# Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me



## KevinWestern

Let&#8217;s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15&#8217;s. 

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here&#8217;s why. We&#8217;re _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
*
1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov&#8217;t and (b) criminals*

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov&#8217;t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov&#8217;t has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests. 

With that given, why take &#8220;law abiding citizens&#8221; out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)? 

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.

Thoughts? 
.





.


----------



## Sallow

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.


----------



## KevinWestern

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



I don't know about that. It's not very fair to pin a murder on a law-abiding citizen who got his house broken into and gun stolen, right? 

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles in the USA (I'm speaking in relative terms to all the other problems we have).  

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 homocides by rifle in any given year in the USA (and that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%). 

However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them? 


.


----------



## Sallow

KevinWestern said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.

What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.


----------



## Spoonman

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



let's take a look at how often these guns actually kill people.   yea, you are right, this assault weapons ban is a total waste of time


----------



## KevinWestern

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
Click to expand...


Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives? 

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles? 

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



Why? every one has the same rights to own a gun.  that makes no sense at all.  You libs get more off the wall with your ideas everyday.


----------



## Sallow

chikenwing said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
Click to expand...


The absurd notion came from you folks.

That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.

It's not an industry.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
Click to expand...


so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?


----------



## there4eyeM

From one who is against all censorship and repression of freedom for adults, allow this question:
Which is easier to ban, firearms or stupidity? 

People are getting fed up with the misapplication of weapons like this. You and I may know that it is not the object that by itself wrecks havoc, but a solution is being demanded. Intransigence is not going to win the day.


----------



## Spoonman

KevinWestern said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


hammers outpaced all rifles combined.


----------



## Sallow

KevinWestern said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.

Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg

Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.

Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?
Click to expand...


NEWSFLASH: They are in many cases.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEWSFLASH: They are in many cases.
Click to expand...


yea, if they are a faulty product. get real.  you are off the wall


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.
> 
> Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg
> 
> Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.
> 
> Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..
Click to expand...


Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.


----------



## Sallow

KevinWestern said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.
> 
> Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg
> 
> Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.
> 
> Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.
Click to expand...


FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
Click to expand...


 Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.
> 
> Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg
> 
> Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.
> 
> Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.
Click to expand...


So the FBI statistics are only for Federal crimes? Every murder is now a federal crime? Lie much?


----------



## Sallow

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
Click to expand...


Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.


----------



## Sallow

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the FBI statistics are only for Federal crimes? Every murder is now a federal crime? Lie much?
Click to expand...


Under what circumstances is murder a Federal offense? - Yahoo! Answers

Basically..yeah.

Why exactly do you think the NRA went after the CDC?

Huh?


----------



## gallantwarrior

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. *The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.*
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns.  Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken.  You're cool with that?


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.



Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated.  Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?

You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?



> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.



It is.  Clearly.



> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.



Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.  



> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns.



The "same thing" already exists.  You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.



> Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner.



Wow.  Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?



> The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.



Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.



> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



Not a single one.  It's that daft an idea.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.
> 
> Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg
> 
> Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.
> 
> Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just make shit up.


----------



## Sallow

gallantwarrior said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. *The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.*
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns.  Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken.  You're cool with that?
Click to expand...


Nope.

The owner is responsible.

After all..guns don't kill people, right?


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you just make shit up.
Click to expand...


What part of the Clean Debate Zone, aren't you getting?


----------



## gallantwarrior

Sallow said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> 
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.
> 
> It's not an industry.
Click to expand...


So, anyone who has used a gun to shoot any kid in the face should be forbidden to have guns.  I'm for that.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated.  Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?
> 
> You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The "same thing" already exists.  You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a single one.  *It's that daft an idea.*
Click to expand...


As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem at all.
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.
Click to expand...


well that and the black market.   oh yea, and eric holder


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.



Not true.  Not even close.

According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.


----------



## Sallow

gallantwarrior said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> 
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.
> 
> It's not an industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, anyone who has used a gun to shoot any kid in the face should be forbidden to have guns.  I'm for that.
Click to expand...


Not exactly..


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them.  You know, just like our bill of rights says.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not even close.
> 
> According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.
Click to expand...


They were manufactured illegally?

Really?

Man..this is bigger then I thought.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated.  Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?
> 
> You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  Clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The "same thing" already exists.  You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?
> 
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a single one.  *It's that daft an idea.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.
> 
> Or anyone for that matter.
Click to expand...


Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons. 

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Sallow said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem at all.
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.
Click to expand...


 I dont manufacture weapons.
I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around. 
 So who is the dangerous one here?


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them.  You know, just like our bill of rights says.
Click to expand...


Except..that's not what the bill of right says. It's not even what the case law that allows you to have guns says..


----------



## gallantwarrior

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
Click to expand...


Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?"  They won't enforce the laws they already have.  They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals.  They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more.  Liberal logic 101.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not even close.
> 
> According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were manufactured illegally?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Man..this is bigger then I thought.
Click to expand...


No, but that's not what you said.  You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".

That is patently false.


----------



## Sallow

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem at all.
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont manufacture weapons.
> I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around.
> So who is the dangerous one here?
Click to expand...

It should not be a problem for you then.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not even close.
> 
> According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were manufactured illegally?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Man..this is bigger then I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's not what you said.  You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".
> 
> That is patently false.
Click to expand...


That's because you edited my post.

Please don't do that.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were manufactured illegally?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Man..this is bigger then I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's not what you said.  You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".
> 
> That is patently false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you edited my post.
> 
> Please don't do that.
Click to expand...


So you're acknowledging that most criminals get their guns illegally?  Fine.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Sallow said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. *The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.*
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns.  Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken.  You're cool with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The owner is responsible.
> 
> After all..guns don't kill people, right?
Click to expand...


Walking that one back, aren't you?  If someone steals your car and kills another person, you're OK with going to jail?  (I know it's been asked, but it _does_ beg an answer.)
Here's an apparently novel idea (for libtard morons), why don't we hold the person who uses the gun, or whatever weapon, responsible for their actions?  
There's a drunk on the corner, he decides to rape the equally drunk gal with him, I suppose it is only appropriate that all men be punished for rape.  They have the equipment, they must be guilty.


----------



## Yurt

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



would you extend that to voting?


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them.  You know, just like our bill of rights says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except..that's not what the bill of right says. It's not even what the case law that allows you to have guns says..
Click to expand...


the bill of rights says uninfringed right of ownership.  it can't get any clearer than that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Sallow said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem at all.
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont manufacture weapons.
> I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around.
> So who is the dangerous one here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should not be a problem for you then.
Click to expand...


  OK we've determined that I am a responsible gun owner. Why on earth would you go after me when the real danger is the the clown with the POS raven .25?


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated.  Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?
> 
> You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  Clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The "same thing" already exists.  You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?
> 
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single one.  *It's that daft an idea.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.
> 
> Or anyone for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.
> 
> But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?
Click to expand...


First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.
> 
> Or anyone for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.
> 
> But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
Click to expand...


but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.
> 
> But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
Click to expand...


Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.
> 
> Or anyone for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.
> 
> But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
Click to expand...


Which has nothing to do with your suggestion that one should be responsible for the actions of a thief that steals from him.  



> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.



No, you don't.  You only have to purchase insurance IN YOUR STATE if you plan to operate the vehicle on public property.  If you use your vehicle on your own property, no insurance or a license is required.

So, by your own reasoning, the federal government should have no involvement in licensing or requiring insurance for a firearm, but states are free to require a license/insurance to carry on public property.

Works for me.



> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.



Actually, there are.  Many states require a license to carry concealed.  Other states do not. 



> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.



Correct.  And those states that require background checks (California for example) are not exactly bastions of peace and harmony.  Again, criminals really don't care about your rules.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> Your right is there by case law.



Wrong.  They're inalienable.  You're born with them. 



> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.



The rights of a minority still exist in this country. 



> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.



Either would any rational person.  Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.  

Just ask the folks in Norway.



> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.



Nobody does.  Strawman argument.



> It's very confusing.



Good luck.


----------



## Yurt

Yurt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would you extend that to voting?
Click to expand...


sallow?


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.
Click to expand...


no. my right is there by the constitution.


----------



## KevinWestern

Sallow said:


> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.



Sallow, obviously no one wants kids shot in the face by assault rifles. I think it&#8217;s wrong and dishonest to imply that someone who is not in favor of handing over their AR-15&#8217;s to the Gov&#8217;t are doing so to protect the right to shoot kids &#8211; specifically &#8211; in the face. It&#8217;s silly and you know it, so for the sake of the argument let&#8217;s try to avoid.

Two comments:

1.) An AR-15 was NOT used in the Sandy Hook massacre, it was handguns (in case you were unaware). 

2.) If you want to *seriously *prevent an entity from shooting kids in the face, then shouldn't you be trying to take guns away from the US Gov't first (and I'm being serious)? How many children are massacred in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq every single year thanks to our US presence in those countries? Just about every week I hear a story about an accidental hit on a school, or a residential building, ect. How is giving more GUNS to this entity going to prevent kids from being shot in the face? 

.


----------



## tjvh

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And *it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.*
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.
Click to expand...


*it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it????? * Sorry, but last time I checked the second amendment doesn't end with "unless an emotional majority gets fed up with it." The 2A isn't confusing in the least if you read it rationally.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sallow said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem at all.
> 
> Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.
> 
> They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.
Click to expand...


Provide evidence that most criminals get their weapons from law abiding citizens and no robbery does not count.


----------



## KevinWestern

tjvh said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And *it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.*
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it????? * Sorry, but last time I checked the second amendment doesn't end with "unless an emotional majority gets fed up with it."
Click to expand...


To add, too, I don't think that most (ie majority) of the country are in favor of banning weapons like AR-15's either. 

First off, you have about half that lean right and are generally pro-second amendment. And secondly, there are many Democrats and left leaners  who seem to logically realize that the problems with gun violence lie primarily with handguns (in the inner cities), and not AR-15's.

The skewed severity of the 'assault rifle threat' is one perpetuated by our media and (I would argue) the current Administration specifically. 

.


----------



## Yurt

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.
Click to expand...


you're downright dishonest.  no one wants to protect the right (no right exists) to have kids shot in the face.  

please, if you can't debate honestly in this forum, don't debate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Banning doesnt make sense concerning any number of issues, from guns to abortion. 

The efficacy of banning ARs is highly questionable, for example, as so few gun crimes are committed with rifles. And given banning ARs will not result in the desired outcome, serious Second Amendment issues are raised as well. 

This issue has less to do with the availability of guns and more to do with the violent nature of American culture, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution  from corporal punishment in schools, to stand your ground, to capital punishment in prison, the common denominator is always violence.


----------



## KevinWestern

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning doesnt make sense concerning any number of issues, from guns to abortion.
> 
> The efficacy of banning ARs is highly questionable, for example, as so few gun crimes are committed with rifles. And given banning ARs will not result in the desired outcome, serious Second Amendment issues are raised as well.
> 
> This issue has less to do with the availability of guns and more to do with the violent nature of American culture, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution  from corporal punishment in schools, to stand your ground, to capital punishment in prison, the common denominator is always violence.
Click to expand...


Agree.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong.  They're inalienable.  You're born with them. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights of a minority still exist in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Either would any rational person.  Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.
> 
> Just ask the folks in Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody does.  Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


No you're not.

Rights are a human construct.

*XXXXXXX*


----------



## Sallow

Yurt said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would you extend that to voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sallow?
Click to expand...


Sure.

I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.


----------



## Yurt

Sallow said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> would you extend that to voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.
Click to expand...


nice try, but you said "married" to the right.  are you willing to be married to your vote?  never changing your vote?


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong.  They're inalienable.  You're born with them. *
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of a minority still exist in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Either would any rational person.  Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.
> 
> Just ask the folks in Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody does.  Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you're not.
> 
> Rights are a human construct.
Click to expand...


You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???


----------



## Spoonman

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong.  They're inalienable.  You're born with them. *
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of a minority still exist in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Either would any rational person.  Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.
> 
> Just ask the folks in Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody does.  Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you're not.
> 
> Rights are a human construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go with that...
> 
> The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.
> 
> Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???
Click to expand...


Sallow has been like a poorly executed break in a game of pool here in this post today.  Balls scattering all over the place but none of them hitting a pocket.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off..I have no "right" to car.
> 
> Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.
> 
> There are no such provisions put on guns like that.
> 
> And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we do have rights to own a gun
> when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your right is there by case law.
> 
> And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.
> 
> Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.
> 
> I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.
> 
> It's very confusing.
Click to expand...


OK, *XXXXXXX* NO ONE has the RIGHT to shoot anyone in the face.  But taking away my right, and the right of my neighbors, to defend themselves against people who would shoot us in the face will not solve the problem.


----------



## Politico

Seeing as AR15s are not the problem no it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## midcan5

And Eric agrees with the OP. 

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem. 

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that. 

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers." 

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."[/b]

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. *A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" 

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " *  p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

=====

"In Leviathan, written while he was in hiding from the horrors of the British civil war, Hobbes asks us to imagine ourselves in a state of nature before the establishment of civil government. Without the constraint of public laws individuals live lives of perfect and total freedom. No government exists to tax them or to regulate the use of their property.  In this state of nature each person has one natural right, the right for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of his own life, and consequently of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. The right to self-protection may seem like an uncontroversial starting point for thinking about politics but, Hobbes shows, taken by itself it leads to disaster. Notice that Hobbes says that a right to self-protection includes the right to individually interpret, in his own judgment and reason, what self-protection demands. This is where the trouble starts and precisely where, a Hobbesian would wager, the NRAs proposals for an armed society threaten to take us." The Contemporary Condition: The N.R.A. and the New State of Nature


----------



## Sallow

Yurt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> sallow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I am responsible for each and every one of my votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice try, but you said "married" to the right.  are you willing to be married to your vote?  never changing your vote?
Click to expand...


How can you change a vote that's already been cast?


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong.  They're inalienable.  You're born with them. *
> 
> 
> 
> The rights of a minority still exist in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Either would any rational person.  Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.
> 
> Just ask the folks in Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody does.  Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you're not.
> 
> Rights are a human construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go with that...
> 
> The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.
> 
> Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???
Click to expand...


It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone. And having a car is not a right.

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.


----------



## Sallow

Pauli007001 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reverse the challenge.
> Will you, a gun control proponent take full responsibility for every gun crime post gun control?
> 
> Bearing in mind that mass shootings are uncommon, less common now than in a hundred+ years.
> Mass shootings peaked in the USA in 1926 have been in decline ever since.
> That period of decline in mass shootings has been mirrored by an increase in gun owners.
> So will you, personally take responsibility for every gun crime after your bans go into effect?
> Full responsibility mind, do the life sentence, go to the chair, take the injection.
> It's your ban, you are married to it!!
Click to expand...


Decline?

The number of people killed in mass shootings recently, is breaking records.


----------



## Skull Pilot

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



An AR15 that shoots a .223 round is NOT a powerful rifle.  In fact it's one of the smallest calibers.

An AR15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round except for cosmetics.

This Mini 14 that shoots a .223 round






is absolutely no different in function, capacity and rate of fire than this AR15





Therefore there is no logical reason to ban the AR15.


----------



## editec

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I share your distrust of the government's sincerity if that helps.

As does, incidently, ALL of the REAL left.


----------



## LilOlLady

KevinWestern said:


> Let&#8217;s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15&#8217;s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and here&#8217;s why. We&#8217;re _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov&#8217;t and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov&#8217;t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov&#8217;t has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take *&#8220;law abiding citizens*&#8221; out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with *handing over their more powerful weapons to tha*t *EXACT **same entity*.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



 Many Law abiding ciitizens were so before the used their assault rifle to murder. All were first offenders.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're not.
> 
> Rights are a human construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that...
> 
> The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.
> 
> Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.
Click to expand...


So what?  Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire.  FAR more.  If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle?  Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.



> And having a car is not a right.



Again, makes no sense.  Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else?  A free press is a right too.  By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail.  It's patently ridiculous!



> So..it's sort of apples and oranges.



Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement.  WHY is it apples and oranges?  Because you say so doesn't cut it.  Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.  

Grasping at straws...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.


I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
Your contrivance is, at best, silly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
Click to expand...

No....   that's -your- strawman.
At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
> Your contrivance is, at best, silly.
Click to expand...


Well no.

And it puts on display how seriously folks take this "right".


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No....   that's -your- strawman.
> At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.
Click to expand...


It's only "trolling" to you because like those of your ilk you feel that gun ownership should be completely unbridled.

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west or present day Somalia in this country.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that...
> 
> The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.
> 
> Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire.  FAR more.  If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle?  Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having a car is not a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, makes no sense.  Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else?  A free press is a right too.  By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail.  It's patently ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..it's sort of apples and oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement.  WHY is it apples and oranges?  Because you say so doesn't cut it.  Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.
> 
> Grasping at straws...
Click to expand...


1. Even with the skewed data we receive, thanks to the efforts of the NRA, the data does NOT show that "Far more" people die due to auto collisions. And there is a reason for that. The Auto industry was actually required to make cars safer, by the government. Nothing like that has been done with guns. Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.

2. You are criminally responsible for your own right. I don't see a problem with that. Gun ownership should not be an "industry". After the original sale..that should be it.

3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for. You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes. There's the disconnect.


----------



## M14 Shooter

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*


Those that push gun control believe that the state should have a monopoly on force.  They know this cannot happen so long as there is an armed citizenry, and so they take steps toward the eventual disarmament of same.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
> Your contrivance is, at best, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no.
Click to expand...

I thought not.  
At this point, you really have nothing worth saying.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> No....   that's -your- strawman.
> At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's only "trolling" to you because like those of your ilk you feel that gun ownership should be completely unbridled.
Click to expand...

Another strawman, and proof positive that you're here only to troll.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire.  FAR more.  If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle?  Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, makes no sense.  Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else?  A free press is a right too.  By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail.  It's patently ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..it's sort of apples and oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement.  WHY is it apples and oranges?  Because you say so doesn't cut it.  Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.
> 
> Grasping at straws...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Even with the skewed data we receive...
Click to expand...

You cannot show that the data is "skewed".
What you CAN show is that the data does not in any wa support a ban on 'assault weapons', especially given that handguns cannot be banned.



> Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.


This is absolutely false; the number and the percentage of murders comitted with ;assault weapons' has FALLEN since the lapse of the 1994 ban.



> 2. You are criminally responsible for your own right.


Given that you have no right to commit a crime, your statement here can have no meaning.



> 3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for. You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes.


More straw.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:

-  Given _Miller _and _Heller_, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution 
-  After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used least for crime, especially murder


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire.  FAR more.  If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle?  Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, makes no sense.  Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else?  A free press is a right too.  By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail.  It's patently ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..it's sort of apples and oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement.  WHY is it apples and oranges?  Because you say so doesn't cut it.  Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.
> 
> Grasping at straws...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Even with the skewed data we receive, thanks to the efforts of the NRA, the data does NOT show that "Far more" people die due to auto collisions.
Click to expand...


Best check your trousers.  They're smoking.

2010 motor vehicle roadway deaths:  32,885
2010 homicides by firearm:  11,078 



> And there is a reason for that. The Auto industry was actually required to make cars safer, by the government.



And let's see how that's working out:

2010 motor vehicle roadway deaths:  32,885
2011 motor vehicle roadway deaths:  34,267
2012 motor vehicle roadway deaths:  34,767

That said, cars have gotten safer over time, obviously.  Any chance that had to do with consumer demand for safety amid improvements in technology?  Naaawww...must be the central planners!



> Nothing like that has been done with guns. Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.



Well, let's look at facts.  According to the BJS,  "The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010"

But hey, if it "feels" more dangerous, that's all that really matters, right?



> 2. You are criminally responsible for your own right. I don't see a problem with that. Gun ownership should not be an "industry". After the original sale..that should be it.



Then by your own reasoning, we should put journalists in jail if someone reads their words and ends up hurting another.  Insane.



> 3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for.



And a woman walking home after the late shift?  Or is gun control giving a 120lb woman the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist?



> You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes. There's the disconnect.



As long as someone isn't hurting another nor taking what doesn't belong to him, what he thinks a firearm should be used for is none of your business.  How about you focus on the ACTIONS of evil people instead of what you suppose law abiding citizens are THINKING?

Just a thought.


----------



## KevinWestern

editec said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let&#8217;s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15&#8217;s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and here&#8217;s why. We&#8217;re _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov&#8217;t and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov&#8217;t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov&#8217;t has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take &#8220;law abiding citizens&#8221; out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I share your distrust of the government's sincerity if that helps.
> 
> As does, incidently, ALL of the REAL left.
Click to expand...



Yea, you always have to ask questions when the gov't pushes extraordinarily hard to "fix" a relative non-issue, or when the gov't ignores a very real issue. 

The gov't's quick to push this sweeping assault weapons ban despite there being less than 30 people annually murdered by "assault weapons" in the United States (350 for rifles in total), yet seem to completely ignore the fact that GMOs are being linked to some very serious health implications (and might be responsible for countless cancer deaths nationwide). Obama even signed recently the "Monsanto Protection Act" which basically removes from Monsanto all liability for damages caused by their "food". 

I mean these guys are something else. F***ing pricks. 

.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west



That would be too bad.  The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides.  This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.  

In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000.  Philadelphia?  21.4!

The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.

Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.  Hmm.  That doesn't sound so 'wild'.

Anyway, facts are good for the soul.  Try 'em sometime.


----------



## whitehall

The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly. It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about? It's obvious that ignorant lefties and the sissie element of the left don't know the difference between automatic and semi automatic or a bolt action vs a lever action or else they would try to ban all semi-automatic weapons and not just so-called "assault rifles".


----------



## M14 Shooter

whitehall said:


> The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly.


Not really - they believe the state should have a monopoly on force; banning 'assault weapons' is nothing but a means to that end.



> It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about?


Incorrect.  It is perfectly legal to own a machingun under federal law.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Pauli007001 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that...
> 
> The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.
> 
> Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident.  Cool with that???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone. And having a car is not a right.
> 
> So..it's sort of apples and oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has often been the purpose of a car to kill people.
> Those times when a driver gets behind the wheel with the intent to drive at speed into another or others.
> It has happened.
> A car, a gun, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat even a roll of scotch tape are all inanimate objects that can be used as evcective means of delivering death and destruction to the innocent.
> The innocent are protected from all the weapons listed above in the hands of wrongdoers by what?
> The right to bear arms.
Click to expand...


Let's try this: A drunk gets into a car.  While his intent is not to kill, his chances of doing so increase significantly.  If the drunk driver strikes, and kills, someone, perhaps we should make both the auto manufacturer and the producer of the alcohol beverage consumed responsible.
Hey!  Let's just ban alcohol!


----------



## gallantwarrior

whitehall said:


> The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly. It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about? It's obvious that ignorant lefties and the sissie element of the left don't know the difference between automatic and semi automatic or a bolt action vs a lever action or else they would try to ban all semi-automatic weapons and not just so-called "assault rifles".



Fact is, ignorant lefties would prefer banning ALL firearms.  They are that frightened.  Government lefties are smart enough to know that an all-out ban on all types of firearms would definitely not fly, but by taking out certain types incrementally, they will eventually get all of them banned.  As each additional type of firearm is banned, there will be an additional uptick in firearms crimes, proving that we need more gun control laws.  Liberal logic will dictate even more firearms be taken out of the hands of citizens.


----------



## whitehall

M14 Shooter said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - they believe the state should have a monopoly on force; banning 'assault weapons' is nothing but a means to that end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  It is perfectly legal to own a machingun under federal law.
Click to expand...


Yeah I left out the fact that federal law requires a ton of paperwork, fingerprints, whopping deposit and constant surveillance to obtain a fully automatic firearm. You missed the point. The ignorant left and their vocal sissie hysterical base don't know the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic and they don't give a damn. Everything is political to the smart left and everything is a crisis to the ignorant left. Meanwhile the left leaning media keeps the pot boiling with ignorant and biased stories


----------



## KevinWestern

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be too bad.  The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.
Click to expand...


