Gun Control

[Holy Tedalonia]

To stop a tyrannical federal government- I would be willing to support the military being split up with about 1% of each state's population being in the armed services and requiring the consent of the state to let them go on federal missions you know like the original intention of the 2A state militias. But there is a 0% chance all 80M armed Americans beating the federal military if they did not defect.

What?? Can you rephrase this? It makes no sense. Please, proofread what you write...

Self protection- Why do you need anything more than 10 bullet revolver.

A ten bullet revolver? Do you know how exceedingly rare those are in comparison to the regular 6 to 8 shot ones?

Hunting- Why do you need anything more than a 10 mag hunting rifle to shoot a deer and have some food to eat.

"A 10 mag hunting rifle"??? What on earth is that?

Shooting at the range- Why do you need anything more then a 10 bullet revolver that does not use a magazine? You could allways reload on the spot. No military style semi auto's nessisary.

What is the cause of your 10 bullet obsession and your phobia of magazines?

Lol at the fact that everyone avoided my logical points because they had no good answer for them.

Keshiland, you use straw men like they are going out of fashion. How hypocritical.

He's scared of the playboy magazines >:^D

[Sovaal]

There's a reason no plan even close to this has been proposed in the US, as many of us have explained in the thread already.

And no, it would not work, and hasn't been done in any other western country to show it works.

Maybe that's the problem. America and other countries try the same things related to firearm control and yet shootings continue. Sometimes, a break from the current paradigm is required to truly create lasting change.

Problem with it is that such a thing is impossible and unworkable, and would have literally little to no support.

[Euslavia]

Secret student societies were the bane of the local and imperial authorities.

If you legitimately think College and High School students are taken seriously nowadays, I have something to tell you, friend.

You assume that I referred to lycee students in the United States. Most members of the Vysovnik 'society' are magestrial students working toward higher degrees (graduate students in American parlance).

[Telconi]

There's a reason no plan even close to this has been proposed in the US, as many of us have explained in the thread already.

And no, it would not work, and hasn't been done in any other western country to show it works.

Maybe that's the problem. America and other countries try the same things related to firearm control and yet shootings continue. Sometimes, a break from the current paradigm is required to truly create lasting change.

Now is not one of those times, what you want is terrible...

[Sovaal]

If you legitimately think College and High School students are taken seriously nowadays, I have something to tell you, friend.

You assume that I referred to lycee students in the United States. Most members of the Vysovnik 'society' are magestrial students working toward higher degrees (graduate students in American parlance).

So college students, as he just mentioned.

[Hammer Britannia]

If you legitimately think College and High School students are taken seriously nowadays, I have something to tell you, friend.

You assume that I referred to lycee students in the United States. Most members of the Vysovnik 'society' are magestrial students working toward higher degrees (graduate students in American parlance).

OK, now you are just spouting out complete bullshit

[Sovaal]

You assume that I referred to lycee students in the United States. Most members of the Vysovnik 'society' are magestrial students working toward higher degrees (graduate students in American parlance).

OK, now you are just spouting out complete bullshit

Bet he's a gnome trying to throw us off his trail.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You assume that I referred to lycee students in the United States. Most members of the Vysovnik 'society' are magestrial students working toward higher degrees (graduate students in American parlance).

OK, now you are just spouting out complete bullshit

How can that be? Someone randomly on the internet that just joined in on the conversation out of the blue has told me otherwise though!

.......

Seriously "Euslavia", do you honestly have nothing better to do with the time that you have been given?

[Euslavia]

Maybe that's the problem. America and other countries try the same things related to firearm control and yet shootings continue. Sometimes, a break from the current paradigm is required to truly create lasting change.

Problem with it is that such a thing is impossible and unworkable, and would have literally little to no support.

Politicians can generate support, believe me. The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit. But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking. In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015. The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

[Xelsis]

"Gee, I wish I had less ammunition." Said nobody in a life or death situation ever.

"Gee, I love having no gun control" Said nobody in a mass shooting ever.

Y'know, except people like Stephen Willeford who use their guns to stop mass shootings by people gun control failed to stop.

[Hammer Britannia]

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

OK then, I will use my strong will to make you stop spewing bullshit

[Xelsis]

Problem with it is that such a thing is impossible and unworkable, and would have literally little to no support.

Politicians can generate support, believe me. The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit. But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking. In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015. The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

Enough with the "arms manufacturers" nonsense.

Think for a minute. Say you ban magazines of a certain capacity, like in California, and try to confiscate them. What do the people now absent their magazines do?

They buy new magazines.

Millions of people suddenly needing to make purchases? That's Christmas Day for the arms manufacturers. They'd be rolling in Scrooge McDuck bins of cash.

