Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I realize that it is people that kill and that it is not guns that kill, but if the guns weren't so easy to buy one way or the other, there wouldn't be so many casualties in the streets. I was watching the news, and I heard that a little 7 or 8 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet to the head, leaving her brain dead. I sat there thinking how much pain her parents and family members were going through because someone had easy access to a firearm.

When does the government say enough is enough, and pull the NRA down like an outdated poster? The 2nd Amendment does not really fit in society today, when we have more Police officers than when this near ancient law was passed. I also read that there were more deaths over the past 20 or so years, due to gun violence on the streets of America, than deaths in all of the wars since WW1. I may be wrong about the dates, but it went something like that, which in the end left me a little surprised, because this is something that I would have never guessed.

So what do you think? Should the 2nd Amendment be abolished? Should it be the responsibility of other countries to help solve this dilemma like the USA always does when they stick their noses in the affairs of other countries, or what? Something must clearly be done about this, because its far past the point that someone should stand the hell up, and declare that this is a crisis situation.

Opinions?

How about: everyone who thinks they have a "God-given right" to battlefield-calibre ordnance should be shot and killed when and where they least expect it. Or maybe just their children. Oh the irony.

OR

Let's pick a number of diverse places around the country and allow everyone to be armed, everywhere: schools, bars, churches, etc. Then debate will no longer be necessary. We will know, once and for all, if arming everyone ensures maximum safety or maximum carnage.

Originally posted by Mindship
How about: everyone who thinks they have a "God-given right" to battlefield-calibre ordnance should be shot and killed when and where they least expect it. Or maybe just their children. Oh the irony.

OR

Let's pick a number of diverse places around the country and allow everyone to be armed, everywhere: schools, bars, churches, etc. Then debate will no longer be necessary. We will know, once and for all, if arming everyone ensures maximum safety or maximum carnage.

It has already been determined that countries where firearms are illegal have less deaths by way of gunfire. The NRA is a very powerful group in the US, and this is why not one Politician dares attempt to say more than they have. Even the President of the United States steps gingerly, and carefully picks his words when speaking somewhat against the NRA.

People are running around B!tching about soft drinks, cigarettes, and fast food, but no one dares make a commercial about how detrimental the NRA has been for peoples health in this country.

Should the NRA be banned?
No.
If you don't like the second amendment to the constitution, then past a new amendment.

I wouldn't do away with gun ownership outright, but I think that technology needs to catch up to the times and there needs to be a way for weapons to only be operated by their registered owner. Use GPS and Smartlocks on guns as well as a way to DNA tag the bullets (so it's always known who fired the shot, and only the registered owner can fire the gun). That'll deter a lot of gun violence going forward when the anonymity is removed for the most part. People will be less likely to shoot someone when there is absolute no doubt left as to who it was that fired the gun. They should also stop making bullets for the guns which don't have these deterrents in place. Of course there will be black market weapons and ammunition (as always) so the people who really want to commit crimes almost always will (which is actually the bulk of the problem. It's not really the legal owners of weaponry committing the crimes), but their resources will eventually dwindle when the new smart weapons and smart bullets are the only show in town.

Probably my favorite gun-law commercial:

LORVfnFtcH0

Originally posted by Stoic
It has already been determined that countries where firearms are illegal have less deaths by way of gunfire. Them countries don't count. I'm talking about real men: Americans.

Originally posted by Stoic
Should the NRA be banned?
No.

No, it shouldn't.

Guns don't kill people...the NRA does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Guns don't kill people...the NRA does.

That's terrible!

Guns are here to stay and they're not going anywhere. At this point trying to fight this issue and BAN the right to own guns would be the same as trying to get through a brick wall by bashing your skull against it. To me it's the same as prohibition. People are still going to rob, kill and mass massacre. Media and prime time programming is more dangerous and powerful than any other practical machine weapon in the world. Are we censoring SEX and Violence in art and media? Untill that happens, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be an NRA

Well put.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Guns are here to stay and they're not going anywhere. At this point trying to fight this issue and BAN the right to own guns would be the same as trying to get through a brick wall by bashing your skull against it. To me it's the same as prohibition. People are still going to rob, kill and mass massacre. Media and prime time programming is more dangerous and powerful than any other practical machine weapon in the world. Are we censoring SEX and Violence in art and media? Untill that happens, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be an NRA

Not only would trying to ban all firearms be a brick wall that most politicians would most likely bang their heads into, (as well as the jeopardy it would present to their careers) but as a matter of historical practicality, look what happened when the Moral Majority crowd tried to push Prohibition on people: black market sales and Mafia wars over alcohol went thru the roof and innocent people still died, all over the simple right to have a drink.

