Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I was waiting for someone to chime in on this..It does not matter what the gun is. If a psycho wants to kill a bunch of people they will find a way weather its a gun, knife, vehicle, bomb, poison/chemical, fire, whatever.
I am not going to debate gun control but we all know it wont keep the criminals from getting them or finding even more destructive ways to carry out there sick killing schemes
The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?
You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.
Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.
We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.
This is your logic.
We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.
TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?
TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?
You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.
Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.
We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.
This is your logic.
We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.
TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?
So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.
If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?
The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.
The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.
You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?
So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.
If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?
The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.
The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.
You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?
"So what body count is the right number? "
I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.
Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars. I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life. If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.
I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.
THERE . . . IS . . . NO . . . CORRECT . . . MAGIC . . . NUMBER!!!!! All numbers eventually lead to ONE! You cannot have a sensible conversation about the humane number of deaths as the correct number. This is not a discussion about old-fashioned military operations where you throw superior numbers of troops at the enemy to overpower them with the expectant number of acceptable losses on your side. The victims of mass murders which are the subject of this conversation are not draftees or volunteers who expect to fight and possibly die. They are not even armed. Every death . . . every single death is A SINGLE sorrow to be mourned. If you begin to discuss how many must be killed before "we do something" the number will EVENTUALLY be whittled down to ONE. If you wish to ban certain guns because they are used to kill innocent people, ONE is the proper number. And since all guns can be used to quickly kill a single person, ALL guns would must then be banned. That is the logical conclusion if the discussion is about numbers.
Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars.
No, you can't save lives by banning anything we produce. The only thing that can save lives is banning death. Every minute you exist may be your last. And, unless you commit suicide, you don't know when, or how, you will die. Just about anything, including the food you eat, can kill you. What we try to do, I think, in a civil society, is to freely cooperate with one another so that we may individually pursue what we consider our happiness, and part of that cooperation is to refrain from willfully killing each other. We institute laws that punish crimes against each other. One murder is as punishable as 100 and no less an offense to civil society. It is the rogue, not the weapon, who offends. When you give greater weight to 100 deaths than to one, you diminish the loss of that death, and therefor you diminish the loss of all.
I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life.
Our way of life as instituted by the Founders placed weapons capable of resisting a tyrannical government at the top echelon of what is essential to that way. The Second Ammendment and what it guarantees is the final resort to securing that freedom.
If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.
You're still not understanding a key point in this discussion. I know you think that citizens defending themselves against the U.S. military is a silly idea. Maybe so. 250 million well-armed citizens would be formidable if they had the courage and purpose to fight. And included in that number would, I think, be included a good portion of that military. Would you, as a soldier, if the government proclaimed martial law with the aim of collecting all weapons from the citizens and imposing an open, despotic, anti-constitutional government, the Constitution you swore to protect and defend--would you serve that government or rebel against it. But that is not the immediate point of this discussion.
The point is that the Federal Government should not be banning the guns from the hands of the citizens. Whatever, if any, banning is done should be at the State level where the citizens have more direct say whether they CHOOSE to ban high capacity magazines, etc.
There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last edited by The Dad Fisherman; 12-30-2012 at 02:10 PM..
Reason: Not worth it
There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
TDF, all you're doing is pointing out that public safety laws are not 100% foolproof. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.
Using your logic, why not eliminate the police and all criminal laws? After all, those laws don't eliminate crime, right? What possible difference is there between what you said, and what I just said? You're saying that if a public safety law isn't 100% fool-proof, it's therefore useless. That's all you saying, you can say it as many times as you want, it's still idiotic.
If something is illegal, some folks will get their hands on them. But not everyone has the means to acquire illegal weapons. Nor is every crime is committed with the planning and premidation required to obtain black-market illegal weapons. Some crimes (not all, but some) are more spur-of-the-moment, and in those cases, the kook uses what's at his fingertips. In thaty scenario, the less lethal the wepon at his disposal, the lower the expected body count, all other things being equal.
I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.
This killer in Newtown had major mental issues. It's highly unlikely he'd be able to get his hands on illegal weapons. The only person he talked to was his mother.
TDF, there isn't a single public safety law on the books that can't be circumvented. Not one. Using your 'logic', I guess we should eliminate all those laws. Incredible.
I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.
A Feather Pillow.......Happy.
Have a happy New Year.......l forgot about my resolution last year......not to get into discussions with you......My blood pressure just goes through the roof......
