The Right to Bear Arms. Period.

[Evane Lierist]

Divine_Malevolence

The only thing about "banning all weapons" isn't going to prevent everyone from obtaining them. Consider it like the prohibition (banning of liquor back in the day). Citizen found ways to still bring back liquor into the US. Better yet think of it like the terrorists that are able to obtain RPGs, grenades, and far worse weaponry than our current citizens.

People will find a way to own a gun. What would most likely happen is that they obtain the weapons from Mexico (probably from the drug cartels which only adds more money and more terrorism in Mexico), carry them over, since they know that the normal everyday citizen doesn't own a gun, then they are free to terrify and scare the public. The public may come up with knives, tazers, and other non-lethal weapons, but they become worthless when one bullet can end the life of any opposition.

So the one criminal that was meant to be prevented from obtaining a gun will get the gun through treacherous illegal ways (perhaps no matter the cost) meanwhile the hundred or so people that followed the gun laws will be weaponless to stop the criminal if they ever come face to face.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Evane Lierist

The only thing about "banning all weapons" isn't going to prevent everyone from obtaining them. Consider it like the prohibition (banning of liquor back in the day).

A competition, then.
I make alcohol. You make a working firearm.


The reason why firearms are in no way the same as alcohol, or weed, or any drug, is because of one important fact.
Drugs don't require much mechanical skill to make. Many are plants, and distilleries aren't the hardest thing to come by. You're never going to get rid of drugs because they can be grown or easily produced.

Guns?
Guns are complex mechanisms. One mechanical flaw could jam them in a way that most criminals would have no idea how to fix. And considering what they'd probably have to work with....

Lets just say that if any of them did have the competence to make firearms of any caliber, they'd probably become this huge thing what's exceptionally easy to track down.
Guns would be more expensive and thus far less common. More difficult to obtain, more difficult to smuggle with the intention of a sale, impossible to dispose of during an inspection.
But the problem with Mexico is an interesting one. A solution to that would probably be do dissolve the cartels via destroying their source of revenue a while before making the change.

[Evane Lierist]

Divine_Malevolence

A competition, then.
I make alcohol. You make a working firearm.


The reason why firearms are in no way the same as alcohol, or weed, or any drug, is because of one important fact.
Drugs don't require much mechanical skill to make. Many are plants, and distilleries aren't the hardest thing to come by. You're never going to get rid of drugs because they can be grown or easily produced.

Guns?
Guns are complex mechanisms. One mechanical flaw could jam them in a way that most criminals would have no idea how to fix. And considering what they'd probably have to work with....

Lets just say that if any of them did have the competence to make firearms of any caliber, they'd probably become this huge thing what's exceptionally easy to track down.
Guns would be more expensive and thus far less common. More difficult to obtain, more difficult to smuggle with the intention of a sale, impossible to dispose of during an inspection.
But the problem with Mexico is an interesting one. A solution to that would probably be do dissolve the cartels via destroying their source of revenue a while before making the change.

I was only using the Prohibition as an example of how the people will do what they will by any means to obtain what they want. Case and point:

1. Firearms don't have to look exactly like the handguns, rifles, and so forth. People will find ways to modify a certain tool (for instance a nail gun), replace the nails with bullets, create a better firing mechanism, and there they have their own modified gun. Granted this could be good or bad depending on how well this person is able to modify the tool, but it becomes a firearm none the less with a trigger and potentially fast projectile.
2. If someone was capable of creating a fully reliable handgun, rifle, and so forth, the people that wish to keep their firearms will do everything in their power to keep that weapons maker/producer undercover and allow them to continue producing some weapons. Money has a lot to do with this for if a rich person wishes to obtain guns, he'll spend any amount to have the person make them and keep the whole project under wraps. Works more effectively when a group of people with the same goal (in this case owning firearms) will do anything to keep the secret and use that money to continue producing firearms.
Consider the possibility of an underground gun factory. You'll have the leader, perhaps the person with the most wealth of the group. He basically seeks and finds men to create the weapons. He'll use his money to protect these producers and keep their safety a main priority in the business (probably big body guards that will learn how to use the guns that the producers make). Not only that, he'll be able to obtain the items necessary to build such weapons. Next he'll have his different group of dealers. They'll take the guns and sell to people on the street and obtain the money from the public (the middle man who will help the leader of the factory gain a profit). The customers that wish to keep the firearms will most likely keep the secret especially if they are selling to criminals that can afford it.
3. There is also the chance of stealing firearms from the police force, National Guard or military. Though the idea seems crazy, people will do anything to get such weapons. If they are able to obtain tazers, use bow and arrows, the modified nail gun and so forth, they'll get the weapons that they desire. After such stealing, they might sell the weapons to citizens/terrorists/criminals that want them. It doesn't have to involve just creating the weapons. (I know National Guard and military seem like crazy ideas, but people who are desperate for something will do anything to get it)
4. Corrupted police officers, National Guard and military. There could be citizens that may work for our protection, but may use the power of owning a firearm to their own advantage. They could eventually take the firearms from their department (describing such stolen weapons as "faulty and disassembled) and sell them in the black market.

