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

[tjvh]

They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.

I don't want to punish you.

I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.

You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves.

And the sooner the better.

If you stop posting your mindless drivel you will stop sounding like such a wannabe elitist dumb ass.

The sooner the better.

 

[Circe]

Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons?

Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?

No, Kevin, it hasn't worked out.

No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees, but it's happening like a psychotic fashion show. I suppose the young ones get it from Halo and Gears of War, and the elderly ones ....well, they go paranoid when their arteries harden.

This is terrible; we can't have this going on. It really does have to stop.

 

[eflatminor]

most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags

Way to keep within the confines of the Clean Zone...

 

[Circe]

Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?

Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?

Yes, that's a true statement, and no, I don't understand why you suspect his intentions?

I am no fan of Obama continuing Bush's losing Forever Wars, of course. But our Army using assault rifles to mow down Muslims in a sandpit far, far away is not the same as schizophrenics mowing down people in the local shopping mall. There's a "them" and "us" issue here.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.

I don't want to punish you.

I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.

You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves.

And the sooner the better.

I guess you missed the memo: most of those items are already illegal to own or manufacture or are heavily regulated. It's pretty amazing how you and your ilk manage to extrapolate the acts of extremely few real crazy people into a massive drive to disarm every man, woman, and child (excluding criminals, or course) in this country.

Why attack the law-abiding and their inanimate possessions when there is obviously a much deeper, more disturbing element that needs attention? Why do these insane people commit such heinous acts of horror? What motivates their killing others? Do you really think that disarming the general public will prevent the real nuts from fulfilling whatever mental abberation driving their actions?
Here's one of your "tired arguments":
Wait for it....

























GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Why? Answer that question and you might be able to solve some problems. Rendering the greatest majority of us incapable of defending ourselves against the whackos is not the solution.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

 

[eflatminor]

No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees

Actually, the rate of mass killings in the US is on the decline. The number of mass killings peaked in the US in 1929 and is DOWN since the 1990s. It would appear that the truth doesn't support your agenda.

 

[KevinWestern]

Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons?

Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?

No, Kevin, it hasn't worked out.

No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees, but it's happening like a psychotic fashion show. I suppose the young ones get it from Halo and Gears of War, and the elderly ones ....well, they go paranoid when their arteries harden.

This is terrible; we can't have this going on. It really does have to stop.

Circe... you're approaching this from a very closed, micro point of view. Giving up the right to own these rifles will have some very serious implications down the road.

I know this has been brought up before, but what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Personally, I think it's a well needed check on gov't by a citizen population. The gov't should fear its people and not the other way around.

.

 

[eflatminor]

What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?

There is. One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.

What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?

Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms. Wonderful plan.

The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply

That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...

 

[Nosmo King]

What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?

There is. One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.

What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?

Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms. Wonderful plan.

The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply

That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...

The key is the gun maker, not the gun owner. You kill a snake by cutting off the head, not by cutting off 1,000,000 heads.

 

[KevinWestern]

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

Two questions:

1.) Is it crazy to fear the possibility of your Gov't becoming tyrannical (ie has it ever happened before in countries like England, France, or Germany)?

2.) Is it fair to say that our gov't has proven itself capable of using violence to achieve strategic and monetary goals (ie what was the purpose of Iraq)?. If you answered yes, then why again are you so eager to let this entity go unchecked?


.

 

[eflatminor]

What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?

There is. One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.



Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms. Wonderful plan.

The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply

That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...

The key is the gun maker, not the gun owner. You kill a snake by cutting off the head, not by cutting off 1,000,000 heads.

Repeating the same thing after it's been thoroughly debunked is not a sound strategy for debate.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's not theft if it's law. Then, it's law. I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Hey, you know they jam: jettison them. It's bad equipment anyway, you aren't really losing anything.

Bad law is worse than no law. Speaking of laws, why don't they enforce the laws they already have on the books. Oh, wait, those laws don't work, either. So let's make more bad laws that won't work.

Did I mention I live on a farm? Do I really SOUND like a pushover to you? I'm the one wants to take all your big, bad guns away, buster.

If you paid attention, you would know I live on a farm, too. As to your second question, yes, you have apparently bought into the "party line" regarding firearms...hook, line, and sinker. Otherwise you would have the sense to understand that I am not the problem, but part of the solution. My guns are neither big, nor bad. They are effective and efficient tools, though.

I would LOVE to have a conversation with you, but only if you are capable of being reasonably polite. Are you aware this is the Clean Zone? I have noticed that most conversations on this topic deteriorate quickly because, simply, most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags. I simply put them on Ignore as not worth bothering with.

I hope none of the above applies to you. We'll see. The comment above was NOT a great sign.

While I relish intelligent conversation with thoughtful, coherent people, I'm not sure you would fit into either of those categories. It is possible that your abject terror of some inanimate objects drives your emotionally charged and absolutely inflexible demands that everyone be forcibly disarmed but criminals and the government (sometimes one and the same).

I don't have "stones" at all. You seem to be aware I'm a woman poster, what with the slur above, but you seem to have a really surprising lack of knowledge about female reproductive anatomy! See, there are things we have that males don't have, and vice versa. We could have a nice talk about this sometime, if you are confused about the differences, but I suggest you start by googling it.

