I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by M14 Shooter, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    ... you can show:

    1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
    2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
    3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

    If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
    I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.
     
  3. Sarah G
    Offline

    Sarah G When Nothing Goes Right, Go Left Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    47,624
    Thanks Received:
    11,825
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    NW Ohio
    Ratings:
    +23,973
    There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

    The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.
     
  4. neomalthusian
    Offline

    neomalthusian Agnostic Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15
    Might wanna read this:

    http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

    An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
    Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice
    Christopher S. Koper (Principal Investigator)
    Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth
    Jerry Lee Center of Criminology
    University of Pennsylvania
    3814 Walnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19104


    In short, what your emotions tell you about the sensibility if banning assault weapons might not yield any actual results. Do it anyway though?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2013
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,000
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,913
    Seems there are millions of people on "the fringe" who disagree with you.

    And if you have to resort to calling someone who disagrees with you an "extremist" then I doubt your ability to even consider that rational people can have an opinion opposite of your own.

    and please give me a legal definition of "mentally deranged" that would allow the state to judicially prevent her from owning firearms, being that she had no criminal record, and more than likely passed all the background checks required by the feds AND the state of conneticuit, a notoriously anti gun state.
     
  6. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,864
    Thanks Received:
    12,306
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,330
    1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

    3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

     
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    Can you show:

    1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
    2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
    3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

    If you cannot show these three things, please explain why you support it.
     
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    If you cannot show it would have been, and will be, effective, in stopping such incidents how can you show that the ban is pursuant to a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to that end?

    Show this to be true,
     
  9. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2013
  10. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    Sooo..

    You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.

    Thank you for playing.
     

Share This Page