Forums / Discussion / General

171,306 total conversations in 5,504 threads

+ New Thread


Who agrees with Barack Obama's gun control plan?

Last posted Jan 22, 2013 at 06:06PM EST. Added Jan 17, 2013 at 09:17PM EST
73 posts from 35 users



What are your thoughts on the subject?

Last edited Jan 17, 2013 at 09:19PM EST
Jan 17, 2013 at 09:17PM EST

As an owner of several Small Arms, I have to say that, on paper at least, this is fairly reasonable.
My question is: “Military-style assault weapons”
An assault weapon is a Select Fire-weapon. Automatic weapons are already banned in most places to my knowledge (which I am to lazy to look up so prove me wrong at your convenience.)

Last edited Jan 17, 2013 at 09:28PM EST
Jan 17, 2013 at 09:24PM EST
Quote

I don’t think much of the ammo cap (how are you supposed to practice?), but I actually do like the hold on assault weapons. I mean, if you’re not on the front lines of a zombie apocalypse call of modern warfare, you really don’t need a giant machine gun. For self defense, just a pistol should do just fine.

But really, according to anime, all you need is a katana. Swords > guns every time.

Jan 17, 2013 at 09:26PM EST
Quote

If this goes through, the rednecks will be PISSED.

But in all seriousness, Even though i’m not American, this sound pretty good.

Last edited Jan 17, 2013 at 09:28PM EST
Jan 17, 2013 at 09:27PM EST
Quote

Jack Candle wrote:

Also, immediately after posting, this happened;

did u fight back

Jan 17, 2013 at 09:40PM EST
Quote

Jack Candle wrote:

Also, immediately after posting, this happened;

I haven’t seen it, because I don’t see ads on here. Adblock Plus for Chrome, use it.

Jan 17, 2013 at 09:40PM EST

Cale wrote:

did u fight back

Nah, I was too busy learning about this new way to learn a language. Apparently language professors HATE this guy.

Jan 17, 2013 at 09:47PM EST
Quote

I support the Second Amendment, but I do think that, at least from the proposed plan, that the gun control idea that’s been floating about recently is pretty smart. No civilian needs an assault weapon, even for self defense. A 9MM would be fine for self-defense from any other civilian, unless they happen to have kevlar and an assault weapon.

That said, many weapons have magazines larger than ten rounds and don’t classify as assault weapons by most definitions. A few sidearms have 13 rounds for a magazine, but take several shots to kill anybody and are outclasses by revolvers, which tend to have 6 or 8 rounds for their entire magazine. I think limitations based on magazine size and not killing power are ridiculous, as high capacity, low power weapons are fairly good for self-defense, as long as they’re not assault weapons.

Clearly, the plan needs to be refined, as is usually the case for big things like this, but its a good idea, so far, and it can’t hurt to at least try to regulate guns a bit more.

Last edited Jan 17, 2013 at 09:52PM EST
Jan 17, 2013 at 09:51PM EST
Quote

Moving to General.

Nice thread here though, Rukario. Thumbs up.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:28PM EST

Living in California, many of the changes. already apply to us. While Im not so keen on the assault rifle ban, I’d say they are reasonable. But as long as I get to keep hold of my firearms, it’s fine with me.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:38PM EST
Quote

I would agree with stronger background checking and just in general being more careful about who gets a legal weapon put into their hands, but I do not agree with the ban on assault weapons. The second amendment was written to protect ourselves not only from home invaders but to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people. This may sound like a silly thing, but you never know. 20 years from now the military could be trying to tear down your door and you would have a much better chance fighting against them if you had the same assault weapons they did.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:46PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

I would agree with stronger background checking and just in general being more careful about who gets a legal weapon put into their hands, but I do not agree with the ban on assault weapons. The second amendment was written to protect ourselves not only from home invaders but to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people. This may sound like a silly thing, but you never know. 20 years from now the military could be trying to tear down your door and you would have a much better chance fighting against them if you had the same assault weapons they did.

Seconded. I’ve said it before; a psych eval would go a long way in deciding who can obtain guns. But part of the reason that this country has lasted for so long is the adherence to the constitution, and forfeiting that for security could be a step in the wrong direction.

Jan 17, 2013 at 11:03PM EST
Quote

I was a little worried that some kind of liberal nut was actually going to put a complete end to our right to bear arms, but these regulations are very reasonable. I would personally like to see what is meant by making a more “nurturing school climate,” since I am of the opinion that most school related deadly incidents are directly related to bullying and reactions to being bullied. Still, as others have said, banning various munitions even for those who can be proven responsible enough to own them is not a step in the right direction. When I told my mother about why we need to be prepared for a hostile coup or the election of a demagogue, she said that this could never happen. We are “civilized,” and nothing can possibly go wrong in our country. Oh please.

“Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Jan 17, 2013 at 11:23PM EST
Quote

Teh Brawler wrote:

Seconded. I’ve said it before; a psych eval would go a long way in deciding who can obtain guns. But part of the reason that this country has lasted for so long is the adherence to the constitution, and forfeiting that for security could be a step in the wrong direction.

On the one hand, I think holding to so strictly to the Constitution because “It’s worked before” doesn’t hold up logically. As the country changes, so do the needs of the country.

Secondly, I don’t think the Second Amendment is being abandoned or otherwise bastardized:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don’t think the right to having firearms of some sort is being infringed, and even though I don’t know about guns, I don’t think it’s necessary to have several guns or ones with obscene destructive power for the protection of yourself, your family and friends, and your country. Two or three should suffice.


On the other hand, I do worry about sacrificing too much freedom for safety. Let us not pretend that we’re not already sacrificing some freedom for safety as it is. The US will lock up anybody even if they aren’t a threat to others (here’s looking at you, drug policy,) and it shows in our incarceration rates. But regulations that restrict freedoms that do not present an obvious harm to others should be taken very seriously and implemented very cautiously. There’s safety and then there’s unreasonable control. The two can overlap, and you have to weigh them both.

I also worry about what Crimson Locks said. We’re used to living a cushy life, and we don’t foresee any instance where we’ll have to defend ourselves with firearms against a rogue government (I still find the idea of the government coming to my house and me defending myself with any firearm ludicrous…sure, I’ll take out one or two agents…before they gun me into bloody pulp due to raw numbers…or I somehow kill them all…and become a fugitive for the rest of my (probably short) life) or in a war situation where civilians are threatened. But we’re not immune to it. Being Americans does not mean people cannot attack us here in a war-situation.


 
Even with those in mind, I don’t think some guns are necessary for that sort of defense.

You also have to consider likelihoods. It is not likely that a person will go crazy and try to kill several if not dozens of people. The chances of happening in the past, say 20 years are still less than 1%, but you still end up with a lot of unnecessary death.

But it is far, far, far more likely than our government coming to your house to kill you on the spot or enemies of America coming to kill you for being American. The chances of that happening in the past 20 years has been 0%, meaning no one has died or has needed to defend themselves in these sorts of situations.

I think the best argument here is for burglars who try to break into your house. With a couple of shots, you’ll run the perpetrator off in a way that you may not be able to do without. But that won’t require a tommy gun either.

Last edited Jan 17, 2013 at 11:30PM EST
Jan 17, 2013 at 11:27PM EST

Verbose wrote:

On the one hand, I think holding to so strictly to the Constitution because “It’s worked before” doesn’t hold up logically. As the country changes, so do the needs of the country.

Secondly, I don’t think the Second Amendment is being abandoned or otherwise bastardized:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don’t think the right to having firearms of some sort is being infringed, and even though I don’t know about guns, I don’t think it’s necessary to have several guns or ones with obscene destructive power for the protection of yourself, your family and friends, and your country. Two or three should suffice.


On the other hand, I do worry about sacrificing too much freedom for safety. Let us not pretend that we’re not already sacrificing some freedom for safety as it is. The US will lock up anybody even if they aren’t a threat to others (here’s looking at you, drug policy,) and it shows in our incarceration rates. But regulations that restrict freedoms that do not present an obvious harm to others should be taken very seriously and implemented very cautiously. There’s safety and then there’s unreasonable control. The two can overlap, and you have to weigh them both.

I also worry about what Crimson Locks said. We’re used to living a cushy life, and we don’t foresee any instance where we’ll have to defend ourselves with firearms against a rogue government (I still find the idea of the government coming to my house and me defending myself with any firearm ludicrous…sure, I’ll take out one or two agents…before they gun me into bloody pulp due to raw numbers…or I somehow kill them all…and become a fugitive for the rest of my (probably short) life) or in a war situation where civilians are threatened. But we’re not immune to it. Being Americans does not mean people cannot attack us here in a war-situation.


 
Even with those in mind, I don’t think some guns are necessary for that sort of defense.

You also have to consider likelihoods. It is not likely that a person will go crazy and try to kill several if not dozens of people. The chances of happening in the past, say 20 years are still less than 1%, but you still end up with a lot of unnecessary death.

