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

[Doctor Langstrom]

 

[Soloquendi]

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.

No problem. What I should have said is that the way it was written is outdated. The concept itself still has some relevancy. The writers of the constitution were not Gods. Too many people treat the document as if it was holy gospel, to be obeyed without question or thought. They had no idea how much our society would change. We the people wrote the document and we the people can change it. At that time a well armed populace was the best defense against tyranny. That's changed. Now a well informed populace is the best defense against tyranny.

For those of you who think you can fight Tha Gubment with assault rifles, you're deluding yourselves. Timothy McVeigh thought he could fight Tha Gubment, but all he did was kill a bunch of his fellow citizens and children. Our government isn't some separate group of people who live in a far off land and make decisions without our input. It's made up of our fellow citizens, friends and family.

Lets just say, for the sake of debate, that it is necessary to rise up against our government. At what point does that happen? When the Japanese Americans were interred? No? When we invaded Iraq without any real reason? No? How about when the Patriot Act was signed and took away a lot of our other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution? Nope. Nobody shot anybody.

How about when we elected a black man as president? Holy plops, the guns and ammo flew off the shelves!

I don't want to take away all guns. I own a couple myself, but there is no reason for owning a semi auto rifle, which to me is what makes a weapon assault style. It's designed for a high rate of fire, to kill as many people as fast as possible. Besides the fact that they are easily convertible to full auto. Semi-auto handguns kind of fall between. Limiting the clip size is the only realistic option, instead of outright banning.

 

[Doctor Langstrom]

 

[KaitoGhost]

The problem with gun control is that it only takes guns away from the people who obey the laws (read: the people who don't go on violent killing sprees).

Pot is illegal. So is cocaine. I can find both pretty easily. You don't think it won't be the same for guns?

 

[The Phoenician]

In my opinion gun control will accomplish nothing. People that want to commit crimes and atrocities will still have access to fire arms. The reason these people didn't have access to guns 20-30 years ago is because they would have been in an institution once they were considered a danger. But instead of focusing on the root of the problem. Our joke of a mental health care system. We're going to legislate magazine capacities.

 

[feliciano182]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but here I go:

Gun Control =/= Banning guns.

The idea of gun control, at least from those who are intelligent and articulate, is to establish laws by which the government can regulate the ways in which guns can be obtained, as such, if "X" person wanted to get a 9mm pistol, he'd have to go through background checks, psychological tests, weapons training, behavioral training, written and practical exams, and annual checks.

We do the same kind of stuff, in almost every country, for cars, and we don't hear complaints for sports cars drivers that their rights are being assaulted.

This stopped being a debate long ago when one side of the equation decided discussion was out of the question, mostly in part due to their severe lack of education and obsessive desire to slap people in the face with a legal document that can perfectly be changed if the situation demands, even in that case, said people like to forget about an unconvenient little part about well regulated militias.

Peace !

 

[nordicowboy]

The problem behind a "well regulated militia" is that the government either wants to be the one to regulate it or have proof of operation, which completely defeats the purpose.

 

[feliciano182]

The problem behind a "well regulated militia" is that the government either wants to be the one to regulate it or have proof of operation, which completely defeats the purpose.

Then who else is going to regulate it ? The people ? Isn't that the exact problem people in the US with the NRA ?

 

[nordicowboy]

The difference is that the NRA is an interest group and lobbying organization. They fight battles in the courtroom. If there were ANY proof or suspicion that they were building an irregular army, the US would have shut them down already. While I'm by no means a member (or ever plan to be), I have the utmost respect for their stance on firearm responsibility and safety. Most seem to think that the NRA wants to turn everyone into a member qualified to join the cast of The Expendables, but that's far from the truth. As to your question about WHO should regulate a militia, the people are the only choice. Individual states could do it, but there would possibly be 50 different agendas. You can't discredit the common citizen, all of your favorite politicians used to be one.

 

[KaitoGhost]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but here I go:

Gun Control =/= Banning guns.

The idea of gun control, at least from those who are intelligent and articulate, is to establish laws by which the government can regulate the ways in which guns can be obtained, as such, if "X" person wanted to get a 9mm pistol, he'd have to go through background checks, psychological tests, weapons training, behavioral training, written and practical exams, and annual checks.

We do the same kind of stuff, in almost every country, for cars, and we don't hear complaints for sports cars drivers that their rights are being assaulted.

This stopped being a debate long ago when one side of the equation decided discussion was out of the question, mostly in part due to their severe lack of education and obsessive desire to slap people in the face with a legal document that can perfectly be changed if the situation demands, even in that case, said people like to forget about an unconvenient little part about well regulated militias.

Peace !

But, we already have those laws. We already require background checks and the like. Those worked out well, huh?

The laws being pushed now actively seek to ban certain weapons. That is the problem. It's a knee jerk reaction, being used by those against guns for their agenda, and being used by the other politicians to get voter support. None of these laws will accomplish anything. The school shooter did not use an "assault weapon". He left it in the car. The crackpot who killed the firemen had one, aye, but it was already illegal for him to own one. More laws are not the answer.

 

[feliciano182]

As to your question about WHO should regulate a militia, the people are the only choice. Individual states could do it, but there would possibly be 50 different agendas. You can't discredit the common citizen, all of your favorite politicians used to be one.

