- Forum
- Lounge
- UN global gun control
- Page 2
UN global gun control
That definition covers a huge range of weapons, which just isn't fair. Which is why the ban never got renewed.
Most of what they list is cosmetic or just silly. For example, I'm a tall person (6'5") so I prefer a telescoping stock because otherwise it's just awkward for me to hold. I also happen to enjoy a pistol grip over others because it's more comfortable. Now that right there would make it so I own an "assault weapon", even though I have features just to make the gun comfortable to fire.
I agree with all but the last classification for semi-automatic pistols. You don't need a suppressor on your handgun. For a rifle people do hunt with one on as to not spook game other than their target.
The fact of the matter is, if somebody wants to get their hands on what left wing likes to call "assault weapons", they'll do it.
Most of what they list is cosmetic or just silly. For example, I'm a tall person (6'5") so I prefer a telescoping stock because otherwise it's just awkward for me to hold. I also happen to enjoy a pistol grip over others because it's more comfortable. Now that right there would make it so I own an "assault weapon", even though I have features just to make the gun comfortable to fire.
I agree with all but the last classification for semi-automatic pistols. You don't need a suppressor on your handgun. For a rifle people do hunt with one on as to not spook game other than their target.
The fact of the matter is, if somebody wants to get their hands on what left wing likes to call "assault weapons", they'll do it.
| ResidentBiscuit wrote: |
|---|
| The fact of the matter is, if somebody wants to get their hands on what left wing likes to call "assault weapons", they'll do it. |
Intuition =/= fact.
| ModShop wrote: |
|---|
| what people who collect [assault] weapons, but have no intent for using them? |
If you have no intent to use it, it doesn't need a working firing mechanism, so you can get a deactivated one.
I'm with Grey Wolf on this one. I'm not in favour of totally banning guns, I just think that active weapons need strict gun control (all of them, but especially more deadly and more concealable ones).
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I'm guessing you mean automatic assault weapons when you say
.
Automatic weapons are already banned in the US... Which I agree with normal civilians don't need automatic weapons. But hunting rifles, pistols, and like ResidentBiscuit said semi-automatic assault rifles (Basically hunting rifles with a modernized look) they should not take away from law abiding civilians.
The reason I believe this is these three things, and I would like to say these are just my opinions and other people might feel differently.
1. Our civilians having guns actually plays a big role in national defense. One of the reasons why In WWII the Japanese had no interest in invading the American mainland was because as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".
2. When you ban guns you just take them away from mostly law abiding citizens. Most criminals that are going to use a gun for a robbery, or a shooting won't go to a gun shop to register and buy one. They buy them on the streets so their name wont be linked to the crime if the gun is found. Yes I know there are instances of people using legally owned guns to commit crimes, but I'm sure these instances are in the low percentages.
3. This kind of fits in with number 2. Whenever you see these mass shooting on TV notice that most of them happen in buildings that ban guns from the premises. If there was a law abiding citizen that had a permit to carry around during these terrible moments they might have ended sooner , or turned out different. Not everyone that owns a gun is a gun nut, or loves to shoot things. For some people it just makes them feel safer.
Now I do believe we need more gun control to a extent. Like checking previous mental health records, or for drug abuse. But we don't need to ban guns! The gun itself is not a intelligent object, it doesn't shoot people. The person holding the gun shoots people, so instead of looking into banning guns. We should be looking into more regulation on who can get guns.
| That would not be my understanding of Assault weapon. one definition "firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range" |
Automatic weapons are already banned in the US... Which I agree with normal civilians don't need automatic weapons. But hunting rifles, pistols, and like ResidentBiscuit said semi-automatic assault rifles (Basically hunting rifles with a modernized look) they should not take away from law abiding civilians.
The reason I believe this is these three things, and I would like to say these are just my opinions and other people might feel differently.
1. Our civilians having guns actually plays a big role in national defense. One of the reasons why In WWII the Japanese had no interest in invading the American mainland was because as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.".
2. When you ban guns you just take them away from mostly law abiding citizens. Most criminals that are going to use a gun for a robbery, or a shooting won't go to a gun shop to register and buy one. They buy them on the streets so their name wont be linked to the crime if the gun is found. Yes I know there are instances of people using legally owned guns to commit crimes, but I'm sure these instances are in the low percentages.
3. This kind of fits in with number 2. Whenever you see these mass shooting on TV notice that most of them happen in buildings that ban guns from the premises. If there was a law abiding citizen that had a permit to carry around during these terrible moments they might have ended sooner , or turned out different. Not everyone that owns a gun is a gun nut, or loves to shoot things. For some people it just makes them feel safer.
Now I do believe we need more gun control to a extent. Like checking previous mental health records, or for drug abuse. But we don't need to ban guns! The gun itself is not a intelligent object, it doesn't shoot people. The person holding the gun shoots people, so instead of looking into banning guns. We should be looking into more regulation on who can get guns.
