Welcome Anonymous!
We host quality Star Wars sites - inquire at The Star Wars Rebellion Network  
SW:Rebellion Network
imminent-bean
 



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

What do you think about gun control?
I think that we should take the second amendment litterally and leave the law at that. 25%  25%  [ 3 ]
Get your gun out of my face! Only the military ought to have access to firearms! We need a Constitutional Ammendment! 42%  42%  [ 5 ]
Neither of those options accurately express my views. Both sides need to compromise. The answer is somewhere in the middle. 33%  33%  [ 4 ]
Eh, so long as I don't get shot I'm good with the laws, whatever they may be. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 12
Author Message
 Post subject: Gun Control
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:35 pm 
Offline
<!--n00b//-->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 4758
I think I've started this topic before, but I figure, what the hell, it's been too long since I've torn the forum apart with a controversial topic that gets J and Tex at each other's throats.

What's every one's opinion on gun control in America? People from other countries are more than welcome to participate, if only to be a pain and say, "We don't have issues with guns, our country is perfect, nanana boo boo!" We'll shoot you for it because we do have guns, but you're welcome to say it. :wink:

My views personally lie somewhere in the middle. Any attempts to remove guns from the people will obviously result in chaos and in underground dealings of firearms that will only hurt the general populous. Rather, I favor control. As an essay I recently read on gun control says, one might argue that cars kill people, but cars are not outlawed. However, we require a license for something as dangerous and powerful as a car, and we keep track of who owns which car(s). I favor gun registration and licenses. In no way does this impair the right of a person to keep and bear arms, provided that they are suitable to bear those arms.

Presently in my home state, Florida, anyone old enough can waltz into a gun store and purchase a firearm. Quite frankly that doesn't strike me as being appropriate. A psychopath who escaped from prison can buy one as soon as a US Congressman, provided they have the money and don't look too shifty. A license limits the number of persons eligible to purchase a weapon based upon their track record with regards to felonies (obviously a shop lifter would still be eligible, whereas someone involved in armed robbery would not be) and mental status. Registration means that any weapon that is used for a purpose it wasn't initially intended for, such as, say, murder, will more easily be identified from records, and can be traced right back to its official owner.

Now, obviously, the second amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law with respect to this, but it says nothing of what the States may do with regards to gun control, as evidenced by the varying strictness of the laws. Congress can choose to twist the arms of the states through the withholding of grants (It worked with federal highway money and the legal drinking age) to encourage this, people can write their state legislators to encourage this, or the whole country can have a wildly divided amendment war on the matter.

Anyway, those are my views, and my views alone at this time. What are everyone else's views on gun control?

_________________
12/14/07
Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la
Not gone, merely marching far away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:53 pm 
Offline
<!-- Sasquatch //-->
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 3266
Location: Capital District, NY
I am all for anti-gun regulation. I feel that those regulation laws have gone WAAAAAY to far, especially here in New York. Its insane that I cant own a freakin full-automatic weapon! The way I feel is this: why should the good people be punished for the ridiculous deeds that the minority do? Why should good, wholesome gun owners have to suffer for the criminally insane?!

You see, I am for limited gun regulations and restrictions, but for stronger punishments, like increased fine or jail time, depending on the crime committed with the gun. This way, the responsible gun owners are not punished.

So yeah, if some dude wants to rob a bank or shoot up someone, then they will do it. Gun regulations do not stop the black market, only maintain it and help it live. If someone wants a gun, they will find it, regardless of what laws are in place. So yeah, I am totally against ridiculously strict gun control.

_________________
Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

My Website

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:00 pm 
Offline
<!--n00b//-->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 4758
Uh, Rob? Pulling a gun during a crime is 15 years automatically. Firing is 20 years automatically. If you actually shoot someone you've got 25 to life.

_________________
12/14/07
Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la
Not gone, merely marching far away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:24 pm 
Offline
<!-- Sasquatch //-->
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 3266
Location: Capital District, NY
Well maybe I'll up the ante, be a classic conservative, and say that gun crimes should carry a punishment of the death sentence.

_________________
Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

My Website

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:50 pm 
Offline
<!--n00b//-->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 4758
That's a matter of the individual state. Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense? Those weapons seem like they would be best utilized for offensive means, such as robbing a bank or something. The second amendment says that a citizen could own, say, a bazooka, yet I wouldn't feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had one for self defense. Too much collateral damage if he uses it to defend, plus it can, again, be better used for an offensive purpose than a defensive one.

A weapon like, say, a pistol, however, is more suited for defense in my opinion. It's small, nearby, and won't be very useful against a cop or two. A guy breaking into your home, though, will have something to think about if you pull your gun on him.

