Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

And a person that's armed and prevents people from entering or exiting, while dealing with violent situations and such, is technically a guard or a watch.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39246667]And if it's for self defense, well there's a rising amount of alternatives in the last decade or two.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what the alternatives are. Infringing on an unalienable right isn't justified because there are alternatives.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39246667]And if it's for self defense, well there's a rising amount of alternatives in the last decade or two.[/QUOTE] Self-defense is largely about deterrence. If a criminal knows a citizen is armed, chances are he is likely to commit a crime against him/her than if he/she had a taser or some pepper spray.

you know how most of the arguments here go "but why do you NEED assault weapons" and then the pro-gun nerds respond "why do you NEED anything? its fun, you can collect them, etc" can someone explain to me how that argument in response is anything but completely abysmal?? dangerous things are controlled even though some people could probably use them responsibly, because they are still generally dangerous!! you can't just buy anthrax to add to your collection because you love microorganisms, you can't just fly an armed attack helicopter to your job because you find it fun, you can't speed in your car because it's what you enjoy doing, they are each dangerous things, and they are against the law. what makes guns different??

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246766]you know how most of the arguments here go "but why do you NEED assault weapons" and then the pro-gun nerds respond "why do you NEED anything? its fun, you can collect them, etc" can someone explain to me how that argument in response is anything but completely abysmal?? dangerous things are controlled even though some people could probably use them responsibly, because they are still generally dangerous!! you can't just buy anthrax to add to your collection because you love microorganisms, you can't just fly an armed attack helicopter to your job because you find it fun, you can't speed in your car because it's what you enjoy doing, they are each dangerous things, and they are against the law. what makes guns different??[/QUOTE] An important founding document called the bill of rights. A gun is only a weapon if you use it as such.

I know the argument is "if the government becomes tyrannical", but what if I don't subscribe to that nonsense? In this world I don't think a government like the US or any developed country can "rebel" or have real tyranny anymore. Undeveloped counties maybe, but not developed ones. Does anyone know an actual right answer to gun control? We can't ban all because that just won't work, we can't not do anything or give more guns out, that's what the problem is. What's the best way to reduce gun injuries and deaths? Why can't we just figure that out, with no idea that's too crazy off the table, if we can prove it works? If we ban most guns, and that actually works, then I want that, if we somehow get more guns into good hands, and that works, then we should do that. tl;dr: What's the actual solution?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246758]It doesn't matter what the alternatives are. Infringing on an unalienable right isn't justified because there are alternatives.[/QUOTE] I literally do not believe that semi-automatic weapons are an inalienable right. They did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written.

the actual solution has little to do with gun control

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246832]I literally do not believe that semi-automatic weapons are an inalienable right. They did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written.[/QUOTE] Neither did the internet. You can still say what you want though.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246766]you know how most of the arguments here go "but why do you NEED assault weapons" and then the pro-gun nerds respond "why do you NEED anything? its fun, you can collect them, etc" can someone explain to me how that argument in response is anything but completely abysmal?? dangerous things are controlled even though some people could probably use them responsibly, because they are still generally dangerous!! you can't just buy anthrax to add to your collection because you love microorganisms, you can't just fly an armed attack helicopter to your job because you find it fun, you can't speed in your car because it's what you enjoy doing, they are each dangerous things, and they are against the law. what makes guns different??[/QUOTE] Because these so-called "assault weapons" that they are trying to ban are in absolutely no-way more lethal than other firearms. They only [B]look[/B] different. An armed attack helicopter is much different than an ordinary civilian helicopter, in that it has weapons and targeting systems. Remove these, and you have an ordinary helicopter that you can own and operate. Banning "assault weapons" would not be anything like banning "armed attack helicopters" but like banning unarmed ones.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246796]An important founding document called the bill of rights. A gun is only a weapon if you use it as such.[/QUOTE] yo the bill of rights weren't a founding document, they were added to the constitution later as "amendments" this means they can be changed and repealed when they grow out of date, like the 19th amendment and no duh there are lots of objects that can be weapons if you use them maliciously, but otherwise serve other useful purposes. but guns are so incredibly easy to use maliciously, and serve no other purpose besides violence (sometimes to animals, sometimes to targets in order to practice)

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246766]you know how most of the arguments here go "but why do you NEED assault weapons" and then the pro-gun nerds respond "why do you NEED anything? its fun, you can collect them, etc"[/QUOTE] The reason behind this has been stated multiple times by literally every 'pro-gun nerd.' A rifle is just as effective whether or not it posses a rail mount or wood, flash hider or barren barrel, pistol-grip or standard rifle stock. This legislation will do literally nothing to curb crime or murder rates, and is just inconveniencing us decent folk. As a matter of a fact the last time we had an AWB the FBI stated it didn't help crime and it will be no different now. [link:[url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime][/url] By the way it helps you're argument if you don't alienate or discredit the other side based on personal bias.

