Why assault rifles and 30 round magazines Should be banned...

pssssssssst.............did ya explain to the oh-so-into-myself-one that Walmart is currently out of shoulder-fired missle launchers?
Just a footnote..you have to go to Walgreen's to get yer hand grenades

 

Don't follow. What does that have to do with whether the right to bear arms should be infringed for some people based on age (as well as criminal conviction and/or mental derangement) as well as the types of arms they can buy?

 

Ergo people should be able to buy shoulder filed missiles, automatic weapons, grenades without restriction or regulation?

Even if restrictions on types of arms do not result in the absolute elimination of them, it at least makes them more difficult and expensive to acquire.

I don't know, I believe that gun ownership has been fairly restricted in England and they have a democracy at least as old as ours.

Can't you make the same argument for the other view?

- - - Updated - - -

Is it always your practice to make ad homs before putting forth another straw man argument?

But there is a good reason reason you can't buy them at Wal-Mart. Those arms are outlawed for private purchase, in spite of Second amendment rights. And should be, IMO. And yours as well, apparently.

 

Don't follow. What does that have to do with whether the right to bear arms should be infringed for some people based on age (as well as criminal conviction and/or mental derangement) and the types of arms they can purchase?

 

What the hell are you taling about? I am talking about small arms: shoulder fired rifles, shotguns, pistols. You are talking about explosives and nuclear arms. Parallel question: do you think because of your right to free speech, you should be able to own a spray paint factory or maybe a paper mill?

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. If you are going to debate, at least use correct terminology. You look dumb when you say things like this.

What is the other side? We need to eliminate guns from society? I can see the argument to that, but I find it egregious and presumptive that crime will disappear or even be reduced by doing so. Guns allow people to kill other people easier, I conciede that point. Guns also allow a person to defend themselves against two, three, or many more people at the same time. No other single weapon in human history can claim to allow a person to defend themselves against 10+ armed attackers with blunt instruments. But, the liberty and freedom to own such a weapon also comes with a cost of having the criminal elements in society access to those as well.

So, my question to you in response is what is more important? The ability of no one to have access to a firearm so everyone is reduced to non-projectile weapons that gives the advantage to the young, fit, males of society if they choose to do harm? Or is the risk of getting shot by someone doing you harm, but having the access and ability to own a firearm more important?

This is not a place that I will budge. My rights, my liberty, and my conscience, will not allow myself to deprive someone of their ability to own a firearm for self defense just because of a threat, real or perceived.

 

I know what you were talking about. Your argument is that you are "not against gun control which the end result is a total reduction in crime" and "Outlawing one type of gun will do nothing except have a substitute product to fill the previous void where an item used to be. It is simple economics."

My response is the application of your logic. Eliminating private access to grenades or automatic weapons may not result in a total reduction of crime and substitute products can be found. My point is that those laws make it more difficult and expensive to acquire those kinds of weapons. The same is true for any ban. That also is simple economics.

You look dumb when you have to make silly irrelevant technical arguments instead of addressing the point.

No, the other side moving the goal posts as to what arms should be available and under what restrictions.

 

You are right that banning an automatic weapon wouldn't have a net decrease result in crime because they aren't used in crime to begin with. Neither are hand grenades or shoulder fired rocket launchers or anything like that. The whole premise of banning a F/A weapon or a grenade is a fallacious argument and built like a house of cards. I have read arguments that state:

"If we ban assault weapons, we won't have kids dying in the streets every day!"

My argument against this is what is an assault weapon? To ban something, you need to define it. As soon as you define something, it can then be argued in a rational manner and pros/cons can be addressed. In the case of hand grenades, the arguments for banning hand grenades are moot because they aren't used in crimes except in the most rare of cases because they can blow up the assaulter just as badly as the defender. So, the question comes full circle, why do you want to ban hand grenades? At that point, it usually devolves into an emotional argument and the serious part of the conversation is over with and people start flinging (*)(*)(*)(*) at each other for supporting the other side.

I am not going to argue this point much more, but saying we live in a similar society that is a democracy like the United Kingdom (which doesn't have a bill of rights, a Constitution, and is most definitely NOT a democracy, but a parliamentary system under a Monarch society with a history 5x longer what the United States has) is speaking to the limits of your ignorance.