But it is far, far, far more likely than our government coming to your house to kill you on the spot or enemies of America coming to kill you for being American. The chances of that happening in the past 20 years has been 0%, meaning no one has died or has needed to defend themselves in these sorts of situations.

I think the best argument here is for burglars who try to break into your house. With a couple of shots, you’ll run the perpetrator off in a way that you may not be able to do without. But that won’t require a tommy gun either.

Right, but that’s why I said “step”. Even with the specific wording used, the bill of rights can be interpreted as strongly or as loosely as any person wants, within reasonable logic. The best relevant example I can think of is that some people would say that any restriction of gun control is an infringement, because making access conditional means that you are alienating people from that right (I’m not saying I agree with that, it’s just an example).

Believe me, I was a proponent of gun control before all this happened (Communitarian, w00t w00t). But, to me, the importance is minimally-moderately restricting guns en masse instead of strictly restricting certain types. After all, what makes one gun more dangerous than another? If the point of this is to prevent unnecessary death, than there’s no need to completely ban one type of gun over another, but instead ban a certain type of person who can’t be trusted from them. I’ve been touting the background check idea for awhile, and this is a practical manifestation of that. However, if the government restricts access to certain types of guns for civilians, that can put people in a very precarious place, especially if government fails it’s duty and begins attacking it’s people. I know that the chances of that are incredibly slim, given the stats, but I think the very existence of that idea is a good chuck of the foundation.

Jan 17, 2013 at 11:53PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

I would agree with stronger background checking and just in general being more careful about who gets a legal weapon put into their hands, but I do not agree with the ban on assault weapons. The second amendment was written to protect ourselves not only from home invaders but to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people. This may sound like a silly thing, but you never know. 20 years from now the military could be trying to tear down your door and you would have a much better chance fighting against them if you had the same assault weapons they did.

But…the government has, y’know, trained soldiers, tanks, choppers, bombers and nuclear warheads. If they wanted to enslave the populous, then no amount of guns would stop them from beating “us” to a bloody pulp. And if “the people” did win, it would be Civil War II, even more so insanely bloody (And fought on American soil, something that we don’t get much of.) then the first. That’s my main problem with the arms-for-arms, eye-for-eye, fighting fire with fire idea here. It might very well escalate due to the massive amounts of advanced weaponry the military has that the average Joe will never have. Freedom to have a gun is one thing. I’ll never support your freedom to have a tank in the mall’s parking lot.

Jan 18, 2013 at 12:15AM EST
Quote

@Free Cake: Yes, I realize that if it was civilian against soldier, soldier would most likely win. But I think we are forgetting that there are way more civilians than there are soldiers. Strength in numbers. Anyways my point is that, if this situation were to ever occur, the second amendment exists so that we can at least have a chance to fight against our government. It’d be better to have a slim chance than no chance at all, no?

Jan 18, 2013 at 12:41AM EST
Quote

I do remember that one time where a few states proposed a plan to allow teachers to have a gun at hand…

Oh, what was that? Sorry, my train of thought derailed.


I wonder how it got up there…

Oh wait, sorry, it derailed again.

So anyways, back on track.

I have no thoughts, but it is a good thing for this plan.

Jan 18, 2013 at 01:10AM EST
Quote

The main thing I disagree with is the ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. Most popular handguns feature a 13-17 round clip, so it would make most modern-day handguns illegal. I think quite a few of the things on this list are gonna get overturned by the Supreme Court anyway. Other than that, I remain neutral on the topic.

Last edited Jan 18, 2013 at 01:16AM EST
Jan 18, 2013 at 01:14AM EST
Quote

We should ban guns, and have swords, axes, flails, and halberds instead.

Jan 18, 2013 at 02:35AM EST
Quote

Honestly, Crimson, I’m not so sure. Forgive me for being the pessimist here, it’s not a role I enjoy playing, personally. Again, they have tanks, planes and A-bombs. And lots of them, seeing as how huge our military budget is. I really don’t think being able to outnumber them would do much good when they can simply take us out from the sky en masse. Looking at world history, many revolutions get totally annihilated by governments with superior weapons and training, or succeed at the price of sending their population into a tail spin. Not to mention the chaos it would wreak onto our economy (And therefore everyone else’s.) and the potential for shifted alliances if some country was to help either side. Through my cynical lens on war, the way I see it is lose-lose. Of course, being the pessimist, I only shoot down (Pun definitely not intended.) other’s ideas, rather than come up with my own.

