[KorbenDallas]

So, I have been following the gun control debate. My reaction is this: My god, where do the gun control people LIVE? In PleasantVille? Do they all live in gated communities? My hometown of St. Louis, you can't go out at night downtown unless your in a group or are armed. Lots of women from the burbs won't go downtown unless they are with a man because it ACTUALLY IS DANGEROUS. I feel like gun control people live in a world where no ones house ever gets burglarized, no one mugs anyone, or whatever because they live in real nice areas. To me, they are coming off really bad. They are saying protection for me, but not for thee.

[Beyond Borders]

(01-10-2013 05:37 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

So, I have been following the gun control debate. My reaction is this: My god, where do the gun control people LIVE? In PleasantVille? Do they all live in gated communities? My hometown of St. Louis, you can't go out at night downtown unless your in a group or are armed. Lots of women from the burbs won't go downtown unless they are with a man because it ACTUALLY IS DANGEROUS. I feel like gun control people live in a world where no ones house ever gets burglarized, no one mugs anyone, or whatever because they live in real nice areas. To me, they are coming off really bad. They are saying protection for me, but not for thee.

Hey, I'm with you, but it seems like this post would have been sufficient as an argument in one of the existing gun control debates. Was another thread about this really necessary in this case?

[Sourcecode]

it's dangerous. because people mugging you have guns?
and you think they will just give the guns up?

I live near Atlanta. lots of my family lives in the city.
my uncle killed a kid trying to car jack him. without his gun..be would have been killed.

yes it's an isolated case.
but taking away guns isn't gonna help

[maccc]

(01-10-2013 05:37 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

My hometown of St. Louis, you can't go out at night downtown unless your in a group or are armed.

Then get the fuck out of St Louis. Who would WANT to live there?

[Wreckingball]

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

[Beyond Borders]

[kdolo]

(01-10-2013 11:10 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

No !

Show me in the Constitutition where is says that the right to bear arms shall be infringred upon showing of conviction or mental problems ????

what part of "........shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

[Wreckingball]

(01-10-2013 06:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 11:10 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

No !

Show me in the Constitutition where is says that the right to bear arms shall be infringred upon showing of conviction or mental problems ????

what part of "........shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

because i don't really give a rat's ass about your constitution?

Besides the said constitution is how many years old? Probably from the times where people were still fighting indians.

[durangotang]

(01-10-2013 07:20 PM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 11:10 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

No !

Show me in the Constitutition where is says that the right to bear arms shall be infringred upon showing of conviction or mental problems ????

what part of "........shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

because i don't really give a rat's ass about your constitution?

Besides the said constitution is how many years old? Probably from the times where people were still fighting indians.

Wreckingball, I see you are now in Germany. Since you are currently there, here is something for you to consider:

Perhaps if people in Germany cared about a constitution that protected minority rights, such as we attempt in the United States and are trying to protect from oppressive forces, then jews would not have been disarmed and this would not have happened:



Have you ever considered that Wreckingball? Enough said.

[Wreckingball]

(01-10-2013 07:53 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 07:20 PM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 11:10 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

No !

Show me in the Constitutition where is says that the right to bear arms shall be infringred upon showing of conviction or mental problems ????

what part of "........shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

because i don't really give a rat's ass about your constitution?

Besides the said constitution is how many years old? Probably from the times where people were still fighting indians.

Wreckingball, I see you are now in Germany. Since you are currently there, here is something for you to consider:

Perhaps if people in Germany cared about a constitution that protected minority rights, such as we attempt in the United States and are trying to protect from oppressive forces, then jews would not have been disarmed and this would not have happened:



Have you ever considered that Wreckingball? Enough said.

This was possibly one of the most retarded things I have ever the displeasure to read.
However it proves that people with no arguments just start insulting. (or at least trying, because I'm not german). BTW: Read a bit about nazi germany before going into Rambo mode and firing bullshit in every direction.


ON TOPIC:


Protecting minorities = giving guns to everyone?
So basically, you are telling me, that a retarded person should be allowed to carry a gun, even though the person is mentally unstable (such as having a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) and doesn't understand the consequences of it's actions? And that a convicted criminal (let's say, for murder) should also be allowed to legally carry a gun?
I'm in favor of "free guns", as long as it has some degree of control. As I said, your constitution is old, from an uncivilized era full of uncivilized people, living by the law of the bullet, defending their land.

But, not my country and as such I don't really give a fuck.

[UgSlayer]

From gun control to Nazi Germany in 9 posts

That was fast

[username]

(01-10-2013 10:06 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

From gun control to Nazi Germany in 9 posts

That was fast

Haha I was going to post this. Almost a world record.

