United States of America and Gun Control and Ban of High Powered Guns Discussion

[Omega Dragon]

I'll definitely agree that an educated populace is the way to prevent tyranny but as I said and as I've seen (such as in that article there and the lad who posted above me), people defend the 2nd Amendment on a basis that a tyrannical government is a possibility. That I will not agree with, and I'm on the fence about the whole thing in the first place. What the author of that article proposed is a great solution to the problem and I think it should be implemented immediately. Make the US harder to invade? Sure, it would be hard to invade a country where everyone owns a gun but in this day and age no one's going to think about a full-scale invasion on America.

So what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the article and agree with what he's proposed and the author has come closer than anyone else to convince me that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea, but not for some of the reasons stated. It's paranoia to think you need a gun to protect yourselves from your own government in a country such as America, imo. All you need is an educated population, as most, if not all, tyrants gain power by manipulation and making the population think that they are what is good. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, you name it. Vigilant populace, yes, but an armed populace doesn't necessarily mean informed.

Firstly, I'll argue that an educated populace would not allow itself to be so easily disarmed or restricted in defense; no one is worth his/her weight in gold if they refuse to defend themselves, those around them, or if they restrict another's ability of defense.

Secondly, don't put me in the 2nd amendment sheople; if the constitution said to jump all day, I'm not jumping. I couldn't care less about the constitution anyways, and I can defend guns without ever mentioning the constitution.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Well tell me, where is it going to stop if you ban assault weapons? Do you even know how to tell one apart by looking at it? Most assault weapon ban advocates have absofluffinglutely no clue the difference between an assault rifle and any other assault rifle, just they assume the assault rifle is always black & dangerous-looking. It's a known fact that the typical hunting rifle is a far more dangerous weapon than at least most assault rifles, yet people want to ban the assault rifle? For what? Because they look dangerous by people who have no real clue other than being told they're dangerous.

So it's of course going to bring you to ask why assault weapon ban matters so much, wherein I'm going to just tell you that you're missing the entire point, which is: where the hell is it going to stop? Once they ban assault weapons, you think they won't just continue with the momentum to get more weapons banned? Because again, not only is the assault rifle is fairly weak to begin with - and quite frankly, for amateurs at best - but government has never stopped on its own before.

Where does anything stop then? If you wanna argue the Pandora's Box, slippery slope, we'll be here all day. How do I know there won't be a nuclear missile launched at my house this afternoon? Suffices to say that I have a bit more faith in "our government" than you do, but I think we already knew that based on our political differences in the past. For better or for worse, the Second Amendment is a facet of American life. And no one is seriously talking about talking all the guns away. Curbing the kinds of things available isn't a slap in the face to the Constitution. What would be, again, is doing away with it altogether. And I'm not convinced that that's in the works, anymore than slapping restrictions on violent video games or even alcohol stopped production of said things altogether. The slippery slope argument has been applied to those things in the past and yet, here we are.

My household has always done well enough with handguns for protection. There was no need seen for assault rifles or anything above a pistol with intention of using against another person. We did have hunting rifles which we took to the gun range. I personally don't see the need for high power, high capacity magazine butchery tools. And I do realize that my preferences can't and won't stand in as legislation. But I see nothing wrong with amending the laws to curb the kinds of things that are legal for Joe Schmo down the street to sling around. Maybe that's considered "selfish" by some, but it's common sense to me.

What we need is a comprehensive approach.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Where does anything stop then? If you wanna argue the Pandora's Box, slippery slope, we'll be here all day. How do I know there won't be a nuclear missile launched at my house this afternoon? Suffices to say that I have bit more faith in "our government" than you do, but I think we already knew that based on our political differences in the past. For better or for worse, the Second Amendment is a facet of American life. And no one is seriously talking about talking all the guns away. Curbing the kinds of things available isn't a slap in the face to the Constitution. What would be, again, is doing away with it altogether. And I'm not convinced that that's in the works, anymore than slapping restrictions on violent video games or even alcohol stopped production of said things altogether. The slippery slope argument has been applied to those things in the past and yet, here we are.

