Originally posted by XaNaX
Yes, it is ok for the general public to own military grade weapons. In fact, the forefathers of my country not only felt it was ok, they wanted to guarantee that we would be able to so they created an amendment to our Constitution. And before you start with "but they never imagined AK-47s" remember the mindset of the people who were writing the Bill of Rights. They had just successfully used an army of the people to overthrow a tyranical government. So yes, it was their every intention for the average citizen to have weapons on par with the military both for national defense as well as to keep the government in check. So no, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning military style weapons. Do you know the statistics on what percentage of gun crimes involve military style weapons? Nope? You never hear that from the anti-gun people, and that is because it is such a small number that if they ever publicized it people would think they were idiots for spending so much time and energy to ban that class of weapon. And the general public has not been able to purchase fully automatic weapons here in the US for quite some time so everyone doesn't have an M2 Browning. Here in the US it isn't a question of need, it is a right.
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Yes XaNaX as if a morbidly obese redneck could use his AK-47 or his home-made flamethrower to stop the evil gov. and their tanks and attack helicopters.
What a ing joke the whole "keeping the gov. in check" argument is, spend a little less time on gun websites and maybe more time in the voting booth making an informed decision so that you wont have guys like Nixon and Bush trying to take your rights away one by one.
But yes, your option is much better upon second consideration. If the army comes to evict you from your house you could always just shoot them, how many rounds in the clip of an M4? 30? How many does it take to blow up a tank? Say, 30 thousand before the tank needs to go to MIDAS for dent repair?
Game. set. Match.
Also, it's not about knowing how to use a weapon. Does avg civvy know tactics? Use of cover, camouflage, concealment?
Ania_xox
quote:
Originally posted by whiskers
Also,
:wtf:
Listen here you ing lol
I was just excited that I have a pic of me holding a gun
Demonstrating precisely the feeling you described when one holds a gun
SO go piss in a bucket and drink it the next day :toothless
Lebezniatnikov
Our Founding Fathers' "State of Mind" was that there was no national military and that militias were set up by the individual states to ward off foreign invasion. In that case it was helpful if citizens were able to report for duty with weapons in hand.
The original text considered for adoption as the Second Amendment included no mention of militias... it guaranteed the right to bear arms without a modifier. Why do you think the words "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state" were added in the second draft?
In any case, there is no reasonable argument for the legality of automatic weapons, as XanaX has quite ironically pointed out.
XaNaX
What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No ing I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment.
Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not.
Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights.
inconspicuous
quote:
Originally posted by Palladium
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
"just spray it down with some cologna or something"
Palladium
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Why is the barrel curved?
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No ing I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment.
Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not.
Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights.
I know I'm not from the US...
No offense mate, but I think your forefathers lived in a world very different from todays. Now, tight gun control laws (in whatever country) are there for a reason: To stop gun related violence/killings.
If people don't have guns to use, then they won't be killing people with them. Sure, there will be an illegal market, but it's going to be MUCH smaller.
Less people with guns = Less people shot/maimed/killed with guns. Surely?
XaNaX
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
I know I'm not from the US...
No offense mate, but I think your forefathers lived in a world very different from todays. Now, tight gun control laws (in whatever country) are there for a reason: To stop gun related violence/killings.
If people don't have guns to use, then they won't be killing people with them. Sure, there will be an illegal market, but it's going to be MUCH smaller.
Less people with guns = Less people shot/maimed/killed with guns. Surely?
In theory that all makes sense but in practice it doesn't work. It has been proven time and time again that gun control does not prevent gun violence. Criminals will still find ways to get their hands on weapons, gun control takes guns out of the hands of the people that should have them (people who obey laws). if all of the sudden you snapped your fingers and there was no longer any such thing as guns you think that would stop all crime and there would no longer be any murders? Look at areas like Washington DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and what is the crime rate there?
Extra credit assignment for all the people who think "assult" weapons are so dangerous. Do some research and find me actual cases where a law abiding citizen with a legally purchased military style weapon used that gun to commit a crime and kill someone (self defense does not count, it has to be a crime). Good luck, it won't be easy. Then find the total number of murders in the US and divide the number of assult weapon murders by the total number of murders and look at the percentage and then tell me again why it is an issue for law abiding people to own military style weapons?
echosystm
quote:
Stats say in year ‘02 there were 299 gun deaths in Oz compared to approx. 30000 in the USA.
For a population ratio of 1:15 (Oz v USA) that is more than 6 times more in the USA.
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Less people with guns = Less people shot/maimed/killed with guns. Surely?
Yes.
I can't find the statistics, but in Australia, ~76% were suicide, with onl 15% homicide. In the USA, a much higher percentage were homicides.
homicide/suicide/accident(other), per 100,000 people
USA (2001): 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
AUS (2001): 0.24 / 1.34 / 0.10
16 times more homicide.
so, yes, USA is ed up. no real mystery there though... i mean look at all the idiots in this thread. common pro-gun arguments:
"but bad people will get guns anyway"
"bad people will kill in other ways anyway"
both completely retarded arguments. true, bad people will get guns anyway. however, it will be far harder and they will be a load easier to track in the event that they do. true, bad people will kill in other ways anyway, but killing with a gun is alot easier than killing with a knife/strangling etc.
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
In theory that all makes sense but in practice it doesn't work. It has been proven time and time again that gun control does not prevent gun violence.
