Is there a gun thread?

[Ack]

Im cool with long extensive background checks for gun ownership as long as the license also allows for ownership of full auto weapons as well.

Eh. I think automatic weapons take everything away from marksmanship. Sure you have grouping, but accuracy doesn't mean a lick.

That's kind of the point. Full automatic is used to provide suppressing fire and isn't meant to be used often. It's a better tactic for covering others who have to move around, such as pulling a wounded soldier behind cover or support movement of others into better firing positions.

As for weapons like that, the intent was to allow a populace to rise up against a tyrannical government, so letting the people have access to whatever weapons the military was using would help to put them on an equal footing. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons largely were nonexistent. But the American Revolution had been one by a combination of militias, a national army, and private citizens operating as guerrilla fighters. Allowing the populace to keep their firearms meant that in case of foreign invasion or domestic tyranny, the populace had the equipment it needed to again form militias and instigate guerrilla warfare.

And as far as taking guns away from the populace in an attempt to argue it will lead to fewer shooting deaths, it might...though admittedly it might not reduce crime by that much. Most murders are committed with handguns, not automatic rifles. And violent crime overall has been going down steadily since 1993. The increasing rates through the 1980s are often blamed on violence surrounding illegal drugs, particularly cocaine. In general the US has a violent rate similar to a developing nation as opposed to a first world one. To me that signifies less of a problem with weapons and more of an issue with our social fabric.

Internally, the US is defined by economic struggles and upheavals, segregation based on ethnicity, a corrupt and highly partisan political system, and troubled by a variety of issues relating to our handling of sexual orientation, religion, approaches to crime and organized crime, etc. To think that merely removing guns will solve the problem feels more like trying to put a band-aid on a gunshot wound. None of our major battles have worked out: the War on Drugs is a joke, the War on Poverty has done little to stop a relatively consistent poverty rate, and the War on Terrorism...well, I'm sure everyone here has thoughts on that one. And a large part of this is that instead of seriously sitting down and considering our options, we rely mostly on our constituents desires and knee-jerk reactions to fix our problems. This current look at gun control is a knee-jerk reaction to several highly publicized shootings. It's sexy in politics right now to make statements one way or the other, but depending on the measures taken right now, in a year it likely won't be, so we won't hear much about it.

[Snowman Death Droid]

I'm no expert on guns. I hope that I'll one day receive this nifty .22 revolver my dad let's me use when we go shooting up in the mountains. I believe it's from the 60's, but I don't know what pistol specifically it is.

Oddly enough, I've never been hunting before. We always shoot at paper targets, but from what I know getting a hunting license in Wyoming is wonky.

Since everyone is talking about the politics of guns, I have to ask, when did this discomfort with firearms begin? And why do people only consider guns in context of shooting other humans and not paper or clay targets or deer?

[o.pwuaioc]

Depends who your protecting yourself from, personally i believe the 2nd amendment is about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, to defend yourself if the gestapo ever came knocking.

Then my point about missiles and anthrax stand. If you think even fully automatic weapons can save you from the full force of the US government, you're smoking way too much crack.

Besides, the idea that we need to "save ourselves" from the US government is long outdated. It's far too complicated system, but the necessity for it will not occur in our lifetime. And with the advances in technology, again, your puny AR is laughable.

However, in the mean time, shooting up schools is a problem.

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons largely were nonexistent. But the American Revolution had been one by a combination of militias, a national army, and private citizens operating as guerrilla fighters.

But the government has them now, while even semi-automatic assault rifles were not available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Internally, the US is defined by economic struggles and upheavals, segregation based on ethnicity, a corrupt and highly partisan political system, and troubled by a variety of issues relating to our handling of sexual orientation, religion, approaches to crime and organized crime, etc. To think that merely removing guns will solve the problem feels more like trying to put a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Hey, if it weren't for guns, there wouldn't be any gunshot wounds.

