-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Do you reckon guns should be banned in the U.S.? (Please vote)
- Thread starter Marc_LFD
- Start date
- Views 7,877
- Replies 185
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by MikaDubbz,
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.
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.
I'm not kidding, if you don't like your rights here, get the fuck out, move out somewhere else.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,835
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- C-137
- Website
- www.youtube.com
- XP
- 3,734
- Country
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.
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.
Last edited by stanleyopar2000,
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.
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?
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.
Yes, I'm 12 because I like not having rights trampled on. Flawless logic.
I know that, which is why I don't exactly care. You guys can't do anything, so nothing will change.
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.
] No I'm nott 
[stink 
] 