Gun Control: Is this a real fix?

Inkandtatts said:
Take the guns away = no need to protect yourself against someone with a gun

Season 5 Idk GIF by Paramount+
Click to expand...
One couldn't just take the guns away, they would have to take ALL the guns away In America, think about how large the USA is and how many people good and bad own a firearm; and prevent guns from getting into America ever again, on top of, preventing anyone from ever making a gun in the USA, not a law to do this, I mean making it impossible for people to buy the tools necessary to make a gun, then also make it illegal to own anything to make a bullet. Also, you have to convince Americans why they should never worry about an invasion and the need to protect themselves from an invading force who are going to be using, wait for it.... guns. you also have to convince them that the US Military or the US Government will never use guns against the populace. So, yeah kinda makes that stupid gif you chose and your half-assed comment look fucking stupid. You really have to start thinking harder before you post anything that you want people to take seriously.
 
Gun control could help to a degree.

Automatic weapons (FA) could be banned. Give an amnesty for a set period of time, and have a buy back. After that round them up, state by state with a 5 year minimum for those who refuse.

If the US articles give the citizens the status of a permanent armed militia- there is no reason to assume a citizens right to bear arms would include FA, or other military grade hardware. It would be absurd to imagine a citizen carrying grenades to a bowling ally or a rocket launcher to a theatre. Open carry seems to be bizarre also, and should be stopped.
 
OriginalScreenName said:
The OP didn't really state what the fix is, just stated two opposing thoughts.

" gun control " should be nonexistent for the verbiage in the Second Amendment that mentions, " shall not be infringed upon ".
The founding fathers were not morons. They knew damn good and well that bad people in their time existed and in turn could have access to a firearm, and murder people. There was also the chance the military of the US Government, could go bad and turn those weapons of destruction against the people.

What no one today asks, is, what are the American people supposed to do if they no longer have the means to defend themselves from their own military, or the government if it unlawfully uses the military against the nation. It just isn't asked nor debated on a national level. Do you know what is also not debated? Should the USA have Nuclear Weapons to defend itself against other nations that have them, how strong should America's Nuclear Weapons be, and how many should the USA have. No one gives two rat turds about Nuclear Weapons. You do realize, if Iran ever gets a nuke, or North Korea, how extra fucked the USA and NATO would be. Because they are partners with China and Russia. Also, Iran will probably be more than eager to use a nuke or create a workable dirty bomb and give it to any terrorist that wants it and use those terrorists as a proxy to attack the USA.

One could easily argue that the US should get rid of all its Nuclear Weapons, and let the UN protect the USA in regards to Nuclear Weapons.

The debate of gun control is pointless, for the simple fact that no one in government wants to debate the Second Amendment and that " shall not be infringed upon " part, and if the founding fathers were wrong for putting that verbiage in there or if that verbiage should stay. Once that debate is answered on a governmental level by all three branches of government. That in turn leads to a solid decision and law. Maybe the Second Amendment stays as is, maybe it doesn't. But if those that want stricter gun control laws, for any reason, they have to address that much first, and why there is no government debate, let alone a vote to make changes to the Second Amendment when gun control advocates clearly want a national gun control law.

No matter how well-intentioned gun controls are and how beneficial they are, those laws are an infringement based on the simple dictionary definition of the word. If you look at the Second Amendment, it does not mention, can a mentally ill person own a firearm, can a criminal who was convicted of a crime, own a firearm after they get out. And guess what was around in society back then. Criminals, and the mentally ill, while not as prevalent as today, were out there in society.

there are parts of America where police are not going to get to you in time to help. There are going to be crime-ridden areas that the police just do not want to **** with, where innocent people are and need help. The Second Amendment is that stopgap.

It also would do everyone who is 100% Second Amendment, open carry, conceal carry, no permit ever( constitutional carry, which is fucking stupid to call it that, because that is the Second Amendment ) advocates and gun control advocates to look at their local, gun laws, which should include, the Castle Domain law, and the Duty to Retreat law, how those two laws intersect or don't, and the Stand ground your law, and how the Duty to Retreat Law may intersect or not.

