USA and gun control


#221

Same here.

The rights of free speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are protected by the First Amendment…

But I think few people would question the government’s right to impose reasonable restrictions concerning:

Shouting “hand over all your money, this is a stick-up” in a bank, or
Shouting “turn this plane around, I have a bomb,” on an airplane, or
Posting notices all over town stating that your ex is a heroin-using prostitute when you know it’s completely false, or
Placing adverts in the newspaper selling fake viagra pills that you made in your kitchen, or
Assembling a dozen friends for a drunken bacchanal in the public library, or
Practicing a religion whose rituals include smoking crack and sacrificing babies.

Everyone fully understands and accepts that the First Amendment rights are not absolute and the government is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions on those rights.

But the loonie Second Amendment fanatics apparently believe that amendment is different, is absolute, and they go apeshit claiming any restriction of any kind, no matter how reasonable, is an alleged infringement on their rights. Of course, they’re wrong and it’s shameful that politicians are such cowards in the face of such stupidity.


#222

That’s a big part of it, yes.

[quote=“navillus”]
I read it properly, both eyes open, left to right. Don’t sweat it, we’ve all acted like arses one time or another when people disagree with us. Are the rest of us not allowed to make comparisons for the sake of debate?[/quote]
You are of course allowed to do that. You’re entitled to have your own opinion. I didn’t think you were an ass, just thought you either took my comment the wrong way or was trying to incite for some personal reason. As for a debate, however, if that’s what you’re looking for, you are respectfully declined. I’m sure you can find other people who also prefer to keep their arms or the option to get one in case the proverbial shit hits the fan.

P.S. Not that I don’t want to entertain, but unless you are in a place where you can personally influence congress or the white house, I see no point in wasting my time and effort to change your mind. I got the sense that you’re in this for the long haul, but debating for the sake of debate (and debates on law and politics) is just not a turn on for me. So unless you are a bigot who tries to push your radical opinions on everybody else (which I doubt you are) — and in which case I may or may not return to condemn you with a few nasty words — go find someone else. And good luck with that (no sarcasm).


#223

Perhaps I did take your comment the wrong way (i.e. “if you read my post properly”=“learn how to read”)

I grew up around guns. In northern Canada houses without some kind of a gun in them were few and far between. And I see no reason why competent, sane individuals shouldn’t be allowed to own certain types of weapons. I also see nothing wrong with tighter controls on who can get what kind of gun. What I fail to see is how anyone can’t see that tighter gun control will spare many lives.


#224

Being a Black, I really can’t go along with many conservative party lines in the USA, but guns are one thing that I am fond of. Sorry if I’m coming off as stereotypical, but actually, it’s on the contrary. You see, most lawful gun owners own to protect their families, livelihoods, property, etc. from criminals who would probably get guns whether there are laws on the book or not. Outlawing guns will make it more difficult for law-abiding people to defend themselves, while criminals will probably still find a way to acquire illegal firearms.

Do I think that the average citizen needs full-auto assault rifles? No, but if the criminals have them, I wouldn’t mind having them either for defensive purposes. Also, I’m sure that if the founding fathers were around, aside from having me in chains picking cotton, they’d be in favor of citizens owning assault rifles and maybe even Predator drones to be able to stand up against tyrannical government.


#225

Nice try ChampionKaji, but you’re wasting your time on this thread unless you’re pro gun control. Most of the posters here are not from America and their perspective is based on their universal truth that gun ownership is unnecessary, primitive, and destructive. As for the American pro control crowd, most won’t really be satisfied until gun ownership among law abiding citizens is squeezed to almost zero, regardless of its effect on the number of murders. My prediction: random killings will continue to happen on occasion while the media does its part in softening society of its views on gun ownership. Then finally another sizable mass murder will take place killing 10-20 people at the right time politically to be the catalyst needed for major gun reform. Does 1996 ring a bell for anyone from Australia? Outcome: In Australia the murder rate actually peaked 3 years after a significant reduction in gun ownership before steadily but moderately declining. In America during the same time period: sizable decline in murders between 1996 and 2010. Conclusions: severe restrictions on gun ownership will have 2 positive outcomes: 1) random mass killings are likely to become less frequent. 2) the death rate of first attempts at suicide will be reduced. Negatives: murder and violent crime rates are not affected by gun laws. Criminals are more likely to be embolden by the knowledge that few people have access to firearms and crimes like home invasions may actually increase. Further Conclusions: if America’s gun laws ever become comparable to Australia or the UK I will definitely not be moving back the the states anytime soon as i can only afford to live in dangerous or semi-dangerous neighborhoods. No way in hell i’m living in those places without a gun. If i get wealthy enough i would consider moving to a gated community and play golf with the pro gun control folks :smiley: Look at how many thousands of people die each year from drunk drivers. Are they less innocent than the bystanders that get shot by random mass shooters? That’s several thousand compared to a dozen or 2 depending on the year. How can you let thousands of innocent victims die each year from alcohol and not make it much harder if not impossible to buy alcohol? Talk about hypocrisy :unamused:


