Continuing here ebcause the thread got too long.

Seriously though, there has to be some kind of plan involved.
I mean are they just planning to ban weapons that can do serious damage, leaving the people with handguns/shotguns/rifles?

Cause I don't think people need to keep uzi's or ak-47's around.

Also I don't know much about gun types, feel free to crrect me if I got soemthing wrong.

An m4 and an ak47 are just rifles. Now it get's kind of dangerous when there are fully automatic rifles, which is why you need special permits to own them. Handguns are arguably more dangerous than any rifle or shotgun. Stats. Here in America, we see guns as guns with little concern about what kind they are, and we believe if we can use them responsibly, then we should be able to own them. Even if it means proving it by having no criminal record and going through all the trouble and taxes to get a permit for an automatic weapon.

I believe that the liberals of America, or just a part of them, trust the government more than the citizens to own weapons and that some day they should be illegal.

Hey man, it's 2:00am in the morning where I am at, we can continue this tomarrow if you'd like. I'm very tired see ya.

PS: No I'm not ditching you because it's a boring conversation. I enjoy deep conversation. Until next time.

K cya. As an afterthought, I just think it's useful to make a distinction between weapons that can be used for protection, e.g. to threaten a burglar, and weapons that are designed to efficiently end as many lives as possible.

So called "assault rifles" are not made to end as many lives as possible, machine guns aren't even made to do that. An "assault rifle" is just a modern rifle fit for the modern man. Machine guns are intended for cover fire and not necessarily to kill. Weapons are are meant to kill as many lives as possible are bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical/biological weapons.

Machince guns are meant for cover fire in army situations, sure. But I don't think people need that around the house.

This goes back to the fact that Americans believe they are born with the right to own weapons. Sure, they aren't practical for defending one's house, or hunting, but that's not the point. The point is that they become dangerous around careless, or mentally unstable people, even extremely angry people. We have good restrictions on machine guns in America. If someone wants one, they have to go through a bunch of shit, taxes, background checks, etc... to get it. And attention from police if they see you with it. I've never heard of anyone committing mass murder with a machine gun yet in America. The only people that have them are people who are passionate about them/gun enthusiasts.

What about samller guns built for repeated fire, uzi and the like?

My best explanation is that SMGs are like Machine guns, but for CQB, combined with a pistol. They are usually used to keep heads down in CQB situations, but also often for killing of the opposition. I say this because it takes usually 1 bullet to take down your enemy or kill them. The SMG basically increases your chances of hitting the enemy possibly many times. Should these be banned? In my opinion, No. They are hard enough to get for a law abiding citizen. Even easier for a committed criminal.

And no new law can stop that.

So these guns are already restricted? that's good.

And that's a bad thing?

It's not bad. It's perfect the way it is.

K.

I wish nuclear weapons were never made.

I hear you, man.

Yeah because Hitler...

Tried to restrict the use of guns?

I don't necessarily have strong feelings one way or the other in this debate, I just keep facepalming at how BOTH SIDES use EQUALLY RIDICULOUS arguments to desperately try to prove their point.

Yes, he was able to get them banned from the German population. The people who believe guns should be outlawed really need to do some thinking, check the FBI crime statistics with guns, and just be more down to earth, instead of just wanting to ban assault weapons. The only thing they will get from banning assault weapons is a "feel good" feeling, that they did something about it. But from stats and common sense, banning weapons does nothing. Gun crime has gone down about 50% since the early 1980s believe it or not, and not to mention there are a LOT more guns in circulation now too. The liberal dominated media just wants everyone to think that gun crime is abnormally high to push a ban on guns. Because you know, only the government needs them right?

You're trying to convince me of your pro-gun points.
That's basically what it boils down to every time, huh? I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I really don't care what happens. I don't use guns. I don't think people NEED guns. But, if you really want those guns, I'm not gonna be the one to say you can't have them.

It's ok as long as you don't want them taken away. Were cool.

But seriously for a second. Don't you ever look at the arguments the pro-gun side uses and just want to hit yourself in the fucking face over and over again?

Like with every issue in the states EVER, both sides are voiced equally loudly by equally retarded people.
Untide Stats pls

What pro gun arguments make you want to "hit yourself in the fucking face over and over again"?

I can't bring myself to type them out.

Well I think the NRA has gone a little far at worst in their views.

Not even talking about the NRA itself, they can manage to be... pretty moderate, at times.