Jan 18, 2013 at 07:30AM EST
Quote

I think anyone can have as many fucking guns as they want, as long as that type of weapon was invented before the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

I live in Utah (where the Mormons may actually be more dedicated to their guns than their religion), so I’m not going to see any gun control either way.
But yeah, I find the president’s plan very reasonable.

Jan 18, 2013 at 09:01AM EST
Quote

i think the constitution was made at a time when the government could be ousted by the people if they became corrupt or no longer served the people they represent. that was one of the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment

if we’re talking solely on the protection of citizens, perhaps this law may (and i stress MAY) help. the greater background checks may help, but there is no means of proving this without it being enforced. you cannot give other countries as examples to compare with since each have different laws/cultures/availability of guns/etc

if we’re talking about the use of the 2nd Amendment to prevent a tyrannical government, that ship has already sailed. the NDAA signed in 2012 already allows the government to detain US citizens (at home or abroad) without trial, indefinitely. there’s also the military drones being used by the police, which goes against the law stating the military cannot have a policing role. the 4th amendment can also be ignored (drones are allowed to search a premises without warrant and keep information for 90 days. after that the military can decide to keep or delete information gathered)

i could say that i don’t have to care about US politics considering i am not a US citizen, but a lot of laws passed will affect other countries. SOPA was introduced to japan (under a different name) and the UK is trying to arrest Julian Assange on behalf of the states

tl;dr – Jesus, take the wheel!

Jan 18, 2013 at 09:04AM EST
Quote

@Connor
Oy! Gun-free Mormon here!

I think the steps to help treat mental illness are the most important part of this whole deal. I don’t think America has so much violence because we have access to guns, (so does Canada, but Canada has far less gun crime) I think it’s because we glamourize violence.

Jan 18, 2013 at 09:51AM EST
Quote

Captain Douglas J Falcon wrote:

If this goes through, the rednecks will be PISSED.

But in all seriousness, Even though i’m not American, this sound pretty good.

I live in Nebraska (Redneck Central). Everyone is very pissed about this. In my Government class yesterday my teacher spent the first half hour of class dissing Obama for trying to take away our guns and all the rednecks in the class (80% is redneck) got their collective panties in a bunch.

Jan 18, 2013 at 10:38AM EST
Quote

Can anyone get their hands on the in-depth and complete version of the president’s gun control plan?

Not to be “that guy,” but many of these posters and ads are just fluffy propaganda that really don’t specify what the President exactly wants to do.

For example, what are the exact specifications for classifying a firearm as an “assault weapon?”

Further, are these specifications reasonable and exclude weapons whose basic design encompasses multiple applications?

What definition of “assault weapon” is Obama using?

I get and partially support some of the intentions behind the plan but, like all plans, what makes or breaks the plan is its implementation and execution and these pamphlets do nothing to line those out.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02AM EST
Quote

I agree with Badsitrep, I can not completely get behind/go against this plan until I see more info about this beyond propaganda posters.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:12AM EST
Quote

You can probably find a lot of the information you’re looking for here.

There’s a link to a .pdf with more detailed information (“Download the Plan”), but I don’t think it’s going to offer the kind of detail you’re looking for. It’ll give us an idea for initial conversation though.
 
I’m comfortable with the current plan’s level of detail. The nitty gritty will need to be suggested and determined by experts in related areas such as public safety, responsible gun enthusiasts, military personnel (who have had experience in using certain arms and can say what can or cannot reasonably gun down dozens of people in only a few seconds,) mental health professionals, criminologists, and other partners and stakeholders. I think this is a good start in getting people interested and involved in how the actual law(s) should be written.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:26AM EST

Verbose wrote:

You can probably find a lot of the information you’re looking for here.

There’s a link to a .pdf with more detailed information (“Download the Plan”), but I don’t think it’s going to offer the kind of detail you’re looking for. It’ll give us an idea for initial conversation though.
 
I’m comfortable with the current plan’s level of detail. The nitty gritty will need to be suggested and determined by experts in related areas such as public safety, responsible gun enthusiasts, military personnel (who have had experience in using certain arms and can say what can or cannot reasonably gun down dozens of people in only a few seconds,) mental health professionals, criminologists, and other partners and stakeholders. I think this is a good start in getting people interested and involved in how the actual law(s) should be written.

I just read the pdf and this is >MFW:

I understand the basis of the pdf is propaganda but there are so many flaws.
Ex:
“but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement. A national survey of inmates found that only 12 percent of those who
used a gun in a crime acquired it from a retail store or pawn shop, where a background check should have been run.”

