Should police only have rubber bullets loaded and leave the lethal ammunition to SWAT?

[Paladin3]

Doubt that. Hoarding became a thing with just that kind of talk. Someone I know had to buy a 4 drawer file cabinet to hold his. He doesn't even shoot much any more.

Not to mention that just reloading the brass currently in existence would keep us shooting for many, many decades. Making ammo is child's play compared to making a gun from scratch, which isn't that hard to do to begin with.

 

[Paladin3]

Well, the way we could do this is by banning guns. (Not that I agree with this, but you raised the point.) And then anytime someone was caught with a gun, they'd go to jail. And they'd ask who sold them their gun, and they'd go to jail. And eventually there would be no guns, just like in some other countries. Is this so hard to understand?

Replace the word "guns" in your post with whatever someone else later decides YOU can't be trusted with. Weed? Hard drugs? Freedom of speech? Alcohol? The vote? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Life? Liberty? Pursuit of happiness?

Exactly what would you be willing to fight for? Oops, doesn't mater, you gave up your gun and they took your freedom of speech and vote shortly thereafter. (Edit: actually, it's far easier to manipulate the popular vote via marketing.)

Sad fact of human existence is that without the ability to forcefully resist, all a citizen can really do is hope the powers that be treat them well. Kind of like the relationship of a child and parent. Hopefully the parent shows love and care towards the child, but if not the child is powerless to resist. And that's exactly why so many children are tragically abused. Do you want to be a child?

Thankfully, we are a long way from that in America with our current representative democracy. Let's keep it that way and reserve the ability to resort to force if absolutely necessary.

 

[BudAshes]

Laws like this only work if everyone is doing it. The fact there are no checks when moving between cities/states essentially means no enforcement. A good example of this is marijuana laws- it's illegal in Ohio, but legal in Michigan. Therefore people in Ohio drive to Michigan, buy anything they want, and take it back home. People do the same thing with guns and ammo. Chicago is often used as an example of failed gun control (which is actually false btw...it's showing some success), but all of the surrounding counties don't have the same laws as the city, so people simply drive next door and get any weapons they want.

I doubt we're ever going to have sweeping gun reform, but the question has to be raised "How much firepower is too much for a civilian to possess?" We can't own machine guns, but what about explosive rounds? Mortars? Tanks with working cannons? Surface to air missiles? What if we invent an antimatter pistol in 50 years that can disintegrate a city block with the pull of a trigger? What is the limit of destructive power an individual should have access to?

As I said, the cat is already out of the bag and America's culture is "I need a gun to fight off people that want to take it." There's not a good way to manage it, so we're just going to have to deal with it with thoughts and prayers unless there is some major upheaval in the coming decades.

We're an overpopulated nation. Americans need our space you can't cram us together like some other countries.

So I have an alternate solution. Reinstate the duel. You fuck with someone, well time for a duel. Lets hope you can shoot straight. I feel like this might help bypass some of these mass shootings if they were able to just duel the asshole who pissed them off. I believe there is a Simpsons episode that sums this up nicely.

 

[Paladin3]

We're an overpopulated nation. Americans need our space you can't cram us together like some other countries.

So I have an alternate solution. Reinstate the duel. You fuck with someone, well time for a duel. Lets hope you can shoot straight. I feel like this might help bypass some of these mass shootings if they were able to just duel the asshole who pissed them off. I believe there is a Simpsons episode that sums this up nicely.

No potential mass shooter would ever agree to a fair fight. They are cowards. That's why they target children and the defenseless in gun-free zones where there's nobody to shoot back.

 

[Paladin3]

Laws like this only work if everyone is doing it. The fact there are no checks when moving between cities/states essentially means no enforcement. A good example of this is marijuana laws- it's illegal in Ohio, but legal in Michigan. Therefore people in Ohio drive to Michigan, buy anything they want, and take it back home. People do the same thing with guns and ammo. Chicago is often used as an example of failed gun control (which is actually false btw...it's showing some success), but all of the surrounding counties don't have the same laws as the city, so people simply drive next door and get any weapons they want.

I doubt we're ever going to have sweeping gun reform, but the question has to be raised "How much firepower is too much for a civilian to possess?" We can't own machine guns, but what about explosive rounds? Mortars? Tanks with working cannons? Surface to air missiles? What if we invent an antimatter pistol in 50 years that can disintegrate a city block with the pull of a trigger? What is the limit of destructive power an individual should have access to?

As I said, the cat is already out of the bag and America's culture is "I need a gun to fight off people that want to take it." There's not a good way to manage it, so we're just going to have to deal with it with thoughts and prayers unless there is some major upheaval in the coming decades.

