Your stance on gun control?

[Big Jim P]

A working life of incredibly close regulation and monitoring (to a much greater degree than any civilian) which isn't feasibly replicatable in the civilian population.

Oh, no? Why not?

For that matter there is a great deal of false confidence in the competency of military and police. Meaning no disrespect to them, but they aren't so rigorously monitored nor trained as they are often portrayed.

Besides, my point wasn't focused on soldiers/civilians, but police/civilians where the standards are much more easily replicated.

Police are civilian FYI.

[Big Jim P]

A working life of incredibly close regulation and monitoring (to a much greater degree than any civilian) which isn't feasibly replicatable in the civilian population.

Oh, no? Why not?

For that matter there is a great deal of false confidence in the competency of military and police. Meaning no disrespect to them, but they aren't so rigorously monitored nor trained as they are often portrayed.

Besides, my point wasn't focused on soldiers/civilians, but police/civilians where the standards are much more easily replicated.

Have you ever been in the military? The highlighted statement leads me to believe not.

[The Merchant Republics]

A working life of incredibly close regulation and monitoring (to a much greater degree than any civilian) which isn't feasibly replicatable in the civilian population.

Indeed, and the army regulates access to it's weapons incredibly. contrary to popular belief, a soldier has very limited access to his rifle outside of actual combat situations.

Fair enough. My soldier/civilian comparison was weak. I'm aware, and was aware when I stated it, mostly because it was the lowest part of my point.

I needn't even point out that I'm not suggesting we let people stuff their pillows with machine guns. Make reasonable restrictions, but don't prohibit them totally.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed, and the army regulates access to it's weapons incredibly. contrary to popular belief, a soldier has very limited access to his rifle outside of actual combat situations.

Fair enough. My soldier/civilian comparison was weak. I'm aware, and was aware when I stated it, mostly because it was the lowest part of my point.

I needn't even point out that I'm not suggesting we let people stuff their pillows with machine guns. Make reasonable restrictions, but don't prohibit them totally.

Unfortunately there is no reasonable restriction that doesn't come down to disarming law abiding citizens, while doing little to disarm criminals.

[The Merchant Republics]

Oh, no? Why not?

For that matter there is a great deal of false confidence in the competency of military and police. Meaning no disrespect to them, but they aren't so rigorously monitored nor trained as they are often portrayed.

Besides, my point wasn't focused on soldiers/civilians, but police/civilians where the standards are much more easily replicated.

Have you ever been in the military? The highlighted statement leads me to believe not.

I'm making an error in blurring my experience with police training to my much less formal knowledge of military training. My original comparison was about police, I've been forced into a corner because I've been quoted on the weakest link of my argument.

Besides, I'm not talking about just the U.S. or other modern professional armed forces, it would be better apt to compare the restrictions and training done for militaries in the mid-level industrialized economies.

[Scythian Nation]

In the United States of America we did not invent the 2nd Amendment, we inherited it. The justification of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in late 12th and early 13th century England with the innovation of the Welsh or English longbow, which was yhe most formidable weapon of it's time. This weapon links to the 2nd Amendment because standing armies were (and still are) expensive and the King of England did want to bear the cost so he relied on the barons of the shires to provide an army on demand, but the barons were not willing to bear the cost of a standing army either and preferred to rely on the villagers of the shires for a militia of longbow artillery to support the king's demands. (See G.M. Trevelyan, The History of England, Longman Group, 1973, p. 268)
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was derived from our understanding of the British experience that militias were necessary to curb the tyrannical powers of the king. In the case of the United States of America a "well regulated militias" was necessary as a condition of the colonies to agree to subordinate their sovereignty to a federal government and served (and still does) as a guarantee of power for "we the people" to insure that some future federal government could not egregiously exceed its powers prescribed in the body of the Constitution that was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789. The United States Government thru the use of it's elected Senators and Congressmen have steadily infringed the Second Amendment with limitations on possession and taxes. The United States Constitutions' 2nd amendment was written to declare that owning and carrying arms (weapons including, but not limited to firearms), was a God given or natural right (that is a power given above the government, not derived from the government), so that people could defend themselves, and that Congress had no power to trespass upon that right.