_Some _areas of Chicago (I live and work in the city). 

The thing with Chicago is that we have extremely high crime rates in very isolated and specific parts of the city. So long as you can avoid those areas, the city is actually very safe. There's virtually ZERO violence in the area where people are making $40k+/year. I've been here 5 years and have not witnessed a single crime. 

We don't have a gun problem in America, we have a poverty problem. You solve that and I guarantee the gun homicides will fall off a cliff. 

So if Obama was sincere at curbing gun violence, it would make rational sense to do things like actually trying to prevent another great recession, and maybe prosecute a SINGLE Wall Street Exec for the illegal fraud that was taking place under their watch. There's thousands of emails implicating these guys, yet they've been (to date) left untouched. Why? 

Guess that $1 million in 2008 Campaign donations from Goldman Sachs really paid off...

.




.


----------



## eflatminor

KevinWestern said:


> _Some _areas of Chicago (I live and work in the city).
> 
> The thing with Chicago is that we have extremely high crime rates in very isolated and specific parts of the city. So long as you can avoid those areas, the city is actually very safe. There's virtually ZERO violence in the area where people are making $40k+/year. I've been here 5 years and have not witnessed a single crime.



True.  I lived in Bucktown for several years.  Never saw any violent crime.


----------



## Skull Pilot

M14 Shooter said:


> Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:
> 
> -  Given _Miller _and _Heller_, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution
> -  After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used least for crime, especially murder



Exactly and there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle that is available to the general public.

As I have said umpteen times, there is no difference between my Ruger Mini 14 semiauto .223 rifle and a Bushmaster AR15 semiauto .223 rifle.

So to say the former is acceptable but the latter is not is idiocy.


----------



## Spoonman

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue


----------



## Skull Pilot

Spoonman said:


> I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue



It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.

Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## gallantwarrior

Spoonman said:


> I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue



If you recall, initial press reports about Newton stated that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the car.  The left-controlled media walked that back quickly enough because it didn't fit the narrative or support the desired outrage directed against "assault rifles".  Americans are just not ready to give up their handguns, though.


----------



## eflatminor

Skull Pilot said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.
> 
> Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.
> 
> FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Click to expand...


And not only has the number of rifles used to murder been declining for at least 5 years straight, in each of the last five years, shotguns have been used more frequently to murder.  You know shotguns...our VP,s choice for protection.

The hypocracy is overwhelming.


----------



## M14 Shooter

eflatminor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.
> 
> Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.
> 
> FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And not only has the number of rifles used to murder been declining for at least 5 years straight, in each of the last five years, shotguns have been used more frequently to murder.  You know shotguns...our VP,s choice for protection.
> 
> The hypocracy is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Less so than the ignorance.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Sallow said:


> FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.



The FBI statistics involve both state and federal crimes. The reports are derived from the police across the nation, whether they are federal police, state police or local police.  CDC reports includes crimes, accidents and suicides. The CDC gets its information from coroners instead of police.  Further, CDC categorizes any intentional killing of a human being by another human being as a "homicide".  The FBI employs seperate categories to distinguish lawful homicides from criminal homicides.  Thus, the FBI provides a distinct category for justifiable homicides by civilians and justifiable hoimicides via "legal intervention".  The CDC does not have a seperate category for justifiable homicides of any sort and all intentional deaths are included whether justifiable or not.


----------



## MikeK

Spoonman said:


> let's take a look at how often these guns actually kill people.   yea, you are right, this assault weapons ban is a total waste of time


The passionate movement to ban so-called "assault weapons" is fueled by the kind of hysteria that comes from the unspeakably heinous murder of all those children at NewTown.  The Law can't touch Adam Lanza because he already punished himself.  So the focus is on how many shots he was able to get off in so little time.

A ban on high capacity magazines will occur as little more than symbolic vengeance, initiated and organized by gun-haters the majority of whom know little to nothing about guns.  Most of these people are motivated by feelings which border on fanaticism and they've convinced themselves that banning high-capacity firearms will prevent massacres by firearm in the future.   

The bottom line to this is the next time some psycho wipes out a room full of defenseless people with a slide-action shotgun, or an M-1 Garand, the same anti-gun fanatics will be calling for a ban on repeating firearms.  And so on.  

This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to _keep and bear_ will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.


----------



## Sallow

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be too bad.  The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.
> 
> You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:
> 
> In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides.  This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
> 
> In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000.  Philadelphia?  21.4!
> 
> The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.
> 
> Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.  Hmm.  That doesn't sound so 'wild'.
> 
> Anyway, facts are good for the soul.  Try 'em sometime.
Click to expand...


Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.

Gotta love you folks.



45 homicides.


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be too bad.  The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.
> 
> You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:
> 
> In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides.  This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
> 
> In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000.  Philadelphia?  21.4!
> 
> The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.
> 
> Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.  Hmm.  That doesn't sound so 'wild'.
> 
> Anyway, facts are good for the soul.  Try 'em sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.
> 
> Gotta love you folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 45 homicides.
Click to expand...


We get it.  When the reality of the situation doesn't fit your agenda, just claim some bias in the record keeping.  Works every time...


----------



## legaleagle_45

Spoonman said:


> I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple.  There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue



The rationale is simple.  Gun control advocates consider it low hanging fruit.



> "Assault weaponsjust like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearmsare a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weaponsanything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine guncan only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."  Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988.



Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), one of the most virulent anti gun organizations in America and noted for stretching the truth as well as for blatant misrepresentations.  

Sugarmann was also the driving force behind the ban on "plastic guns which are invisible to X-Rays"... have been the chief researcher for Jack Anderson's hit piece against Glock.


----------



## M14 Shooter

eflatminor said:


> We get it.  When the reality of the situation doesn't fit your agenda, just claim some bias in the record keeping.  Works every time...


And when someone dissects and destroys her post in detail, she ignores it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be too bad.  The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.
> 
> You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:
> 
> In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides.  This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
> 
> In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000.  Philadelphia?  21.4!
> 
> The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.
> 
> Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.  Hmm.  That doesn't sound so 'wild'.
> 
> Anyway, facts are good for the soul.  Try 'em sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.
> 
> Gotta love you folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 45 homicides.
Click to expand...


Yeah because all those Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns were the real truth.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Sallow said:


> Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.



Murder records are the easiest criminal statistic to compile because there is usually a dead body and almost always reported in some manner to authorities.  To assert or imply anything else is either due to ignorance or dishonesty.

Here is an interesting factoid.  Did you know that the homicide rate in medieval Europe prior to the invention of the firearm was 20 to 30 times its current rate?  Then, and concurrently with the invention of the firearm, homicide rates began a sharp and steady decline, which decline coincided with the increasing availability and functionality of firearms?   This sharp and steady decline in Europes homicide rate came to end in the early 20th century and even increased a bit after that... which coincidentally also coincides with the very first modern efforts at gun control.


----------



## PaulS1950

First we don't have any "second amendment rights" ... We do have a right to keep and bear arms that is supposed to be protected by the federal government through the second amendment. The right existed prior to the creation of the constitution and the constitution was created to limit the powers of the federal government and direct it to protect those rights listed in the bill of rights. Our rights are not "constitutional rights" and are protected from encroachment by any government or popular discretion.
The US Supreme Court is not granted the power to determine the constitutionality of any law(s) but only to settle the disputes between the people, states and federal government. According to the 9th and 10th Amendment the people are the ones who determine the constitutionality of any laws. The first amendment shows that we, the people, have the right to redress the federal and state governments for any greivence - including those laws that are unconstitutional. Since the federal government is not granted any power over the rights that we have they cannot lawfully restrict our rights.

On the issue of liability, the law is clear that either intentional, greivous or legal negligence is required to maintain liability for any accidental harm to another. Guns are inherently *capable* of harm when used by any individual when they are properly manufactured. The manufacturers are removed from liability because the manner in which the device is used is beyond their control. This is the same reason that car manufacturers are exempt from liability in deaths resulting from collisions. Unless the product malfunctions as a result of the care in the manufacturing process or the materials used there is no liability that can be placed on the manufacturer. The same goes for the legal owner of the car or the gun. Unless the owner is criminally negligent in the care and use of the firearm - whether by the owner or someone else - they cannot be held liable for the ownership of the gun if it is used in a crime.
If someone uses the gun to commit a crime they are solely responsible for that use. If the gun is knowingly given or sold to a person who should not possess a gun then they have committed a crime and can be prosecuted for that crime. Any "legal" gun given or sold to someone who cannot legally own or possess it is now an illegally owned gun. We have laws in place to cover those situations.
Banning lawful owners from having the guns that have been used by criminals is paramount to conviction and sentencing a population without a trial - there has been no due process of law. It is clearly an unlawful act. Our rights are neither "granted" by the government, nor provided by the general popular vote. They are a right by birth as human beings as a derivation of the right to self defense which is a natural right. All living things have a natural right to defend themselves. The deer can defend itself agains the wolf or panther. The Elm tree can defend itself against insects that destroy it, and the spider or snake can defend itself against much larger attackers. We have that same right to defend ourselves and the intelligence to make tools to protect ourselves against more severe attacks.
Removing the tools that are commonly used against us is a reduction in that right to defend ourselves. The founding fathers saw that there was an extension of the right to defend ourselves, to defend the constitution, our state's rights and our own rights. It is no different than any of the other rights that are natural rights - like free speech, to be secure in our possessions, and the rights to act as individuals so long as we do not restrict the rights of others.
We have laws in place in order to prosecute those that break those laws - not to prevent someone from doing something. We are all free to do whatever we wish to do but we are also responsible for those actions we take. If we interfere with another's rights we are guilty of a crime and can be prosecuted for it.


----------



## PaulS1950

The police, sheriff, and government are not responsible for any individual's safety because we possess the right to defend ourselves. If they remove our means to defend ourselves then they are responsible for the safety of all individuals - something that is clearly impossible for them to maintain under even the best of circumstances. If you come onto my property and I require you to be unarmed then I become responsible for your safety. I could be sued if a criminal robbed or injured you while you were on my property because I assumed the power to protect you by requiring you to give up your means to protect yourself.
I am not willing to take that responsibility so, when you are on my property your concealed weapon is welcome and should the need to use it arise then I would appreciate an appropriate amount of accuracy in the deployment of your weapon.


----------



## Spoonman

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died


----------



## eflatminor

Spoonman said:


> so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died



But, but, but...guns kill!


----------



## Spoonman

eflatminor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...guns kill!
Click to expand...


so do hammers, more than AR 15's.  why aren't libs banning them


----------



## eflatminor

Spoonman said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...guns kill!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so do hammers, more than AR 15's.  why aren't libs banning them
Click to expand...


Because guns are icky and after all, this is really about what FEELS right, right???


----------



## CMike

The ironic part is that shotguns, the choice gun for Obama and Biden are the most powerful type of guns out there.

Go figure.


----------



## CMike

Spoonman said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...guns kill!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so do hammers, more than AR 15's.  why aren't libs banning them
Click to expand...


It has to be black to be evil. Go figure.


----------



## Politico

Spoonman said:


> so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines.  funny, but no one died



Funny as they aren't the problem.


----------



## Circe

gallantwarrior said:


> There's a drunk on the corner, he decides to rape the equally drunk gal with him, I suppose it is only appropriate that all men be punished for rape.  They have the equipment, they must be guilty.



That definitely works for me.

Let's do that.


----------



## Circe

MikeK said:


> This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to _keep and bear_ will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.



Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right? A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs: I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt. 


The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.

And that's what we are trying to get away from.


----------



## Circe

In my opinion, these gun nuts with assault rifles are paranoid psychos and are probably a public menace. They sure are the pool from which the mass killers all come from!! Especially the old white guys who go on shooting sprees when their brains soften. Certainly the gun nut's schizophrenic teen son or neighbor who steals their assault rifle and all their fancy high-capacity magazines to shoot up the mall or movie theather are a public menace. 

Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability. 

Please don't bother to reply with a lot of word-splitting and the old, bad arguments used so often. These are all stupid arguments chopping logic that miss the whole point. The bottom line is, there is no reason to have assault rifles except that certain men who don't have a good hold on reality dream of killing lots and lots of people at once. Usually minorities, of course. This vicious fantasy culture has led to many people running around actually killing lots and lots of people with these guns: usually whites and usually children. 

This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.




Just to play devil's advocate, less than 350 people are murdered every year with a rifle (all rifles, according to FBI stats). If we want to look at how many of those rifle murders were done with "assault weapons", you're going to be looking at an even smaller number. 

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people? 

Personally, I don't. 


.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to _keep and bear_ will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right? A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs: I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt.
> 
> 
> The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.
> 
> And that's what we are trying to get away from.
Click to expand...


Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in *literally tens of thousands of murders* every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?

Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!


.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Circe said:


> Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability. .



An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934..  They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986.  Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"?   If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to _keep and bear_ will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The majority of sidearms out there are semi autos with 10 to 15 round magazines, depending on the caliber.  Revolvers haven't been the dominate choice since polymer-framed semi autos were introduced back in the 1970s.



> A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs



Since you don't get to decide what someone needs and what they do not, this is a moot point.  It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

A 20 gauge for varmints, eh?  I've taken varmints at over 600 yards.  A shotgun won't do that.  But since you know what everyone else needs...



> I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt.



I use an AR platform semi auto for hogs and another for shorter range varmint hunting, as do lots of other hunters.  So no, you do not speak "who know".



> The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.



An 'assault rifle' requires full/burst capability, which outside of a few rich collectors, only the military has.  Your so-called 'assault rifle guy' is in actuality, just a guy with a semi auto rifle...a common thing for over 100 years now.  

That said, semi auto rifles are NOT 'fantasy' weapons, as the Korean store owners that required such firepower to save their lives during the LA riots proved, as the hunters that use AR platforms on hogs and varmints prove, and as the homeowners that understand that a short barreled semi auto rifle is an excellent choice for home defense.

Either way, it's not your choice to impose on others.



> And that's what we are trying to get away from.



Well, WE'RE trying to get away from your bans and regulations that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your rules.  We're trying to get away from stomping on the inalienable rights of US citizens.  We're trying to get away from "feel good" legislation that does more harm than good.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> In my opinion



In my opinion, these gun grabbers are paranoid psychos and are DEFINITELY a public menace.


----------



## gallantwarrior

KevinWestern said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to play devil's advocate, less than 350 people are murdered every year with a rifle (all rifles, according to FBI stats). If we want to look at how many of those rifle murders were done with "assault weapons", you're going to be looking at an even smaller number.
> 
> Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?
> 
> Personally, I don't.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Aw, be real!  They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.


----------



## gallantwarrior

legaleagle_45 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934..  They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986.  Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"?   If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?
Click to expand...


You are addressing one of the crowd who firmly believes that magazines and ammunition are the same thing.  One who believes that by robbing all of us of our right to defend ourselves, our families and homes, she will be guarded from some boogeyman.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?
> 
> Personally, I don't.
> 
> 
> .



Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns. 

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk. 

Your argument is that these deaths don't matter. 

Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns. 

You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in *literally tens of thousands of murders* every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?
> 
> Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!
> 
> 
> .





Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.

Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis. 

Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?
> 
> Personally, I don't.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.
> 
> You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.
> 
> Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.
> 
> Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but *a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies *with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.
> 
> You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.
Click to expand...


There are perfectly acceptable ways to prevent this without the theft of the property and freedoms of the law-abiding.  One, learn to stand on your hind legs, like a human being, and defend yourself and your children and grandchildren.  Barring the willingness to defend yourself and yours, at least incorporate the fathers of those children and grandchildren into your family life, make them responsible for more than just a sperm donation.
If you are so convinced that taking law-abiding citizens' firearms is absolutely the right thing to do,


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in *literally tens of thousands of murders* every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?
> 
> Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.
> 
> Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis.
> 
> *Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!*
Click to expand...


Epic Fail!


----------



## Circe

legaleagle_45 said:


> An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934..  They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986.  Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"?   If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?




This is the old and bad argument that somehow there is no such thing as assault rifles so there is nothing to talk about, and no problem. 

This doesn't fool anyone. You don't really think this argument makes sense, do you?


----------



## Circe

gallantwarrior said:


> They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.




I don't want to punish you.

I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.

You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves. 

And the sooner the better.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?
> 
> Personally, I don't.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases
Click to expand...


Worked beautifully in Norway...

By the way, there are over 100 countries with a higher murder rate than in the US and the majority of those countries virtually ban civilian gun ownership.

The facts are not supporting your agenda...



> such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.



And guess what happened after those bans?  The murder rate, and the violent crime rate, increased!  And this during a time period when the violent crime rates were dropping around the world.

There are those pesky facts again...



> You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.



Can you even define what a so called 'assault weapon' is?  The floor is yours...



> Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.



What you say is someone's argument is not the same thing as what their argument actually is.  You're choosing to not listen.



> Particularly women



Ah yes, women.  Giving a 120lb woman the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist.  Talk about a war on women!  Yea...pass.



> Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.



And you expect to stop these crazies how?  More gun free zones?  Banning firearms didn't stop such madness in Norway.  Banning firearms doesn't stop mass killings and out-of-control murder rates in Mexico.  Hint:  criminals will not obey your laws.  The only way to stop a madmen with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  That, or you can just wait until the madman is finished and kills himself...a heck of a plan.



> You can say it's not a problem over and over



No one is saying that.  You are.



> , but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem



It is a problem, just one that MORE laws handicapping good citizens is not going to fix.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too.



Actually, you can't.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934..  They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986.  Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"?   If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the old and bad argument that somehow there is no such thing as assault rifles so there is nothing to talk about, and no problem.
> 
> This doesn't fool anyone. You don't really think this argument makes sense, do you?
Click to expand...


No one said "there is no such thing as assault rifles".  What we're saying is that you don't know what one is.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a *major *public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?
> 
> Personally, I don't.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.
> 
> You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.
> 
> Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.
> 
> Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.
> 
> You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.
Click to expand...


Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons? 

Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?


.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in *literally tens of thousands of murders* every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?
> 
> Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.
> 
> Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis.
> 
> Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!
Click to expand...


Here's another way of looking at it...

Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of *thousands* of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?

Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?





.


----------



## Circe

gallantwarrior said:


> There are perfectly acceptable ways to prevent this without the theft of the property and freedoms of the law-abiding.



It's not theft if it's law. Then, it's law. I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Hey, you know they jam: jettison them. It's bad equipment anyway, you aren't really losing anything.





> One, learn to stand on your hind legs, like a human being, and defend yourself and your children and grandchildren.



Did I mention I live on a farm? Do I really SOUND like a pushover to you? I'm the one wants to take all your big, bad guns away, buster. 




> Barring the willingness to defend yourself and yours, at least incorporate the fathers of those children and grandchildren into your family life, make them responsible for more than just a sperm donation.




I would LOVE to have a conversation with you, but only if you are capable of being reasonably polite. Are you aware this is the Clean Zone? I have noticed that most conversations on this topic deteriorate quickly because, simply, most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags. I simply put them on Ignore as not worth bothering with. 

I hope none of the above applies to you. We'll see. The comment above was NOT a great sign. 




> If you are so convinced that taking law-abiding citizens' firearms is absolutely the right thing to do, grow a set...go on over to your neighbor's place and demand that they hand over their guns to you so you can dispose of them appropriately.  You don't have the stones to actually stand by your demented opinions.



I don't have "stones" at all. You seem to be aware I'm a woman poster, what with the slur above, but you seem to have a really surprising lack of knowledge about female reproductive anatomy!  See, there are things we have that males don't have, and vice versa. We could have a nice talk about this sometime, if you are confused about the differences, but I suggest you start by googling it.


----------



## tjvh

Circe said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to punish you.
> 
> I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.
> 
> You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves.
> 
> And the sooner the better.
Click to expand...


If you stop posting your mindless drivel you will stop sounding like such a wannabe elitist dumb ass.

The sooner the better.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons?
> 
> Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?



No, Kevin, it hasn't worked out.

No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees, but it's happening like a psychotic fashion show. I suppose the young ones get it from Halo and Gears of War, and the elderly ones ....well, they go paranoid when their arteries harden. 

This is terrible; we can't have this going on. It really does have to stop.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags



Way to keep within the confines of the Clean Zone...


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of *thousands* of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?
> 
> Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?



Yes, that's a true statement, and no, I don't understand why you suspect his intentions?

I am no fan of Obama continuing Bush's losing Forever Wars, of course. But our Army using assault rifles to mow down Muslims in a sandpit far, far away is not the same as schizophrenics mowing down people in the local shopping mall. There's a "them" and "us" issue here.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to punish you.
> 
> I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.
> 
> You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves.
> 
> And the sooner the better.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the memo:  most of those items are already illegal to own or manufacture or are heavily regulated.  It's pretty amazing how you and your ilk manage to extrapolate the acts of extremely few real crazy people into a massive drive to disarm every man, woman, and child (excluding criminals, or course) in this country.  

Why attack the law-abiding and their inanimate possessions when there is obviously a much deeper, more disturbing element that needs attention?  _Why_ do these insane people commit such heinous acts of horror?  What motivates their killing others?  Do you _really_ think that disarming the general public will prevent the real nuts from fulfilling whatever mental abberation driving their actions?
Here's one of your "tired arguments":
Wait for it....

























_GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people._  Why?  Answer that question and you might be able to solve some problems.  Rendering the greatest majority of us incapable of defending ourselves against the whackos is not the solution.


----------



## Nosmo King

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and  

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees



Actually, the rate of mass killings in the US is on the decline.  The number of mass killings peaked in the US in 1929 and is DOWN since the 1990s.  It would appear that the truth doesn't support your agenda.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons?
> 
> Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Kevin, it hasn't worked out.
> 
> No one could have predicted the crazies would adopt the assault rifle and go on so many killing sprees, but it's happening like a psychotic fashion show. I suppose the young ones get it from Halo and Gears of War, and the elderly ones ....well, they go paranoid when their arteries harden.
> 
> This is terrible; we can't have this going on. It really does have to stop.
Click to expand...



Circe... you're approaching this from a very closed, micro point of view. Giving up the right to own these rifles will have some very serious implications down the road.

I know this has been brought up before, but what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Personally, I think it's a well needed check on gov't by a citizen population. The gov't should fear its people and not the other way around. 

.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?



There is.  One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.



> What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?



Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms.  Wonderful plan.



> The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply



That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...


----------



## Nosmo King

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is.  One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms.  Wonderful plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...
Click to expand...

The key is the gun maker, not the gun owner.  You kill a snake by cutting off the head, not by cutting off 1,000,000 heads.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.
> 
> They are:
> 
> 1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.
> 
> Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.
> 
> But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.



Two questions:

1.) Is it crazy to fear the possibility of your Gov't becoming tyrannical (ie has it ever happened before in countries like England, France, or Germany)? 

2.) Is it fair to say that our gov't has proven itself capable of using violence to achieve strategic and monetary goals (ie what was the purpose of Iraq)?. If you answered yes, then why again are you so eager to let this entity go unchecked? 


.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is.  One needs a special, and expensive, license to manufacture or possess an assault weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Then only criminals would have semi automatic firearms.  Wonderful plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That plan is sure working wonderfully in Mexico...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key is the gun maker, not the gun owner.  You kill a snake by cutting off the head, not by cutting off 1,000,000 heads.
Click to expand...