Nice, so "the people" are going to approve and supervise all the measures necessary to reduce gun violence by effectively creating an institution, made from members of both sides of the debate, to truly guarantee higher standards of safety and protection from said violence.

I'm sorry, but Big Brother stopped being "cool" a while ago, government has to take responsibility for gun control, they are the only institution that can be held accountable when the need to protect civilians arises.

But, we already have those laws. We already require background checks and the like. Those worked out well, huh?

Asking for someone's background checks is not the same as applying an Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, which can clearly discriminate psychotic or antisocial behavior, if a test like that had been applied to James Holmes, there's a high chance that Aurora wouldn't have happened, it's not beyond the reach of psychometry to find people who are mentally ill and direct them to a capable professional, however, that never happens in the US because people who want regulation are getting bitch-slapped consistently with the second ammendment.

The laws being pushed now actively seek to ban certain weapons. That is the problem. It's a knee jerk reaction, being used by those against guns for their agenda, and being used by the other politicians to get voter support. None of these laws will accomplish anything. The school shooter did not use an "assault weapon". He left it in the car. The crackpot who killed the firemen had one, aye, but it was already illegal for him to own one. More laws are not the answer.

You can't do drive-by's with knives, you can't kill thirty people in a school with a machete, you can't punch twenty people to death nor can you amount fourty casualties with a chair; that is the essential problem of some firearms, they are extremely dangerous when handled by dangerous individuals, and have the capacity to exponentially increase the number of casualties.

And while some of what you say may be true, it is asinine to even think that an assault rifle has a purpose in the hands of a civilian, it's not effective for self-defense against violent home-assailants, it's almost cheating if used for hunting, and it's not sold at full capacity since it's modded to fire only on semi-auto, so what the hell does a civ need an AR-15 for ?

 

[nordicowboy]

Nice, so "the people" are going to approve and supervise all the measures necessary to reduce gun violence by effectively creating an institution, made from members of both sides of the debate, to truly guarantee higher standards of safety and protection from said violence.

I'm sorry, but Big Brother stopped being "cool" a while ago, government has to take responsibility for gun control, they are the only institution that can be held accountable when the need arises.

I think you're confusing militia with members of congress. Militias aren't in place to make laws, just to fight for our constitutional freedoms should they ever be endangered.

 

[nordicowboy]

What's the point of having a safeguard against possible tyranny if the tyrant knows all about it?

 

[Docta Corvina]

But the thing is, NOT everything that can be done has been done. And no, I don't mean attempts to ban all guns. The "Gun Show loophole" is very much still in existence and it's one of the things I've heard members of both sides of the issue look to for change. The fact that a gun can be freely purchased in such a setting is a shared focus of concern. And I really don't understand what's controversial about changing it. Why would be people be against eliminating such a loophole by requiring gun sellers to be given adequate proof of background checks before handing over weapons to anyone who coughs up the cash? If you've cleared the requirements, why should it be an issue?

The answer has got to be comprehensive. There is no magic bullet (pun actually not intended) to solve the overarching problem and addressing mental healthcare is certainly an aspect. But there's a lot more to be done that doesn't, in fact, involve seizing everyone's weapons.

 

[Irish]

Here's an outline of what Obama plans to propose, according to this article:

Obama Gun Control: President To Unveil Gun Violence Measures, Including Assault Weapons Ban

 

[nordicowboy]

But the thing is, NOT everything that can be done has been done. And no, I don't mean attempts to ban all guns. The "Gun Show loophole" is very much still in existence and it's one of the things I've heard members of both sides of the issue look to for change. The fact that a gun can be freely purchased in such a setting is a shared focus of concern. And I really don't understand what's controversial about changing it. Why would be people be against eliminating such a loophole by requiring gun sellers to be given adequate proof of background checks before handing over weapons to anyone who coughs up the cash? If you've cleared the requirements, why should it be an issue?

The answer has got to be comprehensive. There is no magic bullet (pun actually not intended) to solve the overarching problem and addressing mental healthcare is certainly an aspect. But there's a lot more to be done that doesn't, in fact, involve seizing everyone's weapons.

The gun shows we have here in DFW all perform background checks, even though they aren't required to.

 

[feliciano182]

What's the point of having a safeguard against possible tyranny if the tyrant knows all about it?

That people think the government is inherently tyrannical is part of the reason why no one can move on from this problem.

 

[Docta Corvina]

The gun shows we have here in DFW all perform background checks, even though they aren't required to.

That's good to hear, honestly good to hear. But how common is that? If some places are already doing it of their own volition, what's the harm in making it law to ensure broader compliance?

 

[nordicowboy]

It's not that I personally think it's "tyrannical", but to say that the next guy won't be, or even the guy after him is blind thinking. Consider well regulated militias as auto insurance. You hope that you never have to use it, but it'll damn sure come in handy when a need arises.

 

[nordicowboy]

That's good to hear, honestly good to hear. But how common is that? If some places are already doing it of their own volition, what's the harm in making it law to ensure broader compliance?

Sure they can make it a requirement, but there are gonna be so many private sales that completely skip it altogether. Also, I can buy incomplete kits, and build a rifle myself which exempts it from having a serial number.