[durangotang]

(01-10-2013 09:55 PM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 07:53 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 07:20 PM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 06:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 11:10 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Where i live, guns are not allowed. What happens? Only criminals have guns. (I do have a shotgun in the house, but it's for hunting and to get the permit is a fucking pain in the ass)

IMO, the problem with guns, are not the guns themselves, are the people. In Switzerland, almost every home has a gun. Everybody knows how to fire a gun, aim and kill. But they are civilized. It's one of the safest countries in the world. The germans did not dare to invade Switzerland because of this!

Guns should have some control. (I don't know how it really works in the US)
-If you have mental problems, no gun for you
-If you've been convicted, no gun for you

No !

Show me in the Constitutition where is says that the right to bear arms shall be infringred upon showing of conviction or mental problems ????

what part of "........shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

because i don't really give a rat's ass about your constitution?

Besides the said constitution is how many years old? Probably from the times where people were still fighting indians.

Wreckingball, I see you are now in Germany. Since you are currently there, here is something for you to consider:

Perhaps if people in Germany cared about a constitution that protected minority rights, such as we attempt in the United States and are trying to protect from oppressive forces, then jews would not have been disarmed and this would not have happened:



Have you ever considered that Wreckingball? Enough said.

This was possibly one of the most retarded things I have ever the displeasure to read.
However it proves that people with no arguments just start insulting. (or at least trying, because I'm not german). BTW: Read a bit about nazi germany before going into Rambo mode and firing bullshit in every direction.


ON TOPIC:


Protecting minorities = giving guns to everyone?
So basically, you are telling me, that a retarded person should be allowed to carry a gun, even though the person is mentally unstable (such as having a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) and doesn't understand the consequences of it's actions? And that a convicted criminal (let's say, for murder) should also be allowed to legally carry a gun?
I'm in favor of "free guns", as long as it has some degree of control. As I said, your constitution is old, from an uncivilized era full of uncivilized people, living by the law of the bullet, defending their land.

But, not my country and as such I don't really give a fuck.

I never said you were German, however, since you are there why don't you go find a Jewish person and ask them what they think of the legacy of gun control in Germany. Better yet, why don't you make a short trip to Treblinka or Auschwitz and take a look for yourself. How can you even look at a picture of children held in concentration camps and blithely say "I don't really give a fuck"?

Do you even understand the difference between rights and privileges? I doubt it.

Please, do us the favor of telling us what illustrious and civilized country you are from? What document has your country produced that can compare with the eloquence and historical significance of the the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. Please, do tell.

Troll.

[j r]

That concentration camp picture is pretty ridiculous and it really has nothing to do with the relevant gun control issues. When the U.S. constitution was written, the federal government had a very small standing army and the means to raise state militias and maybe hire some mercenaries. Everyone came to the battlefields with muskets, so it was conceivable that a small group of local militia might be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. That was two hundred years ago. If the day comes when a totalitarian American government decides to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit or a Styker brigade into your town, there really ain't shit you can do but run. I don't care how many AR-15s you and your buddies have.

Here's how I see it. Every American citizen should have a right to keep and bear arms, but that right can absolutely be regulated and should be regulated. And the regulations should be different for a place like New York City than they are for a place like Montana. I believe that most people see the need for things like registration and background checks and waiting periods for certain weapons and in certain places. The problem is that the politics is pulling people to the extremes. You have the people who just hate guns and want to all but eliminate private gun ownership and then the people who see any regulation as the beginning of a slippery slope that ends in concentration camps.

Gun control can mean anything, so it's important to be precise in what you are proposing.

[durangotang]

(01-10-2013 10:57 PM)j r Wrote:  

That concentration camp picture is pretty ridiculous and it really has nothing to do with the relevant gun control issues.

Just ask a jew if they think that picture is ridiculous. I would say it is pretty relevant:

Or, just take a look at this column from Pravda for a Russian perspective:

Americans never give up your guns



From the article:

"Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers."

(01-10-2013 10:57 PM)j r Wrote:  

When the U.S. constitution was written, the federal government had a very small standing army and the means to raise state militias and maybe hire some mercenaries. Everyone came to the battlefields with muskets, so it was conceivable that a small group of local militia might be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. That was two hundred years ago. If the day comes when a totalitarian American government decides to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit or a Styker brigade into your town, there really ain't shit you can do but run. I don't care how many AR-15s you and your buddies have.

Only a small percentage of Americans fought the British. AK-47's and IED's brought our military to a halt in Iraq. I don't want violence, but I am fairly confident the federal government won't succeed against the American people - that is unless of course they are disarmed.

