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

[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] The reason we have them is because if we felt like it, we could fuck shit up. Weather or not its effective is yet to be determined, but with the government knowing we could fuck shit up, they mostly wouldn't start doing stupid shit.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39246913]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.[/QUOTE] no, skydiving is a recreational activity that does not put any but the skydiver at harm. guns are not, even an experienced gun-user could accidentally hurt someone football is a game that doesn't harm any spectators, only the guys on the field. plus they use enough safety equipment that most of the harm comes from long-term events sports cars are no more dangerous than regular cars, except for the fact that they can accelerate quickly to high speeds, which is already illegal. if you're saying all cars are dangerous and should be banned, you clearly didn't read the part where i said things that are dangerous, but serve an extremely important purpose are different from guns

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39246951]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] And would guns prevent the UK from being a nanny state (which isn't tyrannical)? What about Australia? I think gun-control is an absolutely idiotic way to skirt the issue and is simply tantamount to "feel-good legislation" and I don't even plan to own a firearm, but let's not have cognitive dissonance get in the way.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39246958]Also Hitler didn't strip guns from the jews, he gave guns to the Nazis, there is a difference[/QUOTE] And National Socialism isn't Socialism. It was a Nationalism and Social revolution party. The leader before hitler just fucked up the name.

I don't understand why people are okay with letting the government push them around and tell them what to do.. The government shouldn't tell us how to live our lives, what firearms we should own, how much MPG our cars should get, how much energy we should use. We aren't criminals, and we aren't subjects of the government. We are a free and sovereign people capable of deciding things on our own.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39246969]The reason we have them is because if we felt like it, we could fuck shit up. Weather or not its effective is yet to be determined, but with the government knowing we could fuck shit up, they mostly wouldn't start doing stupid shit.[/QUOTE] this is so far from the truth, its simply not based in reality the government does not even THINK about gun owners when they make every day decisions, you really think they dont mess things up because they're scared of getting shot???

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39246926]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] Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.

Disarming america really won't remove the guns. It's just going to leave criminals with weapons and turn many innocent gun owners into criminals as they refuse to give up their guns. So much of what this bill does isn't going to prevent crime because it's not restricting things that criminals have access too. It's just preventing legal citizens from acquiring weapons.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] Yeah I think the same could be said for the distribution of information. Back when the constitution was made, newspapers were monthly things. Now there's hourly news.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246980]sports cars are no more dangerous than regular cars, except for the fact that they can accelerate quickly to high speeds, which is already illegal. if you're saying all cars are dangerous and should be banned, you clearly didn't read the part where i said things that are dangerous, but serve an extremely important purpose are different from guns[/QUOTE] I didn't say that though. And no, sports car are designed to go extremely fast and offer nothing but death and destruction to our kids.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246980]no, skydiving is a recreational activity[/QUOTE] An experienced skydiver can die. [QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39246980]guns are not[/QUOTE] Shooting is a recreational activity. I guess we all have to realize that the world is a dangerous place, and we can't ban everything that ever hurt someone.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39246914]yep you're right banning guns is going to make them all disappear from the U.S.[/QUOTE] It's gonna take time, but yes. Gotta start somewhere.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] There were weapons that fired more than one round at a time. It also seems pretty damn arbitrary to say that the constitution can apply to internet rights but not modern gun rights. taking away handguns and rifles from normal people isn't stopping crime

[QUOTE=Apache249;39246953]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] except for the fact that you argued that the reason we have the right to bear arms to keep us on even grounds with the government and then immediately said that the ' fully automatic weapons and explosives and many other things' that the government has means that semi-automatic weapons aren't enough to keep us on even grounds, and then argued against civilians being able to own ' fully automatic weapons and explosives and many other things', thereby making your first argument moot

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] And the 1st Amendment was made to protect people from expressing their opinions in townhalls and for the relatively limited printing press at the time. The founders had no clue what the extent of communication (TVs, internet etc.) would be today. I think those, are pretty goddamn distinct.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] And shit really. Did you ignore that whole 2010-2013 news cycle? I mean a simple internet video caused these huge rebellions.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247031]An experienced skydiver can die. [/QUOTE] yes, and who else is he putting at risk??

