92 replies to this topic

[PennFiji]

The right to bear arms actually can save more lives than you think. If any one of those people in that club had a conceal and carry, maybe 50 people wouldnt have had to lose their lives. If people suggest taking away a way to rationally provide adequate self defense in a situation like this, it would be doing more damage than you even know.

[Fox Fire]

The right to bear arms actually can save more lives than you think. If any one of those people in that club had a conceal and carry, maybe 50 people wouldnt have had to lose their lives. If people suggest taking away a way to rationally provide adequate self defense in a situation like this, it would be doing more damage than you even know.

At the end of the day the only people who stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. Whether they wear a police uniform is completely irrelevant. People are people. Hence police brutality. 

 

But yeah, gun control sure helped Paris from ISIS..... 

[PennFiji]

Yes, I agree completely Fox Fire. The only way to look at this the right way is to take a long hard look at how we combat domestic terror, both in terms of privacy as well as physical safety.

[Fermion]

 

Unless the government doesn't make acquiring assault rifles and automatics difficult to the point of impossible

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives?  

 

It's not just the violence, but also the scope of destruction that the modern automatic rifles can cause. A pistol will defend you just as well as a rifle, but you'll also be reducing the possibility of a person going berserk and killing many others because he had an automatic firearm that was made to kill many people. Plus, it'd be easier to contain him. 

 

The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage.

 

It is time the gun laws are made stricter, so that these kind of incidents can't happen in the future.

 

The right to bear arms actually can save more lives than you think. If any one of those people in that club had a conceal and carry, maybe 50 people wouldnt have had to lose their lives. If people suggest taking away a way to rationally provide adequate self defense in a situation like this, it would be doing more damage than you even know.

At the end of the day the only people who stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. Whether they wear a police uniform is completely irrelevant. People are people. Hence police brutality. 

 

But yeah, gun control sure helped Paris from ISIS..... 

 

Atleast there that was one off. These kind of things, school shootings etc. happen frequently in the US. All because of extra lax gun laws and flawed ideas of liberty. Liberty is good,  but not when it infringes on others' right to live.

[Fox Fire]

 

 

Unless the government doesn't make acquiring assault rifles and automatics difficult to the point of impossible

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives?  

 

It's not just the violence, but also the scope of destruction that the modern automatic rifles can cause. A pistol will defend you just as well as a rifle, but you'll also be reducing the possibility of a person going berserk and killing many others because he had an automatic firearm that was made to kill many people. Plus, it'd be easier to contain him. 

 

The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage.

 

It is time the gun laws are made stricter, so that these kind of incidents can't happen in the future.

 

The right to bear arms actually can save more lives than you think. If any one of those people in that club had a conceal and carry, maybe 50 people wouldnt have had to lose their lives. If people suggest taking away a way to rationally provide adequate self defense in a situation like this, it would be doing more damage than you even know.

At the end of the day the only people who stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. Whether they wear a police uniform is completely irrelevant. People are people. Hence police brutality. 

 

But yeah, gun control sure helped Paris from ISIS..... 

 

Atleast there that was one off. These kind of things, school shootings etc. happen frequently in the US. All because of extra lax gun laws and flawed ideas of liberty. Liberty is good,  but not when it infringes on others' right to live.

 

He purchased his firearms legally so it's entirely safe to assume they were all semi-auto. (Not only that but you can easily inflict the same damage with an AR-15 as an M-16 [Same exact gun, one is only semi-auto])

You can go on about the right to live but how do you actually solves murder? Many, and I mean many gang related crimes (which arguably make up the majority of gun related crimes in the US) often involve firearms which are "copied" or "reproduced" in offshore homemade factories. Factories in the middle of the woods somewhere in Asia. Places where guns are half assed/copied and where the US has no authority. 

Those guns then come to America via smugglers where they are more than likely used in murders. 

And that only accounts for guns outside the US. Within the US there are plenty of safe places where guns are not registered (legally) and so there is no real way of knowing id said gun even exists. 

This is what happens when you are the single largest arms producer with such diverse gun laws according to place. Some people can own guns here, others cannot. Regardless, there is no shortage of guns available. 

 

A war on guns would be like a war on drugs. Criminals don't obey the law and they won't stop buying the massive industry of guns specifically aimed at US citizens. But more gun control does mean the people obeying said laws will not have them. 

 

I suppose we should just rely on the FBI to stop people they clearly know about before they kill people.... Because that's totally what happened here. 

