Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[CMike]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

I know exactly what they are and exactly what they do.

I know the argument.

And I posted it.

Gun nuts are completely unreasonable.

And we see the results of that each year.

Thousands of deaths of Americans.

 

[CMike]

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed. The slippery slope that every gun nut invokes never materialized.

What is a "high capacity clip"?

Stop trolling.

Stop being arrogant about stuff you know nothing about.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

The problem with calling semi automatic firearms assault weapons is that they aren't assault weapons. In fact, the functional difference between them and any other repeating firearm is insignificant.

 

[The T]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

 

[Sallow]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

 

[The T]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Lose your ability to READ?

NOT what it says.

 

[The T]

NOR the Implication...


Again? ALL GUN LAWS that reside in the books are UnConstitutional...

The amendment hasn't been REPEALED...Nor Amended BY the Congress.

 

[The T]

Brian? YOU remain IGNORANT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

I am for gun rights and own guns but I don't see a good reason not to restore the ban on high capacity magazines,

shall we debate that?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that in order for a weapon to be protected by the 2nd Amendment it must have been used, in use or usable to the military. High capacity magazines are definitely of use to the military.

 

[Rousseau]

Although I disagree with most of today's "Right-wing" values (For a variety of reasons, mainly because they aren't actually Conservative anymore)

Personally, I still believe the right to bear arms is a fundamentally necessary right for American citizens to have, for various reasons. BUT I can fully understand the anti-gun argument, and I think many of you are short-sighted on the issue. If you wish to effectively argue a subject a broader understanding of both sides is necessary. So let me explain a few things:

America is ranked highest in the world in gun-related deaths. About 30,000 Americans die a year (give or take, it was higher in the early 90s because of heavy street gang violence) in this country due to gun violence. Obviously, this alone makes the issue a valid concern.

IF you wish to look strictly at numbers let me put it into perspective for you... While the majority of the federal budget is being spent on wars abroad spurred by an event in which 3,000 Americans died of a foreign terrorist attack in the past decade, about 30,000 Americans die continually every year in gun-related deaths at the hands of fellow Americans...

IF the concern and bottom line here is actual American lives, there should be a serious re-evaluation of the allocation of resources in this country because we are horrible at preventing American deaths at the hands of others.

With that said, also consider the context of the 2nd Amendment. After all, context is everything in legal studies. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment knowing that their own ability to arm themselves is why they were able to fight a revolution, declare independence and found this great nation.

They wanted the people to be able to defend themselves. BUT the founding fathers wrote this in totally different period of time. A period when civility, moral reasoning and unselfishness were emerging as the utmost values of a new union of people. They didn't have violent media constantly bombarding their children. It was a cultural responsibility to teach your child gun ownership and intent. This was a period when the most reasonable, civil, educated men were revered and idolized by the masses. They didn't have uneducated, selfish, irresponsible whackjobs in the political limelight evoking unnecessary emotions to a misled public, the types of people who should never be given the spotlight. They didn't glorify unnecessary violence.

With that said, I believe a more scrutinizing permit process should be in place rather than a ban of firearms. Gun manufactures should have less lobbying and political buying power on the issue for obvious reasons, conflict of interest etc. It is also true, the irresponsible actions of people is more of a symptom of our social climate. We need to act as responsible Americans.

 

[Sallow]

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Lose your ability to READ?

NOT what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

That's two separate issues . An full automatic firearm is different than high magazine capacity.

No it's not. Don't insult my intelligence. You introduced 'gun battles' into the conversation. Isn't there a reason the military/law enforcement have in some instances automatic weapons?

What is that reason??????

In the military fully automatic weapons are not considered personal weapons but rather squad or team weapons. Even the fully automatic rifle. A tripod mounted machine gun is a crew served weapon.

Grenades are explosives with 360 degree radius of kill zone and damage, also not a fire arm.

