Guns in our society.

[tewl]

?

[pohibaba]

?

Stop post spamming.

[Khamsin]

The primary function gun-control serves is to make official government enforcement agencies relevant. Government needs to regulate arms production and distribution. This is evident since all governments worth their weight do that.

You're basically just saying that gun control only exists to give governments something to do. That doesn't make any sense. Regulatory agencies don't exist simply to justify their own existence.

[guartz]

You're basically just saying that gun control only exists to give governments something to do. That doesn't make any sense. Regulatory agencies don't exist simply to justify their own existence.

I'm not saying that at all. Just try to imagine how society would function if government didn't regulate arms production.

[BIGSTIC]

Actually, there is roughly 1 firearm caused deaths in america every 16 minutes. And on top of that, there are news stories just by searching "Shooting" in google news and switching it to within the last day. Needless to say, this is just a flat out lie. Although, its hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

Uhhh hit a nerve????

Actually the number is a lot higher and if you had any reading comprehension you would understand what it means.

You do know there are over 250 million LEGALLY obtained guns in the United states right now under civilian roofs. 99% of us dont go around pointing our guns at random people for a stupid IPod. If Detroit is really that bad off, MOVE.

[Melchiah]

I don't see 25 person massacres with a homemade potato gun. And to go back to points made earlier between us on previous threads: countries that do have bans in place don't have situations with homemade firearms running rampant and people dying to cannon blasts.

I understand your passion believe me. If someone said to ban black people, I'd totally be like; Hey man, I love black people. I use them all the time. You can play with black people for fun and not be violent. Anyways, if you ban black people, people will just get tans and also smuggle tanning lotion.

I feel you but, bad NRA argument is bad.

Let me clarify: No, you're probably not going to manufacture a repeating weapon of the same effectiveness as an automatic or a revolver. However, it's fully possible to create a single-shot weapon like the ones used prior to the advent of smokeless powder and the ammunition cartridge.

If, and this is a huge bold italic IF a nationwide gun ban could be effectively implemented(this part is nigh upon impossible) and all current guns rounded up and destroyed, then we have done three things:

1) Taken away the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment(and don't even try and start with that militia bullshit, the Amendment clearly says "The People") and disarmed every honest citizen in the country

2) Strengthened the worldwide black market for weapons(Anything illegal and profitable is sold on the black market, if anyone tries to argue against this fact you're just being intentionally obtuse)

3) Left the maladjusted among our population one less option in killing people in an attention-getting fashion, and they'd subsequently move on to the next step UP in the lethality ladder, which would be homemade explosives, a la Harris/Klebold and McVeigh.


Just so everyone knows where I stand on the issue at large:

I take the position that responsible gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

I do not have a problem with the private citizen having the option of owning handguns, rifles, or assault weapons.

I am completely for tighter regulation of gun ownership of any kind. I take no issue with background checks or the registration of my weapons. In the case of weapons falling under the definition of assault weapon(a definition which in my opinion needs to be cleaned up and more clearly defined), I think those weapons should fall under a special permit like fully automatic weapons do. I know there are some collectors out there who like to own and shoot military-issue guns from different countries, and that's ok if they are responsible gun owners and willing to jump through all the hoops.

I am absolutely NOT for, and will stop listening to people who start talking about:

Across the board, nationwide firearms bans(This is ludicrous, and will have exactly the opposite result from the one desired)

The rounding up, confiscation and destruction of all privately owned firearms(Fuck you, die in a fire)


In closing, tighten up the regulation, enforce regulatory policies at places like gun shows, create a special permit for weapons falling under the assault weapon category, but go asphyxiate on an obese rooster if you want to take my weapons away.

[Leonstrife]

Wildwest: Open your goddamn history book. I'm not sending you links.

As a southerner, if anyone replied with that I would be insulted and lol! My Gun rack only has 2 mini gun racks on it etc. Sound argument. I think gun control to some extent is needed as well, like the restriction on booze or the like in some ways. (Restricting completely has proven to be bad.) But an age limit works decently well.

[Syntex]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

Honestly lets just have everyone carry a gun, I mean if you were going to rob a bank would you if you knew everyone was carrying one?

meh I know this is not going to end well...

/flameon

[Howard Roark]

Bang bang your dead hole in your head
Bang bang your dead hole in your head
Bang bang your dead hole in your head
Bang bang your dead hole in your head

­

[Snprphnx]

let me start this by saying i own a pistol, and H&K USP Compact .357SIG. Love the gun, and I love the fact that i have the freedom to own it. Now to my post...


the Constitutional right to own handguns, rifles, etc, like every other Amendment and law, is subject to change on a daily basis. NRA for years has argued that its purpose was to give each Individual the right to own a firearm. Opponents to this say the opposite, that the Individual does not have the right.

and don't even try and start with that militia bullshit, the Amendment clearly says "The People"

it does say this, but the beginning is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "well regulated" as: "Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard." The closest thing we have to "well regulated militias" are the National Guard for each state. A military body, charged with the defense of their home state, under the order of the state governor.

Your argument, and part of the NRAs, is that the amendment is modified by the phrase "the People". Keep in mind, when the Constitution was written, "the People" were white males, since women typically had little rights, and blacks weren't even considered to be people, but rather property.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the handgun issue. Before this ruling, it was illegal to own or carry a firearm within D.C. The court ruled that parts of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 were unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia. This was a major victory for the NRA.

Taking away guns won't solve the issue. Doesn't anyone remember the old episode of the Simpsons? Where the aliens came down, and people gave up their guns for peace. Only to go on to make a board with a nail through it.

We are a race that naturally segregates ourselves, and if needed, will come to arms against another group. Those 'arms' can be anything from a lunch try or beer bottle in your local bar, to an RPG aimed at a soldier protecting your right to play video games, and freely post on the internet.

[Rammses]

like the restriction on booze or the like in some ways. (Restricting completely has proven to be bad.) But an age limit works decently well.

What? Age limit works decently well? When 90% of youths consume it before legal age? When alcohol is causing immeasurable damage on society? Really? Ban has been proven to be bad? Proven? You mean they tried it once in a couple of places and gave up after a couple of years when it had negative short-term effects?

At least the point of alcohol is to make people happy and relaxed, even if it turned out quite a mess. What's the point of guns?

[Yuri-G]

The way I see it, we're pretty much fucked. Should never have allowed guns in the first place, but now they're out there, and banning them would only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. I really have no idea what we should do.

I should say that every time someone brings up a gun ban, I'm reminded of London, who has such a problem with knives that they're considering banning people from carrying them in public. So I guess no matter what you do, people are gonna get killed by weapons? *shrug* I dunno man.

[Eratosthenes]

At least the point of alcohol is to make people happy and relaxed, even if it turned out quite a mess. What's the point of guns?

Some people find an evening at the bar enjoyable and relaxing, and some people get the same thing out of a day at the range.

Alcohol and guns are both things that people abuse, but that isn't a reason to take them away from the innocent.

[Plow]

I'm really sick of hearing the 2nd amendment argument anyway. The same people that wrote that claimed we needed armed rebellions every 20 years... that would totally work out well in modern society, especially considering the effectiveness of modern weaponry.


Societies evolve, the constitution is specifically designed to evolve, and the argument people are using to claim it shouldn't evolve is an evolution of the constitution in and of itself.

[guartz]

Yea, there is no point to like 90% of what people do.

I don't understand why people fail to realize something so simple, if you ban something that has a demand, you'll have a blackmarket for it and everything else that's associated with it.

[Melchiah]

I'm really sick of hearing the 2nd amendment argument anyway. The same people that wrote that claimed we needed armed rebellions every 20 years... that would totally work out well in modern society, especially considering the effectiveness of modern weaponry.


Societies evolve, the constitution is specifically designed to evolve, and the argument people are using to claim it shouldn't evolve is an evolution of the constitution in and of itself.

Fine. Let's set up the Bill of Rights on a dart board and start "evolving" the rest of them. People got pissed as fuck(myself included) at the blatant disregard of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by the Bush Administration under the guise of the Patriot Act, but it's ok to "evolve" the 2nd?

Sorry, but that dog does not hunt.

[Plow]

Fine. Let's set up the Bill of Rights on a dart board and start "evolving" the rest of them. People got pissed as fuck(myself included) at the blatant disregard of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by the Bush Administration under the guise of the Patriot Act, but it's ok to "evolve" the 2nd?

Sorry, but that dog does not hunt.

Sorry, but "that dog" is the fucking framework of the constitution.


If we didn't allow for evolution of the constitution, there would be no 2nd AMENDMENT in the first place.

[Melchiah]

I think we're arguing two different points here.

The 2nd Amendment only comes up when the idiots start talking about mandatory nationwide firearm bans.

Evolution =\= blatant disregard

[Rammses]

Yea, there is no point to like 90% of what people do.

I don't understand why people fail to realize something so simple, if you ban something that has a demand, you'll have a blackmarket for it and everything else that's associated with it.

Except laws can greatly affect demand on the long term. America will eventually get over its gun fetisch. Any century now...

[Melchiah]

Except laws can greatly affect demand on the long term. America will eventually get over its gun fetisch. Any century now...

Humanity is still in the throes of a fetish for opiates, worldwide, for centuries now. Not going away any time soon.