predator drones.[/QUOTE] "oh my god guys the drones are bad, the us is going to kill us all with remote control airplanes, im going to need my guns to fight the government when they kill us with remote control airplanes ohmygooooooddddddd obamas the antichrist and gays are taking over" I actually know people who think like that, and two of them read info wars and worship that fat fuck alex jones. Why people? Why do you think like this? Even more so why worry yourself with it? Even if in some fucking conservatives fan fic of liberals your collections are taken away why is it suddenly cause for revolution? To be perfectly honest I love my guns for sport and hunting. Why is it when a back ground check comes into play everyone believes the guns will go away? Do you need to be hiding something? If not then just TAKE THE FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK. God this country is overflowing with nonsensical bullshit.
I always wondered what the average gun owner is likely to be able to do should the government start shooting their own citizens. That seems to be something people bring up a lot in these cases - we need guns to protect ourselves from the government - but what's an AR-15 likely to do against a tank, or a predator drone, or a flight of F-15s, or an infantry company?
A revolution won't happen anytime soon, bar economic collapse and/or insane wealth inequality.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;40194431]I always wondered what the average gun owner is likely to be able to do should the government start shooting their own citizens. That seems to be something people bring up a lot in these cases - we need guns to protect ourselves from the government - but what's an AR-15 likely to do against a tank, or a predator drone, or a flight of F-15s, or an infantry company?[/QUOTE] If you are a quote on quote normal person you SHOULD NOT be thinking that you need guns to protect against your government. Jesus Christ, its like the above top secret looney bin is leaking over.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;40190757]Come here to Illinois and look at how many ex-politicians are in jail. Hint: it's a lot.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.jumbojoke.com/images/illinois-tag.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40190666]I don't believe gunshows require a background check because of some loophole about it being between two private citizens instead of a shop owner to a consumer.[/QUOTE] I bought a rifle yesterday at a gun show. There were signs around the place saying NICS BACKGROUND CHECKS MANDATORY. I had to wait fifteen minutes while they called and ran the check, then I had to present the documentation when leaving with the rifle. This gun show loophole really does not exist. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;40194431]I always wondered what the average gun owner is likely to be able to do should the government start shooting their own citizens. That seems to be something people bring up a lot in these cases - we need guns to protect ourselves from the government - but what's an AR-15 likely to do against a tank, or a predator drone, or a flight of F-15s, or an infantry company?[/QUOTE] Predator drones can't patrol city streets. Tanks can't search buildings room-by-room. In any martial law scenario it falls to police and infantry to do the dirty work, and rifles will do the job. You may notice that even without the benefit of tanks or aircraft, insurgents have been quite effective at killing US personnel overseas. [QUOTE=ColdWave;40194475]If you are a quote on quote normal person you SHOULD NOT be thinking that you need guns to protect against your government. Jesus Christ, its like the above top secret looney bin is leaking over.[/QUOTE] Look, regardless of how you feel about that purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it's asinine to say that the government [I]could never possibly a hundred years from now[/I] turn tyrannical. It took Germany less than twenty years to go from a republic to a fascist dictatorship that, predictably, banned guns. Or what, do you suppose that if the government does start to overstep their bounds, they'll graciously give back gun rights so that they can be kept in check by their people? The point of keeping the rights now is that once taken, they'll never be returned, especially if or when they're actually needed.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;40193428]I [U][B]only[/B][/U] distrust the Harper government.[/QUOTE] So you trust a government who sent the military to occupy one of its own cities during peacetime? You trust a government who was propping itself up on illegal corporate sponsorship? You trust a government that lied about instating a tax upon its people, and then a government who lied about repealing it? You trust a government that enacted policy based on knee-jerk emotion rather than factual evidence? You trust a government who included in our national constitution a way for the government to circumvent our constitution to give it the ability to make a law that violates our charter rights? You trust a party who plans on, if elected, ruining our economy, and another party who is planning to elect a leader due to their name rather than any achievement or political merit? And as a personal note, I distrust 2 parties because they campaign on a platform that involves stealing from me, and