Repeating the same thing after it's been thoroughly debunked is not a sound strategy for debate.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> It's not theft if it's law. Then, it's law. I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Hey, you know they jam: jettison them. It's bad equipment anyway, you aren't really losing anything.
> 
> Bad law is worse than no law.  Speaking of laws, why don't they enforce the laws they already have on the books.  Oh, wait, those laws don't work, either.  So let's make more bad laws that won't work.
> 
> Did I mention I live on a farm? Do I really SOUND like a pushover to you? I'm the one wants to take all your big, bad guns away, buster.
> 
> If you paid attention, you would know I live on a farm, too.  As to your second question, yes, you have apparently bought into the "party line" regarding firearms...hook, line, and sinker.  Otherwise you would have the sense to understand that I am not the problem, but part of the solution.  My guns are neither big, nor bad.  They are effective and efficient tools, though.
> 
> I would LOVE to have a conversation with you, but only if you are capable of being reasonably polite. Are you aware this is the Clean Zone? I have noticed that most conversations on this topic deteriorate quickly because, simply, most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags. I simply put them on Ignore as not worth bothering with.
> 
> I hope none of the above applies to you. We'll see. The comment above was NOT a great sign.
> 
> While I relish intelligent conversation with thoughtful, coherent people, I'm not sure you would fit into either of those categories.  It is possible that your abject terror of some inanimate objects drives your emotionally charged and absolutely inflexible demands that everyone be forcibly disarmed but criminals and the government (sometimes one and the same).
> 
> I don't have "stones" at all. You seem to be aware I'm a woman poster, what with the slur above, but you seem to have a really surprising lack of knowledge about female reproductive anatomy!  See, there are things we have that males don't have, and vice versa. We could have a nice talk about this sometime, if you are confused about the differences, but I suggest you start by googling it.



Sorry, a figure of speech.  Obviously outside of your ability to comprehend.  I would caution you, as well, to not make too many assumptions about others in an anonymous environment.  If your knowledge about human reproductive anatomy is as comprehensive and accurate as your knowledge about firearms, I think I'll take a pass on that "nice talk".


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of *thousands* of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?
> 
> Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's a true statement, and no, I don't understand why you suspect his intentions?
> 
> I am no fan of Obama continuing Bush's losing Forever Wars, of course. But our Army using assault rifles to mow down Muslims in a sandpit far, far away is not the same as schizophrenics mowing down people in the local shopping mall. There's a "them" and "us" issue here.
Click to expand...


I'm sure those muslims in a sandpit far, far away agree that there is absolutely no comparison with their children dying and ours.


----------



## Circe

gallantwarrior said:


> I guess you missed the memo:  most of those items are already illegal to own or manufacture or are heavily regulated.



Right. I want ALL military weapons in that category: illegal or heavily regulated. We've clearly missed a couple types, and that's a problem because they are being used to mow down a lot of American civilians, often small children. 



> It's pretty amazing how you and your ilk manage to extrapolate the acts of extremely few real crazy people into a massive drive to disarm every man, woman, and child (excluding criminals, or course) in this country.



Here's the center of the problem: it's not the criminals who are doing the massacres. If it were, I bet you wouldn't be in all this trouble.

It's the boy next door; it's the gun nut's son who went schizo; it's the old guy who started muttering to himself when he started collecting Social Security. NONE of them have criminal records or often, even a speeding ticket. We don't know who they are. We can't protect ourselves from them. We can't identify them at all! They just sneak up on us and start shooting as soon as they find a large enough group to get a high hit count. 

If it WERE criminals doing this, the problem would be easier to solve. It's the stealth factor, the fact that we can't identify any of them in advance. That's a common experience in Great Britain and Australia, too: the crazies could not be looked out for, because they flew below everyone's radar. The shock factor is huge.




> Rendering the greatest majority of us incapable of defending ourselves against the whackos is not the solution.



Ha. If you need more than a handgun or a shotgun to defend yourself from a whacko, I strongly suggest you need more time at the gun range. You don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself against a crazy from next door!! You need not to panic and to aim straight. I suggest more training if you are worried. 

And always remember.................there is NO deterrent like the sound of the slide of a semi-automatic from an upstairs hall.


----------



## Circe

Nosmo King said:


> But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.



It's a good idea, but it doesn't allow for the removal of the current stock of assault rifles. If they are illegal, they will fairly quickly -- 20 years or so -- be eliminated as the gun nuts grow old and their children make sure they don't have access to them as they become over the hill; if their old guns are illegal they won't be sold as much and would tend to be turned in; most people are law-abiding. 

And the manufacturers won't make illegal guns, so that would be that for them, too.


----------



## eflatminor

Circe said:


> it's not the criminals who are doing the massacres.



One for the ages.  Thanks.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Nosmo King said:


> There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.
> 
> They are:
> 
> 1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.
> 
> Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.
> 
> But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.



OK, let's go with some of your assumptions:
1.  "Assault rifles" (as vaguely defined by the gun-grabbing lobby) are the problem, being the weapon of choice for these nuts that decide to go on killing sprees.
2.  Suppose you manage to push through a manufacturing ban of all "assault rifles" and the "high capacity magazines" (as arbitrarily defined by the gun-grabbers).

Describe exactly how this move will decrease or eliminate the mass killings?
What action should be taken when the number of mass killings are not decreased by your "assault weapon" ban?

While I have little doubt that many individuals are motivated by the best, most noble intentions when they call for limitations and bans of firearms, I have grave doubts about the motivation of the government that uses the good intentions of its constituents to further a much darker and far less noble agenda.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> I know this has been brought up before, but what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?
> 
> Personally, I think it's a well needed check on gov't by a citizen population. The gov't should fear its people and not the other way around.



This is the argument that we should have military weapons because we need to be able to fight a bad government.

I like this argument because very few make it and I sort of admire someone just coming right out with the real deal!    Although I personally think the REAL motivation of most gun nuts is to kill minorities when they rise up, if they do. There, that's something no one will admit! 

Oh, the Second Amendment threat against a bad government is a red-white-and-blue thought, I guess: I watched a few episodes of Revolution myself. And the new Red Dawn is better than the first one, IMO! 

However, I don't think this is how it will go down. Even with assault rifles, private guerrillas are no match for the U.S. Army, and so the revolutionaries would have to get a lot of the Army on its side. That's after all what happened last time (the Civil War: the South had the better army, of course), and bids fair to happen again ---- Texas is not likely to side with New England! I see a split-up coming, it's amazing we have lasted this long, very unhistorical. 

The usual way Revolutions start is massive protests: I now realize how close the government was to losing the country during the '60s. I didn't have enough perspective to recognize it back then. Egypt is having a revolution now, and the French revolution proceeded by "journees," huge protests and mob action involving heads on pikes. It worked. Subverting the soldiers is the usual thing, happens every time. I'm not worried about the course of history being distorted by not having assault rifles in every neighborhood: no one stops a revolution whose time has come. No country has ever needed assault rifles to have a revolution, either, so far.


----------



## Circe

gallantwarrior said:


> While I relish intelligent conversation with thoughtful, coherent people, I'm not sure you would fit into either of those categories.





Okay, we'll give it a miss. Darn. What a pity. Another man done gone.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> However, I don't think this is how it will go down. Even with assault rifles, private guerrillas are no match for the U.S. Army, and so the revolutionaries would have to get a lot of the Army on its side. That's after all what happened last time (the Civil War: the South had the better army, of course), and bids fair to happen again ---- Texas is not likely to side with New England! I see a split-up coming, it's amazing we have lasted this long, very unhistorical.



Thanks for having a discussion. As a reply, I will say that the main problem with your reasoning (in my view) is that historical examples don&#8217;t support it.  

If we look back on very recent history, we will find _numerous _cases of a lightly armed population succeeding at fending off a heavily armed aggressor.

How about Iraq? Despite the US having the most *sophisticated weaponry on the planet*, unlimited funding, and Iraq being just a fraction of the size of the US, we were still unable to take control of the country after 10 years of war. Why? 

Too, what about Vietnam? Isn&#8217;t that too a case of a decentralized civilian army with crude weapons being able to fend off a complete Superpower? Again, Vietnam is a fraction of the size of the United States. 



.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> [Thanks for having a discussion. As a reply, I will say that the main problem with your reasoning (in my view) is that historical examples dont support it.
> 
> If we look back on very recent history, we will find _numerous _cases of a lightly armed population succeeding at fending off a heavily armed aggressor.
> 
> How about Iraq? Despite the US having the most *sophisticated weaponry on the planet*, unlimited funding, and Iraq being just a fraction of the size of the US, we were still unable to take control of the country after 10 years of war. Why?
> 
> Too, what about Vietnam? Isnt that too a case of a decentralized civilian army with crude weapons being able to fend off a complete Superpower? Again, Vietnam is a fraction of the size of the United States.





Good points; Hmmmmmm, I see what you mean. Yeah, guerrilla warfare can be very effective.  

Well, I don't think either Iraqis or the Viet Cong had assault rifles in every bedroom before the war started: they got arms from allies. Or they made them -- the IEDs in Iraq and their suicide bomber weapons, highly effective but somehow....not American. The Viet Cong had pitfalls and many odd improvised weapons. 

I see your point, but I'm sort of a law-and-order person myself; a revolution would interfere with my grocery shopping, I suspect. I think I'd like to stop the crazies shooting down me and mine first and let any revolution take care of itself later; nothing ever stopped a revolution, you can count on them.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.
> 
> They are:
> 
> 1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.
> 
> Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.
> 
> But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1.) Is it crazy to fear the possibility of your Gov't becoming tyrannical (ie has it ever happened before in countries like England, France, or Germany)?
> 
> 2.) Is it fair to say that our gov't has proven itself capable of using violence to achieve strategic and monetary goals (ie what was the purpose of Iraq)?. If you answered yes, then why again are you so eager to let this entity go unchecked?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime.  But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.  

It was at one time mandated by the state that a class of Americans could not shop, eat, stay, ride or buy whatever any other American could.  Lynchings were ignored by justice systems.  A tax payer could not avail himself of an education at tax payer supported schools.

With all that state sanctioned tyranny, the people oppressed did not rise up in armed insurrection.  They fought that tyranny through peaceful protest and civil disobedience. 

When Rambo wannabes see tyranny, their thinking goes no deeper than violence.  When the truly oppressed see tyranny, their actions were peaceful and effective.

When the militants see tyranny, we get Timothy McVeigh.  When African Americans see tyranny, we get Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Take your pick.

So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is.  If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> I see your point, but I'm sort of a law-and-order person myself; a revolution would interfere with my grocery shopping, I suspect. I think I'd like to stop the crazies shooting down me and mine first and let any revolution take care of itself later; nothing ever stopped a revolution, you can count on them.




Hey, I'm in no way encouraging violence or a preemptive revolution of any sort. I don't think there's a need for it now, anyways. I'm more or less speaking on the shortsightedness of giving up your second amendment rights now and not considering any of the possibilities to come in 50-100 years.  

People are very, very quick to take our quality of life in the USA for granted, from a benevolent Gov't to a seemingly unlimited food supply. Again, if we look at *historical examples*, both of those things can change in a relative instant due to a slew of different causes - am I not correct? 

.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is.  If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.



Woa, woa, woah, slow down a minute there!

"Assault Weapons" account for approximately *50 murders a year* in the United States (rifles as a group are around 350 total according to FBI statistics). 

Toting a 30,000 "gun death" statistic in a conversation about Assault Weapons specifically is just a tad misleading, don't you think? Lets try to stay honest and straightforward here, agree? 

Here's the truth:

The Grand majority of gun violence in the United States happens in the inner cities, and is directly related to poverty. You cure poverty, and gun violence will virtually disappear overnight in many regards. 

*Why is it that there's virtually no violent crime in the Northside of Chicago, but in the poor Southside there are murders every week? *

If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise. 

If these kids on the southside were raised in a stable community with the promise of a good job once they graduate school, they would have no need to shoot one another over petty drug issues and "territory" disputes... right? This is where the true gun problem is in America, yet no one really seems to care. In fact, our recent approach has been sort of blatantly racist.

Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from? 


. 


.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is.  If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woa, woa, woah, slow down a minute there!
> 
> "Assault Weapons" account for approximately *50 murders a year* in the United States (rifles as a group are around 350 total according to FBI statistics).
> 
> Toting a 30,000 "gun death" statistic in a conversation about Assault Weapons specifically is just a tad misleading, don't you think? Lets try to stay honest and straightforward here, agree?
> 
> Here's the truth:
> 
> The Grand majority of gun violence in the United States happens in the inner cities, and is directly related to poverty. You cure poverty, and gun violence will virtually disappear overnight in many regards.
> 
> *Why is it that there's virtually no violent crime in the Northside of Chicago, but in the poor Southside there are murders every week? *
> 
> If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an Assault weapon that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise. Again, you fix that and murder rates will go down significantly. If these kids on the southside were raised in a stable community with the promise of a good job once they graduate school, they would have no need to shoot one another over petty drug issues and "territory" disputes... right?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Who's being disingenuous here?  You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime.  But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.



Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?


----------



## Nosmo King

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime.  But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
Click to expand...

I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.  I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.

Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.


----------



## Nosmo King

gallantwarrior said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.
> 
> They are:
> 
> 1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.
> 
> Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.
> 
> But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers?  What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons?  What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns?  The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply.  The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's go with some of your assumptions:
> 1.  "Assault rifles" (as vaguely defined by the gun-grabbing lobby) are the problem, being the weapon of choice for these nuts that decide to go on killing sprees.
> 2.  Suppose you manage to push through a manufacturing ban of all "assault rifles" and the "high capacity magazines" (as arbitrarily defined by the gun-grabbers).
> 
> Describe exactly how this move will decrease or eliminate the mass killings?
> What action should be taken when the number of mass killings are not decreased by your "assault weapon" ban?
> 
> While I have little doubt that many individuals are motivated by the best, most noble intentions when they call for limitations and bans of firearms, I have grave doubts about the motivation of the government that uses the good intentions of its constituents to further a much darker and far less noble agenda.
Click to expand...

The key adjective is "mass" when talking about "mass shootings".  What puts the "mass" into the discussion?  Weapons that fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible.  For our discussion, let's define an "assault weapon" as one with a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine loaded with more than 10 rounds.  Other than the battle field, is there a reason to hold such weapons in civilian hands strong enough to justify "mass shootings"?

And suspicion, mere suspicion of the motives of the state are not strong enough to put weapons designed for war on American streets.  No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17.  The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> Who's being disingenuous here?  You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.



Nosmo, I'm being reasonable here. 

We're having a conversation about an *Assault Weapons* ban, right (check the title of the thread)? Now isn't it a bit misleading to bring up the 30,000 gun death statistic without breaking it down first?

1.) About 20,000 of those deaths are due to suicide; an assault weapons ban will have no effect on this stat. 

2.) Of the 10,000 remaining deaths (homicides), only about 350 are related to rifles. Of the 350 related to rifles, only about 50 are related to the so called "assault weapons".

So what's disingenuous here is you bringing up 30,000 gun death stat in a conversation about Assault Weapons when Assault Weapons are only responsible for ~0.16% of that total number. Surely, you can agree with me here - right? 




.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> In my opinion, these gun nuts with assault rifles...


Fact:  This statement only demostrates your ignorance of the issue and completely devalues any opinion you might have.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.


Fact:
You cannot cite a single crime that was committed with a legally-owned assault rifle.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17.  The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.



I brought up the point before:

Did the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan have A-1 tanks and fleets of F-17? 

Over 6,000 US soldiers perished in Iraq despite the opposition having a significantly inferior armory. The country is still in turmoil 10 years later. 

With your reasoning, Iraq - which is significantly smaller than the US - should have been a breeze, right? 



.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's being disingenuous here?  You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo, I'm being reasonable here.
> 
> We're having a conversation about an *Assault Weapons* ban, right (check the title of the thread)? Now isn't it a bit misleading to bring up the 30,000 gun death statistic without breaking it down first?
> 
> 1.) About 20,000 of those deaths are due to suicide; an assault weapons ban will have no effect on this stat.
> 
> 2.) Of the 10,000 remaining deaths (homicides), only about 350 are related to rifles. Of the 350 related to rifles, only about 50 are related to the so called "assault weapons".
> 
> So what's disingenuous here is you bringing up 30,000 gun death stat in a conversation about Assault Weapons when Assault Weapons are only responsible for ~0.16% of that total number. Surely, you can agree with me here - right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?

It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths.  But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17.  The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up the point before:
> 
> Did the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan have A-1 tanks and fleets of F-17?
> 
> Over 6,000 US soldiers perished in Iraq despite the opposition having a significantly inferior armory. The country is still in turmoil 10 years later.
> 
> With your reasoning, Iraq - which is significantly smaller than the US - should have been a breeze, right?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

When, God forbid, the weapon of choice on the streets is an improvised explosive device, we'll talk about the availability of high explosive.  But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime.  But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
Click to expand...


Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.



> I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.



Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?

I can think of only one.



> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds



Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?  

We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant? I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.  I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.



In an effort to reduce gun violence, why use all of your resources to go after the type of weapon involved in only 0.16% (not even 1%) of all gun deaths in the United States? 

Why don't you focus your campaign on handguns and keeping them out of the hands of gangs in the inner cities? Wouldn't that make just a tiny bit more sense? 

The approach is illogical Nosmo, that's my point. 


.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.



An "epidemic" that has been steadily decreasing.  The murder rate, the violent crime rate, and the mass killings rate are all on the decline in America.  Can you really call something on the decline an "epidemic"?  Shouldn't it be getting worse to use that word?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:

- Given Miller and Heller, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution 
- After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used -least- for crime, especially murder

I fyou think you can create s ound argument for banning 'assault weapons, and can do so while accounting for these facts, I'd be happy to see it.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> When, God forbid, the weapon of choice on the streets is an improvised explosive device, we'll talk about the availability of high explosive.  But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.



I don't disagree that we have an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths...

But what type of gun is used in the grand majority of gun deaths, and where (and why) are those gun deaths occurring?

.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.  I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...


In an effort to reduce gun violence, why use all of your resources to go after the type of weapon involved in only 0.16% (not even 1%) of all gun deaths in the United States? 

Why don't you focus your campaign on handguns and keeping them out of the hands of gangs in the inner cities? Wouldn't that make just a tiny bit more sense? 

The approach is illogical Nosmo, that's my point. 



.[/QUOTE]see post #177


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise.



Wait, wait! I hate to paraphrase the gun nuts, but banks don't shoot people, people shoot people!

"Poverty" is no excuse for the entire South Side of Chicago being a free-fire zone. That's purely criminal behavior. It's on purpose. I have no sympathy with that.





> Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from?




I love it. You are telling all the secrets!!  

Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever! 

I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim. 

I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "epidemic" that has been steadily decreasing.  The murder rate, the violent crime rate, and the mass killings rate are all on the decline in America.  Can you really call something on the decline an "epidemic"?  Shouldn't it be getting worse to use that word?
Click to expand...

Indeed.   Since the sunset of the 1994 'assault weapons' ban, the number of murders with'assault  weapons', in real and relative terms, has dropped.


----------



## Nosmo King

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
Click to expand...

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> .
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.


There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
> 
> I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
> 
> I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.



Wow, Circe, I hate to say it but you're sounding just a bit racists (in my opinion). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post above! 

First of all, many of the victims in poor areas of Chicago to the gun violence *are* women and children. Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same. 

Secondly, my point is this...

If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all? 

.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> *A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.*  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that?  Mexico bans guns.  How's there murder rate?  England and Australia banned them and their murder and violent crime rates increased.  You have no evidence that criminals in these countries all of sudden got their guns from other countries.  Similarly, you have no evidence because California attempts to ban "assault weapons", that criminals must go out of state to get theirs.  

A comprehensive ban, as history demonstrates, only serves to ensure the criminals are armed.  You want to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait for someone else to save you, that's your choice.  I choose differently.


----------



## M14 Shooter

KevinWestern said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
> 
> I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
> 
> I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Circe, I hate to say it but you're sounding just a bit racists (in my opinion). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post above!
> 
> First of all, many of the victims in poor areas of Chicago to the gun violence *are* women and children. Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same.
> 
> Secondly, my point is this...
> 
> If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all?
Click to expand...

Handguns aren't as scary looking as an AR-15.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?
> 
> It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths.  But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.



I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. The AR-15 (as I understand) fires in the same way as any other rifle - you pull the trigger once and it fires once.

What variations on handguns are you talking about exactly? Can you explain the difference between the firing system of a 'normal' handgun, and a firing system of a handgun that behaves like an AR-15?

.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
Click to expand...

They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.


----------



## Nosmo King

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> *A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.*  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  Mexico bans guns.  How's there murder rate?  England and Australia banned them and their murder and violent crime rates increased.  You have no evidence that criminals in these countries all of sudden got their guns from other countries.  Similarly, you have no evidence because California attempts to ban "assault weapons", that criminals must go out of state to get theirs.
> 
> A comprehensive ban, as history demonstrates, only serves to ensure the criminals are armed.  You want to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait for someone else to save you, that's your choice.  I choose differently.
Click to expand...

How do you think American criminals get their weapons?  Should it be easy for them to obtain them?


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?
> 
> It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths.  But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. The AR-15 (as I understand) fires in the same way as any other rifle - you pull the trigger once and it fires once.
> 
> What variations on handguns are you talking about exactly? Can you explain the difference between the firing system of a 'normal' handgun, and a firing system of a handgun that behaves like an AR-15?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Semi automatic firing systems are ones where every time you pull the trigger, the gun fires.  There's no need to engage a bolt to eject a shell, or engage a pump lever to eject and reload.  It's easy, squeeze and shoot.  No cylinder revolves, no bolt is pulled.

Handguns with a semi automatic firing system are not factored into you 50 deaths a year statistic, yet they account for far more deaths than a few score per year.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
Click to expand...


Are they?

Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of *315 million people*. 

I'm not saying those deaths are unimportant, either, I'm simply saying that (logically) if we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the very least)? 

It's like a business; should a company focus attention on product A that makes them $100k in revenue every year or product B that makes them $1k in revenue? The $1k is not 'unimportant', but clearly we have limited time and resources and need to focus on the heavy hitters...


.




.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they?
> 
> Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of *315 million people*. If we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the least)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you limit the definition of 'assault weapons' to rifles.  But handguns with semi automatic firing systems and fitted with high capacity clips bring more destruction than most other types of weapons.  See the streets of Chicago or Detroit.


----------



## gallantwarrior

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means.  Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal.  The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> *We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?*
Click to expand...


I think that's a fair and reasonable question.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
Click to expand...


OK I'll say it again

There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)







And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)






They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly

So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
Click to expand...

Show this to be true.  Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.

Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Skull Pilot said:


> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly


There's not a Mini-14 in the world that will ourshoot my NM AR15.
Especially at 600+ yds.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they?
> 
> Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of *315 million people*. If we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the least)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you limit the definition of 'assault weapons' to rifles.  But handguns with semi automatic firing systems and fitted with high capacity clips bring more destruction than most other types of weapons.  See the streets of Chicago or Detroit.
Click to expand...


Again, what exactly are you talking about?

Fully Automatic weapons (of any kind) are already banned. 

.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, wait! I hate to paraphrase the gun nuts, but banks don't shoot people, people shoot people!
> 
> "Poverty" is no excuse for the entire South Side of Chicago being a free-fire zone. That's purely criminal behavior. It's on purpose. I have no sympathy with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it. You are telling all the secrets!!
> 
> Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
> 
> I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
> 
> I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
Click to expand...


So, you are telling us that you give a rats azz about blacks killing other blacks, regardless of the weapon of choice or the reason they do this.  You are solely concerned with old, white guys who go nuts or senile (muttering to themselves) and start shooting with their "assault rifles".  Do you pay attention to anything other than your masters' talking points?  Ever?  You should consider a career in writing fiction.


----------



## Skull Pilot

M14 Shooter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a Mini-14 in the world that will ourshoot my NM AR15.
> Especially at 600+ yds.
Click to expand...


Is it the gun or the guy shooting it?