[QUOTE=patq911;39246798] tl;dr: What's the actual solution?[/QUOTE] the actual solution is a composite of multiple solutions including further restrictions on access to semi-automatic weapons (particularly handguns), better public mental healthcare, better school counseling, and regulations on the ways that media outlets can report on violent crime incidents

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246832]I literally do not believe that semi-automatic weapons are an inalienable right. They did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written.[/QUOTE] The government didn't have them either, though. The Second Amendment was written as a way to keep the citizens on even ground with the government. The government has them now, so do we. Not to mention that the government has fully automatic weapons and explosives and many other things citizens aren't allowed to have, nor do they need.

[QUOTE=patq911;39246798]I know the argument is "if the government becomes tyrannical", but what if I don't subscribe to that nonsense? In this world I don't think a government like the US or any developed country can "rebel" or have real tyranny anymore. Undeveloped counties maybe, but not developed ones. Does anyone know an actual right answer to gun control? We can't ban all because that just won't work, we can't not do anything or give more guns out, that's what the problem is. What's the best way to reduce gun injuries and deaths? Why can't we just figure that out, with no idea that's too crazy off the table, if we can prove it works? If we ban most guns, and that actually works, then I want that, if we somehow get more guns into good hands, and that works, then we should do that. tl;dr: What's the actual solution?[/QUOTE] yeah youre right banning all guns might be worse in the short run, but in the long run it will be MUCH better than giving more people CCWs if you really crack down on guns, you could severely diminish the gun population in a few decades, and it would be a MUCH smaller problem, like it is in most european countries

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39246842]Neither did the internet.[/QUOTE] I don't accept the implicit analogy you're making.

[QUOTE=patq911;39246798]I know the argument is "if the government becomes tyrannical", but what if I don't subscribe to that nonsense? In this world I don't think a government like the US or any developed country can "rebel" or have real tyranny anymore. Undeveloped counties maybe, but not developed ones.[/QUOTE] In the 1920s and 1930s, Adolf Hitler rose to power. (Yes, we all know this, I don't need to explain it). Mainly by fault of the punishments from the aftermath of World War 1, the people gave into a charasmatic man with a socialist agenda. He stripped the weapons away and burned the jews, ect. The point is, even though we see the decades of the early 20th centure (i.e 1920s and 1930s) a long time ago, for their time Germany was a developed, 1st world country that was turned socialst and tyrannical. [QUOTE=patq911;39246798]Does anyone know an actual right answer to gun control?[/QUOTE] There are many opinions, and here's mine: The gun control legislation we have in place is working- no minors can have weapons, no felons, and no mentally ill people, ect ect. [QUOTE=patq911;39246798]Why can't we just figure that out, with no idea that's too crazy off the table, if we can prove it works? If we ban most guns, and that actually works, then I want that, if we somehow get more guns into good hands, and that works, then we should do that.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately no solution will ever work 100% because there are always going to be people that beat the system and kill people.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39246882]The government didn't have them either, though. The Second Amendment was written as a way to keep the citizens on even ground with the government. The government has them now, so do we. Not to mention that the government has fully automatic weapons and explosives and many other things citizens aren't allowed to have, nor do they need.[/QUOTE] Yo, you just argued against your own point here.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39246865]The reason behind this has been stated multiple times by literally every 'pro-gun nerd.' A rifle is just as effective whether or not it posses a rail mount or wood, flash hider or barren barrel, pistol-grip or standard rifle stock. This legislation will do literally nothing to curb crime or murder rates, and is just inconveniencing us decent folk. As a matter of a fact the last time we had an AWB the FBI stated it didn't help crime and it will be no different now. [link:[url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime][/url] By the way it helps you're argument if you don't alienate or discredit the other side based on personal bias.[/QUOTE] alright look im gonna stop you there, im happy about this awb simply because it's a step towards banning ALL guns i dont give a shit that "assault weapon" isn't a real term or whatever, it's still yet another gun ban. the more the merrier