a potential 2-4 million other Canadians. I don't trust any government we've had in my or my parents' lifetimes, nor any prospective future government that may be elected. All of these governments have done dishonest, distrustful, and/or downright reprehensible things, and I see little hope for the future of that changing. I am also of the belief that distrust of the government is actually one of the fundaments of democracy, that distrust should breed an honest government that is always trying to earn the trust and support of its people. If a government believes it is trusted, it can become arrogant and/or overzealous, if a dishonest government believes it is trusted, it can breed further dishonesty. Gaining support from the people does not necessarily also mean the government has also gained their trust, and especially nowadays it more means that the chosen party is believed to be the least dishonest or corrupt of the choices, rather than the most honest or most trustworthy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40194788] Predator drones can't patrol city streets. Tanks can't search buildings room-by-room. In any martial law scenario it falls to police and infantry to do the dirty work, and rifles will do the job. You may notice that even without the benefit of tanks or aircraft, insurgents have been quite effective at killing US personnel overseas. [/QUOTE] yeah i guess if a rate of 5,000 per 10 years is what you call effective. the us is clearly on the verge of losing the war in afghanistan because of such huge losses. [quote] Look, regardless of how you feel about that purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it's asinine to say that the government [I]could never possibly a hundred years from now[/I] turn tyrannical. It took Germany less than twenty years to go from a republic to a fascist dictatorship that, predictably, banned guns. Or what, do you suppose that if the government does start to overstep their bounds, they'll graciously give back gun rights so that they can be kept in check by their people? The point of keeping the rights now is that once taken, they'll never be returned, especially if or when they're actually needed.[/QUOTE] lol [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40196266]So you trust a government who sent the military to occupy one of its own cities during peacetime? You trust a government who was propping itself up on illegal corporate sponsorship? You trust a government that lied about instating a tax upon its people, and then a government who lied about repealing it? You trust a government that enacted policy based on knee-jerk emotion rather than factual evidence? You trust a government who included in our national constitution a way for the government to circumvent our constitution to give it the ability to make a law that violates our charter rights? You trust a party who plans on, if elected, ruining our economy, and another party who is planning to elect a leader due to their name rather than any achievement or political merit? And as a personal note, I distrust 2 parties because they campaign on a platform that involves stealing from me, and a potential 2-4 million other Canadians. I don't trust any government we've had in my or my parents' lifetimes, nor any prospective future government that may be elected. All of these governments have done dishonest, distrustful, and/or downright reprehensible things, and I see little hope for the future of that changing. I am also of the belief that distrust of the government is actually one of the fundaments of democracy, that distrust should breed an honest government that is always trying to earn the trust and support of its people. If a government believes it is trusted, it can become arrogant and/or overzealous, if a dishonest government believes it is trusted, it can breed further dishonesty. Gaining support from the people does not necessarily also mean the government has also gained their trust, and especially nowadays it more means that the chosen party is believed to be the least dishonest or corrupt of the choices, rather than the most honest or most trustworthy.[/QUOTE] lol
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;40194431]I always wondered what the average gun owner is likely to be able to do should the government start shooting their own citizens. That seems to be something people bring up a lot in these cases - we need guns to protect ourselves from the government - but what's an AR-15 likely to do against a tank, or a predator drone, or a flight of F-15s, or an infantry company?[/QUOTE] Because the US has no history of being fucked by less technologically advanced insurgent groups right? And that definitely wouldn't be magnified by soldiers refusing to or outright turning against a military which would harm its own citizens. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;40196529]yeah i guess if a rate of 5,000 per 10 years is what you call effective. the us is clearly on the verge of losing the war in afghanistan because of such huge losses. lol [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] lol[/QUOTE] lol