But these studies and the survey were never named or identified. I can make up anything and justify by saying “Well studies confirm this” with this logic.

His quote on the PERF survey also contains misinformation.

Obama’s quotation:

“A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004.”

Here’s what it actually said:

50% now equals over 66.6%.

I also take issue with the section on ending the freeze on Government research into gun crime.

The CDC is the one of the two research institution specifically mentioned in this section and gets the most mention. Why is the Center for Disease Control being forced to analyze gun violence and mental health? Why not authorize the forming of a mental health research group and have them co-op with the other group mentioned? Do guns now shoot the ebola virus? Hory shet.

The section on my health care provider inquiring to my gun-ownership worries me. It seems like an unjustified invasion of privacy by an institution that has no experience in the field they’re trying to invade. My health should be dealt with with health care provider and my guns dealt with by the ATF. I don’t want some West Virginian to lose his insurance just because he lives in mountains were getting groceries can result in a fatal car crash on those winding mountain roads and he has hunt to reliably put food on his table.

All that being said, I can say I support some proposals made. The increased effort on tracing gun ownership; analyzing gun crime more in-depth; increase Police Department budgets; up the training for EMS workers, Education workers and law enforcement in crisis situations; improve school safety plans; and recognizing mental illness as an illness. I just wish Obama relied on logic and evidence rather than baseless statements and his sizable appeal to authority.

Last edited Jan 18, 2013 at 12:55PM EST
Jan 18, 2013 at 12:53PM EST
Quote
Why is the Center for Disease Control being forced to analyze gun violence and mental health?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actually. It’s a misconception that the CDC only handles infectious disease, but since the acronym is simply “Center Disease Control,” I’ll grant you that it’s not really common knowledge outside of my field.

However, I can tell you, with no doubt at all, that the CDC is fully qualified to speak on matters of mental health on a public health basis. I say this, because this is the reason why I got my Master’s in Public Health: to see how being identified as being a part of a certain demographic can affect mental health. That’s just a small part of how the CDC is involved with mental health (social and economic determinants of health is where’s I’ve done the bulk of my graduate research,) but it’s completely incorrect to say that the CDC isn’t qualified to give input on the matter. In fact, there isn’t a better organization to speak to any matter of US public health than the CDC. You can argue for the American Public Health Association, but from my experiences in school, research, and my internship, the CDC has most matters of public health covered.

The section on my health care provider inquiring to my gun-ownership worries me. It seems like an unjustified invasion of privacy by an institution that has no experience in the field they’re trying to invade. My health should be dealt with with health care provider and my guns dealt with by the ATF.

I only glanced over it, but it seems like an issue with health insurance. If you have a gun, then you’re more likely to deal with all of the matters that come with firing a gun, trained or not. If you have to hunt for food, then you probably need insurance that takes that into account anyway.

If you don’t underwrite for that sort of thing, then insurance companies don’t make any money, because they’re taking on risky populations at the wrong prices, pretty much. It sucks for that mountaineer, but that’s part of the problem with health insurance in the first place.

Second, transdisciplinary problem solving is absolutely necessary here. There’s needs to be several organizations with various expertise contributing to the different areas. And by “transdisciplinary,” I don’t mean “multidisciplinary.” The other disciplines need to inform the practice and implementation of the other disciplines. This is why recent public health and social work implementations fail (that and because social workers and many public health professionals suck at properly using science to inform, guide, and evaluate their practices.)

If you don’t have someone who can speak to how a certain law affects other aspects of the target population, then you’ll end up with legislation that only affects part of the issue.

Then you get people saying that the entire idea was bad when it was just poorly informed…because only one or two partners worked on it and they never consulted with other parties. 
 
I will say that I’m not thrilled about the premier public health agency dabbling in matters of public safety, but they have the resources to objectively study this. Again, my area is public health (specifically an area of mental health,) but I do trust the CDC in regards to the epidemiologists and researchers they have on staff. They know their stuff, and many skills of public health professionals translate well into other fields (another reason why I took up the area…outside of not knowing how I was going to use my psych and sociology degrees.)


As for the chart…check the title.

One is about opinions.

  • “In your opinion, since 2005. what trends has your agency witnessed in the following illegal gun arenas?”

The quotation speaks about actual numbers.

  • “A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004.”

I’m not saying that the government didn’t screw up the facts. That happens a ton. But these aren’t the numbers the paper is referring to.

