NationStates Jolt Archive

Should there be more tighter gun control in Canada and the US?:sniper: :mp5:

a.) Should there be tighter gun restriction laws and more high way patrol officers to stop guns being smuggled from US into Canada.

b.) Should people be allowed to buy guns without registering their firearm.

Just need to inforce the first part of the second ammendment and make people join militas, that way they'll at least know how to properly use and store them.

So your talking about compulsory military service?

If "they" were smart, they'd advocate ammunition control instead of wasting time worrying about guns.

So your talking about compulsory military service?

by no means is this compulsory military service. The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for militias, which can be just a small group of organized citizens protecting themselves, not only from foreign invaders, but from the very government itself..

So your talking about compulsory military service?

No, form state miltias as a level of miltary service beneath the national guard, that can be used only for interior crisii, for example Katrina, and in case of invasion. Then if you want to buy a gun you have to also join said milita, if you don't want to you don't have to.

Well wouldn't joining the militia be just the same as the reserves? Or would the militia have a different level of training?

So make a single bullet 10 k but have the gun cost less? And making the ammunition much more difficult to acquire.

That might work out but if you made ammo difficult to get, it would also be smart to make the guns hard to get at.

One thing I don't get is why some US states are selling guns to people and they don't even have to register? To me it makes no sense.:confused:

by no means is this compulsory military service. The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for militias, which can be just a small group of organized citizens protecting themselves, not only from foreign invaders, but from the very government itself..
Not, quite what I was thinking, but also acceptable so long as they have to make sure their members actually know how to safly handle a gun.

No, form state miltias as a level of miltary service beneath the national guard, that can be used only for interior crisii, for example Katrina, and in case of invasion. Then if you want to buy a gun you have to also join said milita, if you don't want to you don't have to.

I would very much like to see state militias return.

:rolleyes:

If "they" were smart, they'd advocate ammunition control instead of wasting time worrying about guns.

Then you'd see a very profitable black market in ammo.

So make a single bullet 10 k but have the gun cost less? And making the ammunition much more difficult to acquire.

That might work out but if you made ammo difficult to get, it would also be smart to make the guns hard to get at.
If they don't have ammo for the gun, it dosen't really matter if they have it, so long as they are also prevented from making their own.

Militias would be good for quelling severe riots, or if a natural disaster happened they would help save people.

:rolleyes:


I may actually agree with you Fass. These gun control/2nd Amendment threads have gotten rather repetitive.

Before I was very iffy on gun control, but after a semi-automatic shot off a few rounds in front of my house over the summer, and no one seemed to care, YES!!! There are too many crazies who can get guns too easily.

If they don't have ammo for the gun, it dosen't really matter if they have it, so long as they are also prevented from making their own.

True, but as long people don't get the resources to make there own ammo, atleast you'll be fine from people shooting you.

Before I was very iffy on gun control, but after a semi-automatic shot off a few rounds in front of my house over the summer, and no one seemed to care, YES!!! There are too many crazies who can get guns too easily.

I believe in that to. I've heard to many creepy school shooting stories and there was a gun fight by a Tim Hortens near me. Creeped the hell out of me and I think there should be more control.

Oh boy, my favourite topic!! :rolleyes:

*Brings out charts, references a mile long, data from US States, links to threads with my favourite anti-gun control people, and catches a slew of red herrings for Kec to chew on. :p

I've been doing alot of research on this stuff I got the same research you do lol. But I atleast want some people that disargee with control to get into this.

I've been doing alot of research on this stuff I got the same research you do lol.
All your research won't impress the gun nuts. They will bring up stuff like you are more likely to drown in a swimming pool, or that cars should be banned because they are more dangerous then guns, and so on and so forth. It becomes rather circular after awhile. :(

Yah good point, but the only problem with banning cars is that there economically vital to are country and just banning those is a dumb idea.

There ARE state run militias. Look up, for example, the New York Guard.

There ARE state run militias. Look up, for example, the New York Guard.

