NationStates Jolt Archive

In my political practices, I usually lean to what Bill O'Reilly and his minions would call the "far left". Against the war without exception, pro-choice without exception, pro gay rights without exception, for universal healthcare, for welfare, against the PATRIOT ACT...etc. However, I can't seem to ever bring myself to think gun control is anything less than insane.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

I generally think the left (even though America's "left" is right of the center) here would be stronger if they dropped their anti-gun stance.

Is anyone else on similary grounds as I am?

Well, I hesitate to call myself a "liberal", but I'm definitely a leftist... and not particularly fond of gun control.

It is logical to make the process of buying concealable pieces (handguns) more difficult. The wave of shootings at several American colleges were by unstable people using handguns. The only acceptable method of gun control is by narrowing down the people who can purchase these kinds of pieces.
Just by banning handguns doesn't mean people won't buy them. They just find other ways of getting them.

In my political practices, I usually lean to what Bill O'Reilly and his minions would call the "far left". Against the war without exception, pro-choice without exception, pro gay rights without exception, for universal healthcare, for welfare, against the PATRIOT ACT...etc. However, I can't seem to ever bring myself to think gun control is anything less than insane.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

I generally think the left (even though America's "left" is right of the center) here would be stronger if they dropped their anti-gun stance.

Is anyone else on similary grounds as I am?

Gun control would be too difficult to enforce, so, yeah, I agree.

I don't know what kind of distorted liberals you know, because all my liberal friends (myself included), don't agree with gun control.

I don't see anything wrong with gun control, I wouldn't outlaw all guns but I think some restrictions are necessary. Of course I don't live in America, I assume the situation there is different.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

Sorry for this off-topic question, but why are americans so 'obsessed' with their constitution? I think we also have one, but almost nobody has problems with changing anything in it afaik (except maybe changing the part about the organization of the state). I don't see why changing the constitution, to adapt it to modern times, is necessarily bad.

i am opposed to heavy gun control for practical reasons.

i have come to respect the passion of gun enthusiasts who are adamant in their 2nd ammendment right to own guns. i dont really understand it but respect it.

i am opposed to any law that would would make millions of good law abiding citizens in to criminals with the stroke of a pen. thats just wrong.

im OK with gun laws as they exist now but recognize that they are only useful for helping with criminal investigations after the fact. they dont stop any crimes. no amount of paperwork is ever going to stop gun crime.

i oppose laws that serve to have politicians be able to claim to have done something about gun crime that are actually useless. our rights shouldnt be held hostage to the need to pander

Some reasonable gun control laws are always needed and are a good idea (No sales to children, mentally ill, or convicted criminals for example).

Getting past those you'll have to take a closer look at the culture before making a call. In America? I think there could be more restrictions, but outlawing guns would not be the answer today.

i am opposed to any law that would would make millions of good law abiding citizens in to criminals with the stroke of a pen. thats just wrong.


What if there was a country that had no murder law. Would you be opposed to a law making murder illegal?

And I too would like to know why the constitution is "sacred". People 300 years ago were no more enlightened about how best to run a country than today- in fact, I would say that they are less enlightened. The changes over the past 300 years are astronomical.

And to keep to the OP I would definitely have guns outlawed. Seems to work ok over here, although I do realise that the culture regarding guns is very different.

I'm more of a moderate, but I do agree that the war in Iraq was an awful idea, and that gay rights cannot continue to be trampled on.

And I <3 gunzzzz.

Basically, I'm in the camp that says if we take away all the guns from all the people who want to use them for legal reasons - the only guns left will be with the police and the people who are using them for illegal stuff.

I'm one of the crazies that thinks that gun control as it stands in Michigan (5-day waiting period on handguns, background checks on all firearm purchases, CCW classes and permits being required to carry concealed, etc.) is about as good as its gonna get.

I don't see anything wrong with gun control, I wouldn't outlaw all guns but I think some restrictions are necessary. Of course I don't live in America, I assume the situation there is different.



Sorry for this off-topic question, but why are americans so 'obsessed' with their constitution? I think we also have one, but almost nobody has problems with changing anything in it afaik (except maybe changing the part about the organization of the state). I don't see why changing the constitution, to adapt it to modern times, is necessarily bad.

