Gun Control?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
2,148
Role
Diaper Lover
Why yes literally, democrats want to take away our right to own the kind of guns we want. We will be able to own guns, just not the types that are any good. Single shots? Oooh boy.

So yes, democrats would cause less freedom in the area of guns. Why do you doubt me?
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
It's a funny issue, gun control and I suppose that context is really key.

The fact is that the right to bear arms is not an important right. It has no impact in preserving democracy and liberty nor protecting against foreign threats – the concerns addressed in the Second Amendment. It is ineffective at protecting individuals, in fact it can even be said to be harmful in that regard; the person most likely to be injured or killed through a gun you own is you or a member of your family. It is also the case that a high presence of guns makes the illegal killing of people easier and, violent crime being largely opportunistic and passionate, impacts upon murder rates. The more guns you have in a society, the more people are killed by them and this is clearly a bad thing.

Now, I am a social libertarian and hold that the personal choices of individuals should not be unduly regulated and that their liberty to do as they wish is of paramount importance. However, there are, and must be, exceptions and limitations to personal liberties. The first responsibility of a government is the safety and security of its people and situations that threatened this justify a limitation of freedoms, particularly insignificant freedoms. It really is worth establishing that the right to bear arms is not fundamental, instead, I believe, it is attributed this status symbolically through its association with the Constitution, made sacrosanct as a symbol of American freedom and democracy. I can understand that, and what it represents, but in real terms the life and rights of a citizen in a comparable industrialised democracy, in Europe or Australasia, for example, are not worsened or lessened through a lack of legalised guns.

The point then is that I do not believe that the particular liberty of being able to own a gun is worth more than any individual's life and, being that a greater prevalence of guns in a society invariably leads to a greater number of deaths because of them, there is a justification in curtailing the right to own a firearm. In short, the philosophical negatives of the necessary impingement of an unimportant freedom are worth accepting for the material positive of reducing violent deaths: a gun-free society is superior to one in which guns are commonplace.

Context and culture, as I said, is key though. An total and immediate gun ban in the US is clearly impractical and unworkable because of the levels of gun saturation. Not to mention illegal because of the Constitution (the relative merits and handicaps of having a codified constitution - and there are both - is an interesting aside but I'm prattling on enough as it so I'll leave that for now). Stricter gun controls though are eminently justifiable.
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
In Britain (from what I know, I wouldn't quote me on this), you can only own a gun if you have a licence.
And to get a licence you need to provide, and prove to the people who give out the licences, that you have "a good reason" for owning one. And to renew the licence, you have to prove that it's being kept safely, and you still have "a good reason" for keeping it...
Personally I think that's fair...
Gun are basically for killing stuff, I'd like to know that people who have guns have them for legit reasons.

What qualifies as "a good reason" has changed over time, for example "for self-defence" is no longer valid. I think you can own them for hunting, and some other stuff (police and army etc.).

Hand guns are impossible to get since a little massacre involving a legally owned one.

The thing that I hate about Britain's fire-arm laws is what actually qualifies as a fire-arm! Pepper-Spray counts! And so you can't use that for self-defence.

I doubt gun laws will change here, we seem to be having a lot of problems with guns as it is, and people are calling for gun laws to be made for strict (prison time for owning a gun raised).
I don't agree at all with the idea that the safest way is for everyone to be armed, the argument that if guns are illegal then only the criminals have them. That argument seems to forget completely about stupid people! People wouldn't not use guns because everyone else was armed. I'm thinking of chavs, who would happily shoot at each other, not really caring that it would probably get them killed.

I think guns are pretty cool, I remember using one when I was cub-scout (at a firing range!), there is something quite appealing about them.
I almost wish guns are available for self defence, but if they were that would mean more idiots would have them...

I think there has to be a line somewhere, and I think the government is right to restrict them. I'm more concerned about them stepping on my freedom in other ways...
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
The fact is that the right to bear arms is not an important right.
I agree. There are quite a few other pesky amendments, such as the one that gave women the right to vote, the one that promises a trial by jury, and the one that abolished slavery.

Anyone have the Constitution? I have scissors.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Hmm. They obviously aren't pesky amendments though, they deal with vital and fundamental human freedoms and I wouldn't dream of criticising them. The right to arms is demonstrably not vital and fundamental any more as you can see in dozens of developed democratic countries.

In a democracy nothing should be above criticism, including the Constitution. Yes, it represents the principles of liberty in America but those principles would be poorly served if any element of law or government were to be placed immutably above scrutiny. It was an extraordinary and visionary document when it was written - it still is in many ways - but it is now a very old document also, and while the context of the Founding Fathers' time led them to have difficulty in envisioning a free society where the right to own a gun wasn't fundamental, contexts shift and that time has now come.
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
I agree. There are quite a few other pesky amendments, such as the one that gave women the right to vote, the one that promises a trial by jury, and the one that abolished slavery.

Anyone have the Constitution? I have scissors.
*Jumps up and down repeatedly*
Oooo:
Straw man, Straw man!

