Two-thirds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Grey Templar wrote:
Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.

New York doesn't have very high crime, per capita.

**Bonecrusher 6**

There are no mandatory gun safety classes, but they are advertised, along with local concealed carry certification instructors usually.

Until recently, meaning within the last 20 years or so, that sort of thing was handled by parents. They would teach their children the proper way to behave around guns, how to use them, and when. More importantly, they would teach them when not to use them. Of course, within the last 20 years, this nation has lost its independent mindedness and become more and more like sheeple.

**Grey Templar**

O'no. He said the word

Anyway, gun safety classes are widely avaliable and affordable. If you are buying a gun you be able to attend one. Those dumb enough not to a playing with natural selection. never a bad thing.

**Kovnik Obama**

A part of me want things to escalate, just to see how much ''dead finger prying'' will actually take place.

The other part also want things to go 'boom', just because, hey, it's not my country going boom.

**Ahtman**

A push poll from Fox News about guns? I am shocked, and must go retrieve my monocle, which is now on the floor somewhere.

**gunslingerpro**

It would be safe to say that a 'finger prying' scenario would end poorly for millions of americans, as well as brave law enforcement officials just doing their jobs.

This entire issue is misplaced hostility.

**AlexHolker**

I'd support gun safety classes being mandatory in schools, so that every American above the age of twelve would already know enough to not accidentally shoot anyone. The problem with making them mandatory to own a gun is that a lightbulb goes off above the head of every anti-gun politician, and they realise that they can just make it impossible to take the class.

**whembly**

Hordini wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.

Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!

Michael Bloomberg... is that you?

**Buzzsaw**

Ouze wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.

New York doesn't have very high crime, per capita.

Very true. It's also worth pointing out that the New York Police Department is the size of some nations' military. 40,000 Uniformed officers and a budget of $3.9 billion is... a heck of a police department! Larger, indeed, then the military of places such as: Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Norway, etc, etc...

Commander Cain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

....

Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16

Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!

I will direct you here.

More directly on the topic, there are a number of interesting articles by a fellow named Bob Owens, very interesting reading. Some posts in particular;
-What you'll see in the rebellion
-What you'll see in the rebellion: A nation of Sarajevos

Ultimately, the issue is a true cultural divide. Consider the following image;

Whether that image causes one to nod their head, or shake it, depends very much on where you stand.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime.

Very high relative to what cities?

**Grey Templar**

According to Cityrating.com, Chicago has over twice the National Average for violent crime, which is an improvement over the previous 10 years. http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/illinois/chicago.html

The Wiki page says that in 2002, Chicago had a significantly higher murder rate than both New York and LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

**Hordini**

whembly wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.

Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!

Michael Bloomberg... is that you?

Buzzsaw wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.

New York doesn't have very high crime, per capita.

Very true. It's also worth pointing out that the New York Police Department is the size of some nations' military. 40,000 Uniformed officers and a budget of $3.9 billion is... a heck of a police department! Larger, indeed, then the military of places such as: Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Norway, etc, etc...

Not sure about the others, but Austria's Bundesheer has more than 40,000 soldiers on active duty. Still though, I had no idea the NYPD was so big, and comparing it to Austria and other countries' militaries definitely puts it into perspective.

**Grey Templar**

Yup, its the largest PD in the worlds. Unless you count the army of North Korea. Ooops, there I've triggered the watch list.

**whembly**

Not sure where to stick this since we have various threads, but I thought this is interesting:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/veteran-stands-up-for-2nd-amendment-at-chicago-anti-gun-forum/

After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns “forum” Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments.

The forum, despite having been marketed by the organizers from the New Trier Democrats as a “space for real conversation,” had until then allowed for anything but discussion.

Countless snide remarks and dubious facts were placed on powerpoint slides as the audience, largely filled with NRA supporters, were repeatedly “shushed” and told to write any questions down for a later Q&A.