Sorry, a figure of speech. Obviously outside of your ability to comprehend. I would caution you, as well, to not make too many assumptions about others in an anonymous environment. If your knowledge about human reproductive anatomy is as comprehensive and accurate as your knowledge about firearms, I think I'll take a pass on that "nice talk".

 

[gallantwarrior]

Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?

Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?

Yes, that's a true statement, and no, I don't understand why you suspect his intentions?

I am no fan of Obama continuing Bush's losing Forever Wars, of course. But our Army using assault rifles to mow down Muslims in a sandpit far, far away is not the same as schizophrenics mowing down people in the local shopping mall. There's a "them" and "us" issue here.

I'm sure those muslims in a sandpit far, far away agree that there is absolutely no comparison with their children dying and ours.

 

[Circe]

I guess you missed the memo: most of those items are already illegal to own or manufacture or are heavily regulated.

Right. I want ALL military weapons in that category: illegal or heavily regulated. We've clearly missed a couple types, and that's a problem because they are being used to mow down a lot of American civilians, often small children.

It's pretty amazing how you and your ilk manage to extrapolate the acts of extremely few real crazy people into a massive drive to disarm every man, woman, and child (excluding criminals, or course) in this country.

Here's the center of the problem: it's not the criminals who are doing the massacres. If it were, I bet you wouldn't be in all this trouble.

It's the boy next door; it's the gun nut's son who went schizo; it's the old guy who started muttering to himself when he started collecting Social Security. NONE of them have criminal records or often, even a speeding ticket. We don't know who they are. We can't protect ourselves from them. We can't identify them at all! They just sneak up on us and start shooting as soon as they find a large enough group to get a high hit count.

If it WERE criminals doing this, the problem would be easier to solve. It's the stealth factor, the fact that we can't identify any of them in advance. That's a common experience in Great Britain and Australia, too: the crazies could not be looked out for, because they flew below everyone's radar. The shock factor is huge.

Rendering the greatest majority of us incapable of defending ourselves against the whackos is not the solution.

Ha. If you need more than a handgun or a shotgun to defend yourself from a whacko, I strongly suggest you need more time at the gun range. You don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself against a crazy from next door!! You need not to panic and to aim straight. I suggest more training if you are worried.

And always remember.................there is NO deterrent like the sound of the slide of a semi-automatic from an upstairs hall.

 

[Circe]

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

It's a good idea, but it doesn't allow for the removal of the current stock of assault rifles. If they are illegal, they will fairly quickly -- 20 years or so -- be eliminated as the gun nuts grow old and their children make sure they don't have access to them as they become over the hill; if their old guns are illegal they won't be sold as much and would tend to be turned in; most people are law-abiding.

And the manufacturers won't make illegal guns, so that would be that for them, too.

 

[eflatminor]

it's not the criminals who are doing the massacres.

One for the ages. Thanks.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

OK, let's go with some of your assumptions:
1. "Assault rifles" (as vaguely defined by the gun-grabbing lobby) are the problem, being the weapon of choice for these nuts that decide to go on killing sprees.
2. Suppose you manage to push through a manufacturing ban of all "assault rifles" and the "high capacity magazines" (as arbitrarily defined by the gun-grabbers).

Describe exactly how this move will decrease or eliminate the mass killings?
What action should be taken when the number of mass killings are not decreased by your "assault weapon" ban?

While I have little doubt that many individuals are motivated by the best, most noble intentions when they call for limitations and bans of firearms, I have grave doubts about the motivation of the government that uses the good intentions of its constituents to further a much darker and far less noble agenda.

 

[Circe]

I know this has been brought up before, but what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Personally, I think it's a well needed check on gov't by a citizen population. The gov't should fear its people and not the other way around.

This is the argument that we should have military weapons because we need to be able to fight a bad government.

I like this argument because very few make it and I sort of admire someone just coming right out with the real deal! Although I personally think the REAL motivation of most gun nuts is to kill minorities when they rise up, if they do. There, that's something no one will admit!

Oh, the Second Amendment threat against a bad government is a red-white-and-blue thought, I guess: I watched a few episodes of Revolution myself. And the new Red Dawn is better than the first one, IMO!

However, I don't think this is how it will go down. Even with assault rifles, private guerrillas are no match for the U.S. Army, and so the revolutionaries would have to get a lot of the Army on its side. That's after all what happened last time (the Civil War: the South had the better army, of course), and bids fair to happen again ---- Texas is not likely to side with New England! I see a split-up coming, it's amazing we have lasted this long, very unhistorical.

The usual way Revolutions start is massive protests: I now realize how close the government was to losing the country during the '60s. I didn't have enough perspective to recognize it back then. Egypt is having a revolution now, and the French revolution proceeded by "journees," huge protests and mob action involving heads on pikes. It worked. Subverting the soldiers is the usual thing, happens every time. I'm not worried about the course of history being distorted by not having assault rifles in every neighborhood: no one stops a revolution whose time has come. No country has ever needed assault rifles to have a revolution, either, so far.

 

[Circe]

While I relish intelligent conversation with thoughtful, coherent people, I'm not sure you would fit into either of those categories.

Okay, we'll give it a miss. Darn. What a pity. Another man done gone.