 

Remember guys. Only cops know how to use guns. Despite how long they've been part of our history and the people that have used them. 

[PennFiji]

Ever think that the school shootings happen because of poor state legislature? Minnesota schools are required to have an armed police liason on location during school hours with an officec less than 100 yards away from the only unlocked entrance. Action like that is what save lives

[Fox Fire]

Also. I can buy an AR-15 at Wal-Mart. Literally. 

Also, most pistols these days are semi-auto, just like assault rifles. 

 

In this particular incident, I really don;t think the guy was so far from his targets that a pistol or assault rifle would even matter. At his range, a pistol would have inflicted the same damage. 

 

 

Ever think that the school shootings happen because of poor state legislature? Minnesota schools are required to have an armed police liason on location during school hours with an officec less than 100 yards away from the only unlocked entrance. Action like that is what save lives

Indeed. Sadly, in my experience, school security was tightened after 9/11, but I've personally seen school officers slack while I was in high school. But the security is tighter and getting into a school for more than a couple minutes without being stopped and questioned is certainly harder. 

[Shahenshah]

 

Guns is the same old debate

No the gun debate has evolved.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting.  Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach.  it is absurd.  That is not the same old argument.  That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine.

 

This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism.  This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible.  Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing.  Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans.

 

The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses.  Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  Maybe, maybe not.  The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results.  I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that.  I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve.  Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times.

 

I do believe geopolitics to be a strong influencer of violence, including terrorism. And no, US is not alone, proxy warfare has been the tool used by every government that thinks it can get away with it. 

 

At the end of the day, it's the weakness of the social system, poor governance, corruption, lack of education, civil strife, which creates a fertile ground to breed extremists, I mean they all think they're doing it for god, but in reality, they're doing it for x,y,z government. 

[Rafay]

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives?  

 

No. Just compare the murder rates of UK and other 1st world countries where gun control exists w/ USA. Its terrifying.....

 

Islam is not the problem.  Most Islamic people are peace loving, law abiding citizens.  You can't just blame a religion, that is what Hitler did.  Terrorism is a huge problem.  I'm not ignoring that, I'm just saying that easy access to guns, especially assault weapons is part of the problem.

 

Thank you.

 

Your solution is to disarm the good guys?

 

The only good guys that should have arms are the police and the army. Tell me, what did the good guys with guns do when this bastard was murdering innocents. They were scared in their homes polishing their beautiful weapons.

 

The sad part is that the majority killed were homosexual so I can see the conservative class of the USA not giving a damn. 

[Myrrdin Emrys]

 

 

 

Guns is the same old debate

No the gun debate has evolved.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting.  Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach.  it is absurd.  That is not the same old argument.  That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine.

 

This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism.  This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible.  Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing.  Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans.

 

The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses.  Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  Maybe, maybe not.  The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results.  I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that.  I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve.  Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times.

 

 

It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws.

 

I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached..

 

Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads:

 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here.

 

But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks. 

 

 

How is being well regulated irrelevant? It very clearly says that "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state"... nowhere does it say that a militia can exist without any rules and regulations they have to follow... for a militia to be necessary for the protection of the state, it has to be well regulated..

 

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'......

[Fox Fire]

 

 

 

 

Guns is the same old debate

No the gun debate has evolved.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting.  Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach.  it is absurd.  That is not the same old argument.  That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine.

 

This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism.  This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible.  Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing.  Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans.

 

The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses.  Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  Maybe, maybe not.  The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results.  I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that.  I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve.  Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times.

 

 

It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws.

 

I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached..

 

Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads:

 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here.

 

But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks. 

 

 

How is being well regulated irrelevant? It very clearly says that "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state"... nowhere does it say that a militia can exist without any rules and regulations they have to follow... for a militia to be necessary for the protection of the state, it has to be well regulated..

 

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'......

 

It's irrelevant to the law. The "well regulated militia" is not a requirement. Just read it and consider how it's worded. The important part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's it. There is no requirement in there.

And although the document was written long before modern weaponry, it's still the law and that's how it's worded.

"Arms" is also short for "armaments", which refers to any weapon and the term as used in the constitution specifically refers to military arms. 

[DeathMerchant]

The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage.

