Firearm Ownership

[taper]

How are those two statements compatible?

I think you'll find many statements by the anti-gun group don't make sense once you look at them.

Moderator Action: Please stop trying to turn this discussion ugly.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Colonel]

How are those two statements compatible?

First requirement being Police\Fed\Military
Second requirement being extensive training
also extensive training required for camping/hunting outings.

 

[taper]

First requirement being Police\Fed\Military
Second requirement being extensive training
also extensive training required for camping/hunting outings.

Considering that private individuals owning a gun is a Constitutional right repeatedly upheld by the courts and supported by a large majority of Americans, would you agree to firearms training being available to all high school students as an elective/required class? How else will the general population receive the training to own and use something they are Constitutionally allowed to?

Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller; "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.."

There is an alarming history between countries that restrict gun ownership to police, federal officers, and the military and genocide. Ottoman Armenian massacre, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Real men hunt bears with a sharpened rock and a pointy stick. Gun nuts are just compensating....

 

[Bugfatty300]

How woudl a store that sells guns know that the person buying the gun hasn't committed a felony?

Would you agree that they have some sort of document which says: "This guy hasn't done anything that would prevent him from buying guns"?

Technically we already have a system that FFL dealers use called NICS but despite what American gun control advocates say it doesn't do a single thing to keep felons or criminals from obtaining guns. It just means they can't buy them from an FFL (or at least FFLs who adhere to the law)

Constitutional issues aside, "Licenses" or "permits" simply won't work in the US and will be a waste of money, time and resources because there is no real way to stop private sales and transfers of the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. Anyone who wants a gun but can't pass a background check or whatever will find another source.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was merely examining Domination's proposal for argument's sake.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you'll find many statements by the anti-gun group don't make sense once you look at them.

And you are lynching negroes, yes.

Moderator Action: Let's not go there please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[nonconformist]

There is an alarming history between countries that restrict gun ownership to police, federal officers, and the military and genocide. Ottoman Armenian massacre, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This is an absolutely ******** argument on so many levels; first, th presence of frearms would not have helped either Nazi Germany (where the widespread ownership of private firearms had a significant impact on installing the Nazi Regime, e.g Freikorps, Spartakists, Sturmabteilung etc.), and not a single person would have resisted anyways.
In fact, the only real opposition in Nazi Germany was the Warsaw Uprising, where the Germans crushed the armed Poles successfully, and ruthlessly.

The installation of the Communist Soviet regime was as a result of non-state weapons being used by mutineers, politicos, civvies, and such.

Rwanda and Darfur have never banned firearms, as they are impractical and rites of passages in those countries, and there is no centralised government to ban them.

The whole concept of this comes from a stupid partisan organisation called Jews for Guns or something who selectively reqrite history mentally.
The deprivation of the civilian population of firearms has never been the reason for dictatorships succeeding; the population is kept in check with patriotism, propaganda, fear, love, and the red-tape system, not a gun to the head.

 

[Traitorfish]

Also, gun ownership was largely legal in oligarchical Britain, and largely illegal in democratic Britain, so it's clearly not a solid correlation.

Oh, and the Nazis liberalised Germany's gun laws, rather than tightening them, replacing the Weimar Republic's 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition with their own 1938 Weapons Law, reducing regulation and lowering the legal age of ownership from 20 to 18. The only example of increased restriction was the prevention of ownership, production and sale of firearms by Jews, which I don't recall being proposed by anyone recently.

 

[nonconformist]

Also, I imagine having a significant proportion of the male population in armed forces with guns, not all of which are perticularly loyal, as not being effective gun control.

 

[Traitorfish]

Certainly didn't help the Tsar, that's for sure.

 

[nonconformist]

Also, the countries with the most stifling gun laws, the UK (not nearly as strict as people think), Australia and Japan are perfectly democratic.

 

[Disgustipated]

I own a glock 17. I'm not entirely sure why I bought it. One reason is because my brother got a gun, so I felt the need to compete in a way.

the gun has a couple utilities.

If I ever need to kill myself, it offers a fairly reliable method. Although not completely reliable. Sometimes the bullet misses critical areas of the brain. If I ever get some nasty immoblizing injury, I may want to do this (assuming I'm still capable)

guns also provide a means of killing intruders. You have to be careful here, if they aren't threatening bodily harm you could go to jail. The problem with this, is it causes hesitation, which gives the criminals the advantage. This is why owning a gun is more dangerous sometimes, as they can use your gun to kill you. You can't freeze up or hesitate, or you're dead.

guns can also kill zombies or other things that may invade your home like in movies.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I own a glock 17. I'm not entirely sure why I bought it. One reason is because my brother got a gun, so I felt the need to compete in a way.

the gun has a couple utilities.

If I ever need to kill myself, it offers a fairly reliable method. Although not completely reliable. Sometimes the bullet misses critical areas of the brain. If I ever get some nasty immoblizing injury, I may want to do this (assuming I'm still capable)

guns also provide a means of killing intruders. You have to be careful here, if they aren't threatening bodily harm you could go to jail. The problem with this, is it causes hesitation, which gives the criminals the advantage. This is why owning a gun is more dangerous sometimes, as they can use your gun to kill you. You can't freeze up or hesitate, or you're dead.

guns can also kill zombies or other things that may invade your home like in movies.

Zombies are a critical factor in my decision. Hence why I'm going after a bolt-action rifle: maximum utility from each (scarce) round.

 

[Zelig]

Zombies are a critical factor in my decision. Hence why I'm going after a bolt-action rifle: maximum utility from each (scarce) round.

Don't forget the silver bullets!