Should the United States adopt a form of gun control? - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Should the United States adopt a form of gun control?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-04-2010, 03:49 AM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bigcat_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 425
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
I think most of these posts are missing the point. The guy is part of a debate and he must take the pro side. Most of the info provided helps the other side. He's not saying he is for gun control, just that he must debate the pro's of it.

To the OP. I suggest reading the dissenting opinions on Heller and McDonald.
The pro side of gun control is that the knife and baseball bat industry could reap good benefits for investors. Crowbars and tire irons may soon follow.

Lowly hunters will have to resort to archery which could also be an investment opportunity for the new investor, although that could soon be outlawed due to the scary looking broad heads which make people feel uncomfortable and are definitely politically incorrect.

Only government officials and police will have lethal weapons (not criminals!). The average american will be safe because there is no way a bad guy can get a gun now since people cant buy them legally.

The world will be full of rainbows, hugs and peace. No one will eat meat and we will save the Earth. Cars will run on solar power and rich people will pay for their evil greediness. No one will work and the government will send us checks every month. It will be grand.
Bigcat_hunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 03:47 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FreedomFighter69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA,Pennsylvania
Posts: 212
Default

To keep it short and sweet, HELL NO !
Screw the U.N. , Screw the Gun Control Lobbists, and Screw The Liberals who want to Instill it ! NO ! NO ! NO ! NO!
I think the United States should adopt a form of Liberal Nut Job Control !!!

__________________


No Son of a Bitch ever won a War by Dying for His Country ! It's the Son of a Bitch who makes the Other Poor Bastard Die for His Country who Wins the War !

George S. Patton, General 3rd Army United States .
FreedomFighter69 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 07:16 PM   #33
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 6,577
Liked 2381 Times on 1286 Posts
Likes Given: 685

Default

The pro side of gun control is a tough subject as the truth is against you. Perhaps you can turn it around by using the Swiss gun control model. Every (I believe it is still male) citizen of fighting age is issued a military grade weapon and required to maintain an issued battle pack of ammunition. As the battle packs are updated and the old packs are used for encouraged practice. There are severe penalties for anyone stealing weapons and ammunition or not maintaining their battle gear. This is a simplistic explanation so you should research it. This is your assignment and we should not be doing the work for you.

Another possibility is to take the corrupt government point of view as expressed by the quote of Mao Tse Tung in my signature. That should really hit it off with the teachers. Just change the wording a little by substituting Government for Communist Party.

__________________

Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.


Last edited by JTJ; 11-04-2010 at 07:22 PM.
JTJ is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 10:20 AM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
vezpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 43
Default

If you need any other evidence that gun restrictions fail please research the city of Chicago and Cook county.

It is like the wild west here with murders galore, crime out of control and we have no provision for Carry of any kind. Until last june we had a ban on any handgun in the city. That obviously meant less crime... right...?

Wrong.

The governor even debated bringing in the national guard to stifle crime it got so bad this past Spring.

All this in a state with the strictest gun control and no right to carry.

Criminals don't care what gun control laws are being enacted, they simply don't follow them which is why they are criminals in the first place. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. This is such an easy concept to understand, but yet so many don't.

__________________

Just a couple bug guns.


Last edited by vezpa; 11-13-2010 at 10:24 AM.
vezpa is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 12:50 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lufkin,Texas
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prsabordo View Post
Hey everyone, i have a debate on this topic and i had to be on the pro side of it, that means i am for the proposition that the U.S should adopt a form of gun control. Now I know many people are against it, but its a debate for my communications class. Thing is i can't seem to find any evidence to support the pro side. I was wondering does anyone have any hard evidence (court cases, reputable statements, proper research studies) that can support the pro of gun control and does anyone know where i can find this stuff?
This is an easy one. The answer lies within the language of the Founders as applied to the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you break this down into base components and define each one as it applies here, you will see that the People themselves are the intended control structure intended from the beginning. Proper arms control measures can be had through simple educational programs. Teaching people from a young age the intimate importance of safe firearms handling and deployment methods.