Just. Every issue ever. Angry Americans on facebook voicing their opinions.

I just sit back, read the arguments and I'm like: "Do people REALLY believe this?"

EVERY ISSUE EVER has both sides claiming the world will ACTUALLY END if they don't get what they want.

I believe that in most arguments, both sides have ground in their opinions, but I just don't believe that in gun control. I believe that if someone wants to have any gun they want to defend themselves, even if it's black and evil looking. And the people that don't believe in that have the choice not to own a gun. Most guns are owned by law abiding citizens.

The problem is that most people who don't believe in guns aren't comfortable with other people owning guns.
Since the dawn of time, humanity has been in a contest of 'who has the biggest stick', and some people just don't want to do that anymore. Some people want nobody to have sticks.

I have to say I'm one of those people. I truly believe that this world would be better without guns.

I'm also not stupid, and I know that as long as ANYONE is allowed to own a gun, everyone should be.

Do you count governments as one of those people who have a stick?

Definitely.
Though I don't think in this debate it really matters. Their stick is bigger anyways. I don't think if they take away your sticks they'll gain any significant advantage they don't already have.

The main reason we were allowed to own guns was to replace a tyrannical government if the time comes. Even though we can't really win a war or attrition against the U.S. Army, it would still be a guerrilla war. And as you probably know, it's very difficult to win a guerrilla war. The same thing would happen that happened in Afghanistan. The erosion of the U.S. military is happening there, unless we pull out. Afghanistan is where armies go to die. I don't see a second civil war in America, but if the government continues to erode our freedoms, we, as we were brought up, are paranoid about freedom, and we will defend them if the time comes. Is this ridiculous? I can't say.

But don't you think you should slowly, but steadily, work towards a world were you won't NEED those guns anymore? I'm not saying that you should hand them over today, but just start getting to it.

I don't really know, because it's so normal and there is a correlation between more guns and less crime in the United States. Shooting them is very fun and can be very safe if you are properly trained. Perhaps when we can 100% trust our government. Then and only then can it be considered in America.

I know it can't change now, but really, it's sort of like the cold war, isn't it? Not an ideal situation.
Still, it works for now.

Also, this thread has provided me with some serious pro-gun arguments. I can continue to go about my favourite business of shutting people up when they use retarded agrguments on EITHER SIDE of this debate.

Hah I feel so smugly superior right now I fart cigar smoke.

I might have to use that cigar smoke thing it's hilarious lol. Yes, it is a cold-war-like situation, but we are humans and as you know humans aren't perfect.

I'd still say both sides have grounded arguments though.

Yeah.

But Hitler did restrict gun usage. He expanded on the citizens' Gun Regulations that the National Socialist Party set in place before he was elected and made it easier for government officials (ie. the SS) to carry firearms.

Ok... still if you start compairing your opponent in a debate to Adolf Hitler, you're not making a very convincing point.

Personally I understand both parties, I wouldn't keep a gun myself and Im not very fond of the idea that everyone has one, but I'm a democrat (and that's in the actual meaning of the word, not the political party) to the core, and if the majority of the people want to keep their guns, they should.

We're not necessarily saying that Obama will put people into extermination camps and kill millions of Americans, but I am saying that it's setting the stage for martial law and the possibility of the latter. We never seem to learn from the past. That is what is killing America.

Eh, I think you're all overreacting. Gun restriction has been applied in Europe, and we don't live every day of our lives in fear of our government.

We're mainly trying to scam our government out of as much money as possible.
And they do the same to us, it's a mutual understanding.

Americans have owned guns for hundreds of years, it is ingrained into so much of us. It is part of our culture and our way of life. It's our check/balance to the government. Most if not all governments in the world have a "positive powers" government/population, where the government tells the citizens what they can and can't do, basically gives them a list of their rights, and the rest belongs to the government. Here in America, it's the opposite of that, we have a "negative powers" which means that we the people tell the government what they can do. We basically give the government a list of their rights, and the rest is ours.

I know your culture is different, and respect that. It's the main reason why I don't pick a side. If you guys were europeans, I'd be on the anti-gun side. Heck, if you guys were European, you wouldn't even have guns anymore.

I'm sure if I was raised in live in Europe, my opinion would probably be different. Because as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong... Most European countries have had strong gun control for a long time and never were able to develop that gun culture we have in America, and there was never much of a chance for many guns to circulate in the population for criminals to easily get their hands on. Just in America, we had to use guns to fight a government that was trying to rule us from across the world and we really really didn't agree with.

