-91 votes

What's wrong with a little gun control?

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Force... and taxes.

"But how does the government get the weapons while the individual cannot?


And YOUR taxes. And mine. That's how they solved the problem of paying their bills for that, too:


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Phxarcher87's picture

our taxes

are jack squat compared to what they can finance out of a printing

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Cyril's picture

I know, I know.

I know, I know.

Still, taxation is another disgusting facet of gov't force's perversion I wanted to point out.

Gun/arm control proponents vastly forget that those who care about their right to bear arms get their weapons with THEIR OWN money (when they can even afford so...)

While the same government and lobbyists who want to deny the latter get theirs -and much more- ALSO from the STOLEN PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED MONEY (even if not the main fund source, granted).

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

My point exactly.

Taxes ARE force.

Cyril's picture

Yes. Force put in use to enable... some more force. FOR THEM.


Force put in use to enable... some more force. FOR THEM.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture




"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius



Don't know.

Perhaps if we can't have nuclear weapons then neither should the government?

I thought you made some good points.

Free includes debt-free!

We already have more than a little gun control

The problem is.. there is no such things as a little when you combine my rights, government and socialists.

We have ENOUGH gun control.

If you want to see what real gun control is, check out my steady aim.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

It is important to realize...

Nukes are not just an implement of force, they are a product of it.

Without the forceful intrusion of government it is unlikely that nukes would exist.

[W]hen the resolution of

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

George Mason

What's wrong with a little gun control you ask...

Could it be this?

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?...

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Nukes? No.

However, I support the right of the people to possess the following, particularly in organized fashion, especially in a state militia:

*Jet fighters
*Surface-to-air missiles
*Armed ships
Automatic weapons
Fifties, twenty, thirty, and forty millimeter

* At the very least, the states should maintain volunteer militia forces equipped with these, as well as a professional navy and air force. Commercial ships such as tankers, etc. should be able to arm themselves with proper weaponry, including but not limited to naval cannons, Gatling guns and other stationary automatics, and missile systems.

My understanding is that flamethrowers are currently legal in all fifty states, which is why I didn't list them.

I gotta say, living on the logical extreme of my views is VERY enjoyable. It freaks people out, and they can't make them more extreme than they already are. :D

What about from an economic standpoint...

If you agree that war and war machines aren't good for the economy than let me ask you this.

If every state had it's own professional army, how would that effect our economy as a whole? We would be sinking more and more resources into weapons of war. We'd have an internal arms race happening in our own country. That's more and more government and more and more lost resources. When does it end? Does it ever end? I, for one, hate weapons; but I know that, as of right now, they are required for security. I would much rather see a world with weapons decreasing than increasing. Can we ever get to a point where killing each other is unnecessary?

Did I say

"professional army?" Nope. I don't believe in a professional army. I clearly specified navy/air force, and even then, I simply noted that that is the least we could do to counter-balance Federal power. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no "internal arms race," they simply maintained their own protective forces.

And no, there is literally no way to EVER be free of the necessity of weapons, and lots of them. Since Cain murdered Abel, humans have always realized that a liberal use of violence allows one to achieve ends much more effeciently. Other humans promptly realized that the only way to prevent this was to threaten, and if need be, practice self-defense with violence.

It's human nature, at least on this Earth. Sure, one day the lion will lie down with the lamb and everything, but right now the only way to defend against those who live by the sword is to threaten them with death by the sword.

Personally, I love weapons, despite not being a soldier or gunsmith. There's a sort of art to them, from the simple beauty of the bow and arrow, to the elegance of the 18th-century musket, to the ugly yet effecient utilitarianism of the AK-47. The M1 Garand is in a class of beauty all its own. The weapon, be it a bow, knife, spear, sword, gun, or what-have-you is a physical representation of humanity's greatest advantage against mere animals, and historically they have also been the mark of two things: the soldier and the free man.

It always starts...

as a little bit, but once you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Why are there so many people on this site now that have so much faith in government?


