# Do you reckon guns should be banned in the U.S.? (Please vote)



## Marc_LFD (Jun 5, 2022)

I'm not looking particularly for a discussion, but to see in terms of votes how many would want a self-defense weapon to be outlawed.

Thanks.


----------



## chief18 (Jun 5, 2022)

Absolutely yes, I'm not American but from outside (I'm from Italy and nothing like this has ever happened afaik) it seems crazy to me how easy is to get a gun in the USA.


----------



## Milenko (Jun 6, 2022)

If you need a gun to feel like a big toughie maybe take a look at yourself


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Milenko said:


> If you need a gun to feel like a big toughie maybe take a look at yourself


Since it fits so well, I'm going to post it here again:

The government should require everyone to strip naked of their clothes and hand them to the government. The government will in turn pretend that everyone is dressed, and offer a police service that you can call, when somebody shows signs that he/she/they is aware that you have no clothes on, for this will be illegal. For every misconduct that is caused by all that nakedness, the police is trained to respond quickly. If the government cynically is aware of you being naked without telling you, you can vote in another system, that is not aware of your nakedness. Basically there will be a whole system you can fully trust around you being naked without anyone noticing.


----------



## elpapadelospollitos (Jun 6, 2022)

I think just permitting personal handguns is okay, you keep the right to defend yourself and limit the risk to hurt others.

I don't really understand why they allow the purchase of equipment like shotguns, rifles, machines guns, etc. These are the most used in spree shootings for obvious reasons.

Doing this won't really eradicate mass killings but it will certainly water them down to just a few casualties if all the killer only has it's a pistol with an extended charger.


----------



## krakenx (Jun 6, 2022)

Let's completely ignore the systemic issues with mental health, the education system, and overall well-being of American society and instead focus on a divisive issue to further ensure the more important problems continue to never be addressed.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

no, if we ban guns, then no more cars, baseball bats, or anything else that can cause damage.

if we ban one self defense weapon, we must ban all self defense weapons, since everyone can kill with those.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jun 6, 2022)

As someone living in a country where all guns are banned by default i can't understand why the US is doing the opposite. Needing a permit is the right way in my opinion.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> no, if we ban guns, then no more cars, baseball bats, or anything else that can cause damage.
> 
> if we ban one self defense weapon, we must ban all self defense weapons, since everyone can kill with those.


Guns are literally made for one thing. Cars, Baseball Bats etc. aren't


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Guns are literally made for one thing. Cars, Baseball Bats etc. aren't


i'd like to disagree.

targets, olympics, hunting

those aren't one thing.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> no, if we ban guns, then no more cars


Having the same regulations for guns that we do for cars... Perhaps you're onto something.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Having the same regulations for guns that we do for cars... Perhaps you're onto something.


i agree, drivers licenses and gun licenses.

gun licenses should be renewed every 10 years, along with background check.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i'd like to disagree.
> 
> targets, olympics, hunting
> 
> those aren't one thing.


Do they involve destroying? Guns are ment to destroy. If it's a human, animal or target. Doesn't matter... it's their primary use no?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i agree, drivers licenses and gun licenses.
> 
> gun licenses should be renewed every 10 years, along with background check.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Do they involve destroying? Guns are ment to destroy. If it's a human, animal or target. Doesn't matter... it's their primary use no?


targets and Olympics do not involve destroying, they involve hitting targets.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> View attachment 312721


too much, background checks and licenses needing to be removed seems like enough


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> too much


It's amazing you think the precedented regulations are too much, and not the, uh, child deaths.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's amazing you think the precedented regulations are too much, and not the, uh, child deaths.


great, we're getting back to the "if you don't ban guns, you're a child murderer!" shtick almost everyone on the anti gun side seems to love.

One child death is too many, but a background check and license would stop 75% of those deaths.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> great, we're getting back to the "if you don't ban guns, you're a child murderer!" shtick almost everyone on the anti gun side seems to love.


I don't remember saying anything about banning guns.



KennyAtom said:


> One child death is too many, but a background check and license would stop 75% of those deaths.


The kinds of regulations I've referenced would have prevented every Uvalde death and many others.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't remember saying anything about banning guns.


Fine, "If you don't want to enact more gun control that's debatablely breaking the 2nd amendment, you love murdering children!" shtick.


Lacius said:


> The kinds of regulations I've referenced would have prevented every Uvalde death and many others.


When there's a will, there's a way. The kid probably would have bought an illegal gun and did what he did.


----------



## Esdeath (Jun 6, 2022)

I would go with something similar what Lacius posted, for a complete ban it seems far too late, so at least there should be more restrictions/steps when it comes to purchasing one.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Fine, "If you don't want to enact more gun control that's debatablely breaking the 2nd amendment, you love murdering children!" shtick.


You're the one who got more offended by increased gun regulation than elementary school shootings. So, if the shoe fits.



KennyAtom said:


> When there's a will, there's a way. The kid probably would have bought an illegal gun and did what he did.


Then why do we regulate cars, or have any other laws and regulations for that matter?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're the one who got more offended by increased gun regulation than elementary school shootings. So, if the shoe fits.


Yes, if i don't like my rights being trampled on and possibly leading to more rights being taken away, i love killing children. I love tracking every child down, and killing them, all because I hate rights being taken away. Yes, that is very true.


Lacius said:


> Then why do we regulate cars, or have any other laws and regulations for that matter?


Because then we can sentence them if they're caught doing it.

It's easy to buy a gun or drugs (which, by the way, how did those regulations do? not so well? also how did prohibition in the US go? also really badly?) on the black market, it's not as easy to buy a car or a driver's license that'd be accepted by a cop on the black market. Sure, you can probably buy a DL for a bar or liquor store, but you can't use it for driving.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 6, 2022)

No. I don't think guns should be banned.

Actually, since we're guaranteed the to bear arms in the US Constitution I think that every able bodied adult should get at least one gun for free.

You know, since we're discussing *actual *rights and all (rights that aren't made up bullshit coming from Liberals).


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, if i don't like my rights being trampled on and possibly leading to more rights being taken away, i love killing children. I love tracking every child down, and killing them, all because I hate rights being taken away. Yes, that is very true.


You say that sarcastically, but when it's a choice between regulations on guns and child murder, and you choose the child murder, then what you're saying isn't very sarcastic.



KennyAtom said:


> Because then we can sentence them if they're caught doing it.
> 
> It's easy to buy a gun or drugs (which, by the way, how did those regulations do? not so well? also how did prohibition in the US go? also really badly?) on the black market, it's not as easy to buy a car or a driver's license that'd be accepted by a cop on the black market. Sure, you can probably buy a DL for a bar or liquor store, but you can't use it for driving.


Increased gun restrictions are generally associated with fewer gun related deaths. Doing some research is probably the least you can do before condemning more children to death.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> No. I don't think guns should be banned.
> 
> Actually, since we're guaranteed the to bear arms in the US Constitution I think that every able bodied adult should get at least one gun for free.
> 
> You know, since we're discussing *actual *rights and all (rights that aren't made up bullshit coming from Liberals).


The second amendment literally describes "well-regulated militias," lol.

Last I checked, regulation was a part of being well-regulated.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You say that sarcastically, but when it's a choice between regulations on guns and child murder, and you choose the child murder, then what you're saying isn't very sarcastic.


Wait, wait, wait. Hold the fuck up.

Are you sure you're not trolling with this? Are you really sure? 

Saying that I genuinely support child murder despite the fact that I support background checks and gun licenses? Calm down.



Lacius said:


> Increased gun restrictions are generally associated with fewer gun related deaths. Doing some research is probably the least you can do before condemning more children to death.


Exactly why background checks and gun licenses are supported by me. They are technically gun restrictions, since certain people cannot get it with increased checks and licenses.


----------



## Axido (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Saying that I genuinely support child murder despite the fact that I support background checks and gun licenses? Calm down.


Your phrasing was a bit confusing when you said "background checks and licenses needing to be removed seems like enough". It probably came off as if you wanted background checks to be removed. However, this can only be interpreted this way if your other comments were not taken into account. So, it's probably a bit of a misunderstanding here.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> When there's a will, there's a way. The kid probably would have bought an illegal gun and did what he did.