(01-10-2013 10:57 PM)j r Wrote:  

Here's how I see it. Every American citizen should have a right to keep and bear arms, but that right can absolutely be regulated and should be regulated. And the regulations should be different for a place like New York City than they are for a place like Montana. I believe that most people see the need for things like registration and background checks and waiting periods for certain weapons and in certain places. The problem is that the politics is pulling people to the extremes. You have the people who just hate guns and want to all but eliminate private gun ownership and then the people who see any regulation as the beginning of a slippery slope that ends in concentration camps.

Gun control can mean anything, so it's important to be precise in what you are proposing.

First registration is required, then banning, then confiscation. It is always the same and if you give them an inch, they will try to take a mile.

Also, you are confusing rights and privileges. The second amendment is a right.

[BIGINJAPAN]

Quote:

That was two hundred years ago. If the day comes when a totalitarian American government decides to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit or a Styker brigade into your town, there really ain't shit you can do but run. I don't care how many AR-15s you and your buddies have.

Do you think US troops will be used to kill US citizens ? Highly unlikely. Most likely it will be the blue hats.

Also as someone pointed out IED's and a few machine guns have pretty much stopped the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would a military do when there are 10x or 20x more combatants with 50 cals by their side ?

[j r]

This is the perfect example of why we can't have sensible policies in this country right now. When it comes to gun control, we're stuck in between one bunch of crazies who think showing pictures of the Holocaust is a meaningful argument on one side and a bunch of SWPLs who think guns are icky and want them eliminated.

[Screwston]

(01-10-2013 05:37 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

So, I have been following the gun control debate. My reaction is this: My god, where do the gun control people LIVE? In PleasantVille? Do they all live in gated communities? My hometown of St. Louis, you can't go out at night downtown unless your in a group or are armed. Lots of women from the burbs won't go downtown unless they are with a man because it ACTUALLY IS DANGEROUS. I feel like gun control people live in a world where no ones house ever gets burglarized, no one mugs anyone, or whatever because they live in real nice areas. To me, they are coming off really bad. They are saying protection for me, but not for thee.

Yeah, some guy in the big gun thread who is so against guns admitted that he grew up in a gated, Canadian neighborhood and went ot school with kids driving luxury cars. I thought that was funny. Let me see if I can find the quote.

[j r]

(01-10-2013 11:52 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

Quote:

That was two hundred years ago. If the day comes when a totalitarian American government decides to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit or a Styker brigade into your town, there really ain't shit you can do but run. I don't care how many AR-15s you and your buddies have.

Do you think US troops will be used to kill US citizens ? Highly unlikely. Most likely it will be the blue hats.

Also as someone pointed out IED's and a few machine guns have pretty much stopped the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would a military do when there are 10x or 20x more combatants with 50 cals by their side ?

Huh? The UN has no forces. Whenever they deploy a peacekeeping mission, they pay other countries to use their soldiers, so the countries that send soldiers to UN missions tend to be countries that need the money. In what scenario do you see a bunch of Bangladeshi and Ethiopian soldiers being deployed to the United States under UN authority?

[durangotang]

(01-11-2013 12:01 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is the perfect example of why we can't have sensible policies in this country right now. When it comes to gun control, we're stuck in between one bunch of crazies who think showing pictures of the Holocaust is a meaningful argument on one side and a bunch of SWPLs who think guns are icky and want them eliminated.

Sensible? What does that even mean? Is that your argument?

Just be sensible and register your weapons so they can later ban them and confiscate them. No thanks.

I'd rather keep my rights. You can be "sensible" and exchange your rights for privileges.

Oh, and j.r. the purpose of the second amendment is for the people themselves to be able to protect themselves from tyranny - no where in the second amendment does it mention deer hunting. So yes, it is a relevant argument to show what has happened in the not too distant past to tens of millions of people when their governments disarmed them. In fact, that is the most meaningful argument.

[j r]

(01-11-2013 12:11 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

(01-11-2013 12:01 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is the perfect example of why we can't have sensible policies in this country right now. When it comes to gun control, we're stuck in between one bunch of crazies who think showing pictures of the Holocaust is a meaningful argument on one side and a bunch of SWPLs who think guns are icky and want them eliminated.

Sensible? What does that even mean? Is that your argument?

Just be sensible and register your weapons so they can later ban them and confiscate them. No thanks.

I'd rather keep my rights. You can be "sensible" and exchange your rights for privileges.

My argument is that we live in a democracy and things get done by a political process, so making these sorts of extreme arguments really does nothing but help to further marginalize people who want meaningful gun rights. Throwing out Holocaust pictures just says extremist to most people.

As for sensible, here is my sensible stance: the federal government should guarantee every American's ability to keep and bear arms. Since I believe in federalism, however, individuals states and municipalities are allowed to adopt suitable regulations so long as it doesn't render the Second Amendment right meaningless.

