Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BengalTiger on July 11, 2010, 05:32:10 pm
-
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article
The law is pretty strict, but finally not only criminals can own guns.
-
****. :( I'm really glad I don't live there any more.
The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.
-
you can get around handgun restrictions easy.
buy a shotgun.
-
I should clarify that almost none of the petty criminals in Hyde Park had guns. They would carry out muggings with toy pistols.
This is now going to change.
-
:doubt: Don't see how handgun restrictions could stop any sort of determined individual.
-
All it does is allow more options for personal defence. A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.
-
this is an excellent opportunity FOR SCIENCE!
it will be interesting to see who's side gets vindicated by the statistics in the following years.
-
All it does is allow more options for personal defence. A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.
It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.
-
:doubt: Don't see how handgun restrictions could stop any sort of determined individual.
Piss off. You didn't live there. For some reason people were getting mugged with toy guns instead of real ones. We can't be sure it was the gun ban but it's a possible candidate.
All it does is allow more options for personal defence. A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.
They didn't. Or at least they didn't very often.
Gun restrictions or bans don't always work. I'm not sure they did here. But one thing that I am 75% certain of is that Hyde Park criminals did not have very many guns. There were shootings, but they were comparatively rare for an impoverished urban environment.
And believe it or not the worst problems were kids being hit by stray bullets. Guns owned by citizens are going to kill kids just as often as guns owned by criminals.
I feel very ambiguous about this whole move.
this is an excellent opportunity FOR SCIENCE!
it will be interesting to see who's side gets vindicated by the statistics in the following years.
Sort of. Any changes in gun violence will be confounded by other socioeconomic trends.
The usual evidence that citizen gun ownership correlates with decreased crime was presented at the alderman's hearings about this new law, but was apparently found lacking.
-
Never liked hand guns but the more I work outside at night the more I'm thinking of starting to carry one. Even this small city is starting to change and not for the better.
-
I'm going to legally buy a handgun and then be the poster child for GUN LAWS IS TOO LAX.
-
All my training in gun and knife work in krav maga (bear in mind, as a civilian) told me that if someone jumps you with a gun or a knife, you should give up and do what they want, unless they try to transport you or get you into a car.
The risk of death or litigation is simply not worth attempting to kill them over what's in your wallet.
If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.
-
Both sides are idiotic.
You can't ban all guns and expect crime to go down. On the other hand, you can't just let guns loose in the city, because then armed robberies and handgun violence will skyrocket. (Don't even argue that--people with easy access to guns WILL committ acts of violence with guns. They're not going to be ****ing slicing bread with them)
Neither side seems willing to admit that the other has a good point when it comes to taking care of crime. Think of it like a human body with an infected open wound--the right would answer by saying all you need to do is put a bandaid on and the infection will stop, which isn't true. The left on the other hand simply wants to douse the open wound in hydrogen peroxide and not cover it up with a bandaid. Both sides fail, because either the infection isn't cured at its root, or the treatment is voided by more incoming bacteria.
So, you need both: heavily-funded and effective educational system, lower healthcare costs, and urban development are essential to improving people's standard of living, which in turn will make them less likely to committ crimes out of desperation. At the same time, you allow people access to guns to protect themselves while the aforementioned policies go to work. Eventually, when people's motivation for committing crime has dropped, guns can be phased out and replaced with the regular police force.
In other words, once that wound has healed, you can take off the bandaid and let your immune system do the rest.
-
guns are a lot more fun out in the woods. in the city all a gun can do is get you killed, or some money in a hurry. but in the woods guns are awesome. you can feed yourself with them. you can scare away bears. prevent porcupines from chewing on your wires. get the crows (in our case ravens) out of your garden. **** with your inlaws. start fires. do modern art. slice a watermelon for consumption. remove a flat tire. put holes in wood. the possibilities are endless.
-
Based on some of the above posts, I feel the need to point out that legally purchased handguns are pretty freaking easy to trace.
Not taking a side on this, though.
-
Actually the place to start is population control. Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone. You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities. Did it happen? Yes. Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.
-
****. :( I'm really glad I don't live there any more.
The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.
Gun control laws in america are meaningless because in many places it's easy to get guns illegally. That's why gangbangers often have automatic weapons.
-
It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.
In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.
In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.
