Assault weapon bans

[Spendulus]

Yep, and then people who have never been convicted of a crime (and in the cases of malicious persecution, never even had enough evidence against them to meet the probable cause requirement) have to spend thousands if not tens of thousands more dollars (other than their primary defense) on legal fees to obtain findings of factual innocence, arrest record expungement, and STILL there's no guarantee that 100% of those dollars will not go to waste, because the government "messed up" (and yet no government official is ever penalized and forced to pay the citizen back). Cost-prohibiting the poor out of their right to self-defense, and too often into premature graves.

I agree the rules and methods for correcting database errors and 'getting your rights back' are terrible and are no where explained accurately.  Basically the NCIS appeal method is a joke.  Want to get a set of your own personal information from the FBI database?  Good luck on that, it takes a certified set of fingerprints then six months before they cough it up.

One simple change to the law which would likely provide the greatest benefit would be to toss out the rule that someone convicted of just possession of one or another drug is barred from purchasing guns.  Generally this implies felony convictions, but there is a rule in the federal law that brings in a number of misdemeanors.  Something like "a misdemeanor which allows imprisonment for one year or longer".

Would not surprise me if three fourths or more of those disallowed were for simple drug possession.

[MikeH]

Really? So what are the US soldiers on the "collateral murder" video leaked by B. Manning? They killed +10 unarmed civilians and seriously injured two kids (which are probably dead now), and they really enjoyed the view of the corpses of the people they just killed... "look at that... Nice" they said to each other while admiring the torn apart bodies on their chopper screen.

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy, they seen like callous pricks but they're being screwed over and it only gets worse when they get out - they suffer from withdrawals, suicide rate of 22 / day, their assets being taken away, 40% of homeless are veterans - not to mention every war they fight is based on a lie.

[PrintMule]

Really? So what are the US soldiers on the "collateral murder" video leaked by B. Manning? They killed +10 unarmed civilians and seriously injured two kids (which are probably dead now), and they really enjoyed the view of the corpses of the people they just killed... "look at that... Nice" they said to each other while admiring the torn apart bodies on their chopper screen.

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy, they seen like callous pricks but they're being screwed over and it only gets worse when they get out - they suffer from withdrawals, suicide rate of 22 / day, their assets being taken away, 40% of homeless are veterans - not to mention every war they fight is based on a lie.

But it's not a conscription, they chose their way, let them pay for it.

[Rassah]

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy

Speaking as someone who has/had soldiers in my family, WTF are you talking about?

[Lethn]

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy

Speaking as someone who has/had soldiers in my family, WTF are you talking about?

Why would U.S soldiers need drugs to reduce empathy when all soldiers ( not just the U.S ) willingly submit themselves to training programs that are designed to do that? It's the Taliban that use drugs on their soldiers and for once the army isn't just making that shit up to scare us because a huge percentage of the worlds drug market comes from Afghanistan.

[NewLiberty]

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy

Speaking as someone who has/had soldiers in my family, WTF are you talking about?

Why would U.S soldiers need drugs to reduce empathy when all soldiers ( not just the U.S ) willingly submit themselves to training programs that are designed to do that? It's the Taliban that use drugs on their soldiers and for once the army isn't just making that shit up to scare us because a huge percentage of the worlds drug market comes from Afghanistan.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" was not a documentary. 

[Lethn]

That has nothing to do with anything, you've clearly not read about the training soldiers undergo to resist interrogation for instance.

[Rampion]

Really? So what are the US soldiers on the "collateral murder" video leaked by B. Manning? They killed +10 unarmed civilians and seriously injured two kids (which are probably dead now), and they really enjoyed the view of the corpses of the people they just killed... "look at that... Nice" they said to each other while admiring the torn apart bodies on their chopper screen.

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy, they seen like callous pricks but they're being screwed over and it only gets worse when they get out - they suffer from withdrawals, suicide rate of 22 / day, their assets being taken away, 40% of homeless are veterans - not to mention every war they fight is based on a lie.

Considering US soldiers are murdering hunderds of thousands of innocent people all over the world, what would you consider them - good or bad "guys"

I make this point because when I said that I don't believe in "good" or "bad" guys (I just believe in "guys" that do bad or good things at some points of their lives) I was mocked by pretty much every one on this thread. And here you have the example of how people who is murdering women and children and bombing countries to the stone age, sometimes enjoying what they are seeing, are justified by you - and I'm sure they are justified by their families and community.

