| Recent 2A Drama; The AWB and possible ramifications | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 25 2013, 01:06 PM (134 Views) | |
| Gridea | Jan 25 2013, 01:06 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
We all know the tragedy that happened at Sandy Hook and all tragedies of the same fashion, and how it has currently affected the debate of the 2nd Amendment rights. What might your opinions be on this entire happening of events? I'm interested in: -Factual argument -Ideas for what should/could be done, unless you support current ideas of ban fully -Sources for reasoning unless own opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Alexandonium | Jan 30 2013, 11:33 AM Post #2 |
|
My own opinion is that guns should be banned from America--period. If you look at the U.K., the only people that use guns are the government. Too many times have gun outbreaks been released in the U.S. Look at 2012: what was it, about 16 Mass Shootings!? Sure, England and its neighbors have a stabbing every now an then, but guns should be banned. If we could somehow stop the threats, like track someone who owns a gun and is having trouble and needs therapy, etc., than we should stop the person before they decide to shoot regular American pedestrians. Another important thing to keep in mind is not the guns who kill people, but the minds who use the guns. So, if possible, we need to be able to stop gun threats before they make their selves a real threat. And anyway, I banned guns in Alexandonium. Please recognize this is all my opinion, and nothing more. Edited by Alexandonium, Jan 30 2013, 11:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Gridea | Jan 30 2013, 04:26 PM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
In my own opinion, guided by logic, it is that weapons are a great equalizer. Say for example, out of a given number of 15 people, 7 are carrying a concealed pistol. 1 of the given people carrying a pistol is carrying for the wrong reasons. Should he decide to open fire upon another person, the 6 other people carrying a weapon, depending on their immediate decision in combat, may open fire upon the aggressor in defense, effectively stopping the incident dead in its tracks before the police were to even arrive. The acquisition of said firearms varies; one may go through all the proper channels and take a course in order to obtain a license before buying their firearm or one may go to the under-side of the market and buy an illegal weapon through illegal means. Having said that, even if firearms were hard to obtain, making what is called a "zip-gun", a hand-made gun built with off the street materials, is incredibly easy if one knows how a weapon works. Given the information on how to obtain an illegal weapon or make an illegal weapon, it is impossible for one to fully ban firearms. So in order to lessen the threat of firearm violence, one makes the normal background checks alongside psychological checks. Afterwards, it must be mandatory to obtain a license; in order to do that, safety classes are required which teach the basic safety of weaponry, common terminology, and basic marksmanship. The media overcrowding the current issue regarding Sandy Hook Elementary (disregard the pun) jumped the gun when identifying the weapons used, claiming the shooter used an "assault weapon", when in reality he actually used two pistols and had a semi-automatic weapon in the back of the car he used. They also tried telling the masses that the weapon in the back of the car was similar to a weapon used by SWAT police, known as a Bushmaster rifle. If one were to look closely at the video of the cops unloading the rifle in the back of Lanza's car, one could see that in order to unload it, the cops had to use a completely different procedure from that of the Bushmaster rifle. Media's perception, as well as the many people who follow's perception, is skewed to take away guns simply because they kill. Around 21,000 children die per day because of various reasons including car accident, disease, murder, and other things. Why does the media start NOW to report in on an incredibly small number of children who died? Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic ... that seems to happen a lot when I'm in political rant mode
|
![]() |
|
| Jeskoigriech | Jan 30 2013, 04:47 PM Post #4 |
|
I really think that the government should have the people pay extra taxes to those gun owners, because anyone could be hurt by a handgun. Would it really be worth a life sentence for murder, or a $100 a month? Think about that, a hundred dollars a month could save a bunch of people's life.
Edited by Jeskoigriech, Feb 5 2013, 08:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Alexandonium | Jan 30 2013, 05:02 PM Post #5 |
|
I strongly agree with both of your views. As you said, Gridea, guns will never come out of a country. Every year, guns are being sold on the black market, so guns can never, ever, be completely banned. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution declares that citizens have the right to bear arms in case of a tyranny in the government. The Founding Fathers feared a tyranny, as they thought England was 'tyrannized' before. Like you said at the beginning, Gridea, we must have arms to defend ourselves against any mind who decides to cause confusion. As Jeskoigriech said, I strongly agree with him too. If we are to bear arms, we should have a heavy tax on guns, ammunition, etc. and let them go through courses, etc. We should also make them do an oath, to use guns in the way they should be used, not just to pull the trigger on an unsuspecting crowd. This oath may cause little to stop a crazed killer, but it's worth a try. We should have sort of a secret government system of 'Gun I.D.s' or something like that. If shots are fired, it could be easier to catch a killer. This may be difficult, but someday... |
![]() |
|
| Protens | Jan 30 2013, 05:15 PM Post #6 |
|
[EDIT] WOOPS, I forgot I was posting on this account. This is Gridea, by the way. I disagree with heavily taxing those who own the guns, actually. Reason being, a gun at its current state, should you be buying quality weapons, is worth (usually) $500-$1,500 dollars by itself, no ammunition, no accessories. This already by itself discourages those considering the legal route from buying weapons. Through illegal means, one is willing to pay more than that, I'm willing to bet. What we would get is yet another larger amount of weapons in illegal hands. As for a "Weapons I.D." system, it wouldn't work as for my earlier point concerning zip guns. It's quite possible for a man to take the metal out of a shovel and make the main part required to build an AK styled weapon, as it has been done before: AK Reciever and Stock made out of shovel I, myself have the blueprints for many different weapon systems for my own education as to how weapons work. Given these are all over the internet, it's completely possible to build all of them easily. Edited by Protens, Jan 30 2013, 05:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Alexandonium | Jan 30 2013, 05:28 PM Post #7 |
|
I see your point on the possession of guns. Guns can be a major help-or threat-to this society. But as I said earlier, it's not the gun who kills, it's the man who holds the gun. |
![]() |
|
| Gridea | Jan 30 2013, 05:37 PM Post #8 |
|
Administrator
|
On which that fact, I completely agree. I think I was focusing more on the availability of guns to those who have mal-intent. |
![]() |
|
| Alexandonium | Jan 30 2013, 05:47 PM Post #9 |
|
Well, guns will always be available no matter what price. As you said, people are making guns their selves instead of buying. If guns are banned in a country, they will be constantly smuggled across the borders without the government even knowing. So, no matter what, guns will be a part of humanity ever since its creation in China in the early A.D.s. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Free Speech! · Next Topic » |






12:53 PM Jul 11