For or against the gun abolishment in USA and in other country of the world

I know we play a lot of ET (what means, a gun game), but in real life, are you for or against gun policies. Do you think that USA should keep their second amandment and keep guns, or you think it should be a better idea to abolish the possession of firearm. I wanna know your opinion about it.

Moved to politics.
/bf

The second amendment was written during a different time and mindset. I still agree with it though. But only to a point. Fully automatic ak's m-16's or any assault rifle is to the extreme. I have a 1800's colt 45 passed down to my dad and then to me. It still works too. A pump .22, and a 16 gauge for dove hunting. Nothing special. What I don't understand is how people try to turn the second into something that allows them to own just about anything. I think that guns that are able to be converted to fully auto should not be sold, even in the semi-auto mode. Just go out and buy a conversion kit? Unless you are S.W.A.T. then who needs a 30 round clip.

"The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic."
I read that on another web site and it seems to be true. If one were to fully read the second and understood it would realize that it was not intended for what groups believe they have the right to own almost any sort of firearm. It was not intended for that. Our bill of rights were written during a time when the United States was trying to distance themselves from a anarchistic type of government the British was trying to force on them. But back in the 18th century our founding fathers could not foresee how our society would progress these past 200 years or so. Bazookas and Uzis were not on their minds at the time. But I'm rambling. Just so you know though, if anyone harmfully threatened my family in any way they would find out just how I earned my navy expert pistol shot medal.

Besides, no law passed will keep the guns from those criminals who really want them. They are out there and can be easily had if you know where to look.

I went out this past weekend to a shooting range with a friend and shot his Bulgarian-made semi-automatic AK-47. It is called a "WASER". Fully legal where we live. There are billboards advertising M16s and AR-15s on the freeway since people come here from other states in the US just to buy guns because the laws are so open.

It was fun shooting the AK but the bullets are expensive. I couldn't hit the target at all, it recoils a lot. My friend hit the target many times, he is a great shot.

At one point I rapid-fired it for fun and the rangemaster came over and told me not to do that, I had to wait three seconds between each shot.

I brought along an old .22 rifle and fired off a hundred or so rounds, at 50 yards it was easy to hit the target with the .22. But impossible for me with the AK.

When other states increase their gun restrictions, the people from those states just come here to Missouri and buy guns and take them back home.

WASER is one of the the lowest quality AK. Some refer to it as a Frankengun since it is assembled by whatever parts the company(International Arms) can get its hands on.

Better quality AKs shoot better and cost more. Norinco(chinese) is one of the most accurate but they have not been sold in the US since the Clinton ban and a side issue where a sting intercepted some fully auto versions being smuggled into the US by corrupt employees.

Waser=was a gun,its the worst if you ask me and you are right the recoil is horrible. AS far as gun rights the goverment does not need to infringe on my RIGHTS period.i am PRO -CONSTITUTION. i will fight anyone to the end to defend it, but i geuss if you havent defended the constitution and the USA then you wouldnt understand. sorry guys. U.S. ARMY-1983 -1986 SPEC4 1/92 FA 2nd AD./ AIR ASSAULT...

Only limitation I'd like to see is, preventing all the fucked up psychos out there from owning or accessing a gun. I am pro surviving and I pity the fool who tries to enter my house without my permission.

The second amendment was written by a group of people far more experienced living under tyranny than any of us know (yet).
The whole idea behind the second amendment is to keep the government in check.
It has nothing to do with hunting or self defense.
The drafters of the second amendment knew that an out of control government could be stopped by an EQUALLY armed citizenry.
That means if the government has fully automatic weapons, it's citizens should be no less armed.
Does this carry all the way to nukes? In theory, yes. In reality, no.
If everyone respected life and acted in the protection of liberty and justice then there would be no fear of an armed society.
Unfortunately, a few abusers ruin it for everyone.

The problem with the gun debate is that those who want to banish guns don't seem to understand that all guns won't suddenly and magically go away with legislation.
When you pass laws to disarm the citizenry, only the LAW ABIDING citizens will comply.

The criminals (people who don't follow laws), will NOT comply and therefore they will be the only ones left armed.

That means the law abiding citizenry will now have to face an armed government AND armed criminals. Does that sound like a good situation?

Will removing guns stop mass killings? If you think it will, you really don't have much of an imagination.
Can you not think of at least 20 different ways someone could kill a large number of people without guns?

What we need today more than any laws is a way to bring back a respect for our fellow man, a respect for the life of others and a fear of doing what is wrong.
That's where the real debate should be.

