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

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
If someone came to take my guns away, I'd shoot them.

What better way to show that I'm a responsible individual than by shooting people?

'Oh, you want my gun?'

*Bang!*

By the way, I don't own a gun. Yeah, that's right. I killed that guy with my mind.
That's telekinesis, Daystar

What OP doesn't seem to understand is that the government CAN'T take guns away. In america, they would be required to offer some sort of compensation to the owner in order to confiscate legally acquired property. that would be so ungodly expensive that NO one would think of letting it escape a subcommittee
 

Miles Maldonado

New member
Oct 11, 2011
66
0
0
I voted other, because I would give them shit over not having a warrant, et cetera et cetera, and at the end of it all, tell them some potato gun.

Basically I'd troll the poor bastard sent to collect my gun.

That said, if they came to take it by force (I.E. it's not the police, but instead the military), I'd resist.
 

Saladfork

New member
Jul 3, 2011
921
0
0
What I don't get is why the U.S. hasn't tried making new amendments to their constitution in (I may be wrong on this) over a century. I seem to recall that the original constitution was supposed to be rewritten every so often to keep it up-to-date, but even though that hasn't happened, the American government has proven that they have the power to amend it, so why can't they also remove amendments?

Also, I'd like to add that the various perspectives of this particular debate can easily be viewed as an argument between deontology and utilitarianism. The U.S. is a largely deontological country, while the rest of us seem to be more utilitarian, which may explain our differences in perspective.

Personally, the only reason I'd ever really care about American gun control is because of the annoying habit of Canadian criminals to easily buy guns in the states and smuggle the across the border without even trying.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
The businessman's plot very nearly resulted in a Fascist take over in the US in 1933. Surely the Wall Street of today is composed of trustworthy and competent individuals who would never let such a crisis occur again....

Interesting bit of history, many household names signed on for a Fascist dictatorship in the US. Thankfully, the man who was chosen to lead the coup changed his views and blew the whistle on everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Under the right conditions (economic depression for example) even highly democratic states can turn tyrannical very quickly, even the USA, Canada, UK ,France, etc, etc. The notion that it can never happen here is just Western arrogance IMO.

An armed citzenry is a fundamentally good idea. That said, better education on firearms safety is needed, in Canada it is WAY more of a hassle to legally drive than it is to legally own a firearm, that should probably change.

And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships, and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, longbows, and hand grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon?so long as there is no answer to it?gives claws to the weak.
? George Orwell, ?You and the Atomic Bomb?

George Orwell - "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
 

ImperialSunlight

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,269
0
0
Binnsyboy said:
Thyunda said:
it's because inner-city Americans do not need a handgun for any reason.
If you'd said rifles, I'd understand where you're coming from, but I'd say people in the city have more reason for a handgun than someone in a rural area. Carry weapons and such, which do protect people.
Guns don't protect people, people protect people (or not. Usually not, in the city. ).
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
People seem to forget that the only reason the United States EXISTS is because the traitors that revolted against the British government were, well, ARMED.

The founding fathers knew that, some day, there may come a time when part of the citizenry may have to, once again, revolt against an oppressive regime.

And they revolted for far, far less than the ludicrous human rights abuses committed today.

If you DON'T fight to the death against those taking away the sole protection to your liberty, you may as well give up your other liberties as well, since you've given up your last resort. But, then, most people are too worried about petty things and selfish livelihood to risk their own body for something that affects us all, to risk their body for honor, liberty, or dignity.
 

HorrendusOne

New member
Mar 29, 2011
44
0
0
chadachada123 said:
People seem to forget that the only reason the United States EXISTS is because the traitors that revolted against the British government were, well, ARMED.

The founding fathers knew that, some day, there may come a time when part of the citizenry may have to, once again, revolt against an oppressive regime.

And they revolted for far, far less than the ludicrous human rights abuses committed today.