:D
 

yellothing

Contributor
Messages
2
Role
Diaper Lover
I'll be the token English man then!. In England no handguns, no automatic rifles, pump action shot guns only to hold 3 rounds {two up the pipe one in the breach]. i don't think there are any restrictions on pea shooters tho. Because some nasty criminal were killing each other with illegally owned hand guns it was thort best if hand guns were made illegal. So now there are no gun deaths in the UK at all......... not one......none.........ok maybe just one or two.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Bah, the English don't need handguns anyway. ;) They're hardcore enough without guns. Hell, I remember a story about my eighty-something grandfather when he was still alive. I'm a second generation American, and my grandfather was from Liverpool. He and my Dad got into a barfight one time ... and my grandfather had to take his dentures out before he headbutted some dude right in his nose. He then proceeded to lay out like, four guys.

Yup! The English know how to fight!
 

PuddleFopsKit

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,127
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Incontinent
Before I go any further, let me say now that I am a competitive shooter that competes in trap and clay shooting tournaments when I can, have taken a gun safety course, and hold two hunting licenses.

You people thinking that guns are around just to kill people, or just to look cool, are a bit diluted. Guns are tools that can be used for many purposes such as home defense, but also to provide food for our families(think log cabins and a forest environment), and protect our freedoms. They can also be used competitively, like I do, for fun. I don't see a problem with that as long as you know what you are doing. There are many other things in this world that kill far more people than guns, so don't try to act as though they are the root of all evil.. People are the ones that kill people, not guns. Guns do not have a mind of their own; they cannot kill without human interference.

The Second amendment is here to protect us from harm. It is not here "just for the hell of owning a gun". It was put here so that we would not be the victims of robbers, or thugs or other criminals.

Now what do I think of gun control? I think it is important, but I do not believe we should take it any further. We do as much as we can already by placing age restrictions on the purchases of guns and ammo, and screening individuals before allowing them to buy guns. It is foolish to take it any further, because people will always be able to get guns from the streets, so it would a waste of tax dollars trying to stop it. If you think I'm wrong, then look at drugs as a prime example.

If that wasn't what you meant by "gun control", then I assume you meant as far as keeping them safe at home? Well, I don't have to worry about that much, having no siblings to be wary of. So about the most I'll do it keep them unloaded(or at least no shells in the chamber), and on safety until ready to use. Occasionally we'll have family over, who bring young kids, in which case I will lock my guns up where they would not accidentally find them.

To the OP: That black .22 LR in your picture? Is that a Savage mark 2? I have that exact same gun. Its my second favorite .22 that I own, next to my Browning BL-22 lever action. Don't get me wrong though, its a great gun, but that Browning has a perfect weight balance..

I know someone who has an 1871 Peacemaker .45, and I really want to get a hold of it. But he isn't letting go of it too easily.. its worth a lot, so he wants a lot. Not really surprising to be honest..

Now if only I could find a Saiga 12 gauge..

See? I'm perfectly content with exercising my Second amendment rights! :D
 
Last edited:

Kip

Banned
Messages
400
Role
Diaper Lover
Now what do I think of gun control? I think it is important, but I do not believe we should take it any further. We do as much as we can already by placing age restrictions on the purchases of guns and ammo, and screening individuals before allowing them to buy guns. It is foolish to take it any further, because people will always be able to get guns from the streets, so it would a waste of tax dollars trying to stop it. If you think I'm wrong, then look at drugs as a prime example.
That is exactly what I mean by gun control, and I agree with you 100%.

To the OP: That black .22 LR in your picture? Is that a Savage mark 2? I have that exact same gun.
It is a Savage and I am pretty sure it is a Mark 2. I bought it used, so I don't have any of the original paperwork.

I am also on the hunt for a Saiga 12 gauge semi-auto Tromix converted shotgun.. They were everywhere a few years ago- where did they all go?
As for the Saiga, I recommend you check GunBroker for it. They have tons of rifles.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
The Second amendment is here to protect us from harm. It is not here "just for the hell of owning a gun". It was put here so that we would not be the victims of robbers, or thugs or other criminals.
Not really, those might be the reasons you believe it should exist but read the text, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was put there primarily to protect the security and liberty of a newly-freed union against outside threats. Specifically, at the time, the British. Not necessarily for personal defence.

The existence of the US is no longer threatened, however, certainly not by the British Empire who were the main consideration of the time, and even if it was a militia is no longer a viable or useful force to defend a nation considering the make-up of modern warfare.
 
Last edited:

Grutzvalt

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,378
Role
Adult Baby
Heres what I think:

If you have a history of mental illness or a criminal record, then its a higher chance you will use it for the wrong purpose.

Protecting yourself and your family from a robber is the only real ready someone should have a weapon, and it should only be a small caliber weapon (do you really need a .50 that will blast a whole through someone's chest?). A revolver is plenty to take care of a robber.

In certain cities, guns should be completely banned. For example, L.A. and Oakland. I hear a few times per month, that a bunch of innocent people are killed because of two ****ing (forgive my language) idiots have a rivalry.