Whatever the laws are regarding guns, just know this, if you shoot someone in the back, no matter who started it; you shoot someone in the back, you better have a great lawyer. Who can prove that the person was going to turn back around and shoot or attack you, or was shooting blindly over their shoulder at you.
Click to expand...

Well I'm going to leave nukes out of the debate, because that is a humanitarian/destruction of earth issue.

That also extends to the land of government and not individual rights.



OriginalScreenName said:
One couldn't just take the guns away, they would have to take ALL the guns away In America, think about how large the USA is and how many people good and bad own a firearm; and prevent guns from getting into America ever again, on top of, preventing anyone from ever making a gun in the USA, not a law to do this, I mean making it impossible for people to buy the tools necessary to make a gun, then also make it illegal to own anything to make a bullet. Also, you have to convince Americans why they should never worry about an invasion and the need to protect themselves from an invading force who are going to be using, wait for it.... guns. you also have to convince them that the US Military or the US Government will never use guns against the populace. So, yeah kinda makes that stupid gif you chose and your half-assed comment look fucking stupid. You really have to start thinking harder before you post anything that you want people to take seriously.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for inkandtats to answer this very question I asked him about 4 times already.

With the exception of a time machine...

You can't make 400 million guns disappear or magically appear at the governments request. You can make it illegal to own one but that doesn't make the guns appear, especially not any of the already illegal and uncountable guns criminals posses.

But then by doing this you would infringe upon not only the right to bear arms but also the right to be free from searches and seizures.

It goes against the very core of the founding fathers design, free men living in a free nation.




H.R. PufnStuf said:
Gun control could help to a degree.

Automatic weapons (FA) could be banned. Give an amnesty for a set period of time, and have a buy back. After that round them up, state by state with a 5 year minimum for those who refuse.

If the US articles give the citizens the status of a permanent armed militia- there is no reason to assume a citizens right to bear arms would include FA, or other military grade hardware. It would be absurd to imagine a citizen carrying grenades to a bowling ally or a rocket launcher to a theatre. Open carry seems to be bizarre also, and should be stopped.
Click to expand...
First off
Automatic weapons fire more than 1 bullet per trigger squeeze.
So let's not confuse them with semi automatic weapons.
People who don't know any better often conflate ARs with FULL AUTO MACHINE GUN and that is FALSE. ARs are no different in operation from a handgun. 1 bullet per trigger squeeze.


2nd.
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated, more difficult but not impossible to own. Most of what keeps these guns away from people's hands are their exhorbitant price tags. Automatic weapons that meet the criteria for a citizen to be able to own have to be 35 years old. They're world war 2 relics, basically novelty items costing upwards of $10-20,000. Civilian applications undergo an approval process that usually takes about 1 year from the time you apply to the time you can buy one.

The exception to this is if you are Firearms Dealer and sell guns for a living or use these weapons for government duties. That of which is something like being a SPECIAL FORCES COMMANDO, or SWAT and it's necessary for your duty. But being a SPECIAL FORCES personally also has it's own hoops to jump through.

3rd
Automatic weapons are almost never or likely never used in mass shootings. The weapon of choice for mass shooters is 75% pistols and about 30 % Rifles. The data we have on gun violence does not differentiate rifles by class. They mix all long barell weapons like muskets, hunting rifles, ARs etc all as. a "rifle"


Primary reason that pistols are used is the same as outlined in point #2. Automatic weapons are out of majority of civilians hands. That's why we don't see MG42s mounted on top of a Jeep in mass shootings. So I don't think automatic weapons bear much real relevance to this debate



4th
Grenades and "military grade hardware"
Vastly the same concept as point #2. Notoriously expensive and out of most people's hands. They're not exempt at a federal level but states may impose their own restrictions such as only allowing police/military personnel to own them


So when people call for ARs aka "automatic weapons/assault rifles/military weapons" to get banned, it's a stupid argument that is founded upon negligence based on the appearance of the rifle.

An AR is basically the modern equivalent of a musket.
 
LMAO Bread you're a terrible troll.

Your comparisons are chalk and cheese. No surprise there though, you're grasping at straws again.

I pity the decent and rational folk of the USA with the current crop of politicians, right wing conservative christian driven agendas (more dogma), and the 1% with most of the wealth laughing down their noses at you. Then there are the idiots that hang onto their every word and try to push the dogma where it's just not accepted. Deary me...

