CDZ I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles

[westwall]

I commend you for having many guns, I have 2 right now, and I would trust my life with either one.

BTW: I have the movie Malcom X, with Denzel Washington; and the scene where he has an M1 Carbine, and is protecting his family, is great.

Good. One should ONLY have firearms that you trust.

 

[Coyote]

So... why did you bring up free speech?

Because it is an example of a right that is restricted. I can do the same for any, but they aren’t restricted in the same ways for the same reasons.

How does my ownership/possession of AR15 harm someone?

Why can’t I have a nuke?

How does nor ownership/possession place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?
They don't?
Then, using the right to free speech as a guide, as you suggest, on what basis can my ownership/possession of an AR15 be regulated?

Public safety.

How can anyone know you won’t use it for a mass killing?

And yet, so few do.

"Always"
Really?
What gun control laws were there in 1791?

Fair point, but then again, guns were pretty primitive then.

Much in the same way banning Catholicism doe snot violate the 1st Amendment because you can still be a Jew.

Not really. A gun is a tool. That is it. Property. Religion is a state of being.

Freedom of religion has restrictions. You can’t marry juveniles, have sex with animals, or walk around the city naked.

 

[Coyote]

A nuke is not an "arm."

I know you aren't that stupid.

And yet we talk about the arms race.

This is CDZ, no insults or flaming.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

allowing unlimited and irrational freedom

Spoken like a true serf.

Or a Canadian.

But then, that's redundant, is'nt it?

 

[westwall]

Because it is an example of a right that is restricted. I can do the same for any, but they aren’t restricted in the same ways for the same reasons.


Why can’t I have a nuke?


Public safety.

How can anyone know you won’t use it for a mass killing?




Fair point, but then again, guns were pretty primitive then.


Not really. A gun is a tool. That is it. Property. Religion is a state of being.

Freedom of religion has restrictions. You can’t marry juveniles, have sex with animals, or walk around the city naked.

Rights aren't restricted. However my Rights end at your nose. I have the Right to say anything I like so long as I don't incite people to do violence against you.

Likewise for you. As fncceo pointed out, if you intentionally lie about someone, they can sue the crap out of you, as CNN learned recently.

Thus, your right to speak your mind is NOT regulated, save where you do harm to others.

More people have been killed by rhetoric than by guns as the Courts, and the Founders recognized.

Guns are tools. They are no better or worse than the person using them. As the Paris attack proved beyond doubt, no matter how much you ban guns, the only people affected are the law abiding who vastly outnumber the criminal element.

I would much rather live in a place where I am able to use a gun to defend myself from bad people.

Democrat run cities are excellent laboratories. They have draconian gun laws so the innocent are prohibited from a means of defense, so violent crime is rampant in those cities.

The top 10 democrat run cities are responsible for 80% of the violent crime that occurs in the USA.

Food for thought.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it is an example of a right that is restricted.

More than that, it is an example of WHY rights are restricted - when it causes harm or creates an immediate danger to others.
When it doesn't, there's no basis for a restriction -- we don't restrict people because they -might- yell fire in a crowded theater, or -might- strap on a bunsh of exposicves and drive into a mosque, or because they -might- kill someone.

Why can’t I have a nuke?

Thus, your admission that you cannot demonstrate that my ownership/possession of AR15 harms someone.
Absent that demonstration, there's no sound argument for a restriction on my right to do so.

Public safety.

This only applies if you can demonstrate the harm caused by, or the clear, present and immediate danger created by, my ownership and possession of an AR15
Can you make such a demonstration?
No?
There you go.

How can anyone know you won’t use it for a mass killing?

The same way we don't know you won't become a serial rapist.
Since we don't know, its OK for the state to restrict your rights -- just in case you do.
Right?

Not really. A gun is a tool. That is it. Property. Religion is a state of being.

A distinction with no difference -- the fact you can still exercise a right in a certain manner in no way means restricting the exercise of a right in another manner does not diminish or violate that right.

Freedom of religion has restrictions. You can’t marry juveniles, have sex with animals, or walk around the city naked.

Because these fall outside the free exercise of religion and thus are not protected by the 1st. Apples.
My ownership of an AR15 falls under the right to keep and bear arms and is thus protected by the 2nd. Oranges.

 

[Ivan88]

Guns OK, people not OK that is the problem.

Why are so many people so eager to disarm Americans, but love sending soldiers and equipment to other countries to slaughter. torment and main?
And, Congress's hired killers use automatic rifles and other stuff to do their evil deeds.

 

[vege57]

Guns, alcohol and explosives' Are right up there with sex and a good bowel movement

 

[FA_Q2]

What are you talking about? Semi-automatic rifles (or any other kind of rifle) is not a "natural right"!

I am talking about the right. As I stated:
The 'demand' for semi-automatic rifles is an extension of the natural right to one's own defense and is protected under the second amendment.

The natural right is the right to self defense. The expression of that right is done through force of arms of which a semi-automatic rifles is but one aspect of that expression. How is that unclear?

You do not know what you are talking about.

