Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.) I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons. Supporting evidence: the following skit: What's your reason? Setting: A gun shop, modern day. A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please." The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?" The Customer says "I need one for personal protection." The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell." The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!" The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left. Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun." Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks. The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting." The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy. The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states. The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff. Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says. The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot! The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet. The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!" The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves. Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says. The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other". "Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly. The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer. "Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows. "Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
And the constitution supercedes any laws that the president canals but look at how that's going.
Your second ammedment is actually a rather grey area in terms of interpretation. Besides, there are two portions of a law: the word of the law (how it is actually written) and the spirit of the law (how it is interpreted). Word does not trump interpretation. Therefore your statement is not wholly true.
Ha! Take that! Even if they do make it an executive order the states aren't taking it easy. Some states are talking about passing laws so that said states don't have to follow any no gun laws and Wisconsin I believe it was is talking about a law that allows for the arrest of federal gun takers. So really even if there's an executive order it doesn't really do much of anything except in calefornia (and there wouldn't be much to take away there) and states like it.
It seems you know about as much on laws and politics as you know about human tendencies. That is to say, nothing. State law is not all-powerful, the government exists for a reason, and the powers granted to it allow them to steamroll your states and your stupid ideals, regardless of what your state has in terms of laws.
Your second ammedment is actually a rather grey area in terms of interpretation. Besides, there are two portions of a law: the word of the law (how it is actually written) and the spirit of the law (how it is interpreted). Word does not trump interpretation. Therefore your statement is not wholly true.
The second amendment would probably work better in a less populated society or a simply smaller scale. The second amendment should be changed to incorporate the changes to the arms race ("Right to bear arms" should essentially mean I can own a gunship, but I doubt that's what the fathers had in mind) and the changes in our modern laws, before you can point at the amendment and scream at your "oppressive"and "thieving" government.
Sam Harris is an author whose opinions I respect. He wrote an article about the gun control/gun violence issue. He challenges some of my beliefs and makes some good points on both sides of the issue, in the thought-out, articulate manner that he usually does. Its well worth the read in my opinion.
I take back all my previous points on gun control. If the government can start to encroach on rights to things like guns then they'll start to encroach on other rights. I may not be a huge fan of guns in the US but it's better than trading away freedoms and rights in the name of 'safety'.
I take back all my previous points on gun control. If the government can start to encroach on rights to things like guns then they'll start to encroach on other rights. I may not be a huge fan of guns in the US but it's better than trading away freedoms and rights in the name of 'safety'.
Then you'll have no objection to me having possession of a thermonuclear device then.
Then you'll have no objection to me having possession of a thermonuclear device then.
Did you have to oil that slope up or was it always so slippery?
I mentioned no other form of weaponry, self-defensive or otherwise, with guns (as an entrenched and legally-protected right of American citizens) being my focus, had I meant that all weaponry should be in civilian hands unchecked then I would have said that.
Did you have to oil that slope up or was it always so slippery?
That wasn't a slope as much as a sheer cliff...
I don't agree with the reasoning that if we allow the government to take away our rights to have guns that they'll start taking away all our other rights too. Such is an actual slippery slope fallacy. However, I do not think that people should not be allowed to have guns.
Obviously though, people don't need an assault weapon for any reason, nor something like an RPG or whatever other heavy weaponry. I also don't see a reason why, if people want to shoot one, they can't go to a gun club (which would be allowed to store a limited number of them) in order to do so.
There's also no need that everyone should have a gun, but if someone wants to have one and they can demonstrate that they know how to use it/own it safely and go through thorough background checks, then fine.
Yeah, I realized my own fallacious line of thinking after I'd said that, but the point still remains. I guess I'm just somewhat sceptical of governments given the erosion of rights and freedoms going on in the UK right now - I'd hate to see the USA, whilst admittedly not being the total bastion of freedom some would have it to be, going the same way.
I realize I'm probably sounding a tad crazy but I do agree that certain types of gun and gun related items should not be widely available to the public outside of controlled environments.
Obviously though, people don't need an assault weapon for any reason
I've heard the following argument made a lot recently (by people who I generally consider idiots and it is a big "what if" situation), but what if an intruder in your home has an assault rifle? If you knew how to use one, would you want one then? Sure, you can call the police but what will you do til they get there? I've had to call the police before and it took them a little over 20 minutes. That's pretty good but it's still 20 minutes of you (and potentially your wife and children) in your house with an intruder.
You think some wacko is just gonna go "Well, since assault rifles are banned, I'm just gonna forget about this whole mass murder plot."