----------



## gallantwarrior

KevinWestern said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
> 
> I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
> 
> I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Circe, I hate to say it but you're sounding just a bit racists (in my opinion). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post above!
> 
> First of all, many of the victims in poor areas of Chicago to the gun violence *are* women and children. Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same.
> 
> Secondly, my point is this...
> 
> If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It is much more difficult to demonize a firearm that doesn't "look" evil enough.  First, go after the "bad" guns.  When that doesn't work, go after the new "bad" guns.  Consider the ultimate goal is to remove all types of defense from the hands of the populace.  But you have to go after the low hanging fruit first, it's easiest to sell to those of weak minds and easily aroused emotions.  Facts and reality do not play well the the gun-grabbers' audience.


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same.



Yes, I can be antimale of any color ----- sure, there are innocent bystanders killed, look at the girl who sang for Obama, shot down. But I think the majority of gun victims in black ghettos are male because they are enforcing the drug trade issues. Also gang violence. This is primarily male-on-male, whereas white men mostly kill white women and children. This is well known.



> Secondly, my point is this...
> 
> If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all?



I thought you were pro-gun, but actually, you are trying to get handguns banned, right?

Radical.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Skull Pilot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
Click to expand...


There you go again, asking for some logical reasoning to support an emotional argument.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Skull Pilot said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a Mini-14 in the world that will ourshoot my NM AR15.
> Especially at 600+ yds.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it the gun or the guy shooting it?
Click to expand...

Both!


----------



## gallantwarrior

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they?
> 
> Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of *315 million people*. If we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the least)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you limit the definition of 'assault weapons' to rifles.  But handguns with semi automatic firing systems and fitted with high capacity clips bring more destruction than most other types of weapons.  See the streets of Chicago or Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what exactly are you talking about?
> 
> Fully Automatic weapons (of any kind) are already banned.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, not banned, per se.  They are very heavily regulated, licensed, and taxed, though.


----------



## CMike

Skull Pilot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
Click to expand...


One is black, therefore it's evil.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, I'll bet you could kill a lot of people with those guns, Skull Pilot, if they'd let you.
Click to expand...

You completely, and completely unsurprisingly, igore the point.
Speaks volumes.  Well done.


----------



## Circe

CMike said:


> One is black, therefore it's evil.



Yeah, like your avatar.

Works for me.


----------



## KevinWestern

Circe said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can be antimale of any color ----- sure, there are innocent bystanders killed, look at the girl who sang for Obama, shot down. But I think the majority of gun victims in black ghettos are male because they are enforcing the drug trade issues. Also gang violence. This is primarily male-on-male, whereas white men mostly kill white women and children. This is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, my point is this...
> 
> If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were pro-gun, but actually, you are trying to get handguns banned, right?
> 
> Radical.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not. I'm just trying to step into your shoes and ask myself "if I want to reduce gun violence, do I go after the gun implicated in 99% of murders, or the gun implicated in 1% of murders"? 


.


----------



## M14 Shooter

KevinWestern said:


> No, I'm not. I'm just trying to step into your shoes and ask myself "if I want to reduce gun violence, do I go after the gun implicated in 99% of murders, or the gun implicated in 1% of murders"?


It's not quite 99% and 1% , but your premise is sound:
If you are serious about reducing the number of murders committed with guns, then you will seek to address the class of guns used most often in gun-related murder.

Equally sound:
If you do not seek to address the class of guns used most often in gun-related morder, then you are not serious about reducing the number of murders committed with guns.

That's all you need to know, folks.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I'll bet you could kill a lot of people with those guns, Skull Pilot, if they'd let you.
> 
> Maybe you'll luck out and society will break down.
Click to expand...


When you ASSUME.....

I do not own an AR 15.  I love my mini 14 and it's bigger brother the mini 30.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Skull Pilot said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I'll bet you could kill a lot of people with those guns, Skull Pilot, if they'd let you.
> 
> Maybe you'll luck out and society will break down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you ASSUME.....
> 
> I do not own an AR 15.  I love my mini 14 and it's bigger brother the mini 30.
Click to expand...

I have their father and Garandfather


----------



## Nosmo King

Skull Pilot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
Click to expand...

Ask the NRA.  Twenty years ago Congress passed a watered down assault weapons ban and there was little effect.  Why was it watered down?  Why the National Rifle Association, that's why!

And so when a comprehensive ban is proposed, the NRA issues talking points and the gun advocates trumpet them like good little obsequious supplicants.  No law can stop gun deaths, so why pass a law?  Why ban this weapon and not that one?  All these situations were set up like bowling pins by the gun lobby and now we have to cut through all this dross just to make a point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the NRA....
Click to expand...

Translation:
You have no clue as to why one shoud be banned but noth the other- you're simply scared by mean-looking guns, and so want to ban them.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:
> You have no clue as to why one shoud be banned but noth the other- you're simply scared by mean-looking guns, and so want to ban them.
Click to expand...

That's every bit as true as me saying you're in love with the big penis extensions guns provide.  It's a silly argument and it's not worth rebutting.

The NRA writes gun legislation.  Don't you think that's the case?  During the last attempt to clear our streets of assault weapons, Smith and Wesson were ready to deal on a partial ban.  But the NRA organized a boycott against S&W and nearly ran them out of business for even considering a common sense solution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA....
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> You have no clue as to why one shoud be banned but noth the other- you're simply scared by mean-looking guns, and so want to ban them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's every bit as true as me saying you're in love with the big penis extensions guns provide.  It's a silly argument and it's not worth rebutting.
Click to expand...

We then return to the question you failed to address:
How is it logically sound to ban the AR-15 and not the Mini-14?


----------



## M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show this to be true.  Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.
> 
> Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a reponse.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Nosmo King said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the NRA.  Twenty years ago Congress passed a watered down assault weapons ban and there was little effect.  Why was it watered down?  Why the National Rifle Association, that's why!
> 
> And so when a comprehensive ban is proposed, the NRA issues talking points and the gun advocates trumpet them like good little obsequious supplicants.  No law can stop gun deaths, so why pass a law?  Why ban this weapon and not that one?  All these situations were set up like bowling pins by the gun lobby and now we have to cut through all this dross just to make a point.
Click to expand...


Gun ownership advocates can make exactly the same observation regarding the gun-grabber lobbies.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Show this to be true.  Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.
> 
> Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a reponse.
Click to expand...


The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are?  If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show this to be true.  Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.
> 
> Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a reponse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

So...  you make up definitions to suit your needs.
Sure sign of an unsound argument.
Thanks for playing.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a reponse.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...  you make up definitions to suit your needs.
> Sure sign of an unsound argument.
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

How do you define 'assault weapons'?  I know there are some who are so hung up on semantics and so blind to the destruction brought by guns that they deny the very existence of assault weapons.  So, in the spirit of honest debate, I think we should define the problem before solving it.

I offered a reasonable definition.  Please tell me if you agree, or if you disagree, why.


----------



## Nosmo King

gallantwarrior said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'll say it again
> 
> There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
> 
> So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA.  Twenty years ago Congress passed a watered down assault weapons ban and there was little effect.  Why was it watered down?  Why the National Rifle Association, that's why!
> 
> And so when a comprehensive ban is proposed, the NRA issues talking points and the gun advocates trumpet them like good little obsequious supplicants.  No law can stop gun deaths, so why pass a law?  Why ban this weapon and not that one?  All these situations were set up like bowling pins by the gun lobby and now we have to cut through all this dross just to make a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun ownership advocates can make exactly the same observation regarding the gun-grabber lobbies.
Click to expand...

Only if the so called gun grabbing lobbies wrote the watered down legislation.


----------



## Trajan

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Click to expand...


so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles? 

how about pistols?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show this to be true.  Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.
> 
> Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a reponse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
> 
> Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are?  If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?
Click to expand...


In 2011 Rifles of any kind were only used in 2.5% of murders committed with a gun.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

and the total number of murders with rifles of any kind is lower than it was in 2007

In 2011 murders committed with knives were 6 times more common than murders committed with rifles.

So you might want to hold down the hyperbole.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Trajan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
Click to expand...

Nope.
He wants to ban the AR15, but not the Mini-14.




> how about pistols?


Just those that can take a 10-rd or larger magazine.
You know -- all of them.
Never mind that banning handguns violates the constitution.


----------



## Nosmo King

Skull Pilot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a reponse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: *any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.*
> 
> Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are?  If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2011 Rifles of any kind were only used in 2.5% of murders committed with a gun.
> 
> FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> and the total number of murders with rifles of any kind is lower than it was in 2007
> 
> In 2011 murders committed with knives were 6 times more common than murders committed with rifles.
> 
> So you might want to hold down the hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Please read the posts you quote.


----------



## Nosmo King

Trajan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
> 
> I can think of only one.
> 
> 
> 
> Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why?  I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
> 
> We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?).  By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies.  Why would you want to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
> 
> how about pistols?
Click to expand...

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> so, you answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> He wants to ban the AR15, but not the Mini-14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about pistols?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just those that can take a 10-rd or larger magazine.
> You know -- all of them.
> Never mind that banning handguns violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

Stop putting words in my mouth.  Define assault weapons.  I did and you grew mute.



> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.


----------



## Trajan

Nosmo King said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
> 
> how about pistols?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...


then why mention anything other than  the 10 rounds limit then? it apparently doesn't matter for a single shot, ipso, your position is; no mag. capacity over 10 rounds......


why not 12, or 8?


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
> 
> how about pistols?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.
Click to expand...


Why not the dictionary definition that we've all known for many years, which basically says any firearm capable of burst and/or full auto?  



> Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.



That's every semi auto every made.  Not an 'assault weapon'.  Pass.


----------



## eflatminor

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
> 
> *A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed.*  Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  Mexico bans guns.  How's there murder rate?  England and Australia banned them and their murder and violent crime rates increased.  You have no evidence that criminals in these countries all of sudden got their guns from other countries.  Similarly, you have no evidence because California attempts to ban "assault weapons", that criminals must go out of state to get theirs.
> 
> A comprehensive ban, as history demonstrates, only serves to ensure the criminals are armed.  You want to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait for someone else to save you, that's your choice.  I choose differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you think American criminals get their weapons?  Should it be easy for them to obtain them?
Click to expand...


We know exactly how.  According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, bost crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources or through family members or friends.

It IS easy to obtain firearms when one doesn't care about the law.  That's the point!  You're only putting LAW ABIDING citizens at a disadvantage.  Why would you seek to do that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



The AR15 fires a .223 round. As the name indicates, this is a .22 sized bullet. The cartridge has a lot more powder, generally about 25 grains than a .22 long rifle, but is still a small round.  To contrast, a .30-06 uses 55 grains on a slightly larger slug.

The point is that a .223 is NOT a "high powered" round. It is not in the same class as the 7.62 (54) used in an AK-47 or the WWII round of the .30-06

.223's are accurate and controllable, making them a prime defense weapon. But "high power" they are not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> 
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.
> 
> It's not an industry.



Then we will just outlaw the manufacture and sale of guns designed specifically to shook kids in the face. 

Or better yet, outlaw shooting kids in the face at all. Why has Obama's Khmer Rouge not thought of this and passed a ban on shooting kids in the face?


----------



## Circe

KevinWestern said:


> I thought you were pro-gun, but actually, you are trying to get handguns banned, right?
> 
> Radical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. I'm just trying to step into your shoes and ask myself "if I want to reduce gun violence, do I go after the gun implicated in 99% of murders, or the gun implicated in 1% of murders"?
Click to expand...



Those aren't my shoes; those are size 14s! In my size 7's I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.

Reminds me of a prof I knew who bought an Audi, brought it back from Germany. He bought it because it would go 120 miles an hour, he said. A German woman (always a stickler for rules, those Germans) said, "But it's illegal to go that fast here in the USA!"

Everybody was very quiet. 

And B) it's the nuts who are actually using the assault rifle as it's meant to be used, to kill lots of people at once. These tend to be small children, but hey, who cares, right? Too few to matter, right? Don't get me started.


----------



## Circe

Nosmo King said:


> [
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.  Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
> 
> Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are?  If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?




With respect, I don't think that is a problem. I know the gun nuts are always trying to define assault rifles out of existence, but no one else has any problem with definition: assault rifles are the rifles with the banana clips that crazies like Adam Lanza and James Holmes are holding when they mow down children and civilians in a crowd. 

The problem is they are in fashion for crowd killings by psychos. If it weren't for that, I don't know that there would be a problem.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.


You cannot cite a single instance where a legally-owned assault rifle was used to commit a crime.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> With respect, I don't think that is a problem. I know the gun nuts are always trying to define assault rifles out of existence, but no one else has any problem with definition: assault rifles are the rifles with the banana clips that crazies like Adam Lanza and James Holmes are holding when they mow down children and civilians in a crowd.


An especially ironic -and- ignorant post.  Well done.


----------



## MikeK

Circe said:


> Those aren't my shoes; those are size 14s! In my size 7's I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.


Considering the kind of population diversity at large in contemporary America, and the substantial undertone of hostility which attends the proximity of the various dissimilar groups, I believe a case can be made for wanting to own a so-called "assault" weapon.  If an example is needed to illustrate my point I'll refer you to the riot in Los Angeles that followed the first trial of the Rodney King cops.  

If you recall, that eruption was so tumultuous it caused the police to abandon the area and the  only segment which remained untouched by the violence was the Korean enclave -- which remained untouched because the Koreans were the only citizens who turned out with firearms, including assault weapons, ready to defend themselves and their property.  

Ironically, that enclave was the only part of the area that remained _peaceful_ throughout the entire riot.  So the bottom line to what I'm saying here is *it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.*  Especially in the kind of increasingly divided nation America has become.

In keeping with that line of reasoning; while I'm not expecting such a riot to erupt, neither were the peaceful citizens of Los Angeles.  Which brings to mind the issue of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

It would be reasonable for government to forbid me to possess such a weapon *if* government could assure me I would never be confronted by a hostile adversary who is armed with one.  But because the toothpaste is out of the tube where such weaponry is concerned, no such assurance is possible.  The United States of America is in fact an armed camp and the only way to disarm the population, especially the outlaw segment, would require ignoring several articles of the Constitution and conducting house-to-house searches and random street-corner and highway frisks.  

The present hysteria regarding high capacity magazines is evidence that most anti-gun proponents are not very familiar with guns.  They are convinced that without his 30 round magazines Adam Lanza could not have killed all those people in just five minutes.  What they _choose_ to ignore is the fact that if he had to reload with 10 round magazines it would have taken him 20 seconds more to accomplish the same massacre.  

America is an extremely unique Nation in that it is host to an abundance of firearms and a great many crazy and otherwise dangerous people.  And the reason for all the apparent frustration is there really isn't much that can be done about either element.  

Unfortunately there is a price to pay to live in the land of the free.


----------



## Politico

Circe said:


> I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.



I would like you to grow a set. If you and the rest of the Leftytoon minions really cared about people like you say then you'd go after handguns. But you're a bunch of pussies who only care about politicizing for gain.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Politico said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like you to grow a set. If you and the rest of the Leftytoon minions really cared about people like you say then you'd go after handguns. But you're a bunch of pussies who only care about politicizing for gain.
Click to expand...


Handguns come later. Patience, asshopper!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

KevinWestern said:


> With that given, why take &#8220;law abiding citizens&#8221; out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?




Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen for all but the last 5 minutes of his life.


----------



## Skull Pilot

OohPooPahDoo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen for all but the last 5 minutes of his life.
Click to expand...



So then we should just treat everyone as a potential criminal right?


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> So then we should just treat everyone as a potential criminal right?




Sure. That's what we do anyway. 

We lock our cars and our doors at night to keep out the "honest" people.

Almost none of the crazies who killed so many people with assault rifles were known to the police at all. They fantasize, fantasize, fantasize killing people --- and then they suddenly run out and do it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then we should just treat everyone as a potential criminal right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. That's what we do anyway.
> 
> We lock our cars and our doors at night to keep out the "honest" people.
> 
> Almost none of the crazies who killed so many people with assault rifles were known to the police at all. They fantasize, fantasize, fantasize killing people --- and then they suddenly run out and do it.
Click to expand...


Me locking my doors is not treating anyone like a criminal.

You denying people the opportunity to own a weapon because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future shoot someone is the same as treating them as criminals.


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> Me locking my doors is not treating anyone like a criminal.




Of course it is. You assume there are criminals around and so you lock your doors.

In the country people never used to lock their house or car doors --- I didn't for decades. But then criminals moved into the area and crime increased. We now know there are criminals around, so we lock the doors.

Why don't you just leave all your doors open all night if you don't think there are any criminals?



Same deal with assault rifles. We know for sure they are the favorite weapons psychotics used to costume up and massacre as many people as they can. So the assault rifles have to go.


----------



## Circe

MikeK said:


> Considering the kind of population diversity at large in contemporary America, and the substantial undertone of hostility which attends the proximity of the various dissimilar groups, I believe a case can be made for wanting to own a so-called "assault" weapon.  If an example is needed to illustrate my point I'll refer you to the riot in Los Angeles that followed the first trial of the Rodney King cops.
> 
> If you recall, that eruption was so tumultuous it caused the police to abandon the area and the  only segment which remained untouched by the violence was the Korean enclave -- which remained untouched because the Koreans were the only citizens who turned out with firearms, including assault weapons, ready to defend themselves and their property.
> 
> Ironically, that enclave was the only part of the area that remained _peaceful_ throughout the entire riot.  So the bottom line to what I'm saying here is it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Especially in the kind of increasingly divided nation America has become.
> 
> In keeping with that line of reasoning; while I'm not expecting such a riot to erupt, neither were the peaceful citizens of Los Angeles.  Which brings to mind the issue of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.



I knew these assault weapons were about black rioting. There is no question but that there have been many terrible black riots in the lifetime of many of us. It is an interesting issue and is about the only good argument I have heard, if it is a good argument, for these multi-killer guns. (Well, that and feral pigs in the garden.) One rarely sees this argument posted because few people are brave enough to go against the PC chorus. What about this issue? Does the country, or at least the white part of it, need assault rifles against black rioting?


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> Me locking my doors is not treating anyone like a criminal.
> 
> You denying people the opportunity to own a weapon because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future shoot someone is the same as treating them as criminals.




Yes, Skull Pilot, it's the exact same situation. You lock your doors at night and treat everyone as a potential criminal. If you didn't suspect there are people who want to get in your house to steal and rape, you wouldn't do it. 

Same with the assault weapons. We know there are potential criminals who want to use assault rifles to kill and kill and kill till the police fill them full of lead. Therefore many of us want their favorite fantasy weapons, the assault rifles, banned so they are less likely to do this. We are indeed treating them as potential criminals, and so do you when you lock your door. There ARE potential criminals: if you deny that, why do you have guns at all?

People who think the world is made of butterflies and kittens and the world is good and there are no bad people do not usually lock their doors and arm themselves with guns. But there are bad people. They are using assault rifles to kill lots of people. We need to stop them before they kill again.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me locking my doors is not treating anyone like a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. You assume there are criminals around and so you lock your doors.
> 
> In the country people never used to lock their house or car doors --- I didn't for decades. But then criminals moved into the area and crime increased. We now know there are criminals around, so we lock the doors.
> 
> Why don't you just leave all your doors open all night if you don't think there are any criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> Same deal with assault rifles. We know for sure they are the favorite weapons psychotics used to costume up and massacre as many people as they can. So the assault rifles have to go.
Click to expand...


No I lock my doors because I don't want anyone in my house uninvited be they criminals or not.

And acknowledging that some people are criminals is not the same a treating everyone as if they are.

And I have already told you that there is absolutely no difference between an "assault" rifle and my rifles that is not classified as an assault rifle and yet you can't see the contradiction of a ban.


----------



## Nosmo King

Trajan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?
> 
> how about pistols?
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then why mention anything other than  the 10 rounds limit then? it apparently doesn't matter for a single shot, ipso, your position is; no mag. capacity over 10 rounds......
> 
> 
> why not 12, or 8?
Click to expand...


Isn't the point to get the "mass" out of "mass shooting"?  Ten rounds is more than enough to shoot and kill whatever one is aiming at.  If you need more than ten rounds, perhaps target shooting isn't your forte.  Try model railroading or stamp collecting.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me locking my doors is not treating anyone like a criminal.
> 
> You denying people the opportunity to own a weapon because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future shoot someone is the same as treating them as criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Skull Pilot, it's the exact same situation. You lock your doors at night and treat everyone as a potential criminal. If you didn't suspect there are people who want to get in your house to steal and rape, you wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  If i don't want my car to get stolen and lock the doors there is no action directed at anyone.  I don't tell people they can't own a pair of wire cutters because they might use them to hot wire a car.



> Same with the assault weapons. We know there are potential criminals who want to use assault rifles to kill and kill and kill till the police fill them full of lead. Therefore many of us want their favorite fantasy weapons, the assault rifles, banned so they are less likely to do this. We are indeed treating them as potential criminals, and so do you when you lock your door. There ARE potential criminals: if you deny that, why do you have guns at all?



Rifles of any kind were only used in 2.5% of murders in 2011. So ain't no one pumping people full of lead with rifles in large numbers.

FYI knives were used in many more murders than rifles in  2011.


----------



## Uncensored2008

eflatminor said:


> No, but that's not what you said.  You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".
> 
> That is patently false.



Shallow is a democrat.

Where Republicans and Libertarians post from a perspective of: "is the claim true? Can I support it?" Shallow posts from the perspective of: "Does it serve the party?"

I've hammered Shallow for having zero integrity, but I think that may miss the boat. Oh to be sure, Shallow will lie without a seconds pause. But when he lies, he does so to further the goals of the party. To him, that isn't wrong. Right and wrong are only defined by what serves the party. Anything that promotes the party, whether true, false, or in between, is "right." Anything that detracts from the goals of the party is "wrong."

Where normal people view Shallow as completely unethical, he views himself as the paragon of ethics, because his ethics are defined ONLY by service to the party.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Circe said:


> Almost none of the crazies who killed so many people with assault rifles...


Of which there are exactly zero....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Skull Pilot said:


> And I have already told you that there is absolutely no difference between an "assault" rifle and my rifles that is not classified as an assault rifle and yet you can't see the contradiction of a ban.


It is exceptionally clear that Circe isn't interested in a knowledgeable, rational conversation on this issue.  
She argues from a position of irrational fear, something that precludes anyone from reasoning with her.


----------



## Uncensored2008

gallantwarrior said:


> Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?"  They won't enforce the laws they already have.  They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals.  They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more.  Liberal logic 101.



In "Fahrenheit 451," Guy is told that laws are made to ensure that all people are criminals, that no one is innocent. The myriad legal web is purposely constructed to render every person guilty of SOME crime, though they may not realize it. Bradbury offered a cautionary tale we failed to heed.

The gun laws are not intended to be enforced. They are created to ensure that every gun owner is a criminal. Gun laws are crafted so that no matter how careful one is, they will stumble on some obscure passage.  This way, if a person resists, they are already guilty and can be dealt with.

An example of this is Nakoula Nakoula. When the terrorist attack came on Benghazi, and Obama refused support, resulting in the deaths of service men and our ambassador. Obama looked for and used a scapegoat of a film about Muhammad. Obama needed to throw the film maker in prison to please Islam. But the Constitution forbids putting a man in prison for insulting Muhammad. But every man is guilty, so Obama needed only search to find what Nakoula was guilty of, and march him off to prison, where he remains to this day. 

This is why we have gun laws, so that if you embarrass the Reich, or are needed as a scapegoat, you WILL be guilty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OohPooPahDoo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen for all but the last 5 minutes of his life.
Click to expand...