Last edited on
| Yes I know there are instances of people using legally owned guns to commit crimes, but I'm sure these instances are in the low percentages. |
Last edited on
| Not nearly as low as you think. The majority of illegal guns on the street where bought legally (and easily) in a state with weak gun control laws. |
Yes, but this is due to an illegal transfer of hands. Someone who is capable of buying a firearm does so, and then some point down the road decides to sell it. This is where it gets into the hands of felons. Or there's the people who do this all the time. They themselves are not convicts so they can buy weapons when they want, and then they turn around and sell them to criminals. Most weapons used in violent crimes fall under this category.
I would call this an illegally owned firearm, as I'm sure most other people would.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
The constitution was designed to be changed and amended. And will be whenever the American people decided that the second amendment needs to be repealed; they have the power to do that.
At this present time in history we pretend that the second amendment has been amended--because we do limit the right of the people to bear arms in every state and pretend that it is constitutional--it is obviously not.
We the American people do what we want. The Constitution is just a piece of paper and we the people are free to burn it anytime we want. What we the people now like to do is pretend that God wrote the Constitution.
Our president is the chief executive he can not legislate unless we the people allow him. That has not happened yet, and I strongly doubt it will happen in my life time. So when anyone says the president is going to take your right bear arms away they are talking complete bullshit.
The Supreme court cannot legislate unless we the people let it. And at this present time in history that court has made it clear it won't legislate. It had chance to repeal
"Obama-care" and decided that it was not their job (a very good ruling).
Our government runs well--separation of powers is still alive and well. I personally live in Pennsylvania where anyone without a felony conviction, mental health issues, or a restraining order can get a concealed weapons permit in 45 days. I think giving hillbillies (most of my state is very rural) a concealed weapon permit is ridiculous, but the people of my state want it that way and the president cannot do anything about it without congress changing the law and getting the courts to agree that it does not violate the constitution.
reference:
http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry
At this present time in history we pretend that the second amendment has been amended--because we do limit the right of the people to bear arms in every state and pretend that it is constitutional--it is obviously not.
We the American people do what we want. The Constitution is just a piece of paper and we the people are free to burn it anytime we want. What we the people now like to do is pretend that God wrote the Constitution.
Our president is the chief executive he can not legislate unless we the people allow him. That has not happened yet, and I strongly doubt it will happen in my life time. So when anyone says the president is going to take your right bear arms away they are talking complete bullshit.
The Supreme court cannot legislate unless we the people let it. And at this present time in history that court has made it clear it won't legislate. It had chance to repeal
"Obama-care" and decided that it was not their job (a very good ruling).
Our government runs well--separation of powers is still alive and well. I personally live in Pennsylvania where anyone without a felony conviction, mental health issues, or a restraining order can get a concealed weapons permit in 45 days. I think giving hillbillies (most of my state is very rural) a concealed weapon permit is ridiculous, but the people of my state want it that way and the president cannot do anything about it without congress changing the law and getting the courts to agree that it does not violate the constitution.
reference:
http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
<sarcasm>If it is your constitutional right for the people to bear arms, surly it is unconstitutional to stop people with a felony conviction from owning arms.</sarcasm>
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@Grey Wolf
I agree with you, and wish the Constitution would be changed. But that will does not exist in this country at this time.
I agree with you, and wish the Constitution would be changed. But that will does not exist in this country at this time.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
Just so you people from the rest world understand how bad it is:
I was visiting my son in Corpus Christi Texas this summer the beach was loaded with people who drive their pick-ups on the beach and drink legally. I asked my son how many of these people do you think have guns and he said quite seriously half.
Even if we tried to get rid of all the guns in this country it would take two generations to do it. It is not the same here--our guns will be around for along time. Americans like guns.
I personally wish we had strict gun control like Europe.
I was visiting my son in Corpus Christi Texas this summer the beach was loaded with people who drive their pick-ups on the beach and drink legally. I asked my son how many of these people do you think have guns and he said quite seriously half.
Even if we tried to get rid of all the guns in this country it would take two generations to do it. It is not the same here--our guns will be around for along time. Americans like guns.
I personally wish we had strict gun control like Europe.
Last edited on
| chwks wrote: |
|---|
| I personally wish we had strict gun control like Europe. |
Why? Because you personally don't like them? Other people personally do like them, so whose opinion takes precedence? I would ay the one already established as law and backed by the Constitution.
| chwks wrote: |
|---|
| The Constitution is just a piece of paper and we the people are free to burn it anytime we want. |
| Our government runs well--separation of powers is still alive and well. |
Not if we were so free to "burn the Constitution" as you word it. Without the Constitution the government would not be under the control of the people.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
Did everyone know that it costs upwards of $20,000 to even obtain a legal fully automatic firearm? I've seen some models go for over $50,000. As far as semi-automatics, you're still looking at a rough minimum of $1,500 which is continuing to rise rapidly.