On the extreme end of the ideology is the tendency to use firearms in criminal and dangerous methods. This can be eliminated through a solid family concept in The United States. In other words, teaching children the importance of respecting fundamental laws and respect for others right and property.

In my opinion, it is the governmental interference into this basic concept that has eliminated the ideology of fundamental respect. Accidents can and will happen. But can be eliminated for the most part through a comprehensive program designed to teach safety, first and foremost.

One must ask oneself why any government would want to deny a population firearms ownership. Yet, maintain an armoury of their own on a domestic police level. When, in history, has this ever ended well for any population?

If public safety were the primary reason behind arms control, simply because firearms were dangerous, then ownership controls would be implemented for any number of other tools available to the general population. Auto mobiles, power saws, knives, ball bats, the list goes on.

Anyhow, that is simply my own take on the matter, for what it's worth...
__________________
TexasPatriot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 03:31 PM   #36
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 18,051
Liked 5995 Times on 3136 Posts
Likes Given: 428

Default

the more i think about this issue the more i come to terms with it and i think the govt should adopt control.

the feds should set aside 5% of each individual's fica after tax ammount and income tax after tax ammount as a subsidy so that each person in the US legal to own guns (non-felons) may do so. each person should be required to own at least one gun. each person should be issued with current military issue rifles and allowed to purchase specialized non-explosive based projectile weapons and ammunition the military uses. each us citizen should be encouraged to carry weapons daily everywhere.

that is the only gun control we need

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 03:35 PM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lufkin,Texas
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigcat_hunter View Post
The pro side of gun control is that the knife and baseball bat industry could reap good benefits for investors. Crowbars and tire irons may soon follow.

Lowly hunters will have to resort to archery which could also be an investment opportunity for the new investor, although that could soon be outlawed due to the scary looking broad heads which make people feel uncomfortable and are definitely politically incorrect.

Only government officials and police will have lethal weapons (not criminals!). The average american will be safe because there is no way a bad guy can get a gun now since people cant buy them legally.

The world will be full of rainbows, hugs and peace. No one will eat meat and we will save the Earth. Cars will run on solar power and rich people will pay for their evil greediness. No one will work and the government will send us checks every month. It will be grand.

Where do I sign up?? I want in!!
__________________
TexasPatriot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 04:50 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
gatopardo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma City,Oklahoma
Posts: 360
Default We already have control

Quote:
Originally Posted by prsabordo View Post
Hey everyone, i have a debate on this topic and i had to be on the pro side of it, that means i am for the proposition that the U.S should adopt a form of gun control. Now I know many people are against it, but its a debate for my communications class. Thing is i can't seem to find any evidence to support the pro side. I was wondering does anyone have any hard evidence (court cases, reputable statements, proper research studies) that can support the pro of gun control and does anyone know where i can find this stuff?
We already have gun control, so far it excludes irresponsible individuals as well as felons.
Furthermore not gun ownership but gun possession is highly regulated by the states, not the Federal government.
From the second amendment as a base, I would go to your state laws. and then BATF site. for federal regulations on manufacturing, import, export, etc.

Good luck. Gato
__________________
Professional phosphorescent pigment for multiple applications.
Water based, non toxic, no flammable, non radioactive, weather and heat resistant.

Visit our website
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE

It works, only if you use it!
Look for me in the vendor display
gatopardo is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 05:28 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lufkin,Texas
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatopardo View Post
We already have gun control, so far it excludes irresponsible individuals as well as felons.
Furthermore not gun ownership but gun possession is highly regulated by the states, not the Federal government.
From the second amendment as a base, I would go to your state laws. and then BATF site. for federal regulations on manufacturing, import, export, etc.

Good luck. Gato
A question...in regards to felon ownership, since the courts have ruled that the police do not have the liability of affording protection to individuals, who protects the people who have been convicted of a felony, but have paid their dues and did their time? I have yet to see a statement in the Constitution, or even the Federalist Papers that precludes someone being stripped of their God given right to protect themselves due to any legal standpoint. In fact, it appears to me that the statement, "Shall not be infringed", pretty much says it all.