If you DON'T fight to the death against those taking away the sole protection to your liberty, you may as well give up your other liberties as well, since you've given up your last resort. But, then, most people are too worried about petty things and selfish livelihood to risk their own body for something that affects us all, to risk their body for honor, liberty, or dignity.
I could not have said this better myself. It's also what I've been trying to tell people but all they care about is their materials and gossip. It sickens me that the majority of people don't even understand what the 2nd amendment was for in the first place.

I really just don't understand people that can't think.
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
Trezu said:
do you wanna know who doesn't use a gun? Batman.

just sayin
Year Two says otherwise.

As for the topic, if the government cannot compensate for confiscating a person's property they would be committing theft. And with the sheer mountain of debt Congress is racking up, there is no way the federal government can afford to enforce that law unless they want to risk riots in the streets.
 

Raytan941

New member
Sep 28, 2011
28
0
0
What I am really tired about hearing in this gun debate is this line about "if we can just save one life then passing all these laws are worth it" I have heard both the President and Vice President as well as many others say something to that effect and it's a complete load of garbage. Gun control is not now nor has it ever been about saving lives if politicians really want to save lives there are FAR more effective laws that can be passed that will save many many more lives then taking away peoples gun's ever could.

Reduce the nationwide speed limit to 40 MPH

I saw a study not to long ago that showed that for every 10 MPH over 30 MPH a car is traveling the risk of a fatality in a car accident is DOUBLED. Reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH and BAM! instantly thousands of lives a year saved, will people like it, no but if it will just save one life isn't it worth it?

Set a high tax on restaurants selling deep fat fried foods

The number one cause of death in the US is heart disease if you took the number of gun related deaths including suicide and the number of car related death's combined them and tripled it it would still be far less deaths per year then heart disease which is right around 600,000 a year in the US alone. One of the leading causes of heart disease is unhealthy eating habits like eating deep fat fried foods. So if these people really want to save lives how about they levy and 80% sales tax on deep fat fried foods sold by restaurants with all of those tax's going to prevent, treat, and find a cure for heart disease. BAM! ten's of thousands of lives saved a year and improved overall health for the entire country. Of course people might not like I when their 99 cent fries cost 1.80$ over night but hey if we cant just save one life it's worth it right?

I could go on and on there are hundreds of laws that could be passed that would save more lives then gun control ever has or could of course many of these laws and restrictions would effect 100% of the population instead of just one subset like gun owners which is why they will never be passed. The majority of these people who want more gun control don't own guns are their gun owners among them yes, but the majority or not many of them in fact have never even held a gun and are intimidated by and afraid of guns. Many of the people that write and enact these laws are rich well to do politicians many of whom have armed guards to protect them in public and in their own homes I don't have that luxury. Yet they presume to tell people that they don't have the right to defend themselves, home and property with the tool of their choosing while they themselves are surrounded by armed guards, talk about hypocrites.
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
Rawne1980 said:
Techno Squidgy said:
Rawne1980 said:
We did have that law passed. In the UK it is illegal to own firearms.
May I advise you look up Shotgun and Firearm Certificates? We just have strict gun control.
At some point in the future I will be the proud owner of a Lee-Enfield, used to massacre paper targets.
And what happens if you purchase a firearm without those licenses?

You can't purchase a firearm for self defense, you can't carry a loaded firearm and any firearm you do manage to get a license for must be kept in a locked cabinet with the ammunition being kept in a separate locked cabinet.

It is illegal to own assault rifles or anything along those lines.

On top of that the licenses you need to own a fire arm are not easy to get hold of. It's not a case of "give me license now" and they give you one.

By "illegal" I meant joe public can't own firearms.

Those with licenses already know what they can and can't do and heaven help them if they fuck up. The law does not go easy on them.
Right, but you said "it is illegal to own firearms". It is not illegal to own firearms, it is illegal to possess them without a firearms certificate and compliance to the regulations.

