Want to ban guns?

I

ilikecheetoes

Well-Known Member
because its hard to fight the government with bolt actions. The second amendment wasnt for hunters and sport shooters. It was because the English banned guns when the colonists were getting rowdy because an unarmed citizenry is easier to tame.
All despots first ban guns. Its part of the process of taking power.

Now you may argue that you cant fight the Govt tanks and sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads. But if you dont have a gun you cant even try.

Red Dawn mutherfuckers.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Carne Seca said:
that's why we need dialogue instead of rhetoric. How much is enough? How much is too much? What is the criteria for "mentally unstable"? (a proposal to ban mentally unstable people from owning guns has been discussed). I was diagnosed with PTSD. Is that going to stop me from owning a gun? We need to talk about this. A rational conversation. Flag waving and declarations of "There's going to be another 1776!" isn't helping anything. Just today some fool said he was going to start killing people. All that does is create more fear and generates knee jerk legislation that doesn't help anyone.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely with the spirit of this post. Part of the difficulty in having the dialogue is finding if there even is a place of overlap, of possible compromise. What freezes my marrow is the Ratchet of gun laws worldwide ... they only tighten. So i will admit to a slippery-slope mentality.

That being so, I am not intransigent. i will accept a high level of gun control if and only if police are held to the civilian standard. I passionately reject a double standard for nonmilitary uniformed folks. In CA, for example, any cop can have an AR-4 but no civilians. This strikes me as unfair and a bit corrupt. More to the point, it signals to me an unwillingness by policymakers to put their money where their mouths are. I respect Britain's gun laws because they have an unarmed police force: the police are citizens who serve and not some special privileged class. They're of the people.

Contrast with Japan, which has the strictest gun laws in the world and still arms its police patrols. I am a bit amazed by this: in an essentially gunless society, what is the reason to have the cops carry them?

I am tempted to talk about the Second and what it means, but I and others have posted about this, and I would rather not inflict the redundancy.
But at some point the discussion must turn to irreducible rights. What, if any, are these? Without them, there is no legal or moral impediment to banning all sales and ultimately criminalizing possession.
I doubt that the lawmakers would liberalize carry laws for alternative weapons, such as a katana. I see a need for permitted carry of deadly force when I look at violent crime stats in other developed countries following gun restriction. I'm nothing special with a bladed weapon but am a good and deliberate shot with a handgun. It would be my chosen instrument of defense. cn
 
kinetic

kinetic

Well-Known Member
With the proliferation of guns in America already who's not armed? How much more do we need to arm ourself's? Are people running out and getting antique dealership liscenses and taking machinist classes? How the fuck much do I have to spend to get myself an A-10? Warplanes don't kill people right? I believe in the second but cut my NRA card up.

Ok got that off my chest, carry on with your lasers.
 
TheKushguy420

TheKushguy420

Active Member
Carne Seca said:
Seriously? We have this little red button that, when pushed, will end the world as we know it. We have one of the most advanced, well equipped armies on the planet with plenty of guns, cannons, rocket launchers, tanks, and other assorted weapons of mass destruction. We also have an Airforce that can handle the raping of America by planes and choppers. No one is talking about removing all guns from American citizens. That's against the law. The talk is about limiting high capacity magazines and banning the type of assault weapons that killed those 20 babies. The talk is also about having all gun owners register their guns. Like when you register to vote or register for a drivers license. All this talk about, "THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS!!!" is just NRA propaganda and bullshit. It's time folks. There needs to be some serious talk about gun control and some actual action instead of another 10 years of rhetoric or another Columbine or Newtown.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree with you more.I Believe the propaganda is coming from the other side.Are you one of those sheep that still believe 9/11 was in fact poorly trained Hodgie's with box cutters that became super pilots that day?
 
ClaytonBigsby

ClaytonBigsby

Well-Known Member
I just read an article (but skipped this thread) stating that the WH is already winding down its rhetoric on bans, citing not enough support. This was one of the comments:

  • RangerInstructor • 41 mins ago
    Australian Gun Law Update
    Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....

    From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

    Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
    figures from Down Under.

    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
    surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
    government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
    more than $500 million dollars.

    The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria
    lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
    while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
    and criminals still possess their guns!)
    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
    decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
    upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed
    that their prey is unarmed.
    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
    assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
    safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
    expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You
    won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
    members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

    The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
    hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
    laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note Americans, before it's too late!
    Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
    WHY? You will need it.

    FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [I DID]
    DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
    BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON 'T STAND FOR NONSENSE​
 
tharoomman

tharoomman

Well-Known Member
pmumbry said:
How about we deport all people talking about banning guns to England, where guns are banned, and leave our true countrymen who follow the constitution alone. i am totally serious, if you can't live under our constitution and the freedoms it gives us then you are free to leave. Murderers will murder, it is what they do. If there are not any guns, they will use knives, if you take away all knives, they will use poison, take away poison and they will use bombs. Disarming honest citizens will accomplish nothing except to empower the criminal element, who will own and use guns regardless of any stupid ban.

TL, DR: Don't want citizens to own guns, leave.
Click to expand...

there is no way you can know that a criminal would use a knife if he didnt have a gun. You can't know. Saying that you do just shows your ignorance.


We need to ban stupid people. And people called pmundry.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
tharoomman said:
there is no way you can know that a criminal would use a knife if he didnt have a gun. You can't know. Saying that you do just shows your ignorance.


We need to ban stupid people. And people called pmundry.
Click to expand...
Violent crime stats from Australia and Britain sure do seem to support the basic idea that ... remove guns = more violent crime, mostly with the weapon of second choice: the knife. cn
 
slowbus

slowbus

New Member
cannabineer said:
Violent crime stats from Australia and Britain sure do seem to support the basic idea that ... remove guns = more violent crime, mostly with the weapon of second choice: the knife. cn
Click to expand...
or the hammer.A hammer is the favorite for many that can't carry firearms.
 
Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
bde0001 said:
so whats the deal with the gun ban? Anyone know which guns are going to be banned? Its not all guns right> They're not banning semiauto handguns are they?
Click to expand...
Most likely no gun ban will happen. Being assault rifles account for less then 1% of all gun murders annually the argument once debated has little to no validity. They may get large magazines banned but to what number I do not know. They may ban imports period, or imports of assault rifles, but all AR15s are already made in the US and many AK variants are made here now as well. There will be more restrictions on class 3 weapons, but those only affect less then 1% of the gun community. Ammo will not be touched, they may attempt to ban online ammo sales but in order to do that they would have to change the laws to make one show proof of ID, but this is already done in many online ammo sites so again once debated on it probably won't pass.
No, semi-auto handguns are not going to be banned. But, local laws may be more restrictive if a certain states happens to have an anti-gun governor or mayor or majority in the state's assembly. Some states may ban semi-autos.

The easy question to answer that many people are asking is will Obama use executive power to ban guns and the answer is no. This is being asked because loudmouth Joe Biden in the firearms meeting last week barked the claim that if congress and the gun lobby doesn't act to pass new gun laws that Obama will use executive order to force them. Fortunately for people like me who don't want any new gun laws Biden doesn't understand or is just playing ignorant on what executive order is and can do. An executive order cannot ban or restrict guns, Obama could only direct more money to the real issues like mental heath care and demand more money for gun control studies, but he cannot on his own ban guns or change the constitution.

Both sides are really going batshit on this issue and in reality nothing is going to change much other then a shortage of guns and ammo for a few months to a year until this is finally resolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top