Gun Control question for liberals?

[Wry Catcher]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

Unplug the headlamp on one side of your car and drive around at night, that gives LE Probable Cause to stop your car and make sure it is safe. Also, the Coast Guard can arbitrarily board and examine if you vessel has proper safety equipment.

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

 

[Kondor3]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

With all purchases is just a warm-up...

Make that "with all transfers of ownership" - commercial or private.

 

[rightwinger]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

Police are there for our protection

They are trained and regulated. I have no issue providing them any weapon they need to keep us safe

Armed citizens cause 32,000 gun deaths a year. We need to be protected from them. They are the threat

 

[Marion Morrison]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

You missed the first several posts here last night then, when the OP's strawman in his first sentence (and indeed in his thread title) was called out for the strawman it is by multiple Liberals.

Guess those posts were 'inconvenient' so let's just go What posts? I don't see anything. Oh look! A bird!

You can skip "making mark" though, as we're not sure what that is.

You, Crepitus, and Bulldog are not liberals. You are Social Marxist leftist shills. AKA On the level of dog poo.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

With all purchases is just a warm-up...

Make that "with all transfers of ownership" - commercial or private.

Agree
All transfers of ownership should be recorded

 

[Marion Morrison]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

Police are there for our protection

They are trained and regulated. I have no issue providing them any weapon they need to keep us safe

Armed citizens cause 32,000 gun deaths a year. We need to be protected from them. They are the threat

Wrong. Police are not there to protect you. They're there to enforce the law. You're responsible for your own self protection.

 

[Defiant1]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

 

[Flopper]

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

canal?
More gibberish

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

STFU you commie shill! Fuck right the hell off with all that, k?

Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?

I'm serious as a heart attack. Stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, you tard.

Let's not and say we didn't, ok? Those ideas are all kinds of full of fail. Bad ideas, bro.

You’re seriously ridiculous.

No one is ‘attacking’ the Second Amendment.

In fact, it’s conservatives who have, for the most part, exhibited disdain for the Second Amendment by attacking its case law, propagating lies about the Amendment being ‘unlimited,’ and refusing to accept the Heller ruling as the settled, accepted meaning of the Second Amendment.

Again, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right provided those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

To advocate for firearm regulatory measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court is not to ‘attack’ the Second Amendment; indeed, to advocate for such measures not invalidated by the Court is to support the Second Amendment.

If you don’t like these facts feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

dude go blow that smoke under someone else ass.

Sorry, but I have to agree with C_CLAYTON_JONES on this one.
Liberals never traditionally supported gun control.
Gun control came from wealthy whites who wanted to ensure Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers stayed disarmed and easily intimidated.
The first people who CALLED themselves liberals and still supported gun control, were the Clintons.
But they clearly are not liberals or else they would not have supported things like the 1994 federal crime bill with the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.
Real Liberals could never have supported things like that, or gun control.

I would say it's the democrats who have a long long history in gun control it's the liberals who have now taken up the cause for gun control. dems have never changed

Sort of, but remember that the South used to have what is known as Yellow Dog Democrats, that were really what would be called Republicans, but the south could not because that had the association with the Party of Lincoln as its beginning.
So it was southern democrats who originally supported gun control, but they were not real democrats are at all liberal. They were for wealthy minority ruling over the poor majority by force, and that is the opposite of liberal.
I think current gun control comes from the Clintons who were never really democrats but southern Yellow Dogs, who were never remotely liberal.
The fact they have taken over the democratic party is one of the biggest disasters this country has ever seen.
Liberals are those who maintain individual liberty at all cost, and they really don't exist any more.
That is a most frightening prospect.
It forces real liberals like me, to vote independent, like Jill Stein.

 

[007]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

It's not fantasy...

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

It is a fantasy, as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Nowhere in the text or case law of the Second Amendment do we find any reference to the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government lawfully put into place by the people reflecting the will of the people.

In fact, the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment is completely devoid of merit and unsupported by the courts:

“…[the] linguistic gymnastics and historical reasoning in Heller may be suspect, but at least they are in service of a rational goal: the notion that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals. Nobody on the Court in Heller endorsed the insurrectionist theory as a guide to the contemporary meaning or implementation of the Second Amendment.”

Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"

The Framers would not have amended the Constitution they just created with the means by which to destroy the Republic they had just created.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ or to ‘deter crime,’ or to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

That is nothing more than your opinion, and that of the anti 2nd amendment, government worshiping zealots.

The true purpose of the 2nd amendment has been clear from it's inception, and that purpose has been to give the people a way to fight back against a would be tyrannical government, period, end of story, and no amount of leftist spin or hogwash is going to change that.

What do you think...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

... means?

You think that means so we can HUNT?

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 182

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[Flopper]

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

STFU you commie shill! Fuck right the hell off with all that, k?

Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?

I'm serious as a heart attack. Stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, you tard.

Let's not and say we didn't, ok? Those ideas are all kinds of full of fail. Bad ideas, bro.

You’re seriously ridiculous.

No one is ‘attacking’ the Second Amendment.

In fact, it’s conservatives who have, for the most part, exhibited disdain for the Second Amendment by attacking its case law, propagating lies about the Amendment being ‘unlimited,’ and refusing to accept the Heller ruling as the settled, accepted meaning of the Second Amendment.

Again, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right provided those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

To advocate for firearm regulatory measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court is not to ‘attack’ the Second Amendment; indeed, to advocate for such measures not invalidated by the Court is to support the Second Amendment.

If you don’t like these facts feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

Regardless of what a "well regulated militia" is, and that weapons rights are not without restriction, it is absolutely and incontrovertibly clear that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons of any kind.
The federal government only have very limited and express jurisdiction over things can not do successfully, like negotiating international treaties. Weapons were expressly denied federal jurisdiction. No sane or honest people can possibly claim otherwise.
The SOCTUS corruption is one of the main points for the 2nd amendment, and you can't use the SCOTUS as a means of defining what the 2nd amendment means.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

I rarely watch Fox News. I actually watch NBC News.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

 

[Rigby5]

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

Of course it would be.
If I had screwed up as a parent so badly that my children wanted to die, I would be the last person to then force them to not do what they wanted.
Suicide is caused by many long standing failures by family, health care, society, etc.
You can't fix it by passing laws to put more people in jail.
That is even worse, and deserves punishment.

 

[Flopper]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

Police are there for our protection

They are trained and regulated. I have no issue providing them any weapon they need to keep us safe

Armed citizens cause 32,000 gun deaths a year. We need to be protected from them. They are the threat

Wrong. Police are not there to protect you. They're there to enforce the law. You're responsible for your own self protection.

Since it says "to protect and serve" on the side of the police cars and it's in the emblem for the police dept, I would assume that is what they are there for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.