None of our major battles have worked out: the War on Drugs is a joke, the War on Poverty has done little to stop a relatively consistent poverty rate, and the War on Terrorism...well, I'm sure everyone here has thoughts on that one.

The "war on terrorism" has largely been successful, though, at least in the sense that we're keeping Americans safer and pushing the attacks to places where they're more comfortable, like Pakistan. As far as drugs and poverty goes, those aren't even real wars. No one in the government gives a shit about poverty, especially the Republicans, and the war on drugs is doomed to fail, like the war on booze in the early 1900s.

And a large part of this is that instead of seriously sitting down and considering our options, we rely mostly on our constituents desires and knee-jerk reactions to fix our problems. This current look at gun control is a knee-jerk reaction to several highly publicized shootings. It's sexy in politics right now to make statements one way or the other, but depending on the measures taken right now, in a year it likely won't be, so we won't hear much about it.

It's always been sexy in politics. Just go and read some ancient Roman history if you want kneejerk reactions. However, I disagree with you about kneejerk reactions. This has been in the making for a very long time. You're only just know making yourself aware of it.

[Ack]

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons largely were nonexistent. But the American Revolution had been one by a combination of militias, a national army, and private citizens operating as guerrilla fighters.

But the government has them now, while even semi-automatic assault rifles were not available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Sure, but plenty of guerrilla forces nowadays use automatic rifles, particularly the AK-47. It's probably the most important weapon of the 20th century, as it found its way into a conflict in nearly every corner of the globe.

Internally, the US is defined by economic struggles and upheavals, segregation based on ethnicity, a corrupt and highly partisan political system, and troubled by a variety of issues relating to our handling of sexual orientation, religion, approaches to crime and organized crime, etc. To think that merely removing guns will solve the problem feels more like trying to put a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Hey, if it weren't for guns, there wouldn't be any gunshot wounds.

Perhaps not. Would you have prefer I said "A band-aid over where the police officer curb stomped you"?

None of our major battles have worked out: the War on Drugs is a joke, the War on Poverty has done little to stop a relatively consistent poverty rate, and the War on Terrorism...well, I'm sure everyone here has thoughts on that one.

The "war on terrorism" has largely been successful, though, at least in the sense that we're keeping Americans safer and pushing the attacks to places where they're more comfortable, like Pakistan. As far as drugs and poverty goes, those aren't even real wars. No one in the government gives a shit about poverty, especially the Republicans, and the war on drugs is doomed to fail, like the war on booze in the early 1900s.

Ok, so admittedly bombing people on the other side of the globe is an acceptable means of keeping them in check, but despite our work, terrorism has continued, especially in areas suffering from recent political upheaval. Libya, Somalia, Mali, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, terrorism also continues in Ireland, Chechnya, Sudan, the Congo, so on and so forth. Hey, terrorism works, even if it only makes people hate you.

Drugs is a real war, involving combat troops in various areas of the world. Afghanistan's opium flow, Mexico's criminal organizations, the cartels of Central America, the Golden Triangle...we've fought these with soldiers, covert operations, bullets, and bombs. If you prefer not to believe me, I can point you to a friend who got stationed on our border with Mexico and took more fire than he did in Iraq.

As for poverty, programs like welfare and medicaid are built with the goal of helping the poor. Unfortunately it doesn't do much to elevate them out of it. On a funny note, the hatred of firearms in this country began as a direct result of Prohibition, when we began targeting "assault weapons" like the Thompson submachine gun because of their use by organized crime, which had in turn sprung up from the banning of alcohol. And now we have to put up with the Kennedys.

And a large part of this is that instead of seriously sitting down and considering our options, we rely mostly on our constituents desires and knee-jerk reactions to fix our problems. This current look at gun control is a knee-jerk reaction to several highly publicized shootings. It's sexy in politics right now to make statements one way or the other, but depending on the measures taken right now, in a year it likely won't be, so we won't hear much about it.

It's always been sexy in politics. Just go and read some ancient Roman history if you want kneejerk reactions. However, I disagree with you about kneejerk reactions. This has been in the making for a very long time. You're only just know making yourself aware of it.