I will admit that banning will narrow down prevent some criminals from obtaining firearms, but again it won't eliminate guns completely from the public.

[Qyp]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment

What I gather from this is, "regulated Militia" isn't just one person allowed to horde military grade arms, even with a license for each one. It's a more like the gun clubs, that practice safe and secure practice of handling and firing a gun of any kind. That would be, "regulated Militia".

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shouldn't be taken out of context of the whole thing. It's like people saying Free Speech allows them to insult anyone they want. IT DOESN'T actually.

It's about regulations and today's regulations are permits and licenses yes? But then again, taking the last part out of context seems to be what people do, a single person is not a regulated Militia...

[Qyp]

Take Seven

There are many liberals nowadays who try to ban all guns believing that we carry miniguns on the streets.

Liberalism is what started the American Revolution...

I do not think you know what a Liberal is...

[Rosemary_Red]

I know you said "the right to bear arms" but I rather have the right to bear hugs.^_^

[Sapphire Sunday]

Viral Protocol

Sapphire Sunday

The second amendment clearly stated "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those that think civilians shouldn't have military grade weapons have likely never lived in or been to an area where war or violence is present daily and they should be very thankful that they haven't YET.

I'm much happier knowing that the majority of people with guns are sane and using them for protection or food or both and are legal to own them.

I like the idea that walking into my grocery store there may be one or more people carrying a weapon. Odds are if one bad guy comes into the store to rob it or shoot it up, there is a possible one or more good guys in there that can take out the bad guy quickly and efficiently. Levels the playing field a bit in my opinion. Makes criminal people think twice before they do something terrible. Or at least it should make them think twice.

Frankly, banning these weapons won't make them disappear anyway. Did banning heroin or other drugs make them disappear? Nope. Last I checked people all over still have addictions to banned substances.

What's scary? The idea that the ban passes. If civilians don't have military grade weapons what prevents any other country from overtaking this one? Seriously. That may be a large part of why the US hasn't been war torn. Does anyone really want to test that theory out? I sure don't. I have military neighbors, and I'm hoping that if this country was ever invaded that way again that those military boys would have a few none military neighbors helping them out as well but a ban would pretty much make that impossible.

A big THANK YOU to all those who own your guns legally, practice safety, and are actively defending our right to defend ourselves.

Side note: Does the ban say who I can sue when I get hurt after they take away my right to protect myself?

There is no ban
We have an army so the civilians dont need to be the ones fighting a hypothetical invading force, hell its one of the largest militarys in the world if you are so concerned that we will be invaded then go volunteer and enlist
As for concealed carry licenses its true that there are people out there just waiting for something to happen so they can play vigilante hero, but its also true a lot of them arent as well trained as police officers
And we can even apply this thinking to the real world, Im sure you remember what happened with the guy shooting up a movie theater when dark knight rises came out
Lets say there were several people in the theater with concealed weapons, could they possibly have neutralized the shooter, yes, but they could have been equally likely to hit innocent people, it is a darkened theater after all with tear gas in the air

Besides what down side is there really to having to prove you are a responsible capable individual before you own a fire arm legally

Nothing in your retort was valid, factual, or even addressing anything I said. LOL. First off, we are discussing a POSSIBLE ban. Secondly, I never mentioned concealed or open carry at all. Thirdly, your real world application is a small percentage of likely hood scenarios as there is only one instance of this event ever happening in history. Fourth, there is no down side to really having to prove you are a responsible and capable individual before you own a firearm as the current laws clearly proven. I never stated at any time that I am against the laws currently in place about owning a firearm and in fact applauded people that are LEGAL to own their weapons of choice. Still feel like barking your nonsense at me?