-
Actually the place to start is population control. Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone. You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities. Did it happen? Yes. Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.
we dont stick them there, they go there. i prefer to live places with fewer than 100,000 residents. right now i live in a place with about 3000 people. cities have their advantages. products are cheaper, the internet is faster, theres always somewhere to go, and if you so choose you can make a somewhat decent living on some menial job. i really dont see why people want to live in cities. in war they make excellent targets, you can bet your ass all you city dwellers have someone pointing nukes in your general direction. there might be more people but they tend to be a tad more shady, its noisy, and everything is so regulated theres hardly any room to breathe. but here its nice that the stores, the bars, the airport, the hospital, and the ferry terminal are all in walking distance, which is really nice. makes me regret all the time i wasted waiting at bus stops in phoenix. it doesnt matter how big the population has been, people still flock to cities in droves. always have, always will. its a place they can go and get away with being a total douche.
-
****. :( I'm really glad I don't live there any more.
The strict anti-handgun stuff was a big reassurance for us at UChicago. It saved a lot of kids in the surrounding neighborhoods too.
Gun control laws in america are meaningless because in many places it's easy to get guns illegally. That's why gangbangers often have automatic weapons.
Read my posts in the thread before replying to them.
Thanks,
Battuta
It also makes it incredibly easier for criminals to get guns. As I am sort of assuming that going to a store and buying them is easier than, say, going through some shady black-market deals.
In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.
In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.
Same goes I guess.
-
If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.
My mom had a friend who was mugged, he complied and still got shot in the back. He's still alive though.
My grandfather a year or two ago was mugged with a shotgun as well, thankfully they didn't decide to shoot him.
-
If they want to kill you, they'll probably do it before you get a chance to do anything about it. If they want to mug you the best thing you can do is comply.
My mom had a friend who was mugged, he complied and still got shot in the back. He's still alive though.
My grandfather a year or two ago was mugged with a shotgun as well, thankfully they didn't decide to shoot him.
I said 'best thing' not 'foolproof thing'.
-
In order to register a gun in Ch-go you need 5 hrs of training, a background check (2 DUIs, any violent crime or crime with the use of weapons disqualifies for life), and pay a fee of $115. Oh yeah, a legal weapon costs hundreds.
In order to buy an illegal gun you go to a local dealer, pay and go home with whatever you need, no b/g check, no questions asked.
Five hours training is just enough time to convince you you know something, but not enough that you actually do.
-
I'll be sure to swagger through Chicago with a DL-44 riding low on my right hip next time I go there.
-
I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.
-
Actually the place to start is population control. Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone. You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities. Did it happen? Yes. Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.
we dont stick them there, they go there. i prefer to live places with fewer than 100,000 residents. right now i live in a place with about 3000 people. cities have their advantages. products are cheaper, the internet is faster, theres always somewhere to go, and if you so choose you can make a somewhat decent living on some menial job. i really dont see why people want to live in cities. in war they make excellent targets, you can bet your ass all you city dwellers have someone pointing nukes in your general direction. there might be more people but they tend to be a tad more shady, its noisy, and everything is so regulated theres hardly any room to breathe. but here its nice that the stores, the bars, the airport, the hospital, and the ferry terminal are all in walking distance, which is really nice. makes me regret all the time i wasted waiting at bus stops in phoenix. it doesnt matter how big the population has been, people still flock to cities in droves. always have, always will. its a place they can go and get away with being a total douche.
Actually a lot of them were stuck there. Welfare and low income housing projects. Same is happening here now but with HUD homes. People are placed into these groups with no real way out or ability to keep up the homes. Economy goes down and more are pushed there. They turn to drugs (if they weren't already on them) and the violence follows. And this is in a city that may not even be a city after this years census. It's spill over from the bigger cities. Pittsburg and Columbus down to Steubenville down to where I live.
-
I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.
And I've fired a Lee-Enfield #3 (which I will maintain to this day is the finest rifle it has ever been my pleasure to use), an MP-5K, and an FN-P90 (that was configured to only fire semiauto admittedly).
I would not under any circumstances want any of those weapons when people's lives are on the line because I don't know them well enough they are effective extensions of my body. Try shooting with a string of firecrackers going off at your feet unexpectedly; when you can do that accurately, then you are qualified to carry and use a firearm in a lifethreatening situation. Anything else you pose at least as much danger to anyone standing in front of you as you do to the target.
-
I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.
