What gun control would you actually support?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ, did I say I wanted more gun control? I was asking a theoretical question, and expressed some reservations about allowing people to posses C-motherf@#$ing-4. My mistake. Like I said, I've seen threads where I got the impression some members of the forum supported some form of regulations, if only they were the "right" kind, and I was curious what those were.

Also, when you say "none," is that what you really mean (I'm sure with many of you, that is the case)? Does that mean you support convicted felons, the mentally ill, school children to concealed/open carry? You support the right of citizens to own C4 and tanks? Because that is what you're saying. And I'm not saying you're wrong, we can have an argument on any of these things (though I have my doubts about the tank), but you do have to account for the extremes if you are going to say "none." That's how these philosophical discussions work.

I'll get into my personal thoughts in due time, I wanted to hear what other people thought.
 
How is this for a training program: F**k up and spend your life in jail....motivated to teach yourself *to handle your firearms safely yet?


*or seek professional help of your own volition.

It's not what you own, but what you do.
 
Last edited:
zbrod said:
You support the right of citizens to own C4 and tanks? Because that is what you're saying.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Government is far more dangerous than your crazy neighbor on the long timeline.

You get anger here because we are fed up with people regulating our behavior when we aren't the problem. That's not going to change until people stop trying to infringe on our rights no matter how pleasantly it's phrased.

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be free. It's that simple. The problem of violence is solved by addressing the cause - the human acting violently. What tool they use is largely immaterial.
 
Last edited:
Slowdive said:
How is this for a training program: F**k up and spend your life in jail....motivated to teach your self to handle your firearms safely yet?


*or seek professional help of your own volition.
Click to expand...

This could be worst the law yet! How do you define F up? Are you going to hold people to the same standards with cars, knives, machinery, business decisions etc?
 
Last edited:
And this..................

cold-dead-hands.jpg
 
Realtor MA said:
This could be worst the law yet! How do you define F up? Are you going to hold people to the same standards with cars, knives, machinery, business decisions etc?
Click to expand...

It's already a law.

kill someone w/ your car...your f'd
kill someone w/ a knife.. your f'd
kill someone w/ a piece of machinery you don't know how to use...f'd
business is easy...you just fail and go broke, but kill someone...f'd

Net net...you are responsible for your competence in life. No one will or should spoon feed it to you. You need to be the motivating force to ensure you can play with adults responsibly. There is help available if you seek it.
 
Last edited:
My point is *I* am not the one passing gun control laws or even advocating for them. As I've stated many times before, I disagree with my fellow "libtards" on this issue. You guys forget that, in every other place *except* this forum, I am the one arguing for gun rights against those who would have them restricted.

EDIT: Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.
 
Last edited:
zbrod said:
My point is *I* am not the one passing gun control laws or even advocating for them. As I've stated many times before, I disagree with my fellow "libtards" on this issue. You guys forget that, in every other place *except* this forum, I am the one arguing for gun rights against those who would have them restricted.

EDIT: Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should come out and meet us.
 
zbrod said:
Also, when you say "none," is that what you really mean (I'm sure with many of you, that is the case)? Does that mean you support convicted felons, the mentally ill, school children to concealed/open carry? You support the right of citizens to own C4 and tanks? Because that is what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, why not? The point of the 2nd amendment was for the people to have the means to overthrow the government if needed. That would require modern military armament.

Why not just state your position already, instead of trolling for everyone else's and "reserving" yours for when you find it convenient? You aren't discussing, more like data mining.

For 1911's, Colt, SA, Kimber. [laugh]
 
zbrod said:
My point is *I* am not the one passing gun control laws or even advocating for them. As I've stated many times before, I disagree with my fellow "libtards" on this issue. You guys forget that, in every other place *except* this forum, I am the one arguing for gun rights against those who would have them restricted.

EDIT: Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.
Click to expand...

No gun control.

No 1911, either. Unless you just want to look at it.
 
zbrod said:
My point is *I* am not the one passing gun control laws or even advocating for them. As I've stated many times before, I disagree with my fellow "libtards" on this issue. You guys forget that, in every other place *except* this forum, I am the one arguing for gun rights against those who would have them restricted.
Click to expand...
By the questions you ask, you still don't seem to understand the nature of 2A and why it exists and must be interpreted as painfully literally as it should - even when it hurts.

There are already built-in limitations to its power over government in the form of due process. Even your fundamental rights can be taken away after due process. That is all the compromise that is acceptable - even that is pushing it sometimes.

Short of the ability to take your rights away after due process, ANY further limitation WILL be abused by the state and as such we must draw a bright line.

Based on your passive aggressive comments/questions here, you are not a good spokesman for our side of the argument and likely not doing us any favors with your fellow libtards.
 
zbrod said:
EDIT: Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.
Click to expand...

