Obama's re-election drives gun sales... again - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404767]Americans may consider it a right, but in reality it's nowhere important enough to be a right (like free speech).[/QUOTE] This is spiraling in to "nu uh!" and "uh huh!" territory. Firearms ownership [I]is[/I] an intrinsic right of an american citizen, as laid out in the bill of rights. Therefore the debate falls more on what type of fireamrs are appropriate for a citizen to have. Just like free speech, there are boundaries on gun ownership, and the discussion here is where they should lie. edit: this thread is just flying along, sorry if I'm late to the party

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404817]Oh great it's [b]this[/b] circle jerk fest again. My advice. Lurk SH for a few months. Then talk.[/QUOTE] What is SH?

[QUOTE=The Letter Q;38404821]This is spiraling in to "nu uh!" and "uh huh!" territory. Firearms ownership [I]is[/I] an intrinsic right of an american citizen, as laid out in the bill of rights.[/QUOTE] Yes but that's not a reason for why it should be on there.

Thanks my brother.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404808]Sorry, I do not have all the sources that I once read in books and magazines in my pc, ready to citate when somebody on the internet requires it. I could ask the same of you.[/QUOTE] Burden of proof is upon you since you are the one asking for a change from the status quo. If you want citations, look through any of the threads here about guns. There are veritable mountains of citations. Lurk a bit. The thread about theatre shootings had fucking oceans of piss in it.

[QUOTE=The Letter Q;38404651]From LEGAL gunshops in the US :v: ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/atf-68000-guns-in-mexico-traced-to-us/2012/04/26/gIQAtSz9kT_story.html"]source 1[/URL]) ([URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/"]source 2[/URL]) The US is a huge source of money and arms for the cartels, and many guns found in mexico have been traced back to here. I personally feel that there is a right to own guns (especially as it is enumerated in the bill of rights), but you have to accept that there are consequences to making arms widely and easily available.[/QUOTE] The Washington Post article is incorrect. Mexico recovered 68,000 guns, yes. But only a tiny percentage (single digit percentage) could be traced back to the US. And that includes guns our government sold to their military and police forces.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404817]Oh great it's this [b]circle jerk[/b] fest again. My advice. Lurk SH for a few months. Then talk.[/QUOTE] Oh the irony.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404767]Americans may consider it a right, but in reality it's nowhere important enough to be a right (like free speech).[/QUOTE] They're right next to each other in the Constitution. One has just as much right to be there as the other. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ecuox.jpg[/IMG]

The constant post make it really hard to form a proper dicussion or argument. Add me somewhere if you want to talk about it. I do not get how SH will help me out though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404835]Yes but that's not a reason for why it should be on there.[/QUOTE] Has it ever occurred to you that different cultures hold different things in value? What you're doing is no better than the people on campus at my school preaching the word of Jesus to passerbys.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404835]Yes but that's not a reason for why it should be on there.[/QUOTE] Um, yes there is? [QUOTE]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[/QUOTE] The reason given is defense, both of self and country, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as such. edit again: [QUOTE]The Washington Post article is incorrect. Mexico recovered 68,000 guns, yes. But only a tiny percentage (single digit percentage) could be traced back to the US. And that includes guns our government sold to their military and police forces.[/QUOTE] Source? I just pulled these off google, so any extra info would be appreciated.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;38404035]I can tell you right now an assault weapon ban will have zero effect on crime/violence. Their definitions are far too broad; the last one included pistol grips and bayonet lugs. Pistol grips don't magically make guns more deadly and there is no criminal who would ever hold up a 7-11 with a rifle/bayonet combination.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah? Why not? You have a gun to threaten someone with, AND a bayonet for close range combat. What downside is there?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38404866]Has it ever [b]occurred to you that different cultures hold different things in value?[/b] What you're doing is no better than the people on campus preaching the word of Jesus to passerbys.[/QUOTE] This so much.

