Your stance on gun control?

[Vareiln]

How about an IQ test for aspiring heat packers?

Problematic, as IQ doesn't measure intelligence, and even if it did, intelligence would hardly matter in this.

[Vareiln]

While I'm fine with the first two being banned to the average civilian(Ironically, the second one isn't in the US), the third is where I have a problem.
First, do you even understand the definition of an assault rifle? Because if you do you would know it's already banned. Unless it was made before 1986.

Yes, I do know what an assault rifle is. There are plenty of conservatives who would want assault weapons unbanned and out in the hands of citizens. If I recall correctly, Mitt Romney mentioned unbanning assault weapons during the campaign. Lemme look for a quote.

Assault weapons=/=assault rifles
Not even close.

[Burdiinway]

In Burdiinway anyone can buy any kind of firearm they want, however there is a VERY thorough criminal, and medical background before any purchase can be made.

[Mkuki]

Yes, I do know what an assault rifle is. There are plenty of conservatives who would want assault weapons unbanned and out in the hands of citizens. If I recall correctly, Mitt Romney mentioned unbanning assault weapons during the campaign. Lemme look for a quote.

Assault weapons=/=assault rifles
Not even close.

After a quick search I realize that they aren't the same, but my point still stands. Plenty of people, mainly conservatives, want assault rifles in the hands of American citizens. Something that would lead only to more disasters and even higher numbers of gun-related deaths. Either way assault rifles and assault weapons should be kept out of the hands and homes of American citizens.

[South Cvandia]

BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ AND GIVE EM TO THE CRIMINALS AND THE TERRORISTS. I NEEDZ MY GUNS TO PROTECT MYSELF WHEN HE TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AND TANKS START ROLLING DOWN THE STREET, 'CUZ MY RIFLE CAN TAKE A TANK B@%!H.

[Vareiln]

Assault weapons=/=assault rifles
Not even close.

After a quick search I realize that they aren't the same, but my point still stands. Plenty of people, mainly conservatives, want assault rifles in the hands of American citizens. Something that would lead only to more disasters and even higher numbers of gun-related deaths. Either way assault rifles and assault weapons should be kept out of the hands and homes of American citizens.

I agree with an assault rifle ban, but an assault weapon ban is something I see no point to.

[Mkuki]

BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ AND GIVE EM TO THE CRIMINALS AND THE TERRORISTS. I NEEDZ MY GUNS TO PROTECT MYSELF WHEN HE TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AND TANKS START ROLLING DOWN THE STREET, 'CUZ MY RIFLE CAN TAKE A TANK B@%!H.

First of all Obama has done nothing to limit gun rights.
Second, rifles can't do shit without bullets.
Third, there is no indication Obama is seeking to become dictator.
Fourth, all caps? Really?
Fifth, Obama has been tougher on terrorism than Bush ever was.

[Erucia]

This is somewhat complicated for me.

Obviously, a convicted criminal shouldn't have legal access to a firearm. But what about those who have turned their lives around? I believe they should have access to firearms, but it would have to be far more restricted (longer waiting periods, restrictions on certain types of firearms).

I, however, believe that their should not be a restriction on the amount of firearms a person could own, nor do I think their should be a ban on burst-fire or full-auto rifles (but getting them should require some sort of a federal license, putting you into a database, and the license should be relatively strict). I am for requiring waiting periods and licenses on some kinds of firearms (mainly assault weapons, such as full-auto rifles, but also for military attachments like extended magazines), and I am for having to be registered into a police database upon purchasing a firearm.

Why is it obvious that a "convicted criminal" should not have access to a firearm while non convicted criminals presumably should?

A criminal shouldn't have a gun regardless. However, I don't believe that we have a magical mind-ray that gives us a way to find out who is a criminal and who isn't. So, we ought to restrict firearm access to those whom we have legally convicted. Anyone who is in the middle of facing possible conviction by court also should have their firearms (at least temporarily) confiscated and safely stored.

[Mkuki]

After a quick search I realize that they aren't the same, but my point still stands. Plenty of people, mainly conservatives, want assault rifles in the hands of American citizens. Something that would lead only to more disasters and even higher numbers of gun-related deaths. Either way assault rifles and assault weapons should be kept out of the hands and homes of American citizens.

I agree with an assault rifle ban, but an assault weapon ban is something I see no point to.

I don't see how owning any assault weapon gives someone more protection. If anything it could turn, for example, a simple robbery into a murder scene. All they do is put more lead in the air than is needed.

[Myglplyx]

I think any sane person not convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own any gun they want and as many as they want... but be held personally responsible for anything that happens with any gun he or she does own... so if someone gets shot with your gun, even if you didn't shoot them, you are equally responsible for it ... and if someone gets killed with your gun you could be sent to prison as an accessory to the crime...