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246766]you know how most of the arguments here go "but why do you NEED assault weapons" and then the pro-gun nerds respond "why do you NEED anything? its fun, you can collect them, etc" can someone explain to me how that argument in response is anything but completely abysmal?? dangerous things are controlled even though some people could probably use them responsibly, because they are still generally dangerous!! you can't just buy anthrax to add to your collection because you love microorganisms, you can't just fly an armed attack helicopter to your job because you find it fun, you can't speed in your car because it's what you enjoy doing, they are each dangerous things, and they are against the law. what makes guns different??[/QUOTE] Ban skydiving. What's the point? It is just a silly dangerous thing that gets people killed for no reason. Ban football. What's the point? It's just a bunch of silly, fat guys pushing each other and throwing a ball that gets people killed for no reason. Ban sports cars. What's the point? Their just dangerous killing machines that are built for no reason. They waste resources and kill hundreds if not thousands of people a year for no reason. Actually, the more I look at the sports car comparison, the more I see how it compares almost exactly to this situation.

yep you're right banning guns is going to make them all disappear from the U.S.

[QUOTE=patq911;39246798]I know the argument is "if the government becomes tyrannical", but what if I don't subscribe to that nonsense? In this world I don't think a government like the US or any developed country can "rebel" or have real tyranny anymore. Undeveloped counties maybe, but not developed ones.[/QUOTE] This is true and it irks me when people try to put this forth as a legitimate argument. For every example of governments that have gone tyrannical right after enacting gun control (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Vietnam), there are more than twice as much nations that have enacted gun control and haven't became tyrannical shortly afterwards.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246891]I don't accept the implicit analogy you're making.[/QUOTE] Why not? I'm saying that the constitution is a purposely semi vague document that takes technological growth into account. The internet isnt expressly covered by the first amendment and you won't be censored or hauled away for your opinion when on it.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246895]In the 1920s and 1930s, Adolf Hitler rose to power. (Yes, we all know this, I don't need to explain it). Mainly by fault of the punishments from the aftermath of World War 1, the people gave into a charasmatic man with a socialist agenda. He stripped the weapons away and burned the jews, ect. The point is, even though we see the decades of the early 20th centure (i.e 1920s and 1930s) a long time ago, for their time Germany was a developed, 1st world country that was turned socialst and tyrannical. [/QUOTE] [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif[/img] ahahahahahaha go on... [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246895]In the 1920s and 1930s, Adolf Hitler rose to power. (Yes, we all know this, I don't need to explain it). Mainly by fault of the punishments from the aftermath of World War 1, the people gave into a charasmatic man with a socialist agenda. He stripped the weapons away and burned the jews, ect.[/QUOTE] and since then, there has been the geneva convention, the creation of the UN, and the rise of globalization. it would be impossible for a modern first world government to severely oppress its citizens to the point where their only solution would be to fight against the US army (even with guns that would be a monumentally stupid task) without foreigners stepping in for aid there is no use keeping guns around in case we want to revolt

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246936]and since then, there has been the geneva convention, the creation of the UN, and the rise of globalization. it would be impossible for a modern first world government to severely oppress its citizens to the point where their only solution would be to fight against the US army (even with guns that would be a monumentally stupid task) without foreigners stepping in for aid there is no use keeping guns around in case we want to revolt[/QUOTE] Now I'm not justifying anything but didn't Japan choose to not invade the U.S. during WW2 because they knew with all the guns we had it'd be suicide

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39246916]This is true and it irks me when people try to put this forth as a legitamte argument. For every example of governments that have gone tyrannical right after enacting gun control (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Vietnam), there are hundreds more present that contradict that.[/QUOTE] It depends on your definition of Tyrannical. The UK could be considered Tyrannical for extremely restricting access to firearms and simultaneously setting up a massive cctv network to monitor its citizens.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39246897]Yo, you just argued against your own point here.[/QUOTE] No, I didn't. My point was that "they didn't have semi-automatic rifles when the Bill of Rights was drafted" isn't an argument for why we should exclude them from the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246899]alright look im gonna stop you there, im happy about this awb simply because it's a step towards banning ALL guns i dont give a shit that "assault weapon" isn't a real term or whatever, it's still yet another gun ban. the more the merrier[/QUOTE] May I ask why you support all guns being banned? Do you not realize that the majority gun deaths and injuries result from people defending themselves? Also what is your opnion on thugs that rob people? Should be not have a simple means of defense against them, or should we just roll over and let people steal our watches and wallets?

Also Hitler didn't strip guns from the jews, he gave guns to the Nazis, there is a difference