︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      pyrosonicpony wrote:

      things im for
      -stricter regulations on who can get them (closer look as psyche and records)


      The only problem with stricter regulations on who can get guns is that it provides a little more grey area for the government to manipulate.

      Currently, in most states, it is impossible to get a gun license if you have EVER committed a violent crime. Petty theft and traffic violations would be an example of things that wouldn't affect your chances of getting a gun.

      I'm not sure how much more restrictive you can get with that.

      When it comes to psychological disorders, I can see some regulation in there, but again... I would be wary of giving the government more grey areas to manipulate if you catch my drift.
      - Ghukek

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      Ghukek wrote:

      The only problem with stricter regulations on who can get guns is that it provides a little more grey area for the government to manipulate.

      Currently, in most states, it is impossible to get a gun license if you have EVER committed a violent crime. Petty theft and traffic violations would be an example of things that wouldn't affect your chances of getting a gun.

      I'm not sure how much more restrictive you can get with that.

      When it comes to psychological disorders, I can see some regulation in there, but again... I would be wary of giving the government more grey areas to manipulate if you catch my drift.


      you make a fair point
      [SIGPIC]http://www.teenhut.net/signaturepics/sigpic150861_20.gif[/SIGPIC]
      [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]Do you know that gods of death love apples?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      pyrosonicpony wrote:


      -max calibre restriction (basically no .50 rifle rounds since those blast through walls)
      -banning certain types of rounds (FMJs in particular)


      1. Caliber has nothing to do with how well something penetrates. Your simple 9mm fired from a handgun will fly straight through most walls.
      2. Most ammunition is FMJ. The stuff that isn't FMJ is Hollowpoint, which expands when it hits something and does more damage. I don't really see the point in banning certain types of ammo, except maybe the Dragon's Breath shotgun shells, but really, those are considered uneffective weapons, unlikely to cause real damage to a person. I would just find those acceptable because I grew up in an area prone to wildfire.

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      1. Caliber has nothing to do with how well something penetrates. Your simple 9mm fired from a handgun will fly straight through most walls.
      2. Most ammunition is FMJ. The stuff that isn't FMJ is Hollowpoint, which expands when it hits something and does more damage. I don't really see the point in banning certain types of ammo, except maybe the Dragon's Breath shotgun shells, but really, those are considered uneffective weapons, unlikely to cause real damage to a person. I would just find those acceptable because I grew up in an area prone to wildfire.


      the idea of lower calibre is that with a .50 rifle round, you can shoot through a brick wall if you want, and they cause A TON of damage, more power than is probably safe in the hands of a random person
      the problem with FMJs is that they will go straight though a person and cause more colatoral damage
      dragons breath are inteded to be used for signaling, not for use against anyone
      [SIGPIC]http://www.teenhut.net/signaturepics/sigpic150861_20.gif[/SIGPIC]
      [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]Do you know that gods of death love apples?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Supreme court states that
      "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
      Yes, and in the late 18th century, this line of reasoning would be appropriate. However, the concept behind a militia has drastically changed in the subsequent 220 years. We no longer require a militia in the form of ordinary citizens who provide their own weapons.

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      SCOTUS has never once suggested that only militias can have guns, just that you can't ban guns a militia would reasonably use. And, as that quote from US v. Miller shows, the militia is ALL MALES. Even if it was limited to just the militia, the militia is EVERY SINGLE MALE CITIZEN OF THE US.
      The U.S. no longer has the militia in which you're referring to, and it's no longer every single male citizen. You make it sound as if during a military draft, all male citizens parade out the front door with an AK-47 and are ready for combat.

      You're attempting to take a 200-year old document, which was written in an entirely different culture and ideological period, and are applying its primitive intention to a generation which has little resemblance to early America. It just doesn't work.
      Regardless of what strict constructionist's like Scalia and Alito say, the U.S. constitution is a living document which needs to be interpreted within the context of today's culture.

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      Fucking exactly. The way to reduce ANY crime is to better education and decrease poverty. Why don't we focus on that, instead of fucking with law abiding citizens because, well, fuck them they don't think like me so they must be crazy?
      To an extent, I don't disagree with you. But this is a different issue which evades the point I was making.

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      With the VP admitting that they don't enforce the laws on the books already, what makes you think this will help?
      You think this is by choice? For years, the NRA and other gun lobbies have done everything in their power to stop the federal government from enforcing current gun laws. They have a habit of generating Christmas tree bills, slipping anti-gun control proposals into unrelated legislation which makes it hard for the ATF and other government agencies to enforce current gun laws.

      And then they stand back and claim, "well why don't you just enforce the current 20,000 gun laws on the books!!"

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      When at least three of the major mass killings in the US have been committed with Assault Weapons Ban compliant weapons, what makes you think this will help?
      When it has in numerous other industrial countries, I see no reason why it would not here.

      Marc_Antony wrote:

      What gives you the right to dictate what I can or cannot have in my house? What gives you the right to decide how I can live my own life? What gives you the right to deny me something because it's an "Assault Weapon?"
      Because my right of not having 30 bullets slammed into my gut supersedes your right to own a weapon which you neither needed nor merited.

