Quote from: Septy on August 28, 2015, 04:26:19 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:23:19 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:21:01 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:19:31 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:18:42 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?The freedom to own a firearmI don't think anyone here was talking about getting rid of them entirely though.And even then, the 2nd Amendment is debated anyway because of how it's interpreted."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Many argue that they are talking about a militia being kept up in order to not let the federal government take over. Others say it is what we have now.In the end, it was the founding fathers fault for not making it more clear.My understanding was that all you cucks were arguing for completely ban on firearms. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. I support some moderate regulation probably akin to Das' ideas.Quote-License to purchase a weapon that must be renewed every 5 years -All guns must be kept in a safe when not being used -Random checkups to ensure you're following he law -Mandatory background checks with mental evaluations when purchasing a weapon and a license -Ban fully automatic rifles nationwide -Ban semi-auto rifles but bolt action rifles are fine-Still allow handguns and shotguns -Ban open carry -Concealed carry is only licened to a person if they're in an emergency -Ban private sales of firearms -Ban handguns that have a barrel length under 4inyeah that's way too fucking overbearing and unnecessaryi'm glad i didn't read your OP originally because i almost vomited now that i've actually read it.
Quote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:23:19 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:21:01 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:19:31 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:18:42 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?The freedom to own a firearmI don't think anyone here was talking about getting rid of them entirely though.And even then, the 2nd Amendment is debated anyway because of how it's interpreted."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Many argue that they are talking about a militia being kept up in order to not let the federal government take over. Others say it is what we have now.In the end, it was the founding fathers fault for not making it more clear.My understanding was that all you cucks were arguing for completely ban on firearms. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. I support some moderate regulation probably akin to Das' ideas.Quote-License to purchase a weapon that must be renewed every 5 years -All guns must be kept in a safe when not being used -Random checkups to ensure you're following he law -Mandatory background checks with mental evaluations when purchasing a weapon and a license -Ban fully automatic rifles nationwide -Ban semi-auto rifles but bolt action rifles are fine-Still allow handguns and shotguns -Ban open carry -Concealed carry is only licened to a person if they're in an emergency -Ban private sales of firearms -Ban handguns that have a barrel length under 4in
Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:21:01 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:19:31 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:18:42 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?The freedom to own a firearmI don't think anyone here was talking about getting rid of them entirely though.And even then, the 2nd Amendment is debated anyway because of how it's interpreted."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Many argue that they are talking about a militia being kept up in order to not let the federal government take over. Others say it is what we have now.In the end, it was the founding fathers fault for not making it more clear.My understanding was that all you cucks were arguing for completely ban on firearms. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. I support some moderate regulation probably akin to Das' ideas.
Quote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:19:31 PMQuote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:18:42 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?The freedom to own a firearmI don't think anyone here was talking about getting rid of them entirely though.And even then, the 2nd Amendment is debated anyway because of how it's interpreted."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Many argue that they are talking about a militia being kept up in order to not let the federal government take over. Others say it is what we have now.In the end, it was the founding fathers fault for not making it more clear.
Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2015, 04:18:42 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?The freedom to own a firearm
Quote from: SoporificSlash on August 28, 2015, 04:16:25 PMIts un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.Which abolished freedom are we talking about?
Its un-American to say we should abolish a freedom that the country was founded upon. Its not like voicing your opinion over healthcare for instance. You're saying that we should throw away a founding principle of the whole country, its part of our culture.
-License to purchase a weapon that must be renewed every 5 years -All guns must be kept in a safe when not being used -Random checkups to ensure you're following he law -Mandatory background checks with mental evaluations when purchasing a weapon and a license -Ban fully automatic rifles nationwide -Ban semi-auto rifles but bolt action rifles are fine-Still allow handguns and shotguns -Ban open carry -Concealed carry is only licened to a person if they're in an emergency -Ban private sales of firearms -Ban handguns that have a barrel length under 4in
I went to a gun show with my brother and he purchased a firearm and they ran a background check (I'm in Virginia, a conservative state by law, so I was suprised). Only took about 5 minutes before he was good to go.
Quote-Ban semi-auto rifles but bolt action rifles are fineNah. I can fire a bolt action nearly as fast as a semi.
-Ban semi-auto rifles but bolt action rifles are fine
Honestly, the only way the situation in the US is going to improve is by a gradual change of mind. Implementing such a system straight away would never work. Not only would it always fail at the legislative level, but even if it would get accepted there would be a lot of public resistance and issues with enforcing it. The people just aren't ready for it yet and even though stricter gun control is pretty unavoidable in the future, it'll take some time. This is another social / cultural issue that is pretty different in the US than in the rest of the world and it'll probably take decades for the country to follow suit. It'll almost definitely happen, but not just yet.That being said, a solution like this probably isn't such a bad idea down the line. The best thing to do now is to slowly implement increasingly strict measures while going along with the general progression of the public's feelings on the matter. The system that I'd ultimately support boils down to: mandatory criminal background checks, mandatory mental background checks, medical proof of capability of handling a weapon, passing of a theoretical and practical test, different categories of weapons with different requirements, certain conditions for safe storage and handling of the firearm, registration of the firearm and finally (the most controversial one) a proper reason to own a weapon. For public concealed carry the same requirements would apply, but obviously with different and more stringent reasons.
Quote from: Flee on August 28, 2015, 10:19:23 AMHonestly, the only way the situation in the US is going to improve is by a gradual change of mind. Implementing such a system straight away would never work. Not only would it always fail at the legislative level, but even if it would get accepted there would be a lot of public resistance and issues with enforcing it. The people just aren't ready for it yet and even though stricter gun control is pretty unavoidable in the future, it'll take some time. This is another social / cultural issue that is pretty different in the US than in the rest of the world and it'll probably take decades for the country to follow suit. It'll almost definitely happen, but not just yet.That being said, a solution like this probably isn't such a bad idea down the line. The best thing to do now is to slowly implement increasingly strict measures while going along with the general progression of the public's feelings on the matter. The system that I'd ultimately support boils down to: mandatory criminal background checks, mandatory mental background checks, medical proof of capability of handling a weapon, passing of a theoretical and practical test, different categories of weapons with different requirements, certain conditions for safe storage and handling of the firearm, registration of the firearm and finally (the most controversial one) a proper reason to own a weapon. For public concealed carry the same requirements would apply, but obviously with different and more stringent reasons.Before applying all of that, I would crack down on flea markets first, because that's where real criminals get their shit from, not from the store.
Also, I'm surprised that this thread went so well. This topic usually doesn't go that well.
Reminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.
Quote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.Or they just meant actual arms
Quote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musket
Quote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 05:51:35 AMQuote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.Uhh the cartridge which is basically needed for that wasn't invented until about 1860
Repeating firearm technology was developed as early as 1680, and by the early 1800's we saw widespread use of the Girandoni air rifle (which if not for antique exemptions, the rifle would be illegal to own in states that have certain "high capacity" bans). There wasn't a federal ruling restricting firearms of any kind until 1934, well after the introduction of fully automatic arms as a reactionary measure to combat mafia related violence. The next biggest federal act happened in 1968 as a reactionary measure to prevent someone else from mail-ordering a crappy Italian bolt-action service rifle from an NRA magazine and shooting the president... again.That's a lot of time and a lot of development without change to laws or the amendment itself, many of the founding fathers would have saw repeating rifles before they died in the first two decades of the 1800's.
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 05:51:35 AMQuote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.There's a 1597 8shot flintlock revolver which is the oldest revolver.YouTube
How would you help gun control in the U.S.
