There is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories

[g5000]

I agree.

I have had guns or been around them all my life. Evenso, in light of the latest massacre, do not feel threatened at all by discussion of limiting military style rifles that can fire round after round with 30 rounds or more magazines, or handguns that fire more than 10 rounds with one clip. Weapons have evolved a great deal in the 200 years since the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, and people are no longer dependent on their weapons for hunting or answering the call of the militia to repel and indian attack.

Shotguns, rifles, and pistols in the house are fine. All of the other interpretations of the 2nd Admendment calling for no restrictions at all on what one may possess are the reflections of a very narrow manner of thinking. In fact, almost abherant.

In light of 9/11, I do not feel threatened at all by discussion of limiting Muslims who can blow up airplane after airplane.

The demographics of America have changed a great deal since the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, and we are not dependent on Muslims.

Protestants, Catholics, and even some Jews are fine. All other interpretations of the First Amendment calling for no restriction on religion at all are the reflections of a very narrow manner of thinking. In fact, almost aberrant.

 

[eflatminor]

So we've deemed it acceptable and appropriate to severely limit ownership and use of automatic rifles,

No, you just made it more expensive for law abiding citizens. Automatic firearms are still used by criminals that wish to use them. Mexico proves that every day. Of course, few choose full auto because they're not the best choice for most firearm-related situations and they're expensive as hell to shoot all those rounds. And you can still "use" full auto firearms anytime you like. Lots of places rent them...just be prepared to go through a lot of ammunition quick.



Lots of reasons. One, most firearms out there are semiautomatic, whether they LOOK like full auto versions or not. Secondly, it's a bill or rights, not a bill of needs. Lastly, criminals have, and will always have, access to the firearms and accessories you seek to ban. Doing so only puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't give two shits about your regulations. How fucked up can you be for wanting to give the bad guys an edge?

For one thing, it is arguable that in a mass killing situation, such on a gun on semi-auto is as lethal or maybe even more lethal than on auto.

Probably true. What's the point? You'll never deter criminals from breaking the law and obtaining whatever firearm they like. Only the law abiding citizen will follow your regulations, not the criminal. So why would you want to handicap a good guy from being able to stop the crazy motherfucker with a gun?

Why isn't the NRA fighting to get automatic weapons back on the market?

Because they already are on the market. I can buy one. You can buy one. Either of us can rent one.

Now, will you answer my question? ^

 

[eflatminor]

The OP is located in Chigaco and wants to tell gun stores what they may or may not sell based on "legitimate reason".

Well, there is no ligitimate reason for a chicago moran to dictate what is legitimate to others.

Fuck you very much.

So the government has no reason to legislate.

Got it.

No, government should not legislate that which puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't care about regulations. Big frickin' difference.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we've deemed it acceptable and appropriate to severely limit ownership and use of automatic rifles,

how can it thus be argued that the semi-automatic version of same rifles, or the equivalents, should not be similarly restricted?

For one thing, it is arguable that in a mass killing situation, such on a gun on semi-auto is as lethal or maybe even more lethal than on auto.

How much gun violence did the NFA prevent?

No one can measure that.

Then there is no point to having such legislation, which does not produce a measurable effect.
QED. Now go oppose further restrictions.

 

[eflatminor]

So we've deemed it acceptable and appropriate to severely limit ownership and use of automatic rifles,

how can it thus be argued that the semi-automatic version of same rifles, or the equivalents, should not be similarly restricted?

For one thing, it is arguable that in a mass killing situation, such on a gun on semi-auto is as lethal or maybe even more lethal than on auto.

How much gun violence did the NFA prevent?

No one can measure that.

Sure we can. The National Institute of Justice did just that and found the ban had no positive effect on crime. They did find that the ban resulted in more banned firearms in civilian hands. A win as far as I'm concerned.

We can also measure how the bans in the UK and Australia affected crime rates there. All evidence points to an INCREASE in gun related and violent crime. Oops...

 

[eflatminor]

No, you just made it more expensive for law abiding citizens. Automatic firearms are still used by criminals that wish to use them. Mexico proves that every day. Of course, few choose full auto because they're not the best choice for most firearm-related situations and they're expensive as hell to shoot all those rounds. And you can still "use" full auto firearms anytime you like. Lots of places rent them...just be prepared to go through a lot of ammunition quick.



Lots of reasons. One, most firearms out there are semiautomatic, whether they LOOK like full auto versions or not. Secondly, it's a bill or rights, not a bill of needs. Lastly, criminals have, and will always have, access to the firearms and accessories you seek to ban. Doing so only puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't give two shits about your regulations. How fucked up can you be for wanting to give the bad guys an edge?



Probably true. What's the point? You'll never deter criminals from breaking the law and obtaining whatever firearm they like. Only the law abiding citizen will follow your regulations, not the criminal. So why would you want to handicap a good guy from being able to stop the crazy motherfucker with a gun?

Why isn't the NRA fighting to get automatic weapons back on the market?

Because they already are on the market. I can buy one. You can buy one. Either of us can rent one.

Now, will you answer my question? ^

 

[Jarlaxle]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

There is every legitimate reason for gun-sellers to sell militarized accessories. when you have the Drug Cartel running though your property with the same type of accessories and semi automatic rifles.

By that logic, machine guns should be no harder to obtain than semi-automatics.

I'm fine with that.

 

[hazlnut]

BUMP

just to make the gun cultists view this once a day.

It's true, you just can't accept it yet.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUMP

just to make the gun cultists view this once a day.

It's true, you just can't accept it yet.

What's true? That you're an ill informed moron? We hardly need reminding on that. You do it every time you post.
Here's the NYT on how hard it will be get anything done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...s-including-nra.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=us

 

[daveman]

BUMP

just to make the gun cultists view this once a day.

It's true, you just can't accept it yet.

Perhaps you should threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, child.

 

[hazlnut]

Every time I check back with this thread, I'm thinking one person must have one legitimate reason for the "pro-sumer" military weapons.

But No.

Not one reason so far.

 

[g5000]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

A funny thing about the word inalienable. It means I don't have to justify myself before I can exercise my rights. Too bad a dumbshit like you missed that day in class and are making a public ass of yourself as a result.

You have to justify yourself before you can stop me from exercising my inalienable rights.

I honestly believe you are borderline retarded, considering your persistence in making really stupid statements about this issue.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Every time I check back with this thread, I'm thinking one person must have one legitimate reason for the "pro-sumer" military weapons.

But No.

Not one reason so far.

A semiauto rifle is not a military weapon.

An AR15 is just a semiauto rifle with different cosmetics.

A semiauto is a great weapon for hunting and target shooting. It can be used for home defense if you like as well. Personally I would rather use my 12 gauge if I hear someone breaking in my .45 would be my second choice then the rifle.

 

[eflatminor]

Every time I check back with this thread, I'm thinking one person must have one legitimate reason for the "pro-sumer" military weapons.

But No.

Not one reason so far.

Only a fucking stinking troll could see all the legitimate reasons and Constitutional justifications listed and claim none have been made. Smell it?

 

[hazlnut]

And?

Did you read?

 

[The Rabbi]

And?

Did you read?

Neg repped because you're a dunce.