Senate Gun Control

You missed the point. What do you think are valid reasons to ban a weapon? So far, the only one you have agreed to is:

1. How many crimes it is involved in on an annual basis

By that logic, a nuclear bomb should be allowed. Do you think there are other good reasons? List them.

 

well I think automatic weapons should be illegal, and of course how many crimes were involved with a specific weapon should be factored.

if the government really cared youd have a hand gun ban, not focusing the time on banning assault rifles, something that kills almost 70% less people a year.

to me this is basic logic, its why we have marijuana banned and cigarettes are legal. when we all know how many millions of people die world wide because of smokes and not weed.

 

Just going to delurk to point out what a collossal waste of time it is to post any video showing Piers Morgan as an idiot, when he's been well known as an idiot in Blighty for years now.

Carry on.

 

lmao this is a good post...

the reason I posted that is because its the same argument people in this thread are using. Banning assault weapons doesn't solve anything

 

The hell?

 

Ugh, he liked my post ...

I need a shower now

 

You don't think 'don't feed the troll' is an accusation of trolling?

Anyway PM me if you have further questions.

 

Didn't they try to ban handguns and it was struck down as unconstitutional?

 

Why do you think automatic weaponry should be illegal?

Why do you think firearms specifically designed for combat in military operations should be legal for use by civilians?

 

Yes. Supreme Court in DC v Heller in 2008

 

anyone see the Daily Show's coverage of this topic tonight? Pretty entertaining, if nothing else.

 

automatic weapons are a no brainer to ban, but an assault rifle semi auto works the same way as a handgun, the user must keep pushing down on the trigger.

 

Columbia vs. Heller

 

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

 

How I hate that cartoon.

 

To summarize this thread as I read it:

1. Handguns kill a lot of folks, be it accident or purposeful, in numbers greater than folks killed by "assault rifles" in mass shootings
2. More folks at one time are killed by "assault rifles" by less in total than are killed by handguns
3. Automatic rifles are already banned for civilians
4. Because of the 2nd Amendment we cannot do anything about handguns, regardless of the "regulate" section of the 2nd Amendment due to the sheer political impossibility of doing anything about handguns
5. We might be able to limit the availability of "assault rifles" although there is no clear definition of such, because it is purely a "cosmetic" definition. One "side" believes this is more or less grandstanding, since it will not substantially affect gun-death rates; the "other side" believes any lowering of gun-deaths rates and/or lessening the chances of massacres by limiting the availability of "assault rifles" is worthwhile.
6. Everyone more or less agrees society/culture is a huge part of the problem but essentially throws up their hands on how to affect change.
7. Not all, but most, agree with strengthening background checks.

Fair enough?

My conclusion: if we are limited in what we can do about hand-gun death rates for political and/or legal reasons (other than background checks) that does not mean we cannot discuss what to do or not do about "assault rifles" and that does not mean we are ignoring handgun-death rates.

 

Let me preface this post by saying I am not a member of either political party (and quite frankly both sides currently refuse to behave in accordance with their constituents and hardline party objectives, so I find them a little deplorable).

You can't all out ban guns because of the 2nd amendment. And they shouldn't all out be banned. The founding fathers were insightful with this right. At some point it may be possible that the public needs to defend itself from a tyrannical government (though I don't think we're there yet).

Assault rifles might not kill a ton of people, but they have to be more closely regulated. It's outrageous that nutheads can get guns so easily (assault rifles, handguns, rifles, etc.).

I wish something more could be done to take guns off the streets, but they are out there and there's no stopping the illegal supply at this point, even an all out ban wouldn't do that.

I have a lot more to say, but I'm rushed b/c I have a big project coming due at work and I just came over to see what was being said.

 

There will never be a point at which the second amendment is exercised by the people to address a tyrannical government. This is simply foolish to believe it will; if, by now, the government hasn't been deemed tyrannical it never will be.

The problem is as was correctly noted by Valairy, that the second amendment means that any meaningful changes are going to be impossible to enact (despite common law precedent for such a gesture).

I've said this a bunch of times before the late-2012 registration date crowd showed up and lowered the tone, but a weapons ban is meaningless in and of itself unless you are able to also identify where the systemic issues are in US culture and address them*. Nobody else feels compelled to resort to the firearm as a means of dispute resolution as the American, excepting perhaps Malacca straight pirates, rival African warlords, and the Taliban.

(* Video games, violent films, metal music, lack of Jesus in schools - these are not causes nor symptoms. They are smokescreens)

An ideal world scenario would be to completely rescind the 2nd Amendment, though that's not practical (guns are not a right; it's dangerous to suggest they should be).

etc, etc - anyone else note they're repeating the same things over and over again, because some people are too lazy to read the thread and address the points then?

 

Ender_Sai
Sorry if I lower the tone, but I'd like to point out that the expectation that anyone will read 109 pages of fetid dingo's kidneys before joining in is fairly unreasonable.

 

Clearly not talking to you, person named after a massive German rocket!

You contributed since the start. And have added valuable points!

It may be unreasonable, but so is diving into a 109 page conversation and assuming you're adding something new.

 

ender likes your name because he's a Boy from Brazil

 

Actually, Dutch. So the Aryan good looks are not related to anything as vile as Jerry nationalism.

 

When is the cape guy coming back?

 

is that what the scientists told you?

 

downloaded a grun from amazoon today. it is awesome. my bedroom has holes everywhere!