[QUOTE=zakedodead;40196774]Because the US has no history of being fucked by less technologically advanced insurgent groups right? And that definitely wouldn't be magnified by soldiers refusing to or outright turning against a military which would harm its own citizens.[/QUOTE] It's not like a lot of people probably wouldn't even care if guns were banned.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40196792]It's not like a lot of people probably wouldn't even care if guns were banned.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of people who don't care about the fourth amendment being violated, does that mean it's right?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;40196858]There's a lot of people who don't care about the fourth amendment being violated, does that mean it's right?[/QUOTE] No the point is that a revolution wouldn't happen. Most people don't give a shit about guns enough to overthrow the government if they banned guns. It's a fallacy based on the assumption that the entire population, as a collective force with a single goal, would overthrow the government and replace it solely due to that.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;40196774]Because the US has no history of being fucked by less technologically advanced insurgent groups right? And that definitely wouldn't be magnified by soldiers refusing to or outright turning against a military which would harm its own citizens.[/QUOTE] this demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of the vietnam afghani and iraqi conflicts all at once great job
watch out guys joe sixpack is gonna shoot up the local police station because the government didn't let him put accessory rails on his remington 700 ~freedom towards fascism~
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40197252]No the point is that a revolution wouldn't happen. Most people don't give a shit about guns enough to overthrow the government if they banned guns. It's a fallacy based on the assumption that the entire population, as a collective force with a single goal, would overthrow the government and replace it solely due to that.[/QUOTE] Did I ever suggest a revolt would happen over guns themselves?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;40197744]Did I ever suggest a revolt would happen over guns themselves?[/QUOTE] Well there's your answer. Not much would really happen if guns were banned in that case.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40196266]So you trust a government who sent the military to occupy one of its own cities during peacetime?[/QUOTE] Yes. I do. Trudeau was 100% in the right to do that. When you have a terrorist cell actively going out and killing diplomats, something [U]has[/U] to be done. 89% of English Canadians supported it, and 86% of French speaking Canadians supported it. The people who were arrested were paid damages to. It had to be done as a show of force. [QUOTE]You trust a government who was propping itself up on illegal corporate sponsorship?[/QUOTE]It was that one time.[QUOTE] You trust a government that lied about instating a tax upon its people, and then a government who lied about repealing it?[/QUOTE] ? [QUOTE]You trust a government that enacted policy based on knee-jerk emotion rather than factual evidence?[/QUOTE]See: Harper Government[QUOTE]You trust a government who included in our national constitution a way for the government to circumvent our constitution to give it the ability to make a law that violates our charter rights?[/QUOTE] :tinfoil: [QUOTE]You trust a party who plans on, if elected, ruining our economy, and another party who is planning to elect a leader [B]due to their name[/B] rather than any achievement or political merit?[/QUOTE] Trudeau is great, idgaf about the NDP. Trudeau says he wants 70% of Canadians University or college educated. He's not going to fuck with the west to get votes in the east, that means we still have the tar sands to make us some oil. He puts the passion in the normally dull Canadian politics. But really, the leadership race is about picking someone who can lead the party. Deon and Ignatieff were very poor leaders, they knew a lot, but they were not appealing to the public. I won't deny that Trudeau is a charismatic leader, but that's what the Liberal party needs to have to succeed, and I think having Trudeau as prime minister would make Canada a better country. [QUOTE]And as a personal note, I distrust 2 parties because they campaign on a platform that involves stealing from me, and a potential 2-4 million other Canadians.[/QUOTE] By "Stealing" do you mean tax increases? Taxes are not, and will never be stealing. [QUOTE]I don't trust any government we've had in my or my parents' lifetimes, nor any prospective future government that may be elected. All of these governments have done dishonest, distrustful, and/or downright reprehensible things, and I see little hope for the future of that changing. I am also of the belief that distrust of the government is actually one of the fundaments of democracy, that distrust should breed an honest government that is always trying to earn the trust and support of its people. If a government believes it is trusted, it can become arrogant and/or overzealous, if a dishonest government believes it is trusted, it can breed further dishonesty. Gaining support from the people does not necessarily also mean the government has also gained their trust, and especially nowadays it more means that the chosen party is believed to be the least dishonest or corrupt of the choices, rather than the most honest or most trustworthy.[/QUOTE] We'll get far less done in Canada if we choose not to trust anyone, we are more valuable working together.