Or maybe we have the good guys, the bad guys, and the US soldiers on the "collateral murder" video, which do not fall in any one of the former categories?

People do both evil and good things, but living in a culture that feeds on fear, while considers firearms "freedom tools" and nice toys, do not help at all.

[Rassah]

And here you have the example of how people who is murdering women and children and bombing countries to the stone age, sometimes enjoying what they are seeing, are justified by you - and I'm sure they are justified by their families and community.

You keep saying that, but I'm just not seeing that anywhere. I'm pretty sure everyone, including Americans, see those guys as the "bad guys."

[freedomno1]

Drones bombing civilians helps to create a terrorist from an otherwise docile citizen as they lose their family members from bombs falling overhead
Makes sense to me

[Rampion]

And here you have the example of how people who is murdering women and children and bombing countries to the stone age, sometimes enjoying what they are seeing, are justified by you - and I'm sure they are justified by their families and community.

You keep saying that, but I'm just not seeing that anywhere. I'm pretty sure everyone, including Americans, see those guys as the "bad guys."

You see how Mike just said that they are poor kids who were drugged and brainwashed, meaning that they are not 'the bad guys' - he implied the bad guys are on higher positions, which is a fair point.

On the contrary you can bet that for the family of the Reuters reporter murdered in that video those US soldiers are indeed the bad guys that should be taken out.  So... If they are indeed "the bad guys" also for you and Americans in general, why don't your armed friends go and use their freedom-tools against the US military preventing the killings their neighbours are commiting abroad?

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

Maybe because you know you do not have any chance against the military, and that's just the way it is?

As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world.

And if you know you do not stand a chance against the people ruling the world, maybe you just want your guns to be safe in case a random criminal/psycho tries to kill you. Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime, which leads to a less violent society as a whole.

This cult to the idea that individuals have the "God given" right to carry firearms is disturbing and sick.

The world is fucked up - lets try not to fuck it up even more by adding more and more deadly weapons to it.

[mdude77]

You see how Mike just said that they are poor kids who were drugged and brainwashed, meaning that they are not 'the bad guys' - he implied the bad guys are on higher positions, which is a fair point.

On the contrary you can bet that for the family of the Reuters reporter murdered in that video those US soldiers are indeed the bad guys that should be taken out.  So... If they are indeed "the bad guys" also for you and Americans in general, why don't your armed friends go and use their freedom-tools against the US military preventing the killings their neighbours are commiting abroad?

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

Maybe because you know you do not have any chance against the military, and that's just the way it is?

The Federal government is completely out of control of the citizens of the US.  They are bought and paid for by the special interests of the world, namely the large corporations and "military industrial complex". 

As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world.

Actually it is not.  Any one person trying to take on the Federal government will lose.  Only if the government makes the first strike will the people band together and overturn the tyrannical out of control parasite that it is.  Re-read what happened with the "revolutionary war".  The only difference is today's government is completely way beyond what England was doing at the time. 

And if you know you do not stand a chance against the people ruling the world, maybe you just want your guns to be safe in case a random criminal/psycho tries to kill you. Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime, which leads to a less violent society as a whole.

This has been dis-proven time and time again here.  Why do you keep repeating it?

This cult to the idea that individuals have the "God given" right to carry firearms is disturbing and sick.

The world is fucked up - lets try not to fuck it up even more by adding more and more deadly weapons to it.

Here we go with the labeling again.  When your "facts" fall apart, you resort to labeling those who oppose your viewpoint. 

The world is full of sick and mentally depraved individuals.  Some are that way because of drugs (illegal or prescribed).  Some are that way because of religious hysteria.  Some are that way because they are power freaks and desire to manipulate and control others.  Some are that way because of their military "training".  ALL of those have ready access to "deadly weapons", whether they are illegal or not.  Yet you want those law abiding citizens who don't fall into any of those categories to disarm themselves and make themselves ready victims to the others?  That's a very weird and odd position to take. 

M

[Spendulus]

....
As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world. ...

This is false.

There is an interesting commonality between those anti-gun types and those who use firearms to commit horrible acts, both would force their views on others.

Meanwhile most people owning or not owning firearms have no interest in forcing their views on anyone...

[Rassah]

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.

Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime.

