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

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Being a gun owner, this is a pretty important thing to me. I wouldn't hand over my guns. It's a breach of the 2nd Amendment, which was created for a situation almost exactly like the one that's posed. It certifies our right to carry in order to overthrow an oppressive government. What better way to start oppressing a peoples than be taking away their right to defend themselves. All those people that claim the government would never start oppressing the people can shut the fuck up right there and listen to my family that was thrown in Internment camps in the US because they had the gall to be Japanese.

 

[xDarc]

Certain weapons make violence more efficient. It is in the best interests of society to rationally regulate weaponry in order to find a balance so that ordinary people aren't unduly restricted, yet efficient tools of casual murder are not available to the public.

This is the lie.

You want gun control? Fine, CONTROL them, with background checks. But, gun BANS are a lie. This gun is scary, that gun makes killing easy, pistol grips kill. That is the lie. You could easily lug a bolt action rifle up a clock tower and kill a dozen people milling about a university court yard. To say that this type of gun or that type of gun is too scary and needs to be banned for safety is a load of shit.

Unarmed people are easy pickings, regardless of the type of gun.

Where features such as high cap magazines, pistol grips, thumb-hole stocks, collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, etc. really come into play is when you are trying to defend yourself from other people who also have guns. i.e. Police and military. Which is what the 2nd amendment is all about, being able to defend yourself from tyranny.

Yes, I know there are hellfire missiles, m1 Abrams, f-22, and other military weapons- but that stuff doesn't win wars. It just prolongs them. At the end of it all, you still need boots on the ground to defeat an insurgency.

So your perception is that a classroom filled with 6 year old children would have fared better against a maniac with a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, than a maniac with an AR-15. I really don't see much difference. The things that would make the most difference in that situation would be number of exits and police response time; or why a maniac would do such a thing in the first place. That's your lie.

However, I'm pretty sure most anyone would agree that there is a major difference when someone brings a pistol to an assault rifle fight. That's my perception.

I don't have any problems with background checks on private sales, broader background checks from more federal agencies, mental health check during purchase, etc. I am a squeaky clean, law abiding citizen. I own a home, pay taxes, productive member of society, yadda yadda. I don't think it will do much to stop psychopaths from getting guns and shooting groups of unarmed people, but it doesn't turn me into a criminal for owning something. Gun bans do little to remove the guns already here, turns me into a criminal, chips away at the 2nd amendment, and renders us less able to defend ourselves from tyranny.

The middle from where I'm sitting seems pretty god damn clear- and nobody in America wants to look in the mirror to see what is causing all of our ills as a society. Until we're talking about the real cause of all of this violence in all seriousness, there is no middle.

 

[vgmaster831]

Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.

Its not really THAT pathetic. That would be a massive breach of the constitution

<..>

Even if its only the poorly written controversial part. Suffice to say if the gubment's willing to breach the constitution and their first act is to take guns away... Well let me adjust my tinfoil cap, but it doesn't look good.

OT: I don't own any guns, so realistically nothing would change, but I would be pissed on principle.

Speaking of the American Constitution: It's important to note that the original intent of that amendment does not apply to individuals and it is only the modern interpretation that does. It wouldn't be all that out of line if our freely elected officials and judges voted to suppress the ownership of guns. To be honest though, I don't think we're going to see the Congress and Supreme Court resolve the issue that way.

 

[The AmeriCanadian Gamer]

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.

You Australians are fortunate in the fact that you are an isolated continent. The US has to deal with drug cartels and a very large amount of the violent crime in the US stems from them.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Being a gun owner, this is a pretty important thing to me. I wouldn't hand over my guns. It's a breach of the 2nd Amendment, which was created for a situation almost exactly like the one that's posed. It certifies our right to carry in order to overthrow an oppressive government. What better way to start oppressing a peoples than be taking away their right to defend themselves. All those people that claim the government would never start oppressing the people can shut the fuck up right there and listen to my family that was thrown in Internment camps in the US because they had the gall to be Japanese.

Its not exactly nice, but there were 1000's of people with split alliances during world war II many of whom worked as spies for the other side, so what was their option let them roam around?

My family fought an died in WW II I'm sure they would of traded that for being locked up for the duration.

Also your contradicting yourself there anyway gun's were allowed then? how exactly did they help stop this situation?

"It certifies our right to carry in order to overthrow an oppressive government" I'm sorry but I'm fed up of hearing this bull. Anybody who thinks an unorganized, untrained populace who have lived comfy lives is going to make a blind bit of difference in the face of a trained military with superior tactics, training, weaponry, supplies and vehicles needs a serious reality check.

