Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

Grenades and bombs can't be aimed. They are indiscriminately destructive. In an environment in which such indiscriminate destruction would harm others, they are distinctly different from a machine gun. Thus, I could see them being treated differently with respect to the law.

As I said, I see no reason to prevent law abiding citizens from having machine guns.

 

Then maybe you should do a little research about the subject before you take a position on the subject.

 

How about a flame thrower or anything at all that can be "aimed".

And again, just out of curiosity, why does any decent American want or need a machine gun or a flame thrower or an AR-15 or any of that? What is the sensible reason that the rest of us decent Americans can understand. What's it for, and why demand special ease and freedom with owning one or buying one any more than a car and a driver's license? What is the problem?

Btw, I think people are talking in circles around my basic question, and if that's going to be the case, I can see why this issue never gets solved.

 

Show me one statement from anyone from The President on down who suggested that they only want criminals to have guns or they want to disarm the police or anything like that.

This is getting stupid fast.

 

Pornography is dangerous and has no sensible use to justify its existence. Perhaps it should be outlawed as well?

 

Glad to hear that, especially since it shows States are in control. I just googled machine guns and several "are illegal" showed in the first five listings. Think you'll find "legal gun owner" also have a good record as well, not to mention many saved lives.

 

And those that do not abide by background check requirements, and privately sell firearms regardless of what the law may say, would face little risk of prosecution even if they were discovered doing such. Statistically only one out of every fifty firearm-related offenses is ever prosecuted, and even fewer result in a guilty verdict.

 

For what possible reason would the average person need a motor vehicle capable of going more than twice the legal speed limit? Where is the sensibility in possessing such, unless you are planning on engaging in a high speed chase to avoid authorities?

AR-15 rifles were used by store owners to protect themselves and their businesses during the race riots in the state of California, after four police officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King.

There are also incidents such as this.
[video=youtube;DuhKCiY-lu0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0[/video]

[video=youtube;bUUKDv85DSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUKDv85DSY[/video]

 

Traffic rules and regulations are more often and regularly enforced that regulations on firearms. If only one out of every one hundred traffic violations ever faced the possibility of being prosecuted, then there would certainly be ground for arguing that they should be abolished.

Monetary limitations for example. The paperwork necessary simply to qualify for firearms ownership in the state of New York for example, is very cost prohibitive, sometimes costing more than the firearm itself you seek to legally own.

 

And that is often the crux of the argument. No one can called for confiscating legally owned motor vehicles. Yet many politicians have indeed called for legally owned firearms to be confiscated.

Machine guns are not weapons of mass destruction.

 

I don't understand why one man needs to sleep with another man. Should we pass some laws on that to cut down on AIDS?

The only things you need in life are food, water, and shelter. Everything else is stuff you don't need.

- - - Updated - - -

How many machine gun attacks have occurred in states that allow them? None.

The only one was in California, where machine guns are illegal.

 

Motor vehicles can also be used for killing a great many people. This fact was undeniably proven in the city of Nice in the nation of France, where eighty four people were murdered, and another three hundred injured in just a few minutes, by one man operating a motor vehicle. That is a death and victim toll far higher than any mass killing in the united states with any firearm.

Then you are unaware of what politicians currently hold office in the united states.

 

Except in a few states, flamethrowers are perfectly legal, and require very little in the way of paperwork.

Provide an explanation for why citizens of the united states do not need a rifle.

 

Pornography can kill a massive amount of innocent people violently in the blink of an eye?

Like I said, this is getting stupid fast. If people could stay on topic, and answer questions directly and simply, that would be great.

 

Thanks for the link...

The average person may not need certain weapons, but if that person and family, lives along the Mexican border in a Farmhouse, they probably should be well armed and know how to use them. Most in "fly over country", probably could have a hand gun around and protect the home and family. I really just don't want the Federal Government. either party, making the decisions.

My point is always, on this issue, to keep the Federal out of the picture, as their only purpose could be control over the people. This includes all your suggested areas of control, which also depend on where people are and the local needs for self protection.

Don't forget, having a gun can also be a deterrent and even if you don't have a gun, a little sign near your front door, may work fine.

 

Right. Cars are dangerous, especially in the hands of someone who goes off the rails.

So decent Americans generally support strict licensing and strict laws. You have to pass tests throughout your life, you are policed and patrolled 24/7. There are rules and regulations everywhere, speed limits, car requirements, insurance requirements, and on and on and on. All in the effort to keep decent people safe. And yet every day, decent law abiding citizens break the rules and make mistakes and it costs lives.

But why any decent American would not want as many rules and regulations as possible in regard to cars is beyond me. It would make zero sense. We might as well have no laws at all in regard to anything.

 

I see no reason why law abiding citizens should be prevented from owning flame throwers.

I have no idea why people want what they want. Why do any decent Americans want or need a rototiller or a fire extinguisher? People want what they want. Why should we forbid law abiding citizens from having such things?

Why should law abiding citizens need to justify what they own?

 

You have a problem pal.

This country is awash in guns.

Isn't it too late to try to put the horse back in to the burning barn?

They either ban guns or shut up. I will fight them tooth and nail if they try to cancel my second amendment.

 

if they follow the law, they are by definition law abiding citizens.... if they do not follow the laws, what makes you think they would follow that one?

.

 

Of course it is. Because you are a novice at this topic. First the DNC has been pushing for a ban on weapons that is so general that it is as undefinable as the term Middle Class. The term the DNC is using is an "Assault Weapon Ban." How do you define an Assault weapon? There are as many definitions as there are a**holes pushing for the ban. Some even go so far as to call to ban simi-auto rifles. But one question that they ignore is how a ban will stop the criminal element from owning them? They have been unable to stop criminals from possession of weapons, then a ban only effects law abiding citizens.

You would think that the DNC would be more productive attempting to target illegal weapons, but they aren't. Earlier this month, Obama commuted the sentences of 214 criminals. The most in a single day since 1900. Of those released more then 50 were convicted of the illegal possession of a firearm or use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/...e-than-fifty-felons-with-firearms-violations/

Further, the Obama Administration is working overtime to second, third and even fourth guess any police officer using a firearm in the performance of their duties. In Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore after the judicial system has declared that the police was not at fault, the Justice Department issued investigations. If the police can not utilize firearms to defend themselves against criminals, then they might as well not have them.

So, why you might think that this is stupid. every fact is supportable.

BTW, here is a Clinton Delegate that claims the DNC will ban all guns. Maybe she knows something you don't.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...rates-on-how-democrats-will-ban-guns-n2197950

 

Here lets illustrate that with a simple test. From this point forward you need to first send all of your forum posts to me first in order to review them and ensure you arent going to troll or make any threatening comments. Ill also need some personal information in order to run background checks to ensure your comments arent going to be used in any terrorist activity.
Thats not the test.
This is....
Do you agree with the above speech control?

 

You introduced the argument of sensible use to justify its existence. Your argument was applied to another questionable aspect of society to show the fallacy of the position. If we are going to discuss sensible use to justify existence, then it will be applied as seen fit.

 

So why are motor vehicles not classified as weapons of mass destruction?

And pray tell exactly what do these laws and regulations do to actually make anyone safer? What mechanics are at work that makes someone with a license and training less dangerous than someone without a license for operating a motor vehicle?

Meaning that if every single possible facet of motor vehicles is not strictly regulated and governed by significant restrictions, there is no point in having any regulations at all?

 

You remind me of the people that submit in the film Logan's run.

[video=youtube;1wqShehs6X8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wqShehs6X8[/video]