This is hardly just a slippery slope theory, it has happened.

My household has always done well enough with handguns for protection. There was no need seen for assault rifles or anything above a pistol with intention of using against another person. We did have hunting rifles which we took to the gun range. I personally don't see the need for high power, high capacity magazine butchery tools. And I do realize that my preferences can't and won't stand in as legislation. But I see no nothing wrong with amending the laws to curb the kinds of things that are legal for Joe Schmo down the street to sling around. Maybe that's considered "selfish" by some, but it's common sense to me.

It is funny you say you don't see the 'need' for something, as if need should indicate what's right or wrong. Now you're being more reasonable than many gun control advocates, but I would wonder what your reaction would be towards the statement that because you don't need a hunting rifle or a pistol that you shouldn't have either and instead leave it up for the farms - neither joking nor trolling, I've seen it all the time from gun control advocates.

 

[Irish]

I misread and misunderstood @Soloquendi's comment on the Second Amendment and was quick to assume. For that, I apologize.

Though I don't feel even the most stringent gun control laws/policies will make much of a difference (I'm looking at you, Chicago) in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals with the intent to harm, something most certainly needs to be done. Docta Corvina pretty much stated my opinion on the matter best as that is exactly how I feel.

 

[nordicowboy]

My household has always done well enough with handguns for protection. There was no need seen for assault rifles or anything above a pistol with intention of using against another person. We did have hunting rifles which we took to the gun range. I personally don't see the need for high power, high capacity magazine butchery tools. And I do realize that my preferences can't and won't stand in as legislation. But I see nothing wrong with amending the laws to curb the kinds of things that are legal for Joe Schmo down the street to sling around. Maybe that's considered "selfish" by some, but it's common sense to me.

I personally don't see the need for 99% of the vehicles on the road to be capable of reaching speeds twice that of a highway speed limit. Far more people drive than shoot. Doesn't take a sick, deranged person to lose control of a car at 100mph and kill a family of 4, but it happens every day.

 

[Docta Corvina]

This is hardly just a slippery slope theory, it has happened.

It has happened in oppressive, authoritarian regimes, yes. I'm not convinced it would happen here because for all of this country's faults, I don't see it as a further example of such a body of government. That, again, bears out our (you and I's) fundamental differences of political opinion that are most likely going to remain inherently futile to argue.

It is funny you say you don't see the 'need' for something, as if need should indicate what's right or wrong. Now you're being more reasonable than many gun control advocates, but I would wonder what your reaction would be towards the statement that because you don't need a hunting rifle or a pistol that you shouldn't have either and instead leave it up for the farms - neither joking nor trolling, I've seen it all the time from gun control advocates.

LOL, for you to tell me I'm being "more reasonable" than other members of another group is actually amazing in a good way to me. I'm also not trolling or being an ass, I'm being serious. You're a hard one to sell to, which isn't a bad thing.

As for my use of "need", I believe I made it clear that my preferences shouldn't necessarily stand in for legislation, in the same way that many anti-abortion folk say that there is no "need" for legal access to it because it's God's will. As I said, I have no illusions or even distant dreams of repealing the Second Amendment and anyone who advocates for it I think is missing the mark as well. What I want is a sound approach based in logic and not knee-jerk reactions - and that goes for both sides of the equation.

All gun owners I know personally are responsible and mentally sound. I don't see why they should lose access to their weapons. I'm also not one of those who is with any sort of delusion that tightening gun laws will mean that criminals will abide. That's why I firmly believe ownership of weapons for self-protection. I think that the answer is going to have to lie in a multifaceted approach, which includes an overhaul of the mental healthcare system, for one thing. An assault weapons ban won't fix the whole problem, and I've never stated as much.

 

[Docta Corvina]

I personally don't see the need for 99% of the vehicles on the road to be capable of reaching speeds twice that of a highway speed limit. Far more people drive than shoot. Doesn't take a sick, deranged person to lose control of a car at 100mph and kill a family of 4, but it happens every day.