The US tried making all rifles they issued to the troops fully automatic, the quickly changed their mind and modified them all to 3 round burst mode. You see JOE Soldier tends to waste ammo if he has full auto capability.

 

[The T]

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Lose your ability to READ?

NOT what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

NOPE.

Try again.

 

[Sallow]

Brian? YOU remain IGNORANT.

Earth to Tommy.

I ain't Brian. I mean I met the guy. He's alot smaller then me. And really..not as strong either. So if you've met him too? Remove that picture...cause it ain't me.

And yeah Tommy..I am ignorant of what ever spacey wave length you are trying to convey.

You hittin the booze? Cause you are like all sloppy now..

 

[Sallow]

Lose your ability to READ?

NOT what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

NOPE.

Try again.

You first.

 

[The T]

That's exactly what it says.

NOPE.

Try again.

You first.

Wrong Answer. Try Again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

I know exactly what they are and exactly what they do.

I know the argument.

And I posted it.

Gun nuts are completely unreasonable.

And we see the results of that each year.

Thousands of deaths of Americans.

More people die each year in America due to Car accidents and a hell of a lot more die every year to malpractice.

The Supreme Court ruled that in ORDER to be protected by the 2nd Amendment a fire arm must have been used by the military, in use by the military or of use by the military. They did so in 1939.

The so called assault weapon ban was Unconstitutional to begin with. It banned weapons for how they LOOKED, not what they were capable of. There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon to begin with.

Fully automatic weapons of ANY KIND are illegal in ( I believe) 17 States and the rest are HEAVILY regulated by the Federal Government. Since 1934. Anyone that has one and does not have a Federal license is committing a serious crime.

 

[The T]

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

I know exactly what they are and exactly what they do.

I know the argument.

And I posted it.

Gun nuts are completely unreasonable.

And we see the results of that each year.

Thousands of deaths of Americans.

More people die each year in America due to Car accidents and a hell of a lot more die every year to malpractice.

The Supreme Court ruled that in ORDER to be protected by the 2nd Amendment a fire arm must have been used by the military, in use by the military or of use by the military. They did so in 1939.

The so called assault weapon ban was Unconstitutional to begin with. It banned weapons for how they LOOKED, not what they were capable of. There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon to begin with.

Fully automatic weapons of ANY KIND are illegal in ( I believe) 17 States and the rest are HEAVILY regulated by the Federal Government. Since 1934. Anyone that has one and does not have a Federal license is committing a serious crime.

Even that can be challanged. But there are some on here that think it is the LAST word and the people need to shut up.

Not the case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

A guy who doesn't know that magazines are commonly referred to as 'clips' throughout all of the real gun world, and have been for who knows how long,

can only be a poser.

Nice try, phoney ****, but you've tipped your hand. You don't know guns from broomsticks.

lol, that makes my day.

A clip is NOT a magazine. They are distinctly DIFFERENT. No one that is familiar with firearms and uses them refers to magazines as clips. AN M1 Garand uses an 8 round clip, it is a piece of metal with a back and 2 sides. open on one side and open on both ends. The metal holds the rounds in the clip as long as the clip is full. In a magazine well the well keeps the rounds in the clip after one or more have been fired. You can twist rounds to a certain extent to keep less then the full load in a clip. It is imperfect and messy.

Further a clip does not have to be unloaded like a magazine does. A magazine is a box with just the top open. It uses a spring to force the rounds into the chamber as each round is fired. That spring becomes weakened and useless if you leave a magazine loaded to long. Further dirt and debris can effect the function of a magazine.

LEARN your terms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What more is there to SAY?

The ONLY WAY to abridge it is to REPEAL IT by process of CONGRESS...

ALL GUN LAWS are illegal.

Enough said.

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Wrong as usual. The 2nd Amendment imparts 2 protected rights. One is to the States, granting them the right to create and maintain militias, which most States have quit doing. The second right is to the INDIVIDUAL , a protected right to OWN, maintain and use firearms. Further Congress can not call forth the entirety of a States Militia. Only a portion.