#226

Is the USA the last place in the world where you can go hunting with a gun?


#227

You can in Canada. We have our share of nutcases, too. Per capita, probably on par with the US.

guncontrol.ca/English/Home/W … sacres.pdf

I’m not from America, but where I’m from gun ownership was a way of life. But the guns were used for a certain purpose(food), not because you were paranoid that the government was out to get you.

That was a very interesting read. And something I had never previously heard of. Sincerely, thank you. Looking forwarding to tracking down the movie somewhere. Two things to note about this event though are one…

and two…

constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

OK. I don’t know where they got those keys. But the guns were previously out of the hands of the nutties. The fact that the governor didn’t send in the troops is the key. Like I wrote before, if the government, assuming there is not a mutiny by the top brass of the armed forces, wants to do something, there is nothing a few survivalists can do about it, so what’s the point?

I think having a handgun in your home for the purpose of protection is reasonable. But perhaps something that can fire a maximum of 3 or 4 rounds. If you live in an area where you feel you need more protection, perhaps it’s in your best interest to relocate.


#228

.


#229

That’s not true but you do confirm my bias that most pro-gun Americans have a paranoid streak.


#230

Word.


#231

I think you can go hunting with a gun in most countries. In the UK farmers shoot rabbits, and there is deer culling and plenty of grouse shoots. But most people will never touch a gun in their lives. I know I haven’t, and I’ve only ever seen them at a distance in foreign police officer’s belts, or museums.


#232

That’s not true but you do confirm my bias that most pro-gun Americans have a paranoid streak.[/quote]

Paranoid? :astonished: Where do you get that from? Are you saying that most people on this thread believe gun ownership is necessary, constructive, and an important part of modern living? Most are American? I don’t get that impression at all. That makes me paranoid? :ponder: Not a shred of substance offered to refute any of my statements, just a personal attack :no-no: I thought you were into meaningful debate. Very disappointing Mucha Man, very disappointing indeed. And who said I’m pro-gun? Talk about paranoid :unamused:


#233

I don’t understand this argument. Most shooting is going to occur within a confined space, a home, a theatre, etc., where that kind of fire power would be excessive and redundant, with bullets likely to fly through walls and into neighbors/innocent bystanders. You’d be better off with a handgun in that situation, regardless of the type of weapon the bad guy has. Even then, it’s likely that bystanders will be hit; just last week, there was a shooting in New York City and the police wounded several people accidentally.

If you were going to war against the mafia or something in Lebanon-style urban warfare, then a full-auto assault rifle might make sense. But is that realistic? Even if it were, isn’t that what we have heavily armed and trained police/military for? And if not that situation, where would such a weapon make sense? It’s not like criminals burglarize homes with assault rifles in their hands.

I realize that the Founding Fathers believed in an armed citizenry. But it’s not like that made any difference during the Civil War, when a federal government determined to keep the Union together defeated not only militias but an organized military led by a brilliant commander (Robert E. Lee). In any case, before and after the Civil War, Americans have peacefully changed the government many times, simply by voting. Some people think the federal government is only not tyrannical because Americans are armed. If that’s the case, one wonders why other Western democracies with tigher gun restrictions have not experienced constant dictatorships over the past 60 years. I don’t believe gun restrictions make an ounce of difference to how the government acts, at least in developed democracies. Nor do I believe a soldier would lift a finger if a president randomly ordered the military to destroy a city. The military sees itself as America’s protector, not its destroyer, and we don’t need guns to defend ourselves against an entity with zero desire to harm us.

MT said it perfectly - every right is subject to reasonable restrictions, but the pro-gun groups and individuals react like complete lunatics at the slightest suggestion of the most tepid of regulations. Their strategy of overreacting, making bizarre and inaccurate claims of regulators, targeting Democrats in swing districts as well as moderate Republicans in primaries, is working well for them. They win in Congress and the courts. Consequently the US is a heavily armed society with constant shootings, murders, and suicides.


