Gun Control: Guns or Control?

[RedneckCarCrafter]

Does the gun control agenda have more to do with guns or simply imposing more government control over the people?

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have a right to bear arms. The amendment gives the reason for this as to serve as a check against a tyrannical government and to serve as a fighting force in case of a foreign invasion. Oddly, it says nothing about hunting, only using firearms for national defense. In recent years, the Federal government has passed increasingly stricter laws regulating military-style arms, including semi-automatic rifles, the very rifles that the civilian populance would use as part of a national defense force in case of government abuse or foreign invasion to support the standing army. Why? Is this simply a ploy to prey upon the fears of those ignorant, or part of a darker scheme to render Americans unable to defend themselves against a tyrannical state? Crime is used as a reason, but law enforcement officials have said time and time again that miltiary-style semi-automatic rifles account for less that 1% of all guns used in violent crime. What's the deal? Are we sacrificing freedom for security?

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

[ugly kid jon]

I love guns!

[YogsVR4]

Gun control is about controlling people.

A large number in the gun control lobby truly have noble intentions. Their quest to keep people from being injured/killed is a laudable goal. However, taking firearms out of peoples hands is the wrong way to reach that goal. Certainly there are some restrictions that are quite reasonable (though there is contention there) to have on weapons people can own, but outright elimination of guns is reasonable.


Also -

Don't ask people from outside the country not to comment. They can certainly talk about a subject that doesn't directly effect them. If those were the conditions, nobody should ever say anything again about the Bryant case, whats happening in Liberia or in Iraq. Let everyone comment (not that there will be many suprises).

[RedneckCarCrafter]

Originally posted by YogsVR4

Also -

Don't ask people from outside the country not to comment. They can certainly talk about a subject that doesn't directly effect them. If those were the conditions, nobody should ever say anything again about the Bryant case, whats happening in Liberia or in Iraq. Let everyone comment (not that there will be many suprises).

Yeah, you got a point. Okay, I'm editing that out of the first post. I don't know why I put it in the first place.
Awright, everbody reply!

[Neutrino]

Yogs’ reasoning about freedom of guns to fight crime is logical....of course its open to debate and it has been in several threads....


But the logic for using guns to protect the country against a foreign invader or tyrannical government is ludicrous….a despotic government will succeed or fail mainly depending on its army support…..what do you think a few handguns will do against the US military….same logic goes for a foreign invader…..in the unlikely event that the US military fails what do you think you’ll be able to do against such a military machine?

[2strokebloke]

Originally posted by Neutrino
in the unlikely event that the US military fails what do you think you’ll be able to do against such a military machine?

Not win the war, but you could shoot your way out of the country.

[RedneckCarCrafter]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Yogs’ reasoning about freedom of guns to fight crime is logical....of course its open to debate and it has been in several threads....


But the logic for using guns to protect the country against a foreign invader or tyrannical government is ludicrous….a despotic government will succeed or fail mainly depending on its army support…..what do you think a few handguns will do against the US military….same logic goes for a foreign invader…..in the unlikely event that the US military fails what do you think you’ll be able to do against such a military machine?

Guerilla warfare can be brutally effective against a modern army. The US learned this in Vietnam, and the Soviet Union learned it in Afghanistan. Besides, as for handguns, their use in wafare is EXTREMELY limited; the weapon of choice would be a semi-automatic rifle (the most firepower a regular citizen can posses). Something similar to a cilvian version of the AK-47 or an AR-15.
In short, arm 2 million PO'd citizens with AR-15s, hole them up in the Rocky Mountains, and see how hard it is for a regular force to root them out (short of using chemical or nuclear weapons). Not flaming you, that is a common misconception. In regular warfare, or "open field", sure American citizens would be mowed down, but using guerilla tactics, the story could be very different.

[Toksin]

From what I see, gun control is there to avoid people from shooting eachother. Simple really. You have kids shooting up schools, people shooting up malls, whatever. Since they can't educate people about guns or even just drill some friggin sense into them, they try to control the guns.

You can't convince a drunk man not to drive, but you can take his keys.

It's the same thing. I like guns, and I believe in a responsible society they are a good thing. But I don't think it's a good idea for a lazy father to have his .45 ACP loaded in a cupboard where his 6 year old can just grab it and think it's a toy. My dad had a gun back in SA, for as long as I can remember. My parents always talked to me about the dangers, I knew that if I loaded that thing and fired it at someone I could kill them. I couldn't even see the gun unless I asked my parent's permission, and then they would sit right there while I looked at it. And it was never loaded, and they never let me load it.