Still, as time went on, and especially after speaker Bill Jenkins placed a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” and after he had put a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is” up, the crowd had nearly had it.

Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying “it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],” it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up:

The exchange:

Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s f***ing them. We need to stop this crap.

Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.

And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.

Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.

Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….

Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”

Audience: NO!

Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!

**Kovnik Obama**

The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.

See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.

**rubiksnoob**

Acts of drunkenness caused by easy access to 40 ounce "assault beers" have spiraled out of control.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
I don't own any genetically modified potatoes that scream if you try to peel them... but if the government banned them, I'd keep them, and to hell with you, Mr. Big Government. Because even if those potatoes were totally annoying, and they screamed all the time for, like, no reason in addition to when you try to peel them, you're not my dad, Mr. Government Man. I'm not going to listen to you because next thing I know you're going to say you need to go get a pack of smokes, and then you'll walk out into the rain and never, ever return.

This is simply the greatest thing I've ever read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:
The already restrictive gun laws in New York have been made even more restrictive recently. Gun owners there will have to give up their ten-round magazines and switch to seven-round magazines (how they're going to do that I'm not sure, since I'm sure there are plenty of guns for which seven-round magazines don't even exist currently). They have to get rid of property they bought legally, property which is legal in most other states. There are senators supporting an assault weapons ban that is even stricter than the last one. There certainly are politicians who would take away people's guns if they could.

Will the assault weapons ban be successful? Most likely not, thanks to the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean the debate is ridiculous, because people in power are talking about banning a wide variety of popular firearms.

Those points you made there, about the switch to seven round magazines that were purchased honesly as legal items... that's a real, substantial point. A sensible claim to be made in this debate.

Now compare that with people saying that they'll totally defy the gun weapon ban... that isn't happening. That is a stupid point, made by people who aren't necessarily stupid, but who have made a very stupid claim because they'd rather play imaginary defy the federal government games than sensibly talk about a political issue.

**whembly**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.

See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.

Would you consider the times during WW2 "modern"?

What about the 1990s? Is that modern enough? (hint... Bosnian War)

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Try it. We're not Australia. Many would start a guerrilla war at that point. And no I am not joking.

Which is totally relevant to the America in which guns are being banned. But it's got feth all to do with the reality on this Earth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bonecrusher 6 wrote:
There are no mandatory gun safety classes, but they are advertised, along with local concealed carry certification instructors usually.

Until recently, meaning within the last 20 years or so, that sort of thing was handled by parents. They would teach their children the proper way to behave around guns, how to use them, and when. More importantly, they would teach them when not to use them. Of course, within the last 20 years, this nation has lost its independent mindedness and become more and more like sheeple.

Exactly what happened in 1992 to begin this horrible rise of the sheeple? Was it the Simpsons? The death of hair metal?

**Kovnik Obama**

whembly wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.

See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.

Would you consider the times during WW2 "modern"?

What about the 1990s? Is that modern enough? (hint... Bosnian War)

Saying that something is much less likely to happen today doesn't mean that it cannot happens, just that there won't be as many instances as there were before. Something which, even if you were to include other cases of tyranny (Franco, Caucescu, Castro, etc), I think would remain true.

And the point was to balance the absolutely baseless affirmation with an equally baseless affirmation to it's contrary.

**Buzzsaw**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.

See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.

Would you consider the times during WW2 "modern"?

What about the 1990s? Is that modern enough? (hint... Bosnian War)

Saying that something is much less likely to happen today doesn't mean that it cannot happens, just that there won't be as many instances as there were before. Something which, even if you were to include other cases of tyranny (Franco, Caucescu, Castro, etc), I think would remain true.

And the point was to balance the absolutely baseless affirmation with an equally baseless affirmation to it's contrary.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.

Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.

**Ahtman**

Ultimately, the issue is a true cultural divide.

Well, if anything, ultimately, is that people want to sell it as a cultural divide with two, overly simplistic sides, when that isn't the case at all.

