killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
You're missing the bigger picture. Take a Chicago gun ban, or even an Illinois-wide gun ban for someone from Chicago. It would be easy to drive over to Gary Indiana and pick something up. Now take that gun ban and make it national, and you're going to have to find a black market or something. This might be easier for organized crime rings, of course, but it's going to be nigh impossible for someone who just wants to rob someone for oxycontin money, especially if the contraband guns are as expensive as illegal drugs because of the embargo.
The arguments about gun control are flawed because there are people in this country determined to make gun control not work.
|
a national gun ban wouldnt work because we have hundreds of millions a guns in this country, it would be impossible to get rid of all of them. criminals would still have them they would still be sold illegally. so as thomas jefferson said, a gun ban would only disarm the innocent, and empower the criminal making it easier for them to do crime.
and even if we somehow erradicated guns from civilians, that doesnt erradicate crime. so until you can do that, i want to defend myself. guns are the great equalizer.
furthermore a gun ban would still leave guns in the hands of the government, what i fear most, and the whole point of the 2nd ammendment. that empowers our ever increasing government to become even more of a totalitarian statist dictatorship.
|
You don't need guns to stop the government. The Soviets didn't need them. Hell, guns were what got them the Soviet Union in the first place, because the majority of Russians sure as hell didn't want Communism, but the Bolsheviks were well-armed and better-organized than the gun-toting Whites. Guns got them Communism, peaceful protest got them freedom. Generally countries that win their freedom with guns don't end up being very nice places afterwards (the US being an exception, largely because our "Revolution" was executed by democratically-elected officials at the colonial level fighting higher-level British institutions), but you can look at Eritrea, Algeria, pretty much all of Latin America, or former Portuguese Africa or Indonesia.
It would be easy to impose: a no-questions-asked grace period where anyone can turn in a firearm for destruction, preserve hunting so long as the guns are kept locked up when not being used for hunting, and allowances for antiques and collectables. After that, any gun that's found is a $25,000 fine (or 1 year in jail for every thousand dollars that you can't afford to pay on the fine), plus $100 per round of ammunition.
|
you are crazy. you shock me by how much of a statist you are, the more and more i hear from you.
and you pretty much proved my point that guns gave them communism, its quite easy to do with an unarmed populice. and the soviet union was hardly brought down by peaceful protest, you shoul brush up on ur history. and seeing that the nazi's came to power, banned guns, leaving the populice defenseless, and then the nazis were brought to their knees because of lots and lots of guns (war) it prove my point further.
and seeing as the arre millions of illegal gun in the US, and millions more a prefectly legal and which the goverment has no way of knowing if you own them, you sytem is terribly flawed and scary.
for you to know, the government has no idea how many and which guns i own, and all of them are legally in my possesion. so good luck having them tracking them and taking them from me.
|
Of course the Soviet Union was brought down by peaceful protest. The critical moment was during the attempted coup of August 1991, where the hardliners of the politburo attempted to bring the military to bear against the citizens who came out against the coup. The military refused to do so, and everything dissolved
And everyone had guns during the Russian Revolution, that's why that whole history is so complex: you had the Reds and the Whites, but they were just the tip of the iceberg. You also had the Blacks, the Blues, and the Greens representing the peasant masses. It wasn't for lack of arms among the masses that Communism came to be, but becasue the one group that was best at wielding them triumphed.
The Nazis would have likely subdued any attempt at armed revolt, if you're implying that Jewish gun possession could have averted the Holocaust, it simply would have happened quicker, with the armed Jews getting gunned down instead of being sent off to be gassed. The triumph of the Nazis would have gone one way or another. The only thing gun ownership will achieve vis-a-vis government power is a bloodbath, whereas most of the subtantive democratic reforms around the world in the past thirty years have been largely peaceful.
And I thought gun ownership had to be licensed? At least in my state it does, because my grandfather was discussing transferring ownership on a few hunting rifles he has that are licensed to his brother who has been dead for twenty years
