2nd Ammendment died in New York

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

But, with no such risk today, and the memory of what happened still fresh in their minds when they look at the tattoos they were given in the camps, why wouldnt the surviving Jews today (or Spanish, etc) advocate strongly for more gun ownership.

Israel has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world per capita (higher than the U.S in fact). They also have the highest per capita military spending in the world. So if I asked those Jews about your "question", I think they would say you're full of shit.

As for your last point, why would I care what some foreigner thinks about the U.S Constitution? Unless they are a citizen, pay taxes, and have voting rights, I couldn't care less about what they think about our Constitution. If they want to come here and live in the country, they should respect our laws, or stay where they are.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

How exactly is it a fallacy? What is false?




Yes, the pro-gun Jews then would have been turned to ashes. But, with no such risk today, and the memory of what happened still fresh in their minds when they look at the tattoos they were given in the camps, why wouldnt the surviving Jews today (or Spanish, etc) advocate strongly for more gun ownership. I know you are talking about the US constitution, but doesnt it make you wonder at all why those groups are not as concerned about owning a gun, when they have more reason to be?

I dont know if you have the opportunity to talk to many non-Americans from around the world. If you do, you'd likely find that most of them dont feel "punished" by their gov when their ability to own guns is more tightly regulated. Their bad guys ignore the laws anyways of course, cause that's what bad guys do. And yet, despite the lower risk of encountering return fire, bad guys are still far less likely to shoot you in those places. I wonder why that is ?

I guess a lot of the pro-gun people dont share my curiosity for that at all, for some reason.... The only time I would completely ignore looking over my own fence at what others might be doing, even to just try and learn from them, is if I became convinced that I enjoyed an exclusive monopoly on common sense.

Have you ever lived in another country? Just curious.

Most of these countries you're speaking of don't have that many people old enough to remember having freedom with firearms or accessibility to them. So sure, asking some 20 year old German kid if he cares to own a rifle is probably going to get you a pretty apathetic response.

I'm sure if I asked my neighbors when I was stationed there for four years if they would give up their guns they'd throw a fit. They were avid hunters who used semi-auto hunting rifles for deer. But who knows, they should just be lumped in with the criminals as well.

Look up the US Air Force bus that was shot up by some lunatic living in Germany a few years ago. Wait, don't bother looking it up: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gunma...ry?id=13037467

Oh, but that stuff doesn't happen in countries with tough gun laws, huh?

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

So why dont the citizens of Austria fight vigorously to get even more gun rights then the US has?

Seriously? I answered you in the very reply you quoted. I'll repost...

Originally Posted by carve

Any western democracy knows the US would not currently allow a tyrant to take over, and they take that security umbrella for granted

They're dependent. Switzerland is independent.

Do you truly believe they are unconcerned simply because they are entirely relying on American soldiers coming to liberate them again if the shit does hit the fan ?

I'd suggest that older Austrians (or Germans, etc etc) who lived thru the last time, will still recall that liberation took years, and their parents, siblings, etc where killed during that wait, would not likely adopt such a relaxed approach if they thought such a risk was real.

...and WW1 was the "war to end all wars". People always hope for the best, and history shows that to be a naive view.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

. But, with no such risk today,

Who said anything about having to fight such tyranny today? Just because there's no risk in Jan 2013 in the western world doesn't mean it'll never happen.

I guess a lot of the pro-gun people dont share my curiosity for that at all, for some reason.... The only time I would completely ignore looking over my own fence at what others might be doing, even to just try and learn from them, is if I became convinced that I enjoyed an exclusive monopoly on common sense.

Sadly, they've ALWAYS had less murder, even before they had gun laws, and our murder rate is falling while theirs is flat or rising, DESPITE relaxing concealed carry laws and the AWB lapse. Expand your curiosity a bit.