**Kovnik Obama**

Buzzsaw wrote:
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.

Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.

Re-read my posts.
Then re-read your post.
Then realise that you are making exactly the same type of baseless affirmations that I was denouncing.

**Buzzsaw**

Ahtman wrote:
Ultimately, the issue is a true cultural divide.

Well, if anything, ultimately, is that people want to sell it as a cultural divide with two, overly simplistic sides, when that isn't the case at all.

Not to be persnickety, but when one side: a) views self-defense through arms as a moral imperative, and believes that fundamentally the second amendment exists to be a check on government power (that is to say, that it exists to facilitate armed insurrection), and

b) the other side believes that "guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them",that second amendment supporters "live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things".

It seems, as former President Clinton observes, there "our side" and “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” well, it's a little hard not to see the yawning chasm between the two positions.

Unless you were being exceptionally specific, and quibbling that there are many derivations on the overarching positions with many permutations thereof. Which is correct... but rather goes without saying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Buzzsaw wrote:
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.

Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.

Re-read my posts.
Then re-read your post.
Then realise that you are making exactly the same type of baseless affirmations that I was denouncing.

At the risk of a very long aside, I do have actual reasons for my position (hence it being my position); don't you?

**Ahtman**

Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be persnickety, but when one side: a) views self-defense through arms as a moral imperative

Unfettered access to any and all weapons is not the same thing as self defense, and no one is arguing that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

Buzzsaw wrote:
and believes that fundamentally the second amendment exists to be a check on government power (that is to say, that it exists to facilitate armed insurrection)

Which is debatable, and also relies on degrees that having a binary outlook doesn't allow.

Buzzsaw wrote:
the other side believes that

Again, lumping a complex, multifaceted debate down to just 'us and them', which shows a lack of understanding of the myriad of positions on both sides. It isn't freedom loving, tyrant hating, gun lovers versus tyrannical, liberal gun haters. It is like when people think Republicans are ultra-right wing and Democrats are ultra-left wing, when really they aren't that far away from each other. It is all propaganda to push people to vote one way or the other, and this is no different. There are all sorts of people who like guns, hate tyranny, and are for some common sense regulation. You don;t have to be one extreme or the other, and you really don't have to start letting commercials and pamphlets tell you that is the reality of it.

**Buzzsaw**

Ahtman wrote:
...

So "you were being exceptionally specific, and quibbling that there are many derivations on the overarching positions with many permutations thereof. Which is correct... but rather goes without saying" then, eh?

Good to know.

**Kovnik Obama**

Buzzsaw wrote:

At the risk of a very long aside, I do have actual reasons for my position (hence it being my position); don't you?

No, I don't, because it's not my position. I'm a big fan of reverse doggy, you know, let her do the work and all that.

**Kaldor**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.

Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

It's a big task, but it doesn't seem very American to just say "Too hard, not going to bother".

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
According to Cityrating.com, Chicago has over twice the National Average for violent crime, which is an improvement over the previous 10 years. http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/illinois/chicago.html

I didn't ask about national averages, I asked about cities.

Grey Templar wrote:

The Wiki page says that in 2002, Chicago had a significantly higher murder rate than both New York and LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

Two cities with severe gun restrictions.

**Grey Templar**

Kaldor wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.

Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

It's a big task, but it doesn't seem very American to just say "Too hard, not going to bother".

"Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".

There we go, thats fixed it.

I might have a little more respect for the anti-gun people if their proposed legislation actually targeted problem weapons.

Also if people realized the second amendment was not so people could hunt, it was so people could resist the government with force.

When we take that purpose into consideration, we see that military grade weaponry is exactly what the second amendment intended for the citizens to have.

Of course the writers never would have envisioned a time when there would be a distinction between civilian and military weapons. A gun was a gun. A hunting rifle at the time wasn't all that different from what the army would be issued with, and often they were the same.

The only real difference between a military and civilian gun was a military one might have a bayonet lug.

I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.