Because we believe that the rights enumerated in our Constitution come from natural law and/or from the Creator (depending upon who you ask). Changing fundamental natural rights for reasons of political expediency is shallow and dangerous.

Liberal, as I define it, is

open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.

I believe in the individual right for everyone above a certain age who has never committed a violent crime or felony can bear pretty much any gun they want to with obvious exceptions. (No bazookas, for example.)

I don't know what kind of distorted liberals you know, because all my liberal friends (myself included), don't agree with gun control.

I think that the OP is using liberal in the sense of permissive. In which case, NSGs resident anarchists will probably fit the bill of what he's asking for. Or possibly not, as he's focusing on governments still.

What if there was a country that had no murder law. Would you be opposed to a law making murder illegal?

And I too would like to know why the constitution is "sacred". People 300 years ago were no more enlightened about how best to run a country than today- in fact, I would say that they are less enlightened. The changes over the past 300 years are astronomical.

And to keep to the OP I would definitely have guns outlawed. Seems to work ok over here, although I do realise that the culture regarding guns is very different.

yeah too bad there is no such country.

the constitution is the ultimate law of the land and the last resort for the people to defend their rights. (outside of armed revolt)

all governments tend to whittle away at the freedoms of the people. our constitution gives us the means to fight that. without it, its dependant on the whim of public opinion and the popularity of politicians.

yeah too bad there is no such country.

the constitution is the ultimate law of the land and the last resort for the people to defend their rights. (outside of armed revolt)

all governments tend to whittle away at the freedoms of the people. our constitution gives us the means to fight that. without it, its dependant on the whim of public opinion and the popularity of politicians.


I was being hypothetical. And the UK seems to manage fine without them- last time I checked, we haven't all been deported to forced labour camps.

In my political practices, I usually lean to what Bill O'Reilly and his minions would call the "far left". Against the war without exception, pro-choice without exception, pro gay rights without exception, for universal healthcare, for welfare, against the PATRIOT ACT...etc. However, I can't seem to ever bring myself to think gun control is anything less than insane.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

I generally think the left (even though America's "left" is right of the center) here would be stronger if they dropped their anti-gun stance.

Is anyone else on similary grounds as I am?
Arr, i'll send ye to davey Jones' locker if i catch ye stealin my flintlock!
Gun control be bad, but despots are bad too, so solution=find Gun control despot=???=chests of treasure ahoy, and booty to charm any rabscallion of the seven seas!

I was being hypothetical. And the UK seems to manage fine without them- last time I checked, we haven't all been deported to forced labour camps.

yeah well i guess YOU are fine with the government running constant public surveillance but i find it creepy.

Liberal and Pro Gun? That`s like Millitary Intelligence, two words combined that can`t make sense. Good luck on you efforts, there may be hope yet.

[QUOTE=Gravlen;13458671]Some reasonable gun control laws are always needed and are a good idea (No sales to children, mentally ill, or convicted criminals for example).

Yeah, but how do you determine who is mentally ill ? I think, probably, medical records like that aren't public. Right now in the news, we've got a kid in Northern Ill., went off his meds and took out 5 people before offing himself. He bought his 2 handguns and his shotgun legally. Gun dealers just can't check everything.

As for convicted criminals owning guns; I know several. The guns are out there; you just gotta know who to ask. That's the main reason gun control doesn't work, IMO.

How about *ammo* control ? Any thoughts ?

:sniper::D

Liberal and Pro Gun?

3 words. Sorry.

Seriously tho, there's too much risk involved. The chances of someone crazy getting a gun are too high. And anti Gun controlers say that if you have a gun, you can fight back, but that leads to 2 deaths at a minimum- the person firing first, and the person they kill. That prseumes lethal shots though. But wouldn't it be better if no-one gets hurt?

Yeah, but how do you determine who is mentally ill ? I think, probably, medical records like that aren't public. Right now in the news, we've got a kid in Northern Ill., went off his meds and took out 5 people before offing himself. He bought his 2 handguns and his shotgun legally. Gun dealers just can't check everything.
So you're in favour of letting mentally ill people buying guns with no restrictions?

As for convicted criminals owning guns; I know several. The guns are out there; you just gotta know who to ask. That's the main reason gun control doesn't work, IMO.
So you're in favour of letting convicted criminals buying guns with no restrictions?

And how about children?