About 3/4 of gun homicide is gang related, and a lot of big European cities have much smaller gang proglems. If you're not in a gang your chance of getting shot is not much different than in Europe: Negligable.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Israel has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world per capita (higher than the U.S in fact). They also have the highest per capita military spending in the world. So if I asked those Jews about your "question", I think they would say you're full of shit.

I was talking about Jews in Germany. During WW2, the Jews in Israel (which wasn't called Israel at that time) were not trucked off to concentration camps in the same huge numbers that the Jews in Germany were. The fact remains the Jews in Germany are not as heavily armed today, and dont seem to be trying hard to correct that. You'd think they'd have a reason to...

The Jews in Israel ARE heavily armed today, because of a very long history of people who want them wiped off the map. Today, most of the threat of that arises not from a risk that the Israeli gov will tyrannically oppress them, but that Arabs operating under a different government want them gone. Theres no "protection from your own gov" argument there.

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

As for your last point, why would I care what some foreigner thinks about the U.S Constitution? Unless they are a citizen, pay taxes, and have voting rights, I couldn't care less about what they think about our Constitution. If they want to come here and live in the country, they should respect our laws, or stay where they are.

I wasnt asking if you cared what a foreigner thinks of the US constitution. They dont care. What they DO care about is their own life. If you believe the risk of government tyranny is universal, then they are under the same risk as you, and yet they sure dont act like it, despite more recent examples which might leave them understandably more concerned about it.

There are some possible explanations for this: either they know something you dont, or they foolhardy. I've thought about the first possibility, just wondering if you had. Seemed like a fair question to ask.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I was talking about Jews in Germany. During WW2, the Jews in Israel (which wasn't called Israel at that time) were not trucked off to concentration camps in the same huge numbers that the Jews in Germany were. The fact remains the Jews in Germany are not as heavily armed today, and dont seem to be trying hard to correct that. You'd think they'd have a reason to...

You simply aren't well read on the history of Jewish immigration from Europe into Palestine.

There was a mass migration of Jews from Europe to Palestine after Hitler took over Germany. The Jewish population in Palestine increased from 175,000 in 1931 to 800,000+ after World War II, the bulk of these Jews being "German Jews" you are trying to paint as "anti-gun", which is a claim based on a false premise. These Jews know the value of being armed against a tyrannical dictatorship, and have no love for Hitler. They own guns, and know their value.

Those that stayed in Germany died.

What they DO care about is their own life. If you believe the risk of government tyranny is universal, then they are under the same risk as you, and yet they sure dont act like it, despite more recent examples which might leave them understandably more concerned about it.

There are some possible explanations for this: either they know something you dont, or they foolhardy. I've thought about the first possibility, just wondering if you had. Seemed like a fair question to ask.

I won't call someone from a foreign country fool hardy just because they don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Cultures just tend to be different, and that depends on a variety of factors. How a country was formed; through revolution, or through thousands of years of monarch rule? Factors like that.

Your question is too simple in its premise for what you're trying to answer.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by Templar

Have you ever lived in another country? Just curious.

Look up the US Air Force bus that was shot up by some lunatic living in Germany a few years ago. Wait, don't bother looking it up: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gunma...ry?id=13037467

Oh, but that stuff doesn't happen in countries with tough gun laws, huh?

Thru work I regularly deal with a LOT of people from all over. Spent more social time after work havin a beer with folks from Canada and Australia. They both like their beer. Anyway, I've had some pretty interesting conversations about this sort of thing. People are very respectful and polite to start, but after a while, if you are patient (and they've had enough to drink ), you'll find they tend to often express curiosity or dismay at the state of things stateside.

They seem to be unconcerned with the risks of government tyranny, and it really doesnt seem to me to be rooted in the belief that American forces will come and rescue them. There seems to be a "if you dont have a gun, then I dont need one either" type mentality. They dont seem to be quite so fixated on the "but the bad guy has one" component, which is interesting, but yet their stats speak for themselves. No place is risk free, as the German bus shooting proves, but theres a big gap in gun death rates, and lots of room for improvement. Shrinking that gap would be a good thing, right?

