Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

marurder

New member
Jul 26, 2009
586
0
0
Zhukov said:
I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.
Exactly. This +1

Gun crime is still committed by criminal gangs. But not the 'youth effected by video game violence' or 'depressives' etc etc. And criminal gangs don't go into schools or malls and shoot people indiscriminately. They tend to have targets in mind (though people get caught in the crossfire). More people with guns = more crossfire = more people hurt.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
the clockmaker said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?

Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!

It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
Ryotknife said:
the clockmaker said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?

Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!

It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because while I do often see the situation that you have proposed, I rarely to never see the response that you contend is put forward by the anti-legislation lobby, indeed, I don't believe that I have seen any of the more anti-legislation people here indicate a desire to compromise.
An ideal response to the situation would be 'Okay, I can agree with A and that is something that I think we should move forward on, however, I disagree with B and perhaps we should discuss changing or removing it.' In this, the focus is on the compromise and the intent is to move the discussion forward to a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Far too often I see 'You included B?! how dare you?! You clearly have no intent on compromising.'
or alternatively, and depressingly commonly, 'You used term X?! Due to that I will disregard both A and B'

In addition, I would not say that one side's deceit has led to the other becoming jaded and cynical, but rather that both sides have deceived in the past, which has led to both sides becoming increasingly wary of the other. If you look at statistics post that I quoted on this page, you can see an example of anti-legislation deceit, but, if you look at some of the more extreme elements of the pro-legislation side, you can see that there is deceit there as well.

A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
Katatori-kun said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment. More humbly, I've discussed that here multiple times. We had an excellent post by another poster recently arguing directly for licensing and enhancements to gun safety.

If you have to lie to make your argument, your argument is wrong. It's sad how often I have had to point that out in anti-gun control threads recently.
You're entirely right, The President and Vice President of the US are discussing that. The point of this thread is also something that should be examined though, what would the reaction be if the right to own guns was written out of the constitution. Democracy is supposed to represent the desires of the majority, so you have to ask all the questions. This thread is simply the OP asking for peoples opinions.

Personnally if the government can't remove the American right to own guns because of an ammendment that was enacted 222 years ago they should make it illegal to own any guns more powerful or more lethal then the guns available at the time. I don't see that any "milita" formed to take arms against the US military would be any more or less effective armed with muskets or semi-automatics.

And finally as I understand it below is the actual wording of the right to bear arms...

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.
Lets assume my unreasonable and unlikely suggestion wasn't taken up. You want to use the second ammendment to justify owning guns... join a Militia. That isn't just a gun club or going to a shooting range. Here in Australia, we call them the Army Reserves, not sure what its called in the US, but its volunteers, trained and giving up their time and called on in times of emergency. But that would make gun ownership a responsibility rather then a fun hobby.
 

Single Shot

New member
Jan 13, 2013
121
0
0
mastermaniac117 said:
The so-called "bad wording" of that section of the Constitution is in fact nothing more than today's poor education at work. It's a matter of stupid interpretation by stupid people who fail to understand the language of the day. In fact, I've read that the diaries of common rank-and-file, farm-raised Civil War soldiers utterly confound today's English majors.

I shouldn't have to tell you that, though. I don't. You already know. But I will anyway.

If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed. The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity.

You might say America still has that task...

But make no mistake: the founders of the Constitution intended for guns "to be had anywhere, deserving a place among all that is good." They would be right on board with arming the people with fully-automatic assault weapons.

But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.

"A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying."

No. Fluffy talk, well-intentioned, but no. A key thing for both sides to realize is that the anti-gun side of the debate is woefully outmatched by proven data, and presses its point purely for complete personal satisfaction. The attitude is almost always "Oh, we'll show you! Enjoy your temporary gun rights!" There is no desire to compromise, and this entire argument has nothing to do with safety or protection at all. Anti-gun types can't stand "common folk" having rights rights at all, let alone the right to belittle them by owning a firearm.
Yeah, this bit of bad wording?
"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"
Can you explain to me what your version of a 'well regulated militia" is? it's clearly quite differnt to the real type.
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
Been reading a few of the pro-gun replies here. Here's a summary of them as far as I can see:

1. It's our right to own them as written in the constitution
2. Because without guns, we can't defend ourselves
3. To prevent a dictatorship, tyranny, etc. Basically to retain our country's freedom

Here's what I say to them:

1. Well yes, it's in your right. But just because you're ALLOWED to doesn't mean you SHOULD.

2. Honestly, I'd rather take the (rather slim) chance that an armed madman storms in and shoots everything s/he sees than walk the streets knowing every person I see has the potential to score a headshot. Sure I can't defend myself, but then again the chances I'd need to defend myself from an M16-toting sociopath is MUCH lower so I don't mind.