You probably call yourself a liberal too. Here you are attempting to play devils advocate in a forum in order to persuade others of your uneducated ideas about allowing a government to take away a persons ability to make their own choices. How very unliberal of you. Shame, shame. Look at what you're really saying and what a ban on weapons says clearly to the public. Do you really feel that the majority of people in this nation are evil and incapable of owning and operating a gun safely? What little faith one has in his neighbors if you really believe that the majority of people have ill will that own guns. That's really sad to speak so poorly of people. That does explain why one would feel the need to have a government ban. If one doesn't trust people to make responsible choices one would expect a government too do it instead. That is understandable. Fear is a powerful tool.

Oddly, you don't seem to comprehend the reality that the bad guys will have these guns regardless of whether or not the average guy does. Aside from the fact that most weapons are not cheap, especially when purchased legally. So the idea that a ban on these weapons would prevent a movie massacre from happening again is very far fetched when taking into account that a guy with that type of evil intentions is not likely to purchase his weapons legally to begin with nor is he likely to have taken any of the gun safety courses that are required when purchasing a firearm for concealed carry for instance.

Felons do not have the right to own a weapon, does that mean every felon does not have a gun. No, it does not. It should but it doesn't. Bans take away from the people the right to their own choices. Bans say to people that the government does not trust it's citizens to be responsible, law abiding, and trustworthy people.

Man up, kids. You are fighting for the right to lose your rights as a law abiding citizen. Maybe you like having less choices in this world but I sure don't want any future generations coming up believing that they are not entitled to having choices. One of the main differences that separates a human from an animal is the ability to make moral and ethical choices. Why would one want to take that away from people on any level in any country?

Personally, I think majority of people are NOT evil and are hardworking, law abiding, and responsible people. I'm not into punishing the majority of people for the actions of few deranged and mentally unstable 1%-ers. You clearly are and for that reason, I have nothing more to say to you and can only pray that you are not of a voting age yet because your current attitude stinks, in my opinion.

I don't own a gun, and don't intend too any time soon but I will actively vote against any law that takes away my option to have that choice for myself. Go ahead and make the consequences for choosing to do something evil stricter and more severe. If one wants to prevent others from causing harm to others the consequence should be harsh. A severe CONSEQUENCE is the best form of prevention that a government can offer any of it's citizens realistically and reliably. Bans do tell people that a government does not trusts it's citizens.

[Viral Protocol]

Sapphire Sunday

Viral Protocol

Sapphire Sunday

The second amendment clearly stated "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those that think civilians shouldn't have military grade weapons have likely never lived in or been to an area where war or violence is present daily and they should be very thankful that they haven't YET.

I'm much happier knowing that the majority of people with guns are sane and using them for protection or food or both and are legal to own them.

I like the idea that walking into my grocery store there may be one or more people carrying a weapon. Odds are if one bad guy comes into the store to rob it or shoot it up, there is a possible one or more good guys in there that can take out the bad guy quickly and efficiently. Levels the playing field a bit in my opinion. Makes criminal people think twice before they do something terrible. Or at least it should make them think twice.

Frankly, banning these weapons won't make them disappear anyway. Did banning heroin or other drugs make them disappear? Nope. Last I checked people all over still have addictions to banned substances.

What's scary? The idea that the ban passes. If civilians don't have military grade weapons what prevents any other country from overtaking this one? Seriously. That may be a large part of why the US hasn't been war torn. Does anyone really want to test that theory out? I sure don't. I have military neighbors, and I'm hoping that if this country was ever invaded that way again that those military boys would have a few none military neighbors helping them out as well but a ban would pretty much make that impossible.

A big THANK YOU to all those who own your guns legally, practice safety, and are actively defending our right to defend ourselves.

Side note: Does the ban say who I can sue when I get hurt after they take away my right to protect myself?