Why? Because they are government paid trolls !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is their job to be here and support their masters.It is there job to try to divide us with their asinine posts and comments. They are corrupt cowards that can't make an honest living so they work for the government as "propaganda specialist" or "agent provocateurs". Does that answer your question?


About laws... You reference

About laws...

You reference making new laws, obviously laws that we are supposed to obey.

How about the highest/supreme law of our land? The Constitution is the law by which all other laws must comply. All politicians, judges, members of the military and others swear oaths to obey it.

Any new laws, no matter how well intentioned, must be in compliance with our Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be in fringed."

Tell me, how does the government infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time not violate their oaths to our Constitution? Being that the Constitution is LAW, these politicians are breaking the law in order to create other unconstitutional laws. Keep in mind that the Constitution supersedes all other laws which must be in compliance with it.

And lastly... these laws are not meant to keep the criminals in check. They are meant to keep YOU in check. Politicians know that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.


And the doubters will always

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated".

The definition of "regulate" back when the Constitution was written is not what you believe it to be. Your use implies that you believe it meant to limit via legislation. In fact, the definition back then was the exact opposite. Just as Metamucil helps to keep your body regular, the term to regulate meant to make regular.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has discussed this issue several times in the past few years in regards to the meaning of the phrase "to regulate" when the founders wrote the commerce clause. It's the same thing with its use in the 2nd amendment.


jrd3820's picture

How you holding up OP?

Did you get your answers?

Shake it off, it will be ok lol

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

Firearm Owners Protection Act. ???

Did it protect the right to bear arms? Of course not.

What firearm owners were being protected?

Typical Reagan double talk. That and his War on Drugs.

Apparently the Constitution has been overthrown, bit by bit

At least the Gun Control Act of 1968 didn't deny their diregard for the Constitution.

Cars are deadly, can be used as weapons. By your argument no on needs one. Buses and bicycles are good enough for slaves.

Free includes debt-free!

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". - BG

This is the same argument Chris wallace made when he asked Ron Paul: "Are you saying that heroin and prostitution are an exercise in liberty?". It's a valid argument, but libertarians have the burden of defending liberty across the board in order to preserve it for everyone.

"Where liberty is, there is my country." -Benjamin Franklin

Protect the innocent, punish the guilty!

Gun control arguments like the above are deeply flawed because vast majority of non criminal and non murderer gun owners are being punished through deprivation of the use and enjoyment of their property because of the evil of a few monsters.

How would any advocate of gun control like it if they were to be lose the legal use of their automobiles because bank robbers and kidnappers find these devices useful in the commission of their crimes?

There is also a NEGATIVE correlation between violent crime and widespread civilian gun ownership; would advocates of gun control like yourself enjoy being held as co-defendents in e.g. a rape, burglary/home invasion, or armed robbery trial because the criminal(s) would have been deterred from committing the crime if YOUR gun control hadn't given him, or them, access to disarmed victims? Your gun control facilitated the commission of their violent crimes as much as the automobile in the above example did.

The sheer unfairness of what you propose ought to give you pause, goldstock! Crime control that punishes the (vast majority of) innocent to stop the guilty is no answer. Find something better.


"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

I think you are the majority

who thought there is nothing wrong with 1% tax, then 2% tax, then 15% tax on the rich, then 50% tax on the rich, then 90% tax on the super rich.

The logic was like that: "I do not earn that much and I do not own AK-47, so I have no problem." Good people of Germany thought in the same way in 1930's: "I am not a communist, I am not a gypsy, I am not a Jew, I am not a capitalist - Hitler may be brutal, but he has a good goal in heart."

Few examples on a practical note

1. Assume we have a free society. And you inherited land in a close knit community who does not approve your plans for using your land that otherwise complies with all local laws. Would you feel safe with a simple pistol?

2. Assume you are a woman whose husband threatened to kill you. While a judge put a restraining order, the husband disappeared and made threatening phone calls. Would you feel safe to wait 15 days to buy a gun?