Most people will not stand up and fight. Those that do will have limited ammunition, be lucky if they have any weapons training let alone combat training. May or may not even be physically fit. May be much older or younger than their opposition. Will more than likely not have experienced being under fire. May not be capable of dealing with the trauma of a battle. Will likely not have Armour, or supporting equipment and possibly not even survival equipment.

And most of all any tyrannical regime will not play by the rules, they will gas, they will torture they will publicly execute, they will burn crops, destroy bridges, stop supplying petrol, cut of water. It is moronic from a strategic point of view it would even make a difference. Especially when talking about the might of the US military one of the most well funded in the world. A Military that has faced extremely dangerous forces the world over. That has 1000's of battle hardened troops at its disposal. Intelligence agency's that keep tabs on everything and everyone. Yer you think your small arms will make a blind bit of difference? better off buying a coffin with your gun if that's what you have it for.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Speaking of the American Constitution: It's important to note that the original intent of that amendment does not apply to individuals and it is only the modern interpretation that does. It wouldn't be all that out of line if our freely elected officials and judges voted to suppress the ownership of guns. To be honest though, I don't think we're going to see the Congress and Supreme Court resolve the issue that way.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", so let's see.. who are these "people" it's talking about? Ok start at the beginning, there's got to be somewhere it says government rights...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Huh. Say, Jim? C'mere a sec. Get a load of this, I think this Constitution paper is for everyone.

 

[Raytan941]

Nor did they institute laws so that you could have a lawyer if arrested.

Firstly the 6th amendment, look it up.

In their time they did not feel the need to institute social security, or public health care programs. Basically if you could not afford housing or food, lawyers etc your on your own.

Show me any country that had a social security and public health system in the 1700's that could be comparable to our ideas of what those are in the modern era. You fault me for comparing outdated ideals to modern law when you just tried to do the opposite.

Those same founding fathers also thought it was acceptable to keep slaves, had laws such as a woman could not legally be raped by her husband, created a mindset that ultimately lead to the near extinction of native peoples, as well as near extinction of native animal species.

The same founding fathers that would of been disgusted women and people of ethnicity can vote.

The idea of the founding fathers Equal rights and freedom for all is an idealized myth. If you were rich it was true no doubt the common man, no.

Slavery was a common thing during those times, in fact slavery was not completely abolished in Europe until the mid 1800's. Was it hypocritical to claim that all men are equal then have slaves? yes, but it was not seen as bad or taboo to have slaves then and slavery was fairly common throughout the modern world at the time. The same goes for women's rights the women's suffrage movement did not start until the mid 1800's and in fact some of the US states were the first areas in the world that allowed women the right to vote.

Which is why it's totally nonsensical to base modern laws off ideas from literally a bygone age. You can't skirt round the fact they believed in slavery, so the fact they believed in the right to bear arms is just as unjustified.

Wow, so in your mind because some of the founding father's may have been slave owners then everything they did was tainted and meaningless? Well alright folks you heard it, the founders were slave owners so that whole bill of rights thing might as well toss it, freedom of speech, gone, right to a trial, out, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, meaningless, limits the powers of the federal government, pfft who needs that?

 

[the clockmaker]

GODDAMNIT PEOPLE... if the people of the US are disarmed what's to stop the any British Monarch from just waltzing and stealing their tvs?

Dude, don't ruin this for the commonwealth.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I'm sorry but I'm fed up of hearing this bull. Anybody who thinks an unorganized, untrained populace who have lived comfy lives is going to make a blind bit of difference in the face of a trained military with superior tactics, training, weaponry, supplies and vehicles needs a serious reality check.

Most people will not stand up and fight. Those that do will have limited ammunition, be lucky if they have any weapons training let alone combat training. May or may not even be physically fit. May be much older or younger than their opposition. Will more than likely not have experienced being under fire. May not be capable of dealing with the trauma of a battle. Will likely not have Armour, or supporting equipment and possibly not even survival equipment.

Yes, you're right that a militia composed of average citizens would not do squad, but you're assuming that the United States military will fight against the constitution they swore to protect and the people they fought for. In the oath you take as a soldier, you swear an oath to the President and your superior officers, however the first and most important thing you swear to is the Constitution of the United States. You fight to, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They won't fight to support a knee-jerk reaction from a group of people that they already don't support and don't respect in any sense of the word.

 

[Raytan941]

It was actually quite effective in Egypt:

1) People: We'll protest until you quit! (...without guns)
2) Mubarak: I'll send the army to subdue your protests
3) Army says: Screw you we ain't shooting our own people
4) ???
5) Profit.