Murder is illegal everywhere but the sick/evil/criminal still kill. What possible gun law could you ever enact that someone willing to kill would fear breaking along the way?

And the slippery-slope argument that we need more gun restrictions or gun owners will want nukes next is old and tired. We're not fighting for nukes, we want the constitutional gun rights we currently enjoy to be left alone unless we do something illegal to lose those rights.

And I don't want a gun just to protect myself from those who would take it. I want civilian gun ownership to continue for the same reason I want a strong US military. How well would the rest of the world treat us if we disarmed our military? Probably not too terribly by most countries, but we'd ultimately be at the mercy of any country who remained armed.

And any man who lives at the mercy of another is a slave, no mater how peaceful and civilized we think we are.

 

[GearFace]

Does "caught" mean caught with a gun while committing a crime, or digging through grandma's nightstand to "catch" her?

Both of those are examples of being caught. The second of course would require a warrant if done by cops.

Once caught and in jail, do you give up your right to remain silent, or are you compelled to snitch on on the vendor. By what means?

You would still have the right to remain silent, just like with any other crime.

The devil is in the details. If this were easy, it would have been solved a long time ago.

There's nothing to solve--people have the right to bear arms, end of story. My argument was merely hypothetical.

Replace the word "guns" in your post with whatever someone else later decides YOU can't be trusted with. Weed? Hard drugs? Freedom of speech? Alcohol? The vote? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Life? Liberty? Pursuit of happiness?

Like I said, I'm not in favor of banning guns. I was merely pointing out that it's possible to ban them and dramatically reduce the number of guns out there.

Thankfully, we are a long way from that in America with our current representative democracy. Let's keep it that way and reserve the ability to resort to force if absolutely necessary.

Just wondering, what does it take for people to go to war with the government? Because everyone cares about different things. If abortion were banned in every state for example, would that be enough to go to war?

 

[Fritzo]

*double post*

 

[Fritzo]

Murder is illegal everywhere but the sick/evil/criminal still kill.

...mostly with guns

 

[Paladin3]

Like I said, I'm not in favor of banning guns. I was merely pointing out that it's possible to ban them and dramatically reduce the number of guns out there.

Maybe. But you'd only get the guns willingly given up by those who are already law-abiding. The sick/evil/criminal element won't care about your ban. And guns are easy to make and import illegally.

Just wondering, what does it take for people to go to war with the government? Because everyone cares about different things. If abortion were banned in every state for example, would that be enough to go to war?

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. For abortion to be banned in every state it would either have to be the will of the majority (EDIT: and a law-abiding member of society would never use violence to overthrow the democratic will of the people), or it would mean our representative democracy had someone been replace by a more authoritarian government. If that were the case, would you be willing to fight for democracy? I would hope I would.

Thankfully we do have a democratic process and a government with power divided into three branches that work as checks against each other. Combined with our constitution and the Bill of Rights we can hopefully continue to exist as a democracy without ever having to resort to force.

So "fighting" for what you believe in means voting and debate and working within the system, thank goodness. But make no mistake, those democratic institutions only exist because someone, somewhere fought to get us a seat at the table. Pull a dog's teeth and nobody cares how loud it growls.

 

[Paladin3]

...mostly with guns

And? How do you plan to take them away? Specifically those that are being misused criminally?

Until you can answer those questions, stop telling me I need to turn mine in.

 

[highland145]

But you'd only get the guns willingly given up by those who are already law-abiding.

Or make them criminals. Many will never turn over theirs.

 

[Fritzo]

And? How do you plan to take them away? Specifically those that are being misused criminally?

Until you can answer those questions, stop telling me I need to turn mine in.

Not sure we can. Like I said...cat's already out of the bag. When the 2nd Amendment was created, the death machines we have today weren't conceived of, so it's difficult to translate a 200 year old mandate to today's world.

 

[highland145]

Not sure we can. Like I said...cat's already out of the bag. When the 2nd Amendment was created, the death machines we have today weren't conceived of, so it's difficult to translate a 200 year old mandate to today's world.

The reasons for the 2A are still valid so a new country with a new constitution may well have it.

 

[Paladin3]

Not sure we can. Like I said...cat's already out of the bag. When the 2nd Amendment was created, the death machines we have today weren't conceived of, so it's difficult to translate a 200 year old mandate to today's world.

Why? Do you think freedom is any less vital today than it was 200+ years ago? A gun is a tool. In the right hands it protects life, liberty and freedom. And facilitates the shooting sports, hunting and target shooting. In the wrong hands it facilitates murder and oppression.

Dream of a world where mankind settles it's differences peacefully all you want. We've achieved that mostly with our current civilization, but some folks still refuse to play nice. We need the ability to fight if called to do so as a last resort.

Being an Eloi would suck.