Actually that's the only reason I don't have one on me now is I don't know how to operate it properly and haven't had time to head to the range to figure out how to load/unload it. Well I know how to unload it.
It does take a lot longer to actually become good with a weapon. I've only missed one target with a rifle in the last 3 years but made up for it by hitting 2 with one shot. Can't say the same for a pistol. Only fired a few rounds but it's a lot easier to miss even with a scope.
-
Actually the place to start is population control. Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone. You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities. Did it happen? Yes. Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.
Hold on...
Not to be a jerk, but I seem to recall a certain period in our history when there was an extremely high land to population ratio and lets just say gun violence was very prevalent. :P
(http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/shootout.jpg)
-
I've personally fired an M4, and M14, an AK-47, a Sig-Sauer 9 mm, and an FN FAL. It takes about 30 seconds (or less) to figure out how to operate a gun with an instructor to assist, a gun is far simpler than a car or cell phone.
No offense, but with an attitude like that, I pray you are never placed in a crime situation with a gun in your hands, because odds are you'll get someone killed when there otherwise would have been no bloodshed. If you're merciful it'll only be yourself.
Basically what NGTM-1R said.
-
Yeah, just because you fired a gun once and played a lot of COD4 doesn't mean you're going to be an expert marksman.
I get evaled at least once a year on the Beretta 9mm and M4 and I still don't think I'm comfortable enough with either to handle myself in an emergency.
-
Actually the place to start is population control. Until we quit trying to stick all these people into small areas problems will arise. Less people = more elbow room for everyone. You didn't hear about all this gun violence years ago except maybe the mob in big cities. Did it happen? Yes. Lot less disputes when you actually have to walk to see a neighbor instead of going outside and seeing 50 most of who have some kind of bad feelings toward each other.
Hold on...
Not to be a jerk, but I seem to recall a certain period in our history when there was an extremely high land to population ratio and lets just say gun violence was very prevalent. :P
(http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/shootout.jpg)
in a frontier situation when there is little law enforcement or any real governing body other than the town sheriff, youre bound to attract the same kind of people that are drawn into cities today. its the kind of situation where somone on the run is totally attracted to. there are places here in alaska that are still like that. of course i wouldnt consider westerns as a reliable source of data.
-
Perfect example of this. Just had a critter in my back yard that I've been trying to remove. Granted I can only use a pellet gun since I'm in the city limits (don't have a silencer) but it's a custom built .22 rated for small game and lethal at close range. Had a shot but I checked before firing. There was a piece of metal that I could have hit causing a ricochet into the neighbors yard or bounce back. I didn't take the shot.
Now how many idiots out there would have?
-
In England we use
flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.
-
In England we use flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.
(http://andrew1769.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/fox-hunt.jpg)
I do say old boy the neighbors are giving us nasty looks.
Somehow i doubt that would fly in Ohio
-
Take care of my critter problem but I'm allergic to dogs.
i do have trained Blue jays though. i apparently trained them to sit on the nut dish and look at me until I feel guilty and feed them.
-
:lol:
My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/
Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakeable, undebatable constant?
-
I'll be sure to swagger through Chicago with a DL-44 riding low on my right hip next time I go there.
Whoaaaaa! No beef homeboy!
:pimp:
PEW PEW
In England we use flamethrowers dogs, horses and birds of prey.
I thought you use sawn-off shotguns, kill each others ex-girlfriends, and spark a North-England wide manhunt involving an RAF Tornado?
-
:lol:
My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/
Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakeable, undebatable constant?
not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesnt at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and innacurate single shot pistols. it didnt say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mms with 20 round clips, ak forty ****ing sevens, uzis, mag 10s, .50 calibur machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artilliary or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.
the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesnt make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dont want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).
id simply pass a law to ban anti-personnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversived pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my inlaws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they dont have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.
-
:lol:
My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/
Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakable, undebatable constant?
not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and inaccurate single shot pistols. it didn't say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, Thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mm with 20 round clips, AK forty ****ing sevens, Uzis, mag 10s, .50 caliber machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artillery or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.
the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesn't make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dint want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).
id simply pass a law to ban antipersonnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversized pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my in-laws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they don't have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.
Except that it doesn't say anything about only being relevant unless and until there is an organized army. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. What is implicit in that statement is that they would be around to be wielded against the leadership(implicitly Congress and The President) if they begin to behave as England had.