I dunno, sometimes these folks make some pretty good points. One person said something to the effect that "People want to have more guns because theyre afraid of people who have guns. It would be funny it if wasnt so tragic".

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

This idea that the U.S government can never become tyrannical or turn on its own citizens being propagated by the left is frightening. It's scary, I am literally afraid that the left will manage to get a blanket ban (which btw is their ultimate goal), and we'll be defenseless against tyranny.

The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, and our forefathers knew this reason personally. German citizens of Jewish descent wished they had these rights in 1939.

I'm not some wacky, tin-foil, anarchist who thinks all government is bad, but to assume the U.S government can never turn on its own citizens is lunacy. The threat of armed citizen resistance is one of the reasons this hasn't happened in over 200 years, but now? I feel like 1776 is due for a sequel if this continues.

This. I'm not wearing tinfoil either but i'm also not going to be deer in the headlights surprised if the shit did hit the fan in this country.

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

When 75% of gun deaths are caused by gang violence in inner cities, it's hard to take this type of legislation seriously. How can they possibly think that this will have an impact when the overwhelming majority of the deaths are caused by guns that are already illegal?!? Guns are already nearly entirely banned in NYC, yet murders still occer, albeit largely contained within certain demographics. Also, as a % of all gun deaths in NY state last year, less than 1% of them were with a long gun (they don't specify beyond rifle/pistol). What a fucking joke. I am so sick of hearing "we have to get these semi-automatic guns off the street!" They don't seem to realize that they've been around since 1883 and that even a revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. They seem to think it's another word for a machine gun (i.e. fully auto). I'm so sick of listening to these dummies and their misinformation!

No body cares about the truth and real statistics.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I was talking about Jews in Germany. During WW2, the Jews in Israel (which wasn't called Israel at that time) were not trucked off to concentration camps in the same huge numbers that the Jews in Germany were. The fact remains the Jews in Germany are not as heavily armed today, and dont seem to be trying hard to correct that. You'd think they'd have a reason to...

The Jews in Israel ARE heavily armed today, because of a very long history of people who want them wiped off the map. Today, most of the threat of that arises not from a risk that the Israeli gov will tyrannically oppress them, but that Arabs operating under a different government want them gone. Theres no "protection from your own gov" argument there.



I wasnt asking if you cared what a foreigner thinks of the US constitution. They dont care. What they DO care about is their own life. If you believe the risk of government tyranny is universal, then they are under the same risk as you, and yet they sure dont act like it, despite more recent examples which might leave them understandably more concerned about it.

There are some possible explanations for this: either they know something you dont, or they foolhardy. I've thought about the first possibility, just wondering if you had. Seemed like a fair question to ask.

Never the less, this is a perfect example of an entity wanting to exterminate another. Wonder why that hasn't happened yet...... i wonder what would happen to Israel should they relinquish their weapons.....

Principle is principle and the same cause and effect is applicable; we want you dead, but you have means of defense. We want to control you; but can't because you have means of defense.

Again, i'm not saying the governments goal is to rid americans of their firearms as a way to enslave us all. But that doesn't mean that another reason can rid americans of their firearms and a completely different government, 10 years down the road won't recognize an opportunity to benefit from enslaving us all. And won't it be much easier for them?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

But that doesn't mean that another reason can rid americans of their firearms and a completely different government, 10 years down the road won't recognize an opportunity to benefit from enslaving us all. And won't it be much easier for them?

Yes, it would be as easy for them as it has already been in Canada or Australia or England for 200+ years now. Remember, as recently as 100 years ago, England effectively still "ran the world". They were the World Police, the USA of their time. The English people then certainly couldnt rely on the USA coming in to protect them, and yet their citizens didnt feel that the absence of such offshore protection created a need to be heavily armed themselves to deter tyranny.