Statistics also say less pirates = higher global temperatures. That's a fact. Back when we had lots of pirates, temperatures were way lower. As the number of pirates went down, global temperatures went up. Way up. More recently, in the 2000's, the rise in temperatures leveled off a bit, at the same time that Somali pirates started up their activity. During the last two or three years, US really cracked down on piracy in Somalia, killing a bunch of them, and we also had the two hottest years on record.

[TheButterZone]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[FirstAscent]

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.

Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime.

Statistics also say less pirates = higher global temperatures. That's a fact. Back when we had lots of pirates, temperatures were way lower. As the number of pirates went down, global temperatures went up. Way up. More recently, in the 2000's, the rise in temperatures leveled off a bit, at the same time that Somali pirates started up their activity. During the last two or three years, US really cracked down on piracy in Somalia, killing a bunch of them, and we also had the two hottest years on record.

You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:

1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.

2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.

By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.

Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.

[Mike Christ]

And if you know you do not stand a chance against the people ruling the world, maybe you just want your guns to be safe in case a random criminal/psycho tries to kill you. Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less gun crime, which leads to a less violent society as a whole.

This cult to the idea that individuals have the "God given" right to carry firearms is disturbing and sick.

The world is fucked up - lets try not to fuck it up even more by adding more and more deadly weapons to it.

Considering the military will never, ever give up their firearms for the sake of peace, there will always be violent crime; as you point out above, soldiers are still people and are still capable of crime, and have done so innumerable times in our history, which is especially easy against an unarmed populace; to disarm a people is to create a society of slaves.  You can blame the blacksmith for arming his peers with swords, but if it were not for his peers wanting the swords, the blacksmith wouldn't need to make any more swords; he would go out of business.  We cannot blame deaths on the fact the technology of firearms exist; if people want guns, they want them for two reasons: to kill in offense, or to kill in defense.  We can pretend we're a civilized species with no need for guns, but removing the guns from the equation does not result in peace.  Imagine a world without guns:


--These fellows know how to resolve conflict without gun violence.

If a society wants guns, it's not because we were any more peaceful without them.  To assume that, without guns, we would all get along, is naive.  To assume that, with guns, we would all kill each other for being unable to handle that power in our hands, is also naive, born from one who assumes that because he has no self control, nobody can have it--but if you believe in either, you would do better first questioning what a gun in the hand of a soldier is doing to him, and why he's any different from the individual; it makes no sense to disarm one and not the other, and yet that's not what anti-gun proponents fight for.  What's more dangerous: a military, or the individual?  The military, I believe, for they're organized, experienced, and capable of destruction far beyond what any citizen is capable of.  If one wants to fight guns under the belief that any power will lead to pure corruption, why must we always start with the citizens?  Because fighting the military's use of deadly force is asinine, and when our political beliefs play two dissonant keys, we ignore the greater evil and go for the next best thing, merely to get our way.

The truth is thus: we're not safe.  We're not safe from ourselves, not safe from our government, not safe from other nations with other governments, nor are we safe from disease, or meteors falling, or anything else; there's no guarantee in life, and anti-meteor legislation will not save you, but the men who actually work to stop the meteor to begin with.  There will be a moment when someone who does not share your anti-gun views uses their gun against you, and there is no law on the face of the Earth which will stop a bullet.  Even if we were so tight on gun control that no gun was allowed in the nation at all, you would still fear those who knew how to create guns; to stop these people, and to stop people in the future, we would have to censor both the Internet and libraries, and monitor all calls and texts and post rewards for turning in people who know about guns to ensure nobody was talking about how to make guns so anyone who didn't already know couldn't know, and we would also need to monitor the types of packages people get and the purchases they make, and keep a record of every receipt and movement--or better yet, ban all the materials required to create the gun and ammunition; it may be inconvenient, but at least the only thing you'll have to worry about is getting your neck slit open or having the back of your skull smashed into concrete, but don't worry, we can always pass laws to ban sharp things and hard things; and why stop there?--lets ban balled fist, mean glares, and anyone 6 inches taller than you.