Just buy one you think you'd like. If you hate it, sell it...buy another one try again. Everyone goes thru this process. Part of the fun and the best way to learn what it is YOU want.
 
zbrod said:
Also, when you say "none," is that what you really mean (I'm sure with many of you, that is the case)? Does that mean you support convicted felons, the mentally ill, school children to concealed/open carry? You support the right of citizens to own C4 and tanks? Because that is what you're saying. And I'm not saying you're wrong, we can have an argument on any of these things (though I have my doubts about the tank), but you do have to account for the extremes if you are going to say "none." That's how these philosophical discussions work.
Click to expand...

If they're dangerous felons, why are they free? Don't regulate the guns because someone bad might get them, fix the system so the bad people aren't out roaming the streets. Countless felons, who currently can't even legally buy a gun, are getting them anyways. There's already a law against that. Gun laws only effect people who are concerned with following the law.

If they're mentally ill and dangerous, why are they not institutionalized? Look at Jared Lee Loughner - he proved he had a problem long before he went on a shooting spree, yet everyone (including the police, after repeated complaints about his behavior - death threats, mind you) ignored the signs that he was clearly dangerous. Then he does what he did, and everyone wants to blame the gun.

As for kids - before my lifetime, they did have their own guns, and they even brought them to school.

As for tanks, C-4, etc - yes, please.
 
Last edited:
zbrod said:
Christ, did I say I wanted more gun control? I was asking a theoretical question, and expressed some reservations about allowing people to posses C-motherf@#$ing-4. My mistake. Like I said, I've seen threads where I got the impression some members of the forum supported some form of regulations, if only they were the "right" kind, and I was curious what those were.

Also, when you say "none," is that what you really mean (I'm sure with many of you, that is the case)? Does that mean you support convicted felons, the mentally ill, school children to concealed/open carry? You support the right of citizens to own C4 and tanks? Because that is what you're saying. And I'm not saying you're wrong, we can have an argument on any of these things (though I have my doubts about the tank), but you do have to account for the extremes if you are going to say "none." That's how these philosophical discussions work.

I'll get into my personal thoughts in due time, I wanted to hear what other people thought.
Click to expand...


The problem is that saying something like "What kind of gun control would you support?" Is no different to us than saying "What kind of rape do you think should be legal?" or "What kind of cancer is good?" Saying that some gun control is possible without infringing on people's rights is almost as bad as trying to say that someone can only be a "little bit pregnant". It doesn't pan out well in reality.

You can deny rights to people who are effectively wards of the state (eg, prisoners, and people locked up in the looney bins) but beyond that, there is very little that will pass muster in terms of not being infringing. Maybe some regulations on discharge (for example, few would argue that "firing into the air in a city" is infringing and "banning" that would not be an infringement.

I am against the prohibition on felons and the like, because frankly if they're bad enough that they should not be allowed to own guns then they should be in prison. Same thing with lautenberg and all that crap.

School kids? [thinking] Well, those kids are mostly 99.9% "owned" by their parents, and whatever their parents say, goes. Most of that issue goes out the window if schools were privatized. (Then it no longer becomes an issue of rights, since a parent is no longer "forced" to send their kid to a public school because the government is no longer allowed to steal money from them for the privilege. )

As far as the whole "C4" thing goes... The discussion of the limits beyond small arms is not even worth having at this point given the amount of infringements occurring with just plain old common firearms- to include things like machine guns, submachine guns, grenade launchers, etc. Discussing whether "C4/high explosives should be legal for joe citizen to have" at this point is like having a debate about whether or not some guy can have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier when the government is giving him a serious amount of s**t over wanting to own a rowboat. That said, when the NFA is repealed I'd like some M67 fragmentation grenades and some 40mm golden orbs, please thanks. [laugh]

Oh, BTW, Tanks are just vehicles. That happen to have tracks on them. They are bulldozers that go fast. They are mostly unregulated in the US (outside of the fact that depending on local regulation, driving them on public roads may be banned). Ponder that for a minute. I don't see a rash of people misusing tanks, particularly tanks not owned by
state/federal authorities. [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
By the questions you ask, you still don't seem to understand the nature of 2A and why it exists and must be interpreted as painfully literally as it should - even when it hurts.

There are already built-in limitations to its power over government in the form of due process. Even your fundamental rights can be taken away after due process. That is all the compromise that is acceptable - even that is pushing it sometimes.

Short of the ability to take your rights away after due process, ANY further limitation WILL be abused by the state and as such we must draw a bright line.

Based on your passive aggressive comments/questions here, you are not a good spokesman for our side of the argument and likely not doing us any favors with your fellow libtards.
Click to expand...

She doesn't understand.
 
zbrod said:
My point is *I* am not the one passing gun control laws or even advocating for them. As I've stated many times before, I disagree with my fellow "libtards" on this issue. You guys forget that, in every other place *except* this forum, I am the one arguing for gun rights against those who would have them restricted.

EDIT: Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.
Click to expand...