For anyone who really feels that the only thing stopping the gov, your own fellow Americans, from being the next Hitler is the deterrent of you shooting them dead if they try, then man, I don't know what to say. You must have a much lower opinion of your own people than most other G8 citizens have of their own people. That's really depressing. You're ok with armed guards and lockdowns at schools, so it becomes much like a prison, because youre worried about a higher risk of government tyranny if people cant have whatever guns they want?

This is the same gov that can't even pass a bloody federal budget for the last 1000+ days, but would plan a coordinated attack against it's own people, and it's soldiers would all be happy to execute that plan against their fellow citizens.

If that scenario falls under "realistic risks to plan for", and isn't a much lower priority than "reinforce roof to deflect possible meteor strike while I sleep", then shit, that must be an awfully paranoid existance. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic. Sorry, but I'd say anyone like that is already enslaved, albeit perhaps not in a physical way.

If I'm wrong, feel free to laugh at me when they cart me away to the camp cause I cant shoot back at them.

[MP0WER]

Complacency...... How easily the people forget.

Is it really that far fetched to think the government could turn on the populace, or a portion of it? Is it really that far fetched to think that this county, divided, could take up arms against each other?

It's not like this hasn't happened already and not that long ago either. And in today's climate, the topic that divided us seems elementary. It's funny how looking at issues that happened 160 years ago seem inconceivable simply because we can't imagine that issue coming about today. I wonder what the people 160 years ago would think about the possibly of the government taking their guns... They would probably be as dumbfounded as we are about them wanting slaves. I for one don't discount the possibility of history repeating itself.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without an armed populous, the government is free to gain absolute power. The fact that our citizens are armed is a HUGE deterrent to the government in regards to gaining absolute power. If you don't think it's a deterrent check these figures out:

Military Firearms (includes all branches of military and police) in the US: 3,940,000 guns
Civilian Firearms in the US: 270,000,000

It's often said that life imitates art... we have books and movies that are relevant to some of the things that are going on today. I'm sure there are other examples but a couple of them are Red Dawn and iRobot. The author of Red Dawn came out to say that the story was actually about the US government growing to large. The movie iRobot used logic to suspend the rights of humans in order to ensure their safety. Another proposing a different possibility is Patriots. Patriots is much less entertaining, but quite relevant as it describes the fall of America because of the devaluation of the dollar. Again, i don't think it's inconceivable to think that the government could get to a point where they think they know what's best for it's subjects.

I don't think these things will happen, but at the same time, i wouldn't be surprised if they did.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes, it would be as easy for them as it has already been in Canada or Australia or England for 200+ years now. Remember, as recently as 100 years ago, England effectively still "ran the world". They were the World Police, the USA of their time. The English people then certainly couldnt rely on the USA coming in to protect them, and yet their citizens didnt feel that the absence of such offshore protection created a need to be heavily armed themselves to deter tyranny.

For anyone who really feels that the only thing stopping the gov, your own fellow Americans, from being the next Hitler is the deterrent of you shooting them dead if they try, then man, I don't know what to say. You must have a much lower opinion of your own people than most other G8 citizens have of their own people. That's really depressing. You're ok with armed guards and lockdowns at schools, so it becomes much like a prison, because youre worried about a higher risk of government tyranny if people cant have whatever guns they want?

This is the same gov that can't even pass a bloody federal budget for the last 1000+ days, but would plan a coordinated attack against it's own people, and it's soldiers would all be happy to execute that plan against their fellow citizens.

If that scenario falls under "realistic risks to plan for", and isn't a much lower priority than "reinforce roof to deflect possible meteor strike while I sleep", then shit, that must be an awfully paranoid existance. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic. Sorry, but I'd say anyone like that is already enslaved, albeit perhaps not in a physical way.

If I'm wrong, feel free to laugh at me when they cart me away to the camp cause I cant shoot back at them.