The average Joe can own firearms, he just needs a Firearms certificate and the necessary gun and ammo safes. It's not easy, but I wouldn't say it was extraordinarily difficult to get one. You need good reason (e.g. target shooting or deer stalking), two referee signatures, an interview and to prove you can safely store the firearm and the ammunition.

The law is hard on those that fuck up with damn good reason. If you can't be responsible with a firearm and follow the rather simple rules, you don't deserve to own one.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Raytan941 said:
What I am really tired about hearing in this gun debate is this line about "if we can just save one life then passing all these laws are worth it" I have heard both the President and Vice President as well as many others say something to that effect and it's a complete load of garbage. Gun control is not now nor has it ever been about saving lives if politicians really want to save lives there are FAR more effective laws that can be passed that will save many many more lives then taking away peoples gun's ever could.

Reduce the nationwide speed limit to 40 MPH

I saw a study not to long ago that showed that for every 10 MPH over 30 MPH a car is traveling the risk of a fatality in a car accident is DOUBLED. Reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH and BAM! instantly thousands of lives a year saved, will people like it, no but if it will just save one life isn't it worth it?
The risk of a fatality FROM an accident may go up, but the rate of accidents goes WAY down when on a freeway, such that far more deaths happen at intersections then on a freeway.

Considering the majority of miles traveled by vehicles is on a freeway, I'd call them far, far safer than your standard 40mph road (with stop-light intersections).

No, if you really want to reduce fatalities, getting rid of stop-lights is one of the most effective methods. Roundabouts, where appropriate, reduce accident rates and naturally slow down traffic (meaning less-fatal accidents) by a significant amount.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that, regardless of the posted speed limit, drivers tend to drive at whatever speed feels SAFE, since, oftentimes, the speed limit itself correlates to neither common sense nor safety.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the source for freeway fatalities vs intersection fatalities, so you can feel free to not believe that claim as it is not sourced.
 

gyroscopeboy

New member
Nov 27, 2010
601
0
0
bananafishtoday said:
Single Shot said:
Yeah, right, a breach of this part of the constitution?
"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"
Do Americans know what a militia is? I read this and thought of the Swiss system of gun laws built around every 20 - 30 year old (Male?) being part of a trained militia with the option to keep semi-automatic versions of their issued rifle afterwards because they had proper training and respect for the firearm BEFORE being allowed to own it.
You're thinking of "militia" as "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies." Most pro-gun folks would argue the Founders wrote the Second Amendment with "a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers" in mind, who could be "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government" if shit went down. And they'd say "regulated" as in "adjusted so as to ensure accuracy of operation" rather than "controlled or directed by a rule, principle, method, etc." (defs from dictionary.com)
What does " a well regulated militia" mean?

I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.

Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Techno Squidgy said:
Right, but you said "it is illegal to own firearms". It is not illegal to own firearms, it is illegal to possess them without a firearms certificate and compliance to the regulations.

The average Joe can own firearms, he just needs a Firearms certificate and the necessary gun and ammo safes. It's not easy, but I wouldn't say it was extraordinarily difficult to get one. You need good reason (e.g. target shooting or deer stalking), two referee signatures, an interview and to prove you can safely store the firearm and the ammunition.
[Emphasis Added]

That right there proves the other poster's point more than your own.

It's illegal for the average citizen to own a gun in the UK, just as it's illegal for the average citizen to possess medication that isn't prescribed to them (assuming prescription drug law in the UK is similar to the US).

If you're required to have a reason to own it...then it isn't really legal, not anymore than regulated medication that is only allowed for choice people that have a "valid" doctor-approved reason.

