Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".

The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.

That is your great plan?

Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

Until such time as someone creates and passes an amendment to the Constitution, the supposed assault rifle is here to stay.

You are aware the ONLY difference between what you call an assault weapon and any other semi automatic rifle is how it LOOKS?

 

[kaz]

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.

However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable." Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not? I have a hard time seeing that it is so. And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.

 

[MonaGonna]

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.

However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable." Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not? I have a hard time seeing that it is so. And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.

You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.

However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable." Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not? I have a hard time seeing that it is so. And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.

You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.

And yet you have not curbed anything.

Go ahead, explain for us the difference between a supposed assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle?

 

[Spoonman]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

 

[kaz]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

That's the part they all ignore. They make proposals and discuss the impact as if it were on the criminals when it doesn't affect the criminal, it only affects the rest of us who are not criminals.

I don't think that they don't grasp that though so much as they don't care. Independence is the opposite of collectivism. Defending yourself is independence. Better for some to die than many more to be independent when it comes to the interest of the collective.

As in New London where they supported the collective taking grandma's home and giving it to a corporation. Sorry grandma, but the interest of the collective is more important than the home you raised your kids in. Even if the developer didn't develop and it's still sitting there getting overgrown by the local vegetation.

Liberalism may be sick, but it is consistent.

 

[MonaGonna]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

 

[BlackSand]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

Sure they weren't talking about what they didn't know would exist ... They were talking about what the military used at the time.
They weren't talking about hunting or target practice while discussing the ability to defend yourself from an oppressive tyrannical government.

But look at the bright side ... The 2nd Amendment was almost not included in the Constitution over stout arguments.
I am pretty sure that if you put your efforts towards a more productive endeavor like raising support for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment ... You have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

I am not looking forward to the outcome ... But still might find it interesting as to what happens if such a measure succeeds.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

Sure they weren't talking about what they didn't know would exist ... They were talking about what the military used at the time.
They weren't talking about hunting or target practice while discussing the ability to defend yourself from an oppressive tyrannical government.

But look at the bright side ... The 2nd Amendment was almost not included in the Constitution over stout arguments.
I am pretty sure that if you put your efforts towards a more productive endeavor like raising support for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment ... You have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

I am not looking forward to the outcome ... But still might find it interesting as to what happens if such a measure succeeds.

.

She isn't even an American. And does not live here. And notice she has not explained to us what an assault rifle is?

 

[MisterBeale]

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.

The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.

However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable." Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not? I have a hard time seeing that it is so. And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.

You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.

smh. So naive.

 

[hunarcy]

Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

That is a silly point of view. If any alternate interpreation is to be adopted, it obviously has to be that the amendment is saying that citizens should have the same weapons as the military. Your obsession with muskets is ridiculous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.

>300,000,000 guns.
<32,000 gun deaths per year
~1 gun in every 9400 kills someone - andhat, to you, is proof that people are not trustworthy with guns. uh



Thank you for futher provng my point.

So I guess that you laugh at little kids who shoot themselves or their friends/siblings. Or at mass school shootings. Is 9,000+ gun deaths a year an acceptable number for you?

Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and or dishonesty.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.

The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

Ah, the simple mind of an anti-gun loon.
Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.

 

[jon_berzerk]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

Ah, the simple mind of an anti-gun loon.
Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.

yup

why is then that the founders didnt ban the Girandoni air rifle

the assault weapon of the time

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI]Girandoni air rifle as used by Lewis and Clark. A National Firearms Museum Treasure Gun. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MonaGonna]

I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.

The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

 

[Spoonman]

I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.

The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

 

[MonaGonna]

That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.

The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

 

[kaz]

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

Randy Weaver didn't need to "overthrow" the government when the government murdered his wife using guns, which you say is safe in their hands, not just ours.

 

[kaz]

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

The cows follow the rancher's instructions right up until when they kill them and cut them into pieces. Government thinks of you like that, and that you agree with that assessment is what lets them sleep at night while they take one right after another away from you.

There are more options besides overthrowing government and subordinating yourself to them. And how you think of your rights is critical to how vigilantly you defend them.