What is your solution to the gun debate in America

[sourceninja]

What is your argument exactly?

His response was appropriate. Yours offers nothing.

I just don't believe that people need these guns to fight the government. It's a fools errand to think that your guns will be able to do shit. I thought about the whole over running an armory but even if you got half a dozen tanks you would be useless against the Army.

It's Military support or bust.

This is all a stupid discussion since our system is designed to be changed politically.

You would assert that US citizens would fire tanks in their own cities killing innocents like we do in the middle east to stop a few "terrorist" revolutionaries? I suggest that if there was a revolution in this country, we would be on even footing firepower wise with our own government simple because of the political damage of bombing new york city or shooting tanks in Chicago (We might be ok with Detroit getting nuked though). Predator drones blowing up a small area to kill a few choice targets are not going to cut it when it's killing american citizens and will only lead to the same kind of revolutions that are WORKING overseas right now. The military gets sick of killing friends and families and joins the revolution rather than the oppressive government telling them to kill the guy next door.

Have we reached this point? Hell no. I honestly do not see this kind of revolution happening in this country. However this doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment was designed exclusively for this to happen. It also doesn't change the fact that this kind of revolution works and is working right now in other countries. The very fact we have the 2nd amendment shows that the people who founded this country knew how ALL governments eventually end up. They wanted us to have the ability to change our government once our government stopped representing the population. Voting and politics only work when you actually have a choice. Personally, I no longer feel I have a voice or a choice in politics. I saw no difference in Obama or Romney and the system has created great 'wag the dog' type politics where we think the drama is really people fighting for us. In reality the drama is keeping us docile and distracted from our overlords being well, overlords.

That said, my life is still pretty good right now, and because of that, I have no real desire to do anything more than bitch. I'm sure 99% of everyone else is in the same boat. They can take our guns, take our money, take our property, and as long as I get cable TV, internet, and cheap booze I'll probably just bitch about it and talk about how this next election we are going to change things. Then we elect a new face with the same game.

 

[randomrogue]

I don't think it would ever get to that point. At worst you would have a few cities erupt in riots, overrun an armory, steal a whole bunch of shit, and then get mowed down by the Army. Alternatively someone blows up a federal building or takes a whole bunch of hostages somewhere and starts demanding things.

The guns are useless since even if you could progress it to an armed struggle they would have no impact.

The idea of us having guerrilla warfare in urban areas with people using their handguns and rifles to terrorize our military is laughable at best since a political solution would be the overwhelming choice by Americans and if that wasn't an option you would need to hit the streets by the tens of millions to get the support of the military. Nowhere in any of that are your small caliber weapons going to make a lick of difference.

 

[sourceninja]

I don't think it would ever get to that point. At worst you would have a few cities erupt in riots, overrun an armory, steal a whole bunch of shit, and then get mowed down by the Army. Alternatively someone blows up a federal building or takes a whole bunch of hostages somewhere and starts demanding things.

The guns are useless since even if you could progress it to an armed struggle they would have no impact.

The idea of us having guerrilla warfare in urban areas with people using their handguns and rifles to terrorize our military is laughable at best since a political solution would be the overwhelming choice by Americans and if that wasn't an option you would need to hit the streets by the tens of millions to get the support of the military. Nowhere in any of that are your small caliber weapons going to make a lick of difference.

Because there are no established nations with militaries that were toppled by a active civilian population with small arms? It hasn't even happend once in the last 5 years right?

 

[raildogg]

There is no solution to guns or anything else in particular. What is needed is for people to be better, to change. If they are good, there would be no desire to have guns or the need. So you can ban all the guns you want, the people will still stay the same. It won't make any difference. Guns don't exist all by themselves. They are part of a violent society.

 

[Cerb]

The military gets sick of killing friends and families and joins the revolution rather than the oppressive government telling them to kill the guy next door.

Bingo.