_________________
12/14/07
Nu kyr'adyc, shi taab'echaaj'la
Not gone, merely marching far away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:40 pm 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 29
In my opinion, the statement "why take guns away from law abiding citizens who would like only to protect themselves and their families" is perfect for my view. Stopping poverty, teaching safe handling of a gun, and fixing the broken education system should be our focus.
Registration and all that is fine, I don't really mind, but the government won't follow it's own rules on that matter anyway.
I think there are more important issues at hand than looking at guns as a problem. Guns are a tool. The problem lies in our economy, our education, and our failing health care system.
Without these factors wearing down on someone, less people will feel that they are trapped and be forced to find a way out by taking extreme measures.

_________________
His mishappen head, lidless eyes and twisted, hunched back distanced him even further from what the Masters had wanted. It was obvious from the get-go that Exedore Formo would never be a warrior. But they did need a lawgiver…


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:51 pm 
Offline
<!-- Major //-->
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 191
Location: Dark side of the Yavin moon.
Gun control is lesser of the two evils. It has two benefits over free ownership of weapons: first, you can restrict some people from obtaining a gun license (ex-criminals, psychos, irresponsible people, foreigners) and second, you can (must?) keep track of gun owners.

Statistics in my country say, that most "shooting" crimes are commited using legally held weapon. This indicates that black market is not boosted as Rob thinks, but on the contrary, it's reduced (or weapons obtained through black market aren't used for shooting people). This also makes police work much easier (if you can identify the gun, you can also identify the person responsible for the crime - one way or another).

Also owning a gun has many risks. If your gun gets stolen, you're in big trouble :) If you draw gun in a fight, you can expect the other side to do the same (or to draw bigger caliber :twisted: ), so instead of few broken ribs you might end up in hospital with penetrated lungs (the same goes for knives), if you get to the hospital at all.

I'd vote for strict gun regulation like they have in Norway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway. It's very strict, but I would sleep a lot better knowing that there aren't any full-auto wielding lunatics running around.

_________________
-rebellion2 enthusiast-
Terra Reconstructed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Gun control
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 38
Location: Chicago, Il
Well most politicians here in the states would stay away from the arguement, Gun crimes are comitted by most law abiding citizens.
Because I dont know about ole' Norway, but here w/ 20 million NRA members that Arguement or accusation holds no truth at all.

Of all these shootings that are nuts, criminals or gangs are not by most accounts NRA members. Ive never heard a politician remark about that because it just not true.

Also self defense is a huge arguement for the 2nd amendment, but it's not necessarily thee arguement for it. Nor is it necessarily for the protection of a foriegn inveder, another twist on the truth.
In the federalist papers written by the founding fathers they state "Shall not be infringed" means to protect against a tyranical goverment"

Now then they certainly didnt trust goverment/ or in their case a monarchy. They knew that the best control a goverment has over it's people is to take away guns from the citizens who otherwise might revolt against, over taxing (Familiar?), persecution of races (like Hitler or Stalin)
any thing not for the common people or tyranical.

Hitler Stalin and the Chinese have or had gun control, eh? I'm not saying we are there. 1770's they rebelled against taxation w/out representation, I gotta tell ya, When they give themselves raises and continue to raise our taxes cause they spent to much money, I dont feel represented, do you?

People would rather watch american Idol than ask the hard questions of the legislators, so they are pratically unwatched. People have become way to submisive and gun control is another aspect in it.

As far as why then do I need a Ar-15 (M-16), An AK-47? or any other?
There again, unless I am a gun dealer or have major licenses (saying they can check my house at any time) I cant buy or own a fully automatic weapon. Everything is semi auto. Like an old WW 2 M1 Garand, should these collectables then be outlawed as well.

Im no paranoid about goverment, I just dont support banning any weapons that fall w/in the restrictions I noted, Again it's to protect against a tyranical goverment. I suppose if they let us all have tiny 22's we could rise up against the gov' if they began to take away liberties that all our wars were fought for, all the wars our people died and fought for, that makes no sense.

More disturbing is how the more people think we are so much more evolved, the more they blind their eyes to the truth, there will always be criminals, rapists, gangbangers, murderers, and countries who hate everything we stand for. I for one dont choose to be a victim, by invasion of my house, or by country be that army or terrorism.

There are many lies to complete gun grabbing on the internet, I choose to weigh them out my self.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:50 pm 
Offline
<!-- Sasquatch //-->
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 3266
Location: Capital District, NY
DarthTofu wrote:
Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense?


Dude, its not for self-defense or anything like that. Some people enjoy going to a shooting range and just firing off a ridiculously powerful and awesome firearm. Its just fun to target practice.

_________________
Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

My Website

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:39 am 
Offline
<!-- Warlord -->
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 2640
Location: The Great Bellow
Darth_Rob wrote:
DarthTofu wrote:
Just wondering, why do you feel that you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself? Or need one at all, I suppose, if it isn't for defense?


