Americans - Would you change gun laws?

[Correction]

Oh god not this discussion again.

You should have started with the question: "Do you feel like you have a good understanding of gun laws at both the federal level and your own state?"

Then discuss how people who answered 'yes' are wrong.

Then maybe the discussion would bring something new to the table.

[Maxxthepenguin]

banning guns in no way would stop gun related violence. pot is illegal...but methinks that a lot of BG'ers find ways to partake in that...and it doesn't take "connections" as you so dubiously titled it. any idiot can walk to any random place in any random town and score weed or coke...why wouldn't they be able to do the same with guns? it's silly to think otherwise.

I tend to think people would be more willing to report violent weapons than personal use drugs.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

[Fhqwghads]

Meh... it's early, my brain thinks way past where my fingers are typing sometimes. Typos aren't what my sig is about. =P Brb, need more coffee.

I was more saying holy crap violent sig.

lol... gotchya.

[*Shinzon*]

So you stop the legal gun trafficking and then what? You realize most street crimes are committed using used or illegally purchased guns. Its a stupid argument that laws will be able to solve most the gun control problems. Assault rifles, yea are dangerous, but most crimes are committed by small caliber hand guns. Whenever the media gets a hold of "automatic rifle" and "shooting rampage" it gets made a big deal of.

It's the same argument that went into prohibition. The solution is a tougher enforcement/punishment for one time offenses/offenders for gun crimes although alone that wont do much. So its difficult to say how much even that would help, because the gun traffickers who know their shit can get around most those pesky laws.

[Demosthenes]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

[Remyo]

I support right to BEAR arms. I myself own guns and will buy my first handgun in 12 days(+3 day waiting period). I feel some places need more stringent gun laws to allow a psychological exam before being able to purchase a weapon, and tighten up the process to get a ccw. However, I also have seen evidence from one state, I believe vermont, that it's the easiest state to get a permit for and has the least firearm related crime, whereas D.C. has an overall ban and has more homicide than about 3 states combined.

Something coming up in my state (may be others too) is an amendment to remove the "No Carry" law for school campuses for certain people with a ccw, such as teacher and faculty and even university students. Double edged sword because it may be a great deterrent, but if someone actually came in with a gun the situation may not be right to be able to take a shot without hitting another student.

[Shuemue]

Oh god not this discussion again.

You should have started with the question: "Do you feel like you have a good understanding of gun laws at both the federal level and your own state?"

Then discuss how people who answered 'yes' are wrong.

Then maybe the discussion would bring something new to the table.

I absolutely wasn't trying to bring anything new to the table, I wanted to simply read what the younger generation thought about the situation rather than what the media feeds me. Often when I've seen this discussed on BG it's been a more specific debate, based on a topical incident. I wanted a more general understanding of what this community thinks. I'm finding it really interesting, some people think very differently than I would have guessed.

I'm also restraining myself from posting my opinion, so that my international views don't steer the discussion away from what I'm hoping for. It's your country, I want to know what YOU think about it.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

[Shuemue]

What's a ccw?

[BIGSTIC]

Well after the last gun thread I think most of you know my stance. However I feel the first option is misleading. I do feel that there are loopholes in our current gun laws, however, I dont think guns should be banned. This being said I voted for option 2 even though half of option 1 is more how I feel. I am a law abiding citizen who will go through whatever red tape the governtment throws at me if the tighten the laws. But then there are some gun laws I feel should be laxed. A person who has a felony drunk driving on there recored is in no way more likely to commit a gun crime than me, yet they are leagaly not allowed to own a gun. Most of the gun laws in America have been what I would call "Quick Fixes" with little to no thought about the future. I think gun shows should be a thing of the past because with the internet they are obsolete.

Gun's arn't legal because you need the right to defend yourself against someone else with a gun, its for military purposes.

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.

I'm not talking about constitutional rights, I'm talking about human rights.

And anyway, what the hell that passage even says is still under debate 200+ years later. Fucking founding fathers need to throw some periods in that shit.

On the whole constitutional thing. Nowear does it say the government has to allow its citizens to drive cars, smoke a cigeret, get drunk, etc. The list goes on. They should have just left the whole "bear arms" line out of the constitution. I mean we have a lot of Rights. Not everyone is listed in the constitution. I really think our founding fathers would slap us all silly over this whole argument and tell us to get a little common sense.

[Demosthenes]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

Show me more, this is about taxes, not about how America needs slaves.

[Deejay]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

You act like the constitution is some holy grail that could never be amended.... oh wai-

Guns should be legal though. As much as I hate the fact that joe smchoe needs a damn gun to defend himself, everyone has the right to feel safe. If it takes a gun for you to be comfortable traversing in certain areas/neighborhoods than so be it.