Again, you declare whilst not being able to even understand the last statement I made. That you declare it so does not make it so.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree because not all rights are exactly the same as to what restrictions should be placed on them. Arms have the ability to do a huge amount of damage to innocent people regardless of the person who uses them. That is why we have always restricted them, for example you can’t buy a nuke. Restricting them isn’t preventing them from owning arms, just not that particular one.

We have always restricted them is in no way a case for why we should INCREASE those restrictions. It is a red herring in this particular debate, the question is not can we restrict the scope of the second amendment. The question is not can we regulate firearms. The question is not how many people die via firearm.

There is only one question that matters: what is your justification for infringing on my right to self defense as protected under the second amendment. That is all.

Bring a justification, not an excuse for why you CAN regulate a weapon. Tell us what gives you the justification to do so.

Worth noting here too is the false assumption that 'Arms have the ability to do a huge amount of damage to innocent people' but speech is just words is a bit naïve of how truly powerful speech is. It is FAR more powerful than any arm ever was. It was not a gun that catapulted men like Stalin and Hitler to be the most horrific monsters imaginable. It was words. Words can be used to wield people in the same manner that those people wield those guns.

 

[Coyote]

We have always restricted them is in no way a case for why we should INCREASE those restrictions. It is a red herring in this particular debate, the question is not can we restrict the scope of the second amendment. The question is not can we regulate firearms. The question is not how many people die via firearm.

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.

There is only one question that matters: what is your justification for infringing on my right to self defense as protected under the second amendment. That is all.

Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.

Bring a justification, not an excuse for why you CAN regulate a weapon. Tell us what gives you the justification to do so.

See above.

Worth noting here too is the false assumption that 'Arms have the ability to do a huge amount of damage to innocent people' but speech is just words is a bit naïve of how truly powerful speech is. It is FAR more powerful than any arm ever was. It was not a gun that catapulted men like Stalin and Hitler to be the most horrific monsters imaginable. It was words. Words can be used to wield people in the same manner that those people wield those guns.

I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

One example of what I think is a dangerous extreme is the push for a universal concealed carry with no license, no training and in some cases you don’t have to be an adult. This one where one area where safety should trump that right.

 

[westwall]

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.




Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.



See above.



I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

One example of what I think is a dangerous extreme is the push for a universal concealed carry with no license, no training and in some cases you don’t have to be an adult. This one where one area where safety should trump that right.

The Founders wanted to make sure the PEOPLE were equipped as well as any government entity we would need to fight.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nah. I don't have the ego you have.
You have no use for the guns you've got. You only think you do because you've been told you do.
Admit it. You hardly use them. It's a tough guy image. Big deal.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about need.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.




Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.



See above.



I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

One example of what I think is a dangerous extreme is the push for a universal concealed carry with no license, no training and in some cases you don’t have to be an adult. This one where one area where safety should trump that right.

Murder is illegal. What else you want?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.

Firearms today are no more lethal than they were 85 years ago.

Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.

When the state can show the exercise of a right actually harms someoen or, places them in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger.
Simple ownership/possession of a firearm does none of these things.
Thus, there's no intersection with public safety

See above.

See above.

I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

Guns rights advocates oppose unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Why shouldn't they?
Don;t you?

 

[Donald H]

Or a Canadian.

But then, that's redundant, is'nt it?

This is the CDZ.
Try to rise above the personal attacks here.
See me somewhere else if you must.

 

[GLASNOST]

I am talking about the right. As I stated:
The 'demand' for semi-automatic rifles is an extension of the natural right to one's own defense and is protected under the second amendment.

The natural right is the right to self defense. The expression of that right is done through force of arms of which a semi-automatic rifles is but one aspect of that expression. How is that unclear?


Again, you declare whilst not being able to even understand the last statement I made. That you declare it so does not make it so.

Owning a gun is not a "natural right". Thinking it is can only be an excusable offence for a teenager.

 

[Plow Boy]

Owning a gun is not a "natural right". Thinking it is can only be an excusable offence for a teenager.

The natural right that exists here is defense, by the use of guns.
I have 2 pistols, and they are weapons that keep me safe, just in case.

What do you think those pistols are? Spell it out for me.

 

[westwall]

Owning a gun is not a "natural right". Thinking it is can only be an excusable offence for a teenager.

It's part and parcel to the natural right of self defense. A big 20 something man can crush an 80 year old woman. Thus her only self defense option is a gun.

 

[Plow Boy]

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.

Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.

See above.

I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

One example of what I think is a dangerous extreme is the push for a universal concealed carry with no license, no training and in some cases you don’t have to be an adult. This one where one area where safety should trump that right.

You are painting with a very broad brush, but I get your point.

Here is the Army issue sidearm from a century ago, and I have one of those.
If you think that the SIG or Glock is anymore lethal, I say that they are not.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/userimages/5212/903534743/wm_9339343.jpg

In a Constitutional Carry state, the citizens must be lawfully carrying, and the cops are free to frisk anyone that they choose.

What is it that you think is going to happen, with people carrying concealed, than what has happened already? There is mayhem already, that’s the reason people want to carry concealed. With or without a permit.