Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Total ban

3 (5%)

Strict laws, harsh penalties, strict regulation and record-keeping with check-ups every so often

23 (38.3%)

Something in between

9 (15%)

As it stands now

6 (10%)

Total freedom

17 (28.3%)

Abstain

2 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 59

[nenjin]

Question, should i leave all the forums i am in to make you pricks happy because i honestly cant give a shit about this stupid argument anymore? honestly...

If you don't give a shit, quit posting. If you do post, try to give enough of a shit not to trot out platitudes with holes in them big enough to drive a semi-tractor trailer through. Or you'll just get in a vicious cycle of posting something vapid and having people tell you how vapid it is.

[mainiac]

try to give enough of a shit not to trot out platitudes with holes in them big enough to drive a semi-tractor trailer through

Good advice in general really.

[Morrigi]

As a lawyer, I can defend any point and make it a valid option depending on the occasion :v

Buuuuut I do dislike that people are always so enthusiastic about giving up rights (or rights that they do not make use of, but remains available to them) in exchange for some unproven reward in security/stability. If it hasn't done its job, you study why it hasn't and change it, you don't sit on it and hope it will one day magically affect the issues it was supposed to affect.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The US already had an "assault weapons" ban for ten years, and it did piss all to reduce the homicide rate, which happily continued to trend downward after it expired. What makes anyone think that a new one would be any different?

Also, for you non-Americans who think repealing the Second Amendment would not result in armed revolt and possible revolution, you are gravely mistaken. Are hundreds of thousands of lives worth the mere chance that you might get your way, in a war fought with the very weapons you seek to regulate so harshly? If so, there is room in Hell for you with Pol Pot and Stalin.

[Sheb]

I don't get you. I'm not allowed to support an idea because other people might get violent? Whut? What kind of stupid crap is that for a line of though?

[Neonivek]

I don't get you. I'm not allowed to support an idea because other people might get violent? Whut? What kind of stupid crap is that for a line of though?

It is called Communist Russia

"If we wouldn't allow our enemies guns, then why let them have ideas"

[nenjin]

The amount of effort to repeal the 2nd amendment is grossly disproportional the amount of effort it would take to sensibly define what it means in today's world. Again, the classic "propose the absolutely nuclear option to dissuade anyone from trying to do anything at all" example. At the very least, an assault weapons ban might prevent a guy from acquiring a weapon that allowed him to gun down 50 people in just a minute or two, and force him to use a weapon which would have, in the end, resulted in fewer casualties.

You can't stop gun violence but the least you can is reduce the amount of carnage it creates.

[Morrigi]

The amount of effort to repeal the 2nd amendment is grossly disproportional the amount of effort it would take to sensibly define what it means in today's world. Again, the classic "propose the absolutely nuclear option to dissuade anyone from trying to do anything at all" example. At the very least, an assault weapons ban might prevent a guy from acquiring a weapon that allowed him to gun down 50 people in just a minute or two, and force him to use a weapon which would have, in the end, resulted in fewer casualties.

It was already tried, and had no effect whatsoever on the homicide rate. What makes you think it will be any different now?

I don't get you. I'm not allowed to support an idea because other people might get violent? Whut? What kind of stupid crap is that for a line of though?

If your beliefs are likely to result in war and the deaths of countless thousands of innocent civilians for nebulous gain, perhaps they are shitty beliefs.

[nenjin]

Changing crime rates, demographics, social factors, drugs.....?

Let me turn it around though. Why do assault weapons need to be legal? Protect you from the guvr'ment? Home defense? Hunting? All these have been demonstrated to be fallacious too.

Your argument keeps coming back to "Do nothing", which is the opposite of what those affected by gun violence want.

[Morrigi]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It is an intentionally vague political term. Secondly, in what way has it been proven that semi-automatic rifles are not highly effective at home defense, hunting, and so on? Thirdly, it is not called the "Bill of Needs". It is called the Bill of Rights. Lastly, semi-automatic rifles are also useful to the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment mentions.

[Sheb]

Death of countless thousands of civilians? WTF are you even talking about? I don't remember arguing for death camps for gun owners.

[Neonivek]

Look I keep telling you... MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP!

Why the heck is that never an option? The NRA already believes that guns dissuade violence. So why is that never on the table?

We already have mandatory car insurance.

[Morrigi]

Mandatory gun education, maybe. A firearm safety and handling course would make sense as a graduation requirement.

[Sheb]

Mandatory military service?


Also, isn't there a town somewhere where gun ownership is mandatory?

[Loud Whispers]

I don't get you. I'm not allowed to support an idea because other people might get violent? Whut? What kind of stupid crap is that for a line of though?

It is called Communist Russia

"If we wouldn't allow our enemies guns, then why let them have ideas"

Based slavs got the psyops on point

[MonkeyHead]

2 ponderings.

1) If you are a responsible gun owner, surely you would welcome anything that ensured that responsible gun ownership was the norm and limited the nutbags from using guns for criminality which would place your rights under threat due to weight of popular opinion because "democracy"?

2) How do those who live under laws like the second amendment think those of us who live in gun restricted legislations "cope"? A lack of firearms certainly does not impact on my "liberty". If anything, it is enhanced by not having guns impact on it. A democracy that only works due to the threat of violence just beneath a veneer of order is hardly a nice thing.

As always, YMMV, dependant on what political hammers have shaped you over whatever societal anvil you rest upon.