The people who shouldn't be handling guns aren't doing it legally anyway, so banning them wouldn't really do anything unless they're stupid enough to carry them in their cars when they get pulled over. How many gang bangers/repeat criminals actually register their guns?

[Remyo]

What's a ccw?

short hand referring to a permit to Carry Concealed Weapon.

and now we're on slavery.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_o..._071010_ms.jpg

[Demosthenes]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

You act like the constitution is some holy grail that could never be amended.... oh wai-

Guns should be legal though. As much as I hate the fact that joe smchoe needs a damn gun to defend himself, everyone has the right to feel safe. If it takes a gun for you to be comfortable traversing in certain areas/neighborhoods than so be it.

The people who shouldn't be handling guns aren't doing it legally anyway, so banning them wouldn't really do anything unless they're stupid enough to carry them in their cars when they get pulled over. How many gang bangers/repeat criminals actually register their guns?

Deejay, you are an idiot, and I've seen you be an idiot in more places than one. Apparently you did not read a damn thing I said. If you did, your brain is too tiny to process it. I'll put it in simple terms for you. It is not about the constitution, America needs guns, the constitution only backs it up.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I am not American, nor am I down with guns, but it is ingrained in the foundation of the country.

Slavery was too. If the situation deems it necessary, we can change.

Is slavery in the constitution?

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

Show me more, this is about taxes, not about how America needs slaves.

As a result, the original Constitution contained four provisions tacitly allowing slavery to continue for the next 20 years. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of such persons, Section 2 of Article IV prohibited the provision of assistance to escaping persons and required their return if successful and Section 2 of Article I defined other persons as "three-fifths" of a person for calculations of each state's official population.[11] Article V prohibited any amendments or legislation changing these provisions until 1808, thereby giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. The failure to do so led to the Civil War.[12]

Enjoy.

The point is, the founding fathers weren't always right and as time goes on, more and more things they wrote are wrong simply because of the context of the times.

[Deejay]

Demos, you're wrong lol... Once you get off your high horse feel free to pick that giant dick out of your ass.

Edit: Lmao, he's the one who brings up the constitution and 3 posts later pretends that he wasn't using it to help his argument.

[Melchiah]

We cannot un-invent the gun. Therefore, there will always be guns held by those who wish to do evil. Unfortunately, a gun is a weapon and weapons facilitate one person exerting force over another, which one who wishes to do evil to another normally is required to do in order to accomplish said evil.

Since guns cannot be uninvented, nor categorically rounded up and demolished, bad people will find ways to own guns. Making guns illegal will cause the gun black market to expand to accommodate the decreased supply, because as there are always evil people who need tools to facilitate their evil, there will always be unscrupulous people who will find a way to turn a dollar on a choked off market. The guy who sells a man a weapon without checking his background doesn't give a shit what that weapon is used for. This is what needs to stop.

Outright banning handguns accomplishes two things, and neither of them are wholesome in my opinion. 1) You remove a weapon from the one category of person who is most deserving to use one, the law abiding citizen, and 2) You choke the legal gun supply off which, doing nothing to affect the demand for guns to do evil with, causes the black market for guns to increase proportionally.

Now, an outright ban on handguns would affect an immediate drop in violent crime, to the degree that for a period of time one would be unable to find a gun to buy. This effect would, I think, only last until the black market managed to shift to start filling the new increased demand. At this point, I think we would see a complete reversal of the violent crime trend, even going so far as to exceed the pre-ban numbers. Washington DC is an excellent example.

Guns need tighter regulation, I will not argue this point. There is no need for any person in America to own assault weapons or fully automatic hand pistols like the MAC-10. There also needs to be tougher punishments for gun law violations. However, I am a law abiding citizen with no wish to do evil do my fellow man, and I WILL have the means necessary to ensure that no man does evil to me, and no one has the right to deny me that protection. I think it is pretentious and ignorant to support a complete weapon ban for the reasons I outlined above.

Edit: Just saw this, need to clear this little gem up...

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

Those were called indentured servants, people who paid for their passage to America by agreeing to work as a servant for a pre-agreed-upon term of years.

Also, this clause does not indicate the right to own slaves(all other persons?).

[Demosthenes]

Demos, you're wrong lol... Once you get off your high horse feel free to pick that giant dick out of your ass.

Edit: Lmao, he's the one who brings up the constitution and 3 posts later pretends that he wasn't using it to help his argument.

If you cannot comprehend what just happened, explaining shit to you is moot.

[Deejay]

Is slavery in the constitution?

It is not about the constitution

http://www.thecatconnection.com/miva...p_flops_tn.jpg