#234

Well, actually, MT engaged in a bunch of wanking, but the mods don’t seem to appreciate it when this is pointed out, hence their deletion of my reply to him.


#235

Well, actually, MT engaged in a bunch of wanking, but the mods don’t seem to appreciate it when this is pointed out, hence their deletion of my reply to him.[/quote]

Posts are rarely, if ever deleted. It was placed in flame due to personal insults, I copied and sent it to you by PM so if you choose, you can repost without having to type it all again, preferably in a way that is less likely to cause offence.


#236

I agree. But then we are of the Common Weal.
It’s a bit different. Tinged by the Euro sentiment, for better or worse.
Only a complete and utter fucktard takes his guns to town.

What I really want to know, is that given the Yanks shout blue bloody murder about their right to bear arms, why do they make such piss poor soldiers?
Granted, there in the past has been some fine tactics by American units & their commanders, and certain elements of the current United States Military are more than adept, but it shirley goes without saying that less is more. Everytime I meet a Russian, I give them due respect for the whole Cold War historical element, noting wistfully my thanks and praises to Jah that I never had to fight next to an American unit. I’d much rather hang out with the slackers at the back, those inept funnelers of gear. Creeper vines need attending.
Logistic victory is all fine and apt, but it rings hollow when most of it is just feeding one’s own tail.
Such is America. Forever munching on their own ass.
And such is Canada. Waiting for a bit of trickle on down.
Yikes!

I’ve met some fine Yank shots, hunters and even a few gatherers, but they were never the vocal shrill variety.
Sometimes a right is self-evident. Situational ethics, and all that.
Need a gun to defend yourself from the other psychos? Nothwithstanding how bloated a self-importance ramp such a belief may be, the “well regulated” part fails to sink in.
Again.


#237

[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“navillus”]

What I really want to know, is that given the Yanks shout blue bloody murder about their right to bear arms, why do they make such piss poor soldiers?
[/quote][/quote]

Oh really? I didn’t know Americans make such piss poor soldiers. That’s news to me, along with Canada having a military. Maybe the average man isn’t so impressive, thus the average soldier isn’t either. I surely didn’t know Canadians and Russians were worth a shit on the battlefield. I do know American special forces give the British and Israeli commandos some props. You won’t here much about the other very average fighting bunch scattered across the globe though.


#238

Canada does indeed have a military. And if any country, such as Liechtenstein, Samoa, or the Vatican City were to attack us we would show them our true might!

American soldiers, I suppose, are as good as any (I’ve been somehow quoted as saying they are piss-poor, though this didn’t come from me). Having money/technology/numbers helps, too. I mean, they kicked the fuck out of Grenada and Panama, but Vietnam didn’t go so well. Iraq and Afghanistan can be called success or failure depending on who you talk to.

Someone mentioned before (could have been this thread or the dozen others related to this topic) that if guns were more widely carried that this guy in the movie theater could have been brought down before he killed so many people. After seeing what happened in New York last week I don’t know how anyone could retain this belief. I don’t admit to have any idea what NYPD training is about, but they probably are better trained than the average Colorado citizen. I wonder how many bystanders would have died if 50 or 60 wannabe heroes had been packing in that theater.


#239

[quote=“navillus”]Canada does indeed have a military. And if any country, such as Liechtenstein, Samoa, or the Vatican City were to attack us we would show them our true might!

American soldiers, I suppose, are as good as any (I’ve been somehow quoted as saying they are piss-poor, though this didn’t come from me). Having money/technology/numbers helps, too. I mean, they kicked the fuck out of Grenada and Panama, but Vietnam didn’t go so well. Iraq and Afghanistan can be called success or failure depending on who you talk to.

Someone mentioned before (could have been this thread or the dozen others related to this topic) that if guns were more widely carried that this guy in the movie theater could have been brought down before he killed so many people. After seeing what happened in New York last week I don’t know how anyone could retain this belief. I don’t admit to have any idea what NYPD training is about, but they probably are better trained than the average Colorado citizen. I wonder how many bystanders would have died if 50 or 60 wannabe heroes had been packing in that theater.[/quote]

Sorry i caught you up with the quote, ha. Money and technology is what military power is all about. But even that isn’t enough to make up for piss poor political decision making.


#240

I don’t think you can blame the American soldier for that. The blame/credit there goes to the politicians.