• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigLutz

Banned
I don't think it really matters how possible or how likely a scenario it is, when it comes down to it. Down playing the chances of the scenario is to avoid the main question. Do you think it's a right for a civilian to own these things? If semi automatic and automatic weapons, hypothetically, were as difficult to obtain as F-22's, for the same reasons you listed here, would you protest championing that they be more readily available?

Actually yes I would, because those weapons do not have the same destructive firepower as a F-22. Mind you price is also a factor, a F-22 costs hundreds of millions of dollars ( If not over a billion dollars with markup ), a Semi Automatic weapon costs less than a thousand. One any person could own, the other only a select few amount of people to own. So even if both were on the open market in the same way, it would be almost impossible for more than a select few to own a F-22.
 
Last edited:
Actually yes I would, because those weapons do not have the same destructive firepower as a F-22.

Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."
 

BigLutz

Banned
Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."

You seem to be missing my greater point, firepower is not a limiting factor in your scenario, money is. I have no problem with civilians having the same quality of firearms that are accessible to either the police or the military. And mind you I am saying firearms, not military jets and tanks, as money and a variety of other reasons are a limiting factor in that scenario that automatically discount it.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I don't draw a line. Lines are too easy to move. Look at how often the gun control line has moved. No autos, no this, no that, licensing, background, age, etc.

If someone could afford to buy and store a tank or plane, I say mor power to them. Heck, I'd love to have a tank! And an anti-tank rifle! Can't afford one, so I don't have either.
 

Silvershark

HAWLUCHA!!!
Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."

Ok, well ignoring for a second all the semi-automatic pistols out there, that's still not nessecarily true. Ultimately it depends on the caliber and model of the guns being compared. For example, a majority of AR-15's, the gun most people think of when anyone says "assault weapon", are actually a great deal weaker than your average deer rifle and most handguns. There are higher calibers that are used for hunting, but most people use the gun for recreational shooting and opt for the smaller, more accurate, .22 caliber, which can't hold a candle to the power of a .45 Colt. That's part of the reason why the homicide statistics for these weapons, and rifles in general, are so low, only accounting for about 2.7% of homicides from 2007-2011. To put that in perspective, nearly five times as many people were killed with knives during that same time period, over twice as many by hands and feet. Yet, it's the low powered rifles that are hardly used to commit crime that everyone's trying to ban, simply because it looks like a military weapon, ignoring the fact that it actually isn't.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

RealTalkRealFlow
Bingo. That's my point. A semi automatic has more firepower than a pistol, a tank has more firepower than a semi automatic, and obviously an F-22 has more firepower than a tank. I'm asking you where do you draw the line and say "This amount of firepower is okay for civilian use" and "This amount of firepower is not okay for civilian use."

As BigLutz said, it's not the firepower it's the money problem. Military tanks cost millions of dollars meaning no one is going to have them. Just because someone has a tank doesn't mean they're a bad person all I can say, "more power to them" especially if our govt. turns to tyranny. If they turn to tyranny I think tanks and jets are completely necessary.

What's the problem with having a semi automatic? I see no issue in owning a semi automatic, so what they're more accurate and more powerful than pistols. If it's a danger issue then I don't know what to tell you because bare hands can be deadly as well. Just because you have a "semi automatic" doesn't mean you're gonna go on a killing rampage in the future I know people that own semi automatic guns and they aren't harmful in any way. A gun's a gun fully auto, semi auto, bolt action, etc it still fires a bullet. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're or someone around them is in danger I own 3 pistols a Glock 19, .9mm, and a .22 pistol and I have them for my safety. I see no reason WHY I shouldn't have my guns, I believe I have every right in the world to own my guns and if they try to take that away from me, me and the law/govt. is gonna have some major problems.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
A list of weapons I think the general public should have the option to have:

Hands and feet
knives
a sword
nunchaku
a pistol
a rifle

What I do not think the public needs to have:
AK-47
semi automatics
tanks
F-22
basically any weapons that only the military can buy.


These are my thoughts though so of course they can and will differ from yours.