I would not be suprised. In fact they might be a good idea.

Yah good point, but the only problem with banning cars is that there economically vital to are country and just banning those is a dumb idea.
Don't underestimate the visciousness of the gun runners. They be ruthless. You know, "from my cold dead hands" kinda crowd. LOL!!

There ARE state run militias. Look up, for example, the New York Guard.

Well, then we should form more of them and require gun owners to join.

I think Hank Williams Jr said it best, "If you take the guns from the criminals first, I'll gladly hand over mine....." May not be exact quote word for word but it's pretty damn close. :D

Gun control is horrible. I love the 2nd amendment. gun control is one step from becoming a soviet-style Godless society.

What you need to control are the laws already on the books that are relevant to illegal possesion of firearms.

Making stricter controls on law-abiding, legal possession doesn't prevent the BG from getting guns.

RJ

Gun control is horrible. I love the 2nd amendment. gun control is one step from becoming a soviet-style Godless society.
Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?

Gun control is horrible. I love the 2nd amendment. gun control is one step from becoming a soviet-style Godless society.

In fact, having no guns on the streets makes the streets safer and raises the moral of police officers. Most police officers would not like the idea of citizens being able to arm themselves to the teeth. Also it wouldn't make us more soviet style, we'd be keeping a citizens safe and secure, instead of every third house having firearms. Taking away guns is *not* communism, its more of a form of taking away civil rights, and communism gives civil rights.

All your research won't impress the gun nuts. They will bring up stuff like you are more likely to drown in a swimming pool, or that cars should be banned because they are more dangerous then guns, and so on and so forth. It becomes rather circular after awhile. :(

I suppose that more people are murdered in swimming pools or by cars then with a gun? I bet gun advocates fail to mention that little bit.

Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?

I don't mind police and military having guns, I'm just saying guns should stay out of civillian hands.

I don't mind police and military having guns, I'm just saying guns should stay out of civillian hands.

That wasn't really aimed at you, but Soviestan.

OT: Damn I have a paper I'm suppose to be writing and really ought to stop lottering around here.

I suppose that more people are murdered in swimming pools or by cars then with a gun? I bet gun advocates fail to mention that little bit.

Well if you take away cars, your nations economy will collaspe, besides you can add safety systems to cars. With a gun, you cant add "safety systems" that will kill less people other than weaker bullets. Cars aren't ment to kill, guns are. You use a car to drive to work, or a friends, guns are ment to simpy kill from a distance. You can make cars safer, with guns, no.
And with a swimming pool, you drown them in water? If you fill a sink with water and drown them in that should we ban sinks? No, because pools are recreational areas. Guns were first built to kill, and they are still meant to kill.

In fact, having no guns on the streets makes the streets safer and raises the moral of police officers. Most police officers would not like the idea of citizens being able to arm themselves to the teeth. Also it wouldn't make us more soviet style, we'd be keeping a citizens safe and secure, instead of every third house having firearms. Taking away guns is *not* communism, its more of a form of taking away civil rights, and communism gives civil rights.

without guns the citizens are defenseless against the actions of the government. The government would be free to establish any society they choose on the people.

without guns the citizens are defenseless against the actions of the government. The government would be free to establish any society they choose on the people.

Yeah, because your .22 or 12 gauge is going to be real useful against a 399 billion dollar military in anything, but guerrila warfair with the support of the populous.

So your saying if we don't have guns the government will become a harsh dictatorship? Thats an extreme statement because it would never happen, if they became a dictatorship, people would still have illegal guns, and people would do somethign about it. Revolts, or worse. Quite frankly a gunless society is much better because 1, it saves lives. In the US, 22000 people die a year from guns, in Canada its 1100. Not to mentioning the school shootings in Canada and the US, if you've ever seen a list you'd see that more gun control is needed to stop these horrible events from ever occuring again.
Governemtns establish any society they want, guns or no. They pass laws, they tell people they watch on the news, they tell people what to believe, they say whos friend and foe, the government already tells us what do to, its called propoganda.