The government really needs some people from academia writing up these papers. I take issue when anything cites a study and doesn’t provide a source for it. It undermines what could be a good implementation, because people think you’re just trying to push an agenda (which may be the case. I won’t rule that out.)

Heck, I can use AMA and APA formats in a paper like this.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD EMPLOY ME, FEDS. I’M BLACK TOO. THAT MEANS I KNOW ABOUT GUNS PROBABLY.

Last edited Jan 18, 2013 at 02:05PM EST
Jan 18, 2013 at 01:59PM EST

Random21 wrote:


Alex Jones doesn’t.

Why is it that a minority of Americans have to make the rest look like mental cases?

Jan 18, 2013 at 03:59PM EST

2. I do not agree with, it will do nothing for the most part. People can easily modify magazines to be far above 10 rounds. The others, however, are actually common sense and will make a difference. Number 4, the mental health issue, is the problem I think the nation, as well as the modern world, is what we need to focus on most.

It’s the most difficult to detect most of the time, and I honestly think this is where a lot of the healthcare research money should be spent, there are as many if not more people suffering with mental illness and other mental issues than any other physical disease. It’s what needs our attention the most, not with pills, but with serious and real life, long term solutions. I know, a lot of issues are below the surface, hard to diagnose and etc. but you have to start somewhere.

I’m only for gun control that isn’t half-baked/doesn’t in real world situations change anything, although with everything that is going on, I see this slowly happening more and more.

Jan 18, 2013 at 04:48PM EST
Quote
to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people.



I’d like to point out that no commercially available gun will do anything to defend against armored vehicles, supersonic jets and massive warships. Just saiyan.

Jan 18, 2013 at 06:58PM EST
Quote

EVERYONE CAN MAKE A PLAN.
Not everyone follows that said plan.

Jan 18, 2013 at 07:19PM EST
Quote

Pseudogenesis wrote:

to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people.



I’d like to point out that no commercially available gun will do anything to defend against armored vehicles, supersonic jets and massive warships. Just saiyan.

>Implying supersonic jets and warships are useful against guerrilla fighters.

Tanks, maybe, but they are less than optimal against guerrilla fighters in a city, because said guerrilla fighters can get in close enough that the turret and machine gun are useless. Explosives are also easy to make.

Jan 18, 2013 at 08:27PM EST
Quote


this will happen

Jan 18, 2013 at 08:33PM EST

Pseudogenesis wrote:

to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people.



I’d like to point out that no commercially available gun will do anything to defend against armored vehicles, supersonic jets and massive warships. Just saiyan.

Psuedowoodo over here gets it.
Also, when said hostile takeover does occur, if it becomes like the American Revolutionary War (Which some people seem to feel like it would be.) how would “the people” come together when our current political system is so divided? The all-knowing Founding Fathers faced a similar problem of having different ideas about their new government, but were able to compromise and work together. Would “we” be able to do that now, if “we” somehow won? What if it just creates another war of complete Red V. Blue? It’d play out a lot like our own history, actually.

Jan 18, 2013 at 09:38PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

I would agree with stronger background checking and just in general being more careful about who gets a legal weapon put into their hands, but I do not agree with the ban on assault weapons. The second amendment was written to protect ourselves not only from home invaders but to also protect us from our own government in case they turned against their people. This may sound like a silly thing, but you never know. 20 years from now the military could be trying to tear down your door and you would have a much better chance fighting against them if you had the same assault weapons they did.

Free cake and pseudogenesis already addressed this, but I’m gonna put in my two cents here anyway.

Yes, it’s entirely possible that the U.S. government could turn on its citizens, and that is indeed an aspect of what the second amendment is there for. What I don’t buy is that it matters how many guns or what type of guns an individual owns if such a scenario comes to pass. A simple handgun would usually be sufficient to protect oneself against a single attacker, or even a small group of attackers. When rogue U.S. marines come knocking at your door to take you away, you as an individual will survive based less on how many guns you own than how easily you can sneak out the back undetected. Why? Because you will be outnumbered, and a platoon of marines with, let’s say, rocket launchers, grenades, tear gas, and a tank will eventually just turn your house into a smoking crater.

What I’m saying is that it seems logical to me that if you got into a situation where you needed the level of protection that an assault rifle might afford, it’s not going to matter anymore.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:18PM EST
Quote

Just to be clear, I do not think guns are the only solution and there are plenty of other ways to protect yourself from a rogue government. I just felt the need to mention this because people in this thread are saying we don’t need assault rifles, when in actuality we have our right to own them for a reason (even though some here think it is not a good reason).
Anyways, I’m done talking on this subject.