I've been an NRA member for more than 30 years and a Life Member since 1991. My opinion is that it is very clear that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from denying individuals the right to own and use firearms. If the citizens of the US want to change that then the only legal way is to remove or modify the 2nd Amendment. Anything else is unconstitutional.

Regarding Oneoldman's comment about fully automatic weapons. It has always been legal to own fully automatic firearms in the US. Since 1935, a special license has been required to own a fully automatic firearm. Since 1935, legally owned full-automatic firearms have been used in exactly two crimes. One of those was an off-duty cop who used an M16 owned by the police force to go after someone he was mad at. Given that record, what is the problem with citizens owning fully-automatic weapons?

yellowhammer wrote:, What is the problem with citizens owning fully-automatic weapons?

The problem with automatic weapon !!! Just think about school shooting like Columbine shooting, or like the mans who fired some kids at a sursery (happened at Los Angeles, in August 10 th , 1996), or any crazy young men and women who bring guns at school and fire everyone around him ! This is the problem !

I think that rules should be changed, a «mentally ill» person should have the right to have a weapon if he could be a danger for the society, but I know that it's allmost impossible to stop everything, because it's so easy to buy weopons at the black market.

PS:I would like to thanks you for all your answers, it's fun to see a lot of different point of views

The lethality of full-auto is exaggerated. It is difficult to control the aim on full auto even with training. Because of that the US Army has removed full auto from the standard M16 in favor of a three round burst. That is because by the time a fourth round comes out of the barrel the aim has risen past the average size target.

The victims at Columbine would have probably been better off if the crazies had used full auto as they would likely have been less accurate and wasted their ammunition. The problem with Columbine and other shootings like it is that the assailant had so much time to do what he wanted without interference from an armed "good guy".

Full auto is good for 2 things.
Cover fire and wasting ammo.

Kernel265 wrote:Full auto is good for 2 things.
Cover fire and wasting ammo.

For a personal weapon I couldn't agree more. There are certain situations where full auto is useful - the best example I that comes to mind is returning fire when backing out of an ambush. But that is a very specific situation.

Mounted full auto is another thing entirely - the gun is much more stable but even in that case the fire is against vehicles and if against personnel it is really an area attack (not against a specific target).

I think a lot of these John Wayne type people, need to realize that the World has evolved greatly in the past +200 years.

Qbe wrote:I think a lot of these John Wayne type people, need to realize that the World has evolved greatly in the past +200 years.

Are you saying that there are no longer people who will rob, rape, and murder and so it isn't necessary to be able to defend ourselves? Of course you are not. The world has changed but the people in it are still violent. Human nature hasn't changed much if any in the past 200 years. So what is it that you think has changed that has removed the necessity for effective self defense?

Many of us believe that the rights to life, liberty, and property are meaningless without the means to defend them.

I am all for the ability to protect and defend yourself, your loved ones and your property. I am however also a firm believer of strict control of who gets to own these WMD - If you can't pass certain tests and other demands, then you don't get to own a gun. Mentally ill should not be allowed to own gun, as well as felons etc. Any gun license should, just like your drivers license, be renewed on a frequent basis (every 3-5 years would do).

There is no such thing as a fast solution to the current problem regarding gun ownership. Stripping all us of all our guns would be insanity (and it would never happen), but doing some long term planning is at least a step in the right direction.

Your basic view is wrong to most gun owners. There is NO PROBLEM with legal gun ownership, only criminals who use guns.

And passing new laws when the existing laws are not being enforced to make anti gun persons happy is not acceptable to most gun owners.

Also, the license issue is just a tax penality to law abiding gun owners who paid tax for the gun purchase to start with in most cases.

Consider the consealed carry program. The class is around $100 and the permit is around $75 and has to be renewed like just your drivers license. When you renew you have to retake the class.

So, basically you are paying alot for a right every LAW ABIDING individual should have for free.

Some may have unlimited funds but most people do not. Guns are expensive, ammo is expensive, consealed carry is expensive.

This is no problem for non gun people they will not own a gun anyway.

Criminals steal their guns or buy them from other criminals so they are not affected.

There is a major disconnect with the majority of non gun people as I see it. They do not know the existing gun laws, do not know about guns in general, and just are determined that guns are evil regardless of studies that say the most safe places are places with high gun ownership.

The prevailing view is that less guns equals less crimes which is just not the case.

Friedrich you are incorrect in so many ways..

-I do not have unlimited funds, I work for a living, very hard indeed I might add. I wish I didn't have to, but I do. My work is insanely stressful and often I wonder how I am to keep at it until I can retire.

-I don't want the "licensure program" be one that generates revenue for the government, but a way of catching those whose psyche changes for the worse over the years - I used to work in psychiatry and have seen it happen many times.