Dude, its not for self-defense or anything like that. Some people enjoy going to a shooting range and just firing off a ridiculously powerful and awesome firearm. Its just fun to target practice.


The counter argument there is quiet simple - why not have said weapons under lock and key at the gun range? They'd be theoretically safer there than in homes and easier to track. :?

Living in a country where gun laws are very strict - I honestly see no reason to own a gun unless you're a farmer or equivalent, and that's too kill animals attacking crops, cattle or to put down an animal.

Now, I can't speak for what it's like in America, but here the argument that owning a gun for protection is a no brainer. That being, it isn't going to protect you. Now ignoring the "statistics" that most people who own guns have their own gun used against them in a home invasion, here there isn't a "big"* thing with gangs, robbers etc. with guns. Sure there's crime, and sometime guns are used, yet there's no sense or real danger of being shot (stabbed, well that's different). And there is the general consensus among people here that weapons still aren't needed to protect oneself. Now, that isn't true completely for youths that seem to be getting swayed by this gang like love coming from (god I sound like my parents saying this) a lot of TV and music videos as well as other cultures (a lot has spawned from Asian cultures as well as middle east. And the media loves to fuel this with their usual "fine" upstanding fear mongering). But, that doesn't spread very far - and most of those people grow up eventually.
Now, to give a kind of retrospective, in Australia we have a population COUNTRY wide that'd fit into New York city (21 million, yup only 21 million). So, we don't have the population density of Ameri....any country, so take this as you will. In my city of Melbourne, hearing of someone using a gun for a robbery is enough to turn your head - it doesn't just pass you bye as another news story. A shooting is big news.
Again to compare, here Police carry 9mm revolvers, capsicum spray and retractable batons. Several "community members" and even some police officers have asked for pistols ... but there simply is nothing to back the want by a few. If, god forbid, there is some large scale shooting (where unless there is an armed robbery with multiple armoured offenders, a revolver will do) there's various arms of the police issued with heavy body armour, automatic weapons (mp5's and m4's seem to be the usual - apparently some of the counter terrorist boys have some G36c's), shotguns etc to deal with that problem.

I also get the whole firing range thing. It's a power trip. But again, why keep the gun at home? Is there really a need if you're going to a shooting range?

I guess, somewhere in there, I'm trying to get at: you just don't really need them (in my opinion, and in my country). Now, before finishing I haven't - and won't - vote in this thread as this is obviously targeted to Americans, and apart from not living there and having little to justify being against guns except that all other countries (to my knowledge) with strict gun control, like mine, appear to have a lot less gun related violence. And, to close, if guns laws aren't the real cause behind this violence, then maybe someone should really look into fixing the true cause in America?
-Yours truly, just an outsider.

*What qualifies big?

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:04 am 
Offline
<!-- Raporan Dark Lord //-->
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 8298
Location: Switzerland
I am for regulation and a strict following of who owns a gun and so.

But its hard for me to put in perspective because here in Switzerland the governement gives you a gun when you finish your millitary service.

_________________
Image
Image
CLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!
Click here is you like Trance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:35 am 
Offline
<!-- Sasquatch //-->
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 3266
Location: Capital District, NY
Come on now K. No one wants to "rent" a gun. If your gonna fire a gun, of course your gonna want your own. Im sure that most people who go to shooting ranges do it for a power trip, and to blow off steam, but so what? That doesn't hurt anyone does it? Like I keep saying, you can't let a few irresponsible people ruin it for the vast majority who are careful and decent people. If some guy wants to collect firearms, then more power to him. Its the same thing as collecting coins, stamps, or Fabergé eggs. Its just something people enjoy, especially where I live in upstate NY.

_________________
Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

My Website

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The debate
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:45 am 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 38
Location: Chicago, Il
I hear ya Mad but I also hear tourist's are getting robbed in Aussie and I see reports of a crowd massing at goverment buildings debating that crime and home invasions are on the up, after the gun grab. I will say if you only listen to the media your opinion is natuaraly biased, 1 they present it almost always as the main stream thinks that way, and always show the worst, killings and murders w/ guns to say the least. Which we all know makes for a great story. 2. never show you statistic's that show otherwise, most media very biased for sure.

Although it was not the original intention or the 2nd amendment, protecting yourself, family and home were thing so f the norm back then, nowone would have ever even debated that, they knew if a guy bust's in my house they shot his ass.

So this is what I ask, daily the media here in Chicago show Gang shootings where innocent kids get shot. What they dont explain is yes, sometimes mistaken Identity, but in the case of kids they dont tell you that many gang members male and female have kids, and they have them out at wee hours! what the hell is that? I know a Public school teacher and she even said the smallest kids already know the gang crap, parents promote it. So thats why many small childeren get shot here.