Actually, military small arms are on a very similar level when compared to their civilian counterparts. A M16 is literally a select fire AR-15. A M4 is a select fire AR-15 with a 14.5 inch barrel. A M9 pistol is a Beretta 92 with an enlarged trigger guard. What does make a difference is training and size of force projection. A well trained squad of infantry in strategic theory should always have the advantage over a similar or better armed, but less trained foe.

 

The only good guys that should have arms are the police and the army. Tell me, what did the good guys with guns do when this bastard was murdering innocents. They were scared in their homes polishing their beautiful weapons.

 

The sad part is that the majority killed were homosexual so I can see the conservative class of the USA not giving a damn. 

 

As someone who is conservative I can tell you that for me personally, that statement is horribly false. I don't care if you are black or white, gay or straight, or a green and pink polka doted alien from the planet zafluga. In my eyes I believe everyone is equal. If someone is causing you harm I will step in to help you, if you are unable to protect yourself. I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Something that everyone is entitled to.

 

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'......

In the US it is fully legal to own armored vehicles such as tanks. Some military surplus vehicles are even classified as road worthy and can be operated on the road assuming you have the appropriate driver's license. Tank barrels have to be deactivated and I believe the weapon breach has to be inoperable as well. Although with the proper amount of licensing it is entirely possible to own tanks with their weapons intact. Just like how with the proper FFL/manufacturer paperwork, you can own automatic weaponry made past 1986, short barreled rifles (SBR), short barreled shotguns (SBS), Silencers, any other weapon (AOW), or destructive devices (DD).

[Fermion]

Actually, military small arms are on a very similar level when compared to their civilian counterparts. A M16 is literally a select fire AR-15. A M4 is a select fire AR-15 with a 14.5 inch barrel. A M9 pistol is a Beretta 92 with an enlarged trigger guard. What does make a difference is training and size of force projection. A well trained squad of infantry in strategic theory should always have the advantage over a similar or better armed, but less trained foe.  

You're Bullet proof jackets, better logistics, drones, et al. Military vastly outclasses civilians, my friend. The militia argument doesn't apply in the mordern world. 

 

Also, M16 was still in use? I thought it was replaced by fully automatic M4 and other guns?

 

And although the document was written long before modern weaponry, it's still the law and that's how it's worded.

The point is that laws should be ammended to better accommodate the needs of the current world. Firearms like these shouldn't be accissible this easily, and their usage shouldn't be glorified to this degree. I understand it may be a part of your heritage for many of you but making them this easy to get makes it more probable that mentally sick people would get them and the chances of violence like this happening increases manyfold. The regulations should be stricter and usage should be heavily restiricted. It is not impossible to implement. Many countries have regulations and on average they seem to work pretty well. Ofcourse incidents like this happen, but they're much less in frequency that in the States.

[Sister Midnight]

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO
In the US it is fully legal to own armored vehicles such as tanks. Some military surplus vehicles are even classified as road worthy and can be operated on the road assuming you have the appropriate driver's license. Tank barrels have to be deactivated and I believe the weapon breach has to be inoperable as well. Although with the proper amount of licensing it is entirely possible to own tanks with their weapons intact. Just like how with the proper FFL/manufacturer paperwork, you can own automatic weaponry made past 1986, short barreled rifles (SBR), short barreled shotguns (SBS), Silencers, any other weapon (AOW), or destructive devices (DD).

Actually it is not fully legal to own a military grade, weaponized, operational tank in every state.

The 2nd ammendment was included to protect the American people from a government that abused and threatened them in the manner with which England had mistreated the colonies. At this point, how well do you think that would work? Should your neighbor have military drones, bazookas, nuclear weaponry, and all the things the government has access to? They are breaking the law if they do. I'm not trying to take away your guns, but don't kid yourself that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is being supported by the NRA.

On another, related note, there may have been people in that Orlando nightclub with concealed guns, if there were, that didn't do anyone any good.

Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon? I'm sure everyone in IRON who has guns is certain they would never fall victim to that statistic, but the odds are not in their favor.

[DeathMerchant]

 

Actually, military small arms are on a very similar level when compared to their civilian counterparts. A M16 is literally a select fire AR-15. A M4 is a select fire AR-15 with a 14.5 inch barrel. A M9 pistol is a Beretta 92 with an enlarged trigger guard. What does make a difference is training and size of force projection. A well trained squad of infantry in strategic theory should always have the advantage over a similar or better armed, but less trained foe.  

You're Bullet proof jackets, better logistics, drones, et al. Military vastly outclasses civilians, my friend. The militia argument doesn't apply in the mordern world. 