There is no ban
We have an army so the civilians dont need to be the ones fighting a hypothetical invading force, hell its one of the largest militarys in the world if you are so concerned that we will be invaded then go volunteer and enlist
As for concealed carry licenses its true that there are people out there just waiting for something to happen so they can play vigilante hero, but its also true a lot of them arent as well trained as police officers
And we can even apply this thinking to the real world, Im sure you remember what happened with the guy shooting up a movie theater when dark knight rises came out
Lets say there were several people in the theater with concealed weapons, could they possibly have neutralized the shooter, yes, but they could have been equally likely to hit innocent people, it is a darkened theater after all with tear gas in the air

Besides what down side is there really to having to prove you are a responsible capable individual before you own a fire arm legally

Nothing in your retort was valid, factual, or even addressing anything I said. LOL. First off, we are discussing a POSSIBLE ban. Secondly, I never mentioned concealed or open carry at all. Thirdly, your real world application is a small percentage of likely hood scenarios as there is only one instance of this event ever happening in history. Fourth, there is no down side to really having to prove you are a responsible and capable individual before you own a firearm as the current laws clearly proven. I never stated at any time that I am against the laws currently in place about owning a firearm and in fact applauded people that are LEGAL to own their weapons of choice. Still feel like barking your nonsense at me?

You probably call yourself a liberal too. Here you are attempting to play devils advocate in a forum in order to persuade others of your uneducated ideas about allowing a government to take away a persons ability to make their own choices. How very unliberal of you. Shame, shame. Look at what you're really saying and what a ban on weapons says clearly to the public. Do you really feel that the majority of people in this nation are evil and incapable of owning and operating a gun safely? What little faith one has in his neighbors if you really believe that the majority of people have ill will that own guns. That's really sad to speak so poorly of people. That does explain why one would feel the need to have a government ban. If one doesn't trust people to make responsible choices one would expect a government too do it instead. That is understandable. Fear is a powerful tool.

Oddly, you don't seem to comprehend the reality that the bad guys will have these guns regardless of whether or not the average guy does. Aside from the fact that most weapons are not cheap, especially when purchased legally. So the idea that a ban on these weapons would prevent a movie massacre from happening again is very far fetched when taking into account that a guy with that type of evil intentions is not likely to purchase his weapons legally to begin with nor is he likely to have taken any of the gun safety courses that are required when purchasing a firearm for concealed carry for instance.

Felons do not have the right to own a weapon, does that mean every felon does not have a gun. No, it does not. It should but it doesn't. Bans take away from the people the right to their own choices. Bans say to people that the government does not trust it's citizens to be responsible, law abiding, and trustworthy people.

Man up, kids. You are fighting for the right to lose your rights as a law abiding citizen. Maybe you like having less choices in this world but I sure don't want any future generations coming up believing that they are not entitled to having choices. One of the main differences that separates a human from an animal is the ability to make moral and ethical choices. Why would one want to take that away from people on any level in any country?

Personally, I think majority of people are NOT evil and are hardworking, law abiding, and responsible people. I'm not into punishing the majority of people for the actions of few deranged and mentally unstable 1%-ers. You clearly are and for that reason, I have nothing more to say to you and can only pray that you are not of a voting age yet because your current attitude stinks, in my opinion.

I don't own a gun, and don't intend too any time soon but I will actively vote against any law that takes away my option to have that choice for myself. Go ahead and make the consequences for choosing to do something evil stricter and more severe. If one wants to prevent others from causing harm to others the consequence should be harsh. A severe CONSEQUENCE is the best form of prevention that a government can offer any of it's citizens realistically and reliably. Bans do tell people that a government does not trusts it's citizens.

Ok lets say there is a possible ban, the way things go it would likely only be a partial ban only affecting military grade weapons, joe schmoe gets to keep his hunting rifle no problem
Your second point fair enough lets not talk concealed carry
Third, do you really think in the history of the country there has only been one nutjob that decides hes going to kill a bunch of people, and before you bring this up I know you dont need military grade weapons to kill people, Oswald killed JFK with a hunting rifle after all but no one so far has been calling for those to be entirely outlawed
And oddly you dont seem to comprehend that many countries that practiced stricter gun control all this time have fewer firearms in general and much less in the hands of the criminal element, oj and inb4 you mention knife assaults, its easier to turn and run from an assailant with a knife than it is to run from one with a gun

Protip, self righteous tirades because you fear a big government bogey man that does not exist does not help your cause and as for your fear of rights being taken away Im sure you must think we should abolish government regulations as well and go back to the good old days of working children 18 hours a day in factories and strip mining the environment for resources

[Divine_Malevolence]

Evane Lierist

Divine_Malevolence

A competition, then.
I make alcohol. You make a working firearm.


