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

[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 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[/QUOTE] You can't just "Ban guns". It doesn't work like that. It's literally impossible and wouldn't solve anything. There's also the 2nd and 4th amendment, and the fact that because of the free market, we have as many guns as people. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247114]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[/QUOTE] Criminals don't follow laws and would make friends and import it. Oh man now the criminals have guns and I don't.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247039]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] Yes, it's original intention was to keep citizens and the government on even ground. That doesn't mean citizens are on even ground now. My point is that it doesn't need to be infringed any more by restricting us further merely for cosmetic features on a semi-automatic rifle.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39247044]And the 1st Amendment was made to protect people from expressing their opinions in townhalls and for 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] the only distinction is the medium. words posted on the internet aren't any more powerful than ones written on a page, they're the exact same words, whereas I think a modern semi-automatic rifle is demonstrably more effective at killing people than a musket

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39247093]You specifically said government cares little for gun owners. You've invalidated you're point.[/QUOTE] jesus christ have any of you read my posts? i said the government isn't worrying that gun owners will rebel and shoot everyone if the government passes a bad law but they are being stopped from suddenly making all guns illegal, because politics is a slow game, and people with radical ideas never get very far

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247126]the only distinction is the medium. words posted on the internet aren't any more powerful than ones written on a page, they're the exact same words, whereas I think a modern semi-automatic rifle is demonstrably more effective at killing people than a musket[/QUOTE] And a word on a paper can't be seen by tens of thousands of people at once and in different places. That is by definition. More powerful.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247114]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[/QUOTE] 270 million guns is enough that they won't disappear for at least centuries banning guns removes the ability of the public to defend themselves from those who do not care about the laws

Seriously Jo can you explain how guns are any different than sports cars in this situation?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247115]You can't just "Ban guns". It doesn't work like that. It's literally impossible and wouldn't solve anything. There's also the 2nd and 4th amendment, and the fact that because of the free market, we have as many guns as people. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] Criminals don't follow laws and would make friends and import it. Oh man now the criminals have guns and I don't.[/QUOTE] and how come this doesn't happen in all the european countries with strict gun control??

[QUOTE=Apache249;39247125]Yes, it's original intention was to keep citizens and the government on even ground. That doesn't mean citizens are on even ground now. My point is that it doesn't need to be infringed any more by restricting us further merely for cosmetic features on a semi-automatic rifle.[/QUOTE] yo what is this "costmetic features" bullshit that just randomly appears sometimes? I'm talking about guns with the ability to fire semi-automatically. that is most definitely not cosmetic

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39247144]Seriously Jo can you explain how guns are any different than sports cars in this situation?[/QUOTE] yeah i just did read a few posts up please sorry i cant really help you if youre not actually reading the arguments you're responding to

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247126]the only distinction is the medium. words posted on the internet aren't any more powerful than ones written on a page, they're the exact same words, whereas I think a modern semi-automatic rifle is demonstrably more effective at killing people than a musket[/QUOTE] Words posted on the internet, or broadcasted on TV is demonstrably more effective at spreading an idea than "writing on a page"

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;39247140]270 million guns is enough that they won't disappear for at least centuries banning guns removes the ability of the public to defend themselves from those who do not care about the laws[/QUOTE] And that's only counting some guns. What if we add airguns into the mix. You can still kill a person with an airgun and hell, even silently.

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242389]The argument of "WELL PEOPLE DONT NEED X EITHER" ends when it isn't something that can be used in a realistic intent to harm others (ie: no one is probably going to realistically bash your head in with a keyboard) sorry[/QUOTE] Conversely, the argument of "WELL PEOPLE DON'T NEED X" ends when a totally insignificant number of people die at the hands of X item. People die, it's a fact of life. A few isolated freak incidents should not be used as a basis for weapon bans. Very few people are killed by semiautomatic rifles no matter how large their magazine capacity, it just isn't and wasn't a popular killing instrument. Baseball bats are used to kill [I]far[/I] more people that "assault weapons," do people absolutely need to play baseball? Why should a leisurely sport endanger the lives of so many people? People do sports shooting and marksmanship with "assault weapons," too. Why can't baseball bats be made out of something that doesn't have so much killing potential? So many unanswered questions, we're all in danger!!!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39247083]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] Fair enough, but he still got into power. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39247083]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] Probably because people admired Adolf Hitler because he got the people working and restored Germany, ect. Just like people admire Barack Obama, with the exception being Adolf Hitler probably did a better job with putting people back to work. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39247083]1: Germany wasn't "socialist". Stop bullshitting.[/QUOTE] Germany was under the Nazi regime. Nazi stands for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which translates to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39247083]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] The same could be said about the United States, but that just sounds too crack-potish for some people to handle.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39247144]Seriously Jo can you explain how guns are any different than sports cars in this situation?[/QUOTE] because, with the occasional odd exception like breaching shotguns and anti-materiel rifles, the only function of a gun is to kill people.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247161]yeah i just did read a few posts up please sorry i cant really help you if youre not actually reading the arguments you're responding to[/QUOTE] I responded and you never replied... I can't really help you if you're not actually reading the arguments Jo.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247114]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[/QUOTE] What if someone is disabled or elderly and cannot learn martial arts? How are they supposed to defend themselves, espcially since the fact that criminals target them because they are seen as weak and vulnerable.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247178] The same could be said about the United States, but that just sounds too crack-potish for some people to handle.[/QUOTE] alright at this point im just gonna take it that you have no idea what you're talking about and i shouldnt listen to your arguments germany before hitler was in such a steep depression that people literally burned paper money to stay warm, because each day it became more and more useless you'd try to spend your paycheck as quick as possible before it was turned into nothing by inflation

