US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Republica Newland]

Please read my post again

And the answer would be.. well.. yes.

You are insular, aren't you. When's the last time you've been out of the US?

Only a fool would take that or the story seriously. You must be fun at parties, no?

[Uieurnthlaal]

You are insular, aren't you. When's the last time you've been out of the US?

Only a fool would take that or the story seriously. You must be fun at parties, no?

Not really, no.

[Republica Newland]

Only a fool would take that or the story seriously. You must be fun at parties, no?

Not really, no.

Not that surprised, really. So how's your telepathic mandatory buyback coming along?

[Uieurnthlaal]

You do have a flair for the dramatic, don't you? That might make a nice movie storyline, but it's wildly unrealistic when it comes to, you know, reality.

Idk if you realized it by now, but guns are not registered in the US. The vast majority, at least. There is absolutely no measure the government could take to make citizens surrender their guns by force, other than, well, you guessed it. It cannot penalize them since they do not know where the guns are and who they are owned by.

Please enlighten us slower types.

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

[Republica Newland]

Idk if you realized it by now, but guns are not registered in the US. The vast majority, at least. There is absolutely no measure the government could take to make citizens surrender their guns by force, other than, well, you guessed it. It cannot penalize them since they do not know where the guns are and who they are owned by.

Please enlighten us slower types.

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

And what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish?

*yo dog lets do a drive by by dem foolz place, you in*
*fo sho blood lets go*

...

*hey guys want me to take that gun off your hands? no questions asked! i'm giving you money too!*
*no way!!! can I bring more?*
*sure*
*goes around corner*
*yo dawg fix me up with one of em tecs, man!*
*there you go, bro*

*dawg u up for another drive-by*
*fo sho*

...

*hey you brought some more guns for the buyback?*
*yeahh man, where's the paper?*
*hey.. umm.. why is there blood on your gun*
*it's.. uhh.. nothing.. cleaning solution!*
*oh. ok then! come back with some more guns!*

EDIT: Not to mention failing reading comprehension ; and with your little plan, my scenario would not be different ; the feds would just have it easier for them, but otherwise it would be the same

PS: What is the logic in registering all guns and doing the mandatory buyback after? It's like people would willingly sign up to register their weed stash to later have it "buy-back-ed" by the feds.

[Hornesia]

Idk if you realized it by now, but guns are not registered in the US. The vast majority, at least. There is absolutely no measure the government could take to make citizens surrender their guns by force, other than, well, you guessed it. It cannot penalize them since they do not know where the guns are and who they are owned by.

Please enlighten us slower types.

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

That's screwing with historical reenactments. Also, I'd like to see someone try a mass shooting with a rifle musket (Hint, it's not possible)

[Uieurnthlaal]

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

And what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish?

*yo dog lets do a drive by by dem foolz place, you in*
*fo sho blood lets go*

...

*hey guys want me to take that gun off your hands? no questions asked! i'm giving you money too!*
*no way!!! can I bring more?*
*sure*
*goes around corner*
*yo dawg fix me up with one of em tecs, man!*
*there you go, bro*

*dawg u up for another drive-by*
*fo sho*

...

*hey you brought some more guns for the buyback?*
*yeahh man, where's the paper?*
*hey.. umm.. why is there blood on your gun*
*it's.. uhh.. nothing.. cleaning solution!*
*oh. ok then! come back with some more guns!*

Answering the original question, I hope to achieve a drastically reduced concentration of guns, so as to reduce gun-related crime and gun-related death. It worked in Australia, and if you think it's trampling on people's rights, ask anyone from Australia whether or not they feel there right's are being infringed on by not being able to have a gun. I don't care about our history that, our history this, our history in many places was terrible, with a poor record on civil rights and more.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

That's screwing with historical reenactments. Also, I'd like to see someone try a mass shooting with a rifle musket (Hint, it's not possible)

Thank you. That's exactly my point. A musket is sufficient for shooting deer, and it has worked for centuries. What makes gun owners feel entitled to wildly more powerful guns, far more powerful than envisioned by the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights?

[Hornesia]

That's screwing with historical reenactments. Also, I'd like to see someone try a mass shooting with a rifle musket (Hint, it's not possible)

Thank you. That's exactly my point. A musket is sufficient for shooting deer, and it has worked for centuries. What makes gun owners feel entitled to wildly more powerful guns, far more powerful than envisioned by the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights?

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Thank you. That's exactly my point. A musket is sufficient for shooting deer, and it has worked for centuries. What makes gun owners feel entitled to wildly more powerful guns, far more powerful than envisioned by the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights?

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

They get put in the same level of harm just by being cops. And if muskets worked for people in the 18th century, why can't it work now?

[Republica Newland]

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

They get put in the same level of harm just by being cops. And if muskets worked for people in the 18th century, why can't it work now?

Jesus Christ. People, you should all ride horses, because this guy says so.

[Hornesia]

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

They get put in the same level of harm just by being cops. And if muskets worked for people in the 18th century, why can't it work now?