-I do own a gun, a 12 gauge shotgun to be exact, nice short barrel, perfect for home protection. I used to have a 50cal DE, a massive beast, but it simply got to be to expensive shooting that puppy.

-I have not in any way said that people shouldn't be able to own the guns they want, nor have I said anything against full-auto or mags with more than 10 rounds. I served in the army of my home country, and quickly learned that full-auto is only for Hollywood. I've shot a boatload of guns and feel very comfortable around them - only thing that scares me, are psychos with guns.

Describe to me a way to license or regulate that does not directly cost law abiding gun owners or infringe upon their 2nd ammendment rights.

Also, describe a way to have mental health professionals make judgements on who should not have guns without violating patient doctor confidentiality or exposing themselves to legal liability.

You are right that crazies should not have guns. I also worked with persons with mental health issues for many years.

Of course it would cost the gun owner to renew said license, but there's a vast difference between covering the cost of it and creating a revenue for government.

Doing a (granted very simply) psych evaluation, with either a PASS or a NO-PASS result, doesn't reveal anything about the person being tested, this no violation has occurred.

So, why should I have to pay anything?

There is no simple and accurrate way to determine a persons mental health. It is as you should know( if you worked with such individuals) an extended process, unless they have a marked break from reality that indicates a threat to themselves or others.

You should pay so you can own your WMD.. but no more than what it cost to run said license program.

I do believe I said "Doing a (granted very simply) psych evaluation.."

Who is going to pay for the psych evaluation for every gun owner? How often will they need to be tested? What happens if they don't take the test? What about current owners of unlicensed guns?

I think your plan is unrealistic.

Last time I was involved with the process psyche evaluations costed hundreds of dollars and in this instance I doubt that health insurance would choose to pay.

I totally agree with you that wife beaters and psychos should not have guns.

There is just no easy way to identify such individuals and most law abiding individuals would resent being considered potential psychos every 2 or 3 years(and have to pay for the insult out of pocket).

Well.. if you want to own your gun..!! I'm putting it up extremely harshly, but I do believe it's well justified.

When I did real psych evals, it took me between 3 and 6 months to render a conclusion, whether or not a person was sane to stand trial or insane, in which case we often locked them up and threw away the keys..

yellowhammer wrote:Who is going to pay for the psych evaluation for every gun owner? How often will they need to be tested? What happens if they don't take the test? What about current owners of unlicensed guns?
I think your plan is unrealistic.

You have to pay for you own test. How often? I'd say once every 5 years or so should do just fine. If you fail to take the test, you license expires and the law would be entitled to seize your armory. Current owners of unlicensed guns?? Get a license and you can own whatever you want for all I care.
Unrealistic? I don't know.. it's definitely better than having a shitload of armed psychos running around.

LMAO. The people you worked with were criminals so they should not be able to get guns legally to begin with.

That's the thing.. Up until their arrest (most for violent crimes) they weren't convicted of anything, thus legally they weren't criminals. I would say a good 90% of them were found to be insane. Their crimes was often murder, rape, arson, bank robbery etc. One of them was found to have killed 4 young men, and when the cops arrested him, he was actually sitting there, eating one of the men's bowels, yet he still proclaimed his innocence. He will of course never ever see freedom again.

Lets break this down.

New pistol owner costs:

Quality handgun - $500

Ammo - 2 boxes - $50

Purchase permit - $15

Consealed cary - $175

Psyche eval - $500 to $1000

Total initial ownership cost for 1 handgun - $1240 tp $1740

Result - 90% choose to purchase black market and only pay $500.

It's you call if you want to break the law or not..

Breaking unjust laws is why there is the 2nd ammendment to begin with otherwise the United States would be part of the United Kingdom.

UM... LETS SEE, GOD GAVE ME 1 LIFE, LETS ME PICK HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT THAT I WANT OR NEED TO PROTECT IT, THAT IS MY 2ND AMENDMENT, AND NO MAN WILL TAKE THAT FROM ME.

BOB

UM... LETS SEE, GOD GAVE ME 1 LIFE, LETS ME PICK HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT THAT I WANT OR NEED TO PROTECT IT, THAT IS MY 2ND AMENDMENT, AND NO MAN WILL TAKE THAT FROM ME.

BOB

UM... LETS SEE, GOD GAVE ME 1 LIFE, LETS ME PICK HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT THAT I WANT OR NEED TO PROTECT IT, THAT IS MY 2ND AMENDMENT, AND NO MAN WILL TAKE THAT FROM ME.