 

Also, M16 was still in use? I thought it was replaced by fully automatic M4 and other guns?

So what you are stating is that a state armed military can easily not only destroy, but dominate a populace comprising militias? In traditional strategic and tactical warfare, that is absolutely true. But what about asymmetric warfare and Fourth Generation warfare? The US (and a lot of other first world powers) have achieved very little in terms of a true victory while executing counter insurgency operations.

 

Some counter insurgency failures that come to mind are;

 

Vietnam War (Both France and the US failed in the long run to destroy the NVA fighting capability. Granted most VC were effectively wiped out after the Tet Offensive, but the NVA was still in a strong position at the end of the conflict).

 

Soviet-Afghan War (Contrary to popular belief, US armament of the Mujahideen was not the main cause of Russian military failure Soviet military doctrine advocated large scale conventional forces, where they were expected to engage NATO in Europe. Russia was not prepared for prolonged COIN operations).

 

1st Chechen War (Specifically Battle of Grozny, where Russian tank columns were ambushed and destroyed in bogged down urban operations. Lacking proper infantry support, tank crews became isolated).

 

2nd Chechen War (While the Russian military performed better, there were still many shortcomings).

 

US Afghan War (Progress is made and setbacks happen. After 15 years of war, the current situation fluctuates on a semi regular basis with no end in sight).

 

 

John Poole is one of my favorite authors and he explains the evolving front of irregular warfare in the modern era. I strongly recommend reading some of his books. His writing really gets you thinking outside the box and sheds light on the type of warfare modern superpowers can't seem to master. Militant Tricks: Battlefield Ruses Of The Islamic Insurgent is the book I would recommend to start with.

 

Given histories' statistics of modern armies mucking up counter insurgency warfare, I would imagine US forces having a heck of a time attempting to secure the entire country if Militias did start operating militarily in almost every state. Technology and advanced weapons can only bring so much to the table. Manpower, training, and the 'hearts and minds' of the populace is what is needed to win irregular warfare.

 

As for the M16. The M16A4 is still used by the US Marine Corps. Army went with the M4 but the Marines primarily wanted a weapon with better accuracy at longer ranges. I'm sure even M16A2s are still present in some unit armories in the US military, but the M16 has largely been phased out for shorter and more modular weapons.

[ccabal86]

Islam is not the problem.  Most Islamic people are peace loving, law abiding citizens.  You can't just blame a religion, that is what Hitler did.  Terrorism is a huge problem.  I'm not ignoring that, I'm just saying that easy access to guns, especially assault weapons is part of the problem.

 
Hitler never blamed a religion, he blamed a race. The Nazis considered anyone with 1/4 Jewish "blood" to be a Jew, meaning that if you had a Jewish grandmother, you were  also considered one, regardless of your actual religion.
 
It's seems quite common though that people cannot tell the difference between race and religion, so to be clear: a race is something you're born with and it's out of your control. (In reality the concept is an entirely human construct, with no scientific foundation. Phenotypes are determined by a collection of genes which are completely interchangeable.) A religion however, is an unnecessarily mystified ideology, no better than one's political beliefs. It's also a matter of choice.
 
 

The irony is US is kinda allied to ISIS by propping up its ideological affiliates in Syria.

You can keep blaming Islamic terrorism, but after you stop propping it up for the political goals, from expelling soviets in Afghanistan back then to kicking out Bashar today. Enemies inside, friends outside, blatant hypocrisy.

You're literally allied to Al Qaeda in Syria, same organisation that did 9/11. Won't be surprised if in few years, US is allied to ISIS to help over throw some guy in region they don't like.

Things don't form out of thin air suddenly. Hate doesn't forment out of nowhere, its funded, its seeded and it's been used for centuries by one or another power. You dont have a problem if a guy you armed and funded to fight Bashar goes in Damascus market and kills 150 civilians.

Can't have it both ways, ISIS and it's ideological affiliates must face total war, they should only be enemies, not political tools for the games. It's simple really.

Guns is the same old debate, Extremism is the same old debate, nobody debates the origins and the how the current wave of extremists are funded, armed, trained and come back to haunt on a poorly thought out foriegn policy of violence and power.

 
We are largely in agreement here. Part of the reason why I'm so uncomfortable with HRC, because what you see in the Middle East is largely the result of her messed up foreign policies (Kerry just carried on the torch). Worst thing is, the woman doesn't even realize it, she still thinks it's nothing short of a success story. I really don't think we need more of the same.
 