I agree with the gun-control,I think gun control has reduced the crime rate somewhat regaurdless of what anyone thinks.
But to much of a good thing is bad,I think the gun control protocols that are in place now are about as strong as they are going to get without making weapons and ammunition so expensive that we couldan't buy them even if they were legal.
They can have all the gun control they want,the criminals who are in the know will just laugh it off and go about their rampages with weapons that sport no serial numbers.

As for the constitution,even an old Soviet can tell you that one..
The constitution is the foundation of how any country is governed. It should be cemented and not be able to be changed,interpreted,altered or infringed upon by anyone. If it can be changed,then the government can be changed,meaning that a congress can destroy the lives of millions with just a penstroke,as stated above. Which is frightening.
As for me,I own 18 weapons (Soviet and Russian of course) of various types,and love them all. One of them saving my life once,but thats another story. It's better to own a gun and not need it,then need it and not have one,I for one know that my right to own a weapon affords me security to live knowing that if somone entered my home with ill intent,they'de be leaving in a cardboard box. Or if it ever so happened a break down in the law or government,such as the case in New Orleans were to strike,I'd be well prepared.

Sorry for this off-topic question, but why are americans so 'obsessed' with their constitution? I think we also have one, but almost nobody has problems with changing anything in it afaik (except maybe changing the part about the organization of the state). I don't see why changing the constitution, to adapt it to modern times, is necessarily bad.

Well, it has been amended twenty-seven times, for things as large as abolition of slavery, institution of the income tax, term limits on the presidency and even the prohibition of alcohol, as bad an idea as the latter was.

What's different, though, are amendments that alter the basic civil rights delineated in the first ten amendments, especially those which would contract them. We have yet to have an amendment that reduced our freedoms, but we're seeing more and more motion toward those, especially from people who see the constitution as an impediment toward legal imposition of their own religious beliefs on others, e.g. an amendment to define marriage as heterosexual or an amendment to define life as beginning from conception.

I am to the "left" as far as conservatives are concerned (i.e I disagree with them on social policies), but conservative insofar as spending goes (conservatives would still think I'm leftist since the spending I want cut is in the military).

But I do think we need some measure of gun control. It's a dangerous situation when civilians are as well armed, or better armed, than the police and military.

That is not to say that citizens should be denied the right to bear arms, only that it should be within reason. I hate to keep harking on it, but the last thing I want to see is Joe Sixpack running around with an M60.

Limit specific military grade weaponry, and do reasonable background checks on individuals before allowing them to purchase firearms, that is all I ask.

yeah well i guess YOU are fine with the government running constant public surveillance but i find it creepy.
What, does carrying a gun pixelate your face out on CCTV?

Oh, and one report (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726385.800-uk-and-us-labelled-endemic-surveillance-societies.html) says we aren't much different.

I would definitely have guns outlawed. Seems to work ok over here, although I do realise that the culture regarding guns is very different.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns, Heres some fun facts for ya.

In 3000 murders, only in 20 was an "assault weapon" used.
65% (I believe) Guns that are used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY by criminals.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns,

What a completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic piece of drivel that serves only to demonstrate your total inability to think for yourself.

Heres some fun facts for ya.

In 3000 murders, only in 20 was an "assault weapon" used.
65% (I believe) Guns that are used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY by criminals.

Yeah, and I'm sure you would have proof for these claims, yes?

I don't refer to myself as a liberal, but I am left wing....

It's a tough one for me to answer because I certainly don't believe the power imbalance that results in only wings of the government having access to guns (and thus having a complete monopoly on effective force) is legitimate in a free society, but I don't support every crazy that has ever threatened me owning one either. I'd say then that while I don't support gun control in the form of bans, I don't support their manufacture and presence within society at large either.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns
My favourite truism...

Yeah, and I'm sure you would have proof for these claims, yes?[/QUOTE]


What a way to piss on my parade you nonce.

http://www.lhj.com/lhj/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/lhj/story/data/1179947387920.xml
^ Proof on illegal guns used.

And i read the assault weapons percent on another news site, cant remember where.

What a completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic piece of drivel that serves only to demonstrate your total inability to think for yourself.

Because I'm really going to take the time to think of something to say when someone already said it best? No, if it's already been said, say it their way.

