So, why are guns necessary?

[Fragony]

Exactly. Blowpipes are illegal because they're crap and don't work, and have been superseded by more modern weaponry like javelins.

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you

[Husar]

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you

Oh yes, a blowpipe would go right through you even though it's bad as Pannonian says. I fixed the original link, suppose the forum linkage wizard was naughty and added an extra "http://".

But a really important issue I want to discuss is trespassing. Often dogs are allowed to enter private property and poop on it. This can be very hard to fight but landmines would take care of this as well as roaming robbers and other people trying to break in. Landmines are a purely defensive weapon unless you throw them into someone's face, but even that you would only do if that someone tried to attack you.

There is really no reason why people can't have landmines and yet they can't. Why is that?

[Vuk]

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

[Goofball]

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

Exactly. A truck is a weapon. You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

That's insanity.

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.

[Lemur]

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

[Papewaio]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

[Pannonian]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

"A well defended sea being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to be surrounded by lots of water shall not be infringed."

[Vuk]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

That is just the thing. You can march an army onto enemy soil, but in order for you to do anything there you need to control the population. That is much less possible when they are armed.

As far as it not being a deterrent in WWII, there is good evidence that Isoroku Yamamoto said:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

There is no proof that he said it, but Douglas McArthur's chief biographer claims he did. It is one of those things that is likely, but not provable.

[BroskiDerpman]

Why not have a gun? I don't have one but I honestly don't mind. I find it funny how nobody came up with a compromise or something yet in the USA.Not too sure as to me politics is a annoyance in life most of the time to bother with. Imo.

Though of course I read up on politics, so I'm not too dull.

(I'm American just so you know)

Plus with a gun I'll feel less paranoid about those monsters in the closet.


Still I wonder what's with all these gun politics... All these gun deaths reminds me how everyday in the news somebody dies in Roxbury MA in some sort of fight and later on the news stopped reporting that stuff since it's like everyday.


I think pistols are more deadly in a urban environment with civilians where you can sneak it around without being caught unlike slugging around a Mosin Nagant or something.

Perhaps it's just the ideology of many Americans is screwed up compared to other countries which have a lot of guns. I know Switzerland has state armed militia but not much people run around blasting each other. Probably because before they can they'd get shot or perhaps Switzerland is smaller and the population has more similar ideology thus less violence.

Don't know much on these matters, enlighten me.

I know where I live now the gun laws are less strict and I check out some shops once in a while and eat some ribs while I'm at it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Where is the "well-ordered bit"? Do you mean the "well-regulated" bit? Where "regulated" means equipped and the founders protected our right to have a serious arsenal and be equipped for battle?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Well I don't think Feinstein and the Brady Bill folks really want an established "well-regulated militia". Historically it meant that white male property owners in good legal standing were required to keep and bear arms and train with them regularly. I mean, if that's what you want, as a white male (renting counts for property these days right? ) I'll just have to go buy a scary black rifle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Buy one! You'll love it! It's only going to get harder in NJ - NY has already made it very difficult. Not difficult enough for me not to have one legally, though.

In NJ you can still get an AR-15 that looks like an AR-15. You can still buy an ar-15 in NY, it just cant bear more than a passing resemblance to an AR-15.

CA has recently discussed banning all detachable magazine semi-automatic firearms and passed a bill in assembly doing so. I'm actually glad that they have made a consistent argument, as their piecemeal argument was more politically savvy and used divide and conquer tactics in the gun community. An outright assault on gun owners wholesale by attempting to outlaw the majority of firearms is much harder to sell to even the most timid and feckless gun owners. Gun control only moves forward when they make absurd and seemingly pointless argument after absurd and seemingly pointless argument. Over time, they've smuggled enough tiny parts into the law to build a serious weapon against us. Consistency of their message may aid us to a greater extent.

[Lemur]

White male property owner here. Where do I report for drills and training?

Ugh. Like my weekends aren't booked full already ...

[Vuk]

Exactly. A truck is a weapon.

lmfsbo

You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

Is your right to own trucks protected by the constitution? Therein lies the difference. Regulation is control. There is a fine line between obeying the constitution and protecting people, and violating the constitution and giving a dictator all the tools he needs to rule your country unopposed.

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

It already is regulated (way too regulated in some respects)

Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

I mostly agree with you here. If your crime is not paying taxes or getting in a barroom brawl when you were in college though, then it is ridiculous. With proper and reasonable excepts being made, I agree with you on this.

History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

Again, agreed with logical exceptions. If you are a child who loves to play and cannot sit still, and you doctor diagnoses you with ADHD, it makes no sense that you should no longer be able to own a gun when you grow up. We classify so much as mental illnesses, and we over-diagnose so many of them that you would have to be reasonable with exceptions again.

Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

Here is where we cease to agree. You should not need to register your weapon. What the government does not know can save your life. We should perform background checks, and if someone fails one we should keep the record of that in a registry. If they pass, than the record should be thrown out and the government should not record that they had the background check done or purchased the weapon.

Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

Again, I disagree. For most gun crimes (armed robbery, murder, attempted murder, etc) I would say death. That would stop repeat offenders and put the fear of God into the hearts of those who would be criminals.

But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.

I agree that sometimes the NRA has been misguided and stood in the way of good legislation, but before you condemn them for it you should keep several things in mind. First of all, for the most part the policies they advocate and good. Second of all, the knee-jerk reaction they have to gun control legislation has been trained into them by decades worth of rabid gun grabbers trying to disarm the country. (all in the name of saving children and stopping crime, of course) Gun grabbers for the last few decades have stopped going for broke and turned to a policy of incrementalism. The NRA knows that if it gives an inch, they will take a foot.
People talk about compromise, but look at how many times gun owners have compromised. Look at the absurd number of gun control laws already on the books, including absurd and outdated ones like those that put a limit on barrel length. Freedom is not something to compromise.

EDIT: And BTW OP, contrary to what the left may be telling you, the shooter did not have an assault rifle in the naval yard shooting. He had what you thought was reasonable: a pistol. (as well as a shotgun) He apparently came there with just the shotgun (you remember the thing Joe Biden said was the reasonable gun for home defense, and not the scary military one), shot guards with pistols and took their pistols, and shot a guard with an AR-15 and took that. That is right, a dude with a pistol got in a shoot out with a dude with an AR-15, and the all-mighty, bullet spitting AR-15 did not win the day.

[Husar]

What the government does not know can save your life.

And that is one reason why the dictator argument is ridiculous given how little outrage the NSA scandal has caused.

As for the whole thing about Russians, how often did the population even try/want to get rid of the communist government?