Gun Control

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Babe_Ruth, Dec 19, 2008.

  1. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    Before replying to this thread, make sure to read the rules of this new forums. Moderators will be keeping a close eye on every topic, so follow the rules.

    Do you believe in Gun Control?

    Discuss.
     

  2. DinoFlintstone

    DinoFlintstone "There can be only one!"

    Of course I do. You can't have any old person being allowed to have a fire-arm.
     
  3. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Yep, I believe in gun control. Only certain people need certain firearms. The rest of us should do without them.

    Guns are a plight on society, they are mass produced and distributed needlessly to people who could do with out them.

    Being able to live in an almost gun free society is a very comforting thought and reality, that has only been achieved and made possible due to strict gun control and a little public cooperation. Hence I favour gun control because having experienced it I can only highly recommend it.
     
  4. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I believe you are mistaken Bananas... this video is from Britain

    YouTube - British Citizens Rally because of GUN BAN.

    After watching this video point on one instance where you saw thugs and gangsters lining up to follow the law. Do these people turning their guns in look like the type of people that would contribute to crime? They are the ones who abide by the law in the fist place. So legal citizens turn in their guns, armed criminals do not.

    Sad really :shake: Guns are what keep free people from ending up in Gulags. I suggest you watch V for Vendetta if you want to see what an unarmed society could turn in to.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2008
  5. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Pro, you also see what an unarmed society can do with a peaceful riot. Yes he destroyed the tower, but what turned the government was essentially a peaceful protest. Bad analogy, but I see where you're going.

    Here's the problem for me, I believe in gun control, not gun elimination. I know hunters love their rifles and gun collectors love their AK 47s. I can understand the hunter's love of his tool, I don't understand the collectors love to use the AK 47. Yes it's pretty, yeah it's a cool gun to shoot, but it's not a gun that should be on the streets. Yes you put the civilian population at a "disadvantage" by limiting the types of guns they can have, but I believe it puts us in a safer environment. Limiting the types of guns (does any civilian really need a .50 cal sniper rifle?) civilians have can help *reduce* the mass killing sprees. No I'm not naive I'm aware that people can go almost as crazy with a 9mm hand gun.

    I also understand the right of self-defense, I just don't understand the necessity of an automatic rifle or an AK 47. I'm just curiouse as to how that "right" can be defended
     
  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Just a quick note, full auto weapons are not easily avaliable. They are EXPENSIVE... and I mean upwards of the price of a car or more, and require a shitload of paperwork, ATF stamps, sheriff approval etc...

    Moving on to your question tho.

    Instead of typing it all out again, this link explains clearly my view on why AK-47's are legal and needed per the 2A.

     
  7. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Well, the problem I have with those full auto-weapons is the fact that even with those stipulations (and I understand that getting an auto is not a walk in the park) the people that attain them can still have the same intentions. I understand that it deters a lot of lower level thugs and grunts from getting them, but they are still there. Not to mention the possiblity of a mugging/house robbery that ends up in the criminal getting the auto.

    The price really has no bearing to me, I mean it's better than it being cheap, but if a person wants money bad enough, they can get it, we all know that.

    Also, you're right the federalist papers wrote (and made quite clear) that both parties should have the same weapons, but back then these weapons did not have the killing power they do now. A musket was inaccurate and ultimately ineffective. Yes they still could kill and yes at that time they were quite formidable. But, the point still remains a M4 can take out multiple people easily, without a sweat, piece of cake, anytime anyday anywhere. I mean a 9 mm can essentially disable/kill 12 people, without reloading. There are extreme cases, which you brought up, and I can understand where having an AK or any Assualt rifle would be beneficial, but these extreme cases don't justify it for me.

    Things like the washington sniper are too fresh in my head still.
     
  8. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Well as I say to the people who don't like guns, (and I'm not going to go as far as to call you an anti-gunner) you don't have to like them, but please don't infringe on my right to own them as protected by the 2A. I'm not forcing you to own one, just as you shouldn't force me not to own one.
     
  9. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Well I will agree to disagree Pro, that's for sure. I appreciate you not calling me an anti-gunner, that would've gotten under my skin. Personally I just get nervouse at the thought of people owning guns that can gun down 20 people easily without reloading, but that's just the cynic in me I suppose.

    My large problem, and I know this will spark a debate that we may need to start somehwere else, is I fundamentally think some of the bill of rights/constitution is out dated. Not the basic principal but the wording is being used for marked benefits of capitalism, and not the citizens of the country. I'm not say that's how you are using it, but it bugs me. Thats a nother topic though, just runs parralel to this one.
     
  10. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Or even if not that, it's ambiguous- both in the actual text and the definition of various terms. The 2nd amendment has 'arms', 'Militia', 'well-regulated', 'necessary to the security of a free State'. What does all this mean, is it dictate by the court decisions that are relevant? And with the politicized nature of our court system even from antebellum times, are those judgements really valid to the idea of person opinion?
     

Share This Page