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] They operate faster, over longer distances, are more accessible to the common man, can affect much more people. If you think the internet is only as capable as snail mail you're just wrong

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247002]this is so far from the truth, its simply not based in reality the government does not even THINK about gun owners when they make every day decisions, you really think they dont mess things up because they're scared of getting shot???[/QUOTE] No, but if they were to do something massively asinine and on the grounds of a borderline dictatorship or police state like then its well within acceptable logic to expect an armed conflict. By the way, if the government doesn't think of gun owners (around half the country might i add) then why not just have a total ban ALL guns instead of the scary ones?

whereas literally carrying a gun into a room will pretty much automatically make it the most dangerous item in that room

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247038]There were weapons that fired more than one round at a time. It also seems pretty damn arbitrary to say that the constitution can apply to internet rights but not modern gun rights. [/QUOTE] do you actually have an argument against the argument that I used so that my statement specifically wouldn't be arbitrary?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247003]Because for all of it's speed and reach there is nothing that makes the internet particularly distinct from the print media that existed at the time. It's capacity to affect or influence people is not any stronger or more potent by virtue of it being digital instead of on paper. The difference between power and efficacy of modern automatic or even semi-automatic weapons and the muskets that were used at the time of the revolution, I think, are pretty goddamn distinct.[/QUOTE] What about television? It's a whole new medium of communication that can be very influential and perhaps damaging. The founders never though of that! Why does the first amendment apply?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247049]yes, and who else is he putting at risk??[/QUOTE] His skydiving partner.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247057]do you actually have an argument against the argument that I used so that my statement specifically wouldn't be arbitrary?[/QUOTE] Your argument is literally saying "NO ITS DIFFERENT SHUDDAP!" Like come on. I even addressed it.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39247052]No, but if they were to do something massively asinine and on the grounds of a borderline dictatorship or police state like then its well within acceptable logic to expect an armed conflict. By the way, if the government doesn't think of gun owners (around half the country might i add) then why not just have a total ban ALL guns instead of the scary ones?[/QUOTE] i agree, we should ban all guns but the reason for not doing so isn't because of the gun owners being scary with their big weapons, it's because politicians like being re-elected and the gun industry generates a lot of money of course you can't ban all guns at once, but for every major change, there has to be minor steps in the right direction [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;39247066]His skydiving partner.[/QUOTE] who also knew the risks when he jumped out of a plane do you understand the difference? one is a very localized dangerous activity, the other is an activity that puts every single person in range of the gun in danger

[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).[/quote] Nitpicking but he only got into power in the 30s. In the 20s he was a loony who got arrested for trying to take over a beer hall. [quote]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] 1: What Socialist agenda? Hitler was a proponent of the new fad ideology "Fascism" which Mussolini developed after getting annoyed with orthodox socialism. 2: Gun control was a non-issue in Germany at the time, and guns didn't stop Hitler before the law was passed, why should they have stopped him after? [quote]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] 1: Germany wasn't "socialist". Stop bullshitting. 2: It was in the midst of economic ruin and had a weak and incompetent government, of course it fell to a tinpot dictator.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247075]i agree, we should ban all guns[/QUOTE] Why? What makes guns so bad? Isn't self defense good?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247075]i agree, we should ban all guns but the reason for not doing so isn't because of the gun owners being scary with their big weapons, it's because [U][B]politicians like being re-elected[/B][/U] and the gun industry generates a lot of money of course you can't ban all guns at once, but for every major change, there has to be minor steps in the right direction[/QUOTE] You specifically said government cares little for gun owners. You've invalidated you're point.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247084]Why? What makes guns so bad? Isn't self defense good?[/QUOTE] They're dangerous and serve no purpose other than killing. Just like sports cars.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247084]Why? What makes guns so bad? Isn't self defense good?[/QUOTE] i dunno learn some martial arts ffs, personally i am not paranoid enough to believe that i am in danger every time i go out in public if there were fewer guns, you wouldn't need a fucking gun to defend yourself from the criminals with guns because there would simply be fewer guns