CDZ The Great Gun Debate

[Agit8r]

Limiting magazine size is important. Any time one person has the ability to kill many others, society will feel the rod of the tyrant.

Of equal importance is prohibiting those with a record of tyrannical behavior from owning and carrying any weapon. This would include violent felons, domestic abusers, those espousing terrorist agendas and sympathies, etc.

This should include Democrat politicians like Hillary. However, rich one percenters like her don't need to carry a gun since they have plenty of guards packing Uzis to protect her.

Sorry, kid, but the tyrants are mentally ill dumbasses like Loughner, Lanza and Mateen. The real threat of tyranny are those who hold positions of power like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are seeking to do. Why do you want to give them even more power over our lives?

If "real tyrants" have it in for you, you won't see it coming. And even if you did, you can't fire any number of bullets 50,000 feet into the air.

 

[Chuz Life]

Limiting magazine size is important. Any time one person has the ability to kill many others, society will feel the rod of the tyrant.

Of equal importance is prohibiting those with a record of tyrannical behavior from owning and carrying any weapon. This would include violent felons, domestic abusers, those espousing terrorist agendas and sympathies, etc.

This should include Democrat politicians like Hillary. However, rich one percenters like her don't need to carry a gun since they have plenty of guards packing Uzis to protect her.

Sorry, kid, but the tyrants are mentally ill dumbasses like Loughner, Lanza and Mateen. The real threat of tyranny are those who hold positions of power like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are seeking to do. Why do you want to give them even more power over our lives?

If "real tyrants" have it in for you, you won't see it coming. And even if you did, you can't fire any number of bullets 50,000 feet into the air.

Some may not "see it coming" in time but others in that area will certainly see and know what's going on in time to react to it.

As far as rounds coming from 50,000 feet? That's a bit of an exaggeration.

Regardless, an all out war between the people and our government along the lines of what our founding fathers fought against the King would not be as simple and one sided as you might think.

There would almost certainly be military members willing to defect - rather than to fire on their own American citizens and they would likely bring with them the various weapons of war (planes, tanks etc.) along with the knowledge on how to use those weapons as they leave.

If resistance to our military is as futile as you think it is. . . how do you explain the problems we face every day in dealing with the muslim terrorists and their organizations all over the globe?

 

[Divine Wind]

If "real tyrants" have it in for you, you won't see it coming. And even if you did, you can't fire any number of bullets 50,000 feet into the air.

Non sequitur, but whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[PredFan]

Setting aside 2nd Amendment/legal arguments, I would like to dissect this issue into discrete elements for reasoned discussion:

Definition of Assault Weapons

1. Appearance (wood vs. plastic)

2. Magazine capacity

3. Conversion to automatic operation (i.e., machine gun)

4. Type of Ammunition

Sale and Ownership

1. Military vs. Civilian use

2. Hunting vs. Self Defense

3. Restrictions on purchase

4. Federal vs. State requirements

Feel free to add others, but I am interested in which elements are most important to you. For example, I am more concerned with high capacity magazines and potential conversion to automatic operation than with appearance. Also, I am more concerned about federal requirements, since that would necessarily create the basis for a national list of gun ownership.

What are you principal concerns?

"Setting aside the 2nd Amendment" right there, you've killed the discussion. That IS the argument.

 

[Divine Wind]

...As far as rounds coming from 50,000 feet? That's a bit of an exaggeration....

Ya think?

Agreed such an eventuality would lead to civil war with some being Federalist Tories and the rest Constitutional revolutionaries. The point both you and I understand, and the anti-gun mob does not, is that nobody wants a tyranny and the best way to prevent one is the same way people protect anything else; put enough guns around it that no one wants to attack it.

Hillary has body guards. Not just one, but enough to not only protect her during an attack, but enough to deter anyone from attacking her. Any potential Islamic terrorist will just go after a softer target like a gun-free zone at a gay dance club. Preventing tyranny is similar; if enough people have the power to prevent it from being easy, it won't be as likely to be attempted.

 

[PredFan]

Oxymoron:
"Common Sense Gun Control"

 

[Divine Wind]

Oxymoron:
"Common Sense Gun Control"

Funny, but no one wants to see criminals or the mentally ill, much less unsupervised kids, with firearms...or cars, axes, matches or any other dangerous items. The problem isn't "common sense" goals, but the fact the Democratic anti-gun machine keeps moving the goal posts every time Republicans agree to a "compromise". This is why no one trust Democrats.

 

[PredFan]

Oxymoron:
"Common Sense Gun Control"

Funny, but no one wants to see criminals or the mentally ill, much less unsupervised kids, with firearms...or cars, axes, matches or any other dangerous items. The problem isn't "common sense" goals, but the fact the Democratic anti-gun machine keeps moving the goal posts every time Republicans agree to a "compromise". This is why no one trust Democrats.

I would also agree to using the terrorist watch list if it was regulated to insure due process.

The gun control the left wants isn't close to common sense.