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247150]and how come this doesn't happen in all the european countries with strict gun control??[/QUOTE] Because they have at most 10-20 percent of the population as the USA does and there's not as much landmass. Also the fact that private gun ownership for commoners is a relatively new idea, as guns were mainly toys for noblemen.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247153]yo what is this "costmetic features" bullshit that just randomly appears sometimes? I'm talking about guns with the ability to fire semi-automatically. that is most definitely not cosmetic[/QUOTE] We're looking at it through the lens of the Assault Weapons Ban, which only bans guns which differ only cosmetically. I take it you want to ban or heavily restrict all semi-automatic weapons?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247150]and how come this doesn't happen in all the european countries with strict gun control??[/QUOTE] If you look at Australia and the U.K. they have far worse violent crime rates than the U.S. they don't need guns because the majority of the population in those countries is unarmed. In the U.S. after the AWB dropped in 2004 crime rates have been steadily going down, so if more guns=more crime then why dont we exceed the rates of the U.K. or Australia?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247181]because, with the occasional odd exception like breaching shotguns and anti-materiel rifles, the only function of a gun is to kill people.[/QUOTE] There are guns made for killing animals too. And there are guns solely designed for sport shooting.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247181]because, with the occasional odd exception like breaching shotguns and anti-materiel rifles, the only function of a gun is to kill people.[/QUOTE] Why do you keep saying this? This assertion is blatantly contradicted by the fact the over 90% of gun owners do not kill people. They are used for competitions, hunting, and other recreation.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247150]and how come this doesn't happen in all the european countries with strict gun control??[/QUOTE] Because they didn't have as many guns to begin with, and the gun control measures were in effect decades ago thus slowly eroding the amount of firearms also eastern european criminals have shitloads of guns

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247178]Fair enough, but he still got into power. Probably because people admired Adolf Hitler because he got the people working and restored Germany, ect. Just like people admire Barack Obama, with the exception being Adolf Hitler probably did a better job with putting people back to work. Germany was under the Nazi regime. Nazi stands for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which translates to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" The same could be said about the United States, but that just sounds too crack-potish for some people to handle.[/QUOTE] Socialist was a buzz word. It was a word used in the wrong context and they were trying to have a social revolution, the founder of the party was just an idiot and didn't know the word meaning.

i didnt respond to it because its hardly even a formed thought you really want me to respond to this? [QUOTE=King Tiger;39247026]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] that's an incredibly inaccurate statement. like, almost laughably stupid

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39244215][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0[/URL] Yeah?[/QUOTE] Depends how you define serious crime, the home office like to change their defintion of serious crime. It suits the government sometimes for there to be more serious crime. The home office defines assault without any injury as "serious assault", so I could poke you in the street and it would increase the stats for serious crime. Stats should always be looked at with a pinch of salt, which is pretty much the point of that video.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247181]because, with the occasional odd exception like breaching shotguns and anti-materiel rifles, the only function of a gun is to kill people.[/QUOTE] Here we go. You chose the worst two examples possible for your argument. "Breaching" as in breaching doors. "anti-materiel" "Materiel" as in military hardware.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247200]alright at this point im just gonna take it that you have no idea what you're talking about and i shouldnt listen to your arguments[/QUOTE] I guess you didn't think that President Bush was an incompetent tyrant who helped cause one of the worst economic situations since the recession of 1980-1981

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247234]i didnt respond to it because its hardly even a formed thought you really want me to respond to this? that's an incredibly inaccurate statement.[/QUOTE] How is it inaccurate? What do sports cars do other than kill people?