It won't take an overwhelming civilian armed force to stop a military U.S. population suppression. It will take a few instances of Grandpa waiting for them on the porch with his Mauser (just what popped into my head--if you want it to be an AR-15, or a polite-looking Marlin, that's OK, too ), wearing all his little pins and medals one last time. How many cops and vets do you think our armed forces would be willing to round up and/or shoot before they got some sense, even if they could be manipulated into rounding up guns in the first place? History has shown it can happen on a small scale, for short periods of time. But, if it were to attempt to become significant, it just wouldn't work. Even if they could get it figured out, logistically, there's no way the power-grabbing minority could keep everyone under them on a leash for very long.

While I don't see it happening, if it did, I have a hard time imagining the threat of that kind of conflict allowing the military to stay on the wrong side of things for more than a matter of days.

 

[piasabird]

Go watch videos of the LA Riots . . . After watching that it is hard to imagine a ban on what is basically a rifle with a magazine of say 20 rounds. The good thing is you can see an assault rifle because it is really hard to hide. In Viet Nam they determined that those 30 round magazines had a habit of jamming. They may have a better design now adays.

There is no legal right to limit something like a rifle or a magazine. The real problem is all these crazy people. How can you control crazy people? We have already barred people from owning weapons like cannons and hand grenades and machine guns, which would typically be classified as Offensive Weapons. A while back the feds determined that this riot shotgun called the Street Sweeper was too aggressive and banned it. They forced people if they wanted to keep them to apply for a special permit to own them like they do for Machine Guns and some military offensive weapons.

As an example a Ruger Mark II or Mark III 22LR pistol has a standard 10 round clip. I think for a 22 this makes sense. If you made the clips thicker it could easily be 12 rounds, so they chose the 10 round clip because it is basically a target pistol or a training pistol. However for a 45 a clip of 7 or 8 rounds makes more sense. So making these restrictive laws without regard to the type of weapon could be counter-productive.

There is this fallacy that a background check will stop people from getting guns. I can find another person with no legal problems and have him go buy a gun for me.

 

[sourceninja]

...There is this fallacy that a background check will stop people from getting guns. I can find another person with no legal problems and have him go buy a gun for me.

That is called a straw purchase and is already illegal. I am for better background checks. There really is no reason to not do better checks. It shouldn't keep lawful people from getting guns, and it should help catch a few people who shouldn't be buying guns.

Banning firearms, "armor piercing" ammo (such a silly statement to even make, are they banning hunting rounds?) and limiting capacity are pointless. I'd rather see that effort go into finding a way to promote better mental healthcare.

My daily carry only has 7 rounds. That is what I personally feel is enough of a balance of size and defense. However, when I go to the range, I prefer my 20 round XDM. It's a lot more fun to shoot.

 

[silverpig]

How about:

1. Ban hand guns (except for law enforcement)
2. Ban all semi-automatics. Bolt or pump action only (except law enforcement)

 

[Agent11]

Silence, Canadian!

 

[irishScott]

How about:

1. Ban hand guns (except for law enforcement)
2. Ban all semi-automatics. Bolt or pump action only (except law enforcement)

Lol. What about lever action?

Also, good luck with that. Especially given that handguns are now explicitly protected under the Heller decision. And this poll. Americans like to be able to defend themselves. Go figure.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

 

[silverpig]

Lol. What about lever action?

Also, good luck with that. Especially given that handguns are now explicitly protected under the Heller decision. And this poll. Americans like to be able to defend themselves. Go figure.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

It might not be popular, but might it not work?

 

[irishScott]

It might not be popular, but might it not work?

Yes, because the over 100 million handguns we have are just going to evaporate?

It might work if we gave it a century. As it is convicted felons already have little trouble obtaining a handgun illegally, and buyback programs have never been successful here. Short of flagrantly violating the Constitution and initiating door-to-door searches for handguns, you're not going to kill the domestic supply, and that's a century of armed criminals and a disarmed populace, which would create thousands of extra deaths per year, for a century. I'm not willing to sacrifice 100,000+ citizens on some grand experiment.

Besides, what would it work towards? Eliminating crime? Limiting deaths over the next few centuries? Even if it works perfectly criminals will still be around, and they'll still have, say, knives, crowbars, and other lethal weapons. Saying citizens have the right to self defense, and then limiting them to hand-to-hand combat, is laughable.