Moving on, I was discussing Obama’s plan with friends earlier today and we all agreed that Obama is somewhat being contradictory in his plan. If he’s implementing a plan to make sure guns only go into the hands of responsible people, why would he feel the need to not allow ownership of assault rifles to anyone? This just seems rather odd to me. If he is so sure that his plan will lead to guns not getting into the wrong hands, why would he restrict ownership of certain weapons?

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:37PM EST
Quote

I don’t think that there should be any bans on what kind of firearms or weapons you can own. But there has to be a lot of hoops you gotta jump through for a bunch of ‘em and their accessories.. Want a silencer? Get a background check and a permit. Want an ammo drum? Get the fucking permits. Want a LAW disposable anti-tank weapon? Go through all the processes and have at owning one! Permits don’t take away your right to own weapons, they just make it harder for morons and psychos to own dangerous crap. Sure, it might be tedious for the rest of us, but it sure as hell is better than letting some nutjob walk out of a pawn shop with a scattergun.
Pretty much most of the plan I agree with besides the ban. There should have been tighter restrictions on who can own assault firearms and a more scrutinizing process for getting permits than an actual ban.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:49PM EST
Quote
If he’s implementing a plan to make sure guns only go into the hands of responsible people, why would he feel the need to not allow ownership of assault rifles to anyone? This just seems rather odd to me. If he is so sure that his plan will lead to guns not getting into the wrong hands, why would he restrict ownership of certain weapons?

Because it’s unnecessary for any civilian. The only reason most people need a gun is for self-defense. And even though I don’t know anything about guns. “assault” anything implies the opposite of defense.

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:50PM EST

@Verbose: Sports cars are unnecessary, should we ban those too? I don’t think we should be basing these laws completely on necessity. There are plenty of people all over the US that have a passion for firearms whether it’s for going to shooting ranges, hunting (although assault weapons normally aren’t used for hunting), or just collecting. Do we really need to ban them just because “they’re unnecessary”? That is highly unfair to any civilian that is both responsible with firearms and collects them as a hobby. To me, this would be like paint being banned in the US because there are kids getting high off of it. Great, that would probably stop kids from getting high off of paint, but now I can’t buy any paint to create artwork. Sure, you could probably just tell these gun enthusiasts to suck it up, but frankly I just find this unfair. Just because something is “unnecessary” does not mean it needs to be banned. If Obama’s plan works, then we should only be seeing these assault weapons in the hands of responsible citizens anyway.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:01AM EST
Quote

Fair enough.
 
 
 
 
It’s unnecessary, and it presents a harm that can be imposed upon others instead of an individual.
 
 
 

Sports cars are not intentionally taken out to kill multiple people.

Getting high off of paint does not either (not to mention that paint has other purposes.)
 
Assault rifles and other high-powered, highly destructive firearms hold no practical purpose (i.e., paint) but should an angry teen or spouse get ahold of it, then the firearm that you hold as a responsible owner becomes the weapon of a massive tragedy.

  • Paint has a practical purpose and it will not be used against other people.
  • Sports cars have no purpose beyond regular cars, but they also aren’t used for massive tragedies.
  • Firearms with high destructive power can be legally owned currently, but can get into the hands of someone who is not responsible to kill many people very quickly. They hold no purpose that other firearms can serve. Outside of being a trophy of sorts, it can only do one thing…

I think the argument here is based upon principle. I don’t like the fact that the very low likelihood that your Megashot 3000 can be used to kill others by you or someone who has access to the gun. And to restrict access to it based upon some stray instances of mass murders does strike me as unfortunate.
 
Am I willing to sacrifice that bit of freedom for security though?
 
Yes. Because it makes no sense to me why a civilian needs to have a Megashot 3000 considering what can be done with it (and what has been done with it with other owners of the Megashot who had an angry son take it and go wild.) It’s a small likelihood that your Megashot 3000 will be the one that is used an elementary school tragedy or theater tragedy.

But if no one has them, then it won’t be a problem. I do hesitate to say it, but I confidently say it:

Yes, I’d prevent the joy of thousands, if not tens of thousands of gun enthusiasts from having the Megashot 3000 to prevent one mass murder. Sports cars and paint aren’t tied to mass murder.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:26AM EST

Maybe they should give a tax deduction to anyone who returns their assault fire arm? People will find it annoying if they just impose that they take the gun away, but in this economy it would likely be considered a treat. I don’t know.