I feel like you're comments are confined to absolutes. I'll be honest with you in saying that i'm not 100% sure how all the countries you keep referring to were formed but i'm going to take a guess and say that it wasn't out of revolution. This country was founded by a group of people who were some what shady and defiantly untrusting even of their peers. Even the 1st amendment was infringed upon while the ink was still wet on the constitution.

Our government was largely corrupted from early on. Not necessary corrupt by it's most current definition, but corrupted by power none the less. Our government isn't Canada's government nor is it Australia's government. Just because it hasn't happened in x amount of years there doesn't mean it can't and won't happen somewhere else.

As you've seen from my posts in other threads, i'm ok with reasonable legislation to help control criminal use of firearms. i'm not ok with punishing 99.994% of the population that hasn't broken the existing laws against murder because of the .0004% who do.

The other things which you call outlandish, i call possible. Plausible, probably not, but possible, yes. I'm not living in any kind of enslaved paranoia either. It would seem to me with your logic and openness to other possibilities you would concede the mere possibility of absolute power and control over the people by the government.

With it being just a mere possibility, appease me for a moment and tell me what would stop the government from assuming absolute power over the people if the people are not armed?

[MP0WER]

I feel like i should add that there seems to be a large misconception of the word "tyrannical" when used to describe the government. It seems that most people assume this means a government wanting to commit genocide, class extermination, random killings, etc.... While the word does encompass those things, it's more focused on the abuse of power by instituting laws and regulations that limit our pursuit of happiness. The abuse of power that can infringe upon our inalienable rights as not only Americans but as humans.

A genocidal government is very worst case scenario. Maybe what's easier to imagine is a government hell bent on taking your freedom to gainful employment, freedom to be an entrepreneur, freedom to become what ever it is you want to become or your freedom to pursue what ever it is that makes you happy.

When these things happen.....

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Y
If I'm wrong, feel free to laugh at me when they cart me away to the camp cause I cant shoot back at them.

By then it would be too late.

Ever heard of FDR's executive order 9066?

They carted people off 110,000 Americans to Manzanar prison camp for no other reason other than race. Yeah, that's what our government is capable of. This government which can't balance a budget, did build a concentration camp and methodically moved 110,000 people from the California coast into the middle of the desert.

This was on a small scale, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future on a larger scale given the right turmoil and circumstances. Tyranny relies on people like you to prosper.

[Nate4641]

One thing I think people are missing in the comparison between countries is culture, population and how the two clash. Other countries are fine with their restrictive gun laws because of their lower populations and less diverse cultures in their populations. Firearm ownership is a huge part of some American culture, but not all of it. America could easily become two very successful, separate, countries if people were tolerant to the idea of giving up land on one side or the other in order to live with people who share the same ideas. In many of these countries that have been referenced very few grew up with firearms the way many Americans have so it is understandable that they're opinions are going to differ. It is a useless comparison. Imagine if Germany was to do away with unrestricted speed limits on the autobahn. The German people would be outraged for understandable reasons to them, but the issue would seem stupid and pointless to the rest of the world who see speed limits as a normal every day part of life, and it keeps their kids safer.

The biggest problem I have with all these new restrictive gun laws is that it takes away from one of my favorite forms of recreation. I don’t care as much about prepping, or home defense, or being able to take down a bank robber or anything like that. I enjoy the challenge of making a small object go to a designated target area, much like how someone who enjoys golf enjoys the challenge of making a golf ball go into a little hole. If we don’t partake in both sports we both see each other’s hobbies as stupid, but unfortunately for the recreational shooter you don’t have people going on gold clubbing sprees so it is hard to make the comparison understandable to most.
What a lot of this boils down to is that Americans love to take away happiness from others if they don’t understand it. Just look at the debate over same sex marriage. Why is it anyone’s concern what a couple of gay people do? They aren’t causing any physical harm to anyone by getting married, but people who can’t figure out how to be less stubborn just can’t let them be happy. And yes, I do see the hypocrisy about mentioning physical harm in the debate.