To be more specific:

-everyone, no matter where they live, should be able to purchase and store handguns and semi-automatic rifles and transport them to and from ranges
- individual jurisdictions can institute background checks, cooling off periods, and licensing and registration requirements, but licenses should be "shall issue"
-every jurisdiction should have some clear process for applying for a concealed carry permit; although it's fine for large cities to do concealed carry on a "may issue" basis
-i'm on the fence about open carry. i can see why a large city would not want to allow it or license it
-bans on "assault weapons" or certain magazines are mostly meaningless. the cut-off point should be fully automatic weapons

Put in place the above rules and every American has meaningful gun rights and every community as the ability to regulate as necessary for that community. If you think that making someone wait a week before buying a pistol is the first step on the road to the concentration camp, I guess we just agree to disagree.

[maccc]

This was a good discussion until durangotroll likened St Louis to the holocaust.

[j r]

One more thing, I don't think that some of you guys understand insurgencies. Insurgents don't hold off much larger, better-armed forces because they have a few small arms. They succeed because they're willing to sustain enormous casualties among themselves and among the civilian populations and because they're willing to terrorize civilians enough to keep them from cooperating with the occupying force. Al Qaeda is not the Continental Army.

The idea that you're going to stand and defend your home and family from a legitimate military force with an assault rifle and a few Molotov cocktails is pure fantasy.

[durangotang]

(01-11-2013 12:44 AM)j r Wrote:  

(01-11-2013 12:11 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

(01-11-2013 12:01 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is the perfect example of why we can't have sensible policies in this country right now. When it comes to gun control, we're stuck in between one bunch of crazies who think showing pictures of the Holocaust is a meaningful argument on one side and a bunch of SWPLs who think guns are icky and want them eliminated.

Sensible? What does that even mean? Is that your argument?

Just be sensible and register your weapons so they can later ban them and confiscate them. No thanks.

I'd rather keep my rights. You can be "sensible" and exchange your rights for privileges.

My argument is that we live in a democracy and things get done by a political process, so making these sorts of extreme arguments really does nothing but help to further marginalize people who want meaningful gun rights. Throwing out Holocaust pictures just says extremist to most people.

As for sensible, here is my sensible stance: the federal government should guarantee every American's ability to keep and bear arms. Since I believe in federalism, however, individuals states and municipalities are allowed to adopt suitable regulations so long as it doesn't render the Second Amendment right meaningless.

To be more specific:

-everyone, no matter where they live, should be able to purchase and store handguns and semi-automatic rifles and transport them to and from ranges
- individual jurisdictions can institute background checks, cooling off periods, and licensing and registration requirements, but licenses should be "shall issue"
-every jurisdiction should have some clear process for applying for a concealed carry permit; although it's fine for large cities to do concealed carry on a "may issue" basis
-i'm on the fence about open carry. i can see why a large city would not want to allow it or license it
-bans on "assault weapons" or certain magazines are mostly meaningless. the cut-off point should be fully automatic weapons

Put in place the above rules and every American has meaningful gun rights and every community as the ability to regulate as necessary for that community. If you think that making someone wait a week before buying a pistol is the first step on the road to the concentration camp, I guess we just agree to disagree.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I don't care if "progressives" wince when I bring up history that conflicts with their world view by posting a holocaust picture. It is precisely because we remember the lessons of history that we do not repeat them.

My concern is that despite the entirely reasonable positions that you take, by handing over what is a right to regulation, licenses and permits - the right becomes a privilege. It has historically proven to be a slippery slope.

Also, we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic that guarantees minority rights, including the second amendment. It is precisely because we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy that a simply majority cannot vote to alienate your rights.

Also, take a look at the last video I posted. The guy goes over FBI crime statistics. Since 1992 violent crime and homicides have both been reduced by over 50% in the United States as a whole. Additionally so called assault weapons account for 3.5% of the homicides.

The exception to the overall trend of lower crime are metropolitan areas of over 250,000 people. In these areas violent crime and homicides are actually up. So if anything we need to increase conceal carry permits in these areas for law abiding citizens - or get rid of the permit all together. Criminals don't apply for conceal carry permits by in large. Just consider south side Chicago, Detroit or Washington D.C. where owning and carrying a firearm legally has been incredibly difficult. These areas are the among the most violent areas in the country.

[FourToTheFloor]

(01-11-2013 01:00 AM)j r Wrote:  

The idea that you're going to stand and defend your home and family from a legitimate military force with an assault rifle and a few Molotov cocktails is pure fantasy.

So your point is "no point in trying to fight, bend over and take whatever comes your way?"