The majority of people with guns are pretty safe. "Huge - #78944188 added by friendlyanonymous at American Politics

Reply+4

(12/31/2012)[-]

You know what the first thing a dictator does when he gets in power?

He bans guns, and gives the public a certain amount of time to turn in all of their weapons.

Now why would we have an amendment that gives us the right to bear arms? It's simple.

In the event that the government becomes so corrupt, the people could fight back.

#16879 to #16839 - ilieksheep

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Now I'm from the UK so I know fuck all about American laws and whatnot, but I do have one thing to say after talking about it with a mate of mine.
The amendment that gives you the right to bear arms? Its stupidly old, it should be updated to fit with more modern times, don't get me wrong I can understand people wanting a gun for protection and all, but they should limit the weapons a person can actually own, and on top of that they should be a lot harder to get ahold of. I don't know to much about how its run really, cause again I'm from the UK, but given how much gun crime goes on in the US, something should be done to limit how easily available guns actually are.

Anyway thats about all I've got to say about it, enjoy.

#16878 to #16839 - unholyjebus

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Would you say that there is a realistic risk of a European country like the UK with high levels of gun control to become this corrupt? Because shit dude I would like to know if this was the case.

#16869 to #16839 - newposterintown

Reply+1

(12/31/2012)[-]

Specially after the revolution, and all.

Also, Shizune is neat.

#16871 to #16869 - Hawke

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Mhmm.

Yes she is.

#16864 to #16839 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Not disagreeing with you at all, but I'm going to quote someone I talked to in a thread
"This could go 1 of 2 ways.
1. The military is with you, and you have a good chance of keeping your rights
2. The military is against you, and you waving around your semi-auto will end in you being hit in the chest by a missile from a drone you never knew was there."
So yeah, fighting back only works if the military is with you on that.

#16907 to #16864 - lnerfan

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

I apologize for the rudeness of this anon, but it illustrates the point quite effectively.

#16928 to #16907 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Well, the fighter jet may not be kicking down your door, but it sure as hell can blow up your entire house if you show any sign of going against the government.

#16943 to #16928 - lnerfan

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

And piss off even more of the public when the news gets out?

That's trying to put out a singed hair by pouring gasoline on your head.

#17196 to #16943 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

If they are willing to use fighter jets at all on the population, I don't feel that media attention is a problem.

#17218 to #17196 - lnerfan

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

If you've got like 70% of the population going against the government, it's only a matter of time before the military either defects or gets zerg rushed. And that's assuming there's little defection to start with.

#17242 to #17218 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

If civilians are capable of removing a government, I will be amazed.
Although I can say one thing, since it is 'Murica, it might not be that hard to remove a base via as zerg rush.
Only because, y'know, the rest of the military is out policing the world for some reason.

#16857 to #16839 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

i agree but this amendment was created under the assumption that people had the decency to govern their own use of said firearms. unfortunately the population has seemed to fail this assumption. however i still think the population should still have firearms, just limit them to pistols and hunting style rifles/shotguns and make the process to get them less easy.

#16877 to #16857 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

How has the population not been able to do that? The NRA is pretty big, and people involved in it are over-all safe people.

#17729 to #16877 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

...look at the huge number of gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to anywhere
...look at the sheer number of school shootings in the u.s. compared to anywhere
the general population lost control of themselves even if the NRA keeps control of themselves
(sand countries and africa dont count in this, they are gonna kill eachother off anyways)

#17739 to #17729 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

The majority of people with guns are pretty safe.
"Huge number" is when you compare it to places with no guns, that don't have countries connected to them. *coughU.Kcough*

#17760 to #17739 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

canada- allows guns, highly restricted. no automatic weapons. shares a massive border with the u.s.
u.s.- allows guns, nearly unrestricted. automatic weapons allowed.

canada gun deaths in 2009 - approx 610
u.s. gun deaths in 2009 - approx 15,421

citing www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
and www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

#17776 to #17760 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Not caused, meant to say they were done with semi-auto weapons most of the time.

#17769 to #17760 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Hold up, The U.S doesn't allow automatic weapons, unless they get a collectors license, and even then, they can not own a weapon made past 1984.
Besides, shootings are caused by semi-auto weapons.
"Nearly unrestricted" these guns require a license.
Also, I was talking about Mexico, bring up some statistics on that.

#17796 to #17769 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

anyhow in wrapping up, using Canada as an example, we can conclude that making it extremely difficult to get guns would be the better choice. if you make it impossible then people get antsy and bitch, if you make it too easy then the gun deaths go up. making the guns hard to get would help to keep them out of the hands of morons and criminals.

#17786 to #17769 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

mexico gun deaths in 2009 - 19,803... mexico is essentially lawless and it only outpaces the u.s. by a small margin.

either wich way my previous comment was meant to dispell your notion that the bordering countries had anything to do with the gun deaths in a specific country

#17794 to #17786 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

Well, considering the fact the U.S banned drugs yet the U.S still gets it from Mexico, I don't see how guns could be different.
Banning guns won't stop them for the U.S really.

#17805 to #17794 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

it hasnt stopped guns from coming from the u.s. canada either but it seems that somehow we managed to control them enough

#17814 to #17805 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

I wasn't saying anything about it stopping guns from going to the U.S to canada.
The U.S hasn't been capable to control the drugs in the U.S just because they banned it and search things coming and going from Mexico.

#17821 to #17814 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

but you were saying that guns would just come in from mexico. i was using a current example to dispel that notion.

#17825 to #17821 - friendlyanonymous

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

They still would.

#17854 to #17825 - deadlysilentbob

Reply0

(12/31/2012)[-]

this is an assumption based on another thing the government tried to control. guns and drugs are 2 very different things and if the country your bringing the guns into is not in a civil war its not very lucrative. i doubt it would become that big of a thing. and even if it did, most of the people whom are the problems with the guns are either too stupid or too lazy to go find a black market dealer.