[Northern Nordic Nation]

The denizens of my country believe in the logic behind the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, therefor we have adopted in spades. The citizens' rights to bear arms is born out of fear of the government going astray. A tyrannical gov't would have a much harder time violating the rights of our people and terrorizing the masses, if the masses had equal access to any & all weaponry that their gov't has. Therefor, citizens who can pass criminal background checks, psychological exams, and refrain from all drug and alcohol use, are entitled to own personal aircraft carriers, F-21 Raptors, Apache helos, Abrams Tanks, & any other weapon that our convential military also has. Citizens are also allowed to own their own personal nuclear weapons but will have to pass serious security scrutiny, will have to design & engineer their own nuclear weapons & cannot possess them on person or property. They will remain in lockdown at gov't facilities, but no officials of the state will have inside access to facilities; National Guard soldiers from the same territory as the weapons' owners, will secure the perimeters of these facilities. We understand that this may be somewhat excessive, but we cannot afford any broken arrows.

[The Merchant Republics]

Fair enough. My soldier/civilian comparison was weak. I'm aware, and was aware when I stated it, mostly because it was the lowest part of my point.

I needn't even point out that I'm not suggesting we let people stuff their pillows with machine guns. Make reasonable restrictions, but don't prohibit them totally.

Unfortunately there is no reasonable restriction that doesn't come down to disarming law abiding citizens, while doing little to disarm criminals.

That is true. Although in terms of automatic weapons, they aren't exactly common in either self-defence or crime.

[The Merchant Republics]

Oh, no? Why not?

For that matter there is a great deal of false confidence in the competency of military and police. Meaning no disrespect to them, but they aren't so rigorously monitored nor trained as they are often portrayed.

Besides, my point wasn't focused on soldiers/civilians, but police/civilians where the standards are much more easily replicated.

Police are civilian FYI.

Not practically. They are officers in the government services. They are civilians in that they are not considered combatants, but in a political dichotomy they differ from private citizens by exercising special privilege above them.

You looking at this from a military mind-set, I'm arguing from a political one.

[Big Jim P]

Have you ever been in the military? The highlighted statement leads me to believe not.

I'm making an error in blurring my experience with police training to my much less formal knowledge of military training. My original comparison was about police, I've been forced into a corner because I've been quoted on the weakest link of my argument.

Besides, I'm not talking about just the U.S. or other modern professional armed forces, it would be better apt to compare the restrictions and training done for militaries in the mid-level industrialized economies.

Fair enough, especially considering you latter statement, but as we all know, every gun-control thread boils down to most of the non-Americans (and quite a few of the Americans as well) objecting to the American Second amendment, its application in todays society, and the American gun-culture. To often, the only thing people see of American gun-culture is what is displayed in the media, either through the movies that glorify the shoot-em-up, or news reports that put an image of a gun as an icon for any criminal activity, whether a gun is involved or not.

What is NOT seen, (or is too often ignored, just pick up a gun or hunting magazine sometime) is the real American gun-culture: A culture where the ownership and use of a firearm is celebrated alongside and inseparable from the responsibility that comes along with said ownership and use.

[Big Jim P]

Police are civilian FYI.

Not practically. They are officers in the government services. They are civilians in that they are not considered combatants, but in a political dichotomy they differ from private citizens by exercising special privilege above them.

You looking at this from a military mind-set, I'm arguing from a political one.

And you are looking at it from a social mindset as well. We are taught to both trust and fear the uniform and the power/state it represents. I understand your points.

[Big Jim P]

Unfortunately there is no reasonable restriction that doesn't come down to disarming law abiding citizens, while doing little to disarm criminals.

That is true. Although in terms of automatic weapons, they aren't exactly common in either self-defence or crime.

They are expensive to own and feed, and largely useless. The are fun to shoot though.

[Gun Manufacturers]

That is true. Although in terms of automatic weapons, they aren't exactly common in either self-defence or crime.

They are expensive to own and feed, and largely useless. The are fun to shoot though.

I can only imagine how much per minute it would cost to feed a minigun. If I were to win the lottery, maybe I'll find out.

[Big Jim P]

They are expensive to own and feed, and largely useless. The are fun to shoot though.

I can only imagine how much per minute it would cost to feed a minigun. If I were to win the lottery, maybe I'll find out.

M-60 about a dollar a round at 550 rounds a minute. Minigun? about 6000 rounds a minute.

[Republic of Ameronesia]

In the United States of America we did not invent the 2nd Amendment, we inherited it. The justification of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in late 12th and early 13th century England with the innovation of the Welsh or English longbow, which was yhe most formidable weapon of it's time. This weapon links to the 2nd Amendment because standing armies were (and still are) expensive and the King of England did want to bear the cost so he relied on the barons of the shires to provide an army on demand, but the barons were not willing to bear the cost of a standing army either and preferred to rely on the villagers of the shires for a militia of longbow artillery to support the king's demands. (See G.M. Trevelyan, The History of England, Longman Group, 1973, p. 268)
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was derived from our understanding of the British experience that militias were necessary to curb the tyrannical powers of the king. In the case of the United States of America a "well regulated militias" was necessary as a condition of the colonies to agree to subordinate their sovereignty to a federal government and served (and still does) as a guarantee of power for "we the people" to insure that some future federal government could not egregiously exceed its powers prescribed in the body of the Constitution that was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789. The United States Government thru the use of it's elected Senators and Congressmen have steadily infringed the Second Amendment with limitations on possession and taxes. The United States Constitutions' 2nd amendment was written to declare that owning and carrying arms (weapons including, but not limited to firearms), was a God given or natural right (that is a power given above the government, not derived from the government), so that people could defend themselves, and that Congress had no power to trespass upon that right.

Amen.

[Spreewerke]

They are expensive to own and feed, and largely useless. The are fun to shoot though.

I can only imagine how much per minute it would cost to feed a minigun. If I were to win the lottery, maybe I'll find out.

Minigun rate of fire: 6,000 rounds per minute.

Price of cheap-o Wolf steel-cased 7.62 NATO: $249.00 per 500 rounds, pre-tax.

6,000 div. by 500 = 12.

$249.00 x 12 crates of 500 rounds = $2,988.00.

Add tax.

Assume $3,000.00 in one minute.

[Bafuria]

I found this picture and thought I would share it.

And before anyone goes: "but, but, but guns have no purpose other than to kill!"

1. That's utter bullshit
2. That's completely irrelevant, purpose is subjective.

[Betalia]

You should be able to own any kind of gun you want, provided you aren't a criminal or a mentally unstable individual.

[South Cvandia]

You should be able to own any kind of gun you want, provided you aren't a criminal or a mentally unstable individual.

Shit I'm getting my RPG now.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

(Image)

I found this picture and thought I would share it.

And before anyone goes: "but, but, but guns have no purpose other than to kill!"

1. That's utter bullshit
2. That's completely irrelevant, purpose is subjective.

Wrenches make fixing cars easier, just like guns make killing people easier.

[Veceria]

(Image)

I found this picture and thought I would share it.

And before anyone goes: "but, but, but guns have no purpose other than to kill!"

1. That's utter bullshit
2. That's completely irrelevant, purpose is subjective.

Wrenches make fixing cars easier, just like guns make killing people easier.

As do any other tools, tbh. You could also use that wrench to make the killing easier, for example.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Wrenches make fixing cars easier, just like guns make killing people easier.

As do any other tools, tbh. You could also use that wrench to make the killing easier, for example.

Sure. And guns make it way easier, and don't do much other than that.

[Republic of Ameronesia]

As do any other tools, tbh. You could also use that wrench to make the killing easier, for example.

Sure. And guns make it way easier, and don't do much other than that.

Pens make it easier to misspell words, credit cards make it easier to attain debt, and automobiles make it easier to break the speed limit.

They really don't do much other than that...

[Bafuria]

As do any other tools, tbh. You could also use that wrench to make the killing easier, for example.

Sure. And guns make it way easier, and don't do much other than that.

Matches and gasoline is the easiest actually.

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

[Acrainia]

I support limiting your average citizens access to fully automatic weapons and requiring a background check before handing over a newly bought weapon. An insane person should not be able to walk into a store and walk out with a deadly weapon 10 minutes later with no questions asked.

Anything beyond that though is pretty much a waste of time and would have little if any effect on gun violence. Guns are already everywhere and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.