Meanwhile the armed revolt in Syria... Well not going according to plan now is it?

And food for thought:
What if your armed citizens pull a "Mussolini"? You know, use their guns to help a dictator grab power? Because that's how Fascism rose in Italy, Mussolini's armed civilian militia pretty much got him his position as "Duce".

Humm so you mean the army, you know the guy's with all the gun's tanks and whatnot sided with the people against the government and then the government was brought down. Sounds about right and sounds like an armed revolt to me, and don't try to pretend like it was not bloody a lot of people were killed when the government tried to subdue the protests it may not have gotten as bad as Syria but it was hardly a civil affair. As for Syria the people are winning and will eventually overthrow the government its only a matter of time now, I wish the international community would step in and help but it is what it is.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I don't know the ins and outs of us law but by the definition of "amendment". I think its safe to assume that this right to bear arms was brought in? so I would be safe to assume there are routes, difficult ones but legal routes to repeal the 2nd amendment?

It is possible, but I can tell you that it's not going to happen any time in the next hundred years (and I'd still be amazed if it happens any time after that).

So if your publicly elected government, representatives of the people, choose to legally repeal that right, they are doing it because the people voted them in. how in any concept of the word does that make them corrupt in this situation?

From an ethical standpoint? Because they're depriving people of a freedom that does not inherently harm anyone else. Therefor, there is no ethical reason to deny that freedom.

And then you have stated if no one will listen to you, you will resist violently. You are the criminal there. In that situation you disagree with the law, that does not give you a right to possibly deprive a family of their loved one. If a law is brought in by a legally elected government and they do it through all the legal routes and you don't like it, renounce your citizenship and leave.

Legally, yes. Ethically, no. As I stated, if a person does not want to be placed in the situation where they run the risk of being killed, they can leave peacefully. You make it sound as if I'm tying them up and holding them hostage, when I said just the opposite - I want them off my property. Furthermore, I also stated that I would only resort to violence if violence was used against me first. Violence as a form of defense, not protest. I don't believe in violent protest unless absolutely necessary.

You're also setting a dangerous precedent there. If something is a law, it is just? Slavery was once legal, was that just?

This is the exact kind of paranoia and power complex that scares the shit out of normal people the world over, that people like yourself have access to firearms which by your own admission your prepared to use in a lethal manner if you disagree with a legally brought in law, and people refuse to listen to your veiws.

What is it 90% of school shooters say "nobody listened to me"

Come down from the cross, you're not better than anyone else. 99% of people who own firearms - and who would fight to keep that right - are normal, healthy people, just like you. What you call "paranoid" is actually "principled." In other words, the willingness to do what is right and just regardless of whether not the government approves. The people we look up to in the United States - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. - were absolutely flawed human beings, but the reason we look up to them is because they were principled. They saw something they considered unjust, so they did something about it instead of doing whatever they were told.

I don't want to drag religion into it, but it's not very different from the church - do what you're told, or we will punish you. Any institution that demands my absolute obedience through coercion is not worthy of my obedience.

 

[the clockmaker]

It was actually quite effective in Egypt:

1) People: We'll protest until you quit! (...without guns)
2) Mubarak: I'll send the army to subdue your protests
3) Army says: Screw you we ain't shooting our own people
4) ???
5) Profit.

Meanwhile the armed revolt in Syria... Well not going according to plan now is it?

And food for thought:
What if your armed citizens pull a "Mussolini"? You know, use their guns to help a dictator grab power? Because that's how Fascism rose in Italy, Mussolini's armed civilian militia pretty much got him his position as "Duce".

Humm so you mean the army, you know the guy's with all the gun's tanks and whatnot sided with the people against the government and then the government was brought down. Sounds about right and sounds like an armed revolt to me, and don't try to pretend like it was not bloody a lot of people were killed when the government tried to subdue the protests it may not have gotten as bad as Syria but it was hardly a civil affair. As for Syria the people are winning and will eventually overthrow the government its only a matter of time now, I wish the international community would step in and help but it is what it is.

Actually, if I recall correctly, when the populace does it it is a revolt, when the military does it it is a coup. It is important to note the difference because a coup does not necessitate civilians arming themselves at all.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

snip

"Nor did they institute laws so that you could have a lawyer if arrested." what I meant there was the whole, if you could no afford an attorney one will be provided thing did not exist, if you could not afford one, tough luck.

I'm trying to get the point across that it was a totally different age. An how crazy it is to justify laws today on the morals of a society from 100's of years ago.

"Slavery was a common thing during those times" yes, yes it was, which is exactly what I'm trying to say, just because it was the done thing to have weapons back then an you look up to the founding fathers does not automatically mean its a good thing now.