3. I laughed at this one. I'm just chalking it up to straight-faced paranoia.



But then again, I don't live in America where, supposedly, the crime rate is ridiculously high and police response ridiculously slow. I actually feel sorry for Americans if that's REALLY the case, and I'm so very glad I don't live in America.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
mastermaniac117 said:
If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed. The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity.
Large, pristine, largely UNEXPLORED land? Yeah, let's just forget everyone who lived in there before the immigrants (the Europeans) came.

And why should you care what the founding fathers wanted? They also wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote. They were people of their time, and the world is different these days.

Ninjafire72 said:
Been reading a few of the pro-gun replies here. Here's a summary of them as far as I can see:
I got one more; hunting.
Guns are required for controlling the animal populations, as in most places the natural predators are absent because of humans.
Which is why I think it's important to differentiate between gun used for hunting and guns used to shoot humans.
 

Single Shot

New member
Jan 13, 2013
121
0
0
Zetatrain said:
Single Shot said:
Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!

I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.

EDIT: As for the OP's question

Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
 

Single Shot

New member
Jan 13, 2013
121
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
But then again, I don't live in America where, supposedly, the crime rate is ridiculously high and police response ridiculously slow. I actually feel sorry for Americans if that's REALLY the case, and I'm so very glad I don't live in America.
Am I the only one who sees a connection between this. crime rate is high because every street thug can get a gun to feel more manly and act out his plans instead of just thinking about them. then police responce is slow becase they need to move in groups so as to not get shot the minute thay arrive. then if the criminal has a bigger gun than the police they need to call in special backup and wait.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
the clockmaker said:
Ryotknife said:
the clockmaker said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
xDarc said:
Katatori-kun said:
We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.
Nobody is trying to discuss that.
Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.
I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.
I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?

Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.
Problem being that in most gun control measures, half of it is reasonable, half of it is unreasonable or questionable. If you decide to go against it because of the questionable parts, you will be labeled as refusing to compromise because hey look, look at the reasonable part of the proposal! Just ignore the batshit crazy part of the proposal that we snuck in!

It is crap like that that has made both sides severely distrust one another when it comes to guns. So yea, we have one side that is downright deceitful and one side that is jaded and cynical. Hard to get anything meaningful done that way.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because while I do often see the situation that you have proposed, I rarely to never see the response that you contend is put forward by the anti-legislation lobby, indeed, I don't believe that I have seen any of the more anti-legislation people here indicate a desire to compromise.
An ideal response to the situation would be 'Okay, I can agree with A and that is something that I think we should move forward on, however, I disagree with B and perhaps we should discuss changing or removing it.' In this, the focus is on the compromise and the intent is to move the discussion forward to a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Far too often I see 'You included B?! how dare you?! You clearly have no intent on compromising.'
or alternatively, and depressingly commonly, 'You used term X?! Due to that I will disregard both A and B'

In addition, I would not say that one side's deceit has led to the other becoming jaded and cynical, but rather that both sides have deceived in the past, which has led to both sides becoming increasingly wary of the other. If you look at statistics post that I quoted on this page, you can see an example of anti-legislation deceit, but, if you look at some of the more extreme elements of the pro-legislation side, you can see that there is deceit there as well.

A key step in progressing the discussion to a mutually acceptable end is acknowledging that both sides have the best intentions and both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they most likely sincerely believe what they are saying.
Oh that would be nice.

That would be so effing nice, and not just for gun control issue either. unfortunately i dont think we will see such a day anytime soon, both sides have become quite polar in the past decade. I would say we are in for more polar bullcrud for at least another 4 years.

When it comes to pro-gun, I think the key is to ask the individual gun owners a question. Specifically "what wouldnt you mind being passed"? As a general rule they may not be for any more gun control, but a lot of them woulndt be angry or mind such things such as (more) registration, background check, mental health checks, closing loopholes, that sort of thing. im generalizing of course.

It is unfortunate that both sides kinda feel that it is 100% victory or nothing in these issues.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
Single Shot said:
Zetatrain said:
Single Shot said:
Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!

I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.

EDIT: As for the OP's question

Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
ehhh, im no hunter myself, but ive heard stories about the toughness of alligators and bears from hunters. alligators especially seem to be tough sobs.

You should hear some of the stories about the wildlife in Alaska.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672949/posts

bear was shot 16 times (in two separate occassions days apart) before he died, and ate two people. They found bullets from a missing hiker's gun in the bears body, but they said the bullets probably just enraged it further.

ha...hell there are police stories of a group of police firing 30+ rounds into someone and they were still trying to attack the police as they were reloading.
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
mastermaniac117 said:
1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T, and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so. If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right? - then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?