An AK-47 is a rifle AND a semi-automatic.
The majority of pistols are semi-automatic.
Many people already own planes and tanks and they aren't committing crimes with them.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to resist a tyranical government. Limiting what they can have defeats that purpose. I think that if someone can afford to buy it and store it properly, then they should be able to own it.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/07/hundreds-texas-educators-take-free-concealed-handgun-class/

Apparently, a large number of educators in Texas are willing to fight back for their students.
The proposal calls for 16 hours of training to instruct teachers how to first conceal children during an attack, and then return fire. It would apply to charter schools as well as public schools that don’t already employ armed guards.
 
Last edited:

Megaton666

Swampert Trainer
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to resist a tyranical government. Limiting what they can have defeats that purpose. I think that if someone can afford to buy it and store it properly, then they should be able to own it.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the US to have a militia, as it didn't have a military at the time.
I don't care what weapons you have, they're not going to protect you from a tyrannical government. You may have an AK-47, but the government has SWAT teams that will take you out in an instant. The only difference said AK-47 would make is taking one or two of them with you. Don't delude yourself into thinking the government sees armed civilians as a threat to the country as a whole, they only see them as threats to OTHER CIVILIANS.
 

Elnava

The Successor!
I seriously believe that the sole reason that anyone should have a gun would be in a dire situation in which someone else(a criminal) has a firearm. I used to think that guns should pretty much be banned but then I thought about how a law banning guns isn't going to stop criminals from getting them when they already get them illegally anyway.
 

Megaton666

Swampert Trainer
I seriously believe that the sole reason that anyone should have a gun would be in a dire situation in which someone else(a criminal) has a firearm. I used to think that guns should pretty much be banned but then I thought about how a law banning guns isn't going to stop criminals from getting them when they already get them illegally anyway.

That's nice IN THEORY.
In reality, shootouts aren't done by criminals.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the US to have a militia, as it didn't have a military at the time.
I don't care what weapons you have, they're not going to protect you from a tyrannical government. You may have an AK-47, but the government has SWAT teams that will take you out in an instant. The only difference said AK-47 would make is taking one or two of them with you. Don't delude yourself into thinking the government sees armed civilians as a threat to the country as a whole, they only see them as threats to OTHER CIVILIANS.


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Wrong.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

It enables people to form militias if they need to, against a tyranical government.
If enough armed civilians had a problem with what the government was doing, you don't think they would start paying attention?

That's nice IN THEORY.
In reality, shootouts aren't done by criminals.

Partially true. Criminals don't like getting shot at, so they tend to go to places that are gun free. When was the last time a gun range or police station was robbed? How many of the mass shootings were in "Gun Free Zones"?

Don't gang bangers shooting at each other count as criminals? Those are shoot outs.
 

Megaton666

Swampert Trainer
Partially true. Criminals don't like getting shot at, so they tend to go to places that are gun free. When was the last time a gun range or police station was robbed? How many of the mass shootings were in "Gun Free Zones"?

Don't gang bangers shooting at each other count as criminals? Those are shoot outs.

By "shootout" I mean some guy who started firing on some school children or college students or something.
Those aren't done by career criminals with black market access, they're done by emotional idiots who could easily buy a gun.

If enough armed civilians had a problem with what the government was doing, you don't think they would start paying attention?

No, I don't. Tyrannical government suppress opposition.
"Now wait" you say, "there were many revolutions in the padt". True, but need I remind you that the US military budget is almost half of the entire world's military budged? I think they'd manage to kill any opposition regardless of numbers or weapons.
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I seriously believe that the sole reason that anyone should have a gun would be in a dire situation in which someone else(a criminal) has a firearm. I used to think that guns should pretty much be banned but then I thought about how a law banning guns isn't going to stop criminals from getting them when they already get them illegally anyway.

There are other reasons for having a gun. Plus you can't predict when you might need it to defend yourself.

By "shootout" I mean some guy who started firing on some school children or college students or something.
Those aren't done by career criminals with black market access, they're done by emotional idiots who could easily buy a gun.

Technically they became criminals when they committed the first crime. And they were "Career" at that. It was just a short career. Those shootings happened where? "Gun Free Zones." Where the shooter was the only armed person.


No, I don't. Tyrannical government suppress opposition.
"Now wait" you say, "there were many revolutions in the padt". True, but need I remind you that the US military budget is almost half of the entire world's military budged? I think they'd manage to kill any opposition regardless of numbers or weapons.