See my response to Omega. I said that my "preferences", which is what they are, don't and shouldn't necessarily equal law, anymore than some other basic rights should be trumped in such a way. For the record, I agree with what you're saying here.

 

[Crooksin]

Firstly, I'll argue that an educated populace would not allow itself to be so easily disarmed or restricted in defense; no one is worth his/her weight in gold if they refuse to defend themselves, those around them, or if they restrict another's ability of defense.

Well, exactly my point. An educated populace wouldn't need guns to get them out of such a situation because an educated populace wouldn't allow themselves to be put in that situation in the first place. To defend against crime, I can see, to defend against the American government, not really. The Forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, and they had it right, for the time that they lived in. It was a dangerous time, and everyone owning a gun was a viable option.

Secondly, don't put me in the 2nd amendment sheople; if the constitution said to jump all day, I'm not jumping. I couldn't care less about the constitution anyways, and I can defend guns without ever mentioning the constitution.

Well, this could be debatable. By defending the right for everyone to own a gun, you are essentially defending the 2nd Amendment for the very reasons it exists. If you mean that I see you as the same as Alex Jones or any of the like, then no, I don't, you don't come across as an idiot.

I'm not for gun abolishment, that's just unrealistic and I do think guns can serve a purpose in a civilian's hands, but I am for gun control and monitoring. Walking into a Wal-Mart with 40 bucks and walking out with a rifle and a gun permit is ridiculous. I do think the American government is going in the wrong direction with how they are dealing with it (I.E Ban on certain amount of ammo) and it just gets more detrimental as everyone overreacts even worse then before with every shooting.

 

[nordicowboy]

See my response to Omega. I said that my "preferences", which is what they are, don't and shouldn't necessarily equal law, anymore than some other basic rights should be trumped in such a way. For the record, I agree with what you're saying here.

I just think we need to be fair with everything as far as "labels" go. If my XM-15 is a "butchery tool", then Toyotas are "cruising carnage carriages"

 

[Docta Corvina]

Crooksin pretty much summed it up for me here, way better and more articulately. While I personally don't see the "need" to entertain certain weapons in public hands, inevitably not all of what I would deem "unnecessary" or "overkill" will go away by reason of Constitutional rights, at the very least. I think I didn't quite get that difference across in my previous posts, so I apologize.

I'm actually thinking about rejoining the gun range one of these days, just because it WAS fun and I wasn't half bad back in the day.

 

[Docta Corvina]

I just think we need to be fair with everything as far as "labels" go. If my XM-15 is a "butchery tool", then Toyotas are "cruising carnage carriages"

I wouldn't necessarily argue that Toyotas aren't that, given many of the ones I've seen on the road.

Again, though, I know what you're getting at and I agree in principle.

 

[nordicowboy]

Crooksin pretty much summed it up for me here, way better and more articulately. While I personally don't see the "need" to entertain weapons in public hands, inevitably not all of what I would deem "unnecessary" or "overkill" will go away by reason of Constitutional rights, at the very least. I think I didn't quite get that difference across in my previous posts, so I apologize.

I'm actually thinking about rejoining the gun range one of these days, just because it WAS fun and I wasn't half bad back in the day.

You live close enough, let's hit the range!

 

[Docta Corvina]

You live close enough, let's hit the range!

That actually could be really fun! It's been so long though, since I've gone. I'd no doubt be horrible, lol.

 

[Crooksin]

I just think we need to be fair with everything as far as "labels" go. If my XM-15 is a "butchery tool", then Toyotas are "cruising carnage carriages"

Well, "butchery tool" is not too far off from being fair. Guns weren't created for the sole purpose to shoot at paper, they were made to kill. If Toyotas were made for the intent of mowing down an intersection, then I could see your point. Because they aren't, its not really comparable and as such should be treated much differently.

 

[nordicowboy]

Well, "butchery tool" is not too far off from being fair. Guns weren't created for the sole purpose to shoot at paper, they were made to kill. If Toyotas were made for the intent of mowing down an intersection, then I could see your point. Because they aren't, its not really comparable and as such should be treated much differently.

