The right to bear arms
Replies
-
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The same power that wrote and ratified the Constitution: "We the People" speaking through our democratically elected representatives. That's how a constitutional republic works on this issue, just like every issue.0 -
So in "group society" who gets to decide which of our basic freedoms are "abridged" for the common good of society? The government that takes away more American rights on every level on a daily basis?
I don't think so.
The same power that wrote and ratified the Constitution: "We the People" speaking through our democratically elected representatives. That's how a constitutional republic works on this issue, just like every issue.
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.0 -
Utter nonsense. You never heard of the "gun show loophole" that the NRA fights so hard to defend?
Edit: I spoke too soon. You admit never having heard of the gun show loophole in a later post. You must have bought from a federally licensed dealer who happened to be at a gun show. If you had bought from a private party at a gun show, not background check would have been required.
Well if that loophole does exist, it's still not really a loophole.
someone is still responsible.
If you sell your gun under the table to someone without having that person checked, and the gun is used for a crime, you're the person the government will be coming to for answers.0 -
And if you had no reason to know that the stranger you legally sold a gun to was a felon, the answers will be "I didn't know." And that will be the end of it.
You're right in one respect: It's not a loophole. It's a tunnel big enough to drive a truck through.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
You have heard of the first amendment, right? It's the one right before the second amendment. You might look it up sometime.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
You have heard of the first amendment, right? It's the one right before the second amendment. You might look it up sometime.
Well you've heard of the second amendment and keep arguing about it, so I can gripe about your 1st amendment debates.
0 -
Your right of course, no matter how wrong you are.0
-
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
Except no. The statistics all show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. And without a referendum (dumb question but do you have referendums in America?) you can't say what the people talk for.0 -
But "we the people" have spoken. We want the constitution upheld and by the majority, we don't want our guns banned or taken away.
And yet the people who disagree with us keep having these debates.
Except no. The statistics all show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. And without a referendum (dumb question but do you have referendums in America?) you can't say what the people talk for.
Except no. LIBERAL statistics show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. If i were you I'd stop reading leftist media polls and assuming they're indicative of the desires of the majority of Americans.
If you were right, all those firearms would be banned already. They've certainly been trying for years.
the facts keep working against them however. Liberal "gun free zones" are the places innocent people are most likely to get shot.0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.0 -
Except no. LIBERAL statistics show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. If i were you I'd stop reading leftist media polls and assuming they're indicative of the desires of the majority of Americans.
Of course, what you call "liberal media polls" got the presidential election completely right, while Rasmussen and Fox "News" got caught with their pants down.0 -
Except no. LIBERAL statistics show widespread support for limiting certain types of guns. If i were you I'd stop reading leftist media polls and assuming they're indicative of the desires of the majority of Americans.
Of course, what you call "liberal media polls" got the presidential election completely right, while Rasmussen and Fox "News" got caught with their pants down.
Yeah except people love to forget Obama won by about 1% not the 20% lead the polls were giving him. Plus if anyone would actually deal with all the known instances of voter fraud that have been uncovered since, the election might have a different outcome.
And this has nothing whatsoever to do with gun bans.0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?0 -
I have many issues with this debate. The right to bear arms was and has always been for the purpose of defending ourselves from oppresive government. Using firearms as a means of self defense was a given, especially during our forefathers days when so many of our citizens lived near or on perilous borders leading into the frontier.
The problem I have with the assault rifle crowd is the spin. Just be honest. If you like aasault weapons, either you are a collector, enjoy shooting them, think they are cool...ect. You don't NEED them for anything. A shotgun or a hand gun is more than adequate for home defense, and a pistol is much handier for people to conceal and carry.
Even if you make the case that assault rifles are needed for their original purpose, keeping the government if check....the effectivenesss of citizens being able to stand up to the US government using them is being over rated. The Iraqi army had fully automatic Ak-47s, tanks, APCs and an airforce....and we wiped the floor with them. So to think that any cititzen based militia with AR-15s would somehow protect us from a tyrannical government is laughable. An insurgency based in large cities would be the only thing they could accomplish and even that would be met with a very limited success.
On the other hand, now defending the pro-assault rifle crowd, I am bothered by anti-gun legislation because it targets law abiding citizens by assuming, with no premise, that they will one day break the law and slaughter their fellow citizens. It is a slippery slope when we tell citizens who have no history of criminal activity or mental instability what weapons they can or cannot own. I understand the debate...because using the very reasoning I use, technically, I should have no problem with a person owning an RPG because they have never broken the law.
We also have to be aware of the publics un-educated positions on assault rifles. Shot guns at close range are much deadlier and can split a man in half. Hand guns might only have 15 shots as opposed to 30, but can be easily concealed....and many hunting rifles have far superior stopping power, range and accuracy, making them a lot more ideal for assasination attempts.