Back then many army's were not professional, weapons were not what they are today, social attitudes were not what they are today, law enforcement and community's were not what they are today. You have totally ignored the point I was trying to make.

" yes, but it was not seen as bad or taboo to have slaves then and slavery was fairly common throughout the modern world at the time." its true people have to be judged in the context of the age, but not everyone thought slavery was right, there were those who saw it for what it was, so that doesn't let them totally off the hook.

Do you not see the irony though of saying people have the right to bear arms to resist tyranny based off the morals of slave owners? I know the British certainly did own slaves but we're not justifying the morals of today based off the morals of that era. From when I did law at college, we do have a few old laws floating about, but their mostly things like murder and petty theft, things have to be updated. Allowing people to own machines that can turn a 5 year old child into someone with the means to kill their mother or a police officer. Or turn an untrained adult with ill intent into a mass murderer. an so on with various situations, is not an acceptable concept the entire 1st world, I can't understand how Americans can't understand that, we can't all be wrong, all the other forms of policing and control else where in the world can't all be totally wrong can they?

 

[vgmaster831]

Speaking of the American Constitution: It's important to note that the original intent of that amendment does not apply to individuals and it is only the modern interpretation that does. It wouldn't be all that out of line if our freely elected officials and judges voted to suppress the ownership of guns. To be honest though, I don't think we're going to see the Congress and Supreme Court resolve the issue that way.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", so let's see.. who are these "people" it's talking about? Ok start at the beginning, there's got to be somewhere it says government rights...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Huh. Say, Jim? C'mere a sec. Get a load of this, I think this Constitution paper is for everyone.

Like I said, that is the modern interpretation. I think that's a good way to look at it, but it was originally meant to instate the National Guard in each state. Consider the more divided nature of America at that time and the purpose of the federal government. The states rights were really what was being protected throughout the Constitution. All in all, I like the way we think of the Constitution today, but it doesn't exactly stop us from enacting gun bans.

Also, it's important not to view the government as inherently seperate from the American people. They are citizens and we do elect them.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I'm sorry but I'm fed up of hearing this bull. Anybody who thinks an unorganized, untrained populace who have lived comfy lives is going to make a blind bit of difference in the face of a trained military with superior tactics, training, weaponry, supplies and vehicles needs a serious reality check.

Most people will not stand up and fight. Those that do will have limited ammunition, be lucky if they have any weapons training let alone combat training. May or may not even be physically fit. May be much older or younger than their opposition. Will more than likely not have experienced being under fire. May not be capable of dealing with the trauma of a battle. Will likely not have Armour, or supporting equipment and possibly not even survival equipment.

Yes, you're right that a militia composed of average citizens would not do squad, but you're assuming that the United States military will fight against the constitution they swore to protect and the people they fought for. In the oath you take as a soldier, you swear an oath to the President and your superior officers, however the first and most important thing you swear to is the Constitution of the United States. You fight to, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They won't fight to support a knee-jerk reaction from a group of people that they already don't support and don't respect in any sense of the word.

Exactly !! I find it totally unrealistic that the entire military of a modern democratic country are just going along with that sort of thing. Which is what brings me back to my point, why the need to arm civilians? Let the people who know what they are doing, who volunteered and have sworn to protect those morals, do their jobs, its why positions like that exist.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

snip

In all honesty I am beginning to think people do not understand democracy. The people control the government. Martin Luther King saw injustice in the laws and the world, when exactly did he start shooting the place up?

" 99% of people who own firearms - and who would fight to keep that right - are normal, healthy people, just like you." no nobody who is prepared to kill another human being to keep an object is a healthy individual. This is not a post apocalyptic hell planet or mad max, Mugabe is not in control of your country, that gun is not going to provide you or your family with food and shelter or basic health care, this is not a film or a game. You don't live in a country where your only option on a daily basis is kill or be killed.

"the reason we look up to them is because they were principled" Stalin and Hitler had very very strong principles so I'm not really getting your point here.

"They saw something they considered unjust, so they did something about it instead of doing whatever they were told" just look at how much money all of those individuals made out of the war, look at how much power they gained from doing what they did. That's why they did what they did, money and power, that's just an idealized myth for to justify the betrayal of oaths and allegiances, in the pursuit of ALL the money and ALL the power.

I really do just give up, I'm not going to win, an my opinion is defunct anyway, I don't get a vote there. I'll just enjoy the fact I'm secure in the knowledge that if my neighbor gets drunk an I'm playing my music too loud the government have not okayed him the means to kill me without a struggle.