That's the point. Cars have been modified to far exceed their purpose. Explain the need for a car to be able to reach 100 mph....Like I said in an earlier post, it doesn't take a psychopath to cause an accident, just a little irresponsibility on the highway. The latest data from the CDC indicate that Accidents are the 5th leading cause of death in the US, and murder isn't even top 10.

 

[nordicowboy]

FASTSTATS - Homicide
vs
FASTSTATS - Accidents or Unintentional Injuries

 

[Omega Dragon]

It has happened in oppressive, authoritarian regimes, yes. I'm not convinced it would happen here because for all of this country's faults, I don't see it as a further example of such a body of government. That, again, bears out our (you and I's) fundamental differences of political opinion that are most likely going to remain inherently futile to argue.

Hmm. I was referring to here, actually; forgive me for not being so precise.

The precursor to the assault rifle, the machine gun is either illegal or toughly regulated all throughout the U.S., so that's one example of it having happened here. Tommy guns were made completely illegal for civilians, if on no basis other than the magazine it is associated with was used by the Mafia I do believe (which like all high-capacity magazines the particular magazine was known to jam, making it hard to use even by the Mafia). Then you have Washington, D.C., where it was illegal for civilians to own any kind of firearm prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of Japanese-American citizens that got imprisoned during WWII because of "national security" reasons. Just recently, Obama issued an assassination on an American citizen at that (Anwar al-Aulaqi) and like the previous administration, his reserves the right to kill anyone else found on their kill list (which is updated regularly by the CIA, and probably the FBI too).

(Just a link about the assassination: http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6265-confirmed-obama-authorizes-assassination-of-us-citizen)

So there's plenty of precedence in this country for tyranny to take over, even if you can assume it hasn't.

On the other hand, did you know Hitler did not conquer Austria through violence? What Hitler did, he was invited to rule them by their own freewill. The Austrians saw the booming economy of Germany, and felt the only way they could get out of their economical troubles was through accepting Hitler as their ruler. Likewise has happened here at every election.

So of course there are those saying, "well what's the point if no one does anything?" No one does anything because everyone is being kept divided; no one is taking the first step because they feel they're alone; everyone feels alone because they don't see any action. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, albeit capable of easily being stopped but only through general enlightenment of the populace.

Then there's the pop culture world, too. Guns are being demonized, left & right, in pop culture (ironically, just as this very thread shows individuals that consider it ideal to restrict certain weapons or others thinking all guns should be banned). Sure, we have our gun culture, but at the same time they're being demonized through kids (that could otherwise be self-defending law-abiding respectable individuals) being taught left-n-right about guns being evil & how they can somehow kill. Add in false flags like James Holmes & Adam Lanza, and you got a suitable environment to ban guns. (As they say: the pen is mightier than the sword.)

LOL, for you to tell me I'm being "more reasonable" than other members of another group is actually amazing in a good way to me. I'm also not trolling or being an ass, I'm being serious. You're a hard one to sell to, which isn't a bad thing.

Glad to hear...

As for my use of "need", I believe I made it clear that my preferences shouldn't necessarily stand in for legislation, in the same way that many anti-abortion folk say that there is no "need" for legal access to it because it's God's will. As I said, I have no illusions or even distant dreams of repealing the Second Amendment and anyone who advocates for it I think is missing the mark as well. What I want is a sound approach based in logic and not knee-jerk reactions - and that goes for both sides of the equation.

All gun owners I know personally are responsible and mentally sound. I don't see why they should lose access to their weapons. I'm also not one of those who is with any sort of delusion that tightening gun laws will mean that criminals will abide. That's why I firmly believe ownership of weapons for self-protection. I think that the answer is going to have to lie in a multifaceted approach, which includes an overhaul of the mental healthcare system, for one thing. An assault weapons ban won't fix the whole problem, and I've never stated as much.

No prob., I'm just tired of "need" being used as a basis of what's right or wrong or why one feels what is right or wrong.