I'm pretty far left, and I personally think that an armed populace is necessary to preserve individual liberties. As far as the current gun controls are concerned, the types of guns available to the public should be increased, while the type of people who can buy guns should be restricted.

If you look at the Spanish Civil War, it was lost in part because the workers were not armed. Armed civilians also make invasion and occupation far more difficult as history proves frequently. A stronger defense makes a standing army less necessary and more likely to be reduced in size. Without that standing army, oppression and aggressive foreign policy are a lot less likely. When was the last time Switzerland invaded another country?

Well, I hesitate to call myself a "liberal", but I'm definitely a leftist... and not particularly fond of gun control.What he said.

Some reasonable gun control laws are always needed and are a good idea (No sales to children, mentally ill, or convicted criminals for example).When we talk of gun control, it's frequently within the context of increasing or decreasing it. Few people believe in no restrictions.

I was being hypothetical. And the UK seems to manage fine without them- last time I checked, we haven't all been deported to forced labour camps.Yet.

And the UK seems to manage fine without them- last time I checked, we haven't all been deported to forced labour camps.

Great. No one's saying that the attempt is inevitable or even likely. But some of us would rather not take the risk.

What a completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic piece of drivel that serves only to demonstrate your total inability to think for yourself.

But remember, if completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic pieces of drivel that serves only to demonstrate ones total inability to think for oneself are outlawed, only outlaws will spout completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic pieces of drivel that serves only to demonstrate ones total inability to think for oneself.

*Nods*

"Assault weapon" is a specific term that applies to heavy, often ship-mounted, artillery. Either you or your source is misusing the term, or the news is really keeping quiet.

Because 20 of those people drove a fucking artillery cannon to the targets house and blew them away, right?

Assault weapon is a term used to describe usually an "Assault Rifle" With a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, features such as a pistol grip or folding stock, bayonet, grenade launcher, flash supressor, and things such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The term originates from the assault weapons ban.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns, Heres some fun facts for ya.

In 3000 murders, only in 20 was an "assault weapon" used.
65% (I believe) Guns that are used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY by criminals.

"Assault weapon" is a specific term that applies to heavy, often ship-mounted, artillery. Either you or your source is misusing the term, or the news is really keeping quiet.

But remember, if completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic pieces of drivel that serves only to demonstrate ones total inability to think for oneself are outlawed, only outlaws will spout completely useless, unoriginal, uninspired, moronic pieces of drivel that serves only to demonstrate ones total inability to think for oneself.

*Nods*

Fighting on the internet is a wonder isn't it? for simple facts such as you can say things you wouldn't normally say to someones face, nor is their fear in saying it.
And can you please pull the cock out of your ass, and get off your highchair you elitest prick, and fight like a man, instead of taunting me from afar with childish insults.



I suppose my fight here is done, it's like battling an army of insurgents, it's easy, but it never ends.
And thats why it gets old.

I suppose my fight here is done, it's like battling an army of insurgents, it's easy, but it never ends.
And thats why it gets old.

What fight?

Oh, and nice flame.

What he said.

When we talk of gun control, it's frequently within the context of increasing or decreasing it. Few people believe in no restrictions.

Yet.
Yet I may have managed to find one here :)

Because 20 of those people drove a fucking artillery cannon to the targets house and blew them away, right?

Assault weapon is a term used to describe usually an "Assault Rifle" With a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, features such as a pistol grip or folding stock, bayonet, grenade launcher, flash supressor, and things such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The term originates from the assault weapons ban.

It's a completely meaningless term when used that way. It can be used that way, but the proper use is for heavy artillery.

It's a completely meaningless term when used that way. It can be used that way, but the proper use is for heavy artillery.

I don't know, I could see this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XrdEHfNdnA) being referred to as an assault weapon...

It's a completely meaningless term when used that way. It can be used that way, but the proper use is for heavy artillery.

Not in the United States, though. Firearms with certain characteristics were classified as "Assault Weapons" when they were banned in 1994. That is what he is referring to.

I'm a Classic Liberal (If that counts) and I don't support gun control.

Libertarians of a minarchist persuasion use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism", while the correctness of this usage is disputed (see "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism, below). Nevertheless, if the two philosophies are not the same, classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.

65% (I believe) Guns that are used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY by criminals.

So thats 35% of murders that could be solved like that, apparently. Figures like that could get anyone re-elected.