The United States was founded on a Constructional Republic that is based on a set of laws outlined in the Constitution. These laws can be found in the Constitution under Articles 1-3 defining the different parts of the government, their roles in the government, limits on their powers, and amendments to the Constitution after the original twelve were whittled down to ten. Each citizen has the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities in the country as every other one unless a court elected by the people to rule in cases, designates them mentally deficient or otherwise incapable of making rash decisions with certain liberties. (mentally deficient or felons, criminals, etc)

The United Kingdom was founded on a Monarch society built in a world of feudal lords that ruled over a serf class. The king/Queen combo picked the direction of the country and their will be done. It was only a recent revelation that the government switched over to a parliament system, which is different in some respects since the head of government is selected and is a member of the legislature (different as the legislature and the executive branches are different parts and separate entirely in the United States). Their court system has different rules, regulations, and procedures from the United States system too.

To compare the two countries and say that they are both democracies is ignorant. It is like comparing apples to pears. Both are fruit, but they are very different in almost every respect.

I don't know where you get this claim. I have always been on the side of allowing people to have man portable weapons as long as they can afford them and can safely use them and store them. Nukes aren't man portable, can't be purchased on the open market (did you know you can buy a nuclear reactor for your personal use? They are about 60 million IIRC, but you can buy them). Guns, however, can.

If you are referring to moving the goal post by striking down legislation that had previously banned certain types of weapons, then say so. Please give an example of moving the goal post from what I have stated above.

 

I've never argued that "If we ban assault weapons, we won't have kids dying in the streets every day!" Take it up with someone who has. In fact, I didn't say one word about assault weapons. You are ranting over a straw man.

You shouldn't have argued it in the first place. Your entire argument is a silly straw man. I never compared US and UK governments.

You claimed: "There are some people that put their ability to own and operate firearms in ways they see fit worthy of killing and dying for. I do not blame them. If gun rights are stripped of an entire population under the guise of legality, we get out of control governments that rule over their populations in one way or another. The more totalitarian governments go further than less totalitarian governments, but the outcome is usually the same given a long enough time line."

I challenged your claim by giving the example of England, which, last I checked, was not an out of control totalitarianist government. If you want to explain why you think the UK is a totalitarism as a result of its more restrictive gun laws, feel free to do so.

 

at least you don't know when you've been smart-assed. Then come get 'em big man, come get, come get 'em ........or are you gonna hire it done........

- - - Updated - - -

at least you don't know when you've been smart-assed. Then come get 'em big man, come get, come get 'em ........or are you gonna hire it done........

 

Apparently it is.


at least you don't know when you've been smart-assed. Then come get 'em big man, come get, come get 'em ........or are you gonna hire it done........[/QUOTE]

 

Again. I watch this silly Democrat/ Republican stuff. Why not ask why 1,000,000 round magazines and tanks aren't the norm? Allow a mentally ill citizen to dupe you into a debate about which medication is best for you? Why not ask the mentally ill why take any medication AT ALL?

 

[/QUOTE]

nope. As per most libs, y'all jaw the talk, but yer limited by yer walk, as in no walk at all......................But somehow I knew that lol
or, Maybe in the vein of civility, you can answer the questions.....
Since I've not violated anyone's Rights, why are you demanding I give up my guns? Why would you turn 100,000,000 people into criminals?
Are you of the mindset that only criminals should hold the guns? C'mon, big man, give us an answer.
Do you trust this government so much that you know, with undying certainty, that once they've siezed the 2ndA, they won't come after the rest of them?
And then the last big one, what gives you the Right, lawfully, to define what my individual Rights are?

 

Why is it the business of the government to know what weapons I own or how many rounds of ammo I own in the first place?

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[158][159]
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.[158][159]
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.[158][159]
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.[158][159]
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.[158][159]
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.[158][159]
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[158][159]
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.[158][159]
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.[159]

 

Why stop at the First or Second Amendment?
According to you, why should anyone have the right to speak their mind freely for or against the government, or protect themselves from others that might take their GOD given right from them?
According to you the Rodina is all and the individual is not considered. Is that what you claim?
Your tirade just smacks of cynical Marxist rhetoric.
No matter how you cut it, the issue is not the advancement of technology or the number of bullets a guns can fire or hold. It's all about control of the people. A government that fears the people is good. When people fear their government that's bad. We have seen this time and time again.