Well, exactly my point. An educated populace wouldn't need guns to get them out of such a situation because an educated populace wouldn't allow themselves to be put in that situation in the first place. To defend against crime, I can see, to defend against the American government, not really. The Forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, and they had it right, for the time that they lived in. It was a dangerous time, and everyone owning a gun was a viable option.

It still is quite a dangerous time, even concerning government. See what I said above to Docta Corvina.

Well, this could be debatable. By defending the right for everyone to own a gun, you are essentially defending the 2nd Amendment for the very reasons it exists. If you mean that I see you as the same as Alex Jones or any of the like, then no, I don't, you don't come across as an idiot.

What I mean is I don't need a constitution to tell me right from wrong. I'm only defending any constitutional amendment insofaras they were based on John Locke's Natural Law, and many other works of the Enlightenment and still continue to this day.

I'm not for gun abolishment, that's just unrealistic and I do think guns can serve a purpose in a civilian's hands, but I am for gun control and monitoring. Walking into a Wal-Mart with 40 bucks and walking out with a rifle and a gun permit is ridiculous. I do think the American government is going in the wrong direction with how they are dealing with it (I.E Ban on certain amount of ammo) and it just gets more detrimental as everyone overreacts even worse then before with every shooting.

But you would be for gun abolishment if you found it were legislatively possible, no?

 

[Docta Corvina]

No prob., I'm just tired of "need" being used as a basis of what's right or wrong or why one feels what is right or wrong.

Ah, but how is that not the basis for a great deal of legislative/personal rights moves? Whether people move to ban guns outright, look to ban or tighten restrictions on certain ones, or conversely advocate to keep all of them regardless of the type because they say it's necessary to have them in case Criminal Jackass decides to use one against them one day or if, by your example, the government decides to start actively and unjustly oppressing its constituency...what is seen as "need" appears to me to motivate and dominate the discussion. It's one of those annoying semantics battles that really permeates the broader discussion, at least for me. Because in many (though not all) cases, it's really "want" that is misconstrued or falsely advocated as "need". Which in turn is what I was trying to say about my own statement earlier on.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Ah, but how is that not the basis for a great deal of legislative/personal rights moves? Whether people move to bans guns outright, look to ban or tighten restrictions on certain ones, or conversely advocate to keep all of them regardless of the type because they say it's necessary to have them in case Criminal Jackass decides to use one against them one day or if, by your example, the government decides to start actively and unjustly oppressing its constituency...what is seen as "need" appears to me to motivate and dominate the discussion. It's one of those annoying semantics battles that really permeates the broader discussion, at least for me. Because in many (though not all) cases, it's really "want" that is misconstrued or falsely advocated as "need". Which in turn is what I was trying to say about my own statement earlier on.

True, it is used by both Republicans/Conservative & Democrats/Liberals. I will & do also correct Republicans & Conservatives that defend their rights out of a 'need', when they use it.

Just another reason I've separated myself from the two parties, really.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Gunsmiths 3D-Print High Capacity Ammo Clips To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws - Forbes

Five months ago, the group of homemade gun enthusiasts known as Defense Distributed set out to create a lethal firearm that could be downloaded and 3D-printed entirely from scratch, circumventing all gun control laws. But as new gun bills have been proposed in the wake of recent shootings, creating a bootleg weapon with digital pieces may soon be far easier: As simple as printing a spring-loaded plastic box.

Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested an ammunition magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip.

That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Diane Feinstein would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions.

But Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson says he hopes the group’s recent work demonstrates the futility of that proposed ban in the age of cheap 3D printing.

“We want to preempt Feinstein, to eat their lunch,” says Wilson. “This isn’t 1994. The Internet happened since the last assault weapons ban. This is a fledgling tech, but look what we’re able to do. We printed that magazine out.”

Here’s a video of Defense Distributed’s latest testing. The clip begins with a dry question from Wilson: “How’s that national conversation going?” a reference to Democratic House majority leader Nancy Pelosi’s call for a “national conversation” about gun control following the December massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut.