sloanstar1000 :


Even with all of that stuff, the citizens of the United States still outnumber the government. Thing is, we would have a chance. But only if we were armed with adequate weapons. When Hitler killed all of those people, he made sure to disarm them first. He knew that if the citizens have guns, they have the ability to fight back.

I'm a little confused about the US government taking over discussion.

1. Our government can't agree on anything, including funding itself.

It's essentially impossible to get anything through congress. It would have to be through the executive branch through an executive order.

That said:

2. Unlike most other countries, the American military is under civilian control.

That's why there isn't a 'military party'.

In fact, the mere idea of the military competing with the citizenry in politics is foreign to Americans. In many other countries, it's a political reality.

So sloanstar is probably correct when he states that there's no true necessity for assault weapons in the hands of civilians. That should not be in dispute.

That said, I understand what tgags123 originally meant. Due to the second amendment, it is a right of the citizens to have weapons to defend themselves against the government in the case of a takeover.

If we want to get any headway in this discussion, we should look up how the Supreme Court (the decider of the constitution) interprets the second amendment by looking at their rulings.

Otherwise, one side is arguing constitutionality of powerful guns and the other necessity of powerful guns, which are two different debates.

tgags123 : Well, just for the sake of history, Hitler didn't ban guns, there were already gun restrictions that were placed on Germany after the 1st WW. Hitler didn't come to power by disarming his citizens, Hitler came to power by public support, not through military force.

Anyway, as EidecticMemory pointed out, the US military is under civilian control, so it's not very likely that the US military would attack it's own citizens and families for any reason given to them by the government.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree about supplying predator drones and tanks to US citizens, yes we outnumber the "government", and it's possible that we might win against whatever force our government might attack us with, if it somehow succeeded in forming an assault against their own citizens(an EXTREMELY  improbably scenario). That still does not convince me that US citizens should be allowed access to military grade weapons. That position would be extreme even for an NRA member.

sloanstar1000 : I agree with you that mentally unstable people should not be allowed high capacity firearms, and that known criminal should not have them at all. on the subject of "assault rifles", its not really an assault rifle unless its select fire or fully automatic. and cant be called military grade either. and you have to go through a LOT of tax stamps, paper work, etc, to be licensed for automatic weapons. on the part about the .50 cal, you don't need one. Anzio ironworks makes a pickup bed fifth wheel mount for their 20mm Vulcan bolt action. and demilitarization is definitely NOT the answer, as Obama has already crippled our navy.



thenumberone : first, you already cant carry a firearm without proper training and getting a state permit, and second, anything more than background checks and requiring a permit to carry is unnecessary government meddling.

EDIT: thenumberone: and there are MANY ways of "popping" a tank should it ever be necessary. on the other hand, i think if the govt ever ordered the military to seize everyones firearms, the military would just strait up tell them no.

I thought about saying something about some people posting paranoid newspeak propaganda that has nothing to actually offer to the topic it self but I guess I leave it to that this time. Since what I said in my previous post was not actually what true. Maybe. Here is what wikipedia says (so it has to be true, right?) about who has most guns in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_number_of_guns

http://top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=de09aa45

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

One thing about Switzerland being so high in the statics could be for the fact that the military personnel are allowed to keep their weapons outside of their barracks. Which basically means in their own home. In Finnish- and in any sane army each and every shell is counted for and you don't leave your post with your weapon for home or anywhere else you are not stationed to or told to go without a direct order or unless there is a war going on. Just saying. (and Serbia was a total war zone not so long ago so ofcource there are guns)

m0ssb3rg935 :

Yeah. Like this one. Is this how you people debate? Post some picture with a slogan?

Can I do this too? In all forums? Should everybody be impressed now or something?

Pow pow pow?

Brigand : dude, take it easy. its just a funny picture, lighten up a little.

m0ssb3rg935 :

Oh we are talking gun control and suddenly it is a funny picture post to you and everybody? Funny picture day when you think "the bad old goverment" is going to take "your boom boom sticks" away. Well they should if you are going to act like illiterate vermin that you are.

Well waah waah. Here comes the big bad old red coats. To take your widdle guns away, poor babies. Poor little paranoid yankee doodle babies.



What are you going to do? Shoot them all? Oh no! You had that one law and now they are all killed. How good for you. How splendid and nice. Now your nation is safe forever more and always. Not even nasty old Obama could say "Can you kids knock it out over there with your shooting! Some PEOPLE are trying not to get shot, bleed and die over bullet wounds over here!"

Brigand : Alright, Now, I may be wrong here but.. I sincerely doubt that the Nordic government or economy is anything like the US's.. Now, I myself am obviously not a nord.. And if I am wrong in some sort of way, feel free to tell me if you can post sometime soon... You uh.. posted so many times in a row you might now be able to post for a few posts.. anyways, on to the point.

You're being extremely irrational about this.. This is supposed to be a rational, mature debate about the current firearms control laws, Not some "Oh, he posted a pic, I think I'm upset about that And I'll just start going crazy" thread. You're 33 years old, Act like it man.

The reason we disagree with the current gun control laws is because, to some people it violates our rights as American citizens. The current government obviously wants us to be unarmed so they can rule us. For instance, They would tell you what job you can work, what car you can drive, what religion you may study, all of that. Sure, You'll be safe, But where's your liberty? Freedom anybody?

Does anyone remember the saying about trading liberty for safety?

Plus, If the government gives you everything, they can take everything away from you too

On a side note about banning guns, When all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Tell my how this doesn't make sense please.

Brigand : I have absolutely no idea what your ranting about, and I think "illiterate vermin" is highly uncalled for.
by the way, what country do you live in? no offense but if you don't live in the us then i hardly see how your input applies to this thread.


tgags123 : does the "illiterate vermin" comment fall under "flame"?

If we are turning this into a picture game I'm just going to leave this here.

thenumberone : okay, I'm going to try to understand your line of thinking, feel free to correct any miss interpretation's, your logic is that if there were less firearms abound then there would be less temptation to do harm with them right? Its the tool that influences the individual. There is a flaw in this "logic", if a person that's pumped up on bath salts busts in your brothers front door and slashes his throat with a broken pair of toe-nail clippers, and then starts eating his face, are you going to blame the clippers, the drugs, or the psycho? The only way for better security is further proliferation of defensive firearms. Children accidentally killing each other? Teach them how to use it and that its not a toy and it wont happen. Don't underestimate your child's ability to understand.

thenumberone : So... people that are pro-life and pro-gun are an ancient Greek that made many great medical discoveries? Because that is who Hippocrates is. And there is no other definition for it. So, I think something is either wrong with your logic or the spelling in that e-card.

m0ssb3rg935 :
Whilst that is an interesting analogy I would make a few points.
The fact of the matter is guns enable violence. They are excellent for doing what they are designed for, killing.
I'll preempt what I assume you may say next, which is either knives and cars can be used to kill too- Yes but less efficient and they are tools with a peaceful purpose.
And a gun is a tool-not so, it is a weapon. A bow and arrow is not a tool. A spear is not a tool. A trebuchet is not a tool. Nor is a 12 gauge shotgun.
Incidentally defense is non lethal, e.g a shield. Unless you aim to shoot their bullets out of mid air, the objective is to kill.
Frankly the majority of gun owners aren't nearly responsible enough to be carrying guns. The fact they oppose very simple regulations only proves that.

tgags123 :
Na you missed the pun.
They are working out their political affiliation.
They aren't conservatives, they aren't Democrats, they're hippocrates. I wondered if anyone would fall for that.

thenumberone : Someone comes at you with a weapon. Not just a gun, any kind of weapon. Gun, knife, spear, whatever. By your logic, pulling out a shield will instantly make you invincible to any kind of weaponry. That is not that case. If you aren't armed with a weapon of your own, they will eventually be able to get passed the shield and kill you. If you had a gun, however, they would be forced to leave you alone. Because they know if they try to kill you, you will kill them.

And I still don't really get the e-card.

thenumberone : If I may ask this...



Let's say a criminal decides to rob the local 7/11, And there are people in there. Let's say, 2 people.



The proliferation of guns would make it that most people would have guns... Now, criminals are stupid, obviously, But would a criminal really rob the 7/11 if he knew that there were multiple armed citizens in there?

I never stated you would necessarily win, I simply provided clarity on the meaning of defence.
Most criminals have no intention of killing anyone. Either Because they don't want the heat or have a moral objection. The idea that their life is less important than maybe a hundred Bucks is perplexing when the individual happens to be pro life, to say the least.

The e-card is saying that to support unhindered gun access (weapon for killing) but being against abortion(its murder) is hypocrisy.
And the hippocrate is a word play.

thenumberone : Owning guns for self defense purpose is not about firing the gun. It is about having the gun. I guarantee you that 95% of criminals would leave you alone if they saw that you have a gun. Do you know how many murders, rapes, and other horrible crimes could be prevented without a single bullet even being fired? And the other 5% that is stupid enough to try to harm the person anyway would get shot and would be unable to harm anyone else. I do not see any negative situations here.

I made a separate thread for abortion in this forum and I would be glad to discuss it with you there. The thing with abortion is not just the fact that it is murder, but also the fact that the child did nothing wrong. While the criminal that may have been killed in defense was trying to harm someone, the baby did absolute nothing except exist.

yoshirulez:
You're assumption that criminals are stupid is naive.
Some certainly but some are borderline genius. Its a mix.
But frankly, they want money, not blood.
They Rob the place, no one plays hero, no one gets shot, the police catch him (its their job) and insurance covers business costs ( that's their job). No one need die.
People that need money will always take this route, regardless of the risks.
Let me tell you a story, about a faraway Island.
In this far away Island, for hundreds of years, there were hundreds of crimes that would get you hung. Now over hundreds of years, the
number of hangings really didn't go down. Infact, this Island managed to fill up an entire continent by telling these criminals they wouldn't be hung if they moved there.
Many many years later this nation stopped hanging people and crime didn't go down.
It turns out some people actually get so desperate they ignore the very real risks.

@Tgags
Answer to yoy is there too.
Equaly, most criminals don't walk up to you, shake your hand and inform you they will be your mugger for today.
If they know you have a gun they're liable to physically attack you rather than just demand your wallet.