The other members did a

The other members did a really good job in pointing out the fallacies in your argument but there is one point that I want to bring up.

The main military weapon at that time was the musket but during that time many of the militia/civilians had longrifles. These personally owned weapons were far more technologically advanced than the soldiers musket. So the second amendment was written at a time when some of the population already possessed superior firepower. Many anti-2a arguments are right, Jefferson never envisioned the M4 Carbine but to think that he would want to limit the ownership of such a tool to the government is ridiculous.

meekandmild's picture

Every gun owner needs some gun control

that would be:
sight picture
sight alignment
trigger squeeze
that's gun control

Let me respond, point by point.

1) If you do not believe "anybody is trying to take away your right to protect your life," you are sadly deluded. Over just the last 10 years, the government has assaulted us with The Patriot Act, The TSA, the Military Commissions Act, FISA and the NDAA. None of those are necessary for our security. Secondly, in the 1970s a court judge in Michigan ruled a defendant, who awoke to find himself facing an assailant with a knife, used "excessive force," when the defendant used his firearm, "rather than knocking the knife out of the assailant's hand with an ashtray or something(1)."

2)As far as "letting everyone have nuclear capability," let me take you literally, as that is the most extreme case. The Soviet "suitcase nukes" weigh about 60 pounds, produce a approximately 10 kiloton blast, and are, allegedly, readily available on the Black Market. In other words, anyone who could afford to buy one already has one, as there are supposed to be enough to use in every targeted city in the world. If that weren't enough, the nuclear warhead for the U.S. Army's "Davy Crocket" recoilless rifle, weighs 56 pounds, has roughly the same yield and were produced by the thousands for the US Army. Knowing the army, I doubt they can account for all of them.

On the other hand, a fuel-air bomb has the same yield and can be made with components purchased at WalMart.All you need is the knowledge and skills.

Likewise, a simple bazooka can be constructed from a piece of metal pipe. So, so much for the "Do you believe people should be able to buy a bazooka?" argument.

3) As far as my article "going off the rails" because a few shady people are in favor of gun control, are you out of your "Vulcan" mind? Two of those "shady people" as addressed, "Mr. President" and the third came close to being so. Not to mention, the cities with the most organized crime have the strictest gun control. I question the MOTIVES of the biggest advocates of "gun control". Senator Chucky Schumer, who laughed off testimony of government atrocities during the Waco Hearings is one of the nation's leading advocates for gun control. I have never heard or spoken with a supporter of gun control who wasn't a control freak, a criminal or a fool and I have listened to the gun control debate since the JFK assassination.

I know what you are and I will tell you what you want to hear

I'm sorry but you are wrong, on all accounts here.

Ill focus on what you want and need to try and make us gun toten hillbillies sound insane.

Yes, we should have nukes and fully loaded F16s. The war of secession from Britain started because your fellow RedCoats wanted 2 things. To arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and to steal heavy artillery from Concord to be used against Boston.

What you fail to realize, is that no matter how many times you hear it, you will never understand that WE are the good guys. We would never use a nuke and would most likely only be holding it, so that it couldn't be used against us.

You need to go learn your History before you start suggesting we shouldn't own Rockets. Most Heavy weapons that were used in the 1500-1700's were owned by businessmen who wanted to protect their towns and businesses from being ransacked. NOT by a government that promised protection.

As for well regulated, you need to research your History again. "Regulated" in the 1700's meant "To be made regular" and "Militia" according to George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment says "The militia is the people," it is NOT a military raised by the government, it is EVERYONE, whether they want to be a part of it or not, they ARE the militia.


If they sucessfully can rewrite the 2nd Amendment THROUGH politics to nullify it, whos to say, the 1st Amendment isnt next? Soon you will not be saying anything that sounds "politically incorrect" or you will be hauled off, never to be seen again. Oh but its for the good of the community, we cant have bad emotions interfering with peoples daily lives.