Screwed I tell you.
 
emileh said:
LMAO Bread you're a terrible troll.

Your comparisons are chalk and cheese. No surprise there though, you're grasping at straws again.

I pity the decent and rational folk of the USA with the current crop of politicians, right wing conservative christian driven agendas (more dogma), and the 1% with most of the wealth laughing down their noses at you. Then there are the idiots that hang onto their every word and try to push the dogma where it's just not accepted. Deary me...

Screwed I tell you.
Click to expand...

Please stop acting like Christian is a bad thing.
You just say it like all Christians are terrible and that you shouldn't be one.
 
JosephTheMainMan said:
Please stop acting like Christian is a bad thing.
You just say it like all Christians are terrible and that you shouldn't be one.
Click to expand...
Oh I've nothing against Christians per se, although I'm an atheist myself. However, the type of right wing evangelising ultra conservative "christians" I'm referring to aren't what I'd call Christians at all. They're mean minded, petty, often bigoted, controlling, religion corrupting, and generally vile people.

Does that clarify things?
 
emileh said:
LMAO Bread you're a terrible troll.

Your comparisons are chalk and cheese. No surprise there though, you're grasping at straws again.

I pity the decent and rational folk of the USA with the current crop of politicians, right wing conservative christian driven agendas (more dogma), and the 1% with most of the wealth laughing down their noses at you. Then there are the idiots that hang onto their every word and try to push the dogma where it's just not accepted. Deary me...

Screwed I tell you.
Click to expand...
Another pointless post that doesn't address any of the points made. Just jargon with no relevance or references to gun violence.

She really reaching taking about "christianity"

Someone has lost this debate.



Shark Tank Lol GIF by ABC Network
 
SouporMan said:
You’re arguing with a kid..
Click to expand...

I’ve put the massdebater on ignore. Not worth the negative energy. Creatures like that are a dying breed.

I’d rather sit back and watch it get its ass handed to it on a plate by the next generation…

emileh said:
LMAO Bread you're a terrible troll.

Your comparisons are chalk and cheese. No surprise there though, you're grasping at straws again.

I pity the decent and rational folk of the USA with the current crop of politicians, right wing conservative christian driven agendas (more dogma), and the 1% with most of the wealth laughing down their noses at you. Then there are the idiots that hang onto their every word and try to push the dogma where it's just not accepted. Deary me...

Screwed I tell you.
Click to expand...
 
"I'm better at debating" - poor debater
"He's poor at debating" - poor debater
"He's a Christian" - poor debater
"Right wing" - poor debater
"He ate Cheetos last night" - poor debater
"I'm blocking him" - poor debater
 
Bread. said:
"I'm better at debating" - poor debater
"He's poor at debating" - poor debater
"He's a Christian" - poor debater
"Right wing" - poor debater
"He ate Cheetos last night" - poor debater
"I'm blocking him" - poor debater
Click to expand...


If you just add all those things up you get a delusional idiot 😂.

Okay I’m done.
 
If you wish for other people to respect your points of view, then you must also respect theirs. Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals.
 
@Bread.

Regarding my mention of Nuclear Weapons, while not an individual rights issue, I think it is a valid comparison because, on a global discussion, there are a lot of gun control advocates who would prefer all governments implement the end of all personal ownership of firearms. Yet we as citizens are supposed to trust our own elected government to have the sole decision on a weapon of mass destruction that will destroy more innocent lives than they will " bad guys or terrorists " with the simple press of a button.
--------------( side note not a reply ) --------------
To me it would seem very easy for the USA, to launch a low yield Nuclear missile, from orbit, on Iran, or even a non-nuclear weapon, one of those Iron Rods, multiple ones, target all government buildings and military bases in Iran and bye-bye to a government that financially feeds terrorists and works toward the destruction of America and the free world. Would there be innocent lives lost, yes, but very minimal compared to the grand picture of crippling terrorism across the globe. Crippling not ending.
-------( general thoughts)-------
Gun Control advocates mean well. I do not honestly believe, they do not want people to not be able to defend themselves from bad guys with guns. They also are usually very unaware of existing laws that are gun control laws. They act too emotionally on the big picture of gun control, they do not consider the flip side of taking firearms away from people. They do not care about history, they do not care about what-if possibilities that are based on reality. They can not answer what a free people are to do if their government turns on them or their land is invaded. They can not answer that because they do not want to, because it requires them to concede they do not have a viable answer or solution. Once gun control advocates can remove emotion from their thinking and start playing devil's advocate on this issue, then they can start to understand the opposing side and begin to think of ways to compromise or completely answer the problem they want to fix.