So why I can not really justify why any person in this nation should own an assault rifle, I also keep in mind that maybe it't shouldnt be up to me to be telling other citizens what they need or don't need if they have never broken the laws of the land.
I don't see why guns need to be put into any special category.I am bothered by anti-gun legislation because it targets law abiding citizens by assuming, with no premise, that they will one day break the law and slaughter their fellow citizens.
We have all types of preventive regulations -- traffic laws and drivers license regulations come immediately to mind -- that are also applied to all citizens, regardless of their criminal history or mens rea. Why should guns and gun owners be treated any differently? Sorry, I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument at all--and I don't think it would even be raised if it wasn't for the fetish-like reverence that many people have for their guns.
It's a public health issue, nothing more and nothing less. If there are proven steps that we can take to begin to limit injury and death while still operating under the current, Roberts' Court definition of 2nd amendment rights, IMO there is no reason not to do so.0 -
Yeah except people love to forget Obama won by about 1% not the 20% lead the polls were giving him. Plus if anyone would actually deal with all the known instances of voter fraud that have been uncovered since, the election might have a different outcome.
And this has nothing whatsoever to do with gun bans.
The polls showed Obama winning by a percent or two in the swing states, except North Carolina. And he won them all by two or three percent, except North Carolina. No polls showed a 20 point lead outside pure blue states that he won by 20 points or more.
Nationally, he won by about 4%, not the one percent you state.
You're insane and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if you think there are enough "known instances of voter fraud" to swing the election. Either that or you watch too much Fox News. But I repeat myself.
It has to do with gun control to the extent that people deny the reality of public opinion on gun control just as they deny the reality of public opinion about the election.0 -
3. Close the gun show loophole.
I'm curious as to what this "gun show loophole" is. I bought a gun at a gun show. I still had to go through a federal background check.
if you buy from a dealer, yeah. same deal. still go through the background checks. but if you buy from a private dealer, it's just give him the cash and walk with the gun.0 -
The polls showed Obama winning by a percent or two in the swing states, except North Carolina. And he won them all by two or three percent, except North Carolina. No polls showed a 20 point lead outside pure blue states that he won by 20 points or more.
Nationally, he won by about 4%, not the one percent you state.
You're insane and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if you think there are enough "known instances of voter fraud" to swing the election. Either that or you watch too much Fox News. But I repeat myself.
Can it sway an election? I can't say, but it's typical of a liberal to result to insults when they have no facts.
http://www.examiner.com/article/massive-voter-fraud-broward-county-florida-poll-watcher-ejected-from-station
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297461/reality-voter-fraud-john-fund
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/01/voter-fraud-is-no-myth-its-more-common-than-you-think/
It has to do with gun control to the extent that people deny the reality of public opinion on gun control just as they deny the reality of public opinion about the election.
Really? The majority of the people in this THREAD don't even support gun control.
But yeah i can give you more...
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-51-percent-dont-want-gun-ban-85512.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-control-polls-20121220,0,4227727.story
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gun-control-compromise-called-likely-4140071.php
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/26/gun-rights-assault-weapons/1791827/0 -
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?
citizens don't own military-grade weapons.
at least, law-abiding citizens don't.0 -
I can assure you people in the bush in Australia all have weapons. They have the same issues with wild animals that Americans do mother don't need more than 10 rounds to kill those animals though. Maybe it's a matter of skill?0
-
It has to do with gun control to the extent that people deny the reality of public opinion on gun control just as they deny the reality of public opinion about the election.
Really? The majority of the people in this THREAD don't even support gun control.
But yeah i can give you more...
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-51-percent-dont-want-gun-ban-85512.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-control-polls-20121220,0,4227727.story
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gun-control-compromise-called-likely-4140071.php
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/26/gun-rights-assault-weapons/1791827/
Did you bother reading your own links? They don't say that a majority opposes gun control, only that a slight majority opposes an assault weapons ban, a form of gun control that even I haven't supported on this thread.
From your first link: "Support for stricter gun control measures in general has jumped from 43 percent in October 2011 to 58 percent this month, according the poll."
From your second link: "Controlling the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips gets consistent majority support in surveys by the Washington Post/ABC News and YouGov that were conducted after the Newtown, Conn., massacre last week. The ability to fire large numbers of bullets without reloading has factored into several mass shootings. A ban on bullets that can penetrate bulletproof vests also gets strong public support in recent surveys. Previous polls have shown strong support for requiring background checks of all people trying to buy guns and other steps to close loopholes in the current system."
From your third link: "The poll also showed that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners backed a requirement that anyone purchasing a gun submit to a criminal background check."