But yet the NRA opposes these kinds of gun control, because it represents the gun owners who would get screwed over, not the manufacturers who would see a market boom.

[Wysten]

Problem with it is that such a thing is impossible and unworkable, and would have literally little to no support.

Politicians can generate support, believe me. The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit. But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking. In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015. The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

Yeah no you see here in the US you can't do that it's impossible.

[Sovaal]

Problem with it is that such a thing is impossible and unworkable, and would have literally little to no support.

Politicians can generate support, believe me.

They haven't before, they haven't now, and they won't in the future. And from what all the gun control advocates tell me, most of those supporters "don't want to take away [my] guns".

The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit.

And the odd some third of the Us population which owns firearms, and the what, half overall that support current gun laws, and I seriously doubt the majority of gun control advocates support a total gun ban.
It's not just the "ebul weepohns corporatshuns!".

But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking.

Contorlled, not banned, and still widespread through out the US, with even middle schoolers (ages 11-14/15) doing it.

In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015.

And how effective is this? Do you honestly expect that no two year old today will pick up smoking in the future?

The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Yet there still kicking.

Anyway, gun ownership is far more popular and supported then smoking is. It's not just the gun manufacturers.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

And the will is just not here, let alone the reality in your idea.

[Euslavia]

Politicians can generate support, believe me. The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit. But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking. In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015. The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

Enough with the "arms manufacturers" nonsense.

Think for a minute. Say you ban magazines of a certain capacity, like in California, and try to confiscate them. What do the people now absent their magazines do?

They buy new magazines.

Millions of people suddenly needing to make purchases? That's Christmas Day for the arms manufacturers. They'd be rolling in Scrooge McDuck bins of cash.

But yet the NRA opposes these kinds of gun control, because it represents the gun owners who would get screwed over, not the manufacturers who would see a market boom.

Well, it's the same story as cannabis legalisation. One state legalises, others flock there. Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls. But as long as the American states have this kind of legal autonomy, one state's laws will continue to be circumvented by other states' more liberal laws.

[Xelsis]

Enough with the "arms manufacturers" nonsense.

Think for a minute. Say you ban magazines of a certain capacity, like in California, and try to confiscate them. What do the people now absent their magazines do?

They buy new magazines.

Millions of people suddenly needing to make purchases? That's Christmas Day for the arms manufacturers. They'd be rolling in Scrooge McDuck bins of cash.

But yet the NRA opposes these kinds of gun control, because it represents the gun owners who would get screwed over, not the manufacturers who would see a market boom.

Well, it's the same story as cannabis legalisation. One state legalises, others flock there. Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls. But as long as the American states have this kind of legal autonomy, one state's laws will continue to be circumvented by other states' more liberal laws.

Yes, because those states have people who care about the rights of gun owners. Don't try to dodge off that discredited "gun manufacturers/money clip" line you were just using.

[Sovaal]

Enough with the "arms manufacturers" nonsense.

Think for a minute. Say you ban magazines of a certain capacity, like in California, and try to confiscate them. What do the people now absent their magazines do?

They buy new magazines.

Millions of people suddenly needing to make purchases? That's Christmas Day for the arms manufacturers. They'd be rolling in Scrooge McDuck bins of cash.

But yet the NRA opposes these kinds of gun control, because it represents the gun owners who would get screwed over, not the manufacturers who would see a market boom.

Well, it's the same story as cannabis legalisation. One state legalises, others flock there. Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls.

And the effectiveness would be zilch, nada.

But as long as the American states have this kind of legal autonomy, one state's laws will continue to be circumvented by other states' more liberal laws.

The US is to big for a Unitary state, and the Feds are already too big and intrusive imo.

[Euslavia]

Politicians can generate support, believe me.

They haven't before, they haven't now, and they won't in the future. And from what all the gun control advocates tell me, most of those supporters "don't want to take away [my] guns".

The problem is that arms manufacturers, who have many political persons in their pockets, would throw a fit.

And the odd some third of the Us population which owns firearms, and the what, half overall that support current gun laws, and I seriously doubt the majority of gun control advocates support a total gun ban.
It's not just the "ebul weepohns corporatshuns!".

But let's take an example of another controlled activity, tobacco smoking.

Contorlled, not banned, and still widespread through out the US, with even middle schoolers (ages 11-14/15) doing it.

In the Russian Federation, smoking has been effectively banned by the law prohibiting any sales for persons born after 2015.

And how effective is this? Do you honestly expect that no two year old today will pick up smoking in the future?

The tobacco lobby in many countries has almost ceased to exist. Yet compare the present day to 30 years ago. There was a deep shift in paradigm that turned the tables against the tobacco companies.

Yet there still kicking.

