Here's what zombies really look like

[Zoidberg747]

There are two major flaws on BOTH sides of the gun control argument:

1. People assume that gun control automatically means taking away people's guns. This is not the case. MOST gun control advocates are fighting for back ground checks and better recordkeeping, which will prevent:
A. Gun suppliers selling guns off the record, making them impossible to track(Better record keeping)
B. Get rid of secondhand buyers(i.e those who buy guns for their friends who cannot, this can be reduced by making it more time consuming to get a gun). Also keep in mind secondhand buyers can buy for criminals, which is how a lot of them get their guns.
C. Get rid of Gun Shows being free for alls. Gun Shows rarely require background checks, which makes it easier for those with mental health issues and criminal records to get guns.

People bring up this "If we ban guns the criminals will get them". This not only prevents criminals from getting guns, it also allows those who lawfully acquire their guns to keep them. It is literally a win win.

2. People assume an automatic weapons ban is necessary. BAD IDEA for the following reasons:
A. The average automatic weapon owned by an American is an AR-15. An AR-15 not only has the same magazine found in many hunting rifles, it also has the same fire rate. It really is not much different from a hunting rifle.
B. Like some have said, people will find ways to get these weapons anyway.

So yeah, it's better to meet in the middle on this one. Oh and also, if you get offended by me pointing out a logical fallacy, I apologize. But if your going to get into such a controversial argument, you better make sure your logic adds up.

 

[nwo]

People bring up this "If we ban guns the criminals will get them". This not only prevents criminals from getting guns, it also allows those who lawfully acquire their guns to keep them. It is literally a win win.

2. People assume an automatic weapons ban is necessary. BAD IDEA for the following reasons:
A. The average automatic weapon owned by an American is an AR-15. An AR-15 not only has the same magazine found in many hunting rifles, it also has the same fire rate. It really is not much different from a hunting rifle.
B. Like some have said, people will find ways to get these weapons anyway.

So yeah, it's better to meet in the middle on this one. Oh and also, if you get offended by me pointing out a logical fallacy, I apologize. But if your going to get into such a controversial argument, you better make sure your logic adds up.

1. Criminals already have guns.

2. Automatic weapons are already banned.

3. Registration leads to confiscation, look what happened in Australia.

4. The average liberal thinks that a magazine is "ammunition."

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so I'm not meeting in the middle on this one.

 

[Zoidberg747]

1. Criminals already have guns.

2. Automatic weapons are already banned.

3. Registration leads to confiscation, look what happened in Australia.

4. The average liberal thinks that a magazine is "ammunition."

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so I'm not meeting in the middle on this one.

Except background checks don't infringe on your rights at all. In fact, it even says in the 2nd amendment:

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Funny how people seem to skip over that part.

Also most liberals know that ammo is what you put in the magazine lol.

Fully Automatic weapons are not straight up banned, just highly regulated.

 

[nwo]

Except background checks don't infringe on your rights at all. In fact, it even says in the 2nd amendment:

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Funny how people seem to skip over that part.

Also most liberals know that ammo is what you put in the magazine lol.

Fully Automatic weapons are not straight up banned, just highly regulated.

A well regulated militia does not mean Homeland Security.

"A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility." -Wikipedia

 

[Zoidberg747]

A well regulated militia does not mean Homeland Security.

"A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility." -Wikipedia

It means well regulated. I.e recordkeeping and/or background checks

 

[RunwayMafia]

Regardless of the issue, every person posting in this thread should support the constitution. It was set up to protect us and to serve us. We certainly wouldn't want to be thrown in jail for saying "Fuck Bush" or "Fuck America" right? We wouldn't want the Government deciding what get's published and what can and cannot be printed? Right?

Bottom line is the Government works for us. As corny and cliche as it sounds, WE should be regulating them...not the other way around. Don't get me wrong...they serve a purpose and should be a mediator...but telling us what we can and cannot have (Hey NYC...Soda police!) is wrong.

I'm not a gun owner....I don't give a shit about guns...I've never shot a gun...but even my gay ass can see what's unraveling before our very eyes. It's extremely imperative for a free society to be armed.

 

[Zoidberg747]

Regardless of the issue, every person posting in this thread should support the constitution. It was set up to protect us and to serve us. We certainly wouldn't want to be thrown in jail for saying "Fuck Bush" or "Fuck America" right? We wouldn't want the Government deciding what get's published and what can and cannot be printed? Right?

Bottom line is the Government works for us. As corny and cliche as it sounds, WE should be regulating them...not the other way around. Don't get me wrong...they serve a purpose and should be a mediator...but telling us what we can and cannot have (Hey NYC...Soda police!) is wrong.

I'm not a gun owner....I don't give a shit about guns...I've never shot a gun...but even my gay ass can see what's unraveling before our very eyes. It's extremely imperative for a free society to be armed.

But again, should people with mental health issues and criminal records really be allowed to get guns? Some may see this as an infringement on the 2nd amendment, BUT I would argue it is an infringement on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, since they are endangering my life by putting a weapon in a sociopaths hand.

Food for thought.

 

[RunwayMafia]

But again, should people with mental health issues and criminal records really be allowed to get guns? Some may see this as an infringement on the 2nd amendment, BUT I would argue it is an infringement on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, since they are endangering my life by putting a weapon in a sociopaths hand.

Food for thought.

I agree. No, I don't want psychopath's to be able to get guns...but a BAN on anything never works. I have no problem with background checks...but again, IN MY OPINION, law abiding citizens should not be punished for the crimes of mentally ill individuals.

