Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Gun Control Will not work!

gun control guns control 2nd amendment

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#16    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 15 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:



It won’t but law abiding gun owners shouldn’t have to be reduced to this to protect their Constitutional Rights.  We The People cannot allow the Ruling Elite to usurp our power with the paper trail.

Good. Then it's settled. That argument can no longer be used as a viable argument against gun control then.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#17    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:31 PM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

If gun control will not prevent people from getting guns, why are people worried that they wont have guns to fight off a tyrant government if there's gun control?

Your first sentence should read: If gun control will not prevent criminals from getting guns...

Because most Americans, believe it or not, don't want to be a criminal. They want to own their guns legally. Why should they have to choose between not owning a gun or being a criminal? That may work in other countries where they don't have, and may never have had, the right to bear arms but it won't work in this country. The US wouldn't be a country if the colonists hadn't had their own arms. It is a key part of our heritage.

And before anyone suggests that an armed populace is no match for an army remember that very few people thought the colonists stood a chance against the strongest empire on earth at the time. They were wrong then and are wrong now.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#18    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,937 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Good. Then it's settled. That argument can no longer be used as a viable argument against gun control then.

No, it’s not settled.  The government is trying to do something it is not suppose to do.  Go where it is not welcome.  The people shouldn’t have to tolerate even the attempt.  Just because it is doomed to succeed, the government shouldn’t even try it.  To do so just shows the disconnect the government has with the people.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato
"%&* YOU and your empty suited insults about "racism" you Islamophobic Zionist freak." - Yamato

#19    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

View PostBama13, on 15 April 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:



Your first sentence should read: If gun control will not prevent criminals from getting guns...

Because most Americans, believe it or not, don't want to be a criminal. They want to own their guns legally. Why should they have to choose between not owning a gun or being a criminal? That may work in other countries where they don't have, and may never have had, the right to bear arms but it won't work in this country. The US wouldn't be a country if the colonists hadn't had their own arms. It is a key part of our heritage.

And before anyone suggests that an armed populace is no match for an army remember that very few people thought the colonists stood a chance against the strongest empire on earth at the time. They were wrong then and are wrong now.

If the government turns into a tyranny which motivates you to fight them, will it matter to you what the government calls you? Are you proposing that no those who would otherwise fight in a civil war against a tyrannical government would be prevented from fighting because they don't want to be called a criminal for obtaining a gun? (Despite the fact that they were going to be called a criminal anyway for fighting said supposed government)?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#20    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:40 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 15 April 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:


No, it’s not settled.  The government is trying to do something it is not suppose to do.  Go where it is not welcome.  The people shouldn’t have to tolerate even the attempt.  Just because it is doomed to succeed, the government shouldn’t even try it.  To do so just shows the disconnect the government has with the people.
I'm saying that specific line of argument is settled. You can't on one hand claim that gun control won't work because people will always be able to criminally obtain weapons, and then on the other hand tell people that they are against gun control because they won't have guns to fight the government of it becomes tyrannical.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#21    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,252 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:58 PM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

I'm saying that specific line of argument is settled. You can't on one hand claim that gun control won't work because people will always be able to criminally obtain weapons, and then on the other hand tell people that they are against gun control because they won't have guns to fight the government of it becomes tyrannical.
I think he meant CRIMINALS will always have guns, regardless of if they are legal or not. And if guns are illegal, then supposedly the honest law abiding citizens will not have them to resist tyranny with.

I suppose there is some truth that even if guns are outlawed and enforced, and all guns are gone, then the average citizen, if it comes to tyranny will likely still be able to go to the black market and get guns to resist with. Even the French under the Nazis had guns to resist with.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#22    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,305 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:11 AM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:



If gun control will not prevent people from getting guns, why are people worried that they wont have guns to fight off a tyrant government if there's gun control?

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:



If the government turns into a tyranny which motivates you to fight them, will it matter to you what the government calls you? Are you proposing that no those who would otherwise fight in a civil war against a tyrannical government would be prevented from fighting because they don't want to be called a criminal for obtaining a gun? (Despite the fact that they were going to be called a criminal anyway for fighting said supposed government)?
Jesus man! In the event of a revolution then no I wouldn't care what the rules are but in the meantime we don't want to be criminals and resort to seedy dealings with gun smugglers.
You've been reaching and reaching and reaching for some amazing gotcha moment on these gun threads. You're sort of clever and you get credit for effort but you do know you're never going to have that moment, right?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 16 April 2013 - 01:11 AM.