I fully understand the concern of those that want to ban everything in order to keep their kids safe. This is an understandable fear and to them the most logical way to protect against gun violence is to take guns out of the hands of civilians*. It does make sense at a shallow thinking level, but it is a deeper issue than that and not that simple. A large percentage of responsible civilians enjoy owning firearms for a multitude of reasons. You have people like me who enjoy recreational shooting, hunters, people who want protection from criminals in their home, people who want protection from people outside of their home, people who fear the government might get out of control, people who fear of an invading military force, and a lot of people who make a living with guns.

With a lot of these proposed gun and accessory bans there will be a lot of people who will be out of a job. Not just gun store owners, but what about the professional shooting competitors? Yes you can say they can find something else to do to make a living, but they aren't living large like other professional athletes like football players or golfers. When you step outside of your current fandom point of view of these athletes (football and golf) you should be able to realize that they make way too much money compared to those that make real contributions to society like scientists, teachers, emergency responders. And unlike many professional athletes, professional shooting competitors usually have invested a lot of their own money into their passion to get to the level they are at. For example a friend of mine and a fellow Marine is working on getting into the National 3Gun circuit and some of his guns have cost him thousands of dollars to be competitive against sponsored competitors. Yes this is his choice, he could have picked a different hobby, but as an American he chose to pursue happiness through competitive shooting.


* I want to continue from the idea of taking guns from civilians. In California the only people who can legally buy 30rd AR15 magazines are law enforcement personnel. Even as an active duty Marine I could not walk into a local gun store and buy a 30rd magazine to take with me on a deployment to Afghanistan. This makes no fucking sense at all. I was going into one of the most hostile parts of Afghanistan at the time to a legitimate actual war as part of the uniformed military of this country and I could not buy a superior magazine design that is a proven improvement over the magazines that I wasn’t even issued because my unit ran out. However any police officer regardless of what they did in law enforcement could buy them. Who is more likely to use these magazines? Yet this isn’t even a concern of the politicians.
The same this with the rifles, in California the only people who can buy an AR15 style rifle is someone in law enforcement. Even as an active duty Marine, I am not allowed to purchase an AR15. For those that don’t know, those of us in the military cannot just go down the armory any time we like and take out our issued rifles to practice with. If there ever was an attack on US soil, thousands of people would die as those of us in the military are standing in line at the armory to draw weapons. I am trained more than most police officers on how to use these rifles, yet in the state of California, I am not allowed to legally own one myself. We are both entrusted with protecting the liberties of our country, but I am not allowed to own the same type of rifle.

Now with civilians who have never served in the military or law enforcement I get the arguments asking why does one NEED an AR15 “military style assault weapon”? And the answer is simple, they don’t. Nobody needs to own anything, firearm, car, scuba equipment, TV or anything, but they WANT to. That’s where the argument needs to be. The anti-gun people need to understand that it isn’t something someone needs to own, it’s that they want to own it. As a fundamental part of being Americans isn’t that our right? To have the freedom to own what we want so long as we don’t physically harm anyone? That is what is being targeted right now, our right to responsibly own what we want in the pursuit of happiness.

[Nate4641]

Also, I would like to thank MiddleAgedAl for contributing to the debate. You bring up a lot of good talking points. I wish there was a little more talk coming from the other side of the debate, otherwise we're all just arguing the same points. As long as the conversation is kept civilized and isn't turning into a shouting match and name calling, this is how we get things accomplished in a civilized modern society.

[Nkc]

So its perfectly cool to kill 7 people (with great aim) but not 10 people? What's the freak is the difference? I agree that its not the gun who kills people, its the person but sure makes it a whole lot easier and convenient to kill someone with a gun especially when that person is pissed. The right to bear arms? you americans have been pushing it for a long time on this matter.