That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK, and how, because of this, some 50% of robberies in the UK happen while the homeowner is present, compared to 13% of US robberies. (Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/ )

There was another eye-opening statistic on the chance of being harmed while having your home robbed: Unsurprisingly, you are far, far more likely to be hurt (specifically, stabbed) if you live in the UK and have your house burglarized than if you live in the US. In fact, around 10% of burglaries in the UK have violence against the homeowner, a disgustingly high percentage that shows that criminals in your country clearly have absolutely no fear of the people they are victimizing.(Source, though not the source I was originally thinking of: http://www.examiner.com/article/defenseless-british-citizens-are-attacked-their-own-homes-by-violent-burglars-every-30-minutes )
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Techno Squidgy said:
Right, but you said "it is illegal to own firearms". It is not illegal to own firearms, it is illegal to possess them without a firearms certificate and compliance to the regulations.

The average Joe can own firearms, he just needs a Firearms certificate and the necessary gun and ammo safes. It's not easy, but I wouldn't say it was extraordinarily difficult to get one. You need good reason (e.g. target shooting or deer stalking), two referee signatures, an interview and to prove you can safely store the firearm and the ammunition.
[Emphasis Added]

That right there proves the other poster's point more than your own.

It's illegal for the average citizen to own a gun in the UK, just as it's illegal for the average citizen to possess medication that isn't prescribed to them (assuming prescription drug law in the UK is similar to the US).

If you're required to have a reason to own it...then it isn't really legal, not anymore than regulated medication that is only allowed for choice people that have a "valid" doctor-approved reason.

-snip-
To gain valid reason for target shooting is as simple as joining a gun club. Not all that hard.

The second half of your argument brings to light some vary interesting articles. However I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of pedestrians carrying handguns on the streets. Those articles show it can indeed be a good thing at times, but I'm not sure I agree with the saying "An armed society is a polite society.". It's something I need to think about.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
I give up my guns.

I collapse to my knees and weep for my nation.

Why? Because annihilation is soon at hand.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Trezu said:
I have a question

Why do people wanna keep there guns? because its eaiser to ward intruders away? Makes you feel safer? People may perceive your genitals to be bigger?

do you wanna know who doesn't use a gun? Batman.

just sayin
Batman has trained in every single martial art to be able to fight Gods in a fist fight, more money than God, and best friends with a bunch of aliens, an Amazonian, and a guy who can run past the speed of light/

just sayin.

OT: File or be part of the massive class action lawsuit against the government. Go to DC and protest outside the White House. Help fund the case in front of the Supreme Court. Write about it on the internet and help rally people to fight the law (metaphorically, not literally), try to get states and governors to oppose this law by any means possible. Threaten open rebellion if all above does not work.

Be part of open rebellion if THAT does not work.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
You realize that people in general aren't talking about banning guns all together. They want stricter gun laws. So restrictions on automatic and semi automatic weapons, basically the stuff that's dangerous in a mass murder situation.

Some people need guns to get by safely. Take farmers and people that live in rural areas, they need guns to keep themselves safe from the wildlife, but they don't need semi automatic weapons as they aren't firing blindly into the night they are killing what is usually a single target.

I've heard a lot of people claiming the need for protection in the household from criminals. Worst case scenario, in an enclosed area like that a handgun is just as effective as an assault rifle against a few targets. I've never heard of a home invasion where more than 5 people coordinated an attack against a single person. Plus the home owner knows the house, they have the tactical advantage. You'd have to be an idiot to try and take someone on knowing that they were armed in their own turf even if it was just a handgun.

My point is that semi automatic weapons and pump action shotguns have no place in civilian life.

But it's not just the type of gun. Other countries have strict laws about gun storage and you need to meet those requirements to be able to obtain a license. I don't see what people have against this as an addition to gun control laws... "oh noes I have to keep my gun in a gun safe or secured cabinet"... It is really something you should be doing already as a responsible gun owner.
 

MrGalactus

Elite Member
Sep 18, 2010
1,849
0
41
81 people (so far) are fucking sociopathic. What's wrong with you? Jesus.

I do own guns, but the idea of murdering someone over some piece of wood and metal is seriously not healthy. I'd give them up, on the condition that I'd be reimbursed, obviously.