Another day another American gun rampage.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Unfortunately, concerning gun control, you either need to let everyone have guns, or ensure that nobody gets them, otherwise you end up with stupid situations like this. Criminals will always break the law; it's what they do. This is why I believe it's better to let everyone have guns rather than just having the government and criminals with all of them. By all means, put some control over crazy people getting them, but banning them completely whilst they are still in the hands of criminals is a ridiculous idea.

You just controdicted yourself. You said the only thing concerning gun control is that you either give everyone guns or ban them, but if you said you're also in favor of keeping them out of the hands of crazy people. Universal background checks are a form of gun control, something I support. Banning all guns is also a form of gun control, something I don't support.

People are incredibly dumb. They see the words "gun control" and they automatically assume guns are going to be banned. Primative thinking, and one of the reasons universal background checks were not passed in the U.S.. When the universal background check bill went into congress, so many 2nd-amendment-ers went crazy, saying "NOBODY CAN TAKE OUR GUNS" when nobody was planning on taking them in the first place.

In the US, there's only so much you can do. We're a gun-cultured shithole. We're one of the only two countries in the world with the right to bear arms in our constitution, for Christ's sake. Nobody wants to give them up. But Jesus, we have to do something. The current situation is obviously awful. And the idea that we can't do anything except ban them is completely false, and you suggested something yourself three sentences later that we could do aside from banning them all.

[Minimalist]

Unfortunately, concerning gun control, you either need to let everyone have guns, or ensure that nobody gets them, otherwise you end up with stupid situations like this. Criminals will always break the law; it's what they do. This is why I believe it's better to let everyone have guns rather than just having the government and criminals with all of them. By all means, put some control over crazy people getting them, but banning them completely whilst they are still in the hands of criminals is a ridiculous idea.

I would hate to live in a country that you ran, Divi Tiberio. Dangerous fucking place to be.

[Tiberius]

You just controdicted yourself. You said the only thing concerning gun control is that you either give everyone guns or ban them, but if you said you're also in favor of keeping them out of the hands of crazy people. Universal background checks are a form of gun control, something I support. Banning all guns is also a form of gun control, something I don't support.

You're right. I meant the term "everyone" in a less general sense. For instance, I wouldn't include children either. I guess a better way of putting it would be to say that everyone who is judged to be competent should be able to have one, much like with driving licenses.

[CleanShavenJesus]

You just controdicted yourself. You said the only thing concerning gun control is that you either give everyone guns or ban them, but if you said you're also in favor of keeping them out of the hands of crazy people. Universal background checks are a form of gun control, something I support. Banning all guns is also a form of gun control, something I don't support.

You're right. I meant the term "everyone" in a less general sense. For instance, I wouldn't include children either. I guess a better way of putting it would be to say that everyone who is judged to be competent should be able to have one, much like with driving licenses.

This, I agree with.

I am also opposed to the selling of high-power automatic rifles to anybody. If one truly feels the need to protect themselves, all they really need is a handgun. Hell, the laws on purchasing shotguns are next to none (which is a large issue that should be a priority). Go buy a shotgun. But no need to posses an AR-15.

At this point in time, the 2nd Amendment is really outdated. There's no reason to have one, other than to protect yourself against other people with guns (which is our own gun-cultured shithead fault). Problem is, the more people that buy guns to protect themselves from guns, the more guns someone else gets to protect themselves from the guy who protects himself from the guy who protects himself from the guy who protects himself. The whole "we need guns in case we want to overrun the goverment" shit is kind of out of the question.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I am also opposed to the selling of high-power automatic rifles to anybody. If one truly feels the need to protect themselves, all they really need is a handgun. Hell, the laws on purchasing shotguns are next to none (which is a large issue that should be a priority). Go buy a shotgun. But no need to posses an AR-15.

At this point in time, the 2nd Amendment is really outdated. There's no reason to have one, other than to protect yourself against other people with guns (which is our own gun-cultured shithead fault). Problem is, the more people that buy guns to protect themselves from guns, the more guns someone else gets to protect themselves from the guy who protects himself from the guy who protects himself from the guy who protects himself. The whole "we need guns in case we want to overrun the goverment" shit is kind of out of the question.

I'm all for automatic firearms being banned for public use, but semi-automatics shouldn't be banned. I'm pretty sure (can't seem to find my link) that semi-automatic rifles account for about 3% of homicides whereas handguns account for 57% of homicides. And semi-automatic rifles means both hunting rifles and assault style rifles. So the proposed bans on semi-automatic assault style weapons is more symbolic than anything. There are much better ways we can curb gun violence.

And further the 2nd Amendment isn't outdated. A responsible gun owner is not someone that you should be worried about. The problem is that there are many loose areas in our gun laws that could be tightened up to keep idiots from shooting each other.

Finally, we don't need guns for if we want to overrun the government. We need guns if the government wants to overrun us.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Finally, we don't need guns for if we want to overrun the government. We need guns if the government wants to overrun us.

LOL. Alright. I'm sure your semi-autos will protect against the government. Have fun.

[Tiberius]

I would hate to live in a country that you ran, Divi Tiberio. Dangerous fucking place to be.

I'd have to say the same thing about a country you ran. "Danger" is subjective though. I think it's dangerous to have an overbearing government controlling many aspects of our lives. You seem to think that is a wonderful thing.

[NoraBrimstone]

[FlyingNarwhal]

Finally, we don't need guns for if we want to overrun the government. We need guns if the government wants to overrun us.

LOL. Alright. I'm sure your semi-autos will protect against the government. Have fun.

They would protect me a lot more than just a handgun would, or no guns at all.

I realize that others have a similar view as yours, that we would not be able to protect ourselves from such a large and militarized government. But keep in mind that the U.S. itself was created when citizens of small colonies (mostly farmers) revolted against the British Empire. The British Empire had a larger military and more advanced weaponry than the colonists did. History is ripe with examples of underdogs overcoming horrendous odds to beat a ruling power. Read The Art of War, it is pretty interesting book. If you think that the only factors in winning wars are size and firepower than I am not the fool here.

[popeyespappy]

LOL. Alright. I'm sure your semi-autos will protect against the government. Have fun.

They would protect me a lot more than just a handgun would, or no guns at all.

I realize that others have a similar view as yours, that we would not be able to protect ourselves from such a large and militarized government. But keep in mind that the U.S. itself was created when citizens of small colonies (mostly farmers) revolted against the British Empire. The British Empire had a larger military and more advanced weaponry than the colonists did. History is ripe with examples of underdogs overcoming horrendous odds to beat a ruling power. Read The Art of War, it is pretty interesting book. If you think that the only factors in winning wars are size and firepower than I am not the fool here.

The people on this forum that don’t think the US population is capable of the same thing the Maoists in China, Castro’s forces against Batista in Cuba, the Viet Minh against the French in Indochina, and the Afghan mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan accomplished never fails to surprise the shit out of me.