I know the two cases are different, but the result was the same-a war started because faceless bureaucrats took the peoples' right to something away while most likely enjoying it themselves.

What's to say that a ban of firearms in a demographic as large as America wouldn't have the same effect? And I wholeheartedly agree with jinXed by JaNX-sex and violence and the media play a large role in the promotion of violence, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon...

Out of respect for your many questions, I'm going to try to answer each question on an individual basis, and my apologies for being so long in this case.

Originally posted by Stoic


This is part of the reason why these types of hot button issues get nasty-the insertion of words in the mouth of the dissenting individual, aka embellishment of speech. I never said the NRA runs America. With all due respect, that was your call not mine.


Originally posted by Stoic When the government banned smoking in public places was there a war, or did people have to adhere to the new law? When has it become wrong to place tighter restrictions on devices that if placed in the wrong hands kill babies, mothers, fathers brothers, friends?

As if cigarettes don't kill. How about the rich people?
Rich elitists and Hollywood people and politicians own guns, right? So to pose the question in reverse, do you feel that restrictions should be placed on guns by the rich and elite who are excepted from those restrictions? I mean, where does it say that their lives are worth more than ours? It's the right of The People, not the right of the bureaucrats. If one can have, so can the other.

I personally don't believe in assault weapons, but I also don't believe that the gun haters (like Rosie O' Donnell and Michael Moore) should be grandstanding hypocrites about the immorality of using a gun for self defense when they themselves are guarded 24\7 where ever they go. And where do these restrictions stop? When is enough, enough?


Originally posted by Stoic For those that see nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, or that it's perfectly fine for gun lobbyist to have more power than the President of the United States, let me ask you this.

How would you feel if you were walking up the street with your
first born child, and out of nowhere, she, or he, suddenly falls to
the ground only to find out moments later that they were killed by
a stray bullet? What if your spouse was killed in this manner, or sister, brother, parents or best friend/s? How would you feel? Would you feel the same way that you do now? This is after knowing that if you were in Canada, or somewhere in Europe and knew that if you lived there, none of that would happen, because there are tough laws on carrying a handgun. I mean how would you feel?

I never said that handgun laws shouldn't be tougher, but the fact remains again that it's a stepping stone to tougher laws that will eventually ban regular guns. Give an inch, take a mile. And again, I don't see the law limiting the right of people like Hollywood heavyweights Howard Stern or Robert DeNiro (who have CCW permits).

As to people dying from guns like you said above, seems 3,000 people died in one day on 9\11 and no one took the right to religion away in America. In fact some cheered for the attackers...

Also 98,000 people are estimated to die A YEAR from medical malpractice at the cost of around 29 Billion to the country. And until that many people die from guns in America in one year, you'd best be scared of the doctor more than the gun, especially since some of these doctors can (and are) still practicing in other states.

A doctor, no less,someone who is truly needed by society.


Originally posted by Stoic I just believe that we don't need the 2nd Amendment in the present day United States, when the Police force is so much larger than when this bill was passed long ago. Do you guys see my point on this? It's easy to be lighthearted when someone else has their house burned to the ground, but when it happens to us, it becomes a crisis.

Have you ever had to defend yourself from a violent home intruder? And what if the police can't get there? Are you supposed to supposed to "retreat" to a corner and allow someone to change your life or personally end it for 5 bucks in a cookie jar? Why should someone totally rely on an outside force esp. since that force runs a risk of not getting there in time?

Like you said earlier, "it's easy to be lighthearted when it's someone else's house that burns down, but when it's yours it's a crisis". You really need to consider the other side of the issue.

More at this point wuld be redundant as it's the same old, same old, but I hope this answers some of your questions. Peace.