Maybe bait them with the Tax Deduction first, then force them to hand it over later if they didn’t return them.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 02:05AM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 01:59AM EST
Quote

I like what Verbose is pointing out here: just about anything has the potential to harm or even kill people, but guns, and specific kinds of guns in particular, have that as their main purpose. Certainly, that’s the reason that people in the extreme anti-gun position would be quite happy to see all guns taken away. I think that’s an unreasonable extreme, but nobody is likely to change their minds.

I think it’s quite reasonable (and preferable, I consider myself pro-2nd amendment) to allow people to own guns for hunting and/or self-defense, but I don’t see how that means just anything goes. Surely there are details that will have to be worked out, but on the face of it, what I’m reading in that plan seems rational. Call me crazy, but in answer to the question

If he’s implementing a plan to make sure guns only go into the hands of responsible people, why would he feel the need to not allow ownership of assault rifles to anyone?

I would say that I question that anybody who thinks they need an assault rifle is a fully responsible person. To be honest, I feel much the same way about sports cars: if a person feels they need a car that can go 200 m.p.h., I’d say that’s exactly the sort of person who shouldn’t have one.

Jan 19, 2013 at 02:41AM EST
Quote

In my opinion, guns cause more trouble than they fix. I think guns are stupid, used in anyway besides military purposes. I mean really. If a COMPLETE ban of guns happened, what would happen? Either way, you do have a butcher knife in your house if someone attacks you. If you didn’t have a gun, and your attacker did, what would happen? Not everyone is the USA owns a gun.

My point stands. There are other things in your house you can protect yourself with. A gun is more of a danger hazard then a knife.

Jan 19, 2013 at 06:29AM EST

Sorry, strict gun control laws don’t work. Honestly, all these kinda things do is keep guns in the hands of criminals, cause let me ask this, do you honestly think criminals are going to follow these, do you honestly think that they’re going to turn in their guns after these are in place?

And honestly, you want to ban something that kills? Try alcohol…oh wait, we’ve already tried that, but it didn’t work.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:45AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

Sorry, strict gun control laws don’t work. Honestly, all these kinda things do is keep guns in the hands of criminals, cause let me ask this, do you honestly think criminals are going to follow these, do you honestly think that they’re going to turn in their guns after these are in place?

And honestly, you want to ban something that kills? Try alcohol…oh wait, we’ve already tried that, but it didn’t work.

Sorry, strict gun control laws don’t work.

Never had it in the US, and it seems to work for other countries. You don’t have any evidence backing this claim.


Honestly, all these kinda things do is keep guns in the hands of criminals, cause let me ask this, do you honestly think criminals are going to follow these, do you honestly think that they’re going to turn in their guns after these are in place?

First off, how will having an assault rifle or machine gun yourself going to prevent this criminal from doing whatever he wants to do? You’d end up with a fire-fight with twice the bullets flying through the air in a public arena. You’d only end up with a greater chance to kill someone (also, you become target number 1. Take out the biggest threat: you having an assault weapon makes you the biggest threat to the shooter…not that you’d happen to have one on you in a movie theater or elementary school anyway).
 
Second, this is about prevention. No, we probably can’t feasibly take guns away from potential criminals, but would you say that cigarette laws don’t make it more difficult for teens to get cigarettes? The government’s (let’s not just say this is all “Obama”) spoken objective is to eliminate mass murders.

I think we all know that’s not going to happen.

But you can eliminate those acts with potential gunmen and women who aren’t as committed to killing a bunch of people. Sometimes, you’re just angry at the world (and a bit unwell.) If you have highly destructive firearm, then you can just take it and go wild. If it’s not there, then you’d have to go through all of the black market hoops to get one before “going wild.” Most people would calm down before being able to do that. It’s not like everyone lives somewhere where they can just go and get a tommy gun at some shady shop in a day.
 
Third, this plan (although very early in its life and in need of restructuring) isn’t only about gun control. Gun control is part of it. Mental health is another part of it. Background checking is another part of it.

If all of these (and other things yet unconsidered) are able to be implemented comprehensively and feasibly, then I think you’d have less opportunities to commit certain crimes. You’ll always have tragedies here and there, but the point is to reduce them.

The “government” knows good and well that they’ll never reduce crime of any sort to zero. But that’s what you aim for to reduce the likelihood so that you don’t end up with dozens more dying for no good reason.


As for the reference to prohibition, alcohol doesn’t kill dozens of innocents. At worst, you kill a few other people if you drive drunk.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:26AM EST
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Word Up! You must login or signup first!