Lately I've been doing research on what I think the REAL issue here is...drugs. Psychotropic drugs and the collaboration they seem to have with these so called " mass shootings". Also, some more food for thought, cars/vehicles kill way more people than guns do. They are operated by humans when these killings take place...much like guns. Should we ban vehicles?

 

[nwo]

This isn't about background checks. We are talking magazine limits, "assault" weapon bans, registration. I could pull up countless politicians that are currently fighting for these types of restrictions.

 

[Critical-Limit]

Look....

I'm not up for banning guns either. I support the constitution.

I also support that precious medals should've remained our currency. It would force HONEST use of money. not this trash federal reserve giving free money to banks and making us more poor.




But you cannot deny.... that banning guns doesn't save lives.

It factually does.

compare our DEATH rate to guns to any other nation that outright bans guns like Japan.


I support guns/constitution.

But I'm not gonna pretend that banning them wouldn't save lives. I'm just gonna argue that if you take the constitution for granted what's to stop them from destroying freedom of speech?


Japan's deaths per year don't even break more than 50 deaths most of the time.

We have THOUSANDS up THOUSANDS dead every year to guns.

Even if you adjust for population size they still kick our ass on death rate.

But the second amendment was put there to protect us from a government that grows too big.




I was in a room full of rednecks talking about "they're gonna take our knives now!" When that mass stabbing happened in texas.

Tell me.... how many people died in that incident?

How many you think WOULD'VE died if he had a gun?


Again, I'm not against guns. But I'm not gonna lie to myself and ignore facts.

 

[Lou Kang]

People really should do their research on this sort of topic before spatting out rude comments and/or uniformed opinions. I was blown away when I took the time to research "Globalist Bankers" and the "BilderBerg Group" and the "Trilateral Commission". I mean, it's pretty frightening what they have planned for our future....and trust me, when you control the Federal Reserve and the rest of the money on Earth...you control the world and it's leaders.

So many of our former presidents (Jefferson comes to mind) warned us to watch out for the bankers. Essentially bankers that control the currency are more a danger to our civil liberties than a standing army.

watching zeitgeist documentaries is some serious research!!

 

[RunwayMafia]

watching zeitgeist documentaries is some serious research!!

Lol. No, I'm refering to journalists who actually protest their secret meetings.

 

[Lou Kang]

Lol. No, I'm refering to journalists who actually protest their secret meetings.

like alex jones?

 

[aj1701]

But again, should people with mental health issues and criminal records really be allowed to get guns? Some may see this as an infringement on the 2nd amendment, BUT I would argue it is an infringement on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, since they are endangering my life by putting a weapon in a sociopaths hand.

Food for thought.

Both those sound good and simple on the surface, but even that can have problems.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... no really.. in the USSR they didn't lock you up because you disagreed with the politics in power, no that would be wrong. They locked you up because you were obviously mentally ill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

For criminals, it depends on how we classify criminal. Violent offenders sure, no guns for them. But someone that was arrested and / or jailed because they smoked pot, which shouldn't be illegal anyway, they can't own a gun? Sure, guns in the hands of drug abusers is a bad thing, but before you take issue with pot, alcohol is legal and people that drink responsibly are still allowed to own guns. Hell in some states ALL traffic offenses are criminal cases. Should you not be allowed to own a gun because you were going 10 over the speed limit (which itself is likely illegally set; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limits which talks about the 85th percentile rule, which is mandated by MUTCD). So even these seemingly simple ideas are more complex than is being acknowledged.

 

[RunwayMafia]

like alex jones?

Oh Honey...LOL. I love me some Jim Tucker.

 

[Zoidberg747]

Both those sound good and simple on the surface, but even that can have problems.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... no really.. in the USSR they didn't lock you up because you disagreed with the politics in power, no that would be wrong. They locked you up because you were obviously mentally ill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

For criminals, it depends on how we classify criminal. Violent offenders sure, no guns for them. But someone that was arrested and / or jailed because they smoked pot, which shouldn't be illegal anyway, they can't own a gun? Sure, guns in the hands of drug abusers is a bad thing, but before you take issue with pot, alcohol is legal and people that drink responsibly are still allowed to own guns. Hell in some states ALL traffic offenses are criminal cases. Should you not be allowed to own a gun because you were going 10 over the speed limit (which itself is likely illegally set; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limits which talks about the 85th percentile rule, which is mandated by MUTCD). So even these seemingly simple ideas are more complex than is being acknowledged.

Fun fact: You can buy a gun now while totally wasted and/or drunk. That is a problem. You can set boundaries on what types of criminal records are equivalent to no gun usage, like violent crimes etc.

 

[aj1701]

Fun fact: You can buy a gun now while totally wasted and/or drunk. That is a problem. You can set boundaries on what types of criminal records are equivalent to no gun usage, like violent crimes etc.

What about the abuse of mental illness? Also I doubt you can buy a gun while drunk... there's a waiting period and background check that needs to be done. The problem is that its doubtful that it will be limited to violent felonies, or that it won't expand. I believe there are already people hit by my scenario... they usually also can't vote either.

 

[Zoidberg747]

What about the abuse of mental illness? Also I doubt you can buy a gun while drunk... there's a waiting period and background check that needs to be done. The problem is that its doubtful that it will be limited to violent felonies, or that it won't expand. I believe there are already people hit by my scenario... they usually also can't vote either.

I never said it would be a perfect solution. But I would rather someone on the fence not be able to get a gun than gun dealers be allowed to sell to those who are obviously intoxicated or unstable.

Stats:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html
56 missing guns per day
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/
How gun dealers are beating the system now, and why background checks need to be enforced/stricter