[6MT M3]

I thought we had it bad in California... then I thought.. fuck... we're next... What if you have one of those revolvers that hold 8+ rounds? technically its a bunch of chambers and not a magazine.. I may be wrong...

[Templar]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

One thing I think people are missing in the comparison between countries is culture, population and how the two clash. Other countries are fine with their restrictive gun laws because of their lower populations and less diverse cultures in their populations. Firearm ownership is a huge part of some American culture, but not all of it. America could easily become two very successful, separate, countries if people were tolerant to the idea of giving up land on one side or the other in order to live with people who share the same ideas. In many of these countries that have been referenced very few grew up with firearms the way many Americans have so it is understandable that they're opinions are going to differ. It is a useless comparison. Imagine if Germany was to do away with unrestricted speed limits on the autobahn. The German people would be outraged for understandable reasons to them, but the issue would seem stupid and pointless to the rest of the world who see speed limits as a normal every day part of life, and it keeps their kids safer.

+1000. That's what I was getting at earlier.

I lived in Germany for four years. I didn't live on a military installation either (even though I was stationed there). I was allowed to live off-post in the middle of a German town. I had neighbors that were pretty good and nice and liked to talk to me, and some that couldn't care less that I was there and didn't want to talk to me. Talking to a handful of people from a couple of countries every now and then because of work is totally different from living there and seeing their culture first hand for four years. I'm not saying I am an expert on German culture and history, but I think I know a few things.

You are correct in saying that point is being completely missed, and it's not really a good comparison to make.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

One thing I think people are missing in the comparison between countries is culture, population and how the two clash. Other countries are fine with their restrictive gun laws because of their lower populations and less diverse cultures in their populations. Firearm ownership is a huge part of some American culture, but not all of it. America could easily become two very successful, separate, countries if people were tolerant to the idea of giving up land on one side or the other in order to live with people who share the same ideas. In many of these countries that have been referenced very few grew up with firearms the way many Americans have so it is understandable that they're opinions are going to differ. It is a useless comparison. Imagine if Germany was to do away with unrestricted speed limits on the autobahn. The German people would be outraged for understandable reasons to them, but the issue would seem stupid and pointless to the rest of the world who see speed limits as a normal every day part of life, and it keeps their kids safer.

The biggest problem I have with all these new restrictive gun laws is that it takes away from one of my favorite forms of recreation. I don’t care as much about prepping, or home defense, or being able to take down a bank robber or anything like that. I enjoy the challenge of making a small object go to a designated target area, much like how someone who enjoys golf enjoys the challenge of making a golf ball go into a little hole. If we don’t partake in both sports we both see each other’s hobbies as stupid, but unfortunately for the recreational shooter you don’t have people going on gold clubbing sprees so it is hard to make the comparison understandable to most.
What a lot of this boils down to is that Americans love to take away happiness from others if they don’t understand it. Just look at the debate over same sex marriage. Why is it anyone’s concern what a couple of gay people do? They aren’t causing any physical harm to anyone by getting married, but people who can’t figure out how to be less stubborn just can’t let them be happy. And yes, I do see the hypocrisy about mentioning physical harm in the debate.

I fully understand the concern of those that want to ban everything in order to keep their kids safe. This is an understandable fear and to them the most logical way to protect against gun violence is to take guns out of the hands of civilians*. It does make sense at a shallow thinking level, but it is a deeper issue than that and not that simple. A large percentage of responsible civilians enjoy owning firearms for a multitude of reasons. You have people like me who enjoy recreational shooting, hunters, people who want protection from criminals in their home, people who want protection from people outside of their home, people who fear the government might get out of control, people who fear of an invading military force, and a lot of people who make a living with guns.

