Gun Control

E

Economister

New Member
What are your thoughts as to whether or not the United States should have more stringent gun laws? Would they have a meaningful impact on communities? Could this change the SCOTUS's opinion of the 2nd Amendment to a more reasonable and likely interpretation? Is the gun culture in the United States just too entrenched? How can we espouse a forward thinking plan to reduce out breaks of gun-violence?
 
With the current culture you can't really do much. Revoking the so called natural right to bear arms, which is what should be done, would incense the public, who already feel dogged and betrayed by regulatory agencies. It's an American tradition have guns and when the country learns that availibility of fire arms very well cacels out the idealized protection they offer people won't change their opinions.
 
It is a bonded right just the same as freedom of religion,pursuit of happiness,public gathering,ect.Our forefathers came here to get away from a Monarchy and we will be dayumed if we are going to have another(of sorts)! :clap:
 
One subset of the population shouldn't lose their rights to bear arms because another subset of the population abuses their right. Do some research and see what subset is responsible for almost 90% of all gun violence. THOSE people shouldn't have the right to bear arms.
 
UK, total gun ban yet has the worst crime rate than any other place. U.S.-New York, no guns worst gun violence in the U.S. Texas-Everyone has a gun, lowest crime rate, lowest gun violence. A town with no guns=Anyone can come inside, **** you, kill your family, with their fists with a knife. A town with guns= The criminal thinks twice before entering a house knowing there is a chance the owner is armed. Guns dont kill people, the people who acquire the gun, load the magazine, aim the gun, pull the trigger, and have the intention to kill, kill. A gun itself is worthless by itself. Lets ban knifes? More people in the U.S. die from knife injuries than gun injuries. You will not survive, my mission is to destroy all forms of life.

The Terminator's an infiltration unit, part man, part machine. Underneath, it's a hyperalloy combat chassis - micro processor-controlled, fully armored. Very tough. But outside, it's living human tissue - flesh, skin, hair, blood, grown for the cyborgs...

Judgement Day 2.Rise of the Machines. The final battle between humans and Machines. You will not survive. Miles Bennet Dyson, Sarah Connor, John Connor, T-1000.
 
MathBoy said:
UK, total gun ban yet has the worst crime rate than any other place. U.S.-New York, no guns worst gun violence in the U.S. Texas-Everyone has a gun, lowest crime rate, lowest gun violence. A town with no guns=Anyone can come inside, **** you, kill your family, with their fists with a knife. A town with guns= The criminal thinks twice before entering a house knowing there is a chance the owner is armed. Guns dont kill people, the people who acquire the gun, load the magazine, aim the gun, pull the trigger, and have the intention to kill, kill. A gun itself is worthless by itself. Lets ban knifes? More people in the U.S. die from knife injuries than gun injuries. You will not survive, my mission is to destroy all forms of life.

The Terminator's an infiltration unit, part man, part machine. Underneath, it's a hyperalloy combat chassis - micro processor-controlled, fully armored. Very tough. But outside, it's living human tissue - flesh, skin, hair, blood, grown for the cyborgs...

Judgement Day 2.Rise of the Machines. The final battle between humans and Machines. You will not survive. Miles Bennet Dyson, Sarah Connor, John Connor, T-1000.
Click to expand...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
 
HahHa the Brits are having trouble telling beef from horsemeat at the moment. On topic though this is going to sound like, no correction it is an oxymoron phrase becuase it's a total contradiction of terms. I believe in second ammendment (the right to bear arms) however, I'd like to see more control on assault weapons. That I know is going to be difficult if not impossible to employ. I've said in another post that some guy in Wales went on a killing spree in his home town ploughing into dozens of people until the Police stopped him. Guns can be dangerous but so can autos, buses, scissors and knives the list is endless. Funny thing is no one proitests about those things guns are part of our institution, part of who we are. Due to our differences I don't think it's something Europeans can understand, that's not a dig at Europeans either.
 
bye_zps2d85b607.jpg

​
 
Jenna Talia said:
Does any American really care if Piers Morgan leaves the US? No.

Who is he anyways.
Click to expand...

....
seriously?
that's not why i think you're stupid. i couldn't give two ****s about piers morgan. using a picture to make such a redundant, unrelated point is why i think you're stupid.
well, that and your awful ****ing signature.
 
Being raised with guns, I learned early in life the responsibility and the weight of seriousness that a gun has. Personally, I don't believe in full out gun control. Do I believe in registration? Only for handguns. Outside of that its no one's business whether I, or anyone, owns a rifle or shotgun. I understand the 2nd Ammendment, and often shake my head when someone like Bloomberg says "You don't need ten bullets to kill a deer!", when the 2nd Ammendment does not mention one iota about hunting. The 2nd Ammendment was put into place so that we the people of our nation have a fighting chance against a tyrannical government. What tyrannical government? In theory, our own. Much like when our forebearers went up against Great Britain, if we the people chose to defend ourselves against the government for whatever reason that may be, we have that right. That is why, on the other side of the coin, if we are to have the 2nd Ammendment (as it was meant to be) every sane, hard working American ought to have not just shot guns, rifles and hand guns but also full on automatic, semi-automatic, etc. weapons. We the people, also ought to have the right to body armor, grenades, bazookas, etc. How else would we stand a chance against the military, since much has changed since 1776 when everyone was on an even playing field?

What scares me the most, is we have laws in place that forbid the government from using military weaponry, aircraft, etc. against the American people---- but these laws always magically dissolve when they feel like bypassing it---- they used military helicopters and 50 caliber assault weapons against the Lakota in the 1970s, breaking the Geneva Convention, they used the same tactics against David Koresh and the Davidians in the 1990s, as well as at Ruby Ridge, and also as early as the 1930's when the government used soldiers to KILL and IMPRISON WW1 soldiers (look up 'Bonus March' sometime). Now we have the current President saying, more or less, that he has the right to use military drones against Americans. Well, no he doesn't.... but what's to stop him, if we don't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top