I like how people always pull this card of "If they break the law anyway, they can illegally get a gun". Yeah, sure, like every idiot out there knows how to get one illegally without getting caught by a federal agent. Have you ever noticed the frequency of how easily these murderers get the guns here in the US? Like the Uvalde shooting for example was when the shooter literally just turned 18yo and walked into a store to buy the guns and bullets needed to do the deed without any effort. And that's because in Texas, a certain idiot governor decided to make it so that 18yo is the only requirement needed to buy a gun. There's literally red flags showing all over the place how fucked up it is.

Other major developed countries don't even have this sort of problem. These murderers can always "buy a gun illegally" so easily, right? And yet, if we take a look at the data that's out there on shootings in major developed countries outside of the US, it's a lot less frequent to the point that many places don't even get a single major shooting for years.

Almost every single day there seems to be a shooting in the US. Or hell, not just shootings, but accidents too. So many children and kids accidentally killing others or themselves because adults are terrible at keeping guns away from them or locking it up so they can't get to them. So much of this wouldn't be happening so often if there were tighter gun control, laws, and regulations in place so that those that are well-trained and qualified could buy, keep, and/or use them.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Wait, wait, wait. Hold the fuck up.
> 
> Are you sure you're not trolling with this? Are you really sure?
> 
> Saying that I genuinely support child murder despite the fact that I support background checks and gun licenses? Calm down.


You suggested some very basic regulations were "too much." So we are clear, what regulations and restrictions do you support that we don't already have?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

I think you should be required to take extensive examination to prove you can own a _hunting_ weapon.
No military weapons.
Nothing automatic.
No "self defense" handguns.
Weaponry should be left to the military, but people still, you know, hunt.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

Hunting rilfes are fine imho. Since it's used for... hunting...
But this stupid "MY RIGHTS" just because you want to own something that sounds bang, seems so freaking neanderthal.

Backgrounds checks won't do shit. Anyone can go mentally insane any time. Anyone can commit a murder with a gun, at any time. Background checks won't find them.

Just because they would stop 75% means that 25% is still there. 25% is massive!
Weird that other countries made stricter laws and suddenly gun violence dropped!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

I'll just leave this right here.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You suggested some very basic regulations were "too much." So we are clear, what regulations and restrictions do you support that we don't already have?


Licenses, stricter background checks, and anything further is constitution breaking.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Hunting rilfes are fine imho. Since it's used for... hunting...
> But this stupid "MY RIGHTS" just because you want to own something that sounds bang, seems so freaking neanderthal.
> 
> Backgrounds checks won't do shit. Anyone can go mentally insane any time. Anyone can commit a murder with a gun, at any time. Background checks won't find them.
> ...


We already have fireworks, people.
Literal bombs sold wholesale in stores.
Why do you need an explodey crossbow?

Again, hunting, that's fine. A friend of mine hunts, and I would trust that man with my life, because he keeps his guns very locked up and safe.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Licenses, stricter background checks, and anything further is constitution breaking.


Show me the line in the constitution.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Show me the line in the constitution.


The right to own arms.

Making it so you can't own most arms, that's restricting your right to own arms, and therefore is bad.

Committing crimes or being mentally ill should be grounds for losing rights, but you can't restrict certain arms since that's constitution breaking.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The right to own arms.
> 
> Making it so you can't own most arms, that's restricting your right to own arms, and therefore is bad.
> 
> Committing crimes or being mentally ill should be grounds for losing rights, but you can't restrict certain arms since that's constitution breaking.


So, war guns like semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles should have the exact same regulations as a basic self-defense handgun?

Yeah, yeah. That sounds like a totally reasonable thing to do. /s


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> So, war guns like semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles should have the exact same regulations as a basic self-defense handgun?


Unironically yes. You shouldn't allow certain types of guns and not others just because those other guns can shooty shoot 3 milliseconds faster.


----------



## omgcat (Jun 6, 2022)

honestly, there is a position between full ban and strap everyone up. common sense gun reform like require all sales to be facilitated by a gun store with a background check (99% of all Americans live within 10mi of a gun store). stringent gun storage requirements, licensing, eliminating the domestic abuse loophole, etc. obviously there is no silver bullet (pun intended) to fix the gun problem in America, but just letting anyone and everyone be armed to the teeth is so stupid.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

omgcat said:


> honestly, there is a position between full ban and strap everyone up. common sense gun reform like require all sales to be facilitated by a gun store with a background check (99% of all Americans live within 10mi of a gun store). stringent gun storage requirements, licensing, eliminating the domestic abuse loophole, etc. obviously there is no silver bullet (pun intended) to fix the gun problem in America, but just letting anyone and everyone be armed to the teeth is so stupid.


Yeah. I agree.

Yet you get people saying "stricter background checks are unconstitutional" and some other things like that.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Licenses, stricter background checks, and anything further is constitution breaking.


Isn't the entire alleged constitutional right to guns also described as "well-regulated"?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Isn't the entire alleged constitutional right to guns also described as "well-regulated"?


yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.

if that's not well regulated, i don't know what is.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The right to own arms.
> 
> Making it so you can't own most arms, that's restricting your right to own arms, and therefore is bad.
> 
> Committing crimes or being mentally ill should be grounds for losing rights, but you can't restrict certain arms since that's constitution breaking.


Well.
Regulated.
Militia.

Also
Arms' definition is weapons and ammunition; armaments.
So...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
*The constitution never said what arms couldn't be restricted.
Thus:
You could fully restrict guns, give everyone the right to keep and bear shortswords, and suddenly everything is fine.*

Do some research.



KennyAtom said:


> yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.
> 
> if that's not well regulated, i don't know what is.


It's not well regulated.


----------



## AlineP (Jun 6, 2022)

Taser is safer than a weapon designed for killing.
Less people die with a shot of a taser than firearms


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

AlineP said:


> Taser is safer than a weapon designed for killing.
> Less people die with a shot of a taser than firearms


I agree.
A taser or pepper spray is a perfect self defense tactic. You don't need a gun.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Well.
> Regulated.
> Militia.
> 
> ...


I'd argue the opposite, not specifying any arms means that they can't ban any. 


WG481 said:


> It's not well regulated.


I don't know man, background checks and licenses seem well regulated enough to me.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> yes, which is what the background checks and licenses are for.
> 
> if that's not well regulated, i don't know what is.


Regulating guns like we do cars would also fall under "well-regulated."


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Regulating guns like we do cars would also fall under "well-regulated."


so tests and licenses? that's it?

seems good.


----------



## 1NOOB (Jun 6, 2022)

yes , i don't see any reason for anyone to have a gun unless you are the police or the army  . even them  shouldn't be used unless there is no other way . tazer first .


----------



## AlineP (Jun 6, 2022)

In Brazil the defense argument for "freedom of firearms" is because criminals here have lots of guns so it is fair to "good citizens" have guns too.


----------



## Viri (Jun 6, 2022)

Nope


----------



## 1NOOB (Jun 6, 2022)

AlineP said:


> In Brazil the defense argument for "freedom of firearms" is because criminals here have lots of guns so it is fair to "good citizens" have guns too.


lol freedom of firearm ,  its made to kill stuffs , it should only be allowed to people with the training and the need for it  but not as a Civillians defending itself because you will end up with too many people getting it .some with mental issues they might not even know they have and they just look normal  . making it available to the public is something with way more negatives than positives .


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

Honestly, if everyone in the US is so tissy about "right to bare arms". Go with 1776 tech then...


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 6, 2022)

People that dont live here voting


----------



## bodefuceta (Jun 6, 2022)

Right now, a Chinese state agent is the third post popular presidential candidate in my country. Eventuallly they could take over your country like this. You'll want the guns.


----------



## Delerious (Jun 6, 2022)

Need more options on this poll.

The way I see it, we do - at the very least - need some more strict licensing requirements for gun ownership. Owning a gun in general requires a certain amount of responsibility, and not every state is the same when it comes to their regulations. Some are more strict, while others are far too lenient.

I think that *IF* we are going to keep automatics legal in this country, then like vehicle licenses, there needs to be a special license to acquire such heavier firearms.

There should be a license for basic carry, which should apply to your standard pistol and hunting rifle, a license for concealed carry (if your state allows it) and a specialized license for automatic carry, which should be far more strict, and should be renewed every 3 years, while a basic and concealed carry should be renewed every 5 years.
Guns should ONLY be sold at locations that are permitted to register the firearm, and should be registered on the spot.
Automatics should be sent by the dealer to the place where you got your carrier's licensed so they can handle the proper checks before passing the firearm to you. This basically creates a two-level check system before you can get your hands on an automatic.
You must present your license and the registration for the firearm every time you purchase ammunition for said firearm.
It should be illegal to sell or gift your firearm to another individual under ANY circumstance, and if you sell/gift it to an unlicensed individual, then you should be held equally liable for any damage or harm committed by said individual.
Ultimately, when it comes to the right to bare arms, it's a freedom that requires a great deal of responsibility, as it's a freedom that does come with the potential to inflict lethal harm upon others from a long range and with very little effort. And sorry, but I don't buy the whole "give every good guy a gun" scenario when there were several good guys with guns who did NOTHING at the classroom door for nearly an hour until a border patrolman finally decided, "fuck this, we have to go in and stop this guy." Also, I highly doubt our founding fathers ever anticipated that we would have automatic firearms that people could get a hold of willy-nilly and start shooting up schools.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Honestly, if everyone in the US is so tissy about "right to bare arms". Go with 1776 tech then...


with that argument, no more modern tech, since that wasn't around in 1776!

it's like the founding fathers knew that tech would evolve, and it wouldn't stay musket and single shot forever!


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> with that argument, no more modern tech, since that wasn't around in 1776!


Since we talk about guns, sure! I wouldn't mind if you US citizens all just used muskets instead of Machine guns for defense. The modern stuff can be kept to the Police and the Military.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Since we talk about guns, sure! I wouldn't mind if you US citizens all just used muskets instead of Machine guns for defense. The modern stuff can be kept to the Police and the Military.


Eh, no more smartphones, in fact, nothing except a quill and pen, horse drawn carriages, and that's it!

Those weren't around back then, how are we supposed to know what the founding fathers would have thought of it???????


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

basically the "it was written back in 1776, so it only applies to 1776 weapons!" argument is really fucking stupid, and another word that I'm not even sure is allowed.

If that was true, then nothing except stuff from 1776 and before would be allowed, since hey, the founding fathers didn't have it, so why should we?


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Eh, no more smartphones, in fact, nothing except a quill and pen, horse drawn carriages, and that's it!
> 
> Those weren't around back then, how are we supposed to know what the founding fathers would have thought of it???????


We are talking about guns, when said stipulation was written in to the constitution.
My argument is that no one needs guns, period. But since a lot of Americans think owning a gun is a must, why not go with the tech back when that was written in to the constitution? Fair right?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> We are talking about guns, when said stipulation was written in to the constitution.
> My argument is that no one needs guns, period. But since a lot of Americans think owning a gun is a must, why not go with the tech back when that was written in to the constitution? Fair right?


I agree! In fact, since we're going with that, we must stick with the tech around during 1776! Again, anything after wasn't around during the constitution writings, so therefore it should be banned like all guns manufactured after 1776!

Also, whos to say we won't modify muskets to shoot 300 pellets a minute, upgrade the reload speed so it doesn't take 3 minutes but instead 15 seconds, and add explosive ammo? Hey, it's still technically a 1776 gun, so it's following the law to the letter!


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I agree! In fact, since we're going with that, we must stick with the tech around during 1776! Again, anything after wasn't around during the constitution writings, so therefore it should be banned like all guns manufactured after 1776!
> 
> Also, whos to say we won't modify muskets to shoot 300 pellets a minute, upgrade the reload speed so it doesn't take 3 minutes but instead 15 seconds, and add explosive ammo? Hey, it's still technically a 1776 gun, so it's following the law to the letter!


I said the tech, so no modifications to it


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> I said the tech, so no modifications to it


nope, shoulda specified that before i pointed that part out. (You said tech, but didn't include the part about modification. Therefore, it would pass the courts since nothing was specified about modification.)

now we have 1776 guns more destructive than modern weapons, and it's still following the law to the letter.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> nope, shoulda specified that before i pointed that part out. (You said tech, but didn't include the part about modification. Therefore, it would pass the courts since nothing was specified about modification.)
> 
> now we have 1776 guns more destructive than modern weapons, and it's still following the law to the letter.


I think it's funny you're reaching for straws. It just shows how dumb this gun debate is. Get rid of them, period. The constitution can be updated and have it removed.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> I think it's funny you're reaching for straws.


So I'm reaching for straws because you forgot to specify something, meaning that we could make them destructive? Lol.


linuxares said:


> Get rid of them, period. The constitution can be updated and have it removed.


Nah, red states will stop that before it passes the courts.

Thank god for filibusters and requiring 75% of states to enact it.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> So I'm reaching for straws because you forgot to specify something, meaning that we could make them destructive? Lol.
> 
> Nah, red states will stop that before it passes the courts.
> 
> Thank god for filibusters and requiring 75% of states to enact it.


So can I ask, why do you want to keep the guns so much?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> So can I ask, why do you want to keep the guns so much?


Just in case.

Someone might try to rape me or my family, or kill me or my family, or rob me. I can stop that with a gun.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Just in case.
> 
> Someone might try to rape me or my family, or kill me or my family, or rob me. I can stop that with a gun.


You can do the same with your barehands or a stick? Why a gun? Why not Martial Arts?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> You can do the same with your barehands or a stick? Why a gun? Why not Martial Arts?


Martial arts requires me to get up close, they might have a knife to shank me with.

Guns keep me out of melee range.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Martial arts requires me to get up close, they might have a knife to shank me with.
> 
> Guns keep me out of melee range.


But  then they got a gun, and now you're screwed?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> But  then they got a gun, and now you're screwed?


Well, that's what you pay for in a free country that doesn't trample on your rights.

Also, who's to say I wouldn't shoot first? I've shot at the range enough to be a fast shot, not as fast as professional shooters, but pretty fast.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Well, that's what you pay for in a free country that doesn't trample on your rights.
> 
> Also, who's to say I wouldn't shoot first? I've shot at the range enough to be a fast shot, not as fast as professional shooters, but pretty fast.


"free country" yeah lets not go in to that debate.

Who said you would shoot first? Who said that you we even get to your gun? Most people overestimate their abilities before a stressful situation happens. 
I can almost guarantee you wouldn't be able to do crap in the situation arouse.

I can point to paralels to other countires that doesn't have free gun laws that pepper spray or a taser would work just as well in a "rape" situation or "rob" situation. No need to use deadly force just because "muh freedom"


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> "free country" yeah lets not go in to that debate.


It's free enough, and that's the way I like it.


linuxares said:


> Who said you would shoot first? Who said that you we even get to your gun? Most people overestimate their abilities before a stressful situation happens.
> I can almost guarantee you wouldn't be able to do crap in the situation arouse.


I used to keep a pistol in the dresser fully loaded, but I stopped doing that. It's still near though, and I'm light enough of a sleeper that I wake up pretty easily from loud noises.


linuxares said:


> I can point to paralels to other countires that doesn't have free gun laws that pepper spray or a taser would work just as well in a "rape" situation or "rob" situation. No need to use deadly force just because "muh freedom"


*Parallels
*Countries
*my

also those require you to get in melee distance, who's to say they can't just swing their machete or throw acid and disfigure or kill you?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 6, 2022)

As others said, outright ban? No. Real regulation? Yes.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You know, since we're discussing *actual *rights and all (rights that aren't made up bullshit coming from Liberals).


Like the right to life, which a lot of people have lost due to mass shootings.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> It's free enough, and that's the way I like it.
> 
> I used to keep a pistol in the dresser fully loaded, but I stopped doing that. It's still near though, and I'm light enough of a sleeper that I wake up pretty easily from loud noises.
> 
> ...


6 meters melee range? What? Long arms does the US people have?
I don't have a gun at all and I feel safe! Maybe because my country isn't full of people being afraid of each other?

Machetes aren't 6 meters long?

Uhm, if they attack you with acid, you got a lot bigger problem. You will not be able to react to someone suddenly throwing acid at you.

Sure correct my spelling all you want, doesn't make my arguments less valid  (Also it's 6 am here and I haven't slept because of most likely COVID, thank god for the vaccines however)


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> 6 meters melee range? What? Long arms does the US people have?
> I don't have a gun at all and I feel safe! Maybe because my country isn't full of people being afraid of each other?
> 
> Machetes aren't 6 meters long?


I thought pepper spray required you to be closer than that. My mistake.


linuxares said:


> Uhm, if they attack you with acid, you got a lot bigger problem. You will not be able to react to someone suddenly throwing acid at you.


I remember hearing that once guns were banned, crimes with other things, including acid, went up.


linuxares said:


> Sure correct my spelling all you want, doesn't make my arguments less valid  (Also it's 6 am here and I haven't slept because of most likely COVID, thank god for the vaccines however)


The only thing I agree with, unfortunately I have had not gotten the chance to get the vaccine yet since work and busy life and all that, but hopefully I can soon.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I thought pepper spray required you to be closer than that. My mistake.
> 
> I remember hearing that once guns were banned, crimes with other things, including acid, went up.
> 
> The only thing I agree with, unfortunately I have had not gotten the chance to get the vaccine yet since work and busy life and all that, but hopefully I can soon.


Varies on pepper spray propulsion of course.
Is it the UK you think of about the acid attacks? Sadly it seem to be related to culture and gang violence (disfigure their girlfriends etc.) So it's not a random act mostly but targeted.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Hunting rilfes are fine imho. Since it's used for... hunting...



killing.



WG481 said:


> The constitution never said what arms couldn't be restricted.



"shall not be infringed"



linuxares said:


> I think it's funny you're reaching for straws. It just shows how dumb this gun debate is. Get rid of them, period. The constitution can be updated and have it removed.



nah.  framing whatever "this" is as a "debate" is dumb.

The 2nd commandment, I mean amendment, says to ensure a free state that a well regulated militia is necessary.  To facilitate its existence, the right to bear arms are not to be infringed.  In other words, infringement on arms is at the detriment to a well regulated militia--which compromises its ability for "the state" to ensure its freedom.

If you want to remove the 2nd amendment, go for it.  I'm curios of what will happen.

Also.  Using children as political leverage is shameless.  A lot of work went into killing those kids, maybe.  Actually, we don't even know if it really happened or if it is just political-media theater.  The ones representing the "facts" about the matter have been caught lying and "facilitating" the event.

There's a nice thread for discussion about guns already in existence.

Seems that people are afraid of guns and think that people who have guns do so to feel tough.  Interesting.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "shall not be infringed"


Why the flying feck can I not own a nuke?

Shall not be infringed means _nothing._ By your logic, we should have easy access to hydrogen bombs, cluster bombs, and long range offensive weapons, since those are "arms."

This country is in no way regulated, let alone well.
Ban all unnecessary weapons of violence.
There are *absolutely no legitimate reason to own an offensive, unless you are a military unit, in which it should only be used on duty.*
The only legal civilian guns should be pellet guns and hunting rifles, since I would trust more people with those.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Honestly, if everyone in the US is so tissy about "right to bare arms". Go with 1776 tech then...


Muskets *suck*...

Let's do it.
Everyone gets a musket.
You may be able to aim, but you will hit your target about as much as a stormtrooper will hit Luke Skywalker.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Why the flying feck can I not own a nuke?



You'd have to have the infrastructure/capital to maintain and launch a nuke.  If you could "bear" it, I don't see how the constitution would stop you.



WG481 said:


> This country is in no way regulated, let alone well.



That is a contradiction.  Of course American government does infringe on the right to bear arms, like clockwork.  People ask them to every time there is a school shooting, and the government responds with more regulation.  However, the school shootings are supposedly increasing in frequency, not decreasing.



WG481 said:


> Ban all unnecessary weapons of violence.
> There are *absolutely no legitimate reason to own an offensive, unless you are a military unit, in which it should only be used on duty.*



Bold opinion.


----------



## DAZA (Jun 6, 2022)

This is such a rocky subject to talk about it always has been, personally i think they should be banned and my reasoning behind it is simple, no access or ownership to guns (or harmful weapons) means people get to keep their lives!

i know in america there are a lot of people who are proud of having one, keeping it locked up for safety and have it purely for security if something goes wrong.. but what about those who can get access to the ones that arnt or knows where the keys or combination are?! 

too many times do we all see on the news shootings in schools, streets or any other locations.. who are any of us to take a life?!

i would rather see the ban and know that people i never met anywhere in the world is a bit safer and gets to grow up and appreciate life rather than someone for whatever reason take it away from them


----------



## stealthninja77 (Jun 6, 2022)

In the USA the right to bare arms is for one reason and one reason only. To keep the government in check. Criminals will always find a way to hurt others in mass. There have been mass casualties caused by evil individuals that didn't involve firearms. Punishing the law abiding citizens doesn't solve the issue with mental health. VILLIANS ALWAYS FIND A WAY. Lets ban Sissors & Knives . Pencils anything sharp? YES!


----------



## JaapDaniels (Jun 6, 2022)

Ehm, i'm in the middle here:
Yes, any burger of the U.S. should be able to get a gun good enough to hurt someone.
This for it can take a while before a police officer can help you when there's danger.

No, you don't need a gun to be able to actual easy kill people.
Why the hell would you ever need a automatic rifle to defend yourself?
If you'are in such a neighborhood, does it really help by adding violence?


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Jun 6, 2022)

Ah yes, the good ol' 2A excuse. The constitution is not an absolute be all end all thing. It's heavily outdated because it's based on the views and principles of people from back in the 18th century. There's no way they would have predicted technology to grow this large and advanced and common sense to change so drastically as time goes on.

And there's the whole "anything can be used as a weapon" excuse. Mass casualties occur in other major developed countries, but it's the frequency of such incidents to occur is what's different. They don't happen as often therefore has way less frequent deaths happening in those places. Meanwhile, the US can also have those same incidents along with gun violence and shootings added into the mix and makes the death toll skyrocket.

But I guess it's too late at this point. We'll just continue to see more and more innocent people and children die and then everyone starts to become desensitized about it and get used to it to the point where it's "normal" for it all to happen (and there's already signs of that happening as more and more people ignore lesser and smaller shootings).


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2022)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Ah yes, the good ol' 2A excuse. The constitution is not an absolute be all end all thing.



Right.  The military is.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Jun 6, 2022)

People should be able to defend themselves from their government.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jun 6, 2022)

I voted no.
The less americans we have in the world, the better it'll be


----------



## RoxFox64 (Jun 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> View attachment 312721


I don't think you know much about gun sales. It takes like 2 weeks to purchase a gun because you have the legally able to purchase a gun, the dealer has to run your information, and the serial number has to be associated with your identity with the ATF. Some places even do ballistic fingerprinting making it so that if a bullet is found and intact enough the precise gun that fired it can be identified with some margin of error.

Also mental illness is already taken into account when you want to purchase a fire arm. There's really a lot to the whole gun purchasing process in the United States that people who have never even attempted to purchase a gun before like to complain about.

It also doesn't take a background check to buy a car. EVERY gun sale requires a background check from the NICS and has for an eternity. 

And just to be clear, I don't own a gun myself, but I have friends who worked in a gun shop, who did offer me a handgun at a great discount, but the amount of effort it actually would take for me to purchase it was seriously not worth the time for me to do target shooting every once in a blue moon.


----------



## subcon959 (Jun 6, 2022)

I don't think the topic should be guns. It should be live ammo.


----------



## Dimensional (Jun 6, 2022)

Here's a sad hypothetical if guns are banned in the US.

Person A: Law Abiding citizen. Owns a gun, never used it, never loaded, only takes it out for regular cleaning.
Person B: Criminal, has unregistered guns, used many times, never caught.

New law bans gun. Person A, being a law abiding citizen, hands in his firearm as to avoid becoming a criminal. Yay him. Person B, already a criminal, doesn't see the need to turn it in. Why would he? What happens? Person B uses gun to harm Person A, stealing from him and possibly worse. Person A may have other methods of defense, but that requires being in close proximity to tackle or hidden away as to avoid being shot at. And Person A isn't going to Home Alone trap his house every night as if to know when Person B is going to show up and which route he'll take.

Given that scenario, do you think making firearm possession illegal is a smart play? Would Person A have had a better chance if it wasn't criminal to have one? The only people who would carry a firearm after a law like that are those who already use them to commit criminal acts. You'd just be giving them more easy targets.

I don't want to advocate that there should be more gun in people's hands, but to quote Robert Heinlein, "An *armed society* is a *polite* society." Sane people are less likely to attack others if they know those around them can just as easily fight back with the same amount of force.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 6, 2022)

RoxFox64 said:


> I don't think you know much about gun sales. It takes like 2 weeks to purchase a gun because you have the legally able to purchase a gun, the dealer has to run your information, and the serial number has to be associated with your identity with the ATF. Some places even do ballistic fingerprinting making it so that if a bullet is found and intact enough the precise gun that fired it can be identified with some margin of error.
> 
> Also mental illness is already taken into account when you want to purchase a fire arm. There's really a lot to the whole gun purchasing process in the United States that people who have never even attempted to purchase a gun before like to complain about.
> 
> ...