Also, just for fun let's say, the US Government does ban all firearms, pistols, and whatever gun control advocates want gone. The ban starts Jan 31 2024, and all citizens are to turn their firearms in at designated checkpoints and will be given a fair-value tax-free check for the value of their firearm(s). What is the answer to, what do those citizens do, when a bad guy that doesn't abide by the law, takes a gun of any kind, and on that day, starts up a mass shooting, or starts to rob people, what do those gun advocates suggest people do, along with knowing that the police are not going to show up any time soon to help those people. What are police supposed to do when they have also been defunded and this law takes place?

I do not knock on gun control advocates who want peace, I knock on those who are detached from reality that if someone wants to commit a mass murder or wants to kill someone, there are plenty of ways to do it now that we are well into the 2020s. I find it insane the replies that say, well if at least guns were off the board that would be a start. Absolute insanity. To those people, you do realize China was responsible for COVID-19, and still is, and the deaths from COVID-19 is on the government of China's hands. Along with the variants. Not one bullet was fired, not one bullet or gun or bad guy with a gun caused any of those deaths, with that knowledge that guns did not cause any of those deaths, are you content and happy about knowing guns and bad guys with guns were not involved in those deaths. If your answer is yes, please keep it to yourself, you are just going to come off looking like a fucking moron. I won't, but someone else will call you a troll on top of it.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
Gun control could help to a degree.

Automatic weapons (FA) could be banned. Give an amnesty for a set period of time, and have a buy back. After that round them up, state by state with a 5 year minimum for those who refuse.

If the US articles give the citizens the status of a permanent armed militia- there is no reason to assume a citizens right to bear arms would include FA, or other military grade hardware. It would be absurd to imagine a citizen carrying grenades to a bowling ally or a rocket launcher to a theatre. Open carry seems to be bizarre also, and should be stopped.
Click to expand...
to the article of a permanent and armed militia, the innuendo is that it is unregulated by the government, the truth is for the most part or to some varying degree, only a governor of a state can form a militia, most states do not allow for an unregulated militia and on top of that there are laws either in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or an added amendment that prohibit civilian militias. The active ones usually promote themselves as volunteers for natural disaster situations to provide medical triage assistance and provide weather warnings.

The laws about armed militias are something that gun control advocates and pro-second amendment people love to jizz themselves over when the reality is, it is in the exact same category of useless as the 25th Amendment and the Impeachment process.

No US President has ever been convicted and removed from office because of an Impeachment and never will be. Militias will never be activated or called upon by any governor because that would be seen as an act of aggression by the US Government as a whole; it would be an indication that a Governor may be planning to have his or her state seceded from the Union. The US government would shut that governor down as quickly as possible and legally, to remove that person from office within the confines of the law.

Militias were intended as a quick defense if needed against the British, and anyone during that time looking for trouble, and history shows they were rarely used if never. They are no longer needed, and the idea of a militia is really a relic of the past that no one in our three branches of government has thought about removing from law. because it would be too much work and too much controversy.
 
Your general thoughts summed it up. Gun control advocates are usually very poorly educated in guns or on US history.

We had a thread not too long about the same thing. This thread was centered around mass shootings and AR15s

It resulted in the same responses. People backing each others opinions up without facts. People cherrypicking what to respond to. People debating users not the topic. Gun control advocates ragequitting.

Walmart shooting

Argue this You are telling me that we should enact strict gun control rights for 24 mass shooting deaths per year on a country with a population of 330,000,0000 people? How is enacting gun control and banning ar15s but not guns entirely, going to result in less mass shootings?
forum.chat-avenue.com forum.chat-avenue.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top