Anyways I'm out.

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns. But there needs to be better ways of controlling illegal gun trade. It is pathetic and dangerous.

"Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?"---The Psyker

um, the 'first half' as you stated isn't some sort of enforceable rule. There is no way to violate it, and thus no way to enforce it.

"Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?"---The Psyker

um, the 'first half' as you stated isn't some sort of enforceable rule. There is no way to violate it, and thus no way to enforce it.

"Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?"---The Psyker

um, the 'first half' as you stated isn't some sort of enforceable rule. There is no way to violate it, and thus no way to enforce it.

Yes, but it shows the the reasoning the founders followed when they put it in place, meaning that it would be perfectly with in the bounds of the ammendment to require gun owners to join milita, because it would be with in the inttention of the ammendment and would thus not infringe upon their right to own guns.

Should there be more tighter gun control in Canada and the US?:sniper: :mp5:

a.) Should there be tighter gun restriction laws and more high way patrol officers to stop guns being smuggled from US into Canada.

b.) Should people be allowed to buy guns without registering their firearm.

a.) Yes, there should be more enforcement of smuggling laws.

b.) Absolutely not. Requiring firearms registration will do nothing to impact crime.

If "they" were smart, they'd advocate ammunition control instead of wasting time worrying about guns.

Sorry, but since ammunition can be manufactured and loaded by a well equipped shooter, ammunition control is useless.

"I don't mind police and military having guns, I'm just saying guns should stay out of civillian hands."--The Brutii

So you don't mind the police (whose job it is to be ready for violence, who have backup, dogs, etc.) having guns....but a 79 year old lady with a walker should not be allowed to defend herself? the young couple walking home from a movie should be helpless at the hands of a group of violent thugs that want to rob them or worse? a parent should 'run away' when their house is broken into and leave their children behind instead of protecting them?????

sorry there brutii, but you're not making any sense

Before I was very iffy on gun control, but after a semi-automatic shot off a few rounds in front of my house over the summer, and no one seemed to care, YES!!! There are too many crazies who can get guns too easily.

Panzy. If I was you I would've shot back with my own (probably bigger) auto-rifle. And even so, Guns are like Drugs, if you outlaw them, criminals will still have them, and be deadlier than ever. honestly, police response time sucks. I don't care what you see on TV. Half the fucking time they don't even show up, at least where I live. And I live in a city of only 8,000 people. You have to protect yourself for a certain amount of time before they can get to you because they're to fucking buisy handling crimes that don't matter. People put way to much trust in the government.

"Yes, but it shows the the reasoning the founders followed when they put it in place, meaning that it would be perfectly with in the bounds of the ammendment to require gun owners to join milita, because it would be with in the inttention of the ammendment and would thus not infringe upon their right to own guns."---The Psyker

nowhere does it say anything about having to join a formally organized militia. and if you make that a requirement, then you have to make sure to allow everyone (few groups excluded....i.e. violent felons, those convicted of domestic violence, which the law prohibits from owning firearms) to join this militia. and where exactly do you propose to get the money for this?

Should there be more tighter gun control in Canada and the US?:sniper: :mp5:

a.) Should there be tighter gun restriction laws and more high way patrol officers to stop guns being smuggled from US into Canada.

b.) Should people be allowed to buy guns without registering their firearm.

NOOO!

how about catching the crimminals committing crimes with guns...then keep THEM in jail.

pretty simple.

as i do not trust the police to protect me(some bad exsperiances and know some really dirty bastard cops),let alone do not trust them to not abuse their authority.

put it this way...dont come onto my property to rob or hurt me or my own,and i wont shoot you.

other then that...were good.

but dont ask me to be totally vulnerable,and rely on cops that are sitting at dunkin donuts to protect me or my loved ones.

everyone single person on this planet has the right to defend themselves..and until you break the trust of society and become a crimminal..you deserve that right.

and dont even go there with the guns create crimminals...thats b.s.
thats like saying short skirts create rapists.:fluffle:

p.s.
i would be all for only having guns in ones home...if you can promise me when i am on the street..unequivically that a cop will stop me from all harm,or that no one else will attack me with a bat or knife that can overpower me..then we got a deal.

