M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #261
Still no answer to the questions.
C'mon guys - step up to the plate.
C'mon guys - step up to the plate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As well as the people who supported it and/or want it reinstated.The OP is not dumb. But it does a beautiful job of illustrating how dumb the ban was.
That's why they refuse to answer the questions.
The best comment I have seen so far (as far as being funny) is either the claim that all semi-automatic firearms are assault weapons or that the number of rounds in a magazine determines whether a firearm is an offensive or a defensive weapons.
The ignorance concerning firearms is astounding. What is worse is the insistence that their claims are valid in the discussion of additional firearm laws.
OK... and how does that apply to the issue a hand?The ban would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
If it were in place now, it would not stop every school shooting.
However, in such situations, there is a correlation between difficulty of access (especially on impulse crimes) and the criminal giving up.
Such as?Which is why I would support a much stricter ban.
How does training stop someone from comitting a crime?Or require more stringent training to own one.
False.Right to own a gun for a citizens' army...?
Nothing in your response has anything to do with the issue at hand, none of it negates anything I said, and none of it answers the questions I asked.The second amendment is related to a philosophical concept in the era of classical liberalism.
True, the National Guard does not serve as a substitute for the individual right to own a gun. Rather, according to the philosophy the Fathers held, the individual should ism their own personal firearm in the case they would need to defend their homeland (which is why many at the time believed you should own land to own a gun- you must first "have a hearth to protect")
I digress. Defending your homeland, to the writers of the constitution, obviously meant both the small case (protecting your house personally), and the larger (should a citizens army ever need to be formed).
If you want a well regulated militia, bring necessary for the maintenance of a free state, then those that bear arms must be physically capable of doing so well.
As well as the people who supported it and/or want it reinstated.
That's why they refuse to answer the questions.
The best comment I have seen so far (as far as being funny) is either the claim that all semi-automatic firearms are assault weapons or that the number of rounds in a magazine determines whether a firearm is an offensive or a defensive weapons.
The ignorance concerning firearms is astounding. What is worse is the insistence that their claims are valid in the discussion of additional firearm laws.
Well it certainly is true that you don't need a 30 round magazine for defense. You have seen the study that shows defense on average is only 2 rounds. Only people I know of who actually fire that many times are mass shooters and criminals. If somebody shot that many times in defense they are probably a danger to everyone because somebody is going to get hit by a stray.
While I support other gun control measures, I don't support the assault weapon ban. They are pretty much a fancy looking hunting rifle. I would say a semi auto pistol with a hi cap magazine is a more dangerous weapon for a criminal. Can much more easily be snuck into places it shouldn't be. I strongly recommend people interested in gun control drop this one. It is a distraction from more important measures.
See below:
Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?
Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
See below:
Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?
Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Indeed, not.On the contrary, my response answers all of your questions.
I did not ask you to answer those again.I answered the first previously and need not do so again.
Prevent. Prevent. Stop.For the second, barrier to obtainment is proven to deter...
So, you agree that, under your incorrect interpretation of the 2nd, banning any sch class of firearm violates the constitution. Good!As to your most recent question, how we can justify banning any weapon at all when we need the second amendment to provide means to form a citizens army (we are not supposing here- we are reading literally the constitutional text), I would answer that this is why I prefer strict training over all and all banning
Im sorry I dont see your answers to my questions.If the assault weapons ban was so innocuous, as you admit in this thread, why the fuss?
Or, if the assault weapons ban was such an egregious 2nd amendment infringement, why wasn't it successfully challenged in court?
New manufacture.Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?
New manufacture.Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?
The millions of existing mags were not, and sold freely.
New manufacture.Wasn't that capacity of magazine also banned?
The millions of existing mags were not, and sold freely.
Im sorry I dont see your answers to my questions.If the assault weapons ban was so innocuous, as you admit in this thread, why the fuss?
Or, if the assault weapons ban was such an egregious 2nd amendment infringement, why wasn't it successfully challenged in court?
Please do try again.