Democracy always works best when the government is afraid of their citizens. 100 million armed people is not something to fuck with.
Which is why the Government is trying to get stricter gun control. They don't want anything threating their power, after all, we're just a bunch of unlearned peons.:rolleyes:

Great. No one's saying that the attempt is inevitable or even likely. But some of us would rather not take the risk.

Democracy always works best when the government is afraid of their citizens. 100 million armed people is not something to fuck with.

So thats 35% of murders that could be solved like that, apparently. Figures like that could get anyone re-elected.

But the cost of such a ban would be denying the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Democracy always works best when the government is afraid of their citizens.

Democracy always works best when the government is its citizens.

But failing that, I'd rather the rulers--"elected" or otherwise--be a little fearful.

"Assault weapon" is a specific term that applies to heavy, often ship-mounted, artillery. Either you or your source is misusing the term, or the news is really keeping quiet.

Assault weapon in the US is also used to denotate certain types of heavier, automatic rifles, like the AK's.

i am a conservative on almost all issues but i am not a republican or a democrat. i belong to no party and i think that gun control is unconstituntional. i think that the assault rifle ban is good in some aspects. to keep them out of the hands of criminals. we saw how well that worked in north hollywood in 1997. i think that assault rifles should be allowed with special permit like automatic weapons and regular monitoring of owners. like checking up on them once a month. or better yet not let them have ammo for them accept at governemnt run shooting ranges.
Wow. Statist alert. Government run shooting ranges? Why would they want to own a gun then? What if a hostile country invades? In order to carry out a sucessful rebellion (On the off chance the gigantic US army is defeated) we would need weapons and ammo! And what if theres a riot? What if a gang breaks into your store? What are you gonna fight them with, a handgun? Yeah, good luck when they're all armed with handguns too. Or illegally gained assualt rifles. Banning something just makes it go underground. Look at Christianity, when the Roman Empire banned it, did it just fade away? What about prostitution? Drugs? It just dosen't work.

i am a conservative on almost all issues but i am not a republican or a democrat. i belong to no party and i think that gun control is unconstituntional. i think that the assault rifle ban is good in some aspects. to keep them out of the hands of criminals. we saw how well that worked in north hollywood in 1997. i think that assault rifles should be allowed with special permit like automatic weapons and regular monitoring of owners. like checking up on them once a month. or better yet not let them have ammo for them accept at governemnt run shooting ranges.

Assault weapon in the US is also used to denotate certain types of heavier, automatic rifles, like the AK's.

That would be incorrect. Anything that fires more then one bullet per pull of the trigger would be classified as a Machine gun, and would be subject to additional regulations far above and beyond standard firearms.

An assault weapon, as defined by Congress, is a firearm with one or more of the following features:


Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Democracy always works best when the government is its citizens.

But failing that, I'd rather the rulers--"elected" or otherwise--be a little fearful.

Very true. But I'd love to see a dictator take power (or even Congress illegally expanding its own powers) when the number of armed civilians outnumbers the military by more than 70 to 1.

I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns.A protracted shootout is messier and more difficult than quietly disappearing people.

But the army has artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, a command structure, intelligence, trained soldiers etc.
I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns. Wouldn't it be more effective to assure an independent media, a population which is interested in what happens in the government, a transparent government etc. instead of buying a handgun and hoping that it will save you from government oppression?
Quite. See the 2000 elections, which, despite being an absolute pisstake in terms of democracy, led to no large-scale armed uprising, mostly because the kinds of people who own enough guns and ammunition to even consider doing so aren't Democratic Party voters.

Relevant question -

Are there any pro-gun control conservatives here?

Very true. But I'd love to see a dictator take power (or even Congress illegally expanding its own powers) when the number of armed civilians outnumbers the military by more than 70 to 1.

But the army has artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, a command structure, intelligence, trained soldiers etc.
I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns. Wouldn't it be more effective to assure an independent media, a population which is interested in what happens in the government, a transparent government etc. instead of buying a handgun and hoping that it will save you from government oppression?

Not in the United States, though. Firearms with certain characteristics were classified as "Assault Weapons" when they were banned in 1994. That is what he is referring to.

And it was a specious term, used solely to drum up fear.