Are we suppose to track you internet history so that we know you're not a retard despite these type of posts? What did you think the answer would be?
 
I'm still figuring my position out. I routinely debate this issue with my liberal friends in order to challenge myself from that side. And I'm on here riling up you wingnuts to challenge me on the other side. I strongly believe in the right to bear arms because of the reasons many of you have mentioned, however I also need to be able to justify why people should not be able to own atomic bombs or biological weapons. That sound's extreme (apparently the tank was not extreme enough), but that is how you challenge your beliefs, by taking them to the logical extreme. Generally drawing an arbitrary line about what is "reasonable", as you guys have pointed out, is not acceptable. So what is the reasonable line that says guns are okay and atomic bombs are not? This is what I've historically struggled with the most.

If you want to know, my current working theory is that you have the natural right to own the minimum amount of force that puts you on a (theoretically) level playing field with any other person, including a soldier of the government or just another civilian. Guns are that minimum, whereas tanks are not. There is more to it, but I don't want to write a book and I don't have it all worked out yet, but it seems to me a solid working foundation.
 
zbrod said:
I'm still figuring my position out. I routinely debate this issue with my liberal friends in order to challenge myself from that side. And I'm on here riling up you wingnuts to challenge me on the other side. I strongly believe in the right to bear arms because of the reasons many of you have mentioned, however I also need to be able to justify why people should not be able to own atomic bombs or biological weapons. That sound's extreme (apparently the tank was not extreme enough), but that is how you challenge your beliefs, by taking them to the logical extreme. Generally drawing an arbitrary line about what is "reasonable", as you guys have pointed out, is not acceptable. So what is the reasonable line that says guns are okay and atomic bombs are not? This is what I've historically struggled with the most.

If you want to know, my current working theory is that you have the natural right to own the minimum amount of force that puts you on a (theoretically) level playing field with any other person, including a soldier of the government or just another civilian. Guns are that minimum, whereas tanks are not. There is more to it, but I don't want to write a book and I don't have it all worked out yet, but it seems to me a solid working foundation.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with atomic bombs? Serious question.
 
zbrod said:
I'm still figuring my position out. I routinely debate this issue with my liberal friends in order to challenge myself from that side. And I'm on here riling up you wingnuts to challenge me on the other side. I strongly believe in the right to bear arms because of the reasons many of you have mentioned, however I also need to be able to justify why people should not be able to own atomic bombs or biological weapons. That sound's extreme (apparently the tank was not extreme enough), but that is how you challenge your beliefs, by taking them to the logical extreme. Generally drawing an arbitrary line about what is "reasonable", as you guys have pointed out, is not acceptable. So what is the reasonable line that says guns are okay and atomic bombs are not? This is what I've historically struggled with the most.
Click to expand...

You can't defend yourself from government with an atomic bomb. It's a weapon of annihilation that you would only use on a foreign nation to simply destroy or bring it to it's knees. You're just bringing out the full retard scenario. Then again I don't think anyone should have them, especially our government as I wouldn't really trust them to tie my shoes for me.

A gun doesn't put you on even terms against your own government, as they could have coordinated assault using tanks, aircraft, etc. One on one rules for arming don't really apply, it isn't a freaking duel.

BTW, doubt you'll make many friends here with "wingnut" comments. Are you some kind of liberal college student?
 
Last edited:
I'm referring to civilians owning atomic bombs. I actually support the idea of countries having atom bombs (and I agree with Ron Paul about Iran having one), because atom bombs are the "firearms" at the country level, they put everyone on a level playing field.

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

EDIT: I'm recently out of grad school. And I don't see anyone having any qualms about using "moonbat."
 
Supermoto said:
Who determines proficiency needed to pass? Do you want any other amendment to require classes in order to exercise?

The only people that benefit from gun control are criminals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

no proficiency, no pass. an hour or 2 so you don't hurt yourself. tho i guess no matter what or how much training, people will do what they will regardless.
hmm, and as i think about it, i guess you can buy a lot more dangerous stuff than a gun with no license or training, so ... that logic kinda fails i guess.

And if we just went by the 2nd amendment and nothing else, more people would be familiar with firearms just through an abundance of ownership.

so i guess i need to retract my statement. I'll accept the flack given to me.

(and i would LOVE to be able to play with a tank!!! WOOT!)

zbrod said:
I'm referring to civilians owning atomic bombs. I actually support the idea of countries having atom bombs (and I agree with Ron Paul about Iran having one), because atom bombs are the "firearms" at the country level, they put everyone on a level playing field.

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

EDIT: I'm recently out of grad school. And I don't see anyone having any qualms about using "moonbat."
Click to expand...

Just say no to drugs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
Paul Craig: Gun control debate a fractured discourse
Replies
2
Views
126
jkelly1229
J
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
560
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
How's eotechs support
Replies
15
Views
202
NHKevin
NHKevin
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
505
LittleCalm
L
Back
Top Bottom