Police are one force that NEEDS weapons. Wars should be fought with pens, not bullets...meaning the amount of deaths shouldn't be what determines the outcome of a war.

Guns are fun for like clay pigeons, but do you really need an M4 or Uzi? Say your kid gets pissed off because he is always teased, he takes his dad's Uzi, and, oh look at that, thirty dead because of a joke about his glasses. Automatic weapons are not necessary to own or touch. Bombs are not necessary, explosives, poisons, etc. are unnecessary.

(a very angered and serious) ~Grizzy
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Heres what I think:


In certain cities, guns should be completely banned. For example, L.A. and Oakland. I hear a few times per month, that a bunch of innocent people are killed because of two ****ing (forgive my language) idiots have a rivalry.

Police are one force that NEEDS weapons. Wars should be fought with pens, not bullets...meaning the amount of deaths shouldn't be what determines the outcome of a war.

Guns are fun for like clay pigeons, but do you really need an M4 or Uzi? Say your kid gets pissed off because he is always teased, he takes his dad's Uzi, and, oh look at that, thirty dead because of a joke about his glasses. Automatic weapons are not necessary to own or touch. Bombs are not necessary, explosives, poisons, etc. are unnecessary.

(a very angered and serious) ~Grizzy
1. banning guns in a city, state or a whole nation will NOT keep guns out of criminals hands. If they are banned in a city whats to stop people from buying them in Redwood, California and take them back into Oakland?

2. Wars will always be fought with guns also how can you have a war with pens? If you mean coming up with truces even before theres a war well I don't think that will ever happen. The only time a war will not be fought with humans and guns is the war in which we are all screwed since every nation will be firing off WMD's either nuclear or chemical/germ. When that does happen we are ALL screwed. Go ahead and survive it, the world will be total #&$*.

3. Theres a reason why gun safes are made. Also the first school shooting that got national attention and made us all start caring the two boys in columbine got they guns online. Then they made their own home made bombs which were pretty crappy since most did not even go off. Hench why there was so much gun fire.

Anyways banning guns will make everyone aside the police and criminals have guns.
----------------
Now playing: Pillar - Frontline
via FoxyTunes
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Not really, those might be the reasons you believe it should exist but read the text, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was put there primarily to protect the security and liberty of a newly-freed union against outside threats. Specifically, at the time, the British. Not necessarily for personal defence.

The existence of the US is no longer threatened, however, certainly not by the British Empire who were the main consideration of the time, and even if it was a militia is no longer a viable or useful force to defend a nation considering the make-up of modern warfare.
The existence of every country is at danger at every second of every day. A foolish country is the country that lets down its guard, and though that may seem paranoid, we are not beyond our natural human desire to seize empires, land-grab, rush for power, and kill indiscriminately to expand our borders.

Yet, even with a standing army, why should Americans have a right to own guns? Remember that "A well-regulated Militia" is not and never will be a paid or standing army -- it refers to the attention of the common man, and the one that is prepared to defend his land, his country, at any threat. This is not just from threats outside, from within. Remember that American government was first founded, credit most commonly due to Madison and Hamilton, on checks and balances, and just like the branches of government were checks and balances to one another, the people were the balance to the government. Assuring that people had the right to bear arms and defend themselves and the best interest of their country completely denied any ability of tyrannical rule. Revolution was just as potential inside our borders as it was against powers outside of them. Hell, there were plenty of people during the American Revolution (which, unbeknownst to many, did not end until after the turn of the century -- it continued far beyond the end of the war) that took up arms against their government. The most popular was Shays' Rebellion, and if you want more information, look it up.

But remember, those who have the right to bear arms also have the right to suffer the consequences of their use, whether poor or legitimate in nature. As a gun-owner, I understand this -- of course, it's within my rights as an American citizen to roll up to someone threatening me and blast their teeth in, but regardless of whether the threat was real or simply perceived (or entirely nonexistant), I need to bear the responsibility of defending myself and utilizing my right, which means going to trial for it and getting legally screwed (and maybe even sentenced to death) for doing so. The soldiers of Shays' Rebellion had the right to bear arms and stand up against the Massachusetts government. Four of the men also had a right to die in defending themselves. Sucks for them, but hey, at least they got to utilze their rights.

Police forces, military forces, and government-supplied forces do not deserve, however well-meaning, to hold any greater physical authority over me. Giving guns just to them allows the potential risk of this country turning into a militaristic government -- sound paranoid? Goddamned right it does. That's my right.

It would be a travesty for any of those original ten amendments -- the rights on which our country was founded -- to be changed, regardless of the peaceful, national interests.
 

PuddleFopsKit

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,127
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Incontinent
Not really, those might be the reasons you believe it should exist but read the text, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was put there primarily to protect the security and liberty of a newly-freed union against outside threats. Specifically, at the time, the British. Not necessarily for personal defence.
Please don't tell my history teacher that I forgot that.. :fear:

I had a feeling it had something to do with the British, but.. :shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top