From your last link: "Support for the concept of stronger gun control laws has grown in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, and overwhelming majorities favor some specific changes to the laws."
Clear majorities support stronger gun control. That's the fact shown by your own links . . . if you bother to read them.0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?
Depends on the coyote... but I guess you forgot about the meth producers that love that area too.. as it is so far from authorities... and like tsh0ck... law abiding citizens don't own military grade weapons (my father and my dad (both retired military) don't have them.. they may have civilian variations, but not military grade)... While the AR-15 might be styled as a military grade weapon, it is not... as it is not supposed be convertable into a fully automatic weapon (which is what the military uses as their assualt weapons)... at least not easily, and it is my understanding that you would need expensive equipment and extensive machining knowledge to do so... I'm sorry, but if I am living in the backwoods and I'm encountering a Coyote (the human traffiking and/or drug running kind not the canine kind) with military grade weapons that our own government gave to these groups... yeah, pretty sure I would want something that is at least close in caliber and fighting power so I would have at least a chance to survive... All Semi-automatic means is that it self loads... even handguns are semi-auto and when protecting myself, I sure as hell don't want to be fumbling to place bullets into a chamber...0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?
Depends on the coyote... but I guess you forgot about the meth producers that love that area too.. as it is so far from authorities... and like tsh0ck... law abiding citizens don't own military grade weapons (my father and my dad (both retired military) don't have them.. they may have civilian variations, but not military grade)... While the AR-15 might be styled as a military grade weapon, it is not... as it is not supposed be convertable into a fully automatic weapon (which is what the military uses as their assualt weapons)... at least not easily, and it is my understanding that you would need expensive equipment and extensive machining knowledge to do so... I'm sorry, but if I am living in the backwoods and I'm encountering a Coyote (the human traffiking and/or drug running kind not the canine kind) with military grade weapons that our own government gave to these groups... yeah, pretty sure I would want something that is at least close in caliber and fighting power so I would have at least a chance to survive... All Semi-automatic means is that it self loads... even handguns are semi-auto and when protecting myself, I sure as hell don't want to be fumbling to place bullets into a chamber...
How often have these Meth dealers/producers or human traffickers attack civilians in that area?0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?
Depends on the coyote... but I guess you forgot about the meth producers that love that area too.. as it is so far from authorities... and like tsh0ck... law abiding citizens don't own military grade weapons (my father and my dad (both retired military) don't have them.. they may have civilian variations, but not military grade)... While the AR-15 might be styled as a military grade weapon, it is not... as it is not supposed be convertable into a fully automatic weapon (which is what the military uses as their assualt weapons)... at least not easily, and it is my understanding that you would need expensive equipment and extensive machining knowledge to do so... I'm sorry, but if I am living in the backwoods and I'm encountering a Coyote (the human traffiking and/or drug running kind not the canine kind) with military grade weapons that our own government gave to these groups... yeah, pretty sure I would want something that is at least close in caliber and fighting power so I would have at least a chance to survive... All Semi-automatic means is that it self loads... even handguns are semi-auto and when protecting myself, I sure as hell don't want to be fumbling to place bullets into a chamber...
How often have these Meth dealers/producers or human traffickers attack civilians in that area?
Thankfully, not often in our area... but honestly, I still wouldn't want to take a chance.0 -
What it really comes down to is people own things just because they can... and when you really get down to it, people don't like being told what to do.
I was talking to my husband (who was at one point an NRA certified rifle instructor... he is into sport shooting) on magazines and their size.... if someone is skilled and prepared enough, it is not going to matter one hill of beans how many rounds it can contain... because with practice it can take less than a second to reload and keep shooting. My husband owns a couple of different types of semi-autos, I have seen him do it.
I would also like to add, that just because someone is a member of the NRA and owns guns, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything the NRA has said or stood for.
And look, that's fine if in the UK or Australia or Canada restricts gun ownership (or makes it virtually non-extent)... that is your country and your culture. At least in the UK, it's really only the Military and special police forces that have guns and not all authority... But one thing that the people in the UK don't understand (at least as far as I can see it) is we still live in largely rural areas, were it can take 20 minutes for some type of authority to show up.... like where my parents life... the closest town is seriously 15 minutes drive (at 70 mph)... they very seldom have county sheriff's, or state troopers driving by and they are way too far out for city police jurisdiction... there are also Meth labs in various abandoned houses out there... there are coyotes, bob cats and the such... My parents should have every right to be able to protect themselves (and their property) from criminals and wildlife... Not to mention that we live in a state that borders Mexico, in the major metro's Immigration round up 100's a year... and they aren't the run of the mill migrant workers that are here illegally, they are those involved in drug and human trafficking.
Is it paranoia? Perhaps. But when it comes to protecting our lives and property, I would rather be prepared and alive, then unprepared and dead. Why should I expect someone else to come to my aid? They may take too long and sometimes all you got is a split second.