I don't understand what makes an assault weapon (rifle) so much more dangerous than other weapons. I mean it has a 30 round mag and it can shoot fast. If you practice you can achieve a high fire rate with other guns and a 1 second or less mag change. Heck, I'd rather be shot by a 5.56/.223 than a .22. I'm not trying to say assault rifles aren't that dangerous just all guns can be equally deadly. Excluding heavy artillery and the like, the type of gun shouldn't matter. I think a dead person who's had they're head caved in with a crowbar, a person killed with an assault rifle and a person shot to death with a handgun are all equally horrible and important.
I own guns and I carry concealed. I don't like the NRA or most other gun advocacy groups (they're most filled with paranoid whackjobs). Why do I carry concealed? Not quite a reason but... I did manage to thwart the efforts of a footpad after my money. It's really not a very heroic story, a little pee leaked when it happened.
Did you have to oil that slope up or was it always so slippery?
Thats actually really funny! But I'm glad you already acknowledged the slippery-slopeness of your own post. I think people who are responsible should be able to have guns if they want, but i think it should be harder to get them. It seems pretty obvious that the more guns you have around, the more people are going to get shot and vice versa, the fewer guns you have around.... but I guess that's something we have to live with, the cost of freedom if you will.
The government is never going to send people door to door confiscating guns. I really wish the nutjobs would stop with that straw-man crap. Them: "government takeover man!" me: "Shut up you idiot" The only things being proposed are banning the future sales of specific types of weapons. The government has neither the authority, will power, resources, awareness, desire, nor the ability to go citizen to citizen and collect all of everybody's guns.
I have been following american affairs related to their gun control for a few months now. And with all the info i've read / heard / saw, I strongly disagree with your Second Amendment. Kids get their hands on guns and waltz into their schools and shoot people, yet you all are still blinded by thinking that it would happen in any country? Sorry but England RARELY experiences crime like this, mass killings with a firearm.
Your president is trying to help you, all other countries are trying to help you, ACCEPT IT. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." True as this statement is, I believe that people holding firearms are much more inclined to use them in time of great anger than just throwing a punch or even turning the other cheek. American crime is so high in respect to the usage of firearms that it's unbelievable. If the 2nd Amendment is abolished, we shall all see great improvements in the country.
I may not be a huge fan of guns in the US but it's better than trading away freedoms and rights in the name of 'safety'.
You cannot have both. Americans want their guns and freedom, and so as mentioned you need to endorse the consequences, for you cannot expect every crazyman to be reasonable and make only good use of their guns.
Besides, banning all guns for everyone is just the most radical step. Amore reasonable step is to restrict gun ownership, and this technically doesn't trade away the freedom of owning a gun; there just need to be qualifications, for obvious reasons, like for so many other things.
I also don't see a reason why, if people want to shoot one, they can't go to a gun club (which would be allowed to store a limited number of them) in order to do so.
I think that gun clubs would be a great idea too, it doesn't solve the problems of the hobby gun collectioners though, as they want their guns at home, not in a club. Plus. Americans are paranoid about the risk of being assaulted by an evil criminal raid armed to their teeth in the midst of the night *snicker*
I've heard the following argument made a lot recently (by people who I generally consider idiots and it is a big "what if" situation), but what if an intruder in your home has an assault rifle? If you knew how to use one, would you want one then? Sure, you can call the police but what will you do til they get there? I've had to call the police before and it took them a little over 20 minutes. That's pretty good but it's still 20 minutes of you (and potentially your wife and children) in your house with an intruder.
That is insane. People intrude your houses with assault rifles? Where's the good old robbing in the still of the night gone to? Or is that just a fictive image the gun lobby likes to draw in order to unsecure Americans?
But even imagining that someone intrudes your house with an assault rifle. What you gonna do? Let him take whatever he wants, call the police and hope they'll find him. For I'll ask you to think about it: if you had an assault rifle, that would be a reason for the robber to actually use his own. While if he's the only one armed, he won't have to shoot (and will only shoot if he's a mentally destabilized crazer, which usually isn't the profile of robbers as far as I can judge).
For I'll ask you to think about it: if you had an assault rifle, that would be a reason for the robber to actually use his own. While if he's the only one armed, he won't have to shoot (and will only shoot if he's a mentally destabilized crazer, which usually isn't the profile of robbers as far as I can judge).
Research has shown that criminals are more likely to shoot if they face an armed victim. So go ahead and pick. It's only your life at stake.
The only things being proposed are banning the future sales of specific types of weapons.
That'll create a huge market spike in the short-term, as businesses with to-be-banned inventory will want to get rid of it, and collectors/hobbyists/psychos/etc will want to buy as much as they can while it's cheaper and legal, kind of like drinking before prohibition.
I'm pretty sure it's unconstitutional for the president to bypass a convened congress on a purely legislative issue.
