Gun Bans

[Nua Corda]

I personally am on the fence on that. I would support a barrel length limit, and I support heavy licensing and regulation on all guns, but I'm not sure how far I'd go. Of course, that may just be because I want to collect M1911s.

I'd like to see a 1000$ tax stamp on handguns shorter than 7.5 inches.

Obtaining a CHL licence would then excempt you from that tax.

That might be a good way to go. Taxing ammo wouldn't hurt either.

[North America and Great Britain]

My opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ucZsJQxbQ

That is all.

[Novraslavia]

Aw. They took away my Draco AK-47.

[Vareiln]

Aw. They took away my Draco AK-47.

Why would you want an AK without the stock?

[Sophian]

*snip*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... -2015.html

Your source is Bloomberg News, owned by Mayor Bloomberg (a strong opponent of the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights, and a strong opponent of the of the 4th amendment of the bill of rights [Mayor Bloomberg defends stop & frisk procedure in NYC, which obviously violates the 4th amendment]). Are you proposing that Mayor Bloomberg & Alex Tribou are clairvoyant?

Fun Fact: Mayor Bloomberg also thinks Super-Size Soft Drinks should be banned. ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-3 ... rinks.html )

[Novraslavia]

Aw. They took away my Draco AK-47.

Why would you want an AK without the stock?

I got it cheap.

[Vareiln]

Why would you want an AK without the stock?

I got it cheap.

I see... It's a good think they won't and never will ban the SKS, then.

[Nua Corda]

Why would you want an AK without the stock?

I got it cheap.

You never had an AK-47. Unless you happened to be one of the Russian Procurement officers at the field trials in 1946-47.

[Nua Corda]

I got it cheap.

I see... It's a good think they won't and never will ban the SKS, then.

Which was always hilarious to me, since it's just as deadly for mass shootings as an AR-15.

[Novraslavia]

I got it cheap.

I see... It's a good think they won't and never will ban the SKS, then.

I like the SKS, it's a good rifle. I fired a Type 56 (not the assault rifle, the SKS) once. On the topic of gun bans though, I think it's a good step forward. There's was another shooting today at an office building I heard.

[Sophian]

*snip*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... -2015.html

Until the alleged seer Michael Bloomberg's prediction comes true, its just speculation. The fact remains that deaths by automobile accidents are 2.99x more common than firearm homicides, and automobile accidents are generally more common than firearm related deaths.

11,504 people died from firearm homicides in the U.S. in 2009 according to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf )
31,347 total firearm deaths in the U.S. when including suicide
34,485 died from motor-vehicle related injuries

[Novraslavia]

I got it cheap.

You never had an AK-47. Unless you happened to be one of the Russian Procurement officers at the field trials in 1946-47.

It doesn't really matter what you call it, people will understand what you mean.

[Sophian]

Michael Bloomberg is also rumored to have "gone steady" with G.W. for a while.

[Tule]

I see... It's a good think they won't and never will ban the SKS, then.

Which was always hilarious to me, since it's just as deadly for mass shootings as an AR-15.

Nobody ever mentions this lead spitting monster in the gun control debate.

It can fire 108 .32 cal projectiles in less than 2 seconds, which rivals virtually every SMG out there.
But that's OK cuz shotguns r fur hunting.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I believe owning a firearm IS an individual right set up by the 2nd amendment. Gun owners also have the right to form a militia. That's is also a right set up by the 2nd amendment. The only gun license that should be required is a service arm bought by a retired soldier (which should not be against the law).

So in otherwords, it sounds like you're in favor of both of what you interpret as the 2nd Amendment.

It's not about when was the last time our government got deposed. It's about the public being a part of the checks & balance system set up by the "founding fathers" beyond the vote while at the same time adding to our public defense.

Well, all the more reasons why the Founding Fathers heavily supported militias as another way to allow people to maintain checks and balances beyond the vote as long as militias were professionally trained and disciplined properly. By definition, militias are armed forces comprised of civilian and non-professional soldiers.

I don't see how disarming the public can save millions of lives unless you have a plan to disarm the armed forces of the world.

Well I certainly don't see how continuing to increase the pool of gun access has ever helped to stop the gun violence in the US. Since the late 70's gun problem went down South.

We pay way too much tax to support armed forces which is much too large. The militia is suppose to be a part of our culture. that's why it's written into our Bill of Rights. But, without it & a far larger military than any other country in the world, there isn't much stopping the US government from doing whatever it wants is there? How many of the last military conflicts were voted on & approved by congress within the 1st 30 days of sending troops? How many times did our Representative pull out millions from our social security fund, only to never pay it back & raise the age that working people can retire? Why isn't the major players of the banking industry behind bars & answering to the crimes of immoral reckless endangerment of our whole economic system? Why isn't the public in an outrage that real wages haven't risen in 30 years?

With the exception of which special interest groups get their mouth on the nipple of the government take, it doesn't really matter which of the 2 parties are in power, because they are both financially backed by the same few handfuls of people that are laughing all the way to the bank. Why is it like this? Because we do not stand up for our rights when they are written away or further limited by congress in order to protect us from ourselves. Only the militia that is our constitutional right, IS the check that protects us from them, when the vote has lost power to represent the will of the people.

Again, we can trace the root of this problem back to the late 70's. It was more than just the toppling of the NRA leadership, you had people like the Koch Bros who set up right-wing think tanks that would later usurp control of government power from the people to the hands of corporations and rich donors. Further deregulation of the free market made corporations grow so strong they bought our government. Bought politicians no longer serve the constituents, but to their corporate masters and rich donors that fund their campaigns. Then you have the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) which Eisenhower warned about. American generals today no longer take orders from the Pentagon, instead they're commanded by military contractors and the lobbying power at their disposal.

If a real serious revolution was ever needed at all, it has to be used as a last resort at all cost. Unfortunately, extremists in the US today like the American Talibans like to use it first hand and target the wrong people instead of using political revolution as a first means. Well, at one time they did until their movement got hijacked by the Koch Bros.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

11,504 people died from firearm homicides in the U.S. in 2009 according to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf )
31,347 total firearm deaths in the U.S. when including suicide
34,485 died from motor-vehicle related injuries

Well, I gotta hand it to you, at least you thumped Nua Corda's notion that car deaths exceeds gun death by a big long shot.

[Nua Corda]

11,504 people died from firearm homicides in the U.S. in 2009 according to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf )
31,347 total firearm deaths in the U.S. when including suicide
34,485 died from motor-vehicle related injuries

Well, I gotta hand it to you, at least you thumped Nua Corda's notion that car deaths exceeds gun death by a big long shot.

Three times as many is certainly a long shot in my book. Suicide doesn't count.

[Nua Corda]

ban all the guns u want. i dont buy mi guns on the govirnment regulaited markit bcuz i dont want mi tax money to pay for jon bainer & barak obamas chikn mcnuggets.

Great, another one.

[Farnhamia]

Well, I gotta hand it to you, at least you thumped Nua Corda's notion that car deaths exceeds gun death by a big long shot.

Three times as many is certainly a long shot in my book. Suicide doesn't count.

It's fun when you can wave away the statistics you don't like, isn't it? Let's see ... we should subtract "motor-vehicle related injuries" when the person injured wasn't in a vehicle. They could have been hurt by the ground.

[Tule]

Three times as many is certainly a long shot in my book. Suicide doesn't count.

It's fun when you can wave away the statistics you don't like, isn't it? Let's see ... we should subtract "motor-vehicle related injuries" when the person injured wasn't in a vehicle. They could have been hurt by the ground.

Suicides don't count because of easy availability of other effective methods and nobody wants the government to tell people what to do with their own lives.

[Nua Corda]

Three times as many is certainly a long shot in my book. Suicide doesn't count.

It's fun when you can wave away the statistics you don't like, isn't it? Let's see ... we should subtract "motor-vehicle related injuries" when the person injured wasn't in a vehicle. They could have been hurt by the ground.

It's fun when we can ignore context in order to make a snarky comment, isn't it?

Consider this; this is a debate about gun control. This, specifically, is about the harm guns cause in society. The reason suicides don't count is that those people could just as easily have jumped off a bridge, jammed a flick knife in an electrical socket, quaffed a bottle of pills... you get the idea. The presence or absence of guns would not have had any noticeable impact on that number. It's only the homicides and accidents that matter, because that's the only thing that banning guns would theoretically prevent.

[Terruana]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

[Nua Corda]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Well, McDonald v. Chicago, for one.

[Caninope]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Because some weapons are in "common use for lawful purposes" (see US v Miller, DC v Heller), like assault weapons. Other aren't, like ICBM's.

EDIT: Additionally, DC v Heller defined "arms".

[Dyakovo]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?