Gun Bans

[Caninope]

No, it apparently got burned when law-abiding citizens were no longer considered trustworthy simply because they own gun and support gun ownership.

My suspicion is turned on those "law-abiding citizens" when they buy multiple guns. When they stockpile guns, as is very clearly happening in the US.

It's a small fraction of adults who actually own a gun. Fine, it's their right according to the constitution and SC interpretation of same.

Yet there are over 200 million guns known to government in private hands. A very few people are collecting a great many guns, and I think that's the problem. I think some people are abusing their right to "keep and bear arms" for personal profit, and in some cases with the intention of arming other people in unlawful "rebellion".

That's a problem, and it's a problem which can be addressed without any infringement on the Second Amendment.

So it's a problem that my dad owns two hunting rifles and three hunting shotguns instead of just one rifle?

Excuse me, but bullshit.

[Tule]

Nobody said that they would kill administrative staff, thats what your saying. And what you said about the militia being easily defeated by the army is wrong.

That is literally exactly and precisely what somebody claimed. Specifically, Bufaria claimed that the militia would kill "people who handle logistics and maintenance", "people that transport missiles from the factory to the military airfield, load the missile on the jet fighter, refuel it, clear it for takeoff, collect the timesheets of the people at the base etc.".


Now go back and read the fucking discussion before trying to jump into the middle of it and embarrassing yourself.

The people who defend said Bases are not very numerous nor very well equipped to engage in gun battles against overwhelming numbers of civilians led by Veterans or defected officers.

Like I mentioned earlier, only 70.000 people in the US Army and Marine corps are actually dedicated infantrymen. The rest are just guys in fatigues, most of them unarmed.

[Hornesia]

Because no one can afford them?

More because the regulations on them stop people who would use them for evil from owning them. People can own them, but only if they pass a massive BATFE licensing regime.

As I said, you have to pay for all that licensing, plus you have to pay a couple thousand to get the launcher itself, plus who knows how much for each Rocket

[The Rich Port]

To be completely absolutely fair to people who want more gun control and gun bans...

Someone should probably take my gun away from me.

[Holy Trek]

Well...its pointless talking to a bunch of whiny gun-nuts. You don't like the fact that AR-15s should be banned...you know where Canada is...get your passports, take your AK-47s, and go.

Back up your argument that AR-15s should be banned, lift yourself up from name calling and baseless insults, cite your sources and provide facts supporting your argument, as I have, and maybe we'll have a discussion.

Cite yours first..and make sure they're from credible sites.

[Chernoslavia]

By force, but force doesnt have to include lethal actions.

When the force is by rebels, partisans, guerrillas or civie militia? It universally does.

Thats your own assumption of the American militia.

[Hornesia]

Sure, try to take my gun away from me. But I'll hand it to you muzzle first.

[Scandinaviay]

Why does everyone always throw the military in the face of anyone who says they would resist the federal government infringing upon their right to bear arms? Have you not seen the demographics of the military? Southern states and conservatives are much more of the US military than other groups. Do you not think that they would cede use of military facilities to a popular cause?

[United Prefectures of Appia]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

[The Rich Port]

Sure, try to take my gun away from me. But I'll hand it to you muzzle first.

And I'm sure they'll say hi.

With triggers.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Because no one can afford them?

More because the regulations on them stop people who would use them for evil from owning them. People can own them, but only if they pass a massive BATFE licensing regime.

OK, so what exactly would "totes not work guise" about government regulation of weapons if government regulations are stopping people from robbing banks with shaped-charge warheads?

[Chernoslavia]

That is literally exactly and precisely what somebody claimed. Specifically, Bufaria claimed that the militia would kill "people who handle logistics and maintenance", "people that transport missiles from the factory to the military airfield, load the missile on the jet fighter, refuel it, clear it for takeoff, collect the timesheets of the people at the base etc.".


Now go back and read the fucking discussion before trying to jump into the middle of it and embarrassing yourself.

The people who defend said Bases are not very numerous nor very well equipped to engage in gun battles against overwhelming numbers of civilians led by Veterans or defected officers.

Like I mentioned earlier, only 70.000 people in the US Army and Marine corps are actually dedicated infantrymen. The rest are just guys in fatigues, most of them unarmed.

And most of them would not be slaughtered indiscriminately by The Militia unlike what Salandriagado claims Bafuria has said.

[Caninope]

Wayne LaPierre said and I quote:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

So by that logic, we can safely assume that the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke, is a good guy with a nuke.

You sir have just discovered what is commonly called "mutually assured destruction."

[Chernoslavia]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

Rapid fire rifles were illegal long before the massacre.

[The Interstellar Mongol Khanate]

I happen to agree. Contrary to what the NRA will say, its doubtful the Founding Fathers ever imagined the kind of weapons we have today back when they wrote the Constitution. Besides, I also agree with my colleague from Holy Trek. The government is NOT trying to do away with the Second Amendment, they just want to prevent another Columbine and Sandy Hook. And YES, they've also looked at mental health concerns, and they're looking into more stringent background checks, but you people act as though government agents are about to kick down your doors and take away ALL your guns, and take you away when you refuse to surrender them. They don't want your pistols or rifles...in fact, they fully endorse you having them. Just nothing that should be labeled for police or military use.