There is zero truth to your claim.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Uncensored2008 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?"  They won't enforce the laws they already have.  They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals.  They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more.  Liberal logic 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In "Fahrenheit 451," Guy is told that laws are made to ensure that all people are criminals, that no one is innocent. The myriad legal web is purposely constructed to render every person guilty of SOME crime, though they may not realize it. Bradbury offered a cautionary tale we failed to heed.
> 
> The gun laws are not intended to be enforced. They are created to ensure that every gun owner is a criminal. Gun laws are crafted so that no matter how careful one is, they will stumble on some obscure passage.  This way, if a person resists, they are already guilty and can be dealt with.
> 
> An example of this is Nakoula Nakoula. When the terrorist attack came on Benghazi, and Obama refused support, resulting in the deaths of service men and our ambassador. Obama looked for and used a scapegoat of a film about Muhammad. Obama needed to throw the film maker in prison to please Islam. But the Constitution forbids putting a man in prison for insulting Muhammad. But every man is guilty, so Obama needed only search to find what Nakoula was guilty of, and march him off to prison, where he remains to this day.
> 
> This is why we have gun laws, so that if you embarrass the Reich, or are needed as a scapegoat, you WILL be guilty.
Click to expand...


You hit that nail dead on.  When we are guilty, any one of us can be shut away without so much as a passing mention.


----------



## FA_Q2

Uncensored2008 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?"  They won't enforce the laws they already have.  They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals.  They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more.  Liberal logic 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In "Fahrenheit 451," Guy is told that laws are made to ensure that all people are criminals, that no one is innocent. The myriad legal web is purposely constructed to render every person guilty of SOME crime, though they may not realize it. Bradbury offered a cautionary tale we failed to heed.
> 
> The gun laws are not intended to be enforced. They are created to ensure that every gun owner is a criminal. Gun laws are crafted so that no matter how careful one is, they will stumble on some obscure passage.  This way, if a person resists, they are already guilty and can be dealt with.
> 
> An example of this is Nakoula Nakoula. When the terrorist attack came on Benghazi, and Obama refused support, resulting in the deaths of service men and our ambassador. Obama looked for and used a scapegoat of a film about Muhammad. Obama needed to throw the film maker in prison to please Islam. But the Constitution forbids putting a man in prison for insulting Muhammad. But every man is guilty, so Obama needed only search to find what Nakoula was guilty of, and march him off to prison, where he remains to this day.
> 
> This is why we have gun laws, so that if you embarrass the Reich, or are needed as a scapegoat, you WILL be guilty.
Click to expand...


I prefer this reference for that particular concept: 


> Theres no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there arent enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? Whats there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpretedand you create a nation of lawbreakersand then you cash in on guilt.



It sums it up VERY well.  Criminality is needed to exercise power.

As for the thread, I see a lot of bickering about definitions and WHAT weapons to ban but I dont see anything at all that upholds the concept that banning such guns will save lives.  Gun bans have been tried all over the world in various nations, states and cities.  There is a boat load of data out there to draw on, where is the data that shows gun control saves lives?  

It does not exist because it is not true.  I can post plenty of evidence against this idea.  That is easy, but where is the data supporting gun control advocates.  Being that they want to LIMIT a right (and I hope that is not under discussion as that right is CLEAR) it is on them to show that not only does the need exists BUT that the measures imposed can fulfill that need.  So far I have not seen one example data expressing that as a reality.  Just a lot of conjecture.

BTW, intelligent conjecture would be useable IF, and only if, we did not have the massive dataset already there to draw on.  IOW, these ideas have already been tried and you dont get to ignore those attempts because you think an argument sounds intelligent  you have to include real world findings as to the results of these bans/regulations etc.


----------



## Underhill

FA_Q2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?"  They won't enforce the laws they already have.  They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals.  They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more.  Liberal logic 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In "Fahrenheit 451," Guy is told that laws are made to ensure that all people are criminals, that no one is innocent. The myriad legal web is purposely constructed to render every person guilty of SOME crime, though they may not realize it. Bradbury offered a cautionary tale we failed to heed.
> 
> The gun laws are not intended to be enforced. They are created to ensure that every gun owner is a criminal. Gun laws are crafted so that no matter how careful one is, they will stumble on some obscure passage.  This way, if a person resists, they are already guilty and can be dealt with.
> 
> An example of this is Nakoula Nakoula. When the terrorist attack came on Benghazi, and Obama refused support, resulting in the deaths of service men and our ambassador. Obama looked for and used a scapegoat of a film about Muhammad. Obama needed to throw the film maker in prison to please Islam. But the Constitution forbids putting a man in prison for insulting Muhammad. But every man is guilty, so Obama needed only search to find what Nakoula was guilty of, and march him off to prison, where he remains to this day.
> 
> This is why we have gun laws, so that if you embarrass the Reich, or are needed as a scapegoat, you WILL be guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer this reference for that particular concept:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there arent enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? Whats there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpretedand you create a nation of lawbreakersand then you cash in on guilt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sums it up VERY well.  Criminality is needed to exercise power.
> 
> As for the thread, I see a lot of bickering about definitions and WHAT weapons to ban but I dont see anything at all that upholds the concept that banning such guns will save lives.  Gun bans have been tried all over the world in various nations, states and cities.  There is a boat load of data out there to draw on, where is the data that shows gun control saves lives?
> 
> It does not exist because it is not true.  I can post plenty of evidence against this idea.  That is easy, but where is the data supporting gun control advocates.  Being that they want to LIMIT a right (and I hope that is not under discussion as that right is CLEAR) it is on them to show that not only does the need exists BUT that the measures imposed can fulfill that need.  So far I have not seen one example data expressing that as a reality.  Just a lot of conjecture.
> 
> BTW, intelligent conjecture would be useable IF, and only if, we did not have the massive dataset already there to draw on.  IOW, these ideas have already been tried and you dont get to ignore those attempts because you think an argument sounds intelligent  you have to include real world findings as to the results of these bans/regulations etc.
Click to expand...


I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).

But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?

And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Underhill said:


> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).
> 
> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.



I live in a police state known as the Peoples Republic of California. Gun locks are mandatory with the sale of firearms. But even the totalitarian democrats that rule the state cannot mandate that they be used- that whole "right to bear" thingy, they can only mandate that they be sold with the gun. What good does this do?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Uncensored2008 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).
> 
> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a police state known as the Peoples Republic of California. Gun locks are mandatory with the sale of firearms. But even the totalitarian democrats that rule the state cannot mandate that they be used- that whole "right to bear" thingy, they can only mandate that they be sold with the gun. What good does this do?
Click to expand...

Like any law intended to keep people from breakling the law, it does no good.


----------



## JWBooth

Good sense has nothing to do with it.
It feels good, and makes for wonderfully well received press releases.


----------



## Underhill

Uncensored2008 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).
> 
> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a police state known as the Peoples Republic of California. Gun locks are mandatory with the sale of firearms. But even the totalitarian democrats that rule the state cannot mandate that they be used- that whole "right to bear" thingy, they can only mandate that they be sold with the gun. What good does this do?
Click to expand...


Not all gun laws are about stopping crime.   Many are about keeping kids safe around guns.   

And anyone who doesn't keep their guns locked up around kids is fucking insane.


----------



## PaulS1950

Underhill,
If children are taught from a very early age they are completely safe around guns or any other tool that could cause injury or death. My kids were taught as soon as they saw my gun on the table that it was dad's tool and that they had to ask if they wanted to handle it. They asked often and I taught them from the beginning that they had to check and clear the weapon before they could handle it. I would clear the weapon for them (they were 3 and 5 years old) because they didn't have the strength to pull the trigger or open the cylinder. They handled all the guns and knew how to check and clear them before they could even pull the trigger on them. Both my daughter and my son went shooting with me before they could fire the guns. They were a big hit at the police range and they liked to show off how they could check the guns and yell, "clear" when they were sure the guns were unloaded. By the age of 7 or 8 they were shooting at 25 yard targets and having a great time shooting groups that were smaller than some of the officers doing their "monthly ammo burn". My guns were loaded and all over the house and they held no fascination for my kids at all - they were just another of dad's tools that were always there. When they had friends over the friends might ask and then they would come to me and I would monitor the steps just to make sure the new kid wasn't going to do something ignorent but my kids showed them how to check and clear the gun and then made them do the same thing. It must have seemed like a lot of work because they never asked a second time and my kids mostly ignored the guns once they could shoot with me at the range, unless I was going to the range - they would miss cake and ice cream to shoot with their dad.

I never locked any of my guns up because if they are locked away then kids are curious about them and you can't get to them in time if you need them.
My dad kept the guns locked away and the ammo locked in a separate place and I was curious enough to pick the locks as a 10 year old and fire one of the guns out the bedroom window. Locks don't make it impossible to get to the guns. It just takes a bit of determination and time. I can still pick a lock - it has saved me and friends a call to the locksmith quite a few times. 

If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.

On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> Underhill,
> If children are taught from a very early age they are completely safe around guns or any other tool that could cause injury or death. My kids were taught as soon as they saw my gun on the table that it was dad's tool and that they had to ask if they wanted to handle it. They asked often and I taught them from the beginning that they had to check and clear the weapon before they could handle it. I would clear the weapon for them (they were 3 and 5 years old) because they didn't have the strength to pull the trigger or open the cylinder. They handled all the guns and knew how to check and clear them before they could even pull the trigger on them. Both my daughter and my son went shooting with me before they could fire the guns. They were a big hit at the police range and they liked to show off how they could check the guns and yell, "clear" when they were sure the guns were unloaded. By the age of 7 or 8 they were shooting at 25 yard targets and having a great time shooting groups that were smaller than some of the officers doing their "monthly ammo burn". My guns were loaded and all over the house and they held no fascination for my kids at all - they were just another of dad's tools that were always there. When they had friends over the friends might ask and then they would come to me and I would monitor the steps just to make sure the new kid wasn't going to do something ignorent but my kids showed them how to check and clear the gun and then made them do the same thing. It must have seemed like a lot of work because they never asked a second time and my kids mostly ignored the guns once they could shoot with me at the range, unless I was going to the range - they would miss cake and ice cream to shoot with their dad.
> 
> I never locked any of my guns up because if they are locked away then kids are curious about them and you can't get to them in time if you need them.
> My dad kept the guns locked away and the ammo locked in a separate place and I was curious enough to pick the locks as a 10 year old and fire one of the guns out the bedroom window. Locks don't make it impossible to get to the guns. It just takes a bit of determination and time. I can still pick a lock - it has saved me and friends a call to the locksmith quite a few times.
> 
> If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.
> 
> On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.



I'm sorry but that just isn't true.   

There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.

One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off.   He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister. 

The problem is, you seem to be under the delusion that just teaching your kids what is right means they will always do it.    I find it hard to believe that any parent could be so naive.    It wasn't true with me or my friends, and it isn't true with my own kids.  

The best medicine is both.   I teach my kids and keep the guns locked up.   They have no need to learn how to pick a lock (which would be tough with a safe) because all they have to do is ask and I will take them shooting...

I have no idea where you live but where I live I don't feel the need to keep guns unlocked and lying around at all times.    I don't know anyone who does.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PaulS1950 said:


> If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.
> 
> On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.


Unquestionably.
Gun accidents in general, but especualy among children, are exceptionally rare; this signifies that whatever is being done to avoid said accidents is working.


----------



## PaulS1950

> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off. He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.



That child was not taught to check and clear the gun properly. My children were taught that that was what was required before handling the gun - not that it was what you were sopposed to do. My kids still recite to me that "guns are always loaded" and know that you never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. This is all from their training at an age when most people "protect" their children rather than preparing them for the future. Even when they were very young my kids would never have considered pointing a gun at each other even if the gun was checked and cleared - it was something that would never have entered their mind. The children in your example were obviously not taught correct gun handling. Getting the round out of the chamber is part of clearing a semi-auto gun. Pointing the gun at anyone that you don't intend to kill is against every rule in the book. 

The fact is that my way worked for me and my kids. It won't work if it is not done correctly and reinforced from a very early age.  Sorry about your friend's loss - it was an avoidable tradjedy.


----------



## Underhill

PaulS1950 said:


> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off. He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That child was not taught to check and clear the gun properly. My children were taught that that was what was required before handling the gun - not that it was what you were sopposed to do. My kids still recite to me that "guns are always loaded" and know that you never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. This is all from their training at an age when most people "protect" their children rather than preparing them for the future. Even when they were very young my kids would never have considered pointing a gun at each other even if the gun was checked and cleared - it was something that would never have entered their mind. The children in your example were obviously not taught correct gun handling. Getting the round out of the chamber is part of clearing a semi-auto gun. Pointing the gun at anyone that you don't intend to kill is against every rule in the book.
> 
> The fact is that my way worked for me and my kids. It won't work if it is not done correctly and reinforced from a very early age.  Sorry about your friend's loss - it was an avoidable tradjedy.
Click to expand...


So your kids always do what they are told?   

I find that hard to believe.   

I've spent more time teaching my kids than most parents.    I'm a scoutmaster and a responsible gun owner.    But I would never assume my kids will do what I say with something as important as a gun.   Especially at a young age.

Statistically most kids don't die in ATV accidents.    That doesn't mean you should leave your ATV's in the yard with the keys in them.   You are just asking for trouble.   Kids occasionally do stupid things regardless of your parenting skills.


----------



## PaulS1950

Facts is facts. I never assumed anything. I taught my children responsibility through love and discipline.
Handling a gun meant that you had to check and clear it before you could do anything else. It wasn't if you want to "play" with the gun you should check and clear it first it was part of the process. The gun was just another tool that was used to put holes in targets and knock over metal targets. It wasn't something to "play" with. You have to incorporate the whole concept not just part of it. Both my kids have kids of their own and they are gun owners. Not one of us has had an accident involving guns. We still go shooting together and my kids shoot pretty well. We are all aware that the gun can be dangerous if you leave out any of the safeguards in handling them. ATVs are toys, so are bicycles, squirt guns and dolls.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill,
> If children are taught from a very early age they are completely safe around guns or any other tool that could cause injury or death. My kids were taught as soon as they saw my gun on the table that it was dad's tool and that they had to ask if they wanted to handle it. They asked often and I taught them from the beginning that they had to check and clear the weapon before they could handle it. I would clear the weapon for them (they were 3 and 5 years old) because they didn't have the strength to pull the trigger or open the cylinder. They handled all the guns and knew how to check and clear them before they could even pull the trigger on them. Both my daughter and my son went shooting with me before they could fire the guns. They were a big hit at the police range and they liked to show off how they could check the guns and yell, "clear" when they were sure the guns were unloaded. By the age of 7 or 8 they were shooting at 25 yard targets and having a great time shooting groups that were smaller than some of the officers doing their "monthly ammo burn". My guns were loaded and all over the house and they held no fascination for my kids at all - they were just another of dad's tools that were always there. When they had friends over the friends might ask and then they would come to me and I would monitor the steps just to make sure the new kid wasn't going to do something ignorent but my kids showed them how to check and clear the gun and then made them do the same thing. It must have seemed like a lot of work because they never asked a second time and my kids mostly ignored the guns once they could shoot with me at the range, unless I was going to the range - they would miss cake and ice cream to shoot with their dad.
> 
> I never locked any of my guns up because if they are locked away then kids are curious about them and you can't get to them in time if you need them.
> My dad kept the guns locked away and the ammo locked in a separate place and I was curious enough to pick the locks as a 10 year old and fire one of the guns out the bedroom window. Locks don't make it impossible to get to the guns. It just takes a bit of determination and time. I can still pick a lock - it has saved me and friends a call to the locksmith quite a few times.
> 
> If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.
> 
> On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off.   He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> The problem is, you seem to be under the delusion that just teaching your kids what is right means they will always do it.    I find it hard to believe that any parent could be so naive.    It wasn't true with me or my friends, and it isn't true with my own kids.
> 
> The best medicine is both.   I teach my kids and keep the guns locked up.   They have no need to learn how to pick a lock (which would be tough with a safe) because all they have to do is ask and I will take them shooting...
> 
> I have no idea where you live but where I live I don't feel the need to keep guns unlocked and lying around at all times.    I don't know anyone who does.
Click to expand...


Shit happens.  My Dad always had firearms in the house.  They were never locked up any further than being kept in my parents' bedroom.  We were allowed to handle them on the range and to clean them at home.  But there were rules that were strictly obeyed, or else.  We children were absolutely forbidden to go into my parents' bedroom, ever.  As children we were trained to obey rules and respect boundaries.  Failure to do so carried dire consequences.  
Nowadays, not so much...


----------



## gallantwarrior

PaulS1950 said:


> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off. He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That child was not taught to check and clear the gun properly. My children were taught that that was what was required before handling the gun - not that it was what you were sopposed to do. My kids still recite to me that "guns are always loaded" and know that you never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. This is all from their training at an age when most people "protect" their children rather than preparing them for the future. Even when they were very young my kids would never have considered pointing a gun at each other even if the gun was checked and cleared - it was something that would never have entered their mind. The children in your example were obviously not taught correct gun handling. Getting the round out of the chamber is part of clearing a semi-auto gun. Pointing the gun at anyone that you don't intend to kill is against every rule in the book.
> 
> The fact is that my way worked for me and my kids. It won't work if it is not done correctly and reinforced from a very early age.  Sorry about your friend's loss - it was an avoidable tradjedy.
Click to expand...


My daughter was taught the same regimen.  I don't need some nanny government regulating things as important as safety.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill,
> If children are taught from a very early age they are completely safe around guns or any other tool that could cause injury or death. My kids were taught as soon as they saw my gun on the table that it was dad's tool and that they had to ask if they wanted to handle it. They asked often and I taught them from the beginning that they had to check and clear the weapon before they could handle it. I would clear the weapon for them (they were 3 and 5 years old) because they didn't have the strength to pull the trigger or open the cylinder. They handled all the guns and knew how to check and clear them before they could even pull the trigger on them. Both my daughter and my son went shooting with me before they could fire the guns. They were a big hit at the police range and they liked to show off how they could check the guns and yell, "clear" when they were sure the guns were unloaded. By the age of 7 or 8 they were shooting at 25 yard targets and having a great time shooting groups that were smaller than some of the officers doing their "monthly ammo burn". My guns were loaded and all over the house and they held no fascination for my kids at all - they were just another of dad's tools that were always there. When they had friends over the friends might ask and then they would come to me and I would monitor the steps just to make sure the new kid wasn't going to do something ignorent but my kids showed them how to check and clear the gun and then made them do the same thing. It must have seemed like a lot of work because they never asked a second time and my kids mostly ignored the guns once they could shoot with me at the range, unless I was going to the range - they would miss cake and ice cream to shoot with their dad.
> 
> I never locked any of my guns up because if they are locked away then kids are curious about them and you can't get to them in time if you need them.
> My dad kept the guns locked away and the ammo locked in a separate place and I was curious enough to pick the locks as a 10 year old and fire one of the guns out the bedroom window. Locks don't make it impossible to get to the guns. It just takes a bit of determination and time. I can still pick a lock - it has saved me and friends a call to the locksmith quite a few times.
> 
> If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.
> 
> On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off.   He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> The problem is, you seem to be under the delusion that just teaching your kids what is right means they will always do it.    I find it hard to believe that any parent could be so naive.    It wasn't true with me or my friends, and it isn't true with my own kids.
> 
> The best medicine is both.   I teach my kids and keep the guns locked up.   They have no need to learn how to pick a lock (which would be tough with a safe) because all they have to do is ask and I will take them shooting...
> 
> I have no idea where you live but where I live I don't feel the need to keep guns unlocked and lying around at all times.    I don't know anyone who does.
Click to expand...


the most dangerous firearm 

is the unloaded one 

never *never* treat a firearm as if it was unloaded


----------



## gallantwarrior

jon_berzerk said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill,
> If children are taught from a very early age they are completely safe around guns or any other tool that could cause injury or death. My kids were taught as soon as they saw my gun on the table that it was dad's tool and that they had to ask if they wanted to handle it. They asked often and I taught them from the beginning that they had to check and clear the weapon before they could handle it. I would clear the weapon for them (they were 3 and 5 years old) because they didn't have the strength to pull the trigger or open the cylinder. They handled all the guns and knew how to check and clear them before they could even pull the trigger on them. Both my daughter and my son went shooting with me before they could fire the guns. They were a big hit at the police range and they liked to show off how they could check the guns and yell, "clear" when they were sure the guns were unloaded. By the age of 7 or 8 they were shooting at 25 yard targets and having a great time shooting groups that were smaller than some of the officers doing their "monthly ammo burn". My guns were loaded and all over the house and they held no fascination for my kids at all - they were just another of dad's tools that were always there. When they had friends over the friends might ask and then they would come to me and I would monitor the steps just to make sure the new kid wasn't going to do something ignorent but my kids showed them how to check and clear the gun and then made them do the same thing. It must have seemed like a lot of work because they never asked a second time and my kids mostly ignored the guns once they could shoot with me at the range, unless I was going to the range - they would miss cake and ice cream to shoot with their dad.
> 
> I never locked any of my guns up because if they are locked away then kids are curious about them and you can't get to them in time if you need them.
> My dad kept the guns locked away and the ammo locked in a separate place and I was curious enough to pick the locks as a 10 year old and fire one of the guns out the bedroom window. Locks don't make it impossible to get to the guns. It just takes a bit of determination and time. I can still pick a lock - it has saved me and friends a call to the locksmith quite a few times.
> 
> If someone is determined enough you can't prevent them from doing wrong. With my kids it was better to remove the mystery early on and show them the way guns should be handled. This kept them out of harms way.
> 
> On the other hand if you don't like spending time with your kids and would rather ignore their interests then maybe a gun safe is right for you. Don't expect to be able to save them if someone breaks into your house - you can't get to those locked up guns as fast as he can bash your head in with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off.   He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> The problem is, you seem to be under the delusion that just teaching your kids what is right means they will always do it.    I find it hard to believe that any parent could be so naive.    It wasn't true with me or my friends, and it isn't true with my own kids.
> 
> The best medicine is both.   I teach my kids and keep the guns locked up.   They have no need to learn how to pick a lock (which would be tough with a safe) because all they have to do is ask and I will take them shooting...
> 
> I have no idea where you live but where I live I don't feel the need to keep guns unlocked and lying around at all times.    I don't know anyone who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the most dangerous firearm
> 
> is the unloaded one
> 
> never *never* treat a firearm as if it was unloaded
Click to expand...


A simple concept, even a child can understand.  As far as other people's children and guns at their homes are concerned, we went with the Eddie Eagle philosophy: if a gun comes out, stop, leave the room, and tell an adult.  My daughter could recite that when she was five.  She could also field strip and reassemble a Colt 1911 by the time she was 7.


----------



## jon_berzerk

gallantwarrior said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that just isn't true.
> 
> There were kids just down the street growing up who's father a member of the Rod and Gun club, and took his kids there to shoot regularly.
> 
> One of them was killed when the other, who thought he knew what he was doing, thought the gun was empty and was showing it off.   He didn't realize there was one in the chamber and shot his sister.
> 
> The problem is, you seem to be under the delusion that just teaching your kids what is right means they will always do it.    I find it hard to believe that any parent could be so naive.    It wasn't true with me or my friends, and it isn't true with my own kids.
> 
> The best medicine is both.   I teach my kids and keep the guns locked up.   They have no need to learn how to pick a lock (which would be tough with a safe) because all they have to do is ask and I will take them shooting...
> 
> I have no idea where you live but where I live I don't feel the need to keep guns unlocked and lying around at all times.    I don't know anyone who does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the most dangerous firearm
> 
> is the unloaded one
> 
> never *never* treat a firearm as if it was unloaded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple concept, even a child can understand.  As far as other people's children and guns at their homes are concerned, we went with the Eddie Eagle philosophy: if a gun comes out, stop, leave the room, and tell an adult.  My daughter could recite that when she was five.  She could also field strip and reassemble a Colt 1911 by the time she was 7.
Click to expand...


yes exactly 

the first rule us kids learned was never touch a firearm unless told to do so by 

an adult 

the second was to treat all firearms as if they are loaded 

which i passed on to  my kids 

and now the grand kids are learning the same 

we have never in the generations of our family 

had a firearms accident 

in fact we are doing a little shooting tomorrow 

with two of the grand sons 

wont be much though 

since 22 shells are a little hard to come by these days


----------



## zonly1

Swallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



What are assault weapons , shotguns, pistols......? I'm glad you thought that through .  Since foreclosures are hidden and unsettled result lost revenue to schools etc... People in those areas and there are millions like this yet you want to reinvent the wheel. fuck off and smoke what ever it is you smoke 
WHy should law abiding citizen abide by gun confiscation..against there OWN will ......................to prevent tyranny= the purpose and declaration  of the second amendment.