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I think guns should be controlled so any man on the street can't just go and buy a handgun, but on the other hand if people are responsible enough and HAVE A GOOD REASON for a weapon, they should get one. Better screening for potential owners etc. And obviously, heavier weapons should not be available to the public. It's really not a good idea to have nutters running around with RPG-7's or even AK-47's. Seriously, WHY would you want a military grade assault rifle? Not for hunting....

[taranaki]

There are gun controls in my country.Despite this,New Zealand has one of the highest rates of gun ownership,and the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

Why?Simple.MOST OF THE LIcENCED GUNS ARE SHOTGUNS OR HUNTING RIFLES.there are very strict rules concerning pistols,and military-stlye semi-automatics are outlawed.You are required to pass a licenvce exam,and show the police that you have suitable secure storage for your gun,before a permit is issued.There are reasonable restrictions on who may own guns.If you don't have a valid reason for wanting one,you won't get a firearms licence.'PERSONAL PROTECTION' IS NOT CONSIDERED A VALID REASON.

Back to the often-claimed second ammendment 'right' often claimed by gun nuts.I think if you read it properly,you will find that you have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming an armed militia.

The armed militia concept is obsolete.Do yyou really believe that the general public of the USA could actually take on the President's troops and win?


And another reason the militia is obsolete.The purpose of a militia would be to protect the average citizen from oppressive government.Check out the Patriot Act.Oppressive government arrived,and you guys did nothing to stop it.

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki


Back to the often-claimed second ammendment 'right' often claimed by gun nuts.I think if you read it properly,you will find that you have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming an armed militia.

That's not true. It is the right for an individual to own a weapon. The whole militia thing is seperate. And by God, if I feel threatened by something, I'm going ot get a gun for personal protection if I feel it necessary. I guess people in New Zealand have no initiative.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


There's the second part of it. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! To all you liberals and anti-gun people out there. Want to talk about Conservatives changing the Bill of Rights?

[Pick]

Originally posted by Toksin
From what I see, gun control is there to avoid people from shooting eachother. Simple really. You have kids shooting up schools, people shooting up malls, whatever. Since they can't educate people about guns or even just drill some friggin sense into them, they try to control the guns.

The shooters at Columbine broke 9 gun laws before they even walked into that school. What is another law going to do?

[zebrathree]

Hooah posts, Naki and Dave.

There is no need for anyone to own an M4 (for example), unless you are a legitimate collector. Most collectors also de-mil the weapon too, simply because they have no need for say an MP-40 to be in firing condition.

I also dont see anyone invading the US anytime soon, regardless of whether or not they have 99 from 155 Battalions deployed right now.
The only country remotely capable of it is Russia, which they are not really. Or Canada, if they wanted even MORE land. But I cant see that happening right now

List me five good uses a MSSA has outside the military please.

[V-8Fan]

The Second Amendment does indeed recognize the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The "well-regulated militia" means a well trained militia, and its purpose is to discourage oppressive government. The "militia" is the entire body of able-bodies males, and it exists on that merit alone. It does not require government sanction to exist. It is NOT the NAtional Guard.

Any argument that the Second does not apply to individuals, but rather the states, is simply wrong. The right of the PEOPLE, the right of the PEOPLE, the right of the PEOPLE! Anyone who doesn't like that is just shit outa luck. Read The Federalist Papers before you go spouting off about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

There is no justification whatsoever for making any rifle or handgun illegal based on its appearance or imaginary status as an "assault weapon". There is not a single AR-15, for instance, that truly is an assault weapon. An assault weapon is capable of full-automatic fire, and no AR-15 that has not been altered can do that.

As far as armed citizens opposing the Army, it is unlikely it would ever come to that. It is far more likely that the People will resist police power, and there is no doubt they can do that.

And further, I do not need to demonstrate any practical need for a firearm...if I want an M-4, I should be able to own it. And so should you. Maybe one day we will succeed in rolling back all the stupid and ILLEGAL gun laws that have been enacted in America over the last 100 or so years.

Oh, and one last thing: I will USE my guns to KEEP my guns. Promise!

[V-8Fan]

...and I would like to add that some cretin bent on mayhem can do his misdeeds with ANY "hunting" rifle or shotgun or pistol or scissors or boxcutters or knives or matches or just about any damned thing he can get is paws on. All that is a SORRY excuse for banning AR-15s or any other firearm, and believing otherwise is irrational.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


And by God, if I feel threatened by something, I'm going ot get a gun for personal protection if I feel it necessary. I guess people in New Zealand have no initiative.

On the contrary.If you only have one plan,and it's a shitty one,then clearly you are the one with no initiative.Check your country's murder rate against mine,check it's firearms offending rate against ours,Check its violent crime statistics against ours,

Then come back into this forum and admit that you are talking utter crap.