Gun Control

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Wolverine, Jun 12, 2006.

?

What gun control do you support, if any?

  1. None, I believe that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Some, like the United states

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Moderate gun control, waiting periods, bans on "assault weapons" ect

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Heavy gun control, long waiting periods, restrictive storeage regulations, banss on all but a few fi

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Total ban

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wolverine

    Wolverine Guest

    Well, what are your opinions on gun control?

    I don't believe in any, the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right designed for protection from an oppressive government. The Founders saw a need for the people to be armed, even modern history has shown that oppressors will disarm the population first.

    Current gun control laws are not effective anyway, either way, criminals will still get guns. Lets make thier job harder, by allowing the civilian population to arm themselves.
    If gun control did actually work, Washington DC would be the safest city in the country, but it is the oppsite.
     

  2. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    It is true that trying to ban guns is horrendously ineffective, as there are guns hidden in every nook and cranny of America.

    I support moderate gun control, marginally more than the current administration supports. I think that allowing civilians to purchase automatic weapons has proven to hurt more than help in history, which is why I opposed the Bush administration letting the automatic weapon ban run out.
     
  3. Protostar

    Protostar Guest

    Then only criminals have access to such weapons. I see no reason why citizens should not be able to buy automatic weapons.
     
  4. It's not hard (from what I hear) to modify regular weapons to fire in fully automatic mode. Really there is no point to buying an automatic weapon unless you want to fire off a large amount of ammunition in a short period of time. Usually people will use this to kill lots of other people. As for semi-automatic/bolt action/pump/single shot/whatever I think it's a good idea for everyone to have access to that sort of thing. It makes it so much harder to invade a country when the population is armed. There's no point in trying to restrict guns any further than they already are. The criminals will always find ways to get guns and restricting guns outright would just leave the population defenseless.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine Guest

    Sorry, no offence, but you do not know what you are talking about. Automatics are still regualted, they have been since 1934. It is the semi-automatic bab, the so called "assault weapons ban" that expired two years ago.

    Correct, those have been banned since 1968 I believe.

    Not so, there are over 240,000 registered machine guns in the country, and only two deaths since 1934.
    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

    Agreed.....
     
  6. SenatorB

    SenatorB J.S.P.S

    I think it makes sense for people to be able to own personal weaponry. However, I think there should be a limit as to what they can own. Some weapons have no purpose except to kill many people easily. Why would a homeowner need an automatic weapon to protect their home? It's not as though 15 people all burst into your house at once trying to rob you and you have to spray bullets around to get them all.
     
  7. Wolverine

    Wolverine Guest

    It is possible to be very accurate with an automatic weapon, and the 2nd Amendment's main intent is not about home defense. Nor does it allow certain weapons to be banned.
     
  8. SenatorB

    SenatorB J.S.P.S

    It's equally possible to be very accurate with a non-automatic weapon... and if you're equally accurate with each, the automatic weapon is no more useful than the non-automatic one unless there are large numbers of people you're shooting at.

    No, but that is the main legal reason guns are used. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to make it possible to a revolution to occur. However, such a thing is not possible with our current technology, as the military would easily be able to fend off any sort of civilian uprising.

    You would support civilians owning nukes? Rocket launchers and missiles? That just doesn't make any sense... and if you're going to ban some weapons, you cannot say others are out of the range of being banned either. It only says the right to keep and bear arms, it does not specify what types.
     
  9. Anything not explicitly denied is allowed. For example, I can build a railgun if I wish and that is not against the law. You can pierce battleship armor with a good railgun and a few high capacity capacitors (wow that last bit sounds redundant).

    Interesting. What are the total figures of deaths caused by machine guns in the past few decades (civilian and police)? Not the legal machine guns, but the illegal ones.
     
  10. Rhoades

    Rhoades Guest

    I think Jefferson said it best when he said "The beauty of the second ammendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
    Now in order to understand as to why anyone would support the right to own an automatic weapon, one must ask why our founding fathers even put a second ammendment in the constitution in the first place. Was it so that people could kill other people? the answer is no. The only reason a right to bear arms was added was so people could protect themselves, not only from other people, but from the government. How are citizens supposed to overthrow a tyranical government with non-automatic weapons while the government has fully automatic ones? Also, I believe banning automatic weapons is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd ammendment. Banning automatic weapons is infringing upon the rights of militias, which are military units composed of citizens, and are supposed to be able to defend the state. By banning automatic weapons, your lessening the ability of militias to do their jobs, so therefore it's unconstitutional. But obviously, since the founding fathers were men of their time, a citizen should not be able to own nukes.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page