BOB

Well enjoy your never ending mass shootings, school massacres etc. I guess you reap what you sow.

Those things happen but how many people would be raped, robbed, or killed without the means to defend themselves? Here is just one example: http://www.internationalwhaleprotection.org/forum/index.php?/topic/4346-11-year-old-girl-defends-her-house-from-home-invaders/

This sort of thing happens thousands of times a year. Why should these people be left to the mercies of the people who would take advantage of them?

That's my point exactly.. That mentally sound, law abiding people, be allowed to arm them as they see fit, but to prevent the others from it.

STEALTHBOB wrote:UM... LETS SEE, GOD GAVE ME 1 LIFE, LETS ME PICK HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT THAT I WANT OR NEED TO PROTECT IT, THAT IS MY 2ND AMENDMENT, AND NO MAN WILL TAKE THAT FROM ME.

BOB

Does it really protect you ? Is it because you have a gun that you can be sure you're protected, or it's only fall into a false sense of security ?
Think about it

Take my word for it - there is nothing false about my sense of security. If you know how to use a gun and have the mindset to use it then you can protect yourself effectively. I personally know people who have saved themselves from harm by being armed.

You can't be 100% certain that you are secure in any way. But you can increase your level of security so that you are less likely to be a target and can survive the encounter if you do become a target.

I wish we lived in a perfect world where guns and self-defense were unnecessary.

Then I think of Tibetan monks living peaceful lives, sitting around meditating in rooms full of candles, before Red China invaded their country. The Tibetans prayed to their silly make-believe gods, and chanted their sacred words, and asked the rest of the world to help them. No one ever came to their rescue.

If they had spent some of their meditation time learning how to use modern weapons they may have not been such an inviting target. Or maybe it would not have made much of a difference. Hard to say.

China picked a fight with India in 1961 right after invading Tibet, but the Indians shot back, and Mao's troops went home. Mao picked a fight with the Russians in 1969 (while he was trying to fight a proxy war with the US in Vietnam at the same time) but the Russians sent a tank army at the invading Chinese troops and they ran away. True story.

In WWII most of Europe was still tired of war from the first World War, and no one really wanted to fight back against the Germans. Everyone hoped someone else would do the fighting. The French ran away screaming. The British Expeditionary Force sent to protect France ended up trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk while they tried to figure out how to escape back across the Channel.

The Poles put up more of a fight against the Germans, but they didn't have modern weapons. Not a priority. The Polish Army still had the best horse-mounted cavalry in Europe. They actually sent men on horses, with swords, against German tanks, but at least they tried to fight back.

The Russians showed the rest of Europe how to fight back, but at the cost of 26 million lives. It helped that the Germans weren't very good at fighting in Arctic cold, and that Hitler had developed a methamphetamine habit that made him lose his mind and make absolutely insane military decisions against the advice of his own generals.

The US had mostly disarmed after WWI and had to scramble to re-arm themselves to fight both Germany and Japan. Somehow we got the idea that we would never need to fight anyone again after World War I and we had sent all our troops home and cut the military budget. The Depression cleaned out our armed forces since the government was too broke to support the military. So we were not prepared.

I think we should always have the best modern weapons available, in case we need them, but keep them away from the crazies. I have no idea how to do this though.

It seems to me that nice normal people don't have the same desire to possess firearms that the crazies do, so the bad guys have more guns, while the good guys mostly go unarmed and wring their hands about making some law that would magically make all the guns and sharp objects in the world go away.

We need more "good guys" with guns, to balance out and deter the "bad guys".

WE NOW HAVE OPEN CARRY IN OKLAHOMA. SO..... PARTS OF TULSA ARE NOW LAWLESS. POOR SIDE OF TOWN THEY HAVE WEAPONS FOR THE HOME, BUT ONLY THE BAD GUYS HAVE THEM ON THE STREETS. ROBBERY AT GUN POINT HAS GONE WAY UP ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN.

I SEE SIDEARMS EVERYWHERE NOW, I, ME, MYSELF, THINK OPEN CARRY IS THE CORRECT WAY . MINUS ALL THE GVT. BS. SHOULD NOT BE ANY RULES OR FEES. PAY MONIES TO GET A BOX CKED ON A PAPER ???

We don't have a law against open carry in Alabama but to conceal carry you need a permit. Until now you had to renew the permit each year. The cost varies by county, in some places it is $5 per year and in others it is as much as $20.

A new law takes effect soon that allows for 5-year renewals. It also provides for a special permit that allows you to carry a pistol in your vehicle but not on your person. The new law also allows someone who is driving your car to be covered if you have a permit yourself.