I do believe geopolitics to be a strong influencer of violence, including terrorism. And no, US is not alone, proxy warfare has been the tool used by every government that thinks it can get away with it. 
 
At the end of the day, it's the weakness of the social system, poor governance, corruption, lack of education, civil strife, which creates a fertile ground to breed extremists, I mean they all think they're doing it for god, but in reality, they're doing it for x,y,z government.

This is all true, but you yourself said that they think they do it for religion, and that's just the thing here. The Islamic factor cannot be ignored here.

I fully agree with ccabals first point but it is short sighted to blame a religion for murder.

I don't want to completely derail this topic, and I don't actually have the time/energy right now to go into what is more wrong with Islam than other religions. I will probably make a separate topic in the weekend (been a long time coming) where we can discuss that problem separately.

[SeaBeeGipson]

From my understanding here, the idea is if we make guns hard to get, criminals won't get them? Last I checked, felons can't get guns yet we have thousands of felons with guns everywhere, from gang members to people who just illegally get them.

So, bring up the argument of make it hard for law abiding citizens to get and criminals have a harder time? Last I checked, it's illegal for me to cook meth. So therefore, acquiring meth isn't easy. Yet, meth is very common on the street despite being illegal.

Making guns harder to get for everyone accomplished nothing but creating easy targets. I'm a very firm believer of my second amendment, I even have pro-2nd amendment tattoos on me.

Again, the issue here isn't guns though. It's terrorism. A gun didn't just randomly sprout legs, go to a gay club, and fire itself at 100+ people. A gun is an object with no thought process. The guy behind the gun is to blame. And evil exists in all races, genders, creeds, and political and economically standings.

No matter where you go, someone is plotting to do something evil. You can deprive him of a gun (though if he wants one bad enough, he'll get it despite any barriers you place in the way), you can deprive him of a knife, you can deprive an evil person of whatever you want. He will still do what he has intended. Harm someone, incite fear. Gun or no gun.

So it brings the argument of "well, he wouldn't have killed 50 people with a knife." There's always homemade bombs (McVeigh), chemical weapons (Japanese Subway), and dozens of other ways a terrorist can cause harm.

And for the comment about most injuries coming from the homeowners gun, I honestly blame the lack of gun discipline and gun safety knowledge. I'm a big advocate for learning gun safety. Will you stop injuries in the home? No. Because complacency kicks in. Someone will say "my kids can't get my gun" or "I've hunted my whole life, I know how guns work."

Fact is, I've been to the range and seen the "I've hunted since I was 3 years old-guys" and I'm amazed at how careless they are with a gun. Muzzle discipline escaped some of those guys. You have the guys who think their kids can never get there guns or find them, so they keep it unlocked. What's the solution here? More emphasis on gun education if you ask me. You can't teach everyone, some people don't want to learn. But, we have laws for that. If you are ignorant and careless, you're responsible for what happens. But banning guns isn't a solution.

As for the argument on government vs citizens. Few issues there. How many people do you think would listen to an order to kill innocent civilians? Follow an order that goes against the constitution? I can tell you, having served myself, not one person I served with, not one person in my unit, my company, Hell, not a single person in my battalion would follow that order. You may get some shady organizations in the government to try, some blue falcons that place their career over an innocent life and the oath they took. They won't last long. Beyond that alone, citizens utilize guerilla tactics which are extremely hard to conduct a conventional war against. I'll just leave that topic to that.

Now my biggest issues coming from this thread are 1) Referring to us who admire our 2nd amendment as "gun-lunatics" or foolish people. A difference in opinion doesn't equate to a difference in intelligence, wisdom, and/or knowledge. It is simply a different stance. All this does is seperate us more. 2) Referring to ARs and other semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons." It's more just a personal bother than something big, but it's a video game term. Assault rifles, assault pistols, assault weaponry is not a classification of weapons. It's a way the news has named certain cosmetic appearances of rifles and pistols to make them come off as more dangerous or more powerful. It isn't the cosmetic appearances that determine the power, but rather several factors. How heavy is the gun? Magazine size?
Caliber size? Those factors, which can exist the same wood stock semi-automatic rifle as it can in a black-polycarbonate or stainless steel rifle.

