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

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Handguns come later. Patience, asshopper!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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

 

[Circe]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Of which there are exactly zero....

 

[M14 Shooter]

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]

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]

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.

There is zero truth to your claim.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?