2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames. In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.

3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,

someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?
1. You took the words right out of my mouth! I totally said guns are so last century, like it was some sort of fashion style to have a 9mm holstered on your hip. *rolls eyes*

And regarding your analogy... WHY!??? Why the hell do you need a GUN, of all things, to defend your family from a dog??? Why not just use a shovel to ward it off? or a stick? Or even a rock to throw at it? Are you seriously so um-coordinated that you can't handle one dog?

2. You know why I'm defenseless? BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF. I live in a civilised society where 99.9% of people don't carry guns and therefore have the potential to kill. And being defenseless has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with my willingness defend. If I had someone I loved placed in danger, I would do anything and everything I could to protect them. Hell, I'd take a bullet for them.

But then I remember I live in a country where there are no bullets for me to stop. So i don't need to take such drastic measures.
And Yes I said headshot. I'm on a video game website, so I thought the humour was relevant. Sorry if that whizzed straight over your head.

3. ...You honestly believe that if they take your guns away, your government will seize the moment and clap irons around your ankles...?
Good lord...


EDIT: 2)...and therefore DON'T have the potential to kill. My bad.
 

Aetherlblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
145
0
0
Ryotknife said:
If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Where would you move? As far as I know the only countries you could then move to are in Africa or the Middle East. I don't know of any "western" countries with gun laws like, 'freedoms' and such as the US.
 

Single Shot

New member
Jan 13, 2013
121
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Single Shot said:
Zetatrain said:
Single Shot said:
Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.
Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!

I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.

EDIT: As for the OP's question

Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.
My point was that when asked why people need semi-auto rifles most say simply 'hunting' and leave it at that. but what do they hunt? no animal, no matter how large of dangerous (Thus my example of bears) can survive a well placed shot. and if you're going hunting as a recreational activity they surely you'd want to become a better shot anyway.
ehhh, im no hunter myself, but ive heard stories about the toughness of alligators and bears from hunters. alligators especially seem to be tough sobs.

You should hear some of the stories about the wildlife in Alaska.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672949/posts

bear was shot 16 times (in two separate occassions days apart) before he died, and ate two people. They found bullets from a missing hiker's gun in the bears body, but they said the bullets probably just enraged it further.
Okay, I had no idea bears were such tough bastards. but this is sort of the main danger of hunting.
I had heard that alligators were tough, but i don't think they live where many people go hunting.
My point remains though because bear repellant works far more effectively in most cases anyway.

mastermaniac117 said:
Yes, you incredible fool, I indeed said LARGELY UNEXPLORED. Crack open a book. It's good for you.

"They wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote?" No such thing at all. In fact, America pioneered women's rights and was founded based on equality of all men. America was the engine for that change. Just because it didn't BOOM suddenly happen does not invalidate the intent. Remember, black slaves were SOLD, not captured. Rounded up and sold by people with weapons, I might add, who used those weapons to force people into bonds. America made big waves VERY early on, by people who were big fans of guns, no less.

Not that I'm an Ameri-phile. America has a lot of blood on its hands...but you know what, I dare say a LOT less than your European fantasyland, where military takeovers and police states are the order of the day. England is the greatest slime pit in the western Europe, and so far the loudest voice against guns.

And, of course:

1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T, and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so. If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right? - then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?

2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames. In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.

3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,

someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?
Okay, let me break apart this vile post for a minute.
1) Are you aware that most europien military takeovers are a direct result of the collapse of the USSR? or that every developed europien country has been stable for at least 70 years?
2) why is England the 'Greatest slime pit"? it has less than a quater of the murders per 100,000 people as America, a functional democracy, tighter gun control, and the only thing i disagree with is how often they support America's bulls**t wars and other plans.
3) your first point made me laugth. killing babies, that's right, make the opposition look stupider than you by mocking them. that's the smart thing to do. and that dog could just as easilly been taken down by a sharp kick between the front legs. i've done that when i came under attack by a rottie.
4) Who is you? and where do they say 'score a headshot'? and why can't they protect themselves without a gun, and why would they need to if most criminals couldn't get a gun. America has a crime rate of almost 4.5 murders per 100,000 people per year, England with tighter gun laws has 1.5 over the same sample population, and Australia with it's tight gun control has 1.6
5)you seem to have stopped taking your medication for this part. your third point makes no sense at all. democracy exists so that everyone has a vote nad can decide who rules them, and make said rulers accountable, NOT so you can shoot up the place if the goverment do something you don't like.
 

Aetherlblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
145
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
Thanks for your words of wisdom. (was going to write a long post, but this about did it! Also good job about making a headshot reference after saying that a headshot joke might be to hard :p)