And the 2nd Amendment would help prevent said government from arising in the first place or delay it in killing people. See how the Warsaw Ghetto held out longer than other Ghettos because they were armed. Yes, they still lost, but imagine how well the other Ghettos could have done? Or a more recent example. http://gunsmagazine.com/it-takes-a-village/

And we learn that surviving residents of the village of Obo decided they would not go gentle into that good night. Instead, they “raised their own volunteer scout force, armed it with homemade shotguns, and began disseminating intelligence on the LRA’s movements using the village’s sole, short-range FM radio transmitter.”

So that’s what the Wired title means by “tech”: Guns. And yeah, a radio, but without the guns they couldn’t protect it.

The result? “Obo has not suffered another major LRA invasion,” Axe writes.

Hmmm… a militia comprised of the people establishing security and keeping evil at bay—where have we heard that concept before?

Which means, of course, that the “government” is against the idea. No surprise there—as signatories to the UN-crafted “Central African Convention for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons,” any arms not under its control—and their own public laws governing, among other things, homemade weapons, you can’t expect them to forego the incentives for toeing the UN line—as opposed to securing the Blessings of Liberty for the people they’re supposed to serve.
Do you have a cite for your budget claim? Does it account for the fact the US has better equipment, which costs more? And the fact that the US is the go-to country for most troops.
 
Last edited:

Megaton666

Swampert Trainer
Technically they became criminals when they committed the first crime. And they were "Career" at that. It was just a short career. Those shootings happened where? "Gun Free Zones." Where the shooter was the only armed person.

No, they're not career criminals. There's a difference between being a criminal and making a career out of it.
People who do shootouts don't buy their guns in the black market, they buy them at gun stores. With regulation, said emotional idiots wouldn't get guns and wouldn't buy them in the black market because they can't access it.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
No, they're not career criminals. There's a difference between being a criminal and making a career out of it.
People who do shootouts don't buy their guns in the black market, they buy them at gun stores. With regulation, said emotional idiots wouldn't get guns and wouldn't buy them in the black market because they can't access it.

And which of the regulations that have passed or are trying to get passed, would stop these "emotional idiots?"

And you can call them what they are: Crazy psychos.

And how would these regs affect the black market anyway? Those guys are already breaking the law! What's one more going to do?

I'm more pro-active on responses. I'd rather have the option of shooting back than have to wait and pray that the police arrive before the person finishes killing everyone.
 
Last edited:

Byzantine

Well-Known Member
And which of the regulations that have passed or are trying to get passed, would stop these "emotional idiots?"

And you can call them what they are: Crazy psychos.

And how would these regs affect the black market anyway? Those guys are already breaking the law! What's one more going to do?

I'm more pro-active on responses. I'd rather have the option of shooting back than have to wait and pray that the police arrive before the person finishes killing everyone.

And most likely you are going to miss and end up killing other innocent people, or simply draw attention to yourself. Cops and military, who are trained to handle such situations, mess up all the time. Do you really believe you are better than they are?

Guns are most useful for self defense when they don't have to be used at all (that is simply as a threat), and beyond that in close quarters. Otherwise, though, you are likely to screw things up with one.
 

BigLutz

Banned
And most likely you are going to miss and end up killing other innocent people, or simply draw attention to yourself.

Got any stats to back up that statement? By the way lets say you shoot a person or two, but also hit the shooter. Is that not worth the risk as the potential deaths, as allowing the shooter to go unmolested would be worse?

Cops and military, who are trained to handle such situations, mess up all the time. Do you really believe you are better than they are?

Same, any stats to back that up? It isn't as if 50% of the time a cop draws a gun, they shoot a innocent person.
 
And most likely you are going to miss and end up killing other innocent people, or simply draw attention to yourself. Cops and military, who are trained to handle such situations, mess up all the time. Do you really believe you are better than they are?

Guns are most useful for self defense when they don't have to be used at all (that is simply as a threat), and beyond that in close quarters. Otherwise, though, you are likely to screw things up with one.
Is this a joke? Do you really think most civilians with guns have such poor aim or target practice? You don't think they have to go through extensive, or at least some sort of training before getting their license to own a gun? Also, you would like to have firepower monopolized in the hands of the military and law enforcement? What a genius idea if that is the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top