For those that support banning 'assault weapns'

[FA_Q2]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Present some evidence to support this because I can GUARANTEE you that your claim is outright false.

When gun regulation increases, more people die. When it decreases, fewer people die. This is a simple fact that is shown over and over again when strict gun legislation is passed.

 

[JustTheFacts]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Present some evidence to support this because I can GUARANTEE you that your claim is outright false.

When gun regulation increases, more people die. When it decreases, fewer people die. This is a simple fact that is shown over and over again when strict gun legislation is passed.

I believe is argument is correct.

I just dont believe guns themselves are at fault.

As if man werent killing each other for centuries before the invention of gunpowder

 

[racewright]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

The dope you take is also unhealthy,so get it treated. I'm sure you are at least a pot head just like most of the anti gunwingnuts

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place.

You cannot soundly support this assertion.

The question posed on this thread is absurd...

On thre contrary -- if you cannot address the question in its entiretly, then you cannot present a sound argument for the banning of 'assault weapons'.

Of course, you know this, which is why you avoided the question.

 

[RightNorLeft]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Mary the problem is we cannot get rid of firearms...there are millions out there unregistered that the govt has no way of ever controlling. All gun control does is control the decent law abiding citizens from having guns.
There are always going to be gun accidents, where a kid gets a hold of dads gun or a hunter shoots another person....but those accidents are far less than accidents with vehicles that kills dads kids and others kids...
Just one other thought...the largest school massacre of children occured by a bombing not a firearm.

On May 18, 1927, 55-year-old farmer and school board member Andrew Kehoe dynamited the new consolidated school in Bath, Michigan. When the dust settled, 45 people—mostly children—were dead, and many more were injured. Before the day was over, Kehoe also killed his wife and destroyed his farm, animals and crops. He then killed himself and the school superintendent with a suicide car bomb.

Bath Massacre: America's First School Bombing by Arnie Bernstein — CADL Website

This notion that more gun control is going to stop school massacres is nonesense. A nut is a nut is a nut...and they will find the means.

 

[saveliberty]

I suggest Mary move to an island inhabited by just her family. People are drawn to politics to make change. That requires power and power eventually corrupts. At some point violence is the only way to rid corruption. The second amendment stands as a testament to that eventuality. You want to live a life of safety? It doesn't exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Present some evidence to support this because I can GUARANTEE you that your claim is outright false.

When gun regulation increases, more people die. When it decreases, fewer people die. This is a simple fact that is shown over and over again when strict gun legislation is passed.

I believe is argument is correct.

I just dont believe guns themselves are at fault.

As if man werent killing each other for centuries before the invention of gunpowder

What in the hell is the bolded statement supposed to be? I don't think that came out right

 

[JustTheFacts]

Present some evidence to support this because I can GUARANTEE you that your claim is outright false.

When gun regulation increases, more people die. When it decreases, fewer people die. This is a simple fact that is shown over and over again when strict gun legislation is passed.

I believe is argument is correct.

I just dont believe guns themselves are at fault.

As if man werent killing each other for centuries before the invention of gunpowder

What in the hell is the bolded statement supposed to be? I don't think that came out right

Youre right it didnt. I was experimenting with my phone last night and is got posted instead of his
.
Apologies. Anyway my point is I believe some of the logic behind wanting these types of weapons banned is sound. I also believe that that is irrelevant unless they get a new constitutional amendment.

I slso believe responsibke gun owners should be on board with such an amendment so that we can be part of the discussion bc lets face itnsomethings gonna change whether we want it or not . Stomping feet and screaming you cant do that will change nothing

 

[mudwhistle]

The D.C. Attorney General has decided not to press charges against David Gregory because he's one of them.

The excuse was that Gregory had no record and meant no harm when he brandished an illegal 30 round mag on his show "Meet the Depressed" a few weeks ago.

Do you think he would afford any average gun-owner the same consideration?

Seems unless you know the right people or are part of the right crowd you're SOL.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/11/f...-gun-criminal-david-gregory-is-above-the-law/

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

We need to reexamine the obsession of stealing goods from those who earn them and "redistributing" them to those who don't. You're not seeing that happen, are you?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

We need to reexamine the obsession of stealing goods from those who earn them and "redistributing" them to those who don't. You're not seeing that happen, are you?

No, because we have become the thing that John Adams most feared (see signature).

 

[sealadaigh]

whiloe i personally do not own a gun or rifle as i feel i have no particular need for one, i believe if people would study the constitution, the lives of those who wrote it and ratified it, and the history of the time, they would have to come to the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" was written to protect us from an oppressive government, to include our own, if need be. they weren't talking about hunting so that is a red herring argument and a diversion put forth by both sides.

the fact that there has been great advances in weaponry has no bearing on what can or cannot be banned. the revolutionary war, our american revolution, was fought with muzzle loading flintlocks because that was what the patriot farmer/citizen soldier owned. there was a breechlock being developed at the time, a much more quicker and easier loaded weapon.

it was described as "barbarous".

i think people have to go with not banning anything (people should have the right to bear the same arms as the police and, arguably, the military) or repealing the second amendment.

we don't want to do that.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

whiloe i personally do not own a gun or rifle as i feel i have no particular need for one, i believe if people would study the constitution, the lives of those who wrote it and ratified it, and the history of the time, they would have to come to the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" was written to protect us from an oppressive government, to include our own, if need be. they weren't talking about hunting so that is a red herring argument and a diversion put forth by both sides.

the fact that there has been great advances in weaponry has no bearing on what can or cannot be banned. the revolutionary war, our american revolution, was fought with muzzle loading flintlocks because that was what the patriot farmer/citizen soldier owned. there was a breechlock being developed at the time, a much more quicker and easier loaded weapon.

it was described as "barbarous".

i think people have to go with not banning anything (people should have the right to bear the same arms as the police and, arguably, the military) or repealing the second amendment.

we don't want to do that.

