"Repeal The Second Amendment!"

[2aguy]

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Thanks but I'm not a statistician so it is hard for me to really evaluate raw data. Also, it is easy to find other interpretations of the same data. For example:

Some information on Britain........and what happened immediately after the gun ban....10 years into the ban.....and from 2016...Australia is facing the same increase in gun crime.....


Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

 

[alang1216]

the deranged guy with a bomb scares me too. what stops him from building one if you take away the gun? guy named Timothy Veigh accomplished that.

I'm all in favor of effective bomb control. Are you?

 

[alang1216]

And the deranged guy scares us too...that is why we support being able to stop the guy with our own gun....since the cops are 5-7 minutes away...if that, on a good day....

As my mother used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If that deranged guy didn't have a gun you may not be required to stop him.

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't mind its repeal. Just do it constitutionally instead of nickel and diming it to death through legislation.

 

[2aguy]

And the deranged guy scares us too...that is why we support being able to stop the guy with our own gun....since the cops are 5-7 minutes away...if that, on a good day....

As my mother used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If that deranged guy didn't have a gun you may not be required to stop him.

They can't keep deranged guys from getting guns in Britain and Australia...islands....that banned and confiscated guns....we have a border with the narco state of Mexico, and the drug cartels are setting up gun making factories....do you really think we can keep those guns out of this country?

 

[2aguy]

I wouldn't mind its repeal. Just do it constitutionally instead of nickel and diming it to death through legislation.

The German people believed the same thing......they fell in line with the exact same gun control beliefs as you do......20 years after they started registering and banning guns....they marched 12 million innocent men, women and children into gas chambers.....

 

[alang1216]

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Thanks but I'm not a statistician so it is hard for me to really evaluate raw data. Also, it is easy to find other interpretations of the same data. For example:

Some information on Britain........and what happened immediately after the gun ban....10 years into the ban.....and from 2016...Australia is facing the same increase in gun crime.....


Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Big percentages, small numbers.

 

[alang1216]

we have a border with the narco state of Mexico, and the drug cartels are setting up gun making factories....do you really think we can keep those guns out of this country?

I honestly don't know but I do think it is worth trying to make the country safer without banning or confiscating all guns. I think there has to be some sweet spot between doing nothing and confiscation.

 

[rightwinger]

I propose that the next time a Muslim terror attack happens, that we BAN the Muslim religion. We aren't going to ban ALL religions, just the Muslim religion. They use various tools at their disposal to accomplish their terrorist goals, bombs, knives, vehicles, guns, so it isn't so much the tool I am concerned about but rather the dangerous ideology which has seduced some into joining the cause of murdering innocent American citizens here and abroad. So, since I don't want to ban ALL religions and even though the vast majority of Muslims have never harmed anyone, I feel justified in banning their right to practice that particular religion due to the violence. How many children around the world have been killed in Muslim terror attacks?

Nobody is proposing a BAN on guns

Merely enhanced background checks on all purchases

Why do conservatives oppose it?

So you don't care if a person who passes a background check buys 100 AR 15 rifles in a week?

If it makes him happy

As long as there are background checks on anyone he tries to sell them to

 

[jc456]

Nobody will miss the second amendment
It serves no purpose at the federal level

Let the states decide

That's a good reminder that conservatives only pretend to be for states' rights as a general principle.

No, twit...we are for individual Rights...at the point that States violate individual Rights....as when the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, the Federal Government had to step in....when the Federal government violates individual Rights, then the states step in....it is called checks and balances......that is what we support.....

Except for something like abortion, or same sex marriage. lol

Abortion is killing another human being. Same sex marriage is now a weapon used against Christians...violating their 1st Amendment Rights to freedom of religion....

Dumb Deer doesn't know abortion kills a human being. He thinks it is akin to clipping your toe nails.

In illinois, it's against the law to pull daisies and prairie grass, but you can kill a baby. Amazing priorities in our state. I supposed that's why they don't blink at 3,000 black deaths from guns a year.

 

[jc456]

the deranged guy with a bomb scares me too. what stops him from building one if you take away the gun? guy named Timothy Veigh accomplished that.

I'm all in favor of effective bomb control. Are you?

sure, what's your plan? I'd rather lock the nutjob up and throw away the key? he/ she is more dangerous.

 

[jc456]

the fact that you are afraid of it and not the person holding it is truly amazing. What if he had planted a bomb? I mean, the gun isn't the issue. until you can figure that out, you're useless.

The deranged guy scares me, the gun does not. The deranged guy with a gun the terrifies me.

And the deranged guy scares us too...that is why we support being able to stop the guy with our own gun....since the cops are 5-7 minutes away...if that, on a good day....

that's why we have the second amendment

 

[alang1216]

the deranged guy with a bomb scares me too. what stops him from building one if you take away the gun? guy named Timothy Veigh accomplished that.

I'm all in favor of effective bomb control. Are you?

sure, what's your plan? I'd rather lock the nutjob up and throw away the key? he/ she is more dangerous.

Don't disagree. I have no plan but we do have existing restrictions on explosives. Bombs seem to be more rare than guns so I guess they are working.

 

[alang1216]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

 

[jc456]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

never said it wasn't. The fact remains that in 1994 the government put a ban on assault rifles and for ten years collected data, and it did not have any affect on gun deaths. So, why would we want to do that again? we have scientific statistics to show it doesn't matter. so, unless now the left doesn't believe in science then I'm not sure why we would redo this one.

 

[alang1216]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

never said it wasn't. The fact remains that in 1994 the government put a ban on assault rifles and for ten years collected data, and it did not have any affect on gun deaths. So, why would we want to do that again? we have scientific statistics to show it doesn't matter. so, unless now the left doesn't believe in science then I'm not sure why we would redo this one.

Thanks, you've given me a fine example of why I don't trust what gun advocates say, especially when they cite statistics.

You're wrong about the assault ban:

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.​

You're also wrong about science, it isn't the left that doesn't believe in finding truths, even if they are uncomfortable:

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center's funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds "to advocate or promote gun control." (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)​

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't mind its repeal. Just do it constitutionally instead of nickel and diming it to death through legislation.

The German people believed the same thing......they fell in line with the exact same gun control beliefs as you do......20 years after they started registering and banning guns....they marched 12 million innocent men, women and children into gas chambers.....

Oh, the pretense that guns turn the citizenry into Rambo that brings down the government. With all the money we have poured into the military, good luck with that.

 

[ptbw forever]

We appear to actually be moving towards a tipping point here. Maybe we really have finally had enough.

If conservatives continue to play this libertarian all-or-nothing game, I suspect they're going to regret it.

There is no middle ground on gun ownership.

Democrats will regret it once their own voters are finally smart enough to understand that.

 

[jc456]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

never said it wasn't. The fact remains that in 1994 the government put a ban on assault rifles and for ten years collected data, and it did not have any affect on gun deaths. So, why would we want to do that again? we have scientific statistics to show it doesn't matter. so, unless now the left doesn't believe in science then I'm not sure why we would redo this one.

Thanks, you've given me a fine example of why I don't trust what gun advocates say, especially when they cite statistics.

You're wrong about the assault ban:

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.​

You're also wrong about science, it isn't the left that doesn't believe in finding truths, even if they are uncomfortable:

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center's funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds "to advocate or promote gun control." (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)​

dude, your post does back my post. you're not looking at it correctly. that's all. the fact is that the ban didn't stop killing. The facts are in.

 

[rightwinger]

First amendment is working great

Second amendment is killing a lot of people