If you're worried about getting a background check then you shouldn't be having a gun in the first place
i dont understand the argument against either, cars can be used to kill dozens of people, we need to have a registry of who owns cars, car owners cannot sell a car without transfering a title of ownership, the beureau of motor vehicles keeps a national registry of who owns motor vehicles, they aren't gonna take them away anytime soon, why shouldnt the ATF have the ability to do something similar....
[QUOTE=Sableye;40198141]i dont understand the argument against either, cars can be used to kill dozens of people, we need to have a registry of who owns cars, car owners cannot sell a car without transfering a title of ownership, the beureau of motor vehicles keeps a national registry of who owns motor vehicles, they aren't gonna take them away anytime soon, why shouldnt the ATF have the ability to do something similar....[/QUOTE] Because somehow if you ban automobiles, an automotive industry will spring out of nowhere to provide cars of decent quality. Or if you ban alcohol, an alcohol industry will spring out of nowhere that certainly won't use antifreeze in the products.
Car registration is for public road usage, you don't need to register your vehicle if you don't use it on public roads. Not equivalent. Background checks are a good thing. Mandatory registration isn't, both in theory and when we have actual examples like new york where politicians were considering confiscation. Not trusting the government is not the same as paranoia, and all your crazy redneck anecdotes won't change that
[QUOTE=HkSniper;40192209]Why do they keep bringing up background checks? Most people buy their firearms through an FFL in which you already do a background check. What more do they want? For people to be pulled into a back room with mirrors and FBI agents interrogating you?[/QUOTE] source on "most people buy from FFL" and the reason we want federally mandated background checks is because i can get an AK at the gun show for $400 cash in hand, no questions asked. i've done it before and seen it happen a million times so don't bullshit me with some shit about how i'm lying
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;40198019]Yes. I do. Trudeau was 100% in the right to do that. When you have a terrorist cell actively going out and killing diplomats, something [U]has[/U] to be done. 89% of English Canadians supported it, and 86% of French speaking Canadians supported it. The people who were arrested were paid damages to. It had to be done as a show of force. [/quote] I think it was absolutely deplorable. We have a national police force for a reason, the only time a military force should be deployed in its own country is if there is an invasion. [quote]It was that one time.[/quote] And that somehow makes it okay? [quote]?[/quote] Brian Mulroney's GST and Chretien's campaign pledge to eliminate it. [quote]See: Harper Government[/quote] Don't disagree, but See Also: Jean Chretien [quote]:tinfoil:[/quote] Look up Section 33 of the Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause. It allows the government to enact a law that will remain in place for at least 5 years that can be notwithstanding Section 2 and/or 7-15 of the Charter. That allows them to make a law that disregards our fundamental freedoms and/or our legal rights and/or equality rights. [quote]Trudeau is great, idgaf about the NDP. Trudeau says he wants 70% of Canadians University or college educated. He's not going to fuck with the west to get votes in the east, that means we still have the tar sands to make us some oil. He puts the passion in the normally dull Canadian politics. But really, the leadership race is about picking someone who can lead the party. Deon and Ignatieff were very poor leaders, they knew a lot, but they were not appealing to the public. I won't deny that Trudeau is a charismatic leader, but that's what the Liberal party needs to have to succeed, and I think having Trudeau as prime minister would make Canada a better country.[/quote] I think, personally, he has little to no valuable experience that will make him a good leader. He's charismatic, yes, but that doesn't give him or his platform substance, nor does it warrant trust. I do respect him for not trying to fuck over the west, though. It's also plainly obvious that this leadership "race" is a farce, he was destined to win from the beginning simply because of his father, he was practically appointed leader of the Liberal party before the race even began. I have no doubt he'll win leadership, but I don't really think he's done anything to deserve it. Personally, I believe Mark Garneau would have made a better leader for the liberals. I don't think Trudeau will lead Canada to becoming a "better" country, though I'm not sure if he'd lead it to become a worse one. There are also economic and social problems that arise from his goal of education, higher