The reason why firearms are in no way the same as alcohol, or weed, or any drug, is because of one important fact.
Drugs don't require much mechanical skill to make. Many are plants, and distilleries aren't the hardest thing to come by. You're never going to get rid of drugs because they can be grown or easily produced.

Guns?
Guns are complex mechanisms. One mechanical flaw could jam them in a way that most criminals would have no idea how to fix. And considering what they'd probably have to work with....

Lets just say that if any of them did have the competence to make firearms of any caliber, they'd probably become this huge thing what's exceptionally easy to track down.
Guns would be more expensive and thus far less common. More difficult to obtain, more difficult to smuggle with the intention of a sale, impossible to dispose of during an inspection.
But the problem with Mexico is an interesting one. A solution to that would probably be do dissolve the cartels via destroying their source of revenue a while before making the change.

I was only using the Prohibition as an example of how the people will do what they will by any means to obtain what they want. Case and point:

1. Firearms don't have to look exactly like the handguns, rifles, and so forth. People will find ways to modify a certain tool (for instance a nail gun), replace the nails with bullets, create a better firing mechanism, and there they have their own modified gun. Granted this could be good or bad depending on how well this person is able to modify the tool, but it becomes a firearm none the less with a trigger and potentially fast projectile.
2. If someone was capable of creating a fully reliable handgun, rifle, and so forth, the people that wish to keep their firearms will do everything in their power to keep that weapons maker/producer undercover and allow them to continue producing some weapons. Money has a lot to do with this for if a rich person wishes to obtain guns, he'll spend any amount to have the person make them and keep the whole project under wraps. Works more effectively when a group of people with the same goal (in this case owning firearms) will do anything to keep the secret and use that money to continue producing firearms.
Consider the possibility of an underground gun factory. You'll have the leader, perhaps the person with the most wealth of the group. He basically seeks and finds men to create the weapons. He'll use his money to protect these producers and keep their safety a main priority in the business (probably big body guards that will learn how to use the guns that the producers make). Not only that, he'll be able to obtain the items necessary to build such weapons. Next he'll have his different group of dealers. They'll take the guns and sell to people on the street and obtain the money from the public (the middle man who will help the leader of the factory gain a profit). The customers that wish to keep the firearms will most likely keep the secret especially if they are selling to criminals that can afford it.
3. There is also the chance of stealing firearms from the police force, National Guard or military. Though the idea seems crazy, people will do anything to get such weapons. If they are able to obtain tazers, use bow and arrows, the modified nail gun and so forth, they'll get the weapons that they desire. After such stealing, they might sell the weapons to citizens/terrorists/criminals that want them. It doesn't have to involve just creating the weapons. (I know National Guard and military seem like crazy ideas, but people who are desperate for something will do anything to get it)
4. Corrupted police officers, National Guard and military. There could be citizens that may work for our protection, but may use the power of owning a firearm to their own advantage. They could eventually take the firearms from their department (describing such stolen weapons as "faulty and disassembled) and sell them in the black market.

I will admit that banning will narrow down prevent some criminals from obtaining firearms, but again it won't eliminate guns completely from the public.

One would probably never be anywhere near as dangerous. Nail guns use a pneumatic system.... Which are quite frankly only half dangerous at really close ranges. And, again, one minor mechanical failing and it's absolutely harmless.
Two, they would want to keep it under wraps. Wouldn't anyone? However, if firearms became illegal, and one or two people were the only ones who knew how to make 'em?
They'd become a huge deal. There'd be no real way to prevent the amount of information necessary to find 'em.
Three, if people tried to jack the military they'd probably end up dead. If the somehow against all odds succeeded and tried again in the same way the military would have noticed the flaw and fixed it, and they'd end up dead.
Fourth, they would quickly get found out. "Hey, officer, where's your gun?" "Hey, coast guard guy, what happened to the guns in these lockers"?
Just make sure that "Faulty" guns are disposed of properly and cero problems.
And it would probably eliminate most.