Agreed. I can finally purchase that nuclear warhead I've had my eyes on.

 

[sealadaigh]

whiloe i personally do not own a gun or rifle as i feel i have no particular need for one, i believe if people would study the constitution, the lives of those who wrote it and ratified it, and the history of the time, they would have to come to the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" was written to protect us from an oppressive government, to include our own, if need be. they weren't talking about hunting so that is a red herring argument and a diversion put forth by both sides.

the fact that there has been great advances in weaponry has no bearing on what can or cannot be banned. the revolutionary war, our american revolution, was fought with muzzle loading flintlocks because that was what the patriot farmer/citizen soldier owned. there was a breechlock being developed at the time, a much more quicker and easier loaded weapon.

it was described as "barbarous".

i think people have to go with not banning anything (people should have the right to bear the same arms as the police and, arguably, the military) or repealing the second amendment.

we don't want to do that.

Agreed. I can finally purchase that nuclear warhead I've had my eyes on.

well, i did say "arguably", and did so with the knowledge that someone would bring up nukes.

nukes, and any weapon of mass destruction, are offensive weapons and not designed to protect the individual's rights. they are also indiscriminate as to their target. and this is not to mention many are governed by international law or treaty.

 

[earlycuyler]

And no one hunts with scary guns, so they really shouldn't have them.

I'm thinking someplace overrun with liberal bloodsuckers like Chick-ah-goh might just make a perfect target-rich environment.

you should see Texans hunting pigs. SKS, AK's, AR's you see them all.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

whiloe i personally do not own a gun or rifle as i feel i have no particular need for one, i believe if people would study the constitution, the lives of those who wrote it and ratified it, and the history of the time, they would have to come to the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" was written to protect us from an oppressive government, to include our own, if need be. they weren't talking about hunting so that is a red herring argument and a diversion put forth by both sides.

the fact that there has been great advances in weaponry has no bearing on what can or cannot be banned. the revolutionary war, our american revolution, was fought with muzzle loading flintlocks because that was what the patriot farmer/citizen soldier owned. there was a breechlock being developed at the time, a much more quicker and easier loaded weapon.

it was described as "barbarous".

i think people have to go with not banning anything (people should have the right to bear the same arms as the police and, arguably, the military) or repealing the second amendment.

we don't want to do that.

Agreed. I can finally purchase that nuclear warhead I've had my eyes on.

well, i did say "arguably", and did so with the knowledge that someone would bring up nukes.

nukes, and any weapon of mass destruction, are offensive weapons and not designed to protect the individual's rights. they are also indiscriminate as to their target. and this is not to mention many are governed by international law or treaty.

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity. However, it does permit a loose idea of "regulation." That was the genius of the 2nd Amendment. The speed or degree at which arms technology develops is whatever it is. A reasonable expectation of who is capable and responsible enough to have possession of certain types of arms exists, within the context of a "well-regulated militia."

 

[daveman]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

The estimated 2.5 million people who defend themselves with a firearm each year disagree with you.

 

[JustTheFacts]

whiloe i personally do not own a gun or rifle as i feel i have no particular need for one, i believe if people would study the constitution, the lives of those who wrote it and ratified it, and the history of the time, they would have to come to the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" was written to protect us from an oppressive government, to include our own, if need be. they weren't talking about hunting so that is a red herring argument and a diversion put forth by both sides.

the fact that there has been great advances in weaponry has no bearing on what can or cannot be banned. the revolutionary war, our american revolution, was fought with muzzle loading flintlocks because that was what the patriot farmer/citizen soldier owned. there was a breechlock being developed at the time, a much more quicker and easier loaded weapon.

it was described as "barbarous".

i think people have to go with not banning anything (people should have the right to bear the same arms as the police and, arguably, the military) or repealing the second amendment.

we don't want to do that.

Agreed. I can finally purchase that nuclear warhead I've had my eyes on.

well, i did say "arguably", and did so with the knowledge that someone would bring up nukes.

nukes, and any weapon of mass destruction, are offensive weapons and not designed to protect the individual's rights. they are also indiscriminate as to their target. and this is not to mention many are governed by international law or treaty.

That's completely irrelevant to the fact that the 2nd Amendment allows for NO infringement. Do you not get that? International treaty can NOT over ride the COTUS.

Of course sane people agree such weapons should be 100% off limits to the general public, which is why we need a new amendment. Right to bear arms just doesn't cut it any more.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity.

Sure it does. Arms which the individual can bear.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity.

Sure it does. Arms which the individual can bear.

No, that's the way a court has chosen to interpret it, but it doesn't actually say that.