Posted Image

#23    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:17 AM

I dont think gun control will work.


#24    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:12 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 15 April 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

I think he meant CRIMINALS will always have guns, regardless of if they are legal or not. And if guns are illegal, then supposedly the honest law abiding citizens will not have them to resist tyranny with.

I suppose there is some truth that even if guns are outlawed and enforced, and all guns are gone, then the average citizen, if it comes to tyranny will likely still be able to go to the black market and get guns to resist with. Even the French under the Nazis had guns to resist with.

But, if the criminals can still get guns, why cant the "honest law abiding citizen" then get a gun if it come to resisting tyranny? That's what I'm getting at.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#25    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:33 AM

View PostStellar, on 15 April 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Good. Then it's settled. That argument can no longer be used as a viable argument against gun control then.

Wish there was a way everyone could dislike your comments on here.  Then you would know where you stand.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#26    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,305 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:53 AM

View PostCRYSiiSx2, on 16 April 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:



Wish there was a way everyone could dislike your comments on here.  Then you would know where you stand.
Unfortunately that would turn into cyber bullying but I agree that would be a great way to make a statement against absurdity.

Posted Image

#27    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,252 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:02 AM

View PostStellar, on 16 April 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

But, if the criminals can still get guns, why cant the "honest law abiding citizen" then get a gun if it come to resisting tyranny? That's what I'm getting at.
Uh... Isn't that excactly what I wrote? Those law abiding citizens when it comes to tyranny are Obliged to not follow the law and locate and obtain guns to resist said tyranny.

Even if it means dealing with.... Canada.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#28    watoom

watoom

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined:31 Oct 2012

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:12 AM

View PostRavenHawk, on 15 April 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

For many of us, this is what we are expecting to see from those that have been sold a bill of goods in believing that this legislation will prevent it.


We already have laws on the books covering this.


Gun control will not prevent this group from getting firearms.  Only the really stupid will be prevented.  Do you really think that criminals buy their guns?  If they buy guns then why should they steal cars?


Actually, Gun Control *IS* about denying our 2nd Amendment Rights.  This latest legislation will allow doctors to make arbitrary, subjective decisions on the mental state of individuals that will prevent them from ever owning a gun.  We all have stress in our lives.  We all have personal tragedies that we live through.  For 99%, all we need to do is talk it out (usually with a doctor).  Only that 1% snap.  But under this legislation, if you go through a divorce and relay your feeling to a doctor that you “just want to end it all”, he’ll be required to report.  Again, most of us that have gone through a divorce have felt this way but we get over it and move on but once you are on a government list as being mentally defective, you’ll never be allowed to own a gun unless you steal it or acquire it by other means.

This is either a disconnect between the people and the ruling elite or it is a deliberate master plan to gut the 2nd Amendment.


Nothing can completely prevent such events but at the very least there should be an effort curb them and gun control obviously shouldn't be the be all and end all solution but should be just one part of a multi-faceted solution.

If you say criminals can illegally acquire guns then in the event the populous needs guns to "protect themselves from a tyrannous Government" it won't be hard for them to get their hands on them.

As previously stated gun control isn't about banning all guns it's about checks and balances. The average person does not need auto/semi-auto guns, if there is a need eg. the person is target shooter then surely they should be required to be a registered member of a gun club and and partake in a set amount of competitions per year as well as having the weapons stored in an approved safes etc.

I legally own guns and enjoy shooting but I feel there is no need for machine/assault guns.

It is the paranoid conspiracy mentality sweeping the US (throwback the the cold war era) that is clouding many peoples judgements.


#29    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:18 AM

Posted Image
Banning ARs will never solve a damn thing.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#30    watoom

watoom

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined:31 Oct 2012

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:26 AM

View PostCRYSiiSx2, on 16 April 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Posted Image
Banning ARs will never solve a damn thing.

It may not solve the problem but it will go a long way towards preventing massacres on such large scale.

BTW anyone can pull statistics out of their ass to provide evidence for their hypothesis .





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users