Anyway, gun ownership is far more popular and supported then smoking is. It's not just the gun manufacturers.

Anything is possible with a strong enough will.

And the will is just not here, let alone the reality in your idea.

Crime, i.e. breaking the law still happens and will continue to happen. That's why police forces exist (they should be given more leeway into their counter-criminal operations). The point is that if a criminal phenomenon seems recurrent (shootings), then everything should be done to eliminate easier access to the tools of criminal activity (firearms).

As for all clamouring for privacy based on fears of police 'overreach', let me remind you that true innocence does not fear public scrutiny. If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the authorities.

[Euslavia]

Well, it's the same story as cannabis legalisation. One state legalises, others flock there. Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls. But as long as the American states have this kind of legal autonomy, one state's laws will continue to be circumvented by other states' more liberal laws.

Yes, because those states have people who care about the rights of gun owners. Don't try to dodge off that discredited "gun manufacturers/money clip" line you were just using.

Private individuals need to submit to the public collective. That is the true duty of citizenship.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, ring any bells or are you too young to remember them?

[Topoliani]

Yes, because those states have people who care about the rights of gun owners. Don't try to dodge off that discredited "gun manufacturers/money clip" line you were just using.

Private individuals need to submit to the public collective. That is the real tax of citizenship.

Stop bringing Communism into the equation, it just further blurs your point

[Len Hyet]

They haven't before, they haven't now, and they won't in the future. And from what all the gun control advocates tell me, most of those supporters "don't want to take away [my] guns".

And the odd some third of the Us population which owns firearms, and the what, half overall that support current gun laws, and I seriously doubt the majority of gun control advocates support a total gun ban.
It's not just the "ebul weepohns corporatshuns!".

Contorlled, not banned, and still widespread through out the US, with even middle schoolers (ages 11-14/15) doing it.

And how effective is this? Do you honestly expect that no two year old today will pick up smoking in the future?

Yet there still kicking.

Anyway, gun ownership is far more popular and supported then smoking is. It's not just the gun manufacturers.

And the will is just not here, let alone the reality in your idea.

Crime, i.e. breaking the law still happens and will continue to happen. That's why police forces exist (they should be given more leeway into their counter-criminal operations). The point is that if a criminal phenomenon seems recurrent (shootings), then everything should be done to eliminate easier access to the tools of criminal activity (firearms).

As for all clamouring for privacy based on fears of police 'overreach', let me remind you that true innocence does not fear public scrutiny. If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the authorities.

authoritarianism intensifies

Please do not spout authoritarian myths in the gun control thread, thanks.

[Euslavia]

Now if a federal law were passed to prohibit magazines of a certain capacity, then we can begin talking about effectiveness of such controls.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, ring any bells or are you too young to remember them?

Not American, so no.

[Xelsis]

Yes, because those states have people who care about the rights of gun owners. Don't try to dodge off that discredited "gun manufacturers/money clip" line you were just using.

Private individuals need to submit to the public collective. That is the true duty of citizenship.

And this is why we're so happy to have guns, to make sure that we won't need to worry overmuch about authoritarians coming in to toss away our autonomy for the good of the "collective."

[Sovaal]

They haven't before, they haven't now, and they won't in the future. And from what all the gun control advocates tell me, most of those supporters "don't want to take away [my] guns".

And the odd some third of the Us population which owns firearms, and the what, half overall that support current gun laws, and I seriously doubt the majority of gun control advocates support a total gun ban.
It's not just the "ebul weepohns corporatshuns!".

Contorlled, not banned, and still widespread through out the US, with even middle schoolers (ages 11-14/15) doing it.

And how effective is this? Do you honestly expect that no two year old today will pick up smoking in the future?

Yet there still kicking.

Anyway, gun ownership is far more popular and supported then smoking is. It's not just the gun manufacturers.

And the will is just not here, let alone the reality in your idea.

Crime, i.e. breaking the law still happens and will continue to happen. That's why police forces exist (they should be given more leeway into their counter-criminal operations). The point is that if a criminal phenomenon seems recurrent (shootings), then everything should be done to eliminate easier access to the tools of criminal activity (firearms).

No police force in the world can ever hope to get a grip of the number of guns in the US. It's simply impossible, stupid, a waste of resources, and only harms the innocent and law abiding. It literally will help nothing.

As for all clamouring for privacy based on fears of police 'overreach', let me remind you that true innocence does not fear public scrutiny. If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the authorities.

And their we go with this. Pretty much everybody breaks some sort of law in their country, their's just so many that it's almost impossible to not do so. And even if it was true that you're truly innocent and have nothing to hide, that doesn't make a governmental breach of privacy a fucking abuse of the powers of government over it's populace,which should not be allowed, and is an injustice.