educated people don't want to work low-skilled or low-income jobs. It can lead people to be rather irate working a job they don't want, it can lead to very vicious hiring practices and volatile workplaces, it can demolish the idea of job security, and it can lead to higher unemployment from people who will simply refuse to work a job they hate, or that they feel is "beneath" them. Not to say it's not a noble goal, but it also isn't without its drawbacks. We don't have a country set up for a highly educated workforce in all sectors, and that can lead to this country becoming a very unhappy place, as well as diminishing the value of a Canadian degree both nationally and internationally, and could lead to significant emigration as Canadians attempt to find higher paying jobs for their education level internationally. [quote]By "Stealing" do you mean tax increases? Taxes are not, and will never be stealing.[/quote] As much as I'm going to be called a paranoid fuck for this by some people, and/or told "I don't care/get over it," no, not taxes, the Liberals and NDP have or have had it in their campaign platforms to ban handguns and semi-automatic rifles, and the NDP have admitted to wanting to re-instate the gun registry, and Trudeau supported it, so I'm extremely skeptical of his claim that he won't reintroduce it. With such bans inevitably, as in 1995, or in Britain/Australia, comes confiscation. The government could enact a ban and demand that you hand in your gun or be arrested, with no compensation, as they do now. That is tantamount to theft, "Give it to us or you'll be arrested." Even if a buyback was proposed, there are going to be guns that people will never get the full value out of, so even if they get $500 for a gun that was, a few months ago, worth $1500 on the market, the government has effectively stolen $1000 from that person. I will not support a government that intends to do what I view as steal from me, nor the 2 million other licensed firearms owners in Canada, nor the estimated 2 million who have owned guns since before 1995 and neglected to get a license. [quote]We'll get far less done in Canada if we choose not to trust anyone, we are more valuable working together.[/QUOTE] Democracy is divisive in nature, especially FPTP. There are going to be things that we will never see eye-to-eye on. And as much as we can attempt work together as a nation, that doesn't mean we need to trust each other, or our politicians, to be able to get things done. Even if I were to be elected PM, I'd encourage people not to trust me, to question everything me and my party would do, to make it as transparent as possible. That doesn't mean nothing would get done, but it would mean people would know more about what we're doing. It would lead, in my opinion, to a more transparent and honest government. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] Also, I don't trust Harper either, I think I should note that. I'm not claiming he's trustworthy and other parties aren't, I'm claiming they're not trustworthy either.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40190666]I don't believe gunshows require a background check because of some loophole about it being between two private citizens instead of a shop owner to a consumer.[/QUOTE] My father bought a pistol at a gun show in Tampa and they had to do a background check first. It may have been a stall set up by a gun store, however.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40197252]No the point is that a revolution wouldn't happen. Most people don't give a shit about guns enough to overthrow the government if they banned guns. It's a fallacy based on the assumption that the entire population, as a collective force with a single goal, would overthrow the government and replace it solely due to that.[/QUOTE] Also it's been proven in the latest revolutions around the world, that the key to a successful revolt is instant and efficient communication. So the american people should be more concerned about anything limiting the freedom of communication rather than freedom to own and bear arms. Wack priorities.
I wonder how much the average gun owner spends on fire and carbon monoxide alarms.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;40199862]I wonder how much the average gun owner spends on fire and carbon monoxide alarms.[/QUOTE] We just replaced ours last week, they were after their 10 year lifetime. Cost around $200 to replace all... 9 i think we have?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;40199873]We just replaced ours last week, they were after their 10 year lifetime. Cost around $200 to replace all... 9 i think we have?[/QUOTE] worth every cent
[QUOTE=NoDachi;40199862]I wonder how much the average gun owner spends on fire and carbon monoxide alarms.[/QUOTE] ordinary certified fire alarms aren't expensive. expect to spend more on the damn batteries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.