Just need to inforce the first part of the second ammendment and make people join militas, that way they'll at least know how to properly use and store them.

Well, then we should form more of them and require gun owners to join.

Good, so you support the inforcment of the first half and having gun owners join state militas so as to fufill the pupose of the ammendment?

Yes, but it shows the the reasoning the founders followed when they put it in place, meaning that it would be perfectly with in the bounds of the ammendment to require gun owners to join milita, because it would be with in the inttention of the ammendment and would thus not infringe upon their right to own guns.

I just wanted to get these quotes together so I can be sure I won't be accused of misquoting you.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the second amendment is an individual right to own firearms. It is like every other amendment in the bill of rights in that regard. Here is some reading material from the Department of Justice to help prove my point: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Panzy. If I was you I would've shot back with my own (probably bigger) auto-rifle. And even so, Guns are like Drugs, if you outlaw them, criminals will still have them, and be deadlier than ever. honestly, police response time sucks. I don't care what you see on TV. Half the fucking time they don't even show up, at least where I live. And I live in a city of only 8,000 people. You have to protect yourself for a certain amount of time before they can get to you because they're to fucking buisy handling crimes that don't matter. People put way to much trust in the government.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to kill the innocents who were sleeping in the apartments right where he was standing. I happen to like my parents living.

Just need to inforce the first part of the second ammendment and make people join militas, that way they'll at least know how to properly use and store them.

Read the second amendment. You can't tell me that one potential way to interperet it isn't as a protection against rampant militias.

Molon labe.

Any questions on my stance?

(Though I do support restrictions for people who need to not have them and such.)

:sniper: :mp5:


*dies a little more inside*

I just wanted to get these quotes together so I can be sure I won't be accused of misquoting you.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the second amendment is an individual right to own firearms. It is like every other amendment in the bill of rights in that regard. Here is some reading material from the Department of Justice to help prove my point: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Seems to be a fair cop I won't argue with it, not to happy with it, but I can live with it. My main problem has always been that it seems too easy for people who don't know or can't be bothered to learn anything about gun safety to get guns and thus pose a danger to their friends, family, neighbors, and, least importantly, themselves.

Furthermore, according to current US law, all males between the ages of 17-45 (if I recall correctlly), who are not part of the active duty military, or are part of the reserves or national guard are considered to be members of the "Unorganized Militia."

Guns are banned in the city of Chicago.

That has really cut the crime rate down.:rolleyes:

The Tribune did a series not too long ago about how legalizing guns in the city would drastically decrease the number of rapes in the city.

Read the second amendment. You can't tell me that one potential way to interperet it isn't as a protection against rampant militias.

I would say yes which is why I sugested regulated militas, the USJD seems to disagree with that interpetation.

Psyker, you're misreading the amendment. The first section is an explanation as to WHY the amendment is needed, not an instruction as to how to enforce it. The second half is an instruction limiting the power of government.

As long as the second amendment says what it does, I will never support gun control in the US - it's all an attempt to do an end-run around the constitution, which I will never countenance. I might consider supporting a new amendment limiting the second - but I also know that the reason gun control advocates consistently take the coward's way out and refuse to try this is that they know they would lose badly.

As for Canada - they have no such amendment, obviously, and I have no doubt they should enforce the laws they have.

Furthermore, according to current US law, all males between the ages of 17-45 (if I recall correctlly), who are not part of the active duty military, or are part of the reserves or national guard are considered to be members of the "Unorganized Militia."

If your refering to the Selective Service( I think thats what it's called), the age is 18.

Psyker, you're misreading the amendment. The first section is an explanation as to WHY the amendment is needed, not an instruction as to how to enforce it. The second half is an instruction limiting the power of government.