[QUOTE=Ridge;38404859]They're right next to each other in the Constitution. One has just as much right to be there as the other. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ecuox.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 250 year old document

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404862]The constant post make it really hard to form a proper dicussion or argument. Add me somewhere if you want to talk about it. I do not get how SH will help me out though.[/QUOTE] It will help you if you can be bothered to read through the oceans of general stupidity surrounding this discussion. There are enormous numbers of studies showing assorted thing but the [b]generalized[/b] conclusion is that gun control laws have minimal influence on violent crime and that a lot of it is attributed to culture. Within the states, states that allow the use of lethal force to protect oneself, particularly on ones own property, commonly referred to as castle doctrine, usually have lower assault rates. A minute on google turns up thousands of results.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 200 year old document[/QUOTE] At least we have one.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 250 year old document[/QUOTE] Well I mean I dunno we're still one of the top superpowers so it's certainly not done us wrong

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 200 year old document[/QUOTE] Oh shit, that 2500 year old idea of democracy sure is irrelevant today!

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404807]I don't know why everyone's making a big deal about it? It's not like you go hunting deer with a fuckin' AK-47, and it's not like a pistol wouldn't deter [I]most[/I] thieves as much as an AK would. I don't really see a reason for anyone but active military troops (you know, people who get paid to kill other people) to have a gun that's designed to kill several people quickly like an AK. That's probably because I don't know what the AWB extends to, though.[/QUOTE] Actually if you have a five-round magazine an AK is an excellent hunting rifle. That point aside, the AWB last time around covered things like pistol grips, detachable magazines, and bayonet lugs. Basically, the kind of thing most of us consider a safe queen or a range-day showpiece would be banned as an "assault weapon." Hell, when you think about it a fucking butterknife is an assault weapon if you assault someone with it.

[QUOTE=Ridge;38404859]They're right next to each other in the Constitution. One has just as much right to be there as the other. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ecuox.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] This argument could be compared to any other legislation that was established during dictations or any similiar situations. After Hitler's regime, jews were bad and pursuited in any way possible. Things change over time, your statement means nothing.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 250 year old document[/QUOTE] Most countries operate in a similar fashion. I could quite literally make this attack on any country that hasn't had a major revolution in the last 50 years. Why does Britain cling to archaic monarchy? Good to know they are running their country on systems developed centuries ago, right?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404911]It will help you if you can be bothered to read through the oceans of general stupidity surrounding this discussion. There are enormous numbers of studies showing assorted thing but the [b]generalized[/b] conclusion is that gun control laws have minimal influence on violent crime and that a lot of it is attributed to culture. Within the states, states that allow the use of lethal force to protect oneself, particularly on ones own property, commonly referred to as castle doctrine, usually have lower assault rates. A minute on google turns up thousands of results.[/QUOTE] [citation required] So far you've shown nothing but anecdotes and opinions.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404959]This argument could be compared to any other legislation that was established during dictations or any similiar situations. After Hitler's regime, jews were bad and pursuited in any way possible. Things change over time, your statement means nothing.[/QUOTE] This is why amendments exist. We have [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution]27 of them[/url] now.

Yeah, for any dictator, his legislation or "amendements" are/were right to. I do not see the point in this.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404959]After Hitler's regime, jews were bad and pursuited in any way possible.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/url]

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 250 year old document[/QUOTE] No ones talking to you, Argentina.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404968][citation required] So far you've shown nothing but anecdotes and opinions.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1224984[/url] Go through that thread, everything here has spilled over from there. A lot of whats being said here is just being regurgitated from there.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38405009]Yeah, for any dictator, his legislation or "amendements" are/were right to. I do not see the point in this.[/QUOTE] sorry but that was pretty incomprehensible

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404968][citation required] So far you've shown nothing but anecdotes and opinions.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1215487[/URL] Do what I told you to do. Read the thread. Read the citations from both sides. Come to your conclusions. There's dozens in that thread alone as I recall.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;38405020][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, it is fairly normal that people start refering to it because it is one of the most recent events that has changed humankind in many ways. It is still somewhat fresh to our mind and quite popular. I could mention Babtista, Pol Pott, Gadaffi or some other dictator.