Considering how quickly everything has moved in the last month to ban assault weapons despite their statistically low likelihood of being used in crimes by the average law-abiding citizen, yeah, I'd say this was pretty knee-jerk. How long did we know the debt crisis was coming? And the government came to a solution only a few hours before the deadline. Yet in less than a month Congress can get a bill together, Vice President Biden can hold talks with "all concerned parties," and President Obama can come up with a list of multiple executive orders to bar the purchase of various types of firearms and accessories? Yeah, again, pretty knee-jerk. The Democrats are only now applying the brakes because they know what they are doing is politically risky and questionably legal. Expect someone to try to take any legislation to the courts.

[o.pwuaioc]

Sure, but plenty of guerrilla forces nowadays use automatic rifles, particularly the AK-47. It's probably the most important weapon of the 20th century, as it found its way into a conflict in nearly every corner of the globe.

Guerilla forces also kidnap and bomb innocent people. I really don't think we ought to be comparing ourselves to guerilla forces in general.

Perhaps not. Would you have prefer I said "A band-aid over where the police officer curb stomped you"?

So if no one had guns, people would just be curb stomped to death all the time? Seriously?

Ok, so admittedly bombing people on the other side of the globe is an acceptable means of keeping them in check, but despite our work, terrorism has continued, especially in areas suffering from recent political upheaval. Libya, Somalia, Mali, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, terrorism also continues in Ireland, Chechnya, Sudan, the Congo, so on and so forth. Hey, terrorism works, even if it only makes people hate you.

It's on the downside. It's...well, it's far more complicated than either "it's working" or "it's not". It's evolving. As is society as a whole.

Drugs is a real war, involving combat troops in various areas of the world. Afghanistan's opium flow, Mexico's criminal organizations, the cartels of Central America, the Golden Triangle...we've fought these with soldiers, covert operations, bullets, and bombs. If you prefer not to believe me, I can point you to a friend who got stationed on our border with Mexico and took more fire than he did in Iraq.

What has that got to do with guns inside America?

As for poverty, programs like welfare and medicaid are built with the goal of helping the poor.

Actually, the places where poverty is the worst is where these programs are the most restricted and hindered. With the sole exception of New Mexico, which has it's own problems, you may recognize this list of the top 12 states with the highest poverty levels:

Mississippi
Louisiana
New Mexico
Alabama
Texas
Arkansas
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Arizona
Tennessee
South Carolina
Kentucky

The reasons these programs don't work in these states is simple: Republicans prevent them from working.

Considering how quickly everything has moved in the last month to ban assault weapons despite their statistically low likelihood of being used in crimes by the average law-abiding citizen, yeah, I'd say this was pretty knee-jerk.

How long has it been since Aurora? Fort Hood?

How long did we know the debt crisis was coming?

There is no debt crisis. There is only a bunch of idiots in the House who cannot read the Constitution.

Expect someone to try to take any legislation to the courts.

As *should* be done in our system, even if the process if half broken.

[Luke]

Expect someone to try to take any legislation to the courts.

As *should* be done in our system, even if the process if half broken.

There is no way to argue with O.Pwuaioc on this point.

Right as rain he is.

[ninjainspandex]

Well i just hope the war on guns is as successful as the war on drugs.

[Ack]

Sure, but plenty of guerrilla forces nowadays use automatic rifles, particularly the AK-47. It's probably the most important weapon of the 20th century, as it found its way into a conflict in nearly every corner of the globe.

Guerilla forces also kidnap and bomb innocent people. I really don't think we ought to be comparing ourselves to guerilla forces in general.

168 children killed in Pakistan from US drone strikes as of August 11, 2011, according to media sources like The Telegraph, Salon.com, ABC, etc. As a nation, we are hardly innocent. And indeed, if a situation within the US proved bad enough, what is to say we wouldn't also resort to such tactics?

Perhaps not. Would you have prefer I said "A band-aid over where the police officer curb stomped you"?