As long as the second amendment says what it does, I will never support gun control in the US - it's all an attempt to do an end-run around the constitution, which I will never countenance. I might consider supporting a new amendment limiting the second - but I also know that the reason gun control advocates consistently take the coward's way out and refuse to try this is that they know they would lose badly.

As for Canada - they have no such amendment, obviously, and I have no doubt they should enforce the laws they have.
I wouldn't say I'm misreading it, I would agree that I am apparently interpating it differently then the USJD says the founders meant it.

The 17-45 law is this...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age...

Seems to be a fair cop I won't argue with it, not to happy with it, but I can live with it. My main problem has always been that it seems too easy for people who don't know or can't be bothered to learn anything about gun safety to get guns and thus pose a danger to their friends, family, neighbors, and, least importantly, themselves.

I made sure I took a firearms safety course before I purchased my rifle. Also, my brother in law is an avid hunter, and we've had talks about firearms (and firearms safety) before.

I made sure I took a firearms safety course before I purchased my rifle. Also, my brother in law is an avid hunter, and we've had talks about firearms (and firearms safety) before.

Oh, hell I have no problem with that a fair number of my relatives are avid hunters, I personaly perfer canoeing and camping, and learned about gun safty from them and then in the scouts. It's the fact that people that aren't as sensible as you and your brother can still buy a gun, even though they know nothing about how to properly handle it that worries me.

I would very much like to see state militias return.

Michigan Volunteer Defense Force (http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-36614---,00.html)

When I come back from France in the summer I'm thinking about volunteering for this. I'm prior service, so I should get in easily.

As stated earlier these gun control threads have been more than done to death. Can we just take 20 pages of rhetoric as read?

If your refering to the Selective Service( I think thats what it's called), the age is 18.

I'm referring to something different from the Selective Service. I am referring to this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Should there be more tighter gun control in Canada and the US?:sniper: :mp5:
No. I want a personal armory full of MP5's, P90's, and USAS-12's. And I want it now damnit!

a.) Should there be tighter gun restriction laws and more high way patrol officers to stop guns being smuggled from US into Canada.
You'll have to be more specific. I think restrictions are high enough right now and having police stop and search every vehicle along the border seems like an invasion of privacy to me as well as a huge waste of resources.

b.) Should people be allowed to buy guns without registering their firearm.
No. Registering a gun makes it legal. People should still be able to register guns and I think that automatics should be available to collectors.

1) Keep the NFA as it is, machine guns should be hard to get and expensive.

2) Expand concealed carry programs.

3) Establish a website to run gun serials to see if they are stolen.

4) Increase the penalty for straw purchases by a factor of at least 5.

One thing I don't get is why some US states are selling guns to people and they don't even have to register? To me it makes no sense.:confused:

It's a little thing called "freedom from the government." Some of us still believe in it.

Yeah, because your .22 or 12 gauge is going to be real useful against a 399 billion dollar military in anything, but guerrila warfair with the support of the populous.

Why yes--yes, they would be quite useful against the US military.

It's a little thing called "freedom from the government." Some of us still believe in it.

However, I don't think that people from out of state should be able to buy firearms in that state.

I think that automatics should be available to collectors.

I hope you're talking about full-auto.

I don't mind police and military having guns, I'm just saying guns should stay out of civillian hands.

"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them," Eric Hoffer.

Oh, I forgot that the Mr. Government always knows best. He's always out to help you. Quick, surrender the only thing that keeps a government in check. Revoke your freedoms now!

Your papers, please.

However, I don't think that people from out of state should be able to buy firearms in that state.

I'm iffy. What about gun trade shows?

I'm iffy. What about gun trade shows?

That's a very good question. Perhaps you'd have to be able to prove that it's legal for you to own such a firearm in your state. Perhaps some sort of way to register you in your state of residence even if you're buying in another state. I'm really not sure.

However, I do know that while I want our state to have fewer gun laws, I also respect the rights of other states to legislate how they want, since I expect them to extend us the same respect.

