Here's what I think - we have a lot of issues in this field. Should we have our rights - I get that. We just have a problem because we can't regulate everything. Recently, I was at work and a girl was talking about the guns they have. Essentially, she said "we have guns in the kitchen cabinets, by the bed, in the living room, in the basement...." I thought to myself - holy shit! You have a 7 month old child. Personally, if you need this. many. guns. you. have. a. problem. Now before anyone says I'm wrong, I'm not saying this problem is necessarily bad...but you definitely have a problem if you think you need this many guns. Someone who likes guns, and say, collects old guns, is different. I just think we need to try our best to evaluate why we need these. So, essentially, I do believe in major gun control. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - this does not mean getting rid of every guy.
There should be background checks on every gun/ammo sale, no exceptions, no loopholes. Also I don't think there should be magazines that hold more than 5-10 rounds.
You basically just made my point by stating: "taking away these rights." I don't own a gun and have no interest in having one. But there are many Americans who do want to exercise their right to own a gun and it is not government's place to take that right away. Period. That's why there is a Constitution. Punishing innocent Americans isn't the solution. I mean, where do you draw the line? Should America completely ban alcohol as well? It causes far more deaths than guns do. There needs to be a middle ground. You can compare England to the United States all you want; but the fact is England does not have billions of guns in circulation as the United States does, so that's not really a good comparison at all. In fact, completely banning guns in America may have the opposite result. As I've noted, the government has made enough attempts to infringe on our rights in this country. ---------- Post added 15th May 2013 at 11:29 PM ---------- Exactly, and this seems to be a fact liberals struggle to grasp.
Well...guns are more or less banned here in Australia; we don't have gun laws like you guys do in America. I don't know anyone that actually owns a gun tbh. I'm pretty sure our crime rate is a low lower down under than compared to the U.S., so I guess my opinion would be that not owning a gun would be the better option. I don't really see the point of them.
Yes there are more guns in the US and the situation is different. But saying everyone should be able to have a gun to protect from people having guns is stupid. All it is doing is fueling the problem. You have to actually confront the situation rather than just throwing more guns at it - there must be another solution. In the meantime I think a (perhaps gradual) limitation on what firearms are available is a good path to take.
Agreed, and I haven't said that. However, there is a Constitution for a reason. The problem undoubtedly needs to be confronted, but in a reasonable manner.
No, you missed my point entirely. I was asking how you benefit from being able to own a gun (which every American can do, right?) if you don't have a specific purpose for one. How would taking away that right (taking away your rights! Such trauma!) be an issue? You can't just refer to the Constitution to validate your point: that's just as bad as referring to the Bible to reinforce a religious view. It's a circular argument. Full stop. I'm not talking about England, I'm talking about the UK. Do you not realise why the UK has so few guns in circulation?! Because they're banned! And they could only be turned in so effectively once they were banned because we kept tabs, to a varying degree of success, on who owned which guns. There is a black market, but now that guns can barely get into the country (we're a group of islands and that is the only valid reason for no comparison), it is dying a slow death.
Your constitution is over 200 years old - technology and social climate change and your laws shouldn't be limited to what was acceptable 3 centuries ago.
No, I'm comprehending your point - problem is it's just not very logical. How do Americans (or anyone for that matter) benefit from drinking? Smoking? They don't - but it's a right. Americans enjoy hunting with guns and shooting (dumb hobby IMO, but it's a right and similar to drinking and smoking in terms of something people enjoy so whatever I guess). And I definitely can use the Constitution to validate my point, and comparing it to religious people using the Bible to fit their argument is just ... not really smart. OK. I get it. the UK has guns banned and there aren't any in circulation. But do you think if Obama completely bans guns tomorrow that the 400/500 million guns already in the hands of Americans will just somehow magically disappear into thin air? Oh, I have a solution for that, too! Obama can send out the military to go door to door and collect everyone's guns! That'll work... :rolle: Talk about idealistic liberalism. ---------- Post added 15th May 2013 at 11:51 PM ---------- True, that's why I'm in favor of reading the Constitution loosely rather than strictly. Even then, people have rights and that should not be infringed upon regardless of how old the document is.
Also, what I said goes double for transphobia. Gender-nonconforming people are at a huge disadvantage and in great need of protecting themselves, and I shouldn't have said "homophobia" as a stand-in for what I really meant, which is kyriarchy.
The difference is the damage caused from smoking, drinking, and drugs is self inflicted on a willing participant, while the damage from guns is inflicted on other unwilling people. It basically boils down to whether it is more important for people to have individual freedom, or be protected from other people fucking them over.
Which have both been legislated against to protect the unwilling victim . No smoking in indoors public places. Alcohol limits when driving.
Which is why cigarettes and alcohol are limited in certain situations and why guns should also be limited in some aspects. ------------------------------------------------------------ Aww...you beat me to it
Only just Jonathan . I'm not advocating that all guns are banned immediately because obviously that wouldn't work. Ideally they would all eventually be illegal though (excluding some exceptional cases). Limitations that gradually get more, well, limiting is probably the best approach.
i believe we need to have universal background checks on ALL gun sales, we need to get rid of assault weapons, TRAIN people how to use their guns, and get recommendations from family members/spouse that say they feel comfortable with this person owning a gun. much like canada's system.
Now we're getting somewhere - okay, I agree that smoking shouldn't be banned where it does affect third parties (i.e. indoors) and nor should drinking. You know that hunting is done with shotguns, right? Even in the UK, they are allowed with a licence, background checks and registration; they aren't particularly lethal. My brother practises it (and I'm a pretty good shot too, actually). I'm talking about rifles/pistols/revolvers, which are designed to kill humans. I still think that it should be known who owns which shotguns (and air rifles) though. If you've done nothing wrong, what have you got to hide? Why the need for privacy in something as trivial as an innocent person owning a gun? Tell me how it's not smart. They're both ageing documents that lose their relevance as society changes. And yes, turning up at people's doorsteps is more or less what happened. They knew who had which guns. If the guns couldn't be found, those in question were in trouble. Any issues? You should continually question what rights people have and whether we should have them, not keeping rights for the sake of keeping rights.