----------



## zonly1

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> *Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.*
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
Click to expand...


NO personal responsibility .....the gun is design to kill ...and it takes a person to pull the trigger captain thought process


----------



## zonly1

Sallow said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.
> 
> What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absurd notion came from you folks.
> 
> That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".
> 
> Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.
> 
> It's not an industry.
Click to expand...

Nothing but off the wall absurdities


----------



## zonly1

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to *all objects* that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?
> 
> I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?
> 
> By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.
> 
> Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg
> 
> Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.
> 
> Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..
Click to expand...




Sxallow said:


> GUN LAWS ARE QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE OF THE NRA


What specific guns laws by the NRA are your comments referring toooo?


----------



## FA_Q2

Underhill said:


> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).


Care to cite one such case; I am not sure if there is one.


Underhill said:


> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.


I don&#8217;t see how.  I don&#8217;t have a problem with background checks at all but I also don&#8217;t think that a person that already owns a weapon should be unduly burdened by them to sell personally owned weapons to a neighbor.  THAT is the big issue with background checks as the &#8216;gun show&#8217; loophole is garbage.  The vast majority of guns sold at a gun show are sold by dealers who STILL are required to do checks.  

Mandatory gun locks solve nothing.  I am unsure of why you even brought this up.  What on earth do you think you are going to solve with that one?

PS. &#8216;to save the kids&#8217; is one of the most morally bankrupt excuses on the planet.  You do not need to pass law to control what people do in their own home (completely unenforceable btw) to protect the kids.  Those laws are passed to conjure and enforce power grabs and that is about it.  You can&#8217;t enforce it and you can&#8217;t protect people from themselves.  It simply is not possible.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence



We'll always have weapons grade plutonium in existence, too.



> , so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*



Wait - I thought we were just talking about AR-15s. Now you're saying all guns.

Go back and think this over a bit and get back to us.


----------



## M14 Shooter

OohPooPahDoo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll always have weapons grade plutonium in existence, too.
Click to expand...

Irrelevamt - but then you knew that.
More evidence that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.

Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.


----------



## JWBooth

Uncensored2008 said:


> I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.
> 
> Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.


Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.

EDIT: 7.62...thats what I get for not looking at the keypad when I type....


----------



## M14 Shooter

JWBooth said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.
> 
> Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.
Click to expand...

.308/7.62x51


----------



## Uncensored2008

JWBooth said:


> Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.



{The T25 was designed to use the T65 service cartridge, a Frankford Arsenal design based upon .30-06 cartridge case used in the M1 service rifle, but shortened to the length of the .300 Savage case.[8] Although shorter than the .30-06, with less powder capacity, the T65 cartridge retained the ballistics and energy of the .30-06 due to the use of a recently developed ball powder made by Olin Industries.[8][9] After experimenting with several bullet designs, the T65 was finalized for adoption as the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge}

M14 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15






and this .223 semiauto?







I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...

You shoud know by now that Sallow cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.



are you married to your vote?  If so you fuckers owe me bigtime for the mess obama has made in this country.


----------



## Spoonman

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...


an m1 carbine is leagal and it even shoots a larger round.  there is no logic to their weapons bans


----------



## Spoonman

Uncensored2008 said:


> I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.
> 
> Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.



shoot 100 rounds from a 30 -06 and you have a sore shoulder.  shoot 100 rounds from a 223 and you don't even notice it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Spoonman said:


> shoot 100 rounds from a 30 -06 and you have a sore shoulder.  shoot 100 rounds from a 223 and you don't even notice it.



The .30-06 always gave me a sore shoulder, but as I've gotten older, it has a more disturbing effect on me; it throws my whole skeletal frame out of whack. The impact is so great that I feel it in my hips and back the next day.

As you say, the .223 doesn't bother me.


----------



## pinqy

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...


But, but, but....the AR-15 is scarier looking.


----------



## PaulS1950

It is not worth the time to offer evidence that is contrary to anyone who is determined that their view on guns is correct.

To pro-gunners any restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is too much - as it should be for any right.

To anti-gunners no law restricting the availability to get and bear arms is enough - to make them feel safe.

Even though the facts are that 1.5 to 3 million people use guns each year to prevent crime successfully and most often without firing a shot. People fail to understand that if you remove guns from those people you make 1.5 to 3 million more victims of violent crime. Even though the records kept by the US government and the AMA tell us that violent crimes and especially gun crimes are dropping while 3 million new guns are added to the population. The fastest growing population of gun owners are women who have never owned a gun before show that people are going to guns to feel safer.
It doesn't even matter that it is a civil right to keep and bear guns because anti-gunners are fixed on the belief that guns are bad and anyone who owns or wants to own a gun is somehow a threat to them - personally.

The study mandated by Obama to the CDC shows that 1.5 to 3 million people use guns to prevent crime.
The ATF records show that women are the fastest growing population of new gun owners.
The US supreme court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right just as much as the right to free speech.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...


From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote. 

I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

R.C. Christian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote.
> 
> I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.
Click to expand...


I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.


----------



## Survivalist

Underhill said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).
> 
> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law do want imposed about gun locks?  Do you mean all guns must be sold with  one (as most are now), or do you mean that all gun owners must have trigger locks placed on them except at the gun range?
> 
> How fast would anyone be able to take the trigger lock off a gun after an aggressive thug busts into their house?  Background checks don't stop criminals from using the stolen and illegally obtained guns they use in virtually all their crimes anymore than it stops them from selling narcotics because they are  against the law.
> 
> Besides Sallow, are there any other anti-gunners in this thread?
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skull Pilot said:


> I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.



I have two Mini-14's - the Ranch Rifle and the standard. Love them both.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KevinWestern said:


> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Lonestar_logic said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
Click to expand...


What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle? 

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Just about any rifle can be used for deer.
Product: Model M&P10 .308 WIN/ 7.62x51 CAMO


----------



## Survivalist

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...


The VA Tech shooter was able to use two handguns that weren't much different than the handguns our Army used 100 years ago, and killed more people.  With enough magazines, even if they hold only 7 rounds, a well practiced shooter can do about the same damage in any similar mass shooting senario.




But again, more people are murdered in Chicago with simple guns and knives just in one year than all the famous mass shootings over the last 30 years.

Any bright ideas on stopping the 508 murders they had in Chicago they had just last year?


----------



## Missourian

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Yes.

Here is a 30 round magazine for a 30-06.

Magazine, .30-06, 30 Round Gun Parts | 700450 | Numrich Gun Parts


----------



## R.C. Christian

Skull Pilot said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.
> 
> So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this .223 semiauto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a hint:
> 
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote.
> 
> I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.
Click to expand...


I can't find a reliable magazine to save my life. The quality of the weapon is superb, but I prefer the AR. My AR's are my go to weapons.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223. 

FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Missourian said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Here is a 30 round magazine for a 30-06.
> 
> Magazine, .30-06, 30 Round Gun Parts | 700450 | Numrich Gun Parts
Click to expand...


At a decent price too!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.



Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.


Just about any rifle can be used to hunt deer.
Product: Model M&P10 .308 WIN/ 7.62x51 CAMO


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Lonestar_logic said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223.
> 
> FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.
Click to expand...


A variant of the AR-15 was used.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Lonestar_logic said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.
Click to expand...


I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective. I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.

FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.


----------



## R.C. Christian

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.


----------



## Uncensored2008

R.C. Christian said:


> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.



The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.

Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Uncensored2008 said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.
> 
> Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.
Click to expand...


With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.
> 
> But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.
> 
> You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.
> 
> What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.
> 
> Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?
> 
> And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.
> 
> According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).
> 
> However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Your gun.
> 
> Your problem.
> 
> Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.
> 
> If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.
Click to expand...


Apply that circle logic to everything you purchase and you will start to see the fairness of the concept fall apart. Of course, if tyrannical control is the objective, fairness is not in the equation any way, so I guess from that perspective, it's all good, for the controlling authority. I guess it would be good, too, for those, that just take possession of anything without regard for private property, too.


----------



## Missourian

R.C. Christian said:


> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.




Do you hunt deer?

Explain why you feel a short barrel .223/5.56 is a "bad way to kill deer".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective. I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.
> 
> FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.
Click to expand...


Yes but you claimed that you were sure deer rifles can be turned into semi-automatic rifles.  Face you , you know nothing about rifles. And trust me, no one has mistaken you for an expert.

Why modify deer rifles when rifles are already manufactured to their standards? Doing so would be silly.

I try not to assume anything.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223.
> 
> FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A variant of the AR-15 was used.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't and there is no evidence that suggests it was.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

R.C. Christian said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.
> 
> Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.
Click to expand...


It's not always depending on caliber of rifle but placement of round for a quick kill. A .22 Hornet can bring down a deer if the shot is placed perfectly.


----------



## Missourian

R.C. Christian said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.
> 
> Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.
Click to expand...



That's cool,  but you shouldn't put information out there that you are unsure of as a statement of fact.

My grandad was a depression era farmer with six mouths to feed at home.

There would never have been enough food without supplementing with game.

I mean hunting wasn't a sport...it was serious business.

There wasn't enough money to buy different guns for different application like I do today.

There was a rifle,  and a shotgun (a Damascus steel shotgun at that...look it up).

The rifle was a Winchester model 1894,  20 inch barrel lever action repeater chambered in 32-40.

It reliably put meat on the table for 30 years...well over 100 deer.

The 32-40 is smaller than the .223.

There was only money for one rifle...and hunting game could be the difference between eating well and going hungry.

Grandad needed a rifle that would take squirrel,  rabbit and other small game by head shots without ruining the meat,  and also reliably take deer and other medium game.

I still have that old Winchester,  and I wouldn't hesitate to take it into the field to hunt with...if it didn't hold such sentimental value.






32-40,  .223  and .270 cartridges respectively.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia 32-40 page.


----------



## Missourian

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. *If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective.* I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.
> 
> FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.
Click to expand...


You've got that wrong way 'round.

The deer rifles of today are the military rifles of yesterday.

Both 30-.06 and .270 caliber cartridges are derivatives of the military 30-.03.

The 30-.06 was the primary military cartridge for 50 years,  and still used today.

The .308 is also a military cartridge,  the 7.62x51mm.

Only the 30/30 Winchester,  of the most popular deer cartridges, lacks a military pedigree.

But the gun that is primarily used by 30/30 hunters IS a military design...the repeating rifle.

As is the 30-.06...the M1903 Springfield.

And now the older M16 becomes the design platform of today's hunting rifles. 

The Remington R25 is already available in  243 Win., 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win.


----------



## Uncensored2008

R.C. Christian said:


> With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.



I'm not a hunter either, the M1 has been used, but a folding stock for hunting seems odd.


----------



## Gardener

As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.



I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.
Click to expand...


Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.

Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
Click to expand...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?
Click to expand...

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.
> 
> Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.



I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party. 

I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.
> 
> I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.
> 
> What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?
Click to expand...


The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

Choose your poison.  Opposing background checks only helps criminals.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks *are a form of prior restraint*, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

Read more carefully.

A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.

Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.
> 
> I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.
> 
> What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.
Click to expand...

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns.  Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks *are a form of prior restraint*, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read more carefully.
> 
> A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.
> 
> Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.
Click to expand...


Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there. I am, however, open to considering it. There doesn't appear to be any legal precedence that defines it as such at this point, although I may be missing something.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> Read more carefully.
> 
> A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.
> 
> Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.
Click to expand...

Why does it "not really belong there"?
Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.
> 
> I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.
> 
> What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns.  Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.
Click to expand...


Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.

Its simply verifying my testimony.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.
> 
> 
> 
> False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns.  Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.
Click to expand...

See "Prior restraint", above.

As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more carefully.
> 
> A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.
> 
> Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it "not really belong there"?
> Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?
Click to expand...


Such as the right to vote? The Constitution defines and protects that as well, but people still have to register in order to verify they fit the criteria. If you argument is therefore that having to register to vote is unconstitutional, I guess you would be consistent. But why is nobody making a big deal about that but they are about gun ownership?

I am not outright disagreeing with you. I am exploring the issue. Your position is that prior restraint, established as applying to the 1st Amendment, should apply or does apply to all other rights protected by the Constitution. That deserves to be explored. Whether prior restraint has a blanket application to the entire Constitution is not firmly established that I can see, other than being presented as one by those opposed to background checks.


----------



## Missourian

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.
> 
> I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.
> 
> What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.
> 
> Choose your poison.  Opposing background checks only helps criminals.
Click to expand...


The only way to stop drunk drivers is to equip every vehicle with a breathalyzer enabled ignition.

Opposing breathalyzer enabled ignitions on every vehicle only helps drunk drivers.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it "not really belong there"?
> Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as the right to vote?
Click to expand...

Such as -any- right.
Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?

If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.

To that end:
The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Missourian said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hunt deer?
> 
> Explain why you feel a short barrel .223/5.56 is a "bad way to kill deer".
Click to expand...


The round is too small dude. You can kill it but it would much more humane with something larger. 

The barrel length isn't really the issue here. Just take the animal down fast and quick and with respect. 

Skill and precision.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns.  Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.
> 
> 
> 
> Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See "Prior restraint", above.
> 
> As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.
Click to expand...


so how do we prevent felons and illegal aliens from buying a handgun at a gunstore?

make them promise that they are nice and legal?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it "not really belong there"?
> Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?
> 
> 
> 
> Such as the right to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as -any- right.
> Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?
> 
> If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.
> 
> To that end:
> The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.
Click to expand...


So if you're saying that the Constitutionally protected right to vote differs, then you are identifying that there is at least one exception to the statement just prior to that which says prior restraint applies to all rights. In what way would requiring gun registration differ from the same reasons you've stated for justifying voter registration? 

Essentially you're saying that a registration that requires a background check violates the Constitution because it is a prior restraint. Okay, I get that. But does prior restraint apply evenly to all rights? You've provided an exception yourself, although I acknowledge that one involves a background check and the other does not. However, it is a process of determining if the person meets the criteria for bearing arms. This would include such things as if the person has a basic knowledge of firearms, as in keeping with the idea of a "well regulated militia." Why could it not also include whether or not the person committed a violent crime which might jeopardize that individual's access to a full set of rights? Would that not then be a selection of whether or not the individual is eligible?

So, no, I am not convinced that prior restraint applies equally to all rights.


----------



## R.C. Christian

OMG, you're still here?


----------



## Gardener

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.



I already provided you another way, yet you chant your mantra as if you were an automaton, programmed by the central hive....

Gee, wonder why that is....


----------



## Gardener

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided you another way, yet you chant your mantra as if you were an automaton, programmed by the central hive....
> 
> Gee, wonder why that is....
Click to expand...


there is another option.

its called a firearms license.

or NICS could put your firearms data on the magnetic strip of your drivers license.

but that's "big brother", so gun nuts will oppose it all.

they don't want criminals and illegal aliens to buy guns but refuse to allow a system to prevent it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> there is another option.
> 
> its called a firearms license.
> 
> or NICS could put your firearms data on the magnetic strip of your drivers license.
> 
> but that's "big brother", so gun nuts will oppose it all.
> 
> they don't want criminals and illegal aliens to buy guns but refuse to allow a system to prevent it.



Ya think, sparky?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me-22.html#post7551901


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> See "Prior restraint", above.
> 
> As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so how do we prevent felons and illegal aliens from buying a handgun at a gunstore?
> make them promise that they are nice and legal?
Click to expand...

As I have already addressed this, allow me to repeat myself.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as the right to vote?
> 
> 
> 
> Such as -any- right.
> Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?
> 
> If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.
> 
> To that end:
> The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you're saying that the Constitutionally protected right to vote differs, then you are identifying that there is at least one exception to the statement just prior to that which says prior restraint applies to all rights. In what way would requiring gun registration differ from the same reasons you've stated for justifying voter registration?
Click to expand...

I said:
_If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others _- certainly you will agree that I clearly explained the difference where voting rights are concerned, and why prior restaint and the infringement it brings is constitutionally acceptable.

Registration/verification of voters is a necessary component of the exercise ofthe right to vote as it is the only way to be sure the right is meaninglfully exercised.   

Registration of guns is -not- a necessary component to the exercise of the right to arms, and may - indeed, almost always is - meaningfully exercised without it.   

Simiarly, the exercise of the right to arms may be meaningfully exercised, ad was so exercised for a LONG period of time - without regard to the possibility of those who are not legally allowed to have guns to get them.

Thus, the difference.

Please be sure to seperate the concepts of registration and background checks as you seem to want to meld them together.



> Essentially you're saying that a registration that requires a background check violates the Constitution because it is a prior restraint. Okay, I get that. But does prior restraint apply evenly to all rights?...So, no, I am not convinced that prior restraint applies equally to all rights


Again:
If you accept the prior restraint premise for one right and not another, then the onus is on you to explain why it does not apply to certain rights, as I did w/ voting.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.


You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.
Click to expand...


How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

> Registration of guns is -not- a necessary component to the exercise of the right to arms, and may - indeed, almost always is - meaningfully exercised without it.
> 
> Simiarly, the exercise of the right to arms may be meaningfully exercised, ad was so exercised for a LONG period of time - without regard to the possibility of those who are not legally allowed to have guns to get them.



We are having a respectful and meaningful discussion so far. I hope we are able to keep it up and not get insulting such as what usually happens on USMB.

I understand what you are saying on the above two points. My only issue is that I do not see that they are significantly different from voting rights because voter registration was not always required, and thus was meaningfully exercised for a time before voter registration was required, or at least required to the extent that it is now. In the 1800s multiple voting was common, sometimes under coercion by cooping gangs, making strict registration a necessity. One can easily argue that such a necessity has presented itself in respect to gun violence. We may not all agree whether or not certain guns should be banned, but we can all reasonably agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of violent criminals or those not possessing the basic ability to responsibly bear one, to the best of our ability. While background checks do not guarantee this, they do at least help determine this eligibility. 

There can be no comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendments when it comes to prior restraint. They are noticeably different rights. First, a string of offensive words cannot mow down a room full of people. Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not. Sensible regulation that does not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment is what is needed. While registration can be carried out in such a way as to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, it does not do so by default, whereas banning weapons does.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?
Click to expand...

As I have already addressed this twice, allow me to repeat myself again.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do. 

You can act like this doesnt address your question, but that's just you being dishonest.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Registration of guns is -not- a necessary component to the exercise of the right to arms, and may - indeed, almost always is - meaningfully exercised without it.
> 
> Simiarly, the exercise of the right to arms may be meaningfully exercised, ad was so exercised for a LONG period of time - without regard to the possibility of those who are not legally allowed to have guns to get them.
> 
> 
> 
> We are having a respectful and meaningful discussion so far. I hope we are able to keep it up and not get insulting such as what usually happens on USMB.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



> I understand what you are saying on the above two points. My only issue is that I do not see that they are significantly different from voting rights because voter registration was not always required, and thus was meaningfully exercised for a time before voter registration was required, or at least required to the extent that it is now.


Incorrect.  The right to vote was indeed exercised, but NOT meaningfully, as you point out by the fact that gangs, etc, were able to vote multiple times.  The fact that people still voted and people were elected does not mean that right was meaningfully exercised, it instead means that the right was not sufficiently protected by the state, and that the rights of the legit voters were diminished -- recall that the reason for voter registration is to proect the rights of the voters, and nothing else.

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.



> There can be no comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendments when it comes to prior restraint. They are noticeably different rights. First, a string of offensive words cannot mow down a room full of people.


True, but a meaningless distinction.   Libel and slander are not prtected by the 1st because they cause harm; yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people ina condition of clear, pesent and immediate danger, and the dissemination of military secrets threatens our national security, possibly even creating an existential threat far greater than that of firearms --   and yet, the state cannot constitutionally restrain your exercise of your right to free speech until it determines that it contains any of these things and therefore violatwes the law. 



> Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not.


Weak.   -All- rights may be regulated (see above); the only question is if that regulation creates an infringement (almost all do) and if that infringment is constitutionally permissible.  The question here is if prior restraint, constitutionally impermissible with regard to the 1st amendment, while constitutionally permissible with regard to voting rights, is permissible in regards to the 2nd.
This gets us back to:
If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.

Or, put otherwise:
What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

> What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?



Exactly the question that should be asked. 

I wish to explore it with you. But I am done for the day. To be continued.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?
Click to expand...


OMG. We didn't have as many of these problems in the 1950's did we? That's because the family and Christian morality kept a check on things. Those are gone now so only irrational cave men with guns instead of clubs remain. 

We should have known it was coming once human filth started putting nasty tattoos on their skin. I did.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> As I have already addressed this twice, allow me to repeat myself again.
> 
> False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> *It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do. *
> 
> You can act like this doesnt address your question, but that's just you being dishonest.



So you think we should wait for criminals and illegal aliens to commit a crime for us to take away their guns?

Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens, BEFORE they use such guns in a crime or they get arrested with the gun.  They shouldn't get their hands on the gun in the first place.

You seem to want to take no action whatsoever to prevent criminals and illegal aliens from buying guns in gun stores and at gun shows and through private sales.


----------



## Gardener

We need laws, regulations and systems to prevent criminals and illegal aliens from acquiring firearms.

Its that simple.


----------



## FA_Q2

Survivalist said:


> quote=Underhill;7079148
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).
> 
> But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone.    So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?
> 
> And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law do want imposed about gun locks?  Do you mean all guns must be sold with  one (as most are now), or do you mean that all gun owners must have trigger locks placed on them except at the gun range?
> 
> How fast would anyone be able to take the trigger lock off a gun after an aggressive thug busts into their house?  Background checks don't stop criminals from using the stolen and illegally obtained guns they use in virtually all their crimes anymore than it stops them from selling narcotics because they are  against the law.
> 
> Besides Sallow, are there any other anti-gunners in this thread?
Click to expand...


Please fix your tags &#8211; I never made that statement.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15s.
> 
> I do NOT support banning these weapons and heres why. Were _always _going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:
> *
> 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
> 
> 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the govt and (b) criminals*
> 
> Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Govt pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. *This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals* (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Govt has proven itself _very capable_ of doing some very bad things against our best interests.
> 
> With that given, why take law abiding citizens out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the _least _threatening group)?
> 
> I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that *EXACT *same entity.
> 
> Thoughts?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
> 
> I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...


They could have done just as much with a myriad of weapons to include handguns.  The AR is not particularly more dangerous than many other weapons, particularly in those situations which are NOT ideal for an AR.  A handgun in many respects would have been superior.


----------



## FA_Q2

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.
> 
> Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party.
> 
> I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.
Click to expand...

This I can understand and agree with in the same manner that I back voter ID laws.  I am, however, having a tough time reconciling the idea with this:


M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Registration of guns is -not- a necessary component to the exercise of the right to arms, and may - indeed, almost always is - meaningfully exercised without it.
> 
> Simiarly, the exercise of the right to arms may be meaningfully exercised, ad was so exercised for a LONG period of time - without regard to the possibility of those who are not legally allowed to have guns to get them.
> 
> 
> 
> We are having a respectful and meaningful discussion so far. I hope we are able to keep it up and not get insulting such as what usually happens on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The right to vote was indeed exercised, but NOT meaningfully, as you point out by the fact that gangs, etc, were able to vote multiple times.  The fact that people still voted and people were elected does not mean that right was meaningfully exercised, it instead means that the right was not sufficiently protected by the state, and that the rights of the legit voters were diminished -- recall that the reason for voter registration is to proect the rights of the voters, and nothing else.
> 
> Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendments when it comes to prior restraint. They are noticeably different rights. First, a string of offensive words cannot mow down a room full of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but a meaningless distinction.   Libel and slander are not prtected by the 1st because they cause harm; yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people ina condition of clear, pesent and immediate danger, and the dissemination of military secrets threatens our national security, possibly even creating an existential threat far greater than that of firearms --   and yet, the state cannot constitutionally restrain your exercise of your right to free speech until it determines that it contains any of these things and therefore violatwes the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weak.   -All- rights may be regulated (see above); the only question is if that regulation creates an infringement (almost all do) and if that infringment is constitutionally permissible.  The question here is if prior restraint, constitutionally impermissible with regard to the 1st amendment, while constitutionally permissible with regard to voting rights, is permissible in regards to the 2nd.
> This gets us back to:
> If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.
> 
> Or, put otherwise:
> What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?
Click to expand...