Also, you've mentioned hunting several time. Where exactly in the constitution does it mention hunting? the express purpose of the second amendment is defense.

[Gun Manufacturers]

How the hell do you expect the government to pay fair market value for all the firearms in circulation? The debt is out of control, a mandatory firearms buyback would push the US government way past any debt ceiling.

Not unless they pay ten thousand dollars for each gun. If the US gov gives back an average of $100 for each gun, and takes back 3/4's of all guns, than the US government must pay fifteen billion dollars. That's 0.5% of our yearly budget, and 0.1% of our debt. And, the extra hundred dollars people have will stimulate the economy because of increased spending, paying off anyway.

Fuck that. None of my firearms are worth less than $300 (considering aftermarket parts). My AR15 is worth, with all the aftermarket parts, probably about $1,000 to someone in a free state. My Glock 17C is probably worth $400-$450 with it's aftermarket parts.

The Fifth Amendment prevents the Government from forcibly taking my privately owned property without just compensation, and just compensation is fair market value.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Idk if you realized it by now, but guns are not registered in the US. The vast majority, at least. There is absolutely no measure the government could take to make citizens surrender their guns by force, other than, well, you guessed it. It cannot penalize them since they do not know where the guns are and who they are owned by.

Please enlighten us slower types.

Well, first, many states require registration, which will be a help. Then, we'll have to require registration nation-wide, after all, gun types are likely to buy multiple guns. After that, we can give a mandatory buyback of all guns beyond, say eighteenth century rifles. That way, it's still following the second amendment in its original intent.

If the Second Amendment only applies to 18th century rifles, you don't have freedom of speech on the internet, tv, billboards, or the radio. You can also only practice religions that were around at the time of the Constitution, women can't vote, blacks aren't people, and you don't have equal protection under the law.

See how fun it is to take Constitutional context as only covering what was in it at the time it was ratified? Yay progress.

[/sarcasm]

[Lunatic Goofballs]

They get put in the same level of harm just by being cops. And if muskets worked for people in the 18th century, why can't it work now?

Also, you've mentioned hunting several time. Where exactly in the constitution does it mention hunting? the express purpose of the second amendment is defense.

More specifically, the express purpose of the Second Amendment is to promote marksmanship and gun care among the general population in case they need to be organized for defense.

[Gun Manufacturers]

That's screwing with historical reenactments. Also, I'd like to see someone try a mass shooting with a rifle musket (Hint, it's not possible)

Thank you. That's exactly my point. A musket is sufficient for shooting deer, and it has worked for centuries. What makes gun owners feel entitled to wildly more powerful guns, far more powerful than envisioned by the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights?

Technological progress makes us entitled to "wildly more powerful guns".

Besides, the puckle gun and volley guns were around before the US Constitution was written, so to say the framers of the Constitution couldn't envision firearms more powerful than a single shot musket is utter crap.

[Republica Newland]

I say all politicians should be given a basic quiz on a certain subject before being allowed to debate and vote for laws related to it.

[Ifreann]

Also, you've mentioned hunting several time. Where exactly in the constitution does it mention hunting? the express purpose of the second amendment is defense.

More specifically, the express purpose of the Second Amendment is to promote marksmanship and gun care among the general population in case they need to be organized for defense.

Which is presumably why they let you keep making those catapults. In case you need to make artillery for defence.

[Vazdania]

I say all politicians should be given a basic quiz on a certain subject before being allowed to debate and vote for laws related to it.

No.

[Republica Newland]

I say all politicians should be given a basic quiz on a certain subject before being allowed to debate and vote for laws related to it.

No.

Gold Medal Debating!

Want of em quizzzes?

EDIT: I love your profile picture.

I really do.

[Ponderosa]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.

[Grave_n_idle]

Thank you. That's exactly my point. A musket is sufficient for shooting deer, and it has worked for centuries. What makes gun owners feel entitled to wildly more powerful guns, far more powerful than envisioned by the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights?

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

If you can't feed yourself on one deer a day, gun ownership is the least of your worries.

[Republica Newland]

First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.

IMO open carry is heaps safer to the general public than concealed carry, for the simple reason that the second you get to see a gun that's otherwise carried concealed you're probably already staring down its' barrel.

I find it highly amusing whenever soccer moms or hippies whine about open carry being "dangerous"

[Republica Newland]

No, a musket isn't sufficient. They got maybe 1 kill per day and that's not sufficient to feed yourself over long periods. Besides that, if you try a gun buyback, most cops are gonna quit because they don't want to get shot doing it.

If you can't feed yourself on one deer a day, gun ownership is the least of your worries.

what, you're supposed to only hunt for yourself? so now back we go to hunter gatherer society where absolutely everyone has to be directly implicated in food procurement? I see a lot of progress in this thread?

[Grave_n_idle]

I say all politicians should be given a basic quiz on a certain subject before being allowed to debate and vote for laws related to it.

No.

You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.