That's a very good question. Perhaps you'd have to be able to prove that it's legal for you to own such a firearm in your state. Perhaps some sort of way to register you in your state of residence even if you're buying in another state. I'm really not sure.

Neither am I.


However, I do know that while I want our state to have fewer gun laws, I also respect the rights of other states to legislate how they want, since I expect them to extend us the same respect.

I would like to see the nation as a whole have fewer gun laws, but.. where about Michigan are you from? :) I'm a Yooper who has been transplanted into the LP, currently residing in Mt. Pleasant.

Neither am I.



I would like to see the nation as a whole have fewer gun laws, but.. where about Michigan are you from? :) I'm a Yooper who has been transplanted into the LP, currently residing in Mt. Pleasant.

Funnily enough I'm in Mt. Pleasant, too. What's also funny is that I lived in the UP (Dafter, between Rudyard and the Soo) for a year.

Funnily enough I'm in Mt. Pleasant, too. What's also funny is that I lived in the UP (Dafter, between Rudyard and the Soo) for a year.

Yikes, small world. I'm from Houghton...but I'm wasting money I don't really have to go take a year here at CMU.

Yikes, small world. I'm from Houghton...but I'm wasting money I don't really have to go take a year here at CMU.

I'm originally from Alma (about 15 miles south of MP) but I've been out of state for four of the last six years. During the last two years I've gone to LSSU and CMU respectively. I wouldn't have the money either, but Uncle Sam is my sugar daddy since I gave him four years of my life.

Why yes--yes, they would be quite useful against the US military.

Really, you'd want to go up against a tank with a .22? Personaly I'd much rather have a Moltov Cocktail. But, how exactly would a .22 be useful against trained troops in body armour and carrying automatic weapons? Personally if it came to rebelion I would much rather turn to black market automatic weapons, or more likely explosives placed in vulnerable areas. But, honestly I would like to know what I'm over looking, I can see them being moderatly useful in certain circumstances, but not anything worthy of a "quite" label.
edit: re-read that and realised it sounded kind of sarcastic din't mean it that way I'm actualy kind of curious, albeit sceptical.

Every man ought to have a rifle of some sort (not a 22 rifle, though).

There are a lot of cheap, servicable guns out there.

Surplus russian mosin rifles, old enfields and mausers, hunting rifles of all stripes, &c &c.

Even an SKS is inexpensive and effective against most body armor, especially at close range.

Really, you'd want to go up against a tank with a .22? Personaly I'd much rather have a Moltov Cocktail. But, how exactly would a .22 be useful against trained troops in body armour and carrying automatic weapons? Personally if it came to rebelion I would much rather turn to black market automatic weapons, or more likely explosives placed in vulnerable areas. But, honestly I would like to know what I'm over looking, I can see them being moderatly useful in certain circumstances, but not anything worthy of a "quite" label.
edit: re-read that and realised it sounded kind of sarcastic din't mean it that way I'm actualy kind of curious, albeit sceptical.

I didn't mean a .22. A .22 isn't useful for anything more than target practice.

A .308, on the other hand. Also, body armor isn't what it's cracked up to be. To go up against an M1A1, I'd like an AT-4, but I don't have access to those unfortunately (not yet). I've put a lot of thought into the whole civillian rebellion thing before--boy, does that sound bad--as I'm in the process of writing a story about it.

Also consider the history lessons of the past. During the German occupation, French fighters would often work in pairs; one would distract soldiers while another killed them and stole their weapons and anything else they could get a hold of before fleeing.

Look at Iraq. The most powerful military in the world isn't prepared for guerilla tactics. An AK-47 is no more powerful than any of my hunting rifles; the only difference is that it has full-auto capabilities. No one in the right mind uses full-auto. It's impossibly inaccurate and a waste of ammunition. A semi-automatic rifle beats a select-fire assault rifle.

Yeah, because your .22 or 12 gauge is going to be real useful against a 399 billion dollar military in anything, but guerrila warfair with the support of the populous.

I dont care if it wont do anything, I still put up a fight.

