Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Sallow]

Your right is there by case law.

Wrong. They're inalienable. You're born with them.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

The rights of a minority still exist in this country.



Either would any rational person. Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.

Just ask the folks in Norway.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

Nobody does. Strawman argument.

It's very confusing.

Good luck.

No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

XXXXXXX

 

[Sallow]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

would you extend that to voting?

sallow?

Sure.

I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.

 

[Yurt]

would you extend that to voting?

sallow?

Sure.

I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.

nice try, but you said "married" to the right. are you willing to be married to your vote? never changing your vote?

 

[eflatminor]

Your right is there by case law.

Wrong. They're inalienable. You're born with them.



The rights of a minority still exist in this country.



Either would any rational person. Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.

Just ask the folks in Norway.



Nobody does. Strawman argument.

It's very confusing.

Good luck.

No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

 

[Spoonman]

Wrong. They're inalienable. You're born with them.



The rights of a minority still exist in this country.



Either would any rational person. Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.

Just ask the folks in Norway.



Nobody does. Strawman argument.



Good luck.

No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

Sallow has been like a poorly executed break in a game of pool here in this post today. Balls scattering all over the place but none of them hitting a pocket.

 

[gallantwarrior]

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

OK, XXXXXXX NO ONE has the RIGHT to shoot anyone in the face. But taking away my right, and the right of my neighbors, to defend themselves against people who would shoot us in the face will not solve the problem.

 

[Politico]

Seeing as AR15s are not the problem no it doesn't make any sense.

 

[midcan5]

And Eric agrees with the OP.

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."[/b]

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

=====

"In Leviathan, written while he was in hiding from the horrors of the British civil war, Hobbes asks us to imagine ourselves in a “state of nature” before the establishment of civil government. Without the constraint of public laws individuals live lives of perfect and total freedom. No government exists to tax them or to regulate the use of their property. In this state of nature each person has one natural right, the right “for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of his own life, and consequently of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” The right to self-protection may seem like an uncontroversial starting point for thinking about politics but, Hobbes shows, taken by itself it leads to disaster. Notice that Hobbes says that a right to self-protection includes the right to individually interpret, “in his own judgment and reason,” what self-protection demands. This is where the trouble starts and precisely where, a Hobbesian would wager, the NRA’s proposals for an armed society threaten to take us." The Contemporary Condition: The N.R.A. and the New State of Nature

 

[Sallow]

sallow?

Sure.

I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.

nice try, but you said "married" to the right. are you willing to be married to your vote? never changing your vote?

How can you change a vote that's already been cast?

 

[Sallow]

Wrong. They're inalienable. You're born with them.



The rights of a minority still exist in this country.



Either would any rational person. Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.

Just ask the folks in Norway.



Nobody does. Strawman argument.



Good luck.

No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone. And having a car is not a right.

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

 

[Sallow]

I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).

However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?


.

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Reverse the challenge.
Will you, a gun control proponent take full responsibility for every gun crime post gun control?

Bearing in mind that mass shootings are uncommon, less common now than in a hundred+ years.
Mass shootings peaked in the USA in 1926 have been in decline ever since.
That period of decline in mass shootings has been mirrored by an increase in gun owners.
So will you, personally take responsibility for every gun crime after your bans go into effect?
Full responsibility mind, do the life sentence, go to the chair, take the injection.
It's your ban, you are married to it!!

Decline?

The number of people killed in mass shootings recently, is breaking records.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR15 that shoots a .223 round is NOT a powerful rifle. In fact it's one of the smallest calibers.

An AR15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round except for cosmetics.

This Mini 14 that shoots a .223 round

is absolutely no different in function, capacity and rate of fire than this AR15

Therefore there is no logical reason to ban the AR15.

 

[editec]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

I share your distrust of the government's sincerity if that helps.

As does, incidently, ALL of the REAL left.

 

[LilOlLady]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

Many Law abiding ciitizens were so before the used their assault rifle to murder. All were first offenders.

 

[eflatminor]

No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.

So what? Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire. FAR more. If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle? Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.

And having a car is not a right.

Again, makes no sense. Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else? A free press is a right too. By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail. It's patently ridiculous!

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement. WHY is it apples and oranges? Because you say so doesn't cut it. Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.

Grasping at straws...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
Your contrivance is, at best, silly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.

What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.

The absurd notion came from you folks.
That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

No.... that's -your- strawman.
At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.

 

[Sallow]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
Your contrivance is, at best, silly.

Well no.

And it puts on display how seriously folks take this "right".

 

[Sallow]

What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.

What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.

The absurd notion came from you folks.
That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

No.... that's -your- strawman.
At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.

It's only "trolling" to you because like those of your ilk you feel that gun ownership should be completely unbridled.

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west or present day Somalia in this country.

 

[Sallow]

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.

So what? Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire. FAR more. If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle? Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.

And having a car is not a right.

Again, makes no sense. Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else? A free press is a right too. By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail. It's patently ridiculous!

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement. WHY is it apples and oranges? Because you say so doesn't cut it. Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.

Grasping at straws...

1. Even with the skewed data we receive, thanks to the efforts of the NRA, the data does NOT show that "Far more" people die due to auto collisions. And there is a reason for that. The Auto industry was actually required to make cars safer, by the government. Nothing like that has been done with guns. Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.

2. You are criminally responsible for your own right. I don't see a problem with that. Gun ownership should not be an "industry". After the original sale..that should be it.

3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for. You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes. There's the disconnect.