I shot four AR-15's today

Fewer firearms means fewer people will die, or be wounded or mutilated from gunshot. This is evident in every nation which has a firearms ban in place, and it isn't rocket science. Rapes and assaults will happen anyway, and having the right to carry a gun isn't going to prevent them. An 'assault' could be a dumb drunk guy taking a pop at you for talking to his girlfriend, or whatever. You going to shoot him? And please, spare me the 'let's ban swimming pools/cars because people drown/get run over in/by them' argument.
Trust me, the world won't come to an end if you're deprived of your guns, so why are you so desperate to keep this archaic 'right'?

 

I've looked at the facts and they tell me that over 10,000 Americans die every year because guns are so freely available. Talk to their families about this 'freedom' myth you gun lovers bandy-around so readily. 'I never hurt anyone' really isn't an argument, because the guy next door may well do so, and 10,000 do every year.
The one small crumb of comfort is that gun crime appears to be in decline in America-although it has risen in several states.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

The US has always been more violent compared to England. What happened to break ins after you guys banned guns? What happened to your other violent crimes? Violent crime peaked in 2003 as a high which came after your ban in England. Since then it has dropped. In the US, gun deaths have dropped by 1/2 in the last 20 years with more guns in circulation. Your theory doesn't hold water. There is no correlation.

 

Remove gang violence and I might care a little more.

 

Well guess what, gun violence tends to occur between gangs and won't affect you unless you happen to get in the way.

 

... and you have just defeated your argument.

Thank you.

 

Like a girlfriend in the bathroom is apt to do.

 

Roid rage coupled with alcohol abuse is a wonder to behold.

 

I don't think so. Merely pointing out (in case it escaped you), that the chances of getting shot are going to be far greater among the criminal community. So why do you need so many in circulation among the general public? Just because the law says you can? More guns in circulation, more chances of someone getting killed. Simple.

 

One of innumerable instances of fatal firearm misadventures, intentional and otherwise. Sad.

 

Thing is, I do not care about gangs killing gangs.

Couldn't care less actually.

Why should my rights be restricted so some shady piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) can go get a gun anyway?

 

Exactly. With the rabid anti-gun left, logic and facts do not matter. Emotions and...feelings are literally the only things driving the assault weapons ban.

 

This illustrates the difference in mindset between most Americans and most Brits. Brits ask, "Why do you need?" when Americans ask, "Why must we restrict?". We tend to believe that citizens should be as free as possible to do whatever they please with only the minimum restrictions needed to protect the rights of others. That is the mindset of a free citizen. If I own a gun and use it responsibly, I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, so I should be free to keep a gun and do whatever I please with it. If I use the gun to infringe on someone else's rights, then and only then should my right to own a gun be interfered with by the government.

 

The fact that I own guns in no way infringes upon anyone's right to life. As a result. there is no justifiable reason for their restriction.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is, even after any gun ban those gangs will still be able to obtain the guns anyways.

 

How are you rights being restricted when you don't have the right to own every weapon ever produced?
Besides, I thought people were considered innocent until proven guilty? If a gun ban goes after the law abiding citizens and not the criminals.........then you realize criminals(at least felonies) cannot buy/own guns and the other criminals are in jail. Are there not any law abiding citizens that purchase guns legally(Holmes in Colorado), then snap and go on killing sprees?

 

I don't desire ever weapon produced.

Why are you posting from class?

I imagine your teacher will be irritated if he/she were to find out.

 

Cool, then your rights are not being restricted.

Air doesn't get down to the depths where you habitat, huh? I was trying to keep it civil, but I can play your game that you started. Run along now!

 

But my rights are being restricted, the question is whether or not the restriction is reasonable.

Had your teachers taught you to read well enough to understand the definition of "infringe", I imagine you would understand what I am talking about.

Maybe you can raise your hand now and ask them? Or maybe your parents would know? An older sibling? A grandparent?

It seems that someone you know may be able to assist you in understanding the English language just enough to carry on an intellectual conversation.

 

If you don't have the right to own every gun ever produced, then your rights are not being restricted. You didn't have the right in the first place.

 

Desire??? Why introduce a new term that changes the context of "what you have a right to and don't have a right to"? This is not a question of whether you "desire" to have a right or whether you don't "desire" to have a right.

This is a question of whether you DO have a right or DON"T have a right. And you don't have the right to own every gun ever produced. Its just that simple and since you don't have this right to begin with, banning certain guns doesn't infringe or restrict your rights in anyway, shape or form. As long as you have the right to own a gun(bear arms), your right is not being restricted or infringed upon.

 

Oh, but I do.

The 2nd Amendment does not offer exceptions to the rights.

Any law that bars me from X or prevents me or hinders me from obtaining X is an infringement.

The question is whether or not those infringements are justifiable.

I suggest either adding me to your ignore list or reading, comprehending, and understanding the word infringement. There is no reason to be aggressively stupid when the definition is readily accessed and understood.

Until then, you will receive absolutely no respect from me, and nothing more an condescending dismissive post on my part.

 

Evidently some do find a reason.

 

And the second amendment doesn't say or give you the right to own every "arm" ever produced. So it can't be infringing on your rights that you didn't have in the first place.

 

Yes it does.

The 2nd Amendment is all inclusive without exceptions granted.

Show me where it says some weapons are excluded.

Refrain from posting until you have an answer.

 

No its not! You can still bear arms, even if every gun except for one is allowed for possession. Your rights are not restricted. Now, if you don't understand this..........you will be ignored for trolling!