So if you want to take the chance... go for it... get a fully automatic military assault gun... get 12.. just make sure you have complete control over every one of them 24/7/365...

[Spreewerke]

I think any sane person not convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own any gun they want and as many as they want... but be held personally responsible for anything that happens with any gun he or she does own... so if someone gets shot with your gun, even if you didn't shoot them, you are equally responsible for it ... and if someone gets killed with your gun you could be sent to prison as an accessory to the crime...

So if you want to take the chance... go for it... get a fully automatic military assault gun... get 12.. just make sure you have complete control over every one of them 24/7/365...

February 29th shall forever be remembered as Anarchy Day.

[Gun Manufacturers]

This is somewhat complicated for me.

Obviously, a convicted criminal shouldn't have legal access to a firearm. But what about those who have turned their lives around? I believe they should have access to firearms, but it would have to be far more restricted (longer waiting periods, restrictions on certain types of firearms).

I, however, believe that their should not be a restriction on the amount of firearms a person could own, nor do I think their should be a ban on burst-fire or full-auto rifles (but getting them should require some sort of a federal license, putting you into a database, and the license should be relatively strict). I am for requiring waiting periods and licenses on some kinds of firearms (mainly assault weapons, such as full-auto rifles, but also for military attachments like extended magazines), and I am for having to be registered into a police database upon purchasing a firearm.

Why is it obvious that a "convicted criminal" should not have access to a firearm while non convicted criminals presumably should?

If you haven't been convicted of a crime, you're not a criminal.

[Miopic]

This is somewhat complicated for me.

Obviously, a convicted criminal shouldn't have legal access to a firearm. But what about those who have turned their lives around? I believe they should have access to firearms, but it would have to be far more restricted (longer waiting periods, restrictions on certain types of firearms).

I, however, believe that their should not be a restriction on the amount of firearms a person could own, nor do I think their should be a ban on burst-fire or full-auto rifles (but getting them should require some sort of a federal license, putting you into a database, and the license should be relatively strict). I am for requiring waiting periods and licenses on some kinds of firearms (mainly assault weapons, such as full-auto rifles, but also for military attachments like extended magazines), and I am for having to be registered into a police database upon purchasing a firearm.

Why is it obvious that a "convicted criminal" should not have access to a firearm while non convicted criminals presumably should?

Ok, a convicted criminal is somebody whom has been arrested. a non convicted criminal is somebody whom hasn't

BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ AND GIVE EM TO THE CRIMINALS AND THE TERRORISTS. I NEEDZ MY GUNS TO PROTECT MYSELF WHEN HE TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AND TANKS START ROLLING DOWN THE STREET, 'CUZ MY RIFLE CAN TAKE A TANK B@%!H.

please don't yell idiocies you make people who low control look like hicks. Obama wants to take our guns, but he doesn't want to give them to criminals. and no rifle (except for high explosive rifles.) can take a tank, unless your playing call of duty.... by the way....

[Northern Dominus]

Let's have a little historical perspective here people.

For a bit of a refresher, here is the 2nd Amendment in all of its glory:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the United States barely had a standing army and massive debt to pay off after going to war with England. On top of that you had native tribes on the frontiers and a contingent of British troops in Canada after the war ended. So you have a young nation which faced a lot of dangerous elements and didn't have the funds to create the standing continental army it needed to defend its territory, the new government came up with an ingenious solution:

It would form citizien militias, people who own their own firearms and many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans, train them accordingly, then charge them as official state militias, tasked with defending the new nation. Surprisingly, we still have the federal militias today.... and they look like this:

Yes, those well-trained and organized militias have been transformed into today's National Guard, pursuant to the Militia Act of 1903:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439

So in a sense the militias themselves, the defenders of the homeland, haven't gone away. Instead the country became financially solvent and was once again able to provide arms and equipment for its defenders at home rather than mandating that every able-bodied man keep a decent musket and train appropriately. Furthermore, during the days when the 2nd Amendment was written, most homes outside of large cities used firearms for more than just defense. Finding food, protecting livestock were also essentials, and a firearm was the best tool for that.

So, since the state now funds the militias and most of us live in suburbia or urban areas, why exactly does Joe Schmo need his off-brand AR-15 with a bajillion scopes and lasers again?

[Spreewerke]

Let's have a little historical perspective here people.

