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

[Insanegame27]

First of all: Be civil. Nobody here is anybody's personal enemy, and are just saying what they believe to be the truth. I will be temporarily locking this if it gets too heated. Anything too hot for me to handle will have the toad called. Behave.


In light of recent events, or otherwise, discuss the issues of gun control, gun problems and gun laws.


My personal opinion is that banning things has never stopped anything. Look at the war on drugs, if anything, banning that has pushed the street price higher, making it more profitable for dealers and destroying victims worse. I think that strict regulation and laws are the first step of a possible solutions, but would by no means be the last. At the very least there should be mandatory training for proper use, severe limitations to the kinds of firearms available to the public and mental profiling/assessment.


For the people who scream about the second amendment, it's right there in my sig. If you're going to quote it, quote it fully, not just the last bit.

[mainiac]

My personal opinion is that banning things has never stopped anything.

Yup.  That's why tanks are a common sight on american highways.  My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

[WakeMeUp]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

[mainiac]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

Gee, if only the founders had wrote extensively on this subject.  Too bad they literally didn't leave a scrap of their personal views.  So we better just believe a bunch of legal doctrines invented in the 1950s which are popularized by people with an obvious conflict of interest.  My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

[Wolfhunter107]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

Gee, if only the founders had wrote extensively on this subject.  Too bad they literally didn't leave a scrap of their personal views.  So we better just believe a bunch of legal doctrines invented in the 1950s which are popularized by people with an obvious conflict of interest.  My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

You are aware of the existence of the Federalist Papers, yes?

[O.Wilde]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

This is both silly and impractical.

Personally, I believe that background checks and such are perfectly fine, as well as waiting periods. I think the current situation with automatic weapons (Special permits and such) is fine. If someone wants to have an automatic weapon, it should be expensive and difficult at the least. Outright banning, however, I don't think is necessary.

I think people should be able to access guns, but I don't think slowing down that process, or making it more expensive, is a bad thing at all.

[NullForceOmega]

"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."

If you're going to quote it, do so properly.

Here's a quick excerpt from Wikipedia's (surprisingly well documented) page on the subject.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".  (minus the reference notation this is the text as of this posting)

However one wishes to define the 2nd amendment, the fact is that there are a stupendous number of firearms of numerous makes in circulation, with more being made all the time.  And since the U.S. has two massive borders that cannot be effectively patrolled (and two gigantic coastlines) any attempt to stop their dissemination to those who want them is probably not going to work.  I see no valid reason to attempt to do so either.

I don't own any firearms myself, but I really do feel that if Mr. Johnson down the street wants to own a minigun for whatever reason, then there is no reason he should not be able to do so, so long as he does not present a danger to himself or others, and has been trained in the use and maintenance of his weapon.

[NullForceOmega]

I hate it when that happens.

[Insanegame27]

I hate it when that happens.

Define 'that'?

[NullForceOmega]

Accidentally clicked quote instead of modify, just wanted to fix a typo, and got stuck with a double post.

[MoonyTheHuman]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

Liberal Crime Squad anyone?

[Ekaton]

I'd say that the main question is: does the state have the right to ban anything? Personally I like Frederic Bastiat's definition "[State] is the collective organization of the individual's right to legitimate self-defense". Without getting into too much detail, I believe that every person has the right to defend his life, property, family and dignity, by force if necessary. If I cannot go to my neighbor and forbade him from having a gun, state cannot too, because every power the state has had to be vested in it by the individuals who form the state, they never had the right to do so, and therefore cannot grant the state the power to restrict gun ownership.

[O.Wilde]

So do you believe I should be allowed to build a nuke in my back yard? I mean, you don't have the right to come into my yard and tell me not to put stuff together.

[Ekaton]

So do you believe I should be allowed to build a nuke in my back yard? I mean, you don't have the right to come into my yard and tell me not to put stuff together.

Well, that depends, I believe that it all depends on what we are talking about, while having the principle of the legitimate self-defence in mind. Nuke building, terorrist organizations, criminal organizations - In these cases it is justified to use collective self-defense against them in my opinion. In case of guns - no.

[NullForceOmega]

That is an interesting point, are you, in fact, trained in the safe handling of fissile materials?  If so, then your weapon would make a potentially useful addition to the nuclear arms stockpile of the United States, so long as you obey appropriate safety guidelines and usage restrictions (as per international treaties.)