That's very true. But even today, although I'm absolutely positively sure that your government (like all governments everywhere) is doing its very best to screw you over big time, I don't think they want to restrict guns so they can start subjugating the people to their evil will. They honestly want lower crime rates. Or at least cut down on the numberof casualties those crimes are causing.

For Americans, taking guns away is just slowly eroding our freedom which we are very paranoid about (look at how our revolution started and went). For us, owning guns is a basic normality. Which it isn't for you I'm guessing, and respect that.

That's kind of the point, owning guns is part of your cultural identity.

Yes, owning guns is the choice of the people of each country. If you are not confortable owning them, then that's fine, if we aren't confortable not owning them then that's fine. I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding on FJ/the internet. It's not that common.

Also, to get back to your original comment, the post with the hitler comparison is a little ridiculous. If you want to convince people of your point, use solid arguments the ones in this thread.

People won't want to listen to you if you just stand around and shout 'SERIOUSLY PEOPLE OBAMA IS TOTALLY THE NEXT HITLER' at them.

You are right, Obama is not the next hitler and I highly doubt that he would do anything comparable to hitler. It's just the fact that Hitler took away guns. The theme of what I am saying is that we must learn from the past or it will repeat its self, definitely not as drastically as I doubt the American government is close to being bad enough to commit those atrocities commited by the nazis. I know the whole Hitler example is ridiculous and exaggerated.

Is it even relevant? Would people have risen up against him if he'd freely allowed to use of guns?

Well the jews would have, but there's no way he'd let THEM have any guns. He hardly let them have any food, so that's that.

Anyways Obama is a pretty OK guy and I definitely prefer him to Bush. He's actually doing stuff. I agree, a lot of people don't like what he's doing, and some things might not work out, but he's seriously doing his best to make the USA a better place to live.

I mean seriously I think the USA is the only country in the entire world that actually actively OPPOSES health care.
It's not a bad thing!

That's why I called the hitler example exaggerated. (and no autocorrect, I will NOT capitalize the H in hiter)

I don't really mind him, it's just that he wants to sign executive orders to force gun control, almost as if he's a king. Congress didn't even approve of it, and he didn't want them or the bill of rights to get in the way. That's my only big problem with him.

That is kind of a dick move. Can he do that?

Also capitalising the H in Hitler doesn't mean you acknowledge his importance or anything, it's just proper spelling, no big deal.

Yeah, proper noun. But in my opinion hitler wasn't a proper person ;P, but I understand the grammar thing, it's basically an eff you to hitler even though it doesn't matter, just for the hell of it.

That's one thing I don't know much about, executive orders. Basically, the president can put things into action himself if he feels it is absolutely necessary. As if he's more wise than the rest of America put together. There are repercussions to that though, it makes the president less popular, and if he were to do something drastic, we'd have widespread riots at best.

Well there are worse things he could be doing with that power in my opinion.


By the way exactly are they banning? No details please, just the big lines. I've heard of the assault-weapon thingy they use for 'ILLICIT LIBERALIST PROPUHGANDURRR'; so no need to explain that, just tell me what kind of firearms are effectively being banned.

Assault weapon is just a concept. The popular term for say, an m4 is an assault rifle, but in reality it's just a rifle.

It's not that simple, because there is no fixed definition of an assault rifle/weapon. What they want to ban are models of guns that are basically black, very ergonomic, and "evil" looking, some have called them. Does that make the weapon more deadly? Not really. They are also wanting to ban magazines over 10 rounds, bayonets, and collapsible stocks. In New York, the magazines are down to 7 rounds.

It's not that common for two people to be sensible at the same time.

Now I'm gonna thumb up everything you posted in this thread, hang on.

Wtf some guy thumbed down that comment you just wrote. As if to make you think I did it. I don't know. I'll thumb everything you do to lol.

Don't stress, I know it wasn't you.
Also I don't really care, thumbs don't mean anything, words do. Your words bring me more joy than any amount of green thumbs ever could (or any amount of red thumbs could ever take away. Unless, you know, I get banned and shit, that'd be a bummer.)

Yeah. How would you get banned? Besides putting child porn and such on here.

If you get too much red thumbs you get auto-banned. Safety procedure against troll accounts.

Is it about how many red thumbs one post gets, or the total you accumulate over time?