amilibertine said:

It's not controversial, it's a child-like fantasy.  I'm not insulting you.  You have a right to your opinions.  I'm sorry but having some gun gestapo invading innocent peoples homes to check their mental health is so far from freedom it's called totalitarianism.

---

Is it totalitarianism that you need a physical to get your drivers license?

Honestly none of the technologies I proposed are that expensive. GPS tracking devices are incredibly cheap these days and there are already guns out there with identity recognition technology. Hell, my laptop has fingerprint recognition and you think putting that on guns is out of the question? Do you even realize the incredible profits that gun companies and their lobbyists make? You think they can't reduce that by a tiny chunk to help keep guns in the hands of their rightful owners?

It's not a child-like fantasy. That's incredibly condescending. I'm talking about technologies that are readily available in cell phones and laptops and that are becoming cheaper by the day. There's no reason these can't be implemented in all guns that are produced from now on. Even that small change would reduce the ease with which psychopaths could access guns.

KT-BC said:

the thing about a bloodthirsty psychopath that determined to kill is, well their determined to kill. doesn't matter what kind of weapon they have.

---

elax420 said:

2012 still thinking you and your drinking buddies "militia" has a chance against the Federal Army

LEL

---

For real. The argument that the right to bear arms is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government in this day in age is hilarious. The government has drones, tanks, explosives, nuclear weaponry and some people think that having even an assault rifle is going to protect them against that?

Quote:

For real. The argument that the right to bear arms is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government in this day in age is hilarious. The government has drones, tanks, explosives, nuclear weaponry and some people think that having even an assault rifle is going to protect them against that?

---

KT-BC said:

better to die protecting what you love then lie down and let them slaughter you like a moo moo cow

---

You're dead either way. If you're not threatening them with your guns you might not be killed at all rather than dying an extremist fool.

KT-BC said:

Quote:

For real. The argument that the right to bear arms is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government in this day in age is hilarious. The government has drones, tanks, explosives, nuclear weaponry and some people think that having even an assault rifle is going to protect them against that?

---

better to die protecting what you love then lie down and let them slaughter you like a moo moo cow

---

JoieDeVivre said:

JesusIsLord said:

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

What part of that is so fucking hard to understand.

---

A well regulated militia. REGULATION. Gun control is regulation. A well regulated militia doesn't mean every paranoid fucker owning his own assault rifle. It looks like you are lacking in understanding.

---

An 'Assault Rifle' !! Tell me, would you agree that fully automatic rifles should be banned, and semi-automatic rifles would be allowed, all other things being equal?  Say, with a clip or magazine limited to 20 rounds, etc?

elax420 said:

I dont think either should be banned.

You should just have to go through stricter evaluations to get an assault rifle.

---

Tmethyl said:

So far, I agree that it would be beneficial to place some sort of restriction on guns, whether it be a psychology test, or whatnot.

But believing that any of these things would work, is just childish.
Nothing you can implement, would ever stop someone who wants a gun, from getting a gun.
This is the same thing as saying that if you restricted crack cocaine, nobody could get crack cocaine.


If someone has the will to kill many, they don't even need a gun. Bombs can be made with supplies from hardware stores.
Pipe bombs are made with 3 pieces of threaded metal pipe, a cylinder (threaded on both ended) and 2 screw on caps.
Drill one hole, fill with gun powder or other explosive, jam a firecracker wick into the hole. Finished.
Just the shrapnel alone will kill many, the blast it's self will kill a few as well.

Nothing we restrict or try to control will stop a psycho from being a psycho.

---

starfire_xes said:

elax420 said:

I dont think either should be banned.

You should just have to go through stricter evaluations to get an assault rifle.

---

I want Joie to answer this one. I want to see if she is informed.

---

starfire_xes said:

An 'Assault Rifle' !! Tell me, would you agree that fully automatic rifles should be banned, and semi-automatic rifles would be allowed, all other things being equal?  Say, with a clip or magazine limited to 20 rounds, etc?

---

No, I've never once claimed anything about banning any guns.

KT-BC said:

Quote:

For real. The argument that the right to bear arms is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government in this day in age is hilarious. The government has drones, tanks, explosives, nuclear weaponry and some people think that having even an assault rifle is going to protect them against that?

---

better to die protecting what you love then lie down and let them slaughter you like a moo moo cow

---

Tmethyl said:

So far, I agree that it would be beneficial to place some sort of restriction on guns, whether it be a psychology test, or whatnot.

But believing that any of these things would work, is just childish.
Nothing you can implement, would ever stop someone who wants a gun, from getting a gun.
This is the same thing as saying that if you restricted crack cocaine, nobody could get crack cocaine.


If someone has the will to kill many, they don't even need a gun. Bombs can be made with supplies from hardware stores.
Pipe bombs are made with 3 pieces of threaded metal pipe, a cylinder (threaded on both ended) and 2 screw on caps.
Drill one hole, fill with gun powder or other explosive, jam a firecracker wick into the hole. Finished.
Just the shrapnel alone will kill many, the blast it's self will kill a few as well.

Nothing we restrict or try to control will stop a psycho from being a psycho.

---

yup

I could make a ballistic knife at work, with basic machine tools, no problem. It would be totally silent, and lethal. I could make thermite and cause havoc at will with some very simple tools.