Oh, I forgot that the Mr. Government always knows best. He's always out to help you. Quick, surrender the only thing that keeps a government in check. Revoke your freedoms now!


Could somebody please inform me of a stable democracy that has become a dictatorship because they enacted gun control laws?
Canada? The UK? Australia?

I can see a reason why the US needed an armed militia when there was a genuine threat of British invasion. The current laws are just a relic of a hundred years ago.




So you don't mind the police (whose job it is to be ready for violence, who have backup, dogs, etc.) having guns....but a 79 year old lady with a walker should not be allowed to defend herself?


I would doubt that a 79 year old lady would be able to operate a gun well enough to defend herself. She would be more likely to get shot if the assailant saw her pull out a gun.


Actually I can't see the point in arguing about a something that is never going to change. There are too many one issue voters in the US for anythign to happen, but don't say that guns save lives or defend freedom; that's absolute bullshit.

I didn't mean a .22. A .22 isn't useful for anything more than target practice.

A .308, on the other hand. Also, body armor isn't what it's cracked up to be. To go up against an M1A1, I'd like an AT-4, but I don't have access to those unfortunately (not yet). I've put a lot of thought into the whole civillian rebellion thing before--boy, does that sound bad--as I'm in the process of writing a story about it.

Also consider the history lessons of the past. During the German occupation, French fighters would often work in pairs; one would distract soldiers while another killed them and stole their weapons and anything else they could get a hold of before fleeing.

Look at Iraq. The most powerful military in the world isn't prepared for guerilla tactics. An AK-47 is no more powerful than any of my hunting rifles; the only difference is that it has full-auto capabilities. No one in the right mind uses full-auto. It's impossibly inaccurate and a waste of ammunition. A semi-automatic rifle beats a select-fire assault rifle.

On the last point you are completely wrong.

Militaries use select-fire weapons for a reason, and that reason is their ability to suppress fire and to deliver a lot of rounds quickly if necessary.

A semi auto or even bolt action weapon is adequate for most fighting, but full-auto is a definite advantage.

On the last point you are completely wrong.

Militaries use select-fire weapons for a reason, and that reason is their ability to suppress fire and to deliver a lot of rounds quickly if necessary.

A semi auto or even bolt action weapon is adequate for most fighting, but full-auto is a definite advantage.

It has an advantage only in the volume of rounds it can put out. I'd rather place aimed, accurate bullets at my enemy than blind fire.

It has an advantage only in the volume of rounds it can put out. I'd rather place aimed, accurate bullets at my enemy than blind fire.

A select-fire weapons is just that, select-fire. It can fire semi automatically, just like, say, an SKS or a garand, but can also fire fully automatically if necessary, which is a definite advantage.

Could somebody please inform me of a stable democracy that has become a dictatorship because they enacted gun control laws?
Canada? The UK? Australia?

Define "stable democracy." Also, the US isn't an democracy and never has been. It's a constitutional republic--there's a large difference.


I can see a reason why the US needed an armed militia when there was a genuine threat of British invasion. The current laws are just a relic of a hundred years ago.

The people are the militia. Moreover, if you note the two million violent crimes that are prevented each year in America by the brandishing and/or firing of a firearm, I don't know how you can say they're not relevant to today.

Oh, but of course, we should let the police do that for us. Let them find the criminal after the crime has been committed; to hell with the possibility of stopping it while it's happening.


I would doubt that a 79 year old lady would be able to operate a gun well enough to defend herself. She would be more likely to get shot if the assailant saw her pull out a gun.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1302793

Oh wait, she's not old enough to count, is she? How about this guy:

81-year-Old Shoots Alleged Intruder

An 81-year-old man apparently turned the tables on an intruder at his Sacramento home Wednesday morning.

The homeowner shot the man around 3:30 a.m., according to authorities. Officers said the homeowner confronted the man who was breaking into his house through the front window, grabbed a gun and shot the intruder in the leg.

The man ran off, but officers found him and arrested him, official said.