I hope to see the debate between 14 and Jimmy continue because that is an interesting point that 14 used.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already addressed this twice, allow me to repeat myself again.
> 
> False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law
> 
> *It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do. *
> 
> You can act like this doesnt address your question, but that's just you being dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should wait for criminals and illegal aliens to commit a crime for us to take away their guns?
Click to expand...

That's how criminal law works.
You break the law, you get arrested, taken to trial, convicted and punished.

You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.



> Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.


With this, I accept your concession of the point.
When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> We need laws, regulations and systems to prevent criminals and illegal aliens from acquiring firearms.
> Its that simple.


Funny how you act like this hasn't been debunked.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.
> 
> 
> 
> With this, I accept your concession of the point.
> When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
Click to expand...


so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?


----------



## M14 Shooter

FA_Q2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.
> 
> As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.
> 
> Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party.
> 
> I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This I can understand and agree with in the same manner that I back voter ID laws.  I am, however, having a tough time reconciling the idea with this:
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The right to vote was indeed exercised, but NOT meaningfully, as you point out by the fact that gangs, etc, were able to vote multiple times.  The fact that people still voted and people were elected does not mean that right was meaningfully exercised, it instead means that the right was not sufficiently protected by the state, and that the rights of the legit voters were diminished -- recall that the reason for voter registration is to proect the rights of the voters, and nothing else.
> 
> Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.
> 
> 
> True, but a meaningless distinction.   Libel and slander are not prtected by the 1st because they cause harm; yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people ina condition of clear, pesent and immediate danger, and the dissemination of military secrets threatens our national security, possibly even creating an existential threat far greater than that of firearms --   and yet, the state cannot constitutionally restrain your exercise of your right to free speech until it determines that it contains any of these things and therefore violatwes the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weak.   -All- rights may be regulated (see above); the only question is if that regulation creates an infringement (almost all do) and if that infringment is constitutionally permissible.  The question here is if prior restraint, constitutionally impermissible with regard to the 1st amendment, while constitutionally permissible with regard to voting rights, is permissible in regards to the 2nd.
> This gets us back to:
> If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.
> 
> Or, put otherwise:
> What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope to see the debate between 14 and Jimmy continue because that is an interesting point that 14 used.
Click to expand...

Which point was that?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.
> 
> 
> 
> With this, I accept your concession of the point.
> When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are against Voter ID laws?
> 
> you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?
> 
> you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?
Click to expand...

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.


----------



## FA_Q2

M14 Shooter said:


> Which point was that?


Mainly this:


M14 Shooter said:


> Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  *Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it. *


It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.
> 
> 
> With this, I accept your concession of the point.
> When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are against Voter ID laws?
> 
> you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?
> 
> you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
Click to expand...


You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.

Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?

Please answer the question.


----------



## M14 Shooter

FA_Q2 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which point was that?
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly this:
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  *Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.
Click to expand...

Exactly - while the illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the right of those that exercise it legally.

In essence, in terms of constitutionally acceptable prior restraint, voting rights and gun rights are apples and oranges:
-The illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the legal exercise of the right to arms
-Voter registration protects the rights of the voters; gun registration/backgtround checks do not protect the rights of gun owners.

So, the fact that voting rights may be permissibly restrained does not in way soundly translate into an argument that the right to arms may be permissibly restrained.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are against Voter ID laws?
> 
> you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?
> 
> you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.
> 
> Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?
> 
> Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.


----------



## Uncensored2008

In any epoch, as the Aristocracy reaches the pinnacle of corruption, a fear of getting caught by the masses occurs. As this grows, the response of the corrupt ruling class is to disarm the public at large. Kung Fu was born when the Han Dynasty rulers outlawed the possession of weapons by the peasantry. In Rome, prohibition of arms rose as corruption brought the empire down. In Britain, every time the Monarchy got nervous that their corruption would be exposed, they banned weapons from the peasants.

So here we are in the world of Obama - the most corrupt administration in the nations history, with a race baiting criminal, Eric Holder, in charge of the Dept. of "Justice." Open bribery, kickbacks, selling favors and legislation on the open market, looting the public treasury on behalf of well connected corporations - a level of criminality that would shock most banana republics.

We have an utterly and completely corrupt federal government, headed by a criminal - and what does he try to do?

Ban weapons.


----------



## Survivalist

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are against Voter ID laws?
> 
> you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?
> 
> you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.
> 
> Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?
> 
> Please answer the question.
Click to expand...


Standard gun control laws are for the feeble-minded.

Why don't you suggest enforcing the stacks of laws they already have on the books?  Are you for giving felons reduced or dropped penalties when they use an illegal firearm?

Here's a good law: any member of any violent street gang caught using any weapon during a crime will face draconian punishment.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which point was that?
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly this:
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration.  *Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly - while the illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the right of those that exercise it legally.
> 
> In essence, in terms of constitutionally acceptable prior restraint, voting rights and gun rights are apples and oranges:
> -The illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the legal exercise of the right to arms
> -Voter registration protects the rights of the voters; gun registration/backgtround checks do not protect the rights of gun owners.
> 
> So, the fact that voting rights may be permissibly restrained does not in way soundly translate into an argument that the right to arms may be permissibly restrained.
Click to expand...


Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way? 

You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process. The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional. An individual who has a felony record of violent crime can easily be identified through such a check, and disqualified via _felony disenfranchisement_. If background checks are carried out in that way, what could be unconstitutional about it?

I think the fear that people who oppose background checks have is that they will not be carried out in that way. That is a legitimate concern, because background checks could be carried out in a way that restricts access to firearms in an unconstitutional way. I am simply arguing that the restriction of rights through felony disenfranchisement is not unconstitutional, and in that respect I am not opposed to background checks. I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way?


This has been discussed.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, which infringes the right.
-Registration is a restraint placed on the right not pursuant to an inherent portion of the right (see: voter registration), which therefore infringes on the right.



> You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process.


That is the intent of background checks, and it necessarily creates a condition of prior restraint; it infringes your right to arms every bit as much as the government not letting you travel until it determines you are not going somewhere to commit a crime



> The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional.


No... the fact that they are a form of prior restraint makes then unconstitutional, unless, as demonstrated by the constitutional permissibility of the restraint found in voter registration  you can show that said prior restraint is necessary in order to protect the rights of those exercising the right to arms, and that the right to arms can only be meaningfully exercised if the check takes place.



> ....I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.


Lose your right?   Perhaps not.   Have your right infringed?  Unquestionably.  
The 2nd amendment protects the right from infringement.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way?
> 
> 
> 
> This has been discussed.
> -Background checks are a form of prior restraint, which infringes the right.
> -Registration is a restraint placed on the right not pursuant to an inherent portion of the right (see: voter registration), which therefore infringes on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the intent of background checks, and it necessarily creates a condition of prior restraint; it infringes your right to arms every bit as much as the government not letting you travel until it determines you are not going somewhere to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No... the fact that they are a form of prior restraint makes then unconstitutional, unless, as demonstrated by the constitutional permissibility of the restraint found in voter registration  you can show that said prior restraint is necessary in order to protect the rights of those exercising the right to arms, and that the right to arms can only be meaningfully exercised if the check takes place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lose your right?   Perhaps not.   Have your right infringed?  Unquestionably.
> The 2nd amendment protects the right from infringement.
Click to expand...


I know that prior restraint has been discussed. However, prior restraint is something that applies specifically to the 1st Amendment, as has also been discussed. It's even application to all rights is not established. Prior restraint, until I see otherwise, has only been applied to 1st Amendment issues. If the argument is that is _should_ be applied evenly to all rights, fine, but I have yet to see that it is. The best that I can see is that it is being presented as such by advocates against background checks.

Background checks to determine if an individual is prohibited from bearing a firearm prior to the purchase of one is not unconstitutional, at least not readily so. I don't know what your example of prohibiting travel has to do with it. If you commit a Class C felony, you are prohibited from your 2nd Amendment right, similar to felony disenfranchisement. 

If a background check is required as a means to determine if an individual fits that status, how is that prior restraint? Prior restraint places a restriction on 1st Amendment rights regardless of whether or not the individual committed a crime that forfeits that right. As far as I know, there are no conditions that restrict 1st Amendment rights, while there are for voting rights, gun ownership rights, and jury duty. For this reason, prior restraint does not apply exactly the same for other rights. As much as one may want prior restraint to apply evenly to all rights, it does not. If your counter is that it just does, that's not enough.


----------



## Gardener

I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.

Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.

As for gun massacres?  Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.
> 
> Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.
> 
> As for gun massacres?  Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.



Which ones?

Not Sandy Hook, since he stole the guns from his mother. Virginia tech was with a stolen gun too - so which ones would be stopped?


----------



## Gardener

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.
> 
> Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.
> 
> As for gun massacres?  Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?
> 
> Not Sandy Hook, since he stole the guns from his mother. Virginia tech was with a stolen gun too - so which ones would be stopped?
Click to expand...


didnt the VT guy buy his guns?

didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?


----------



## Gardener

another good way to stop massacres is to have numeric trigger locks on guns.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> didnt the VT guy buy his guns?
> 
> didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?



VT no, he stole them.

Colorado, yes - he bought them.

But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt the VT guy buy his guns?
> 
> didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT no, he stole them.
> 
> Colorado, yes - he bought them.
> 
> But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.
Click to expand...


So, you seem to be saying that background checks pose no restriction to those without a criminal background. That's pretty much been my point all along. What I'm wondering is, why such resistance to them?


----------



## Gardener

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt the VT guy buy his guns?
> 
> didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT no, he stole them.
> 
> Colorado, yes - he bought them.
> 
> But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.
Click to expand...


no records of ANY mental heaqlth problems?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> another good way to stop massacres is to have numeric trigger locks on guns.



That will stop people like Klebold from blowing up the propane tank at Columbine, fer shore....

Ya know, leftists love to say that if only guns were illegal, tragic murders like OJ killing Ron and Nicole would have never happened...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jimmy_Jam said:


> So, you seem to be saying that background checks pose no restriction to those without a criminal background. That's pretty much been my point all along. What I'm wondering is, why such resistance to them?



On what basis would James Holmes have been denied weapons? 

He had no criminal history, no record of mental illness. What would have stopped him? Oh, and remember that the bastard had ricin bombs in his apartment, so without guns, the death toll would have been 30 times higher.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gardener said:


> no records of ANY mental heaqlth problems?



James Holmes?

None at all.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I know that prior restraint has been discussed. However, prior restraint is something that applies specifically to the 1st Amendment, as has also been discussed. It's even application to all rights is not established. Prior restraint, until I see otherwise, has only been applied to 1st Amendment issues.


As I said before:

If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundly explain why it applies to some and not to others.

So far, we have discussed how prior restraint is constitutionally acceptable in terms of voting rights, and how that example does not apply to the right to arms due to the specifics found therein.  You have taken no issue with anything in that discussion.

And so, presuming that you accept the premise of prior restraint, and absent a sound explanation as to how that premise does not apply to the 2nd, the prior restraint argument stands in support of the position that background checks are unconstitutional.



> Background checks to determine if an individual is prohibited from bearing a firearm prior to the purchase of one is not unconstitutional, at least not readily so.


Absent a sound explanation as to how that premise or prior restraint  does not apply to the 2nd, the prior restraint argument stands in support of the position that background checks are unconstitutional.



> I don't know what your example of prohibiting travel has to do with it.


It is another example of unacceptable restraint by the government, which prohibits the exercise of a right until the state determines you arent breaking the law.
You DO agree that such a restraint would violate the constitution, yes?



> If you commit a Class C felony, you are prohibited from your 2nd Amendment right, similar to felony disenfranchisement.


Yep.   Due process.  No question.  You can lose all your rights un such a manner.



> If a background check is required as a means to determine if an individual fits that status, how is that prior restraint?


The state prohibits the exercise of the right until determines that the exercise does not violate the law.
-That- is prior restraint.



> Prior restraint places a restriction on 1st Amendment rights regardless of whether or not the individual committed a crime that forfeits that right.


Irrelevant  the restraint is to determine the legality of the act prior to the action being taken  in this case, the illegal purchase of a firearm before the firearm is purchased.  The fact that a felon has his right removed is what makes the act illegal to begin with and therefore does not have any bearing on if the restraint is constitutional or not.



> As far as I know, there are no conditions that restrict 1st Amendment rights...


Really?
There are all kinds of restrictions and conditions on first amendment rights, from parade permits to the prohibition of child porn to the 7 words you cannot say on TV to not allowing human sacrifices in church.



> ...while there are for voting rights, gun ownership rights, and jury duty. For this reason, prior restraint does not apply exactly the same for other rights.


First, your statement here does not logically follow as any number of these restrictions have nothing to do with prior restraint.

Second, as discussed and demonstrated, *there is a sound explanation as to why voting rights are constitutionally subject to restraint*  that is, how voting rights and the restraint placed upon them differ sufficiently from 1st amendment rights, allowing for the constitutionally permissible restrain found in voter registration.   Please note again that you have taken no issue whatsoever with that explanation.



> As much as one may want prior restraint to apply evenly to all rights, it does not.


If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, *or soundly explain why it applies to some and not to others*.
Other than arguing it just does, you have failed to do this.

And so, *the onus remains on you* to demonstrate how the rights protected by the 2nd amendment differ sufficiently from the rights protected by the 1st amendment to allow for the constitutionally permissible restraint on those rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> As for gun massacres?  Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.


Name a "massacre" that was committed after 1993 with a gun that was purchased w/o a background check.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> another good way to stop massacres is to have numeric trigger locks on guns.


Yeah...
Show mw a trigger lock that cannot be defeated in 15 seconds or less by a  bolt cutter or a drill press.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt the VT guy buy his guns?
> 
> didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT no, he stole them.
> 
> Colorado, yes - he bought them.
> 
> But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no records of ANY mental heaqlth problems?
Click to expand...

There's no law against people with "any" mental health problem from buying/owning a gun, and so any such information to that effect would not stop said purchase.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you seem to be saying that background checks pose no restriction to those without a criminal background. That's pretty much been my point all along. What I'm wondering is, why such resistance to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would James Holmes have been denied weapons?
> 
> He had no criminal history, no record of mental illness. What would have stopped him? Oh, and remember that the bastard had ricin bombs in his apartment, so without guns, the death toll would have been 30 times higher.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing anything that you're saying regarding James Holmes. My point is that, because he had no criminal background, there was no restriction to his 2nd Amendment rights. The biggest factor being discussed in this thread is the constitutionality of background checks, the premise being that they infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. You are bringing up scenarios that clearly support that, unless there is a criminal background that would make one ineligible for their 2nd Amendment rights, such as a Class C felony, there is no restriction. So what I'm wondering is why there is so much resistance to background checks? 

If you're position is that they do no good to stop mass shootings, that's a separate issue. I would say that their effectiveness is questionable and really unprovable until they are required across the board as an eligibility measure. However, as for the constitutionality argument, or at least the fear that background checks would pose an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, your input seems to support the notion there really would be NO infringement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you seem to be saying that background checks pose no restriction to those without a criminal background. That's pretty much been my point all along. What I'm wondering is, why such resistance to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would James Holmes have been denied weapons?
> 
> He had no criminal history, no record of mental illness. What would have stopped him? Oh, and remember that the bastard had ricin bombs in his apartment, so without guns, the death toll would have been 30 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not disputing anything that you're saying regarding James Holmes. My point is that, because he had no criminal background, there was no restriction to his 2nd Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

All this means is that he will pass the background check; it does in any way demonstrate that the backgroud check is not a form of prior restraint or the difference between 1st and 2nd amendment rights that would constitutionally permit that restraint on the exercise of those 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

> As I said before:
> 
> If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundly explain why it applies to some and not to others.
> 
> So far, we have discussed how prior restraint is constitutionally acceptable in terms of voting rights, and how that example does not apply to the right to arms due to the specifics found therein. You have taken no issue with anything in that discussion.
> 
> And so, presuming that you accept the premise of prior restraint, and absent a sound explanation as to how that premise does not apply to the 2nd, the prior restraint argument stands in support of the position that background checks are unconstitutional.



I accept the premise of prior restraint, that it is a concept that applies to the 1st Amendment. You are insisting that it applies evenly to all rights. I am not. Likewise, it has been attempted to apply prior restraint to the 2nd Amendment without success. Again, if you believe that it applies to all rights, that is your opinion.



> Absent a sound explanation as to how that premise or prior restraint does not apply to the 2nd, the prior restraint argument stands in support of the position that background checks are unconstitutional.



I have already done so, but I think we may be talking past each other. A background check, if applied to determine eligibility, is not unconstitutional, just as with voting rights. There are no conditions that would make a person ineligible to their 1st Amendment rights. There are for 2nd Amendment rights. As a person who has no criminal background, let alone a Class C felony, I am not ineligible, therefore I am not infringed by a background check that would prohibit my purchase based upon same. If I did, and the purchase were prohibited, then I also have not been infringed because I am ineligible.



> The state prohibits the exercise of the right until determines that the exercise does not violate the law.
> -That- is prior restraint.



The state is not prohibiting the exercise of a right at all if the check is applied to determine eligibility, just as the state is not prohibiting the exercise of voting if they are doing the same. That is precisely the question at hand. There is a condition that would prevent an individual from exercising this right, i.e. a felony that forfeits that right. If a background check is intended to check this eligibility or lack thereof, then it is no different than a check of eligibility for voting rights. If the background check is doing something other than that, then that's a different matter.



> Irrelevant  the restraint is to determine the legality of the act prior to the action being taken  in this case, the illegal purchase of a firearm before the firearm is purchased. The fact that a felon has his right removed is what makes the act illegal to begin with and therefore does not have any bearing on if the restraint is constitutional or not.



I see. So, then if an individual purchases a firearm and then a background check were performed after you would be okay with it?



> Really?
> There are all kinds of restrictions and conditions on first amendment rights, from parade permits to the prohibition of child porn to the 7 words you cannot say on TV to not allowing human sacrifices in church.



Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part, but I thought that you would understand that what I mean is there are no conditions, such as a felony, that would cause a person to lose their 1st Amendment rights. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

I definitely do think we are talking past each other in some ways. To try and keep things as simple as possible. You are saying that background checks are a form of prior restraint. What I am saying is that background checks as a means to determine an individual's eligibility is no different than voting rights where the same is determined. Whatever restrictions exist in regard to the 1st Amendment, there are no eligibility requirements. A person with a Class C felony is not prohibited from the 1st Amendment because of it, but is from the 2nd. A background check that prohibits a person with a Class C felony from purchasing a gun does just that. If a person who is eligible gets to purchase their gun, what infringement has occured?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I accept the premise of prior restraint, that it is a concept that applies to the 1st Amendment. You are insisting that it applies evenly to all rights. I am not.


To apply the premise to all of the rights is consistent; to argue that it applies to some but not all w/o a sound explanation as to why is capricious and arbitrary - don&#8217;t be capricious and arbitrary.

Soundly explain why the premise does not apply to all rights &#8211; that is, how some/all of the other rights differ from those protected by the 1st that the premise of prior restraint does not apply to them as well.



> Absent a sound explanation as to how that premise or prior restraint does not apply to the 2nd, the prior restraint argument stands in support of the position that background checks are unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I have already done so...
Click to expand...

Please provide a quote to that effect, as I have been looking very hard for said sound explanation and I have as yet seen none.

Remember that a sound explanation was given for the permissibility of restraint with regard to voting rights; I suggest that we both know you have not in any way provided an explanation with regard to the right to arms that is in any way comparable.



> A background check, if applied to determine eligibility, is not unconstitutional, just as with voting rights.


Simply making a statement to that effect doesn&#8217;t qualify as a sound explanation.
Lay out the argument as to how restraint of the exercise of right to arms is constitutionally acceptable &#8220;just as with voting rights.&#8221;

When doing so, be sure to recall that argument and the specific reasons for the acceptability of that restraint.



> There are no conditions that would make a person ineligible to their 1st Amendment rights. There are for 2nd Amendment rights. As a person who has no criminal background, let alone a Class C felony, I am not ineligible, therefore I am not infringed by a background check that would prohibit my purchase based upon same. If I did, and the purchase were prohibited, then I also have not been infringed because I am ineligible.


You merely repeat yourself here; my original response continues to defeat your resoning:

All of this is irrelevant &#8211; the restraint is to determine the legality of the act prior to the action being taken &#8211; in this case, the illegal purchase of a firearm before the firearm is purchased. The fact that a felon has his right removed is what makes the act illegal to begin with and therefore does not have any bearing on if the restraint is constitutional or not.  _This defeats your entire line of reasoning_.

The fact that you are legally able to buy a gun only means that you will pass the background check; it does in any way demonstrate that the background check is not a form of prior restraint or any difference between 1st and 2nd amendment rights that would constitutionally permit that restraint on the exercise of those 2nd amendment rights.



> The state is not prohibiting the exercise of a right at all if the check is applied to determine eligibility


Really?
When you wait for a background check, what is happening, if not above.



> Irrelevant &#8211; the restraint is to determine the legality of the act prior to the action being taken &#8211; in this case, the illegal purchase of a firearm before the firearm is purchased. The fact that a felon has his right removed is what makes the act illegal to begin with and therefore does not have any bearing on if the restraint is constitutional or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So, then if an individual purchases a firearm and then a background check were performed after you would be okay with it?
Click to expand...

Depends.   Is there probable cause for the state to believe the purchaser has committed a crime?  
If not, then the 4th amendment applies.
Please note, of course, that it is illegal to sell a gun to anyoe you have reaon to believe is not legally able to own one.



> Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part, but I thought that you would understand that what I mean is there are no conditions, such as a felony, that would cause a person to lose their 1st Amendment rights. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.


Fair enough  - but all of that is meaningless as previously explained.



> I definitely do think we are talking past each other in some ways. To try and keep things as simple as possible. You are saying that background checks are a form of prior restraint. What I am saying is that background checks as a means to determine an individual's eligibility is no different than voting rights where the same is determined.


You are then incorrect, as discussed.   

The argument for the permissibility of restraint in regards to voting rights is based on the protection of the rights of the voter and necessary for the meaningful exercise of the right; background checks (and gun registration) do neither, and so the fact that voting rights may be restrained on no way translates to an argument that the right to arms may be restrained in a similar manner.

That is, you fail in your claim of &#8220;no difference&#8221; because the reasoning for the permissibility of the restraint on voting rights does not and can not in any way apply to the restraint on the exercise of the right to arms.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

From 1-1-1955
The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
Thomas I. Emerson
Yale Law School:

_"The concept of prior restraint, roughly speaking, deals with official restrictions
imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication.
Prior restraint is thus distinguished from subsequent punishment, which is a penalty
imposed after the communication has been made as a punishment for having made it.
Again speaking generally, a system of prior restraint would prevent communication
from occurring at all; a system of subsequent punishment allows the communication
but imposes a penalty after the event. Of course, the deterrent effect of a later penalty
may operate to prevent a communication from ever being made. Nevertheless, for a
variety of reasons, the impact upon freedom of expression may be quite different,
depending upon whether the system of control is designed to block publication in
advance or deter it by subsequent punishment.
*In constitutional terms, the doctrine of prior restraint holds that the First Amendment
forbids the Federal Government to impose any system of prior restraint, with
certain limited exceptions, in any area of expression that is within the boundaries of
that Amendment.* By incorporating the First Amendment in the Fourteenth
Amendment, the same limitations are applicable to the states."_

This might be relevant where a discussion of background checks as a form of prior restraint is being presented.