The consensus in my mind is, we have all these rules and regs, yet they have served no purpose in preventing any appreciable amount of criminal activity. Yet, the program still moves forward towards a full ban. That is the problem when you allow one single regulatory instance to get a hold. It never stops moving forward from there. It is never enough.It goes from, well, we just want this segment of society to be banned, to, hmmm, it isn't working, so we need to move ahead to this level, right? I mean, just a little common sense control. The thing is...who decides who doesn't have their rights any longer?

Remember...those who refuse to afford others their rights under the law, soon find that the law doesn't protect them any longer either...

Not to mention the fact that all the laws in the history of humankind cannot prevent any one from breaking them. The law can say so and so can't own something, yet they will still go get it if they want it bad enough. This pretty much negates the argument concerning so-called 'common sense' rules. it makes absolutely no sense to regulate ownership when ownership can't be regulated to begin with.
__________________
TexasPatriot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 06:07 AM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
gatopardo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma City,Oklahoma
Posts: 360
Default Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasPatriot View Post
A question...in regards to felon ownership, since the courts have ruled that the police do not have the liability of affording protection to individuals, who protects the people who have been convicted of a felony, but have paid their dues and did their time? I have yet to see a statement in the Constitution, or even the Federalist Papers that precludes someone being stripped of their God given right to protect themselves due to any legal standpoint. In fact, it appears to me that the statement, "Shall not be infringed", pretty much says it all.

The consensus in my mind is, we have all these rules and regs, yet they have served no purpose in preventing any appreciable amount of criminal activity. Yet, the program still moves forward towards a full ban. That is the problem when you allow one single regulatory instance to get a hold. It never stops moving forward from there. It is never enough.It goes from, well, we just want this segment of society to be banned, to, hmmm, it isn't working, so we need to move ahead to this level, right? I mean, just a little common sense control. The thing is...who decides who doesn't have their rights any longer?

Remember...those who refuse to afford others their rights under the law, soon find that the law doesn't protect them any longer either...

Not to mention the fact that all the laws in the history of humankind cannot prevent any one from breaking them. The law can say so and so can't own something, yet they will still go get it if they want it bad enough. This pretty much negates the argument concerning so-called 'common sense' rules. it makes absolutely no sense to regulate ownership when ownership can't be regulated to begin with.
That is what freedom is all about, is a risk yes but a risk worth taking. However you cannot save a man from himself.

What of sex offenders and the alienation they are victims of, after serving their sentence? Unfair? I think so. Unpopular measure? Probably not.

See it from this perspective: We are victims of ourselves and our own prejudices, when the masses demand blood there is no way of saying whose blood will run.

When people demand more control over anything in their lives is because they cannot or don't want to take responsibility, the end result however is the need for more control. Everyone loves a dictator friend.

The difference between the constitution and every state law is simple:
The constitution is focused on the individuals as a base of the Republic.
State law principal focus is to protect private property, whomever has more property consequentially controls state law.
Especially in Texas
__________________
Professional phosphorescent pigment for multiple applications.
Water based, non toxic, no flammable, non radioactive, weather and heat resistant.

Visit our website
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE

It works, only if you use it!
Look for me in the vendor display
gatopardo is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Victory in The United States Supreme Court! tracker Legal and Activism 23 12-08-2010 06:59 PM
United States Army Combatives Tournament Grand Prize is a SIG-Sauer P226 PineScent96 General Handgun Discussion 3 10-19-2010 01:34 AM
USSA - United Socialist States of America - February, 2010 Last Crow Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 04-20-2010 04:47 PM
A United States Marine Goes to a Town Hall Meeting! Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 21 08-25-2009 06:43 AM
The Russia/Georgia conflict and the United States? huckleberry The Club House 26 08-16-2008 01:09 AM