Current federal law does not require background checks on sales between unlicensed parties, and there are other legal loopholes that allow one to buy a gun without a background check.

Regarding sales with background checks, if a background check times out without being completed, the sale can often proceed without it.

Nearly a quarter of all American gun sales are done without background checks. I don't think you know much about gun sales.


----------



## Xellos2099 (Jun 6, 2022)

Since when crimials follow law?   Guns is not the issue, the oen who use them for crimials act is.  I live in Chicago, one fo the city with the strictest gun law and we have a huge gang issue.  Things is, it is a lot easier to kill kids with a car then guns.  Rent a u haul and start running down kids and there isn;t a damn thing you can d about it.   Or better yet, car jack a truck and start killing.  

A lot of these mass shooting deal with mentally unstable people; but a lot of time these are not reported ti proper authoerity,


----------



## Sypherone (Jun 6, 2022)

Not directly banned, but a stronger regularity. Something needs to be changed, that a weapon cant be used that easy way, particular by the wrong pearson, to kill other.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jun 6, 2022)

In my country any type of weapon is illegal to own unless you have a reason (it's a pain to get a certificate to carry even if you're a professional athlete that uses those for competitions and such).
Heck, anything with a blade over 10cm is illegal to carry.

Anyway, yeah, guns should be banned. Out of all the developed western countries, the USA has the highest crime rate (and given how big the US is, it's pretty bad).


----------



## Xzi (Jun 6, 2022)

I voted no solely because I'm assuming this would mean only our police get to keep them, and our police are fucking thugs in this country.  The power trip they'd be on if they were able to intimidate whoever they want whenever they want would be insane.  In a more utopian society where our LEOs were there to actually protect and serve us, absolutely I'd see no need to have a gun.  So basically like most European countries.


----------



## bobdog (Jun 6, 2022)

Cars aren't listed in the constitution why is that even  part of the argument. The only reason The second amendment was put in the constitution was to keep the government in check. This is well documented in papers written by the founding fathers of the united states. The cops are cowards. They have no obligation to keep you safe. In the 1989 landmark case of _DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services_, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone (even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney) from physical violence or harm from another person (his father) did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. So how exactly are you suppose to protect your self  ? If they pass gun control . Do you think the felons are magically going to turn there guns in? We all know how well the war on drugs worked. A lot of criminals got rich. They banned guns in england now you have knife attacks. Evil people will always find away to kill people.


----------



## pinbi7 (Jun 6, 2022)

you know when i realized gun safety was an issue in the US was in an episode of Beverly Hills 90210 over 30 years ago

*"The Next Fifty Years"*
Original airdate: 11/7/1991

*Episode summary:* Scott Scanlon accidentally shoots and kills himself at his lame surprise birthday party that no one from West Beverly High had any interest in attending.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 6, 2022)

Meh... I'm just coming out and say it, because there's no way around it. 

Americans... Your second amendment constitution thing is too outdated to take seriously.

Heck... Feel free to interpret it as "your constitution sucks", because let's face it: as a foreigner that's about the only thing we really know about your laws is that it's legal for any yahoo to buy weapons of mass destruction in your local grocery. 



Lacius said:


> View attachment 312721


Erm... I hate to be the naive guy here, but...

Are you saying none of these regulations exist on guns?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Meh... I'm just coming out and say it, because there's no way around it.
> 
> Americans... Your second amendment constitution thing is too outdated to take seriously.
> 
> ...


The constitution in the US was made to be rewritten, but our politicians are too lazy swinging their votes for laws that make the rich more money and the poor less money.

Yes, none of those regulations exist whatsoever.
ID, paperwork, background check, boom. You have a gun.
No examination required, no psychological evaluation.
Just don't have a criminal record and you can buy a gun.
We need all of the regulations Lacius posted in that infographic.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

the 2nd amendment is meant to not infringe on our rights, you try and take our rights, i dare you.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the 2nd amendment is meant to not infringe on our rights, you try and take our rights, i dare you.


But what if the people of america become so disfunctional that they cannot be trusted with guns?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But what if the people of america become so disfunctional that they cannot be trusted with guns?


rights are rights.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> rights are rights.


But these rights were written under the assumption that the people have common decency. It was not written for the wild types around these days. What is your position?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But these rights were written under the assumption that the people have common decency. It was not written for the wild types around these days. What is your position?


my position is that rights are rights


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> my position is that rights are rights


Yes. Are they rights in any context, or does context matter at all?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Yes. Are they rights in any context, or does context matter at all?


They are rights in america, so i guess that's context


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> They are rights in america, so i guess that's context


But america is no longer america. The founding fathers would not recognize this country as their own at all.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But america is no longer america. The founding fathers would not recognize this country as their own at all.


well too bad for them.

if they didn't want us to own guns, maybe don't write it in as a right. it is too late, we own guns and there's nothing that can be done.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> well too bad for them.
> 
> if they didn't want us to own guns, maybe don't write it in as a right. it is too late, we own guns and there's nothing that can be done.


They wanted guns for the free people of america at their time. I think the idea of allowing for guns for the current population, they would have found that to be ridiculous.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> They wanted guns for the free people of america at their time. I think the idea of allowing for guns for the current population, they would have found that to be ridiculous.


oh well, no point complaining about it now.

we can own guns, no point bitching about it.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> oh well, no point complaining about it now.
> 
> we can own guns, no point bitching about it.


I think the more the american population moves away from its founding stock, the more the rights the founding fathers have formulated will disappear.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I think the more the american population moves away from its founding stock, the more the rights the founding fathers have formulated will disappear.


well, nothing we can do about it now.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> well, nothing we can do about it now.


How about freedom of association?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> How about freedom of association?


I agree.

Leave the country if you don't like the way it's run.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the 2nd amendment is meant to not infringe on our rights, you try and take our rights, i dare you.


You are the type of person to rant about your "freedom of speech" being oppressed when you get banned from a discord server.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> You are the type of person to rant about your "freedom of speech" being oppressed when you get banned from a discord server.


Nah, it's a private company, they have the right to kick me off their server if they disagree with my speech.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> well, nothing we can do about it now.


Amendment
noun
a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

Prohibition was an amendment that was taken out by another amendment that canceled out the former.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> great, we're getting back to the "if you don't ban guns, you're a child murderer!" shtick almost everyone on the anti gun side seems to love.
> 
> One child death is too many, but a background check and license would stop 75% of those deaths.


Seems eerily reminiscent of the "Pro choice supports murdering babies!" shtick, doesn't it?

I don't think banning guns now will solve anything. Maybe in the 1800's, but definitely not now. However, freely distributing guns to the point that you can get them at your local Walmart and half the street corners between that and your house seems a little overkill. Regulation needs to be done in a different way so these people so worried about materialistic needs can be appeased but further exploiting the gun nuts needs to be taken off the table.



KennyAtom said:


> rights are rights.



I don't mean to nitpick you in particular, but please God remember that the next time you get upset over a BLM protest.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I agree.
> 
> Leave the country if you don't like the way it's run.


Okay, we will have to find a way that western countries can be more indipendent then. At the moment they are moving in the same direction.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Amendment
> noun
> a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.
> 
> Prohibition was an amendment that was taken out by another amendment that canceled out the former.


yeah, but do you really think in this day and age 75% of states would ratify the 2nd amendment removal?

It's not that they can't do anything, it's that they'll refuse to do anything since there's no point.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> yeah, but do you really think in this day and age 75% of states would ratify the 2nd amendment removal?
> 
> It's not that they can't do anything, it's that they'll refuse to do anything since there's no point.


Well, when children are dropping dead,...
Yeah, actually.
Plus, anyone who doesn't vote yes becomes a social pariah and suddenly that's the material for the next campaign in that state.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 6, 2022)

I dunno about outright banned, but the laws should absolutely be reformed.  There is no good reason that anyone needs an automatic or even semi-automatic gun.  Those weren't even conceived of when the second amendment was written either, so I'm completely in favor of banning those kinds of guns in the country.  The right to bare arms was written when the quickest shooting gun was a freaking musket, I would say there has been enough evolution in the field in the 230+ years since that amendment was written that necessitate revisiting the subject.

The way I've been envisioning it, is imagine a world where the likes of heroine had not been discovered yet, and the US legalized Weed in one of the first amendments at the same time, but the amendment was written so vaguely that it didn't specify just weed, it just gives you the right to smoke and carry your smokable drugs.  But this is at a time when the worst thing we're aware of to smoke is ditch weed (I'm know this isn't true, but for the sake of scenario, only weed has been discovered beyond tobacco for smoking).  And now in the many years since, all sorts of other smokable recreation drugs come to be realized, and that amendment still has your back to be able to legally smoke and carry all of it, regardless of how truly devastating the likes of crack or heroine, or now especially fentanyl can be when smoked recreationally.  I think it would be fair to say in this scenario that enough has changed since when the amendment was first made to clarify what this amendment was specifically addressing, and noting that other products should not fall under this umbrella of an amendment.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Well, when children are dropping dead,...
> Yeah, actually.
> Plus, anyone who doesn't vote yes becomes a social pariah and suddenly that's the material for the next campaign in that state.


Look, I'll be honest with you.

As long as the NRA funds states and such, they won't vote to remove the 2nd amendment.

Remember, 75% of states, or 37/38 (depends if you round 37.5 up or down) have to ratify the amendment to become official. This becomes a problem when more than 12 states are red or pro gun, since they'll not ratify it, dropping it dead in the water. 

All in all, we can bicker or fight all we want, but there's just no point anymore. Guns are here to stay, and we have no say in this at all, unfortunately.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 6, 2022)

I had to google, apparently the US constitution actually have had one thing removed.
It's the 18th Amendment!


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

look, there's no easy answer to this debate. most states won't go for removing gun rights, background checks cost too damn much, gun control is inherently against the constitution, and the only solution is to move to a different country.

I'm not kidding, if you don't like your rights here, get the fuck out, move out somewhere else.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 6, 2022)

linuxares said:


> I had to google, apparently the US constitution actually have had one thing removed.
> It's the 18th Amendment!


Yeah, prohibition was a whole 'nother world.  Perhaps it sadly stands as proof that outlawing something that so many people love so much that was for years once legal in the country is not a good idea.  Bootleggers are kinda fun when the only thing getting around the law are drinks meant for a good time; bootleggers and the people taking part of that world in a gun-banned country sounds like a terrifying world I would never want to be remotely close to.

I absolutely think we need serious gun reform in this country, but I fear there is no good solution to it.  The many people that would rebel against such laws would just make this country even more dangerous, at least in the immediate future.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 6, 2022)

only a Sith deals in absolutes.

There is no middle ground to this poll here.  Yes means that every firearm would be illegal and we would be like Japan...which I don't ever see that happening nor am I for that.  The ability to end the life of others on a mass scale is serious and there needs to be reform and regulations to make sure bad people like mentally ill or others that seek to do harm and destruction to the public are denied this access of privilege to potentially end another life.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> gun control is inherently against the constitution


If the one solution to child slaughter is "against the Constitution," then why aren't conservatives advocating for a change to the Constitution?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If the one solution to child slaughter is "against the Constitution," then why aren't conservatives advocating for a change to the Constitution?


because we sure like our guns, and any form of gun control = bad


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> because we sure like our guns, and any form of gun control = bad


Interesting that you are saying that vs. any child deaths are bad.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Interesting that you are saying that vs. any child deaths are bad.


I mean, they're both bad, but you also have to keep in mind I support gun control as well, background checks and licenses should be more than enough to cut child deaths by 75%.

The party as a whole views gun control as bad.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, they're both bad


Which is your priority?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Which is your priority?


Honestly, cutting child deaths.

Gun control via background checks, licensing for guns, and mental health funding should cut child deaths by 95% (with just background checks and gun licensing, 75%)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Honestly, cutting child deaths.
> 
> Gun control via background checks, licensing for guns, and mental health funding should cut child deaths by 95% (with just background checks and gun licensing, 75%)


How do you feel about raising the age for guns, or even just specific automatic or semi-automatic weapons? How do you feel about outright banning some or all of these kinds of weapons?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the 2nd amendment is meant to not infringe on our rights, you try and take our rights, i dare you.


Dude, how old are you? Twelve? Yes, i fucking dare to impose on your right to buy guns. It's my moral duty as someone with any sense of ethics.

But here's a clue you don't seem to understand: I'm a random guy on the internet. I'm not even living in the USA, so my actual influence isn't exactly high.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Dude, how old are you? Twelve? Yes, i fucking dare to impose on your right to buy guns. It's my moral duty as someone with any sense of ethics.


Yes, I'm 12 because I like not having rights trampled on. Flawless logic.



Taleweaver said:


> But here's a clue you don't seem to understand: I'm a random guy on the internet. I'm not even living in the USA, so my actual influence isn't exactly high.


I know that, which is why I don't exactly care. You guys can't do anything, so nothing will change.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> How do you feel about raising the age for guns, or even just specific automatic or semi-automatic weapons? How do you feel about outright banning some or all of these kinds of weapons?


Raising the age for certain weapons seems like a good idea, in fact we've done that before.

But banning doesn't sound like a good idea.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Raising the age for certain weapons seems like a good idea, in fact we've done that before.
> 
> But banning doesn't sound like a good idea.


Banning weapons is probably as good as we'll get.
Again, I am pro hunting rifle, but automatic weapons have no place in the home.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Banning weapons is probably as good as we'll get.
> Again, I am pro hunting rifle, but automatic weapons have no place in the home.



Slippery slope is not a fallacy if it is true.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Having the same regulations for guns that we do for cars... Perhaps you're onto something.



You mean like no license required unless you use it on public property, license required to use on public property but you can get it at 16yo by passing an idiot test, can't buy a sports car (handgun) anywhere but from a dealer in your home state, etc?

It's a stupid analogy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 7, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Banning weapons is probably as good as we'll get.
> Again, I am pro hunting rifle, but automatic weapons have no place in the hohome



"automatic" weapons have been effectively banned (heavily regulated, registration required) since 1934 and production or importation of new automatic weapons has been banned since 1986.

If you mean "semi-auto", that's a broad category. Technically, even revolvers are semi-auto.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 7, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> You mean like no license required unless you use it on public property


Lol, what?



Hanafuda said:


> license required to use on public property but you can get it at 16yo by passing an idiot test


It shouldn't be 16, but a test would be nice.



Hanafuda said:


> can't buy a sports car (handgun) anywhere but from a dealer in your home state


That sounds nice.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Lol, what?


As long as you don't drive cars on public roads, you don't need a license.

Therefore, what he's saying is if you don't use your gun in public, you don't need a license.


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> As long as you don't drive cars on public roads, you don't need a license.
> 
> Therefore, what he's saying is if you don't use your gun in public, you don't need a license.


I'm not familiar with USA laws, but here from where I am at, if you injury someone or cause material damage to other's proprieties while driving without having license, you are criminally responsible, If what you did was a crime anyway, the lack of license aggravate the said crime, not matter if it is on or off public roads. The fines change tho.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> I'm not familiar with USA laws, but here from where I am at, if you injury someone or cause material damage to other's proprieties while driving without having license, you are criminally responsible, If what you did was a crime anyway, the lack of license aggravate the said crime, not matter if it is on or off public roads. The fines change tho.


yes, other countries it's illegal to not have a license to drive, here it's a suggestion as long as you drive only on private roads


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Lol, what?



You don't need a license to own or drive a car, unless you take it on public roads.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It shouldn't be 16, but a test would be nice.



I'm imagining a test where you are supervised while shooting a gun in a target range with a dummy.  If you can fire ten rounds and not hit the instructor, yourself, or the dummy, then you pass.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 7, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Banning weapons is probably as good as we'll get.
> Again, I am pro hunting rifle, but automatic weapons have no place in the home.



You'll be happy to hear that automatic weapons were banned decades ago. It's technically possible to purchase privately owned weapons that were sold before the ban. But they are in the hands of collectors and no shootings have used one for some time even before the ban.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

If an illegal tree illegally falls in an illegal forest, is it really illegal if no one is around to prosecute?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 7, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> "automatic" weapons have been effectively banned (heavily regulated, registration required) since 1934 and production or importation of new automatic weapons has been banned since 1986.
> 
> If you mean "semi-auto", that's a broad category. Technically, even revolvers are semi-auto.


Yep, I was wrong.

Military weapons, I mean.
Sorry.
Long day.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Yep, I was wrong.
> 
> Military weapons, I mean.
> Sorry.
> Long day.



It's about to get longer.

