Where do you stand on gun-control?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Jun 12, 2007.


Where do you stand with gun politics?

  1. No regulation at all, 100% For guns, all guns are legal to law abiding citizens

    0 vote(s)
  2. Light regulation. No machine guns, all other guns are OK.

    0 vote(s)
  3. Moderate regulation. No Semi-Auto's. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal

    0 vote(s)
  4. Heavy regulation. No handguns, no semi autos, hunting guns are regulated.

    0 vote(s)
  5. Total ban. No guns for private citizens at all.

    0 vote(s)
  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    This thread is simple. State your views on gun politics.

  2. This says it's a poll, but it did not come up that way for me.

    Anyways, I am pro-gun, all the way. I do not believe gun control works. The criminals will always have the guns. We should have a right to keep and bear arms, as the Constitution grants us.
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm for moderate regulation for two reasons:

    1. I don't trust most people, hence, I'd never trust most people if they were armed
    Call me cynical or paranoid, I just don't trust people and I probably never will. For that reason, I'd never want to see heavy guns in someone's hands and I'd never want to see a total ban of all guns because of this trust issue.

    2. I just don't like guns in general
    Ehh, call me hippie or liberal or whatever you think I should be considered, but I just don't like guns. They make me uncomfortable and I don't see much need for anything bigger than a shotgun for private use. Hunting rifles can be regulated

    Basically, banning all guns would be stupid because that would increase crime rates and gun-related problems simply because people would still want them. Think prohibition. Yeah, did a good job from stopping drinking, didn't it?

    Giving total freedom of all firearms is just asking for some big time problems in my opinion. I don't mean to sound offensive, but voting for zero regulation is rather crazy, pro2a. I think it was said in another gun thread, but the general atmosphere of the nation would be very distrusting and uneasy. People should be allowed to own guns, but not any gun.
  4. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I tend to look beyond just self defense and hunting too. I look at the original reason for the 2A. It was to defend our nation against a tyrannical government or foriegn invader. If we have the same or superior weapons as the ATF, FBI etc... we have a fair match and a fighting chance. Otherwise we might as well kiss our butts goodbye.
  5. Babe_Ruth

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

    Im totally against people owning guns, I also believe that it's to easy for people to get guns these days. I believe that you should have a permit to buy a gun and should have a security check. Guns kill, and if guns wouldn't be so easy to get then a lot more lives would be saved.
  6. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    I guess moderate regulation.

    Although I have mixed feelings on gun. I dont want them easily accessible to people for instance I would avoid being around people who carry concealed Handguns if I knew they had them.

    Im just apprensive of other people with guns. And gangs and stuff...

    But I think its a good right to be able to carry a gun for defense or threat.

    I think if citizens were not allowed to carry guns it wouldnt solve anything. But also I dont think we should be passing em out....
  7. rozzlapeed

    rozzlapeed Guest

    I picked light regulation, not because I'm against machine guns, but because I think licenses should be required to carry guns on public property or someone else's private property.
  8. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I guess I should re-clarify why I voted 100% for guns.

    I would see it as ok for law-abiding citizens to have machine guns only after say a certain tax was paid; it is registered thru your local sheriff’s office. Etc...

    It wouldn't be as easy as buying a shotgun from Wal-Mart. You would need to pass a class, get a certificate saying you are aware of the dangers, and operation of the weapon. And just like getting a CCW, you would need a license to have it in your home.

    With this they would also have to really tighten the borders in order to control the illegal arms trade. This is where the problem is, if they could control the borders it would make it increasingly difficult to get an automatic weapon on the street. This would leave only one avenue, the legal way, which would deter a good portion of criminals from getting them.
  9. Technocrat

    Technocrat Guest

    I am for moderate regulation of weapons. There are certain procedures througth which people should go if if they want weapons.

    1. People shouldn't be allowed to go down and get weapons immediately. There should be a delay period.

    2. They should be thorougly examined for mental illness and criminal records.

    3. There are certain weapons that cannot be owned because, by their nature, their use is too dangerous to the public or would cause too much collateral damage if used, even properly.

    4. There should be regulations and tightened qualifications of competence for weapons licenses.

    5. There ought to be mandated greater built-in safety mechanisms in weapons.
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I am in the moderate regulation crowd. I think that guns should be made available to people mainly for the purpose of hunting. They are useful tool for that task. There also seems to be a benefit involved in allowing the ownership of light pistols and the like. Mainly for their use in detering certain sorts of crimes that often result in physical injury. Furthermore, Americans tend to like guns, and if being able to go out and buy an eight mil will make someone a little happier, then society has gained some benefit from such things being legal.

    On the other hand, I think you do decrease the demand for guns by making them illegal, and thus reduce their availability to everyone (even criminals). When you have a lot of something around, it is much easier and cheaper to get your hands on it. Also, it seems that automatic weapons provide no signifigant benefit in terms of protection and whanot over and above that which non-automatics provide. Thus, I don't think the positives of their legalization trump the negatives.

Share This Page