      Ghukek wrote:

      I'm glad you have that much faith in the integrity of our government and it's military. Power corrupts. History has shown that as the amount of gun owning citizens in a country goes down, the likelihood of a government takeover increases. I hope you're ready for a dictatorship.
      Can we please stop with the whole "gun control leads to autocracy?"

      You were grossly inaccurate with your Switzerland and Japan claims, so let's hold off on these assertions before they get any worse.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      Yes, and in the late 18th century, this line of reasoning would be appropriate. However, the concept behind a militia has drastically changed in the subsequent 220 years. We no longer require a militia in the form of ordinary citizens who provide their own weapons.
      The U.S. no longer has the militia in which you're referring to, and it's no longer every single male citizen. You make it sound as if during a military draft, all male citizens parade out the front door with an AK-47 and are ready for combat.

      You're attempting to take a 200-year old document, which was written in an entirely different culture and ideological period, and are applying its primitive intention to a generation which has little resemblance to early America. It just doesn't work.
      Regardless of what strict constructionist's like Scalia and Alito say, the U.S. constitution is a living document which needs to be interpreted within the context of today's culture.
      To an extent, I don't disagree with you. But this is a different issue which evades the point I was making. You think this is by choice? For years, the NRA and other gun lobbies have done everything in their power to stop the federal government from enforcing current gun laws. They have a habit of generating Christmas tree bills, slipping anti-gun control proposals into unrelated legislation which makes it hard for the ATF and other government agencies to enforce current gun laws.

      And then they stand back and claim, "well why don't you just enforce the current 20,000 gun laws on the books!!" When it has in numerous other industrial countries, I see no reason why it would not here.
      Because my right of not having 30 bullets slammed into my gut supersedes your right to own a weapon which you neither needed nor merited. Can we please stop with the whole "gun control leads to autocracy?"

      You were grossly inaccurate with your Switzerland and Japan claims, so let's hold off on these assertions before they get any worse.

      Agree on EVERYTHING!!!
      no errors and 100% accurate unlike that guy.

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      Ghukek wrote:

      >Assuming he's going to exercise his right to own a gun by putting 30 bullets in your gut.

      How does this make any sense?
      The Government has to protect its citizens and PREVENT citizens getting killed instead of taking action after someone has been killed.
      Catching the criminals who killed him isn't going to bring him back to life!

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      nightlife138 wrote:

      Mao took the guns, Stalin took the guns, and Hitler took the guns. Banning guns can be linked to higher crime rate. Try and take em, that's all I need to say. The spirit of 1776 will awaken again, try it.
      You honestly believe you're going to pit that 1776 spirit against the full might of the U.S. military? Good luck.

      And implying that Stalin and Hitler taking guns is what led to the massacre of millions is a gross oversimplification of what actually happened.

      Evola wrote:

      Against.

      ---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------



      If the US turned into a war zone, I'd probably support the legalization of bazookas and tanks.
      How about nukes?
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LuklaAdvocate ().

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      With over 300 million guns in America, we could easily defeat the military. The military would go into chaos because a large portion of them will not kill fellow citizens. As long as we could kill one soldier for every 100 guns, they'd stop. The bloodshed would be to great.

      It is what led to the massacres. They had no way to defend themselves. The Jews are a good example, they were sheep that got herded up because there was no way to defend themselves. But I guess that you believe we should all be unarmed sheep so big brother can kill us. They always disarm the population before a tyrannical government is put in place.


      The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and ammunition to local police. As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly after they came to power.
      In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
      Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.
      A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      Areas in the U.S that have stricter gun control have higher crime rates.

      I heard this from someone once and totally agree with it. What if your government goes rouge or
      maybe we get invaded by north korea or something, who knows. If we had a ban on guns, we would all be defenseless.

    • Re: ︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

      nightlife138 wrote:

      With over 300 million guns in America, we could easily defeat the military. The military would go into chaos because a large portion of them will not kill fellow citizens. As long as we could kill one soldier for every 100 guns, they'd stop. The bloodshed would be to great.
      Easily defeat the military? You think U.S. citizens could go up against the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, along with local law enforcement, plus intelligence agencies such as NSA? You'd get destroyed.

      There may be 300 million guns, but the number of households owning a gun is much lower, somewhere around 80 million. And there's no way in hell that each of those households is going to partake in a revolution against the U.S. government. Especially when a majority of gun owners agree with basic gun control legislation, such as background checks and not being able to own an assault rifle.

      As for those willing to take on the U.S. military, they would be obliterated.

      nightlife138 wrote:

      It is what led to the massacres. They had no way to defend themselves. The Jews are a good example, they were sheep that got herded up because there was no way to defend themselves. But I guess that you believe we should all be unarmed sheep so big brother can kill us. They always disarm the population before a tyrannical government is put in place.
      I never said anything about disarming you.

      It is not what led to the massacres. Anybody who says or believes that needs to take a history class.

      The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

      Kayhai wrote:

      Areas in the U.S that have stricter gun control have higher crime rates.

      I heard this from someone once and totally agree with it. What if your government goes rouge or
      maybe we get invaded by north korea or something, who knows. If we had a ban on guns, we would all be defenseless.
      I was about to respond to your first few points, until I read the bit about North Korea. Now I'm just trying to figure out how much of an idiot you have to be in order to actually believe what you just wrote.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]