-
:lol:
My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/
Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakable, undebatable constant?
not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and inaccurate single shot pistols. it didn't say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, Thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mm with 20 round clips, AK forty ****ing sevens, Uzis, mag 10s, .50 caliber machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artillery or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.
the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesn't make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dint want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).
id simply pass a law to ban antipersonnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversized pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my in-laws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they don't have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.
Except that it doesn't say anything about only being relevant unless and until there is an organized army. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. What is implicit in that statement is that they would be around to be wielded against the leadership(implicitly Congress and The President) if they begin to behave as England had.
so why did no one try and shot bush then
-
:lol:
My cats have got about 50% of the idea of hunting mice, they've got as far as finding and catching, however, they struggle with 'killing', instead they prefer 'bringing it into the house, playing with it whilst still alive and accidentally allowing it to escape'. Thus, I now have a mouse somewhere under the radiator in the hall :/
Anyway, on topic, it's hard to give an opinion, but it does seem like one of those tricky situations, it's strange how people will argue for hours over the interpretation of the First Amendment, and yet the Second is like some unshakable, undebatable constant?
not that theres a gun control bone in my body, i always make the point that while the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't at all specify the kind of arms you can bear. for all we know it was some law forbidding amputation as a form of capital punishment. but seriously their idea of "arms" were smooth bore muskets, blunderbusses, and inaccurate single shot pistols. it didn't say anything about repeating rifles, six shooters, Thompson sub machine guns, semi-auto 9mm with 20 round clips, AK forty ****ing sevens, Uzis, mag 10s, .50 caliber machine guns, gau-8s, nuclear artillery or lady gaga. the line has to be drawn somewhere.
the purpose of the second amendment, was to allow for legitimate militias to act as an interim military and police force until a point where the government could establish police forces and an actual military. and it was a good policy up till the point where the frontier was used up. that would have been a good time to repeal the amendment. it doesn't make a whole lot of since for people who live in the city to own firearms, unless its full of criminals who also have them. you also had (and still have) those who live in more rural locations, where its cheaper and often better to go hunting than it is to buy meat. i dint want to take guns away from people who use them to feed their families (i have at least 10 pounds of venison in the freezer and it makes damn good chili).
id simply pass a law to ban antipersonnel weapons, namely handguns. id still allow hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like, nothing that would conveniently fit in oversized pants worn at the knee. of course certain groups would probably take offense to such a law. banning guns out right would seriously piss off those rural people, who conveniently seem to gather, collect and sell any raw materials that the urbanites among you need to build their cities. the gravel pit my in-laws run makes the gravel for concrete used in this part of the state. guns certainly make their jobs easier, so they don't have to kill the porcupines that chew on the hydraulic lines on the machines with their bare hands. or (and this is my favorite option), people can stop *****ing about guns, and accept the small amount of death they cause.
Except that it doesn't say anything about only being relevant unless and until there is an organized army. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. What is implicit in that statement is that they would be around to be wielded against the leadership(implicitly Congress and The President) if they begin to behave as England had.
i think thats no longer possible. the government would pewn our asses with the weapons they are allowed to wield while our single shot rifles and pistols would do little should the government go sour. especially if they decide to nuke us. though it makes little since to annihilate your own populace. humans are insane enough to come up with a reason for anything though. even with the period weapons the government still had access to cannon, ships, horses, etc that the citizenry could not afford. so even then the government would have had a tactical advantage in any uprising. though though the amendment may have been merely symbolic in nature to show the people had control.
while i kinda like the idea that the right to bear arms was to protect us from our own government, i view that more as a modern interpretation of the amendment rather than its original purpose. the very fact that they mention militia makes me think the purpose of the amendment was to provide an interim police force. perhaps these militias were meant to be the only police force in the us. none the less the amendment was sufficiently vague so as to confuse people for a few hundred years.
but for fun heres the list of reasons off of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) why people wanted guns:
* deterring undemocratic government;
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* enabling the people to organize a militia system,
* slave control in slave states.
you not that both ideas are on the list :lol:
so why did no one try and shot bush then
sometimes i ask the same question about the current administration.
-
* slave control in slave states.
:lol:
-
I thought you use sawn-off shotguns, kill each others ex-girlfriends, and spark a North-England wide manhunt involving an RAF Tornado?