Stronger restrictions on gun control will only hinder law abiding citizens. They would have little chance of defending themselves against violent street gangs and criminals (who won't care about gun control laws anyway).

Originally posted by socool8520
Stronger restrictions on gun control will only hinder law abiding citizens. They would have little chance of defending themselves against violent street gangs and criminals (who won't care about gun control laws anyway).

And that, my friend, is why gun laws don't work, because criminals have no fear of the law. And again, why should America's rich and elite go around with CCW permits and\or armed bodyguards but turn a blind eye to ordinary Americans who want that same security? Hypocrisy is stronger than it ever was, it seems.

Also, for all their concerns on gun violence, the lawmakers in charge of Fast and Furious greatly contributed to the problem, so they really have no right to criticize.

Michael Moore also comes to mind here: for all of his gun control zealousy, his bodyguard was arrested on illegal gun charges at JFK airport back in 2005.

So while it may not be related to the topic of the NRA and if they should be banned, the point is that with Fast and Furious and Michael Moore respectively, we have people grandstanding about guns when they themselves really don't know what they hell they're doing.

^ you make good points. I would have to agree

Guns should be outlawed and people should go back to carry swords and daggers. Those were the days.

While I don't think guns should be banned. I think people who say criminals don't follow the law, are being a bit silly. By that logic you may as well not have any laws regarding things, as criminals will break it anyway.

That argument hinges on common sense being replaced with insane troll logic.

sigh

"A person is smart. People are stupid."
-Agent K

Still, its part of the price of living in a democracy...

Not sure where I signed up for: "get shot in the face cos any lunatic can easily get a gun". I must have not read the EULA well enough.

This seems extremely, insanely, mind-bogglingly appropriate: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure where I signed up for: "get shot in the face cos any lunatic can easily get a gun". I must have not read the EULA well enough.
Same place you get a "get hit by a car because people drive drunk." Registration.
Insane troll logic dictates we get rid of a LOT of tools, because they're mis used.

Originally posted by riv6672
Same place you get a "get hit by a car because people drive drunk." Registration.
Insane troll logic dictates we get rid of a LOT of tools, because they're mis used.

I live in a democracy (arguably a better one than the US) and I literally don't worry about being shot ever....

It worked for Australia. They had the same sort of people who would say, "You can have my gun over my cold dead body..." but they still managed to pass a no-gun law.

That might be a long way off for America, but I think that making a few new rules could help a lot. For instance, a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun. No ability for citizens to buy military-grade weapons. Mandatory instructional course for new gun buyers. Yeah, nobody wants to give up their privacy or time. Even just these few rules would help prevent school shootings. Or how about required license, to be found on the person who has a gun with them. Harsher enforcement laws.

Yes, people will whine and carry on. But there is something to be said for the greater good, at least in this instance.

Originally posted by Robtard
Guns should be outlawed and people should go back to carry swords and daggers. Those were the days.

Well, that might happen...Einstein said that he didn't know what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. And maybe a few swords..

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
While I don't think guns should be banned. I think people who say criminals don't follow the law, are being a bit silly. By that logic you may as well not have any laws regarding things, as criminals will break it anyway.

What is being said is that criminals don't fear the law because they know how to get around it in many cases. However, the main logic in this "not fearing the law" deal is that no matter what law is passed a criminal will always find a way to buy a gun.

Also, if a criminal does break the law, what does he look forward to? A nice cell, 3 meals a day, exercise, free healthcare and years of appeals at the expense of the taxpayers. In fact, some criminals on-purposely go back to jail to enjoy the perks, because they can't make it in the outside world.

So what do criminals really have to lose?

That speaks more to the mental state of the criminals than the prison system.
Do men and women who return to abusive relationships do so because the relationships really arent that bad?

Back to guns though:
I once called out then current rapper/future actor ice t for the hypocrisy of his lyrics, where he'd lambaste police as corrupt storm troopers in some songs, while in other songs dealing with different types of crimes, said they should be called in to basically make things right.
Its easy to make light of/talk down/call into question the necessity of, guns. Until you need one.

This'll probably be my last post here, unless some new ground is covered. This type of thread never changes people's minds and tend to go in circles for way too long.