That's just my 2 cents on it. Of course, people here are going to disagree with me. That's fine. I respect your opinions and by no means want to come off as attacking you. I, however, feel attacked every time this gun debate hits the news. Why? As a gun owner, the news portrays me as crazy, weak (I need a gun to defend myself), and people begin to view you with hatred and anger. Everyone is an individual. When these times hit, it's easy to blame us gun owners for the act of a terrorist or a mentally unstable character. But that doesn't reflect all of us. Some of us own guns for various reasons.
I own guns for hunting. In Texas, we're over populated with boars and it not only helps nearby ranches, I can get some food while im at it. I own it for therapy. To those who go to the range, you'll understand when I say it's calming. You have to watch your breathing, focus on a target, keep your stance. To me, that's calming. I own it for home defense. I have a child in my house. Granted, I hope im never in a situationew where it's required, but my priority is to keep my son safe. Again, there are people who just wish to do evil. We can't just pretend they don't exist. And I own guns to defend. It sounds corny as fuck, but I take my oath seriously. My oath to defend against foreign and DOMESTIC. If it's ever required (God forbid) I'd rather have the means to not only be able to keep myself and my son safe, but anyone around me as well.

Again, this is just my 2 cents. You can take it how you like.

[Bill N Ted]

 

More violent crime is committed without firearms. Mostly knives. Should we ban knives?  

 

No. Just compare the murder rates of UK and other 1st world countries where gun control exists w/ USA. Its terrifying.....

 

We had a few spree shootings in the late 80's early 90's again by mentally deranged people thus they banned all fire arms in the UK.  

 

Handguns are outright banned.  To obtain a shotgun your have to have a permit and a need to own a shotgun; rifles are more stringently controlled than shotguns but you can get a firearms license for them for hunting and again if you can show a need.

 

Needs range from clay pigeon shooting, livestock protection and deer hunting.  In order to obtain a permit you require a clean medical history mental illness I believe is an automatic disqualification.  You must state where you intend to use your gun and have the gun club / farmer / landowners support to fire on their land (or yours if you own the land), the weapons must be kept under lock and key and the police can come and inspect and remove the firearms at will.

 

Following the Dunblane Massacre people had to get permits +/- hand in any newly prohibited weapons such as handguns.  Some UK Olympians had to train in France due to the gun bans in the UK, why they chose to represent a country that wouldn't even allow them to train on their home soil is beyond me.  

 

We still have gun crime in the UK, we still have spree shooters and we have a fair amount of knife crime.  Banning the guns didn't remove the problem; arguably it exacerbated it as the only people that don't have guns are the stereotypical law abiding citizens, the mentally deranged and criminals still manage to source the weapons which usually result in a turkey shoot of the mentally deranged/criminals vs the unarmed.  

 

Criminals don't care about laws; that's why they're criminals.

[DeathMerchant]

 

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO
In the US it is fully legal to own armored vehicles such as tanks. Some military surplus vehicles are even classified as road worthy and can be operated on the road assuming you have the appropriate driver's license. Tank barrels have to be deactivated and I believe the weapon breach has to be inoperable as well. Although with the proper amount of licensing it is entirely possible to own tanks with their weapons intact. Just like how with the proper FFL/manufacturer paperwork, you can own automatic weaponry made past 1986, short barreled rifles (SBR), short barreled shotguns (SBS), Silencers, any other weapon (AOW), or destructive devices (DD).

Actually it is not fully legal to own a military grade, weaponized, operational tank in every state.

The 2nd ammendment was included to protect the American people from a government that abused and threatened them in the manner with which England had mistreated the colonies. At this point, how well do you think that would work? Should your neighbor have military drones, bazookas, nuclear weaponry, and all the things the government has access to? They are breaking the law if they do. I'm not trying to take away your guns, but don't kid yourself that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is being supported by the NRA.

On another, related note, there may have been people in that Orlando nightclub with concealed guns, if there were, that didn't do anyone any good.

Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon? I'm sure everyone in IRON who has guns is certain they would never fall victim to that statistic, but the odds are not in their favor.

 

As strange as this sounds, it is 100% legal to own anything listed as a Destructive Device. Although I can understand the confusion as very few people are actually familiar with how the Federal Firearm License (FFL) laws work. State and Federal Law can prevent a civilian from owning specific weaponry. However, it all comes down to what FFL Class you have. Granted it is an insane amount of paperwork, high cost, and you have to prove you are conducting a profitable and legal business (because an FFL is a business), but saying something is banned isn't a true statement.