 

[Sonikku]

Give them a whip instead of a gun. Worked for Indiana Jones.

You know what ALSO worked for Indiana Jones?

A GUN!

 

[BudAshes]

You know what ALSO worked for Indiana Jones?

A GUN!

Not after Spielberg edits them out in the 40th Anniversary California Edition.

 

[highland145]

Not after Spielberg edits them out in the 40th Anniversary California Edition.

True, the same guy that has armed guards and lives behind a wall. Pelosi like.

 

[GearFace]

Maybe. But you'd only get the guns willingly given up by those who are already law-abiding. The sick/evil/criminal element won't care about your ban.

Well why have any laws at all then? But we don't have to rely on voluntary compliance; we have law enforcement for that.

And guns are easy to make and import illegally.

It won't be too long before everyone can make guns at home with their 3D printer.

a law-abiding member of society would never use violence to overthrow the democratic will of the people

I'm very afraid of the democratic will of the people. We could end up in a situation where 51% of the people are against guns, 51% are against abortion, 51% are in favor of the Green New Deal, 51% support government surveillance of all citizens, 51% are against alcohol/marijuana/pornography, etc. I don't care what the majority wants; I want liberty.

And? How do you plan to take them away? Specifically those that are being misused criminally?

The same way we take away anything that is being misused criminally.

Or make them criminals.

Every law makes someone a criminal.

The reasons for the 2A are still valid so a new country with a new constitution may well have it.

The stated reason for the 2A (the security of a free state) is outdated. We now have the military for that.

Why? Do you think freedom is any less vital today than it was 200+ years ago?

No, anti-gun people just don't see owning a gun as freedom. They see being shot by a gun as a loss of freedom.

A gun is a tool. In the right hands it protects life, liberty and freedom...In the wrong hands it facilitates murder and oppression.

Yes, it's the latter that people are concerned with, hence their desire to keep them out of the wrong hands! Similar to how we don't want Iran to have nukes.

And facilitates the shooting sports, hunting and target shooting.

You could also say marijuana facilitates the marijuana sports, Mary Jane, and 4:20.

Dream of a world where mankind settles it's differences peacefully all you want. We've achieved that mostly with our current civilization, but some folks still refuse to play nice. We need the ability to fight if called to do so as a last resort.

Being an Eloi would suck.

To me, this is the best reason for keeping guns legal (well, aside from the 2A saying they are). As horrible as mass shootings are, they're an acceptable price to pay to prevent a dystopian future.

 

[highland145]

I'm very afraid of the democratic will of the people. We could end up in a situation where 51% of the people are against guns, 51% are against abortion, 51% are in favor of the Green New Deal, 51% support government surveillance of all citizens, 51% are against alcohol/marijuana/pornography, etc. I don't care what the majority wants; I want liberty.

That's about how our presidential elections are split.

Every law makes someone a criminal.



The stated reason for the 2A (the security of a free state) is outdated. We now have the military for that.

Criminals actions are the problem. Not the laws, for the most part.

The reason for the 2A is the actions of the Brits and Gen Gates.

 

[GearFace]

Guns are great!

 

[highland145]

I personally prefer power tools.

 

[BudAshes]

I personally prefer power tools.

Yeah, nothing like protecting your castle with a chain saw and a hockey mask. You want to see those fuckers really run?

 

[Paladin3]

To me, this is the best reason for keeping guns legal (well, aside from the 2A saying they are). As horrible as mass shootings are, they're an acceptable price to pay to prevent a dystopian future.

This last part is troubling to me. We should never accept cowardly mass shootings or any violence against the innocent. I may disagree that banning guns will help stop that violence, but we must continue to search for a solution.

Better and more compassionate mental health care policies would go a long way, IMHO. As would a more realistic approach to protecting ourselves from the criminal violence civilized mankind has yet to completely shed it's penchants for.

Disarming in the hope that the sick/evil/criminals will do the same just doesn't make sense to me. Sometimes, all you can do with a mad dog is be ready to put it down. So, I'm not sure there is ANY solution that would 100% end senseless violence, other than locking each and every person in individual padded cells "for their own safety."

If that's what you were trying to say when you said "acceptable price" then maybe we agree more than I thought at first. But I hope we don't every come to truly accept mass shootings.

 

[Paladin3]

Guns are great!

Why do I feel that quote from Spider-man's Uncle Ben is appropriate here?

(And for you comic book purists, I know Uncle Ben never actually said it, but he did in the movie!)

 

[highland145]

Why do I feel that quote from Spider-man's Uncle Ben is appropriate here?

(And for you comic book purists, I know Uncle Ben never actually said it, but he did in the movie!)

In my mind, sounded like Greg Gutfeld.