I could probably be considered one of those "hillbillies" that you speak of. I am also a permit holder, but have never once to this day carried a concealed arm. Why? I currently have no reason to, which is great...so long as I still have therightprivilege to if need be.
On an extreme...motor-vehicles kill WAAAAAAAAY more people than guns do....so we should definitely push a ban of motor-vehicles for the safety of our population!
Not quite correct. They're just a royal pain in the butt to get...at least in Pennsylvania. Oh, did I mention the cost of obtaining one is roughly a years worth of wages? That effectively negates automatic weapons from being used in crimes, as the only people that can afford them are either business owners, or the otherwise wealthy class. This also completely destroys a black-market on fully automatic weapons...because let's face it: Who wants to sell them on the street when a collector is willing to pay mega bucks for them?
| chwsks wrote: |
|---|
| I think giving hillbillies (most of my state is very rural) a concealed weapon permit is ridiculous |
I could probably be considered one of those "hillbillies" that you speak of. I am also a permit holder, but have never once to this day carried a concealed arm. Why? I currently have no reason to, which is great...so long as I still have the
On an extreme...motor-vehicles kill WAAAAAAAAY more people than guns do....so we should definitely push a ban of motor-vehicles for the safety of our population!
| zereo wrote: |
|---|
| Automatic weapons are already banned in the US... |
Not quite correct. They're just a royal pain in the butt to get...at least in Pennsylvania. Oh, did I mention the cost of obtaining one is roughly a years worth of wages? That effectively negates automatic weapons from being used in crimes, as the only people that can afford them are either business owners, or the otherwise wealthy class. This also completely destroys a black-market on fully automatic weapons...because let's face it: Who wants to sell them on the street when a collector is willing to pay mega bucks for them?
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
US election: Unhappy Americans ask to secede from US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477
<sarcasm>
It's a good job everyone got guns then, oh! but if they secede they will not have the Constitution to say that they can bear arms...They can always make a new one up, kind of like amending the one they have.
Viva La Revolution!
</sarcasm>
Seriously WTF?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477
<sarcasm>
It's a good job everyone got guns then, oh! but if they secede they will not have the Constitution to say that they can bear arms...They can always make a new one up, kind of like amending the one they have.
Viva La Revolution!
</sarcasm>
Seriously WTF?
you know what i would LOVE a rifle, i always had air rifles and crossbows as a kid, i could hit any target with those things for ages and always wanted to learn about long range shooting, like the way water pulls a bullet and air presure effects the drop and the Coriolis effect etc,
but my air rifle and crossbow would have to be stashed when them gypsy school freinds came over cos they would allways be trouble. not much has changed really so just as well i dont have a rifle.
but it would cost me hundreds to join a rifle club where they own the rifles but at least its available if i want to shoot targets and i dont have to have the weight of a gun hanging round in my flat, i dont even like owning rat poison either, danger isnt what it used to be, we will proly evolve to be more scared of rat poison than rats in time
but my air rifle and crossbow would have to be stashed when them gypsy school freinds came over cos they would allways be trouble. not much has changed really so just as well i dont have a rifle.
but it would cost me hundreds to join a rifle club where they own the rifles but at least its available if i want to shoot targets and i dont have to have the weight of a gun hanging round in my flat, i dont even like owning rat poison either, danger isnt what it used to be, we will proly evolve to be more scared of rat poison than rats in time
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| Unhappy Americans ask to secede from US |
I was actually just coming here to bring that up xD
A friend of a friend posted a comment on facebook that was very much against our president and very much for the state of Texas seceding. I pointed out there, and will point out here, that no state can secede without the joint consent of the national government and the state government in question. In Texas v White the supreme court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. Sooo, their options are to get congress to agree or rebel against the US and win their freedom. Neither of which are going to happen any time soon.
But beside all that, it would be tremendously stupid to secede from the US in the modern world. And this is a tremendous over reaction to the election.
On the plus side, if a state seceded at the same time as Puerto Rico joined, no flags would have to get changed; that's a cost saving measure right there :)
| england should secede from america |
Would Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland stay in?
Scotland is currently voting on succession from the UK. (edit: I think)
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
In the autumn of 2014, the Scottish people will be asked
"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
Edit:
If they get a majority 'Yes' vote, I still don't know what will actually happen. It might be interesting to see.
"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
Edit:
If they get a majority 'Yes' vote, I still don't know what will actually happen. It might be interesting to see.
Last edited on
| Did everyone know that it costs upwards of $20,000 to even obtain a legal fully automatic firearm? I've seen some models go for over $50,000. As far as semi-automatics, you're still looking at a rough minimum of $1,500 which is continuing to rise rapidly. |
$1,500 for a semi-automatic firearm? I can buy AR-15s for ~$800, handguns for half that. Traditional semi-automatic rifles I can get for $400-$500.