First, the doctrine of prior restraint pertains to the 1st Amendment. Advocates against gun control are saying that it should apply to other rights. If so, then the excerpt above provides some guidelines. 

Now, I am not speaking of other measure of gun control which may be forms of prior restraint, since this concept is being applied to pretty much every aspect of gun control from some of the articles I have seen on the Internet. I am talking strictly about background checks intended to determine the eligibility of an individual to purchase a firearm. 

The distinction given between _prior restraint_ and _subsequent punishment_ is important here, and tricky because it does not apply as easily to something like purchasing a firearm as it does to publication of material. If an individual is convicted of a Class C felony, they are prohibited from their 2nd Amendment rights, which is a form of subsequent punishment. 

The part that bothers advocates against gun control is the "advance screening" aspect, which they are saying constitutes an official restriction imposed in advance, as mentioned in the first sentence. However, if a background check is conducted prior to purchase as a means of determining legal eligibility only, there is no advance restriction. Those that are legally eligible can purchase, while those that are legally ineligible cannot. 

Finally, the sentence highlighted above clearly establishes that there are certain limited exceptions. Granted these exception should never be taken lightly, but a background check used to determine legal eligibility to a right, such as is done with voter registration, can certainly fall under limited exceptions. 

The premise that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside the 1st Amendment is an interesting one. I am glad that this has come up, because such notions have to be tested, especially when they involved the Constitution. Everything that I can see out the doctrine of prior restraint is that it is very specific to free speech. I don't think it applies outside of free speech, but for the sake of argument, let's say that it does. The real question would be, do background checks to determine legal eligibility constitute a reasonable limited exception? I think they do.


----------



## Gardener

I would be willing to get rid of all gun laws and regulations and rstrictions.

But only if we required backgroujnd checks for all gun sales.

The most important thing we can ever do is make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't get guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> I would be willing to get rid of all gun laws and regulations and rstrictions.


I doubt that.


----------



## Gardener

M14 Shooter said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to get rid of all gun laws and regulations and rstrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.
Click to expand...


if we had better background checks and checks for all sales?

yes i would support even CCW in big cities.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gardener said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to get rid of all gun laws and regulations and rstrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if we had better background checks and checks for all sales?
> yes i would support even CCW in big cities.
Click to expand...

You'd allow the sales of machineguns produced after 1986?
You're repeal -all- of the state city and local gun bans?
You'd get rid of all state city and local regustration, licensure, etc, of guns?
You'd get rid of all carry permits, allowing carry w/o a permit?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> From 1-1-1955
> The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
> Thomas I. Emerson
> Yale Law School...


None of this negates the arguments put to you, your onus to respond to them in defense of your position, and your need to suppot your statements.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1-1-1955
> The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
> Thomas I. Emerson
> Yale Law School...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this negates the arguments put to you, your onus to respond to them in defense of your position, and your need to suppot your statements.
Click to expand...


I am under no obligation to support my statement.

It is impossible to discuss a potential prior restraint without discussing the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, since the concept is defined legally by it. Since the doctrine specifically applies to free speech, I don't really have to support anything. I'm just engaging in the discussion because it is interesting. You are taking a free speech doctrine and trying to apply it to the 2nd Amendment, where there has been no precedent for it. Because prior restraint is an official restriction of speech before it is published, what you are essentially claiming is that a background check is a restriction of free speech. Since you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, the burden of support rests with you.

Because it is a free speech doctrine, I could easily say that everything you have posted re: the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. However, I think the discussion has merit.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1-1-1955
> The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
> Thomas I. Emerson
> Yale Law School...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this negates the arguments put to you, your onus to respond to them in defense of your position, and your need to suppot your statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am under no obligation to support my statement.
Click to expand...

And thus ends our conversation, with a defacto admission that you cannot soundly support  your position.
Thank you for playing, and for not resorting to ad homs.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this negates the arguments put to you, your onus to respond to them in defense of your position, and your need to suppot your statements.
> 
> 
> 
> I am under no obligation to support my statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And thus ends our conversation, with a defacto admission that you cannot soundly support  your position.
> Thank you for playing, and for not resorting to ad homs.
Click to expand...


Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole. 

If background searches are unconstitutional, it is not because of prior restraint, and you have provide nothing that indicates there is any relevance whatsoever. I was interested in exploring this concept with you, and I tried my best, but I simply cannot take a concept that applies to restrictions of free speech and apply it to buying a gun. It has no business on the premises except in the loosest of ways.

To be perfectly clear, I am a gun-owner and value my 2nd Amendment rights. While there may be valid arguments for and against background checks, this one puzzles me. I have searched extensively and the only relevance of prior restraint to the 2nd Amendment comes from sites offering essentially op-ed pieces that are trying to make that claim. Should a case ever be brought regarding gun control that uses prior restraint as a premise would certainly be met with the same response: "this has to do with free speech how?"

So, it's a shame that you don't want to discuss it further, but it's been stimulating and I appreciate you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am under no obligation to support my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> And thus ends our conversation, with a defacto admission that you cannot soundly support  your position.
> Thank you for playing, and for not resorting to ad homs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole.
Click to expand...

This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thus ends our conversation, with a defacto admission that you cannot soundly support  your position.
> Thank you for playing, and for not resorting to ad homs.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
Click to expand...


It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech. 

At this point, I can't see that it does. Likewise, I have tried to find information that supports such a claim, and thus far have been unable to. And believe me, I have tried. You are applying a certain logic to say that it does apply to all rights. I just don't get it. It's possible that I am just too dense to see your logic, or I am over-simplifying. Can you explain to me how a legal concept that applies to the censorship of speech prior to publication applies to background checks?


----------



## Politico

Anyone see on CNN the other night? When they were talking about Zimmerman and stand your ground the entire screen was a video panning over a table of ARs. What a bunch of douchebags.


----------



## Survivalist

Politico said:


> Anyone see on CNN the other night? When they were talking about Zimmerman and stand your ground the entire screen was a video panning over a table of ARs. What a bunch of douchebags.



Fortunately, I missed that.  Sometimes I'll flip over to MSNBC or CNN for a little while to see what they have to say.  But just  like looking at a public toliet that didn't flush, I don't watch it for long.

If you live right next to one of the 100 areas that are going to have anti-White or Hispanic Trayvon rallies.  You might want to have an AR type weapon if the rage of these hate-mongers boils over and they start rioting.






This poor Jarhead should have known: "Without my weapon, I am useless."

Hate Crime: Marine Beaten and Stabbed by Group of African American Males | The Daily Sheeple


----------



## jon_berzerk

the threat of national riots 

is a good reason to have an ar -15 

during the LA riots 

the Korean store owners 

remained free of looting and rampage by defending theirs 

with firearms


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole.
> 
> 
> 
> This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.
Click to expand...

That's because priopr restraint is a _concept_ - restraining the exercise of a right prior to its exercise to determine if said exercise violates the law violates the rights of those so restrained unless the state can show that it has a compelling interest in that restraint, and that said restraint is the least restrictive means to achive that interest.  Because it is a _concept_, it applies to each right every bit as much as any other, absent a sound argument as to why there should be an exception for any specific right.

The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because priopr restraint is a _concept_ - restraining the exercise of a right prior to its exercise to determine if said exercise violates the law violates the rights of those so restrained unless the state can show that it has a compelling interest in that restraint, and that said restraint is the least restrictive means to achive that interest.  Because it is a _concept_, it applies to each right every bit as much as any other, absent a sound argument as to why there should be an exception for any specific right.
> 
> The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
Click to expand...


Prior restraint is more than a concept. It is a legal doctrine, specifically a free speech doctrine. If one wants to apply this doctrine outside of free speech because they think it would work there, so be it. However, I am discussing the doctrine exactly as it is defined.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because priopr restraint is a _concept_ - restraining the exercise of a right prior to its exercise to determine if said exercise violates the law violates the rights of those so restrained unless the state can show that it has a compelling interest in that restraint, and that said restraint is the least restrictive means to achive that interest.  Because it is a _concept_, it applies to each right every bit as much as any other, absent a sound argument as to why there should be an exception for any specific right.
> 
> The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior restraint is more than a concept. It is a legal doctrine, specifically a free speech doctrine. If one wants to apply this doctrine outside of free speech because they think it would work there, so be it. However, I am discussing the doctrine exactly as it is defined.
Click to expand...

As I said:

The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.

By only considering the concept as held by current jurisprudence is to deliberately side-step the discussion.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because priopr restraint is a _concept_ - restraining the exercise of a right prior to its exercise to determine if said exercise violates the law violates the rights of those so restrained unless the state can show that it has a compelling interest in that restraint, and that said restraint is the least restrictive means to achive that interest.  Because it is a _concept_, it applies to each right every bit as much as any other, absent a sound argument as to why there should be an exception for any specific right.
> 
> The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior restraint is more than a concept. It is a legal doctrine, specifically a free speech doctrine. If one wants to apply this doctrine outside of free speech because they think it would work there, so be it. However, I am discussing the doctrine exactly as it is defined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said:
> 
> The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
Click to expand...


Likewise it does not necessitate that they are. 

You are asking me to apply the Doctrine of Prior Restraint outside of it's intended application. Constitutional doctrines are a set of rules and guidelines intended to help decide legal issues given a certain set of circumstances. Prior restraint provides the constitutional guidelines relevant to censorship. How is this even a debate? I regret that I got sucked into considering it because you insist on trying to paint me into a corner. I've come to my senses. Prior restraint is a free speech doctrine. This is not debatable. If you want to take it outside of that, then the burden of justification rests on your shoulders.

Now, I am against banning AR-15s, as I am against a lot of gun control measures. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me background checks for eligibility are unconstitutional, although I am not saying they don't exist. Using the doctrine of prior restraint is very creative, granted, but I am not so sure it is appropriate. I could easily say that the doctrine of Public Forum is applicable to the 2nd Amendment, but I would be obliged to justify it.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt the VT guy buy his guns?
> 
> didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VT no, he stole them.
> 
> Colorado, yes - he bought them.
> 
> But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you seem to be saying that background checks pose no restriction to those without a criminal background. That's pretty much been my point all along. What I'm wondering is, why such resistance to them?
Click to expand...


From him, he has described why but if you are asking about resistance to them at large I believe that you are sorely mistaken.  Almost no one is resisting background checks for the purchase of firearms.  The media wo0uld have you believe that drivel because strife is the carcass that feeds them BUT the reality is that background checks are essentially already required for the VAST majority firearm sales.  None of those laws are being challenged at all.  The reality is that virtually any gun you purchase anywhere legally (to INCLUDE gun shows) will have a background check preformed first.

To claim that there is resistance to background checks is rather silly.  The resistance is to adding new layers of federal red tape that adds zero in the way of protections but also create huge violations of other rights like privacy.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole.
> 
> 
> 
> This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.
> 
> At this point, I can't see that it does. Likewise, I have tried to find information that supports such a claim, and thus far have been unable to. And believe me, I have tried. You are applying a certain logic to say that it does apply to all rights. I just don't get it. It's possible that I am just too dense to see your logic, or I am over-simplifying. Can you explain to me how a legal concept that applies to the censorship of speech prior to publication applies to background checks?
Click to expand...


The question is NOT what is current law but rather what should be.  We can all look around and agree what the law currently states but that does not mean that we should agree with that application of law as it stands.  At one point in time, separate but equal was actually considered constitutional.  We know today that is asinine and completely against the constitution in not only letter but also spirit.  I think that M14 has presented a very strong case as to why prior restraint should be applied to the second amendment.  Considering that I disagree with his stance on background checks, I think that is saying something.  To put it simply, I dont know if I can support my prior position of supporting current basic background checks against the very real concept of prior restraint.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

FA_Q2 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.
> 
> At this point, I can't see that it does. Likewise, I have tried to find information that supports such a claim, and thus far have been unable to. And believe me, I have tried. You are applying a certain logic to say that it does apply to all rights. I just don't get it. It's possible that I am just too dense to see your logic, or I am over-simplifying. Can you explain to me how a legal concept that applies to the censorship of speech prior to publication applies to background checks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is NOT what is current law but rather what should be.  We can all look around and agree what the law currently states but that does not mean that we should agree with that application of law as it stands.  At one point in time, separate but equal was actually considered constitutional.  We know today that is asinine and completely against the constitution in not only letter but also spirit.  I think that M14 has presented a very strong case as to why prior restraint should be applied to the second amendment.  Considering that I disagree with his stance on background checks, I think that is saying something.  To put it simply, I dont know if I can support my prior position of supporting current basic background checks against the very real concept of prior restraint.
Click to expand...


It is worthy of exploring. If it weren't I would have given up on this long ago.

Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right. 

The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.

The form of prior restraint that makes any sense is the idea that it can come in the form of refusing to grant, or revoking, a license. This, I agree, is a form of prior restraint, because it creates an inequality of 1st Amendment rights between the licensed and the non-licensed, because there is no condition defined as prohibiting that right. With the 2nd Amendment, there is, meaning there is a general condition that prohibits an individual's right altogether. The only way around that is by saying that there should be absolutely no condition prohibiting an individual from 2nd Amendment rights, to include a serious felony, which currently does. Were that the case, then yes, I can see prior restraint applying to the 2nd Amendment in the same way as it applies to the 1st.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior restraint is more than a concept. It is a legal doctrine, specifically a free speech doctrine. If one wants to apply this doctrine outside of free speech because they think it would work there, so be it. However, I am discussing the doctrine exactly as it is defined.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said:
> 
> The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likewise it does not necessitate that they are.
> 
> You are asking me to apply the Doctrine of Prior Restraint outside of it's intended application.
Click to expand...

No...  I'm asking you to be consistent and apply it to all rights, outsude the limits of current juisrpridence.

While the court has only applied the concept of prior restraint to rights protected by the 1st amendment, the _concept_ of prior restraint itself is not inherently based on the 1st amendment.  

You fail to understand this, and you refuse to offer a sound argument as to why the concept of prior restraint should not apply to rights other than those protected by the 1st.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right.
> 
> The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.


As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.

However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.

The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right.
> 
> The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.
> 
> However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.
> 
> The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.
Click to expand...


Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this has nothing to do with the felon, but with the person selling the firearm? I ask because the act of selling the weapon to the ineligible person would be the law that is being broken. If so, then you're saying the prior restraint is on the seller, not the potential ineligible person. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right.
> 
> The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.
> 
> However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.
> 
> The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this has nothing to do with the felon...
Click to expand...

...  no, it has nothing to do with the fact that there is a class of people that can have their right to arms removed.  The key is breaking the law -- that the exercise of the right in question is illegal - it doesnt matter what the law, only that the restraint exists to see of a law is broken.



> I ask because the act of selling the weapon to the ineligible person would be the law that is being broken.


Only if the dealer sold the gun after the check denied the sale.
The law in question here is the general prohibition of felonds from buying/possessing a firearm.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.
> 
> However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.
> 
> The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this has nothing to do with the felon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  no, it has nothing to do with the fact that there is a class of people that can have their right to arms removed.  The key is breaking the law -- that the exercise of the right in question is illegal - it doesnt matter what the law, only that the restraint exists to see of a law is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because the act of selling the weapon to the ineligible person would be the law that is being broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if the dealer sold the gun after the check denied the sale.
> The law in question here is the general prohibition of felonds from buying/possessing a firearm.
Click to expand...


That's why I am asking. The key is breaking the law. I get that. So, the sale of a weapon to a prohibited individual is law being broken, and hence why you are considering it a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this has nothing to do with the felon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...  no, it has nothing to do with the fact that there is a class of people that can have their right to arms removed.  The key is breaking the law -- that the exercise of the right in question is illegal - it doesnt matter what the law, only that the restraint exists to see of a law is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because the act of selling the weapon to the ineligible person would be the law that is being broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if the dealer sold the gun after the check denied the sale.
> The law in question here is the general prohibition of felonds from buying/possessing a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I am asking. The key is breaking the law. I get that. So, the sale of a weapon to a prohibited individual is law being broken, and hence why you are considering it a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The violation of the law in question revolves around the attempt to transfer/possess a firearm -by- a person prohibited from doing so - it is illegal for a felon to buy/have a gun; when a felon attempts to buy/possess a gun, he breaks the law in doing so.

A background check restrains the transfer - the exercise of the right - until such time that the state determines that the person buying the gun is not breaking the law in doing so - and thus, prior restraint.


----------



## FA_Q2

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right.
> 
> The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.
> 
> However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.
> 
> The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.
Click to expand...


I think that he does have a point in that there is no case of a first amendment right being removed through judicial process whereas there is clear and common infringement on second amendment rights through the judicial process.

In that, there is no compelling state interest in applying prior restraint to the first amendment  your rights are always present.  There is more of a compelling state interest in regard to the second amendment in that there ARE cases where you no longer have your second amendment rights.

I think that another tact can be taken here as well with the idea that *illegally* obtaining a weapon does violate others rights (namely endangering others health and life).  In your case against the right to vote, you apply prior restraint because illegally exercising that right infringes on others voting rights by diminishing them.  It is true that *legally* purchasing and possessing a weapon is not a danger to others and is a right.  However, we are not talking about the legal purchase here but the illegal purchase of a weapon.  In that respect, is not the illegal purchase and possession of a weapon a danger to others health?  If the answer is no, then why are we limiting those individuals right to a firearm in the first place?  If that answer truly is no then the courts should not (and really do not have the right) to remove a persons second amendment rights.  If that answer is a yes, then you have a good case for the application of prior restraint being a compelling state interest in the purchase and possession of firearms.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this has nothing to do with the felon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...  no, it has nothing to do with the fact that there is a class of people that can have their right to arms removed.  The key is breaking the law -- that the exercise of the right in question is illegal - it doesnt matter what the law, only that the restraint exists to see of a law is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because the act of selling the weapon to the ineligible person would be the law that is being broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if the dealer sold the gun after the check denied the sale.
> The law in question here is the general prohibition of felonds from buying/possessing a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I am asking. The key is breaking the law. I get that. So, the sale of a weapon to a prohibited individual is law being broken, and hence why you are considering it a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


Focusing on the sale I think is a misnomer.  The sale itself is not the issue.  The problem lies in the fact that the state is restraining your right to bear arms in order to check that they (the state) have not legally denied you that right.  

That is prior restraint no matter what angle you look at it.  Your right is being restrained until the state deems that you can exercise it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

FA_Q2 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the main area where the logic of using prior restraint outside of free speech bothers me. There is not a single condition that prohibits an individual from free speech. There are specific types of speech that are restricted. If an individual were to violate them, he/she may be subject to a penalty, but the basic right to free speech is not removed. Not so with 2nd Amendment rights. Because of the deadly nature of firearms, it became necessary to restrict this right to those who have committed certain crimes in the past. This is typically designated as Class C felonies. Should this condition exist, the individual does not have this right.
> 
> The argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint rests on the idea that it is intended to prevent the illegal practice of the act preemptively, by censoring a violation of restricted form of speech before they happen. The intent of them may very well be to reduce violent crime, but the action itself is checking for eligibility, to see if the purchaser has committed a crime that has prohibited him from his 2nd Amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, there's nothing here that changes anything.
> 
> However you want to word it, the basic function of the background check is to restrain the exericse of the right prior to the exercise of same to determine if said exercise will break the law; if it does, then the exercise is denied, if not, then it it is allowed to continue.
> 
> The important part of this is "...to determine if said exercise will break the law..." -- it doesnt matter what law is broken, and it doesnt matter the basis for that law, the issue is the breaking of the law itself.  As such, your differential argument as to felons having their right removed is meaningless as it does not matter how the law in question came to be or what effect it has, only that the law is/is not broken by the exercise in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that he does have a point in that there is no case of a first amendment right being removed through judicial process whereas there is clear and common infringement on second amendment rights through the judicial process.
Click to expand...

In fact, this is exactly the opposite.

Everyone is prohibited from libel/slander, and yet, it violates the constitution to restrain the exercise of everyone's right to free speech until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is legal.

Not everyone is prohibited from buying/owning a gun, yet, without sond explanation as to why,  we are expected to accept that it does NOT violate the constitution to restrain the exercise of your right to arms until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is legal.



> I think that another tact can be taken here as well with the idea that *illegally* obtaining a weapon does violate others rights (namely endangering others health and life).


Simple possession/ownership of any gun by any person harms no one and places no on in clear, present and immediate danger of harm - and so, simple possession/ownership by anyone violates the rights of no one. 



> In that respect, is not the illegal purchase and possession of a weapon a danger to others health?  If the answer is no, then why are we limiting those individuals right to a firearm in the first place?


This is another discussion - the legitimacy of the removal of the right to arms from felons, etc, and the question of restoration after incarceration.  Said removal is a Due Process/5th amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

It all boils down to the idea that, absent a compelling interest to do so (see: voting rights).  the state cannot constitutionally restrain you from exercising -any- of your rights to determine if you are about to break the law.


----------



## PaulS1950

Can restrictions on our rights actually prevent the abuse of those rights?
Speed limits don't stop speeding....
Laws against crime haven't stopped crime....
How can we restrict criminals from getting guns without restricting the law abiding citizen at the same time.

According to The CDC report that was ordered by Obama there are 1.5 to 3 million times a year that legal gun owners use their guns to prevent or stop crime. Overwhelmingly with out firing a shot the keep from being victims of crime. 

By restricting the second amendment you will turn these crime stoppers into victims and raise the violent crime rate in the US by 1.5 to 3 million per year.


----------



## Spoonman

I have an idea, let's focus on the least of the problems


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

PaulS1950 said:


> Can restrictions on our rights actually prevent the abuse of those rights?
> Speed limits don't stop speeding....
> Laws against crime haven't stopped crime....
> How can we restrict criminals from getting guns without restricting the law abiding citizen at the same time.
> 
> According to The CDC report that was ordered by Obama there are 1.5 to 3 million times a year that legal gun owners use their guns to prevent or stop crime. Overwhelmingly with out firing a shot the keep from being victims of crime.
> 
> By restricting the second amendment you will turn these crime stoppers into victims and raise the violent crime rate in the US by 1.5 to 3 million per year.



This is true. The effectiveness of background checks, if it is a restriction of 2nd Amendment rights, is debatable. I was just interested in examining the constitutionality of them. It has been an interesting discussion.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

> It all boils down to the idea that, absent a compelling interest to do so (see: voting rights). the state cannot constitutionally restrain you from exercising -any- of your rights to determine if you are about to break the law.



Compelling interest is very key, I agree. I am more inclined to accept that there is a compelling interest than you are, but that is part of the gray area that has challenged our Constitution as a living document for over 200 years.

It has been a stimulating discussion, sir, and I appreciate you. I can clearly see that we both hold our 2nd Amendment rights dear, if we are not completely on the same page regarding this little niche. I think the niche is pretty well exhausted at this point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jimmy_Jam said:


> It all boils down to the idea that, absent a compelling interest to do so (see: voting rights). the state cannot constitutionally restrain you from exercising -any- of your rights to determine if you are about to break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compelling interest is very key, I agree. I am more inclined to accept that there is a compelling interest than you are, but that is part of the gray area that has challenged our Constitution as a living document for over 200 years.
> 
> It has been a stimulating discussion, sir, and I appreciate you. I can clearly see that we both hold our 2nd Amendment rights dear, if we are not completely on the same page regarding this little niche. I think the niche is pretty well exhausted at this point.
Click to expand...

Roger that.  Good hunting.


----------



## PhillyGuard

Since we're on a trajectory toward having every other Constitutional protection eroded, it only becomes more important to protect the right of the people to bear arms.


----------