The NRA loves to lie to its supporters in order to rouse popular support. Just like the radicals within the GOP, the radicals in the NRA inflate what should be a common sense regulation into a "Defend the Second Amendment" idiocy. No wonder Britain and the rest of the world think we're a bunch of gun-toting, shoot-em-up, violence-loving megalomaniacs.

While the Dems and the pro-gun-control simple just ignore the facts.

*Pulls up pants legs* more GOP propaganda....getting deep in here...

[Caninope]

So you honestly think that we crave violence?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv4E7eDdVzg And then there's that Utah Sheriff who's willing to use his leverage of authority to push a fight with the feds. This is one of the few examples why I believe they care more about the 2nd Amendment than they do about victims of death by firearms.

I think that we should repeal the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

Wait? Are you saying that you care more about those amendments than victims of crimes?

[The Interstellar Mongol Khanate]

Back up your argument that AR-15s should be banned, lift yourself up from name calling and baseless insults, cite your sources and provide facts supporting your argument, as I have, and maybe we'll have a discussion.

Cite yours first..and make sure they're from credible sites.

Will the BOTH of you SETTLE DOWN!? This is supposed to be civilized, if not respectful. Even I have maintained some sense of civility in my discussions.

[Tule]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

Not entirely true.

Excluding deliberately lit bushfires, 17 people have died in Australia in mass murders. 15 died in an Arson in 2000 and 2 died in A mass shooting in 2002.

New Zealand had a cluster of Mass shootings in the late 80's to the mid 90's just like Australia. The two countries are very similar culturally and economically.
One of the differences between the two is that Semi-Automatic rifles are still legal in New Zealand and NZ gun laws are fairly permissive compared to Australia or the world in General.

Neither country has had a mass shooting since the mid 90's.

www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

[Yes Im Biop]

Some members of certain militia groups are ex Navy Seals. But hey, lets just ignore that fact and instead under-estimate people for how they look.

And? "Some" ex-navy seals with small arms still doesn't beat an entire military base with heavy artillery and strike-bombers.

SO let me get this. You think that the Military, The people who are sworn o Protect the Citizen's of america from any Threat, Would become that threat? As well as attacking their Backing? Cause if so, Please do leave

[Alowwvia]

I have an honest question, actually:

What makes a member of the United States Army Infantry, or a NYPD officer have more right to own an automatic weapon than I do?

What specifically gives the MILITARY a right to own something that a CIVILIAN can't? Where is it written that wearing a uniform means you are more responsible or in the right to own something than anyone else? I'm not trying to be insulting, but I do not think that they need an automatic weapon any more, or less than I do, and I don't think anything should give certain institutions, wheter they are federal or not, more rights than the common person. I think all people should have the exact same amount of rights to be allowed to own more than this or that class of people.

Why, I ask, are politicians defended by a team of men with sub-machine guns, if I couldn't carry an MP5 to defend myself? What gives THEM the right to be defended with an automatic weapon? Why not me? Am I worth LESS as a person than they are? I don't think so. 'The state', as a term in the United States Constitution, refers not to the federal government, but to the people as a whole. In that regard, who is protecting me? The military acts under the orders of the federal government. Police departments work under their own orders, and follow the law of the land. So who, then, takes the orders from me, to defend me? Only one person will do that: Myself. So why, then, am I to be less armed than our federal government? Why am I deemed to be worth less than a politician, or a general, or an officer?

Of those three, I do respect the general and the officers, and maybe a couple politicians on a good day, but at the end of the day, none of them are going to protect me from anything. They've got much bigger fish to fry than threats to my personal safety, and it's my responsibility to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in their absence, inability, or lack of directive to do so for me.

[Sibirsky]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

[Nua Corda]

More because the regulations on them stop people who would use them for evil from owning them. People can own them, but only if they pass a massive BATFE licensing regime.

OK, so what exactly would "totes not work guise" about government regulation of weapons if government regulations are stopping people from robbing banks with shaped-charge warheads?

I'm afraid I don't understand... Are you mistaking me for one of those NRA fuckjobs? Because I'm not. In fact, I'm a huge fan of regulations, especially for guns (and handguns in particular), just not outright bans of anything.

[The Rich Port]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

I guess Australians can't get...

BEYOND THUNDERDOME.

[Scandinaviay]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

Let us play the "It works in other countries, it will work for US" game.

True Britain has less homicides but why is it considered to be the most violent country in Europe? Why is the violent crime rate 5 times as much as the US?

What of other countries, where owning guns is not taboo? Examples given Czech Republic and Finland. These countries have relatively high gun ownership rates, but in 2010 the murders with legal guns was a whopping 2. In Finland in 2008 suffered 17 murders with legal guns. Numbers coming from sites such as gun policy.org. Obviously, guns are not the problem.

[New England and The Maritimes]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

A picture can say anything. Find the actual statistics.