Hey man we only did that once... Err, twice... This year... :nervous:
-
sawing off a shotgun just ruins it. and you wonder why you gangstas cant hit a duck at a hundred yards.
-
Hear hear, having a gun might make you a gangsta where you live, but here it means you're aristocracy.
-
i think thats no longer possible. the government would pewn our asses with the weapons they are allowed to wield while our single shot rifles and pistols would do little should the government go sour.
That is, of course, the argument that said we should have no problem dealing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. :) Technical superiority matters a lot less than you'd think in guerrilla warfare.
-
All it does is allow more options for personal defence. A criminal that would use a gun during a robbery or other crime would get one illegally anyway.
Except that a criminal who makes money trough robberry most likely can not afford it.
(Or I do not have an good understanding on the prices of handguns).
-
Bloke in my year bought a handgun (said it was a Beretta M9, but I severely doubt it and cannot verify as I haven't seen it up close) for $400, I think, going halves with a mate. Assuming a gang could pitch in for a gat, it suddenly doesn't seem so expensive.
-
Dilmah, bringing a gun into your lifestyle really does not sound like a good idea.
-
:lol:
Yeah, I know, I was only kidding. :D
-
Assuming a gang could pitch in for a gat, it suddenly doesn't seem so expensive.
They'd also need a non-gangster to buy the gun, unless at least one of them has no criminal record.
-
Oh, they bought the gat off an out of school associate of theirs.
-
Indeed, getting a legal handgun in Australia is bloody difficult. Note that even though illegal guns are available, we have a tiny fraction of the guncrime in the US. In fact, I think even the ammo is protected, so they might have a hard timie even keeping their gun dangerous.
-
Yeah, I don't think they got any ammunition. :P
-
It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
That's not all it says, and I sort of doubt the other words are there just because they look good.
-
Except that it doesn't say anything about only being relevant unless and until there is an organized army. It says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. What is implicit in that statement is that they would be around to be wielded against the leadership(implicitly Congress and The President) if they begin to behave as England had.
9mm handgun << m1 abrams tank. I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of getting mowed down.
The big difference between now and then is back then everyone was restricted to using the same kind of single shot musket. Today the military has tanks, machine guns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, mortors, rockets, bunker busters, fighters, bombers, artillery, hand grenades, mines, lazers, smart bombs, and probably a few other things I missed. While gangs have automatic weapons, what do we have? Nothing that can stand up to that.
That is, of course, the argument that said we should have no problem dealing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Technical superiority matters a lot less than you'd think in guerrilla warfare.
Yes, and you know what happened to the vietcong? Most of the time they were totally slaughtered.
-
And what happened to the US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan? They were forced to leave in shame.
Irregular warfare is hardly about technological inferiority or superiority. Resourcefulness and tactics play a major role, but what wins or loses a war these days is morale. All one side needs to do is convince the civilian noncombatants (either in the occupied country or on the homefront) that the other side is the real bad guy, or that they have no hope of achieving meaningful victory. Once the civilians turn on the other side, it may as well be over. Americans never sympathized with the Vietcong or al-Qaeda, but watching soldiers being brought home in boxes with no real progress against what seems to be an immortal insurgency will do plenty to dry up support for the war.
And yes, the government does have much more advanced and powerful weapons than the average citizen, but--
OH HAI FBI THIS IS A DISCUSSION AND DEBATE ABOUT INSURGENCIES AND IRREGULAR WARFARE PLEASE MOVE ALONG KTHXBAI
--but you underestimate people's resourcefulness in desperate times. AQI doesn't have a regular army, but they still manage to kill US soldiers just fine. Even back in the 1700s, Americans hardly ever faced the British in open fields to fight, because when they did, they always lost.
When you're desperate to win a war, just about any tactic or strategy becomes a viable option.
-
Even back in the 1700s, Americans hardly ever faced the British in open fields to fight, because when they did, they always lost.
This is a damnable lie and may everyone who died in the Continental Army haunt you.
-
Zombie Washington eeeaatttt brraaiinnn...Zombie Washington..not know where Zombie Washington going with this...Zombie Washington need ride home.
-
This thread has come up in other places. And uh, especially non Americans, let me remind you that clearly, no kind of political upheaval in recent times has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria) ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch) been caused by a handgun and they should not be considered a threat to the stability of governments at all :\