|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:31 pm
ITT WE TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSE WHERE. I am quite personally incredibly pro gun, to the extent that I believe we should be able to own small explosive. The picture below is of Commissar Feinstein.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:10 am
I don't have time to make a proper reply right now, but it is interesting to see that the pro gun control arguments focus so much on not allowing anyone to own guns except the police, while police brutality is an issue which is completely ignored. Where I live at though this debate hasn't been too big as of late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:38 pm
I've always wondered why it's so hard for people to believe that there is a way we can have effective gun control without banning guns, without infringing on this notion of a right to bear arms.
Our Gun Control right now just doesn't make sense. First of all, we encourage illegal trafficking through state by state laws rather than federal laws, or even federal laws to make it hard for somebody in Indiana to sell guns to street gangs in Chicago. We talk about assault weapons bans but how we define assault weapon is basically anything big and scary.
We don't take into account reasons people- particularly farmers- would need such a weapon. We also don't take into account that a lot of people don't, and assault weapons are not exactly the most common anyway.
I support expanding background checks. I support having to take a test and evaluation to get a license for a gun. I also am against banning assault weapons, however, I would not be opposed (but do not necessarily endorse) making them only available through a different class of license.
And, like with a Driver's License, if you screw it up, it gets taken away. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:10 pm
Quatermass I've always wondered why it's so hard for people to believe that there is a way we can have effective gun control without banning guns, without infringing on this notion of a right to bear arms. Our Gun Control right now just doesn't make sense. First of all, we encourage illegal trafficking through state by state laws rather than federal laws, or even federal laws to make it hard for somebody in Indiana to sell guns to street gangs in Chicago. We talk about assault weapons bans but how we define assault weapon is basically anything big and scary. We don't take into account reasons people- particularly farmers- would need such a weapon. We also don't take into account that a lot of people don't, and assault weapons are not exactly the most common anyway. I support expanding background checks. I support having to take a test and evaluation to get a license for a gun. I also am against banning assault weapons, however, I would not be opposed (but do not necessarily endorse) making them only available through a different class of license. And, like with a Driver's License, if you screw it up, it gets taken away. Simple as that. Because any type of gun control is infringing upon the 2nd amendment. Do I believe that in practice? No. In theory? Yes. We need to ban gun control laws, that stop people from being able to protect themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:45 pm
shinigami ryukie Quatermass I've always wondered why it's so hard for people to believe that there is a way we can have effective gun control without banning guns, without infringing on this notion of a right to bear arms. Our Gun Control right now just doesn't make sense. First of all, we encourage illegal trafficking through state by state laws rather than federal laws, or even federal laws to make it hard for somebody in Indiana to sell guns to street gangs in Chicago. We talk about assault weapons bans but how we define assault weapon is basically anything big and scary. We don't take into account reasons people- particularly farmers- would need such a weapon. We also don't take into account that a lot of people don't, and assault weapons are not exactly the most common anyway. I support expanding background checks. I support having to take a test and evaluation to get a license for a gun. I also am against banning assault weapons, however, I would not be opposed (but do not necessarily endorse) making them only available through a different class of license. And, like with a Driver's License, if you screw it up, it gets taken away. Simple as that. Because any type of gun control is infringing upon the 2nd amendment. Do I believe that in practice? No. In theory? Yes. We need to ban gun control laws, that stop people from being able to protect themselves. See, it's not an either or situation. We can have Gun Control laws that cut down on gun crime AND allow people to have guns to protect themselves! The Constitution of the US states that a Well Regulated Militia has the right to bear arms. in the contest of the constitution, "Well Regulated" means properly order/working/ect. So, it's written in the constitution that if your mental faculties are not in place, you don't get a gun. If you are a criminal, some how dangerous, or otherwise not competent enough to safely use a gun, you don't get a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:18 am
I can tell you how it is with a gun control in Croatia. Guns are illegal for everyone except security, police and army.
Some people own guns, grenades, artillery and mines.
Why? Because we had a war in 1991 and even tho they own them a small percent of people uses it. We are scared of war, there are still villages where the houses are shot out since 91. some city streets are still populated with houses that were blown out and you can still get lost in a mine field.
So my opinion is: You wouldn't be so obsessed with guns if you knew/had war.
Of course every rule has a breaking point so some of you who went trough a war like guns.
Again, this is purely my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