For a bit of a refresher, here is the 2nd Amendment in all of its glory:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the United States barely had a standing army and massive debt to pay off after going to war with England. On top of that you had native tribes on the frontiers and a contingent of British troops in Canada after the war ended. So you have a young nation which faced a lot of dangerous elements and didn't have the funds to create the standing continental army it needed to defend its territory, the new government came up with an ingenious solution:

It would form citizien militias, people who own their own firearms and many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans, train them accordingly, then charge them as official state militias, tasked with defending the new nation. Surprisingly, we still have the federal militias today.... and they look like this:

Yes, those well-trained and organized militias have been transformed into today's National Guard, pursuant to the Militia Act of 1903:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439

So in a sense the militias themselves, the defenders of the homeland, haven't gone away. Instead the country became financially solvent and was once again able to provide arms and equipment for its defenders at home rather than mandating that every able-bodied man keep a decent musket and train appropriately. Furthermore, during the days when the 2nd Amendment was written, most homes outside of large cities used firearms for more than just defense. Finding food, protecting livestock were also essentials, and a firearm was the best tool for that.

So, since the state now funds the militias and most of us live in suburbia or urban areas, why exactly does Joe Schmo need his off-brand AR-15 with a bajillion scopes and lasers again?

Because every male over the age of 18 is considered a part of the national militia, regardless of whether or not they are in a military branch.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Let's have a little historical perspective here people.

For a bit of a refresher, here is the 2nd Amendment in all of its glory:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the United States barely had a standing army and massive debt to pay off after going to war with England. On top of that you had native tribes on the frontiers and a contingent of British troops in Canada after the war ended. So you have a young nation which faced a lot of dangerous elements and didn't have the funds to create the standing continental army it needed to defend its territory, the new government came up with an ingenious solution:

It would form citizien militias, people who own their own firearms and many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans, train them accordingly, then charge them as official state militias, tasked with defending the new nation. Surprisingly, we still have the federal militias today.... and they look like this:

Yes, those well-trained and organized militias have been transformed into today's National Guard, pursuant to the Militia Act of 1903:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439

So in a sense the militias themselves, the defenders of the homeland, haven't gone away. Instead the country became financially solvent and was once again able to provide arms and equipment for its defenders at home rather than mandating that every able-bodied man keep a decent musket and train appropriately. Furthermore, during the days when the 2nd Amendment was written, most homes outside of large cities used firearms for more than just defense. Finding food, protecting livestock were also essentials, and a firearm was the best tool for that.

So, since the state now funds the militias and most of us live in suburbia or urban areas, why exactly does Joe Schmo need his off-brand AR-15 with a bajillion scopes and lasers again?

I don't have a bajillion scopes and lasers on mine, but my off-brand AR15 (since the Colt AR15 and Colt Sporter are both banned in the very state in which they're produced) is used as an accurate semi-auto paper puncher.

[Kvatchdom]

Nonsense. Here in Finland our gun laws are some of the laxest in Europe, but a huge majority of murders are still done with knives.

[Chernoslavia]

I am in favor of the bans that keep felons from owning firearms, however I strongly oppose an actual ban on any firearm or accessory or ammo capacity. Almost no exact crime has been committed with a legal full auto. Only two known crimes were committed with such and one of them was by a police officer with a department issued machine pistol.

[Chernoslavia]

Nonsense. Here in Finland our gun laws are some of the laxest in Europe, but a huge majority of murders are still done with knives.

Actually the most lax gun laws in europe is in Switzerland.

[South Cvandia]

BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ AND GIVE EM TO THE CRIMINALS AND THE TERRORISTS. I NEEDZ MY GUNS TO PROTECT MYSELF WHEN HE TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AND TANKS START ROLLING DOWN THE STREET, 'CUZ MY RIFLE CAN TAKE A TANK B@%!H.

First of all Obama has done nothing to limit gun rights.
Second, rifles can't do shit without bullets.
Third, there is no indication Obama is seeking to become dictator.
Fourth, all caps? Really?
Fifth, Obama has been tougher on terrorism than Bush ever was.

/sarcasm

[Chernoslavia]

What if I want a decent conrtol on Guns but not the Banning of Automatic firearms? Because you can buy automatic Firearms in the U.S. now, you just need to get a special license.

Not even for a full auto do you need a permit of any kind, atleast not where I live.

[Chernoslavia]

Firearms are very dangerous weapons, which can only be used offensively, and which have no legitimate usage. They must be banned for safety of all.

Tell that to the women that were raped by a man whose weapon was just being twice their strength.

[South Cvandia]

Firearms are very dangerous weapons, which can only be used offensively, and which have no legitimate usage. They must be banned for safety of all.

Tell that to the women that were raped by a man whose weapon was just being twice their strength.

Tell that to the hundreds murdered in my city annually with firearms.

[Kvatchdom]

Nonsense. Here in Finland our gun laws are some of the laxest in Europe, but a huge majority of murders are still done with knives.

Actually the most lax gun laws in europe is in Switzerland.

Some of the laxest, not the laxest, I said.

[Chernoslavia]

You can in the U.S. except in California, but you can get a .416 Rifle because Barrett said "Fuck you Califronia law"

The U.S. sure has loose gun control...

I prefer to say 'loose freedom'.