But for people like Kwerk they can’t grasp that simple notion. So instead you have more and more children/people dying through gun related crimes rather than trying to make it difficult for these nutcases to get hold of these guns etc.
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,870
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I get a feeling that they see guns as like their penis, any kind of control is a control of their masculinity...are they that insecure?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,870
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I get a feeling that for them to get it is one of these people to lose their own child, they’ll then say it’s too soon to talk about gun control but then the same thing happen the next day, keep happening everyday until all of them loses a child each. That’s what it takes.
Words won’t get through.
First of all Kwerk really has no point and secondly I don’t believe in the whole 9/11 conspiracy rubbish. Anyone who does should be locked up.
Thirdly it’s all about gun control, it’s been said a million times by me and others that just put some controls in. It’s really as simple as that because this sort of thing will continue to happen time and time again. I get that Americans want their rights to guns etc and perfectly reasonable but with some strict controls in place, it will be difficult for people with issues to get hold of them.
Take a look at Japan, Canada and even the U.K. where people can own guns but they have checks in place where the crazy people don’t get hold of them. You don’t see any massacres happening there do you?? So it proves that with a few controls in place, things can become much more safer.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Going on the thread so far most of the pro gun people should never be allowed guns.
Dunno if its been posted but:
Yet merrily went off to buy a gun :s
Given the number that admit to having or previously owning a gun that can't differentiate between shooting at a range target and practising for shooting (hunting) at something alive it is kind of worrying - especially as for hunting, etc. you need to practise a completely different style of shooting to that of a static or linear motorised target. If you are imaging shooting at an animal/person while shooting a range target there is something wrong with you.
On the flip side a good number of the anti-gun people in this thread are so blinkered they should never be in a position to enact any kind of policy on it.
Yet merrily went off to buy a gun :s
Given the number that admit to having or previously owning a gun that can't differentiate between shooting at a range target and practising for shooting (hunting) at something alive it is kind of worrying - especially as for hunting, etc. you need to practise a completely different style of shooting to that of a static or linear motorised target. If you are imaging shooting at an animal/person while shooting a range target there is something wrong with you.
On the flip side a good number of the anti-gun people in this thread are so blinkered they should never be in a position to enact any kind of policy on it.
Gun licenses would be deemed unconstitutional.
Having to justify the reason to own a firearm to the governemnt would be highly unconstitional. The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the state deciding who can and can't own firearms.
How do you define mandatory safe storage if you reason for owning a firearm is personal protection? Example safe sotrage laws require you to keep your gun in a safe but you wake up at night in your bed to a home invasion. You want quick easy access to firearms which would normaly be kept under your bed or chair in the living room. Also what good is a firearm in a safe if you get carjacked or mugged?
I've said this in a previous post it's sounds good in theory but it's very, very difficult to impose any regulations that wouldn't be viewed as unconsitutional. That's what differentiates the US from the other countries that have imposed restrictions, the founding of the the US was based on two unique rights :- freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. You can't dismantle those rights without dismantling the very foundation of the US. And good luck to any politician that tries.
It's a very simple point that someone could get into government and start classifying their Political opponents as being mentally ill, they then use law enforcement to take their guns away and begin to start oppressing civilians who are left defenseless. That's why your oh so simple gun control laws will never be implemented in America.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,870
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
You don’t get to decide your opponent being mentally ill, are you on drugs?
Doctors do, doctors decides.
Jesus Christ.
Not that simple.
As it would require passing of laws, which if the countries legal and political system was in any way effectively set up would be hard to do, and require that it was a recognised medical condition*.
It's not something that the president could do for example, just look at the fun and games Trump and his cohorts are having with their travel ban because of how poorly they're trying to word it and get it passed, or how much trouble it was to get the restrictions on large capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons.
It's utterly nuts that someone can currently be considered to be a danger to themselves and others in other regards, but there is nothing to stop them getting a gun in many US states despite the fact they're already considered too high risk for other activities that are far less of an inherent risk to others.
*Although I can see why some of the gun nuts/survivalists in the US would be worried about it, a number of them are already pretty much the definition of paranoid and a danger to others.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,340
by what measure? they aren't specifically prohibiting any civilian in good standing from owning whatever firearms they choose, they just require certain pre-requisites.
next thing you'll be saying guns costing money is unconstitutional because it restricts your ability to obtain firearms....
plus if you want a gun because you feel like you need to be part of the armed militia, join up with the cmp, it's whole existence is to maintain a good standard of firearm competency amongst the population.
right, except it's an amendment, you amended the constitution once and you can do it again. surprisingly the world doesn't collapse when you do it.
right, except wrong, if you're justifiably owning a firearm for self defence you're going to have it on you, and if you don't have it on you it goes in the safe storage. amazingly this works in other countries that allow firearms for self defence.
riiight, you know the usa isn't the only country on the planet with a constitution right? and as mentioned earlier- it's perfectly acceptable to amend the constitution anyway.
what you're perhaps trying to say is that there's massive cultural resistance to changing the way firearms are treated, which brings us right back to the question of how much innocent blood does the usa want to spill to protect a peice of paper?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,618
Are you mentally deficient? Democrats have been calling for gun bans and stricter rules since before Columbine.
Trump isn't to blame for this, he's just utterly incapable of dealing with it.
His surname was Cruz because he was adopted by an Hispanic family as a child, there's nothing to suggest he was left wing however there is photo and video evidence of him wearing a MAGA hat...
Regardless of his ethnicity or political leaning (although you are wrong), this was only possible due to the ridiculously lax gun laws in the US.
I say all this as someone that likes guns. I've been to a shooting range a few times and it's great fun, however I have never once felt the need to take a gun home with me.
So was Obama tbh... even when his party controlled congress he didn't manage to put in place an "assault rifle" ban as per Clinton.
I don't think many democrats have been calling for "gun bans", stricter controls sure... but unfortunately not all are on board else you'd have seen something happen.
Columbine was 1999, the democrats have been in control of congress since then yet not much in the way of meaningful change. IIRC Clinton reckoned the assault weapon ban cost his party approx 20 seats in the following election, while I'm sure they're happy to offer thoughts and prayers getting them to actually act is still pretty difficult.
You haven't got a clue what your on about. Each state has it's own laws on fire arms.
Even the state with the strictest gun laws (California) has seen a rise in people being killed with guns.
The thing is you'r not actualy talking about amending the constitution, you'r talking about reversing the second amendment. It's currently illegal for the government to decide who can and who can't own firearms. You're suggesting changing the second ammendment to make something that is currently illegal and unconstitutional fully legal and constitutional. That in itself is a can of worms to open.
Secondly once this amendment is implemented we all know that won't be the end of it and over time more and more restrictions will be implemented until the gun onwership is only permitted for a select few i.e. the rich and powerful and the lawmakers, the very situation the second amendment was designed to prevent.
Last edited:
I've never really got the bans on magazine capacity - it seems a bit of a knee jerk thing - high capacity magazines are only really a problem when combined with other mechanisms such as fully automatic fire (when talking like 200 round drum/box) and bump stocks/mechanisms, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,340
things that are illegal become legal and things that are legal become illegal.
slavery was still legal when the constitution was written, now it's illegal. this isn't a hard concept to grasp.
except i've already called you out on this statement:
what we all know, is that when gun controls are introduced, and as a result gun related crime drops, that there ceases to be any motivation for more gun controls. we also know that a drop in gun ownership does not mean the end of democracy.
this has been proven, in multiple countries, over decades, to work.
The USA is not a democracy, it was set up as a constitutional republic.
NOT a democracy.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI
NOT a democracy.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI