Wouldn't have happened if the OP had a gun.

I heard shots. What's going on?

(March 2, 2015 at 5:17 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: Wouldn't have happened if the OP had a gun.

What wouldn't have happened? O__o

(March 2, 2015 at 5:46 am)Losty Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 5:17 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: Wouldn't have happened if the OP had a gun.

What wouldn't have happened? O__o

Gun thread.

(March 2, 2015 at 12:30 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 1, 2015 at 10:48 pm)404NotFound Wrote: After the fight, the apparent loser went to his car and brandished an AR15 (it's an assault rifle)

No- it isn't..but I say ban them anyway. Nuts love the shit out of them, because theyre nuts (like the nut in your story). Wouldn't do much for crime or safety though (have to hit handguns for that).

So, you only want them banned to piss people off?

As with any population-wide problem, the solution is "propaganda".
There needs to be proper advertising of the risks and dangers of gun ownership and some propaganda on how to properly secure those things.
Once these ideas are inside people's heads, they'll accept a voluntary gun registration.
After a few years of registrations, all non-registered guns become targets - the government will take them from you if you don't register.
Black market exists and will continue to exist - again, propaganda into preferring registered guns, so you know the gun hasn't been used for illicit ends, or whatever....
In time, the second amendment can be amended by a majority vote.

In case you missed it, this would be a plan to last, at least, 10 years... how many governments will stick with the plan?

AR's...lol, nah? I'll ban em because I don't mind banning a skin kit clone of every other rifle in existence if we get to keep every other rifle in existence. Folks think an AR15 is an assualt rifle (and so do many of the people who buy them)...they think that these "assault rifles" are a credible threat to our society. That they are not assault rifles, nor are AR15s a blip on the gun crime radar is irrelevant - they look scary as shit, being painted black and all. The anti gun nuts can ban AR15's all day long if I get to keep the rest of my mechanically identical but for some reason not as frightening rifles. Banning any specific brand of a chambering is not infringing upon my right to bear arms- it infringes upon the business interests of Colt and Armalite who wish to sell me a chambering in their distinctive style.

If I can't use Colt or Armalites .22 or .270 -as AR15-...then fine....I'll buy a Ruger 10/22 or a Rem 800/Savage Axis in .270. There is no chambering for the AR15, by any manufacturer, that is unique to the paint and rails that make an AR15 an AR15. It's a toy gun and as a negotiating piece it has value that far outweighs what it actually is or what banning or controlling them would entail. Gov can do a buyback, and what would it matter? Hell, you could could buy 2 or 3 rifles in the same chambering (and objectively better rifles - too) for the buyback price of a single AR15.

@Losty
Any revolution or civil war is more likely to be a loss if those are the metrics. I understand, and from that frame I agree, but the number of deaths - again- tilts the scales towards insurgency. All an insurgency has to do to win is not be annihilated, thats it. Just about anything a conventional force could do is something it would not like to do, or would play more easily into the hands of insurgency. An armed public with a grievance is, at this point, impossible to govern without consent in even small areas of the world. When we talk about the US government crushing some domestic insurgency the scale and scope of the battlefield is just too much. We can't win that fight because, frankly, we wouldn't want to...and we do hear that expressed alot, but usually the other way round "The american public is too lazy/dumb/ill equipped for armed rebellion". None of that is true, and a sober appraisal of our military's history and capabilities might lead us to the conclusion that even dumb, lazy americans with shotguns could accidentally cause enough casualties (don't we already?) to make any conventional force flinch given the limited range of acceptable strategies to suppress that group.

(March 2, 2015 at 8:29 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 5:46 am)Losty Wrote: What wouldn't have happened? O__o

Gun thread.

Lol you're awesome

(March 2, 2015 at 10:03 am)pocaracas Wrote: In time, the second amendment can be amended by a majority vote.

A constitutional amendment requires a super majority. It must pass with 2/3 of the vote in both houses of congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

(March 2, 2015 at 11:10 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 10:03 am)pocaracas Wrote: In time, the second amendment can be amended by a majority vote.

A constitutional amendment requires a super majority. It must pass with 2/3 of the vote in both houses of congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

So it's not impossible, then!
Again: propaganda helps.