You missed Ice T's point, then.

Ice T doesn't hate police. Ice-T hates police who are douchebags and harass people for no reason other than them being black. He hates police who can murder people, practically on-video, and get away with it because they're cops.

Using a similar analogy, most people don't hate guns. What they do hate is when people use guns to do things like... you know, murder people.

- - -

While I entirely agree with the sentiment that a huuuuge part of America's gun problem has more to do with how we treat mental illnesses and socio-economic pressures than it does gun-ownership laws, I do also think that there is absolutely no reason for people to own any type of gun they want for "home defense" or "sport". As far as I'm concerned, civilians should be allowed to possess pump-action shotguns, revolvers and single-shot rifles, with the caveat of only revolvers being allowed on your person in public. If you want something better than that for sport shooting (hunting, etc), rent one from a gun range or the park. If you want something better than that for self-defense, call the Police. That's why they're there.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to own a weapon to protect yourself. It doesn't give you the right to own an assault rifle or other military-grade weapons anymore then it gives you the right to own a SAW or a SAM-launcher.

Couldnt resist responding except to say ice seemed chagrined at my point.

And a LOT of people just hate guns, period. They dont make the distinction that actually makes sense...

Ice T's black. Chagrined is his default state of existence.

The media is another factor we have to consider in gun violence.

Slightly off-topic. yes, but the Media should also get their due credit for the promotion of gun violence.

Does anyone remember when the Virgina tech shooting took place?
What did the major news outlets like ABC and NBC do?

They played Seung-Hui-Cho's final manifesto over and over again. They turned him into a rock star for other disenfranchised and angry youth as they stared at someone who looked like he belonged in some off-the-wall movie. If I remember right, the movie "Oldboy" got some heat for Cho's final physical appearance in his manifesto.

It created more anger and hate that none of us really need. So, hat's off to the media for creating the next potential VT killer....

NRA be banned? that's not right at all, free speech and all

weapons ban? are people crazy? i hear about how it works in other places in the world, but i assure you that is mostly propaganda.
I've been to many places in the middle east. been to japan, korea, germany, u.k., australia.

don't care what people say. banning legal gun ownership is insane

The NRA should not be banned. Neither should it trump common sense.

Originally posted by riv6672
Same place you get a "get hit by a car because people drive drunk." Registration.
Insane troll logic dictates we get rid of a LOT of tools, because they're mis used.

So you're comparing say a Prius to a 9mm handgun, where one is specifically designed to move people around and the other is specifically designed to kill humans?

That logic seems both lazy and foolish and foolishy lazy.

Eh, I don't think guns should be banned outright.

Just make it harder for people to get them. Make training and checks more detailed. Stuff like that.

Originally posted by Mindship
The NRA should not be banned. Neither should it trump common sense.

The best statement about the problem so far.

Add to that that the government should also exercise common sense, and not take a mile the minute someone gives an inch, which is a logical fear given the way that "feel-good" laws and "just a little bit" laws can (and have) become overbearing regulations that are hard to dislodge once written in judicial and executive stone.

But being the current crop of Left-Wing individuals in Congress are the cream-of-the-crop of the gun-hating crowd, there's going to a lot of "my way or the highway" politics that will no doubt dominate Congress in the future, just as they have in the past as well as now.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're comparing say a Prius to a 9mm handgun, where one is specifically designed to move people around and the other is specifically designed to kill humans?

That logic seems both lazy and foolish and foolishy lazy.

Well, if we stop and examine this for a minute, what is being said
is irresponsibility can exist with anything that gets mis-used. And with young kids, cars are of special note here.

Every now and then, you hear some kid who just got his license and\or graduated gets a brand-new big-ass SUV or some other monster car or truck as a present. He then takes it out with his friends, and because of his inexperience, (or lack of responsibility) he winds up getting himself and his friends killed, or winds up killing someone else.

It's relevant for those reasons alone, as it shows irresponsibility with a right or a privilege. And while not as frequent as gun violence, the fact that someone died from something they shouldn't have had to begin with is the key.

However, that alone should not be a reason to revoke the rights of others who are safe and responsible.