 

On the other hand, why should DHS require 1.4 Billion rounds of ammo and armored vehicles? Is that all that is required to control American subjects before and after confiscation of firearms? I don't think so. Are you one of those you described as mentally ill citizens. You certainly appear to be off yor meds.

 

I'd refer you to my other posts, but to make this one short and answer your questions...you are right. I was wrong, and looking back at posts like the one you quoted, I can't believe how ignorant I was. I can accept defeat though, please don't rub it in my face though.

Anyways, if you want to see my NEW view on guns and how I am now fighting very hard for second amendment rights, check out this post

 

I am a little skeptical of a person that has ideals that can easily be swayed. What happened to suddenly change your views?

 

I recently read that an unarmed man is a subject, where an armed individual is a citizen.
What do anti-gun people consider themselves?

 

hahaha fair enough...I started doing some research on the topic and really thinking about it and realized that I was just wrong. I thought about Germany, Russia, China, Italy, etc. before all their dictators and none of them saw it coming. I saw that each of these tyrannical governments made it a top priority to deprive their citizens of guns (THEN they became tyrannical). I thought to myself "If I could go back and give an AR 15 or some other 'assault rifle' to the Jews or Russians, would I?" The answer was a resounding yes. I then thought about the argument of the definition of an assault rifle and how governments tend to redefine and recategorize words as they see fit (i.e. george bush redefined "financial institution" to mean doctors office, attorneys office, restaurants, bank, insurance companies, etc. basically everything but your house). That led me to be against banning guns for those who were "mentally ill" because who defines "mental illness"? Are gays or political activists "mentally ill"? This really opened my mind up to why "gun nuts" feel that guns are so important. I want to be clear that I am still very against guns themselves, and I don't like them. HOWEVER, I don't think it is morally right to use guns (i.e. government) to take away people's guns. I also looked at how men like Gandhi saw guns, and just realized that I was wrong

Trust me, this wasn't a simple decision to switch sides. It took about 2 weeks of VERY intensive research on guns, history, economics, government and tyranny to figure out that I was wrong. I grew up in a very liberal household (my sister works in DC directly under Obama), so hopefully this explains a little bit of my extreme biases. However recently I have been doing a signficant amount of research on politics, government, economics, etc. and realized that many of my sisters positions, and the liberal positions in general, are flawed. I now consider myself a libertarian (lowercase L), and I love debating with people on issues like this. This was really the last issue that I disagreed with libertarians on. I didn't change my mind because of that though, it was because I realized that I was just wrong. I also changed my views on obamacare and many other economic issues. Some of the major works that influenced me were atlas shrugged, milton friedman, Hayek and V for vendetta (awesome movie).

 

slaves.............

 

I would suggest you read the book "Atlas Shrugged".

 

..or the short read, The Fountainhead aynd rand

 

—Andy

This "blame whitey" piece is unintentionally (I think) hilarious.

Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.
But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.


That first paragraph is very nearly self-refuting. A couple of Newtowns worth of people, almost exclusively African American people, die on the streets of gun control-loving Chicago every month, yet the media flood the authors suggest would happen simply hasn't. I wonder why that is ... ?

But if they want to go there, then, by all means, let's go there.

​

Read more:
http://www.ace.mu.nu/

 

None are so blind as are those who refuse to see.

I'll add, those who refuse to see just to perpetuate an anti-constitutional political agenda aren't just blind but reprehensibly disingenuous as well -- doubly so for outsiders trying to sway opinion.

Knowing that you don't care to learn why this is I will just state that SCOTUS, in 1939, did recognize "common use" as a legal protection status for arms owned by the citizenry; that's where Scalia drew the phrase from (pg 52 of Heller). Miller recognized "in common use at the time" as the type of arm expected to be furnished by the citizens themselves when called for militia duty, "when called for [militia] service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

Ergo, arms in "common use" by the citizenry, being used for a myriad of day-to-day legal purposes, even those that had no expectation of use or conditioned upon any connection with militia duty, fulfill the object of the Amendment and laws impacting the possession and use of the types of arms "in common use" run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

The only activism is yours in excising 70 years of Supreme Court opinion which draws upon 99 years of legal history before that (Aymette v State) and substituting your own invented history that is based on nothing but a political agenda.