So if no one had guns, people would just be curb stomped to death all the time? Seriously?[/quote]

The idea of a firearm or the possibility of a firearm as a symbol for representing rising up against oppression keeping someone in a position of authority from abusing that authority has never occurred to you, has it?

Ok, so admittedly bombing people on the other side of the globe is an acceptable means of keeping them in check, but despite our work, terrorism has continued, especially in areas suffering from recent political upheaval. Libya, Somalia, Mali, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, terrorism also continues in Ireland, Chechnya, Sudan, the Congo, so on and so forth. Hey, terrorism works, even if it only makes people hate you.

It's on the downside. It's...well, it's far more complicated than either "it's working" or "it's not". It's evolving. As is society as a whole.[/quote]

Admittedly true.

Drugs is a real war, involving combat troops in various areas of the world. Afghanistan's opium flow, Mexico's criminal organizations, the cartels of Central America, the Golden Triangle...we've fought these with soldiers, covert operations, bullets, and bombs. If you prefer not to believe me, I can point you to a friend who got stationed on our border with Mexico and took more fire than he did in Iraq.

What has that got to do with guns inside America?[/quote]

This was more about the War on Drugs being a legitimate war that isn't going well.

As for poverty, programs like welfare and medicaid are built with the goal of helping the poor.

Actually, the places where poverty is the worst is where these programs are the most restricted and hindered. With the sole exception of New Mexico, which has it's own problems, you may recognize this list of the top 12 states with the highest poverty levels:

Mississippi
Louisiana
New Mexico
Alabama
Texas
Arkansas
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Arizona
Tennessee
South Carolina
Kentucky

The reasons these programs don't work in these states is simple: Republicans prevent them from working.[/quote]

Ok, this is something I want to set straight. For many of those states, I cannot say one way or the other, but for Alabama what you say isn't actually accurate.

Until 2010, Alabama's state legislature had been run entirely by the Democratic PArty for over a century. The most powerful union in the state, the Alabama Education Association, has been headed up by a leading member of the Democratic Party of Alabama, Paul Hubbert, since 1969. Hubbert was the Democratic candidate for the Alabama governorship in 1990. He has made it a point to block any and all education reform that has occurred. The Democrats have chosen to focus on possibilities like gambling for revenue, as opposed to the Republicans interest in expanding infrastructure, including extending I-85 through the southwest corridor, the poorest section of the state, in the hopes that better transportation methods will allow greater commerce through the area. What blocks social programs from working effectively in Alabama is corruption and Democratic party politics, not a bunch of Republicans sitting around saying "Fuck the poor" like so many people believe.

Sorry, it's just that it irritates me to no end when people want to blame Alabama's problems on the Republicans without knowing a thing about the state's internal history. The state has only been so heavily in favor of Republicans on a national level for the last 30-40 years. Before that, it was a Democratic stronghold.

Considering how quickly everything has moved in the last month to ban assault weapons despite their statistically low likelihood of being used in crimes by the average law-abiding citizen, yeah, I'd say this was pretty knee-jerk.

How long has it been since Aurora? Fort Hood?[/quote]

Fort Hood was a terrorist action by a man who had been in touch with extremist elements in the Middle East. Aurora was...August? Still not very long ago.

How long did we know the debt crisis was coming?

There is no debt crisis. There is only a bunch of idiots in the House who cannot read the Constitution.[/quote]

And a president who in four years has only once met the date when he was legally supposed to have a budget submitted to Congress.

Expect someone to try to take any legislation to the courts.

As *should* be done in our system, even if the process if half broken.[/quote]

This we can agree on.

[Luke]

Expect someone to try to take any legislation to the courts.

As *should* be done in our system, even if the process if half broken.

This we can agree on.

Woo-Hoo! Although I only pointed it out, I'm so taking credit for this agreement.

[dsheinem]

As a voting member of the Democratic party who will thus be issued gun confiscation orders tomorrow, I hope I get assigned to take Ack's guns.