Honest and open debate on gun control

[2aguy]

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

If this is a problem, why have gun murders gone down, not up as more law abiding...that is non criminals, own and actually carry guns for self defense....

More Americans than ever before are carrying guns for self defense, over 11.1 million people.....and what you stated is not a problem.

We don't ignore drive by shootings or drug trafficking...in fact it is your side who ignores the fact that those crimes happen in the inner cities controlled by democrat politicians....and that even them most of that violence is isolated to small, multi block areas within the cities....

The rest of the city and the rest of our country are incredibly safe.......

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

Not in every household. Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive. Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.

Wrong...in fact the colonists had better rifles than the British.....and they all had them since they lived on the frontier........

They did not ALL have them. Such rifles were expensive. Colonist also lived in cities where the need for an expensive rifle did not exist.

You seem to think that the average American colonist could walk down to Ye Olde Wal-Mart and pick up a rifled musket at any time. Mass production was decades away. Weapons were hand crafted and expensive

And a necessary part of colonial life........as per being part of the militia...as well.......

 

[Nosmo King]

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

Gang members in the U.S. do not use AR-15s often if at all...they are hard to conceal.....

In Europe, where they have extreme gun control, and fully automatic rifles are highly illegal, their criminals get them easily.

Explain why that is?

Gang members use any weapon available from shot guns to AR 15s. Semi automatic firing systems are preferred because these Nobel laureates are not great marksmen. But there they are! In all their glory shooting up the streets with as much rapidity as their straw man buyer can provide.

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

Not in every household. Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive. Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.

Wrong...in fact the colonists had better rifles than the British.....and they all had them since they lived on the frontier........

They did not ALL have them. Such rifles were expensive. Colonist also lived in cities where the need for an expensive rifle did not exist.

You seem to think that the average American colonist could walk down to Ye Olde Wal-Mart and pick up a rifled musket at any time. Mass production was decades away. Weapons were hand crafted and expensive

Nosmo...are you going to explain how the gun controls laws you want mechanically stop a criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun?

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

Gang members in the U.S. do not use AR-15s often if at all...they are hard to conceal.....

In Europe, where they have extreme gun control, and fully automatic rifles are highly illegal, their criminals get them easily.

Explain why that is?

Gang members use any weapon available from shot guns to AR 15s. Semi automatic firing systems are preferred because these Nobel laureates are not great marksmen. But there they are! In all their glory shooting up the streets with as much rapidity as their straw man buyer can provide.

One...you just defeated all of your gun control laws with the word "strawman" because if a person who is legally able to pass all of your gun control laws...and actually does pass them, then passes on a weapon to a criminal....all of your gun control laws were pointless..until you actually catch the criminal...which is my point on actual gun control that works....

Second, gang members use hand guns and shot guns because they are easily concealed or chopped down...they don't need Ar-15s for crime...

The Criminals in Europe, who are banned by law from having fully automatic rifles...get them easily....as part of their culture of crime....

 

[2aguy]

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......

Of course not -- he knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

328 posts.... no sound responses.

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......

Straw man purchasers buy multiple weapons in an area with lax gun control alws and 'import' them back into cities where guns are more difficult to obtain. they make an end run around local laws, making National laws more necessary.

I would place a manufacturing embargo on all arms producers limiting the number of weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems to 200 per annum. Generous tax credits would be extended for complying with the embargo. The supply of such weapons would quickly dry up. The cost of such weapons would skyrocket. The marketplace in action.

Any sale, import, distribution or modification of weapons would be subject to criminal prosecution. .

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......

Of course not -- he knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

"open and honest debate" only on your terms.

 

[2aguy]

Nosmo...I don't want to make your job easier so I'll start you off....

You have John Citizen...he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a universal background check and registers his gun....only uses 10 round magazines....

He then goes and shoots up a school........

How did your gun control laws prevent the school shooting?

You have John Citizen...he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a Universal background check, and registers several guns......his home is broken into and his guns are stolen......

How did your gun control laws prevent the criminals from getting his guns?

You have John Citizen.....he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a universal background check and registers his guns....and sells them to a gang member friend after reporting the guns stolen......

How did your gun control laws prevent the sale of those guns to the criminal?

True...if you get the gang member buddy to turn him in...you still have to prove they weren't stolen...right?

And if you can do that...you can arrest him for selling guns to a criminal....but.....you can already do that right now, today....without a license, without registering the guns without a magazine limit and without a background check, universal or otherwise...........

 

[2aguy]

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......

Straw man purchasers buy multiple weapons in an area with lax gun control alws and 'import' them back into cities where guns are more difficult to obtain. they make an end run around local laws, making National laws more necessary.

I would place a manufacturing embargo on all arms producers limiting the number of weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems to 200 per annum. Generous tax credits would be extended for complying with the embargo. The supply of such weapons would quickly dry up. The cost of such weapons would skyrocket. The marketplace in action.

Any sale, import, distribution or modification of weapons would be subject to criminal prosecution. .

Okay.....again....you didn't address my points on how criminals get guns.

In Europe....they can't have fully automatic rifles, and they have no gun stores for them....they don't have "lax" gun control laws and criminals easily cross international borders. What would tax credits do for a business that makes guns but can't make them? And how would you ban military and police weapons since that would be where the criminals would get their guns....as they do in Mexico, and Europe.........?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As far as the threat to law enforcement officers posed by 'assault weapons'..
2004-2013, a grand total of 87 LEOs were killed by rifles of all kinds - 8.7 per year.
1994-2004, during the 'assault weapon' ban, 114 LEOs were killed - 10.4 per year.
Clearly, this carnage must stop! Ban 'assault weapons' now!

FBI Table 27
Table 28

 

[2aguy]

As far as the threat to law enforcement officers posed by 'assault weapons'..
2004-2013, a grand total of 87 LEOs were killed by rifles of all kinds - 8.7 per year.
1994-2004, during the 'assault weapon' ban, 114 LEOs were killed - 10.4 per year.
Clearly, this carnage must stop! Ban 'assault weapons' now!

FBI Table 27
Table 28

Excellent find...I will steal it for my own purposes.....

 

[Ame®icano]

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

The same logic was used by those loyal to king George and later by Weimar and Stalin.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was, and still is, to protect people from any future tyrannical government attempt to disarm them, just as the British attempted to do.

Since they can't touch the 2nd Amendment the way it is, lefties are trying to change meaning of words in order to allow for federal restrictions on gun rights.

Why the government need those restrictions? To prevent mass killings? Yeah right. It's their ass they worry about.

 

[2aguy]

And here are more stats on law enforcement deaths by weapon for 2013....

FBI Officers Feloniously Killed

Overview

• In 2013, 27 law enforcement officers died from injuries incurred in the line of duty during felonious incidents.

Weapons

Of the officers killed in 2013, most (26) were killed with firearms. Of these, 18 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)

• 2 officers had their weapons stolen.
• 6 officers fired their weapons; 3 officers attempted to use their weapons.
• 9 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.

In 2013....police killed by all rifles...from around the country...8.....how many do you think were killed by AR-15 out of those 8?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

Wrong....they are not.

 

[2aguy]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

And yet you guys still won't explain how each of these things actually work to keep criminals and mass shooters from getting guns...

Please...just tell the truth....you could give a rat's ass if criminals get guns.....you only care about regular citizens getting guns because you know if you pass a law you can actually disarm them.....be honest....

 

[Ame®icano]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.