"Military weapons", for a well regulated militia, even.  How preposterous.

Don't get me wrong.  I'd love it if militaries around the world banned militaries all around the world.  But then again, that's how wars start.  And the children!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's about to get longer.
> 
> "Military weapons", for a well regulated militia, even.  How preposterous.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I'd love it if militaries around the world banned militaries all around the world.  But then again, that's how wars start.  And the children!



Yep. Read US v Miller ... SCOTUS has already decided that "military weapons" such as would be normally issued to an infantryman is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects/guarantees.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's about to get longer.
> 
> "Military weapons", for a well regulated militia, even.  How preposterous.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I'd love it if militaries around the world banned militaries all around the world.  But then again, that's how wars start.  And the children!


Well, if the "militia" sucks absolute balls then...

Also:
A militia is going to have to be an organization of unprofessional soldiers, not 60 year old Trump supporters who instinctively cock a rifle at the mention of a black person.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Well, if the "militia" sucks absolute balls then...
> 
> Also:
> A militia is going to have to be an organization of unprofessional soldiers, not 60 year old Trump supporters who instinctively cock a rifle at the mention of a black person.



Militia and military suuuuck, but it's something we've been doing as long as we've had civilization.

When it comes to war, usually THEY ARE kids.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Militia and military suuuuck, but it's something we've been doing as long as we've had civilization.


But we need to, y'know, reform them. Make actual militias that require licensing, don't just hand out a gun to everyone. Prove that the person you are giving a killing machine to can be trusted to use that killing machine.


tabzer said:


> When it comes to war, usually THEY ARE kids.


Thought that was against the Geneva Conventions but ok.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 8, 2022)

WG481 said:


> Yep, I was wrong.
> 
> Military weapons, I mean.
> Sorry.
> Long day.


Define military weapons.

Private citizens own cannons, tanks, and fighter jets already.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 8, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Define military weapons.
> 
> Private citizens own cannons, tanks, and fighter jets already.



Anyone remember what happened with the Pepsi Jet lawsuit?


----------



## AlineP (Jun 8, 2022)

1NOOB said:


> lol freedom of firearm ,  its made to kill stuffs , it should only be allowed to people with the training and the need for it  but not as a Civillians defending itself because you will end up with too many people getting it .some with mental issues they might not even know they have and they just look normal  . making it available to the public is something with way more negatives than positives .


Yeah, too many negatives.
It is like to give freedom to buy nuclear bombs. There is a reason why they have so much control over it: the cons are bigger than pros.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Anyone remember what happened with the Pepsi Jet lawsuit?


It fizzled out, the court ruled that the commercial didn't constitute an offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.


----------



## Digital_Cheese (Jun 8, 2022)

I argue guns shouldn’t be banned. It’s been allowed for 200+ years and no one will give them up except those who probably don’t already have them. This is especially true for the red states. Imagine trying to take away millions upon millions of guns. This would be literally impossible unless you somehow convinced them to do it which won’t happen.

Supposedly it would save lives, but I just wonder considering guns can also be for self defense against the same criminals. Some people may say we would be screwed either way, but I’d rather take the chance I live than take the blackpill and say it’s hopeless. You have a tiny bit of a higher chance of living with guns due to self defense than living without defense.

The people who kill innocent people are so deranged that I think they would do it anyways. Don’t take away one of the best methods of self defense against criminals unless you want the crime to go up in a country that is already deranged enough. Instead, go to the root of the problem and fix the mental health so that way we could get one less criminal. If that happens, we would be able to reduce the crime to a point where guns would simply be used for hunting animals and now we wouldn’t have to take them away only for the system to fail while making the country weaker.

The way I see it is that if I wanted to shoot up a place, I wouldn’t go to a place that allows guns because then people could actually defend themselves. Instead I would go to a place that doesn’t allow guns because now the people aren’t armed and a few people trying to defend a lot of people is much less effective than lots of people with the guns able to kill me. Due to guns, we are also one of the strongest military forces out there (along with the probably endless nukes too tho).

TLDR:
Impossible to make banning guns work, guns are for self defense, fix mental health, and if I wanted to shoot up a place I would do it in a gun free zone because it’s easier to kill people then.


----------



## elpapadelospollitos (Jun 8, 2022)

If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 8, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?


Because guns are banned in gun free zones?  Also, when it does happen, it isn't paraded by the media in resounding victory.


----------



## elpapadelospollitos (Jun 9, 2022)

Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare


----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare


I imagine confirming it would be the hardest thing, if there isn't a major shooting as a result.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Slippery slope is not a fallacy if it is true.


This is true... this is painfully true...


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 9, 2022)

Nah, control is whats needed. Control, restrictions and screenings to ensure that the ones owning these firearms are mentally sound. Not to mention better means of tracking ownership and tying owner to firearm ownership to prevent second hand sale/theft using bio-metric technologies that have existed with firearms for years not but have not been available for consumer markets due to a particular lobbying party of people preventing its push to mass market adoption and use. 

Massacres will happen still, but the means doing so will be considerably less attainable via firearm. If you can't get a firearm because you are not mentally sound and/or have a history of mental instability, and you can't buy second hand firearms because of them being tracked by a system in which anytime you might have to buy ammo or parts you have to prove the weapon you are using it with is in fact yours and if not your weapon gets taken away/get called on by the police for owning an illegally owned weapon. Finally not being able to steal one if its got built in bio-metrics that would prevent you from using it if you're not the owner of the weapon. 

Its simple logic honestly, its not like its hard to make these things standard in our system. We have means of technology that would make this process dead ass simple to the point where even walking into a gun shop the owner could easily ID you and the firearms you own using RFID chips either in a card or even in the firearm itself. There is NO REASON TO NOT want this unless you think that by doing this its going to somehow "limit your freedoms" because we want to make sure that tracking your firearms and the general mental stability of current or future owners so that the outcomes we keep seeing do not keep happening. 

More guns is not going to solve the problem, its having more brains. Having the means to make sure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, and to keep them out of the wrong hands. Its not that hard to make happen, but sure as hell overly paranoid groups are a trigger hair shy of just militarizing against the government/populace because they are afraid of any kind of changes when it comes to gun ownership rules and control. If it was up to them they would probably give everyone an AR-15 and let god sort out the rest.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 13, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare



Confirmed police intervention is rare, too. They may end up "stopping" the shooter after the damage is already done, but not usually before.

Tangent red herring as far as I'm concerned, as this consideration had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## fatherjack (Jun 13, 2022)

You’re gonna get a skewed vote with so many non-American voters.
I don’t think it’s suitable to suggest how another country should conduct their society from the comfort of your own.
I voted no.


----------



## elpapadelospollitos (Jun 13, 2022)

Digital_Cheese said:


> I argue guns shouldn’t be banned. It’s been allowed for 200+ years and no one will give them up except those who probably don’t already have them. This is especially true for the red states. Imagine trying to take away millions upon millions of guns. This would be literally impossible unless you somehow convinced them to do it which won’t happen.
> 
> Supposedly it would save lives, but I just wonder considering guns can also be for self defense against the same criminals. Some people may say we would be screwed either way, but I’d rather take the chance I live than take the blackpill and say it’s hopeless. You have a tiny bit of a higher chance of living with guns due to self defense than living without defense.
> 
> ...



Did you even read the thread?



Hanafuda said:


> Confirmed police intervention is rare, too. They may end up "stopping" the shooter after the damage is already done, but not usually before.
> 
> Tangent red herring as far as I'm concerned, as this consideration had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights.



And why bringing up police intervention if that's not what we are discussing? Red herring perhaps?


----------



## RandomUser (Jun 16, 2022)

elpapadelospollitos said:


> If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?


I may have a couple of theory,

They may happen in states that does not have a stand your ground law. Which requires the person to try to flee first and foremost.
You may be liable if a stray bullet hits an unintended target, worst if was an unintended person.



RoxFox64 said:


> I don't think you know much about gun sales. It takes like 2 weeks to purchase a gun because you have the legally able to purchase a gun, the dealer has to run your information, and the serial number has to be associated with your identity with the ATF. Some places even do ballistic fingerprinting making it so that if a bullet is found and intact enough the precise gun that fired it can be identified with some margin of error.
> 
> Also mental illness is already taken into account when you want to purchase a fire arm. There's really a lot to the whole gun purchasing process in the United States that people who have never even attempted to purchase a gun before like to complain about.
> 
> ...


