Originally posted by BackFire
The unfortunate fact is that there is no easy solution to the gun problem in the US. Even if we make it difficult for people to obtain them, they will find a way to get the illegally of the street. The only thing we can do is just accept this and move on, and hope for the best.
✅
But it still doesn't mean wouldn't should just give up. The reason Americans were allowed to have guns was to protect themselves since they didn't actually have the police back then. It was also meant as something to keep the King of England out of your house.
The use of them was needed during the Frontier time since Indians or bears might invade your home and you don't have any cops to call. We have cops nowadays, why do we even need guns as protection. What are we afraid of, the King of England coming into our homes nowadays and taking our stuff! 🙄 If the public is going to have guns, then why does the cops need them, just let the public handle criminals who have guns.
IMO, the only people who should have guns should be police officers, sportsmen, and the military. Hunting lincense, guns, and registeration should be highly cost/taxed (into the thousands) so that only a few can afford them, and those that have them only have a few since it cost so much. Weekly inspection on the number of guns belong to each officer (they should be given only what they need) to make sure none is lost/stolen/ or sold.
If the public didn't have guns, the jobs of officers would be much easier. As for the Alcohol Prohibition comparison, guns are easily manufactioned. The metal cost money, not to mention needing it melted. You can't smuggle them easily either since metal detectors can be put in to prevent this. And even if guns are smuggled in, the supplies of bullets would need to be smuggled in as well. Once a gun runs out of bullets, they're going to need it smuggled in.
And think about who uses them, lazy, stupid, criminals of society for the most part (who rather rob and kill than make a decent living). Guns are cheap and easy to operate [they're basically idiot proof/criminal proof]. That's why people use them to commit crimes: easy to operate, range attack, effective at killing/maming, and all is needed is the pull of the trigger to take away a life - unlike knives or crow bars which might need more then one hit at close range to kill someone. And think about the messy that will cause, the DNA the will get onto the knife or crow bar and the criminals.
We should atleast try to get an amendment to ban guns instead saying it'll never happen and so we shouldn't try.
this is the reason why i don not belive in the right to bear arms. it should be a PRIVELEDGE to bear arms. something that has to be earned. anybody who wishes to acquie a fire arm should be given an examintion... both intellectually and mentally. and like beyonder said, the prices of such should be sky high (but that only gives the rich and pompous a front seat). what the government needs to do is to ammend the constitution and imply stricter laws when it comes to buying a gun.
Thanks mc peee pants for the support. I'd also add that drug lords ain't going to just clear the rainforest floors and drop some bullets into the ground, let the sun shine and the clouds rain, and expect a crop full of guns to pop up, waiting to be harvested. They can pull it off with drugs - but not guns.
And think of the COST if they do succeed such as metal, fuel to melt the metal, and craftsmen. When they do bring the guns in, the demand by criminals and others would be greater than the quantity smuggled in, thus the price would be jacked up to a level that most criminals might not be able to afford it. And I doubt it'll drop since again guns aren't easily made or smuggled compared to drugs. And the smuggling of bullets would also been needed. If not, criminals might have to think of using their bullets wisely or run out. Luxuries such as driveby shootings, murdering others for no reason, shoot out between gangs, random shooting at cops, etc. would drop.
It's party time at the NRA:
Re: Clinton's gun-ban has been lifted !
Originally posted by Papaumau
While in office President Clinton banned the sale or purchase of assault-weapons and sub-machine guns but now that he is no longer in control his opponents have repealed this law making the buying of the likes of AK47's and Uzi sub-machine guns legal again.The gun-lobby said that the banning of such weapons was "damaging to our civil-liberties" !
WELL...I am a Brit and I am proud that we have some of the strongest legislation in the world against the ordinary public owning and using firearms:
As American youth, ( most of you ), do you feel that the free sale of assault weapons or other guns is a good thing or do you think that it is time that America gave up it's love-affair with firearms ?
I think that's lame as hell. They take away half our other freedoms, but we can still buy AK-47's. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
Originally posted by WindDancer
It's party time at the NRA:
click the link fellas... it says the ban had already expired.
and f*ck the NRA. the NRA held a gun convention in columbine ten days or so after the shooting (maybe sooner, can't put my finger on it).and f*ck charlton heston. all these redneck bastards wanna do is shoot at something. the only good thing about the NRA is the fact that these gun owners are registered.
Originally posted by mc pee pants
click the link fellas... it says the ban had already expired.and f*ck the NRA. the NRA held a gun convention in columbine ten days or so after the shooting (maybe sooner, can't put my finger on it).and f*ck charlton heston. all these redneck bastards wanna do is shoot at something. the only good thing about the NRA is the fact that these gun owners are registered.
wow thanks for the stereotype! judge us before you know us *******!
anyways i am a NRA member and my family owns about 2-5 ak-47s and we havent used them for anything other than target practice with bowling pins!
also BF is right. it IS futile.there is no such a thing as peace or civility.its all a bunch silly ideals made up by pascifists.
Originally posted by TrAnCeDuO
wow thanks for the stereotype! judge us before you know us *******!
anyways i am a NRA member and my family owns about 2-5 ak-47s and we havent used them for anything other than target practice with bowling pins!also BF is right. it IS futile.there is no such a thing as peace or civility.its all a bunch silly ideals made up by pascifists.
it's not my stereotype. that has been going on for a while now. i just said it. plus there is no need to be offended when you know you aren't stereotypical. people say a lot of sterotyped sh!t.
wow, i said stereotype and stereotyped related words a lot in this post. anyways... my apologies if i offended you. i apologize on how i said it, but my principle stands.
My family owns some guns, but quite a few of them have some historical value, and only one or two of them is very powerful... No automatic weapons either. My dad keeps them locked up nice and safe, and tbh I really enjoy going out to the range and shooting some targets. But I really don't think automatic weapons should be legal for civilians to own, they're just too goddamn dangerous. Obviously you can kill somebody with almost any kind of gun, but a .22 is considerably safer than a big-assed assault rifle that fires in rapid bursts. Plus, I don't see WHY anybody needs an automatic weapon for target practice?
exactly. anybody remember those guys who robbed a bank armed with auto rifles? they just started raining bullets at the cops. no reason what so ever for a civilian to own an AK.
i went to a gun range once and i have to admit, shooting a gun is a totally different high. i can see how one can be an enthusiast.
I can't agree with anyone owning an automatic weapon for hunting. I mean come on. Maybe a gun collector who has it registered but who else really needs them? At least when they were illegal the police knew that whoever had one shouldn't. Now how will they know? Their job is dangerous enough.
I am not a Michael Moore fan but I remember something that stuck with me from Bowling for Columbine. If you live in Detroit there are hundreds of murders every year. Go across the water into Ontario and there had been 1 murder in Winsor during the last few years. Is the difference guns? Nope, they have just as many guns as we do. They use them for hunting not killing each other. Not so in the US. 'I like your sneakers. I am gonna pop a cap in you a$$ and take um.' It is not guns so much as the people behind them. However if a person get upset and they don't have access to a weapon how can they shoot someone. They can't.
Don't get me wrong I believe in gun owners rights but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Assault weapons are not needed. Famous NRA slogan... Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Well they are right the guns don't kill people it's the bullets fired from the guns. I would rather have someone upset and coming at me with a knife then someone coming towards me with a gun. Just MHO.
TrAnCeDuO is right about one thing, 'there is no such a thing as peace or civility.' How exactly is have an automatic weapon going to change that?