You use your logic and l'll use mine and let's not try and understand each others....OK Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.
The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.
The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.
Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".
No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.
JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."
Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.
As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.
Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.
New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.
Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".
No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.
JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."
Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.
As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.
Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.
"We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need."
Come on, you can do better than that. You aren't likely to kill anyone going for a walk. If, however, you want to get you hands on something inherently dangerous (say dynamite for blasting, or anthrax for research), you absolutely have to show justifiable need. Most rational people are OK with those laws.
Are you saying you're an anarchist now?
"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "
Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.
Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.
"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""
There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.
"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"
That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.
All other things being equal, you can kill more people with an AR-15 than you can with a handgun. I don't need data to convince me of that. I know it's true. Most of the cops I saw storming that school had rifles in their hands, not handguns. Why is that? JD, why is that?
I'm not saying we'll all live forever if we impose such a ban. I'm not even saying I support such a ban. I just think we need to have a serious conversation on the subject, one that is guided by common sense rather than radical ideology or outright jibberish.
I'll say again, any impact of gun legislation is going to be very minor. More good can be done by talking about re-instilling traditional family values, and by discussing the garbage that's on TV, in movies, and in video games.
"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "
Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.
Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.
There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.
"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.
What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?
Quote:
"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""
There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?
In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:
Quote:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?
Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.
Quote:
"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"
That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.
There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.
"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.
What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?
With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?
In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon: Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?
Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.
"I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco"
Fine, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco all you like, because it plays into my argument, not yours. Just like with pools, there are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use that are designed to promote public safety. Is this news to you? Age restrictions, can't drink and drive, bars are required not to give you too much, can't smoke in public places where you can harm others...Notice a pattern here? These are all examples of society putting limits on our freedoms, in the interest of public safety. That's what I'm talking about here.
""Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use "
Maybe, maybe not. Currently, as a society, we have collectively decided that the freedom to choose to smoke is more important than the lives that would be saved if we banned smoking. What I'm saying is, we should have that discussion with these weapons, without caving in to radical ideology or NRA lobbying pressure. Let's have a common sense discussion of the pros and cons. I agree thare are cons to banning anything. What I'm stunned by, is the resistance to the notion that there are potential pros to banning these things.
" If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons"
Perhaps you're not reading well lately. Because I have said multiple times on this thread that we can't use public safety as an excuse to trample the constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?
I know the AR-15 isn't categorized as an assault weapon. What I'm saying is, we should look to see if there are things that serve no legitimate societal need (like, maybe, high capacity magazines) which if banned, might save a few lives.
"Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?"
I would not support unconstitutional bans to save 100 lives. I might support constitutional bans that save 1 or 2 lives. I can only assume that you can't differentiate between those two things, because you keep trying to refute me by citing inane hypotheticals that would be broadly perceived as trampling the constitution.
If you want to refute me, explain why banning high capacity magazines is in violation of the second amendment.
I never said banning these weapons would save more lives than any other possible bans of other actions or products. I never said banning these weapons would allow all of us to live forever. I have repeatedly said that the impact would be minimal. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.
I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much. I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.
The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.
The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.
The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
See this is what I mean, lack of knowledge. Just because the gun can accept different magazines doesn't mean that it cant be used for hunting. It is quite often used for predator control, and yes you can hunt deer with it in states where rifle hunting is legal. Again since you don't hunt deer you have no idea what you are talking about. Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles. So please go educate yourself a little.
You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels
I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes
This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.
All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm glad we agree Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
People buy them for protection.
. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I doubt that. I'd bet every penny I have that most people (not all) buy them for the thrill. If I really thought I was in a situation where I was in so much danger that I couldn't defend myself with a handgun, I'd probably look at making some changes in my lifestyle.
It's pretty rare you need such a weapon for protection, isn't it? Rare, but not non-existant. If I was a white store-owner in LA during the Rodney King riots, I'd rather have an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine than a handgun. And the reason I'd want the AR-15, is the same exact reason why I say (and can't believe people here are denying this) that a kook on a rampage will kill more kids with that weapon than with a handgun.
This is the conversation that should take place. Is the rare need for such a weopon for civilian protection, worth the price of more dead little kids when these rampages happen in schools?
I don't know the answer. But we can't have the conversation if folks won't admit these weapons will increase the body count.
It's not about the weapon Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?
The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?
The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.
Hybrid Mode