With a lot of these proposed gun and accessory bans there will be a lot of people who will be out of a job. Not just gun store owners, but what about the professional shooting competitors? Yes you can say they can find something else to do to make a living, but they aren't living large like other professional athletes like football players or golfers. When you step outside of your current fandom point of view of these athletes (football and golf) you should be able to realize that they make way too much money compared to those that make real contributions to society like scientists, teachers, emergency responders. And unlike many professional athletes, professional shooting competitors usually have invested a lot of their own money into their passion to get to the level they are at. For example a friend of mine and a fellow Marine is working on getting into the National 3Gun circuit and some of his guns have cost him thousands of dollars to be competitive against sponsored competitors. Yes this is his choice, he could have picked a different hobby, but as an American he chose to pursue happiness through competitive shooting.


* I want to continue from the idea of taking guns from civilians. In California the only people who can legally buy 30rd AR15 magazines are law enforcement personnel. Even as an active duty Marine I could not walk into a local gun store and buy a 30rd magazine to take with me on a deployment to Afghanistan. This makes no fucking sense at all. I was going into one of the most hostile parts of Afghanistan at the time to a legitimate actual war as part of the uniformed military of this country and I could not buy a superior magazine design that is a proven improvement over the magazines that I wasn’t even issued because my unit ran out. However any police officer regardless of what they did in law enforcement could buy them. Who is more likely to use these magazines? Yet this isn’t even a concern of the politicians.
The same this with the rifles, in California the only people who can buy an AR15 style rifle is someone in law enforcement. Even as an active duty Marine, I am not allowed to purchase an AR15. For those that don’t know, those of us in the military cannot just go down the armory any time we like and take out our issued rifles to practice with. If there ever was an attack on US soil, thousands of people would die as those of us in the military are standing in line at the armory to draw weapons. I am trained more than most police officers on how to use these rifles, yet in the state of California, I am not allowed to legally own one myself. We are both entrusted with protecting the liberties of our country, but I am not allowed to own the same type of rifle.

Now with civilians who have never served in the military or law enforcement I get the arguments asking why does one NEED an AR15 “military style assault weapon”? And the answer is simple, they don’t. Nobody needs to own anything, firearm, car, scuba equipment, TV or anything, but they WANT to. That’s where the argument needs to be. The anti-gun people need to understand that it isn’t something someone needs to own, it’s that they want to own it. As a fundamental part of being Americans isn’t that our right? To have the freedom to own what we want so long as we don’t physically harm anyone? That is what is being targeted right now, our right to responsibly own what we want in the pursuit of happiness.

Well put.

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by 6MT M3

I thought we had it bad in California... then I thought.. fuck... we're next... What if you have one of those revolvers that hold 8+ rounds? technically its a bunch of chambers and not a magazine.. I may be wrong...

We are allowed to keep any 10rnd mags that we currently own. We may not load more than 7rnds in them however. In 90 days it will be now illegal to purchase 10rnd mags, they are now deemed "high-capacity".

This in effect is a back door way to stop semi auto pistols in the state. Most of them are all 10rnd mags with the exception on certain 1911's and sub-compacts.

Any pre-1994 made 30rnd AR mags (have always been legal) are now illegal and must be disposed of.

AR-15's and any rifle with 1 evil feature and now illegal to purchase.

All currently owned "AW" must be registered (no registration system created yet) and can only be sold out of state, kept by the original owner, or destroyed.

NICS check on all ammo sales.

NICS check on private sales.

Online ammo sales banned.

CCW licenses must be "re-certified" ever 5 years. (no details on this one yet)

[Templar]

Another question to explore:

How much money will states and government lose in tax revenue for banning the sales of certain guns and ammo? If you think that people just won't do it illegally now because it's banned, think again. All those illegal sales that will start to happen will be done, of course, tax free and at a high price.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by Templar

Another question to explore:

How much money will states and government lose in tax revenue for banning the sales of certain guns and ammo? If you think that people just won't do it illegally now because it's banned, think again. All those illegal sales that will start to happen will be done, of course, tax free and at a high price.

I'd think the loss of tax revenue by banning certain guns and ammo is miniscule.