Should Guns be Banned in the US?

if guns are banned, how are suppoesed to fight against our government,? oneday its going to have to happen, right? i mean enough is enough with the govt!!!!

 

your government wants you to buy things

stop buying things and you are fighting against them

[nobody move, nobody get hurt]

 

zia

Here is a short version –

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

 

Even if guns where to be banned, the country would go into a national protest, which would not be good on any grounds. Could you imagine if the President announced to the nation that all guns are going to be confiscated if registered. The people would shoot back any military person who tried. Honestly would you hand over your protection to your own corrupt leaders?

Banning guns will not happen in the current US. When Mexico, Canada and the US become the North American Union, which will happen sometime or another, that is when we should fear the guns being banned. This is because the US constitution will become obsolete as will Mexico's and Canada's. Once new laws, and a currency are written, I bet you gun ownership will become illegal.

Honestly anyone who wants guns banned, or doesn't allow them on their property is a fool. Look at the world you live in, if the "should not happen" happens, how else can you protect yourselves. A crowbar, baseball bat, your fists? Thats all wonderful and dandy but it wont do shit against the government who still funds money to make weapons more powerful.

People who don't want guns are sheep.

 

in a world that is ruled by divide and conquer, might it not be better if we all were sheep?

if the sheep are united then we'll never be divided

 

I don't want to be a sheep going against the herder who has a pitchfork and axe.

 

because we are divided, you will be going alone

your gun will not matter much in the long run . . .

 

Naa I wont be alone. I fight the same fight as everyone else.

I just went over to my friends house the other day and he brought a brand new unregistered .45. He is on your side as well, and would fight for you.

 

no, he is not on my side, and i don't want anyone to fight for me

[sorry]

 

Even if they are banned, the will still be made, sold, and reused. Its the world you live in, and regardless of what new law is enforced about guns, they will still exist.

 

that's called positive thinking

 

I try to think positive.

 

Shit don't happen when people are divided, that's a good thing.

 

you beat me to this post. Maybe we could ban guns if we had trained super ninjas to arrest the people who broke the gun law

 

we live in a violent culture

to use violence is not a revolution, it is merely an imitation

 

Broony

Here is a short version –

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217


*

The thing is that many people who are pro-gun also lean to the right politically and are therefore not seen as a threat by many if not most of the political establishment but rather as an ally.

When some tea party extremist talks about being a gun owner and being willing to stop America going socialist it doesn’t have this establishment worried, it has them smiling.


If they remain allies I think the US establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies things would be different, imagine if the demographic of gun owners changed and started to go from right wingers to left wingers, from people who claim they would use their guns to stop socialism to people that claimed they would use their guns to spread socialism. I think that long before that change came about there would be a scramble by the right leaning establishment to bring in gun control at state and federal levels.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.

Because once the system - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure (see Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217)
.

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

*

Actually the best defence against tyranny is a balanced political system and the best hope of bring one down is an army that isn’t willing to open fire on its own people.

 

Ohsodreadful

The argument that gun control would mean ‘only the outlaws would have them’ seems more like a slogan than a thought through argument it instantly begs the question why are the guns in the hands of the ‘outlaws’ and what was being done to get them out of the hands of the ‘outlaws’? Too often it seems to me many pro-gunners are more interested in allowing easier access to guns (for themselves and so also the ‘outlaws’) than in trying to get them out of the hands of criminals.

I mean according to the FBI most guns in criminal hands in the US were once purchased legally, in the US, and either passed on to criminals or stolen by them.

Also just throwing up your arms and saying any gun control measures would mean ‘only outlaws would have guns’ seems a bit of a copout.

I mean is that it - nothing can be done, hell it shouldn’t even be attempted, there is just no point in even trying to get guns out of the hands of criminals

Which seems to imply that since there isn’t an alternative the only way to protect yourself from that pistol totting crack addicted gangbanger that at any moment could break through your door and rape your wife and child before putting a bullet in your head is to get yourself a gun, no get two or maybe three…..

And that’s what I’m pointing out - some people in the US seem to see guns as the answer and ignore the possibility of alternatives?

 

Police agencies spend tens of millions of dollars each year around the country trying to get illegal guns off the street, look how well that's looking. That's why people say only criminals would have guns. It's like trying to weed your garden, if your garden was the size of the state of Ohio, you can't stay ahead of it.

Some people seem to see guns as the problem and ignore the real catalysts of the violent crime issue and just focus on the means.

 

Tricky question, I say no though.

Guns are vital to how a democracy works. Along the lines of "You take away my rights, I keeeeel you". Unfortunately, having the right to own guns means we have to deal with crazy people and the atrocities they commit.

Back when the Columbine shootings happened the NRA was quick to go to the area and throw a rally. When I first heard this, I was all "Man what dicks" but then I listened to Charlton Heston's speech and then was all "Man, I'm a dick!" I highly suggest that anyone who is interested in this topic read it. It almost brought a tear to my eye and I'm a bleeding liberal at heart.

Now, I'm not really a conspiracy theorist. However, I do think the government hates your guts and wants to take away all your rights (Cheaper when it comes down to it). If all of their citizens are armed to the teeth and seriously wants to blow away someone trying to fuck with their rights, they probably won't try.

 

Mad

As I say this is the mentality I’m talking about – police can’t get the guns out of criminal’s hands so that’s it - nothing else can be done – and so the only thing to do it have your own gun.
But while the police can take a gun off a criminal, why is that person a criminal and how come they have a gun?
Again it is a mentality that looks at symptoms rather than causes.
If you have a disease that is producing adverse symptoms, it is very likely the symptoms are going to continue and be hard, if not impossible, to keep in check, if the disease is never tackled.

But look at your reply above it isn’t about tackling causes but all about dealing with the symptoms.

Look at the replies of many pro-gunners and it’s the same. People who’s answer to crime is suppression and threat and who’s answer to a bad political system is to mumble dark threats and wave their guns in the air while actually backing it up.

And before someone shouts back asking me to say what the causes of the symptoms are I’d just like to point out that the very fact you’d ask me was indicative of the very mentality I’ve been trying to explain.