Stance on gun control

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

Maybe it is just my rather dim view on humanity, but I will freely admit that I don't trust most people. I also do not think that gun control will necessarily prevent people from intending to commit crime, but if it is possible to limit the scope or severity of a crime then I think it is something that is worth looking at.

Another big difference in our opinions is that I think it is totally reasonable that police and military forces are allowed to use weapons that civilians do not have access to. I am a British firearms officer, and in order for me to carry and use the weapons that I do I was vetted, trained, tested, and am held constantly accountable for my actions. This is not the case with the man on the street. From a more selfish point of view, I do a job that on occasion puts me in harms way, and am happier in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time I am better armed and equipped than the other guy.

[SPEMack618]

Ah. There lies the root cause of differing views my good friend.

As an American I want the Federal/State/Local cops to be wary that I may be as well, if not better armed than them. They protect and serve me, not the other way around.

[funkychinaman]

Please keep in mind that all of our civil liberties come with restrictions, many in the name of public safety. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater in the name of freedom of speech, you can't have more than one wife in the freedom of religion, and exigent circumstances overrides your fourth amendment rights.

And let's not forget that many of the current restrictions on machine guns were put in place by that commie gungrabber Ronald Reagan.

[Excalibur]

Being able to marry more than one spouse actually is one of those specifically laws that isn't tied to freedom of religion. It's just a law based on a mostly Christian country. I mean, gay marriage was recently passed, and that's pretty much against Christianity.

The 4th Amendment protects from unwarranted searches. Probable cause needs to happen before the search is legal and any evidence found can hold up in court, otherwise, they can be thrown out. The 4th protects you from just having being searched without cause and that's all.

The yelling fire is only not protected by the 1st amendment if it is a false claim. You can't just yell fire and expect to be protected. That's why the consequences for being irresponsible with your rights is the point, not restricting your rights to begin with. It makes penalties for abusing them that affects things.

You can have your grenade launchers, but the moment you use it not in a justified action, then harsh punishment for endangerment/injuries/death is on your.

Criminals will break the law, but fewer will dare to do it if it becomes a felony and it is made impossible to be thrown out in court, or charges dropped easily for deals. It's already illegal to commit cold blooded murder, but what needs to happen if life-death penalties for committing them, not slaps on the wrists.

Just recently a politician brought a gun on school grounds, got arrested, and then got probation only...for a crime that would have taken away his rights and his guns. He got a slap on a wrist for breaking the law.