I don't think anyone here, or even in the general public, is suggesting that people like your parents should not be able to have the means to protect themselves. But are you suggesting that they need military-grade weapons to stand up against coyotes?
Depends on the coyote... but I guess you forgot about the meth producers that love that area too.. as it is so far from authorities... and like tsh0ck... law abiding citizens don't own military grade weapons (my father and my dad (both retired military) don't have them.. they may have civilian variations, but not military grade)... While the AR-15 might be styled as a military grade weapon, it is not... as it is not supposed be convertable into a fully automatic weapon (which is what the military uses as their assualt weapons)... at least not easily, and it is my understanding that you would need expensive equipment and extensive machining knowledge to do so... I'm sorry, but if I am living in the backwoods and I'm encountering a Coyote (the human traffiking and/or drug running kind not the canine kind) with military grade weapons that our own government gave to these groups... yeah, pretty sure I would want something that is at least close in caliber and fighting power so I would have at least a chance to survive... All Semi-automatic means is that it self loads... even handguns are semi-auto and when protecting myself, I sure as hell don't want to be fumbling to place bullets into a chamber...
How often have these Meth dealers/producers or human traffickers attack civilians in that area?
Thankfully, not often in our area... but honestly, I still wouldn't want to take a chance.
Can I interest you in some Earthquake Insurance?0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.
But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.
And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.
You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.
I feel the same way on the issue. You want to own a gun for protection or hunting? Fine. You want an assault rifle or a machine gun? Uh, why?
I agree with both of you.
However, banning the weapon isn't going to make it vanish off the streets. Making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening. See: alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, black market anything.....etc x infinity.
Spending time writing the bans on assualt weapons is fine and dandy but don't delude yourself that all the owners of those weapons are suddenly going to say, OMG they're ILLEGAL NOW!? Well I guess I will just turn it over to Johnny Law......
My main question that nobody seems to have an answer for: A ban is only effective if you also have a time machine. What are you going to do to put this toothpaste back into the tube? Assault guns are already everywhere, on the street. Banning them only prevents new sales, so what are you gonna do about the (insert big number) guns already on the street?0 -
Can I interest you in some Earthquake Insurance?
Sure why not? After all the fraking that's going on in our areas, we have been having way more (and bigger) earthquakes than there should be at this point in time on the geologic timeframe of the area.... but THAT is another topic for another day. :drinker:
But again, a semi-automatic weapon does not necessarily equal an M16 or an AK47 (eta) of even a "machine gun"... it could just be typical 9mm pistol.
I was just reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor about gun control in Canada... which obviously has much stricter policies than we do... they still have shootings, they still have guns smuggled into the country... they still have deranged people getting their hands on guns legally owned by others.... While, the incidents may be farther and fewer between than here, it still happens.... and things of such nature will continue to happen until the day that humans cease to exist.0 -
Can I interest you in some Earthquake Insurance?
Sure why not? After all the fraking that's going on in our areas, we have been having way more (and bigger) earthquakes than there should be at this point in time on the geologic timeframe of the area.... but THAT is another topic for another day. :drinker:
But again, a semi-automatic weapon does not necessarily equal an M16 or an AK47 (eta) of even a "machine gun"... it could just be typical 9mm pistol.
I was just reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor about gun control in Canada... which obviously has much stricter policies than we do... they still have shootings, they still have guns smuggled into the country... they still have deranged people getting their hands on guns legally owned by others.... While, the incidents may be farther and fewer between than here, it still happens.... and things of such nature will continue to happen until the day that humans cease to exist.
So, since it is going to happen anyway, we shouldn't take measures to at least reduce the occurance?0 -
Canada's rate of homicide by firearm is nearly 1/5 that of the United States: 0.76 per 100,000 vs 3.7 per 100,000. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_deaths )0
-
Just a random curiosity... since when has wikipedia been considered a valid source of information? I'm just curious, as I am seeing it quoted.... a lot.... and I am prone to not believe it when things have been innaccurate quite often on that site (which is bound to happen since it is larger user edited) and often enough that it is not allowed to be used as a source when righting research papers... I get we aren't in academics here... but I am just questioning the validity and the reason it is used nearly every single time I see something sourced....
Ok rant over.0 -
It's a better source than National Review, The Washington Examiner, or Humanevents.com.
If I were writing an academic paper would I cite wikipedia? No. But on a discussion board, sure. I cite it all the time. It's a great quick source of information. And more and more, it gives its own sources that can be checked if needed.
About five or six years ago, I saw a study that found wikipedia was more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. I wouldn't cite Britannica in an academic paper either, but back in the old days, I sure would consult it when I needed a quick source of information.0