I think @Lacius is correct, I was able to purchase a .45 ACP firearm within minutes and it was shockingly easy. I didn't even need to give them a social security number. The purchase was from a dealer.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 16, 2022)

RandomUser said:


> I think @Lacius is correct, I was able to purchase a .45 ACP firearm within minutes and it was shockingly easy. I didn't even need to give them a social security number. The purchase was from a dealer.



Did you complete a Form 4473? You may have done so on paper, or on a computer screen. Either way, if you purchased legally through a dealer, then you completed a 4473. And you provided a social security number, as well as full name, address, birth date, as well as a sworn attestation that your purchase was in compliance with federal law (not a felon or convicted domestic abuser, not under a restraining order, not an alcoholic or drug user including marijuana, never adjudged mentally defective, never dishonorably discharged, not an illegal alien, etc). Then your ID was run through a NICS database for criminal background check. Then if you "passed" the background check, the transfer was allowed.

If  all of that didn't happen, then it wasn't a legal purchase through an FFL dealer. If the dealer didn't require all of that from you, then he committed a felony. If you provided false information as to any questions (marijuana use, felony conviction, etc) then you committed a felony. Problem is, enforcement and prosecution of such offenses is just about non-existent. FFL's regularly report failed attempts to purchase firearms by persons with felony convictions, and the ATF does nothing. Big problem. What's the point of passing more laws when they don't prosecute illegal gun possession and illegal attempted purchases now?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 16, 2022)

https://data.philadao.com/Case_Outcomes_Report.html

Go to the link, change the selection from "all offenses" to firearms, and then look at the Philadelphia DA's office statistics for the outcomes of illegal firearm possession/use arrests. It's pitiful. Over half are just dropped. Then change the category to "violent" offenses(probably a lot of overlap there). It's even worse! They're just letting violent criminals and convicted felons caught with guns walk out the door.


----------



## RandomUser (Jun 17, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Did you complete a Form 4473? You may have done so on paper, or on a computer screen. Either way, if you purchased legally through a dealer, then you completed a 4473. And you provided a social security number, as well as full name, address, birth date, as well as a sworn attestation that your purchase was in compliance with federal law (not a felon or convicted domestic abuser, not under a restraining order, not an alcoholic or drug user including marijuana, never adjudged mentally defective, never dishonorably discharged, not an illegal alien, etc). Then your ID was run through a NICS database for criminal background check. Then if you "passed" the background check, the transfer was allowed.
> 
> If  all of that didn't happen, then it wasn't a legal purchase through an FFL dealer. If the dealer didn't require all of that from you, then he committed a felony. If you provided false information as to any questions (marijuana use, felony conviction, etc) then you committed a felony. Problem is, enforcement and prosecution of such offenses is just about non-existent. FFL's regularly report failed attempts to purchase firearms by persons with felony convictions, and the ATF does nothing. Big problem. What's the point of passing more laws when they don't prosecute illegal gun possession and illegal attempted purchases now?


Yes, had to fill out that form. However an SSN number wasn't needed and left it blank. Sure enough the check goes through within minutes, not 2 weeks like the other poster claims. So you do not even need a social security number to fill out the form and even to this day it still isn't required. What is really shocking is that it is much easier to buy a firearm then it is to *get* a drivers license. I have imagined that it should have been much more difficult, at least as for the questions are concerned. Also there is a way to bypass the NICS check as well upon purchasing a firearm.
So in essence, you basically have proved Lacius point.


----------



## XDel (Jun 17, 2022)

If they can't keep hard drives from coming across seas and the deep south into our boarders, then how are they going to prevent guns from getting in? That said, I've never heard of anyone registering a weapon to commit a crime.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 17, 2022)

RandomUser said:


> Yes, had to fill out that form. However an SSN number wasn't needed and left it blank. Sure enough the check goes through within minutes, not 2 weeks like the other poster claims. So you do not even need a social security number to fill out the form and even to this day it still isn't required. What is really shocking is that it is much easier to buy a firearm then it is to *get* a drivers license. I have imagined that it should have been much more difficult, at least as for the questions are concerned. Also there is a way to bypass the NICS check as well upon purchasing a firearm.
> So in essence, you basically have proved Lacius point.



Wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Not sure what you mean about bypassing the NICS check, but I know there are some states that have a law that lets you bypass that if you've already passed it before by obtaining a CCW permit. As for the two week thing someone else mentioned, that's probably a waiting period required in their state. No such thing in my state, and yours either I guess. Yes, I could go out to a shop tomorrow and purchase a firearm, total transaction time including the background check about 30 minutes. But I would still have to complete the 4473, and my ID would be run through NICS. Fortunately I have no 'prohibited person' problems that would prevent me making the purchase. 

It isn't really a question of whether it's "easy" to buy a firearm, it's whether you haven't disqualified yourself by criminal action or mental instability. We do already have laws on the books, federal and state, to punish those who attempt to buy a gun when they're prohibited. But very few actual prosecutions happen, even though FFL's must report when it occurs. And even when a convicted felon is caught with a gun, as often as not the charges just get dropped.


----------



## RandomUser (Jun 21, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Not sure what you mean about bypassing the NICS check, but I know there are some states that have a law that lets you bypass that if you've already passed it before by obtaining a CCW permit. As for the two week thing someone else mentioned, that's probably a waiting period required in their state. No such thing in my state, and yours either I guess. Yes, I could go out to a shop tomorrow and purchase a firearm, total transaction time including the background check about 30 minutes. But I would still have to complete the 4473, and my ID would be run through NICS. Fortunately I have no 'prohibited person' problems that would prevent me making the purchase.
> 
> It isn't really a question of whether it's "easy" to buy a firearm, it's whether you haven't disqualified yourself by criminal action or mental instability. We do already have laws on the books, federal and state, to punish those who attempt to buy a gun when they're prohibited. But very few actual prosecutions happen, even though FFL's must report when it occurs. And even when a convicted felon is caught with a gun, as often as not the charges just get dropped.


Perhaps I'm looking at it, at a wrong prospective. I must apoligize if my tone was sour. It is great that we can have a civilize discussion. Thank you for giving me another prospective, and yours makes better sense. The laws, I think are there to scare off the honest citizen? Yeah, don't know why the laws exist when it isn't enforced.


----------



## XDel (Jun 21, 2022)

No because that would just leave them in the hands of the Government and the criminals.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Jun 21, 2022)

i live in europe and we are fucked here ! for the people who live in the usa the moment you give up your guns thats the moment your are fucked BIG TIME !! keep your guns ,you wil be happy and own nothing 
how naief can you be ? who is going to protect you if the government has gone crazy ?? 
or do people in the usa realy think the government is going to take care of us ??


----------



## zxr750j (Jun 21, 2022)

I can understand using guns for hunting, and maybe for home defense. I can also understand that is cool to shoot guns at a range. I don't understand how it's possible for an 18 year old to buy something like an ar15 or people carrying firearms openly. 

If I was allowed to, I might buy a gun and handle it very carefully. But I am very happy I can't so other people also won't have access to them, there are too many crazy people. Now I won't have to arm myself against these people. In short: no guns in Holland (except for wild game regulation and law-enforcement). 

In the USA? I don't understand a lot of Americans, it's culturally so different (too much god and holding on to prehistoric laws) that it's not my place to judge. Oh, I just did, did I?


----------



## XDel (Jun 21, 2022)

scroeffie1984 said:


> i live in europe and we are fucked here ! for the people who live in the usa the moment you give up your guns thats the moment your are fucked BIG TIME !! keep your guns ,you wil be happy and own nothing
> how naief can you be ? who is going to protect you if the government has gone crazy ??
> or do people in the usa realy think the government is going to take care of us ??


We've been reduced to mindless children over here, people will believe in nearly anything these days.


----------



## ELY_M (Jun 21, 2022)

I voted no.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 22, 2022)

I don’t think guns should be banned. Guns require proper regulations, training, and better filtering processes. I don’t think an unhinged conspiracy nut in Facebook should have a gun but that doesn’t mean I think they should be banned.


----------



## SRKTiberious (Jun 30, 2022)

No. Not ever. Not even any restrictions. And we really need to disband the military, since there's no legitimate need for a standing army. The government is meant to fear its citizenry.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Considering that we have a 2nd Amendment, there's not a debate to be had. It's like debating if you believe the military should be able to house soldiers in one's home without your consent. They don't and no matter how much one may want it to happen, it's not gonna happen.


----------