But the army has artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, a command structure, intelligence, trained soldiers etc.
I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns. Wouldn't it be more effective to assure an independent media, a population which is interested in what happens in the government, a transparent government etc. instead of buying a handgun and hoping that it will save you from government oppression?

Iraq?

And it was a specious term, used solely to drum up fear.

But an official specious term.

But the army has artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, a command structure, intelligence, trained soldiers etc.

70 to one is still a pretty large number. Sometimes numbers can win over organization and weaponry.
I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns. Wouldn't it be more effective to assure an independent media,
Pfft. They're too busy going after the latest celebrity scandel to worry about the latest laws. The government also likes to hide everything in weasel words.
a population which is interested in what happens in the government
Some people just are not interested in what the government does. You can't control minds.
a transparent government
We all know how open the government is.:rolleyes: The government takes as many precautions as possible to hide information. If you don't belive me, I dare you to try to get information concerning area 51 (Which is probably a test facility but conspiracy theorists say aliens landed there:rolleyes:) from the government.
instead of buying a handgun and hoping that it will save you from government oppression?

No, you buy an assualt rifle:D Nah kidding. There are other reasons than the government to own a gun(As stated in my posts before) But it is defintly a deterrent if even just 1 in 5 citizens are armed. If you were in power, would you wanna piss them off? Didn't think so.

In my political practices, I usually lean to what Bill O'Reilly and his minions would call the "far left". Against the war without exception, pro-choice without exception, pro gay rights without exception, for universal healthcare, for welfare, against the PATRIOT ACT...etc. However, I can't seem to ever bring myself to think gun control is anything less than insane.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

I generally think the left (even though America's "left" is right of the center) here would be stronger if they dropped their anti-gun stance.

Is anyone else on similary grounds as I am?

It depends entirely on what you mean by "gun control."

I think some gun laws are reasonable and consistent with freedom.

I think other gun laws are unwise and violate the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is no more absolute than the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Much like you cannot cry "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are some reasonable limits on firearms ownership, use, and sale.

But the army has artillery, armored vehicles, airplanes, a command structure, intelligence, trained soldiers etc.
I really doubt many people in the government are afraid of their people because they have guns. Wouldn't it be more effective to assure an independent media, a population which is interested in what happens in the government, a transparent government etc. instead of buying a handgun and hoping that it will save you from government oppression?

Oh yes, certainly. I don't advocate guns instead of what you've just listed, I advocate it as a supplement, a fail safe when things go awry.

Most of the army's weaponry is designed to fight in conventional warfare, not to fight guerrillas. It doesn't matter how big the artillery is or how many bombers you have if there are no enemy formations to shoot at. Vietnam proved that one.

I don't advocate guns instead of what you've just listed, I advocate it as a supplement, a fail safe when things go awry.

Fair enough, but imo I don't think it would help a lot. A major difference with Iraq and Vietnam is also that it aren't the guerrilla's who are winning the war, but the public opinion back home. The public opinion wouldn't matter if a dictator wanted to take power with violence. I doubt any such dictator will ever exist in america though. It seems much easier to make the population believe what you want by controlling the media. If you do that you can virtually do anything you want. (think about the patriot act or guantanamo bay etc, and it could probably be a lot worse) If a 'dictator' wanted to seize power he wouldn't ban guns but try to control the media.

That would be incorrect. Anything that fires more then one bullet per pull of the trigger would be classified as a Machine gun, and would be subject to additional regulations far above and beyond standard firearms.

An assault weapon, as defined by Congress, is a semiautomatic firearm with one or more of the following features:


Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)


One change.

I lost a classmate at Virginia Tech.

Her murderer acquired a gun through legal means.

Justify that.

I lost a classmate at Virginia Tech.

Her murderer acquired a gun through legal means.

Justify that.

Shit happens.


Can you prove that if there was a ban on all firearms that the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a gun?

Shit happens.


Can you prove that if there was a ban on all firearms that the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a gun?Or that he wouldn't have used knives.

I lost a classmate at Virginia Tech.

Her murderer acquired a gun through legal means.

Justify that.

Justify what? That the authorities dropped the ball by not reporting him like they were legally obligated to? Or the fact that the College had banned CCW, you know, legal carrying, so people could "feel safe"?

Fighting on the internet is a wonder isn't it? for simple facts such as you can say things you wouldn't normally say to someones face, nor is their fear in saying it.
And can you please pull the cock out of your ass, and get off your highchair you elitest prick, and fight like a man, instead of taunting me from afar with childish insults.



I suppose my fight here is done, it's like battling an army of insurgents, it's easy, but it never ends.
And thats why it gets old.

Warned for flaming.

But an official specious term.

Not in the military. And when it comes to weaponry, I go with the military.

Not in the military. And when it comes to weaponry, I go with the military.

Politically it's an official term. And since we gunowners arn't military, we abide by the politicians.

Oh, and could you cite a source for an "assault weapon" meaning a large piece of artillery? I haven't been able to find a source on goodle, so perhaps you can help me.

Politically it's an official term. And since we gunowners arn't military, we abide by the politicians.

Oh, and could you cite a source for an "assault weapon" meaning a large piece of artillery? I haven't been able to find a source on goodle, so perhaps you can help me.

I was wrong about it being a large piece of artillery. It's instead weapons designed for assault operations. So mostly artillery, but also torpedos and flamethrowers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) Scroll down a bit.

In my political practices, I usually lean to what Bill O'Reilly and his minions would call the "far left". Against the war without exception, pro-choice without exception, pro gay rights without exception, for universal healthcare, for welfare, against the PATRIOT ACT...etc. However, I can't seem to ever bring myself to think gun control is anything less than insane.

I believe if you intrude on one part of the constitution, you are inviting intrusions on all other parts. If a liberal "interprets" the second ammendment while in power, he sets precedent for a conservative to "interpret" the first and 4th ammendments next time around.

I generally think the left (even though America's "left" is right of the center) here would be stronger if they dropped their anti-gun stance.

Is anyone else on similary grounds as I am?

Gun control means hitting what you aim at. :D

Some reasonable gun control laws are always needed and are a good idea (No sales to children, mentally ill, or convicted criminals for example).

Yeah, but how do you determine who is mentally ill ? I think, probably, medical records like that aren't public. Right now in the news, we've got a kid in Northern Ill., went off his meds and took out 5 people before offing himself. He bought his 2 handguns and his shotgun legally. Gun dealers just can't check everything.

As for convicted criminals owning guns; I know several. The guns are out there; you just gotta know who to ask. That's the main reason gun control doesn't work, IMO.

How about *ammo* control ? Any thoughts ?

:sniper::D

Ammunition control wouldn't work, as it's not difficult to make your own.

I am to the "left" as far as conservatives are concerned (i.e I disagree with them on social policies), but conservative insofar as spending goes (conservatives would still think I'm leftist since the spending I want cut is in the military).

But I do think we need some measure of gun control. It's a dangerous situation when civilians are as well armed, or better armed, than the police and military.

That is not to say that citizens should be denied the right to bear arms, only that it should be within reason. I hate to keep harking on it, but the last thing I want to see is Joe Sixpack running around with an M60.

Limit specific military grade weaponry, and do reasonable background checks on individuals before allowing them to purchase firearms, that is all I ask.



Then don't look at this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

ETA: Or this one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6827679956771459066

:D

I'm a big democrat but vehemently in favor of the 2nd amendment and opposed to abhorrent controls on our right to keep and bear arms.

What if there was a country that had no murder law. Would you be opposed to a law making murder illegal?

And I too would like to know why the constitution is "sacred". People 300 years ago were no more enlightened about how best to run a country than today- in fact, I would say that they are less enlightened. The changes over the past 300 years are astronomical.

And to keep to the OP I would definitely have guns outlawed. Seems to work ok over here, although I do realise that the culture regarding guns is very different.

What if we lived in a what-if world?

My stance on guns is the same as my stance on abortion and cigarettes. I don't really care if you get one, but there should be restrictions preventing you from abusing 'em.

As an American, I don't understand why so many of my fellow countrymen seem to insist that the 2nd Amendment is the most important sentence in the Constitution. It really shouldn't be emphasized much more than the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights. It could just be the media attention, though.

Washington DC has the tightest gun control in the nation, but the highest murder rate. Hmm, i wonder why?

And yes, i'm a liberal who holds anti-gun control beleifs.

Washington DC has the tightest gun control in the nation, but the highest murder rate. Hmm, i wonder why?

Highest population density.

I hold quite a few "conservative" views

against most gun control
against most abortions
against gay marriage