Though, you are correct to say it's disturbing and sick that we must use firearms to resolve our differences, it's important to note that wishing for a future without the need for guns is not equivalent to removing guns from modern society and expecting the same result; again, this is naive, and results from a failure to understand human beings at all.  To get to the point where we no longer need guns to resolve conflict is what we must work for; the guns are simply a stepping stone to that advanced society, of which we are not, and, if we wanted, would resort to simpler methods of violence if no gun was present; and in the future, we may still be using laser cannons and plasma rifles to resolve our differences, and there will still be people who believe that banning laser cannons and plasma rifles will lead to a brighter, more peaceful society, without giving a thought as to why anyone would possibly want those man-killers (outside of believing those people are stupid and uncivilized, of course.)

[PrintMule]

I'm most likely to be hit by a stray bullet while in a city, that any other projectile, if guns/bullets were not present. Also a gun is easier to conceal, and is much more deadly.

EDIT: My main beef with any gun holder - why should he have said advantage over anyone else?

If he goes berserk - he will inflict a lot of harm. If someone tries to rob him, he will inflict more harm, than it is worth. If I am in some heated dispute with a person carrying a gun, he will have a psychological advantage, a confidence boost. If he feels threatened, he will take that gun out as an extra argument on his side. You do not even need to take it out, just open your jacket a little, so they can see your holster as intimidating sign. These examples sure are dumb, but you get the idea.

Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.

[Lethn]

Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.

This is my stance on gun control, I don't feel any more comfortable seeing a police officer with a gun than a crazed maniac, what if the cop decides to lose their cool as we've seen so many times in protests? We're lucky they only tend to carry batons and riot shields for now but you have cases where even with those grenade launchers for tear gas etc. they manage to get people badly hurt. The problem with taking the pacifist side is it really isn't realistic, guns are what is holding people back no matter what people say, someones going to have to take that stuff away and if the only people who are there to do it are unarmed then they're just going to end up getting killed instead.

I think what pisses me off most however, isn't the arguments that people make for gun control but it's the fact that the people who argue for the most ridiculous gun control laws ( politicians etc. ) are people who are being guarded by armed police or armed forces and they get shuttled around in cars with police escorts, especially the top politicians on to lecture the next group of people who would dare to question them. When they get rid of all that security then they can come and lecture me about how I should be giving up forms of self-defence.

I think one of the worst cases I can think of is when this taxi driver turned into a psychopath quite recently and got a shotgun, while this guy was going around killing people he was apparently being followed by the police, when asked why they didn't do anything the police force shrugged it off and said they couldn't really do anything because they were unarmed, so that just goes to show you how stupid gun control laws can be.

[Biomech]

I'm most likely to be hit by a stray bullet while in a city, that any other projectile, if guns/bullets were not present. Also a gun is easier to conceal, and is much more deadly.

EDIT: My main beef with any gun holder - why should he have said advantage over anyone else?

If he goes berserk - he will inflict a lot of harm. If someone tries to rob him, he will inflict more harm, than it is worth. If I am in some heated dispute with a person carrying a gun, he will have a psychological advantage, a confidence boost. If he feels threatened, he will take that gun out as an extra argument on his side. You do not even need to take it out, just open your jacket a little, so they can see your holster as intimidating sign. These examples sure are dumb, but you get the idea.

Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.

exactly. The FIRST requisite of liberty is universal armament. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, even if you want to. Guns have existed for the better part of six centuries, and the knowledge to make them, from crude to amazingly precise, is easy to come by. The most common rifle in the world was designed to be able to be built by a blacksmith if necessary, albeit at significant cost to accuracy and longevity.

If only the rulers have guns, then you have a populace of slaves. Contra what some keep spouting, all the stats I've been able to find over many years show exactly the opposite. The most armed places are the least violent.

Consider, since school shootings are ALWAYS the "disarm everyone but the criminals" groups' main focus, that it is illegal for ANYONE to have firearms in a school, now. Wasn't true in my youth, and we didn't go around shooting each other either. But I digress. ALL of these mass shootings happen where it is illegal to defend yourself. And no, to you liberals, cowering in a corner waiting to be shot doesn't count as defense. These shooters KNOW they face no opposition, and they have a field day. One man with a handgun would have stopped them cold in just about every one of those shootings.

Also, think on heavily armed societies such as Switzerland. They do not have much of a violent crime problem, and it is required that their male citizens have a military rifle on hand. Not the "badass lookin'" semis that Americans get so upset about, either, but the real deal. Full auto at the flick of a switch. The criminal element is well aware of this, and so does NOT invade the home of a man that is likely to shoot them dead.