But just as often we hear of elderly people who in Chicago cant own a handy handgun, they almost more or definetly weekly are killed from break in's. Have we no respect for the elderly's right to defend themselves? Why on God's green earth do people expect you to be a victim to a scum bag? God's will is not to kill but I dont think he meant die for your attacker. Oh yeah but you can take solice in knowing that while your dead the law will bring him to justice! That makes me feel safe.

The media also never reports the most hanus crimes, crimes that would sway public opinion almost right away. Where 1 or more guys bust in a house beat or kill the father and rape woman and childeren, 1 case recently these guys even burned the bodies to destroy evidence. If big guys bust in and you cant physically subdue them why should you be a statistic no one hears about, maybe if they get you, your wife who otherwise may be defenseless can sure fire a weapon. What is w/ the whole lamb mentality?

Criminals dont like getting shot at or killed, trust me, that should be enough to tell you there. Cities are just as important to have guns as rural area's I lie in both, I live in Chicago, drive through bad area's from work, and also have a place in the rural U.P. of michigan. ! in the city lots of nuts, cops only show to pick up pieces (I know some try, but criminals dont wait for cops) and the rural area's are important cause cop's are few and far between. So that's how I feel about it. Idont care to argue just wish people would investigate more besides the media driven opinion, and crap from wikipedia.

I read pro gun literature, Radio shows, and listen to statistic's, I do not have to go far to hear the other side, it's crammed down my throat every day in papers and news. How about you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:52 am 
Offline
<!-- Supreme Moff //-->
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 3787
Location: Alexandria, VA
I don't see a reason for anyone needing and thus owning a gun. I do not believe that people need a firearm to protect themselves in case someone breaks into the house, especially since the odds of one being able to get to the firearm and using it against a robber are so low because the intruder already has the advantage of surprise. In any event, I personally do not believe firearms are necessary and rather like the way Australia handles it--if I understand correctly, the public can't own weapons. Living in Washington, DC where gun crimes are so prevalent where we lost six kids two days ago to a gun-related crime, I believe that firearms are unnecessary and utterly dangerous in the hands of the public.

As for the law, the "right to bear arms" was written in a different time when the idea of arming the people and rising up against the government is a prevalent one. I find it interesting that in many discussions about this topic, conservatives say they may one day need firearms to rise against our government when they are the most pro-USA-government in the nation... Sorry, perhaps that's irrelevant, but this "right to bear arms" is, in my opinion, obsolete in the modern day, and a law should be made to amend this. That being said, I really don't want to see what happens when the ATF, assisted by the FBI and local law enforcement, has to go door-to-door and take firearms from people's houses...or, worse, their cold, dead hands (or however the saying goes). I can, unfortunately, see many of these gun-toting individuals using their firearms against legally-sanctioned law enforcement officers carrying out the law (in the particular hypothetical situation I mentioned). It's not a particular prospect I'd like to see. Still, I believe that fewer firearms will result in fewer firearm-related crimes. And, please, let's not go into this nonsense about needing firearms to protect yourself against people with firearms, because there are going to be guns anyway. The logic to that simply is: "Since there are going to be guns anyway, I need more guns to protect myself against guns." The threat/promise of mutual extermination is, I believe, negative and should not exist (in fact, I think we discussed this before after the Virginia Tech shootings). Granted, the vacuum a lack of guns will create in crimes will likely be filled with knives and bats, but let's be realistic--you are more likely to survive a knife wound or attack with a baseball bat than you are a gunshot. And, if we want to reduce ourselves to the idea of someone using a katana, then let's remember one thing: you have to option to run, something a gun does not afford you.

In the end, though, I'm a practical person: realistically, in a country whose founding hinged on the basis of the people arming themselves against the government, firearms are embedded in the culture and are not going away. That being said, they are not necessarily safe, even in the hands of trained individuals and law-abiding citizens, and should, therefore, be regulated and registered, if only to reduce the odds of their getting into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal. If, as people say, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to give up their guns, then law-abiding citizens shouldn't have anything to worry about by telling the government they own a gun. No one is asking them to say anything more private than the information one gives for the census, after all.

_________________
SOCL: Putting the BE in BEAK.
Read the Forum Rules - Welcome the New Members - Rebellion Reloaded -


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:14 am 
Offline
<!-- Warlord -->
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2786
Location: HuNgArY
Amen SOCL. Thanks for posting this.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

 
 
 
^Top 
Home Your Account Forums Downloads F.A.Q. Submit News Hosting Contact Us

© 1999-2008 by SWRebellion.com. All Rights Reserved.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php

    Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group