 

I'm linking the Wikipedia page of FFLs so you can see the different classifications. Its a nightmare trying to comprehend it all so I will do my best to explain it in simpler terms. Just note that I have no legal expertise but I do have a working knowledge of these laws. My background is that as of last year I did want to apply for an FFL and start my own side business. Working at home I would have started out small, and assuming the business grew, I would eventually move up to a higher FFL class. I did the research but in the end decided my location would not be very profitable. At some point in time I would have to purchase separate property if I wanted grow beyond occasionally selling in person and internet sales. Basically your FFL must be renewed every 3 years and I felt I would not generate enough profit to justify the ATF renewing my FFL (which would mean there goes my business), all that time and money would be wasted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

 

FFL Types 9, 10, and 11 are in regards to destructive devices, which a fully operational tank (with a gun caliber greater than .50 in) would fall under. Then you also have to worry about the High Explosives Dealer/Manufacturer/Importer Licenses if you actually want working ammunition for your tank's main gun.

 

TLDR: You can't own some things as a civilian, but you can with the right FFL Classification Type. How is military hardware such as tanks made? Its produced by civilian companies. And with the proper credentials, the average law abiding individual could indeed start their own weapons manufacturing facility, and produce hardware for the military or market it to foreign governments. Or they could just park a tank in their front lawn and call it a lawn ornament. That is the beauty about the US, almost nothing is 100% banned, just heavily regulated.

 

 

As for the home invasion part. I am truthfully honest that no one will ever get a hold of my weapon. All of my firearms are locked securely in a safe, located in my bedroom closet. If I was home at the time of a break in, I would have enough time to lock myself in the bedroom (I also have the option of barricading the door with a long dresser), call 911, and retrieve whatever weapon I felt appropriate. I may just grab a handgun and a spare magazine, or if I felt like I had more time, I will grab my 12 Gauge shotgun along with a knife or expandable baton. I will remain firmly in place until the police arrive. In the incredibly unlikely event someone manages to breakdown the door I will fire my weapon until the threat stops. It is simply impossible at that distance for someone to take my weapon from me. They would have to clear the door, dresser, and bed before reaching me. My handgun's magazine holds 8 rounds. That is 8 rounds of high grade, expanding hollow points fired center mass into whoever is trying to attack me or my wife. Realistically they would be dead before their foot touched the bedroom floor.

[hilowe]

Guns is the same old debate

No the gun debate has evolved.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting.  Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach.  it is absurd.  That is not the same old argument.  That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine.
 
This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism.  This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible.  Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing.  Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans.
 
The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses.  Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  Maybe, maybe not.  The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results.  I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that.  I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve.  Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times.

 
It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws.
 
I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached..
 
Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads:
 
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here.

But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks. 

 
How is being well regulated irrelevant? It very clearly says that "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state"... nowhere does it say that a militia can exist without any rules and regulations they have to follow... for a militia to be necessary for the protection of the state, it has to be well regulated..
 
Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'......

It's irrelevant to the law. The "well regulated militia" is not a requirement. Just read it and consider how it's worded. The important part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's it. There is no requirement in there.
And although the document was written long before modern weaponry, it's still the law and that's how it's worded.
"Arms" is also short for "armaments", which refers to any weapon and the term as used in the constitution specifically refers to military arms.

Just to back this up a little bit, Supreme Courts Heller decision (this is only a portion):

The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

Tell me, what did the good guys with guns do when this bastard was murdering innocents. They were scared in their homes polishing their beautiful weapons.
 
The sad part is that the majority killed were homosexual so I can see the conservative class of the USA not giving a damn.

To keep the conversation civil, I'm not going to respond with the first thing that went through my head when I read these statements.

Unfortunately, even if people are willing and able to protect others (the sheepdog concept some talk about), they still have to be present to actually do anything. This was a night club, and could potentially have been a place where it was written into the law that concealed carry isn't allowed (I don't know Florida law, but in Nebraska, if a location gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alcohol, concealed carry is illegal. Bars and night clubs fall in that for me).

As for the statement about conservatives not caring, not all gun owners are conservative. I lean more libertarian (you do what you want, so long as it doesn't harm me), and I am deeply saddened by this.

Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon?

I've heard this statistic thrown out so many times, but I've never seen the study that actually found this. Do you have a reference for it?

Edited by hilowe, 13 June 2016 - 09:41 PM.