Oh look, this guy has a knife and has broken into your home. You have your kids in the room behind you. You have the right to defend yourself, but we can't let you have a gun, you'd be too much of a potential threat to your neighbors for some vague philosophical reason. So we're only going to let you use a knife, bat or your bare fists. Because all criminals deserve a fair fight! Good luck!

Canada currently suffers from this syndrome. I'm blanking on the name, but there's a former firearms instructor who's had a 2 year legal battle for firing one of his revolvers at people who were actively fire-bombing his house and he caught it on video. He won, but 2 years? You likely wouldn't get arrested for that in New Jersey (arguably the state with the most punitive gun laws in the nation).

Like it or not the US is less homogeneous and more violent than most of the western world. In many ways this has propelled us to the status of sole super-power, but it comes with various costs. To address issues like gun violence, we have to address the violence, not the guns. Because if you remove guns, the violence is still there. Hell take a look at Australia. Lower murder rate than the US, but 3 times the rape/capita. Frankly, I'd rather live in a nation with less rape, less overall violent crime, and more homicides, where all citizens are free to defend themselves with superior force, not "proportionate". (what, are we going to challenge the criminals to a boxing match?)

 

[Agent11]

It would not work because our constitution does not allow such a thing. There are many other good reasons, but it all comes down to that one.

 

[exdeath]

How about:

1. Ban hand guns (except for law enforcement)
2. Ban all semi-automatics. Bolt or pump action only (except law enforcement)

How about no.

It's not like the mechanical fundamentals for semi automatic fire are not well known and beyond the means of someone with basic mechanical and machine shop skills.

They aren't going away.

 

[schneiderguy]

How about:

1. Ban hand guns (except for law enforcement)
2. Ban all semi-automatics. Bolt or pump action only (except law enforcement)

 

[micrometers]

Repeal the 2nd.

That would make conversations about guns far more reasonable. I'd still support allowing firearms in society, but with far more restrictions.

 

[Agent11]

Good luck with that, there is a reason why it is difficult to pass a constitutional amendment.

 

[micrometers]

Oh, it's near impossible, but it would help the situation quite a bit. There's no right to an automobile and yet we have the most awesome car culture on the planet here in America.

 

[monovillage]

Good luck with that, there is a reason why it is difficult to pass a constitutional amendment.

Yep and just think that in 2014 all the Republicans have to do is pick up 6 seats to take control of the Senate. Red states with Democrat senators up for election in 2014 include. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, S. Dakota and W. Virginia. This anti-gun hysterical push is giving the Republicans the best chance to control both the Senate and the House after those elections.

 

[micrometers]

Ronald Reagan supported the 1994 AWB

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ays-obama-the-potentially-surprising-details/

 

[micrometers]

Yep and just think that in 2014 all the Republicans have to do is pick up 6 seats to take control of the Senate. Red states with Democrat senators up for election in 2014 include. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, S. Dakota and W. Virginia. This anti-gun hysterical push is giving the Republicans the best chance to control both the Senate and the House after those elections.

20 dead elementary school kids = hysteria. Wow.

Inanimate objects are more important to you, eh?

 

[Agent11]

Stop using bodies as props for political gain.

It is ghoulish and in bad taste.

Bad things happen. We can try to prevent them using sensible measures but taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in an attempt to forestall madmen is not the answer, they will find a way to express their hatred either way.

 

[monovillage]

20 dead elementary school kids = hysteria. Wow.

Inanimate objects are more important to you, eh?

My rights under the Constitution are more important to me, so yes.

 

[Angry Irishman]

How about:

1. Ban hand guns (except for law enforcement)
2. Ban all semi-automatics. Bolt or pump action only (except law enforcement)

We have truly lost the war on drugs....

 

[sportage]

People should watch or rewatch Bowling for Columbine. Especially the part comparing the US and Canada gun violence.
What struck me was the line, "if more guns was the answer, America would already be the safest place on the earth".
So why aren't we? Huh? Why?