You do realize that most standard pistol capacity now a - #81517944 added by trollnot at Gun Regulation

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

What a normal citizen, on a normal day would need is a handgun with him and a shotgun at home.

But a rifle is needed in case of an invasion/tyrannical government, in my opinion, the government should allow people with military training to keep full auto, "assault" rifles at their homes just in case. And let them sign a contract that they agree to never use the rifles unless they're in a war. And if they break the contract, they get their 2nd ammendment right eraesed; no guns at all, not even a pistol.

tl;dr sell pistols and shotguns, give veterens "assault" rifles for free.

#470 to #390 - screamingdemon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

You are aware that many famous killers were in the military before they shot innocent poeple, right? Being in the military doesn't mean you should be trusted with an assault rifle at home.

#473 to #470 - funmanigro

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

a background check is needed of course.

#525 to #473 - thatguywhohasbacon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

If a background check removed your ability to buy a gun then it would also remove the ability to join the military. Plus most killers have a clean history.

#411 to #390 - romeosdistress

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

I can actually agree with some of this, being a full on gun control supporter, but the tyrannical government argument always makes me cringe. Partially because if the US Army does decide to go full on Fourth Reich on our asses, do you really think a couple of rednecks with AKs are gonna be able fight off one of, if not THE, biggest war machines on Earth? One with thousands of bases around the world? It's a good argument, but it always seemed to me like a hopeless one.

Well I'm just a glass half-full tonight, aren't I?

#465 to #411 - DasSpiel

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

"do you really think a couple of rednecks with AKs are gonna be able (to) fight off one of, if not THE, biggest war machines on Earth?"

The US Army only has 1.5 million Active duty service members. 95% don't have combat roles. Of that 5% that actually fight, how many do you think would follow orders to kill U.S. citizens?

And on top of that, a bunch of uneducated farmers with AKs and tricky tactics kicked our asses pretty hard in Vietnam.

#431 to #411 - funmanigro

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

im not talking about "a couple of rendnecks with AKs", im talking about actual war veterens, security experts and such. And make "assault" rifles very hard to be bought in case of rednecks and normal citizans.

#440 to #431 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

There's actually something I can agree with. I don't agree with an all out assault weapons ban, but I do like the idea of it being restricted from access by civilians. And I was just making a joke about the rednecks thing.

#455 to #440 - funmanigro

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

why dont you agree that atleast war veterens shouldnt get assault rifles?

#460 to #455 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

I agreed with you on that point.

#472 to #460 - funmanigro

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

Thats the Socrates method of argument i was trying btw.

#421 to #411 - trollnot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

#430 to #421 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

That was actually a pretty good read, and I honestly don't have any argument against it. I guess I just don't see it as optimistically as that guy. But if such were the case, wouldn't we be breaking the law anyhow? Would gun restrictions even matter at that point? I guess it would limit access to it, but can't we just take it from fallen soldiers in our Wolverines-styled insurrection?

#439 to #430 - trollnot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

The founding fathers were breaking the law. You do not comprehend what is going on here. I'm not saying go start a revolution. No one wants that, But this is what the 2nd amendment is for.

Lets make up a hypothetical,but improbable situation. Not too improbable Mind you governments have become tyrannical before look at Germany in the 1930's all democratically elected.

Lets say Government bans "Assault rifles" then decided it was a good idea and then bans all guns. Then lets say a few years later lets say they Ban the first amendment on the ground the fore fathers could not have seen inventions like the the internet, telephone, and tv would be invented.

Where is your checks and balancing system then.

#444 to #439 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

I can actually agree with all of that. I don't agree with full on gun bans, I would just prefer the guns with bigger magazine capacities be kept out of the reach of common civilians. I wouldn't mind if, like the guy above suggested, actual war vets and soldiers and the like were allowed to keep them though. I just think it's unneeded in the long run and would cut down on gun crimes with such high death tolls.

#447 to #444 - trollnot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

When you read my other comment you will understand but I will say this again.
Only 3.5% of all gun crime are committed with long-rifles which the "assault rifle" is a sub-category of.

The second amendment isn't for Military vets also. Its intended for everyone who "is of sound mind and body" THIS IS YOUR RIGHT AS WELL. Why do you wish to limit yourself also?

#451 to #447 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

Because I have no interest, and never had any interest, of ever owning a gun with such a high capacity because I don't feel it is needed?

#459 to #451 - trollnot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

>high-capacity

Why do you keep saying this? 30 rounds is a standard capacity magizine.

I will agree with you that 100 to 200 round Beta Mags need to be banned there unwieldy and have no point besides being "Tacticool" and often cause gun jams.

#468 to #459 - romeosdistress

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

By "such a high capacity" I'm comparatively speaking. I'm saying I've never had any interest in owning anything with more bullet capacity than your average pistol magazine, so that is to say 6-9 shots.

#471 to #468 - trollnot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(01/22/2013) [-]

You do realize that most standard pistol capacity now a days is like 17 right?