The would-be robber was taken to an area hospital.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2005_04_01_archive.html

Or is he not old enough, either? Millions of people, varying in age, defend themselves every year with the use of a gun. Go ahead and deny them that right.


but don't say that guns save lives or defend freedom; that's absolute bullshit.

Only to those who wish to deny the truth. I would just like to know why you apparently feel it's necessary to strip citizens of the right to self-defense?

A select-fire weapons is just that, select-fire. It can fire semi automatically, just like, say, an SKS or a garand, but can also fire fully automatically if necessary, which is a definite advantage.

Only on certain weapons in certain situations. The entire year I was in Iraq I only ever fired my M4 on semi. Most of the time a rifle (such as an AK) firing on full auto is just a noisemaker. This has it's uses, but someone who knows you aren't going to hit them from 150m with that AK is going to take cover and then start putting accurate fire on you. However, weapons like the M240B are made for such purposes and if you don't take cover and keep down you'll end up dead.

Anyway, while it can be an advantage to have a fully automatic weapon, it's really not that much of an advantage unless you plan on being within 5m of your target or they're extremely skittish.

A select-fire weapons is just that, select-fire. It can fire semi automatically, just like, say, an SKS or a garand, but can also fire fully automatically if necessary, which is a definite advantage.

I'm aware of what a select-fire weapon is. Yes, they do have that advantage, but its practicality is, at best, questionable for most situations. Moreover, the tactics involved in a guerilla war don't often allow for open gunfights between soldiers and rebels. It is rare that, in the open field, the rebels would win. Thus, they find ways to ambush the enemy. Or, better yet, strike from great distances. Y'know, the whole "reach out and touch somebody" feel that a sniper gets.

My responses have been primarily to whoever posted, and in response to:

"No one in the right mind uses full-auto. It's impossibly inaccurate and a waste of ammunition. A semi-automatic rifle beats a select-fire assault rifle."

A semi-automatic rifle does not 'beat' a select fire rifle, it is equally useful in most situations, and much less useful in others.

My responses have been primarily to whoever posted, and in response to:

"No one in the right mind uses full-auto. It's impossibly inaccurate and a waste of ammunition. A semi-automatic rifle beats a select-fire assault rifle."

A semi-automatic rifle does not 'beat' a select fire rifle, it is equally useful in most situations, and much less useful in others.

The only situation that it's less useful in, that I can think of, is simply laying down fire with no regard to whether or not it actually hits someone. That is, after all, the purpose of full-auto.

Select-fire is the best of both worlds, ideally. However, for most situations I'd much rather have a more accurate semi-auto rifle than, say, an M-4 (though sexy they are).

NO! We Europeans enjoy so much watching the americans shoot each other, so don't you spoil our fun.;)

Guns don't kill people, death kills people. Ask a doctor, it's a medical fact. You won't die from a bullet, you could die from a major haemorrage or organ failure, small piece of metal ain't the problem. Besides, I only use my gun in the safety of my own home or car. And countries without guns ain't America. [/gta3]

No
Yes
Yes

death kills people.

A rose is a rose is a rose, eh?
This sentence of yours is tautology. And, as any tautology, it doesn't increase knowledge, or create a valid argument.

Unless you say "Death" with a capital D, meaning the Grim Reaper. ;)

I agree, anyway, that a country without guns wouldn't be US or Canada - at least not as we have known.

A rose is a rose is a rose, eh?
This sentence of yours is tautology. And, as any tautology, it doesn't increase knowledge, or create a valid argument.

Unless you say "Death" with a capital D, meaning the Grim Reaper. ;)

I agree, anyway, that a country without guns wouldn't be US or Canada - at least not as we have known.

You fail, I was quoting from the radio in GTA3, where stupid people call in and say stupid things and the player is amused(probably).

The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for militias.

Come.... We all know it is not even as remotely as clear as that.

You fail, I was quoting from the radio in GTA3, where stupid people call in and say stupid things and the player is amused(probably).

Whoops. Sorry. Didn't understant that /gta3 , my fault.