Oh absolutely.

guns dnt kill ppl... ppl dnt kill ppl... lack of unity kills ppl.


money is made up on numbers... numbers dnt end..... so you will never find solutions in money... ppl. will end because of money... because greed blinds ppl of things that should be done.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You missed Ice T's point, then.

Ice T doesn't hate police. Ice-T hates police who are douchebags and harass people for no reason other than them being black. He hates police who can murder people, practically on-video, and get away with it because they're cops.



It's amazing how many people miss this. Same with some NWA songs.

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2012929/ILC4.gif

He looks like he just read some comments on KMC.

(not any of mine of course.)

So, me actually getting no straight answer from the actual artist means nothing? Yeah, i suppose you guys would know better...

Also...

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're comparing say a Prius to a 9mm handgun, where one is specifically designed to move people around and the other is specifically designed to kill humans?

That logic seems both lazy and foolish and foolishy lazy.
Originally posted by Fallschirmjäger
Well, if we stop and examine this for a minute, what is being said
is irresponsibility can exist with anything that gets mis-used. And with young kids, cars are of special note here.

Every now and then, you hear some kid who just got his license and\or graduated gets a brand-new big-ass SUV or some other monster car or truck as a present. He then takes it out with his friends, and because of his inexperience, (or lack of responsibility) he winds up getting himself and his friends killed, or winds up killing someone else.

It's relevant for those reasons alone, as it shows irresponsibility with a right or a privilege. And while not as frequent as gun violence, the fact that someone died from something they shouldn't have had to begin with is the key.

However, that alone should not be a reason to revoke the rights of others who are safe and responsible.

...nice to see people thinking outside the box and not foolishly, lazily dismissing other arguments out of hand.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Eh, I don't think guns should be banned outright.

Just make it harder for people to get them. Make training and checks more detailed. Stuff like that.

i can agree with this.

what do you guys think about people using 3d printers to make guns?

if that becomes commonplace won't that render any possibility of gun control basically obsolete?

yes i've been watching vice

Originally posted by riv6672
Also...

...nice to see people thinking outside the box and not foolishly, lazily dismissing other arguments out of hand.

That's still comparing a device specifically designed to move people around to one specifically designed to kill people. That's a silly and lazy argument.

Sure, a car could be used to kill people, just as a gun could be used to not kill people. That doesn't take away the inherent purpose of each device though.

Thanks friend. Sometimes us older folks can keep a cooler head better than those around us. Have a drink on me, bud



Originally posted by Robtard
That's still comparing a device specifically designed to move people around to one specifically designed to kill people. That's a silly and lazy argument.

Not really that silly when you consider that in the past, people have deliberately committed vehicular manslaughter with pre-meditative purpose of ending someone's life. When someone is that dedicated, anything can become a weapon, and regardless of the statistics of how many people died from something other than a gun, the fact is is that people were still killed by an alternate method.

Originally posted by Robtard Sure, a car could be used to kill people, just as a gun could be used to not kill people. That doesn't take away the inherent purpose of each device though.

Fair enough, however it's the fact that anything can be used to kill someone. As long as the intent exists, there will always be a way.

Originally posted by Robtard
Guns should be outlawed and people should go back to carry swords and daggers. Those were the days.


I agree. The day man killed the last dragon was the day romance died.

yes i agree with this step. it should be banned as early as possible

When the NRA is inevitably banned the descendants of the current americans look back to it, they'll see it as a primitive idiocy like segregation and slavery.

This is pretty much a fact, feel free to stall it as much as possible ermm

No, but there should be an aggressive lobbying group created for the express purpose of countering the NRA's influence and propaganda.

Banning the NRA would only further radicalize its members and wouldn't solve the problem of the American gun culture--that's something that will either take many generations of gradual demographic change (like what's happening with gay marriage and legalization of marijuana) or a drastic grassroots social revolution caused by something truly horrendous that even the NRA's supporters can't spin.

Should they be banned.. no. Banning a group for simply expressing an opinion is not okay.

That being said I do not think owning a gun is a right. At the very least imo owning a gun should be a privilege only given to those who have gone through the necessary training to have one.

I also think the gun culture of the USA is stupid. Guns have become a toy instead of respecting as the weapon it is.