Rational discourse on gun control

[Skull Pilot]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

 

[Conservative65]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of war on our streets as irresponsible.

You absolutely have no place determining what I need or don't need.

Just because you think you have a say in what I do means you're just like every person that needs to learn it's none of your fucking business.

 

[Conservative65]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Who the fuck are you to determine what anyone but yourself needs? That's the problem. You insert yourself in a manner in which you have absolutely no business. Not your place to determine for me unless you're able to take from me what you say I shouldn't have.

You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield. Such weapons should be in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on our streets.

Just because you think it's cool to brandish an assault weapon, doesn't make them safe on our streets. Just because you have orgasmic pleasure in firing such weapons does not make them safe on our streets. Consider those who never have had pleasant experiences with guns. guns represent a clear and present danger to themselves and their community. While your outlook is all roses and daffodils, others regard weapons of wart on our streets as irresponsible.

no evidence that taking them from us makes the streets safer. it is actually easy to get assault guns in places like Britain. Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

What makes a 'mass shooting' possible? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession. What type of weapon provides that capability? The semi-automatic firing system and large capacity magazines.

What makes gangs and drive by shootings so deadly to innocent bystanders? The number of rounds fired off in quick succession, and lack of marksmanship. If you were a poor marksman and wanted to ensure the death of your target and you had no regard to where all the bullets went, what type of weapon would you chose? The semi-automatic firing system and a large capacity magazine.

What type of weapons should American citizens have at their disposal? Bolt action rifles for sport, shotguns, revolvers. Weapons designed for sport, not the battlefield. Some weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias, some weapons belong in the hands of sportsmen.

The 2nd deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history didn't involve the type gun you say "makes a mass shooting possible". He used a 9mm Glock and a 22 semi-automatic.

What types of guns should Americans have at their disposal? Only you can say for you but not for me. NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS when it comes to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.

Its funny that you think you can limit people who are unable to legally own a gun, legal or otherwise, from getting an illegal gun when these guns are sold illegally.
Your inability to explain how universal background checks will do anything in this regard excludes your idea from rational discourse.

We can't completely stop murder or assault, so we should just throw up our hands and make it legal?

I am not at all surprised that you dodged the point
Your inability to explain how universal background checks will solve the problem you describe excludes your idea from rational discourse

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

 

[yiostheoy]

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

See my earlier post on destructive devices such as bombs, sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns.

This is going to become the next definitional issue.

Gun ownership is 99% about self defense and only 1% about "sport".

 

[yiostheoy]

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Force multiplication regarding the issue of destructive devices will become the next issue in the classification of sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns and whether any additional firing mechanisms belong in this proscribed (means illegal) group of guns.

Your avoidance of this salient issue is a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

Ergo your opening statement is simply trying to justify itself, which is circular logic.

Circular logic is illogical.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nosmo King]

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

See my earlier post on destructive devices such as bombs, sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns.

This is going to become the next definitional issue.

Gun ownership is 99% about self defense and only 1% about "sport".

Tell that to the hunters in the parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio I live in and around.

 

[Rustic]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

 

[Nosmo King]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

 

[Rustic]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

Tell us how are your so called ''solutions'' would work... Be specific

 

[pwjohn]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

How can we stop the blacks from killing each other?

 

[Nosmo King]

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

Tell us how are your so called ''solutions'' would work... Be specific

First by reducing the numbers of deadly semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are far too easy to get.

 

[Rustic]

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

Tell us how are your so called ''solutions'' would work... Be specific

First by reducing the numbers of deadly semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are far too easy to get.

Semi automatics are no more deadly than any other firearm they are just a sporting rifle. More people die from falling out of bed then from being killed by someone using an AR 15 to kill with.

 

[Rustic]

Foolish little mind...
You live in a bubble

That is not an argument. Try again.

Your so-called "solutions" would not save one single person… It would just cost lives… LOL

Care to offer up some proof?

Tell us how are your so called ''solutions'' would work... Be specific

First by reducing the numbers of deadly semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are far too easy to get.

2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Skull Pilot]

For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.

To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)

Please begin

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

 

[Nosmo King]

1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.

2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.

3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.

4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.

Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.

So what?

Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?

So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?

What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?

Need I go on?

If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.

Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?

There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?

I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.

There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.

No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms

All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants

No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down

After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?

Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists

We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Force multiplication regarding the issue of destructive devices will become the next issue in the classification of sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns and whether any additional firing mechanisms belong in this proscribed (means illegal) group of guns.

Your avoidance of this salient issue is a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

Ergo your opening statement is simply trying to justify itself, which is circular logic.

Circular logic is illogical.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never mentioned automatic weapons did I?

But then again many people already legally own fully automatic weapons and yet none of them have ever turned them on a crowd of people