Without getting further into the debate at the moment, then I assume you agree that drugs (weed, coke, heroin, etc.) should be legal by that same logic?
I’m not sure who you are talking to or to which logic you are referring, but I do think weed should be legalized and taxed.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Without getting further into the debate at the moment, then I assume you agree that drugs (weed, coke, heroin, etc.) should be legal by that same logic?
I’m not sure who you are talking to or to which logic you are referring, but I do think weed should be legalized and taxed.
i don't have much of an opinion either way but your logic is flawed as depeche pointed out. there are thousands of criminal laws in this country. show me one that has eliminated the conduct that the law has made illegal, with the drugs laws probably being the best example.
Your post wasn't directed at me, but I’ll field it anyway.
That’s the point. I know it might come as a surprise to some people, but most criminals don’t obey the law.The only people that actually obey the law are law-abiding citizens (shocking, I know).
Criminals are always going to have guns if they want one bad enough.The only difference is whether or not law-abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves and their families.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't have much of an opinion either way but your logic is flawed as depeche pointed out. there are thousands of criminal laws in this country. show me one that has eliminated the conduct that the law has made illegal, with the drugs laws probably being the best example.
Your post wasn't directed at me, but I’ll field it anyway.
That’s the point. I know it might come as a surprise to some people, but most criminals don’t obey the law.The only people that actually obey the law are law-abiding citizens (shocking, I know).
Criminals are always going to have guns if they want one bad enough.The only difference is whether or not law-abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves and their families.
1) why would anyone need an assault rifle?...let's at least ban those as a start.
2) a mentally sick person would have a lot more trouble getting black market guns...if you know any, you would agree.
1) I don’t know why you people have such a hard on for banning assault rifles.They are very tightly regulated by the ATF and if the ATF does give a person the green light to get one they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
2) In the past decade when has a “mentally sick person” ever used a civilian legally owned assault rifle to commit a violent crime?
0
Quote Originally Posted by sims_key:
1) why would anyone need an assault rifle?...let's at least ban those as a start.
2) a mentally sick person would have a lot more trouble getting black market guns...if you know any, you would agree.
1) I don’t know why you people have such a hard on for banning assault rifles.They are very tightly regulated by the ATF and if the ATF does give a person the green light to get one they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
2) In the past decade when has a “mentally sick person” ever used a civilian legally owned assault rifle to commit a violent crime?
the point is, a lot of people argue against gun control laws by saying people will disobey the laws and get the guns anyway. that's a flawed reason to avoid gun control laws because you could say the same thing about every other criminal law we have as none of them have eliminated the conduct they address.
that may or may not be what you are referring to but depeche rationally points out the failed logic of some people opposed to gun control laws.
So do law-abiding citizens need heroin to protect themselves from criminals with heroin?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
the point is, a lot of people argue against gun control laws by saying people will disobey the laws and get the guns anyway. that's a flawed reason to avoid gun control laws because you could say the same thing about every other criminal law we have as none of them have eliminated the conduct they address.
that may or may not be what you are referring to but depeche rationally points out the failed logic of some people opposed to gun control laws.
So do law-abiding citizens need heroin to protect themselves from criminals with heroin?
also...in the Newtown case...the dude just got whatever his mom had...if assault rifles weren't legal, she wouldn't have had one and he wouldn't have used it.
a few more kids would be alive today.
Right, because it certainly would have been impossible for the shooter to get his hands on any of the other 300 million firearms in this country.
0
Quote Originally Posted by sims_key:
also...in the Newtown case...the dude just got whatever his mom had...if assault rifles weren't legal, she wouldn't have had one and he wouldn't have used it.
a few more kids would be alive today.
Right, because it certainly would have been impossible for the shooter to get his hands on any of the other 300 million firearms in this country.
If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns. They're useless otherwise.
Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle.
"If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns."
Take guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals get to keep theirs and who do you think most of those “people” are going to be?
"Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle."
Again: assault rifles are very tightly regulated by the ATF and even if the ATF does give a person the green light to get an assault rifle they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
I haven’t heard of a single case in the past decade of a civilian legally owned assault rifle being used to commit a violent crime.
0
Quote Originally Posted by konabuzz:
If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns. They're useless otherwise.
Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle.
"If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns."
Take guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals get to keep theirs and who do you think most of those “people” are going to be?
"Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle."
Again: assault rifles are very tightly regulated by the ATF and even if the ATF does give a person the green light to get an assault rifle they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
I haven’t heard of a single case in the past decade of a civilian legally owned assault rifle being used to commit a violent crime.
. I am almost at a loss for words after reading some of the most idiotic stuff about how criminals wont be able to get guns so easily if they are banned.....THEY WILL BE THE ONLY ONES GETTING THEM.
For f u c k s sake people
Actually, Cops would have them. With your theory, the only people who would not have them are normal people, and I am okay with that.
What is more likely?
1 - A normal person stops a robbery, mugging, murder (etc) and uses their gun to kill the bad guy.
2 - A normal person has their gun stolen by a family member and used in a shooting...A normal person uses their gun to kill an unarmed teen...A normal person accidently discharges their gun and kills an innocent kid.
Scenario 2 is MUCH more likely, no way you can argue that.
To be honest, I'm not even really for banning guns, but back to my original point SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. If 1 childs life is saved because of it, then it was worth it.
But I guess I'm like the 'stupid general public' which you referred to me as in your post. This subject is not black and white, which you make it out to be.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
. I am almost at a loss for words after reading some of the most idiotic stuff about how criminals wont be able to get guns so easily if they are banned.....THEY WILL BE THE ONLY ONES GETTING THEM.
For f u c k s sake people
Actually, Cops would have them. With your theory, the only people who would not have them are normal people, and I am okay with that.
What is more likely?
1 - A normal person stops a robbery, mugging, murder (etc) and uses their gun to kill the bad guy.
2 - A normal person has their gun stolen by a family member and used in a shooting...A normal person uses their gun to kill an unarmed teen...A normal person accidently discharges their gun and kills an innocent kid.
Scenario 2 is MUCH more likely, no way you can argue that.
To be honest, I'm not even really for banning guns, but back to my original point SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. If 1 childs life is saved because of it, then it was worth it.
But I guess I'm like the 'stupid general public' which you referred to me as in your post. This subject is not black and white, which you make it out to be.
If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns. They're useless otherwise.
Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle.
You only "need" water to survive, but people like to drink other things. Most people enjoy shooting guns as a form of entertainment or as a hobby......
0
Quote Originally Posted by konabuzz:
If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns. They're useless otherwise.
Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle.
You only "need" water to survive, but people like to drink other things. Most people enjoy shooting guns as a form of entertainment or as a hobby......
I find it hilarious that all of the 'anti gun' people are looking to the NRA for answers and solutions. Well they're looking to the correct people but unfortunately they (libs) don't want to accept the truth.
0
I find it hilarious that all of the 'anti gun' people are looking to the NRA for answers and solutions. Well they're looking to the correct people but unfortunately they (libs) don't want to accept the truth.
Actually, Cops would have them. With your theory, the only people who would not have them are normal people, and I am okay with that.
What is more likely?
1 - A normal person stops a robbery, mugging, murder (etc) and uses their gun to kill the bad guy.
2 - A normal person has their gun stolen by a family member and used in a shooting...A normal person uses their gun to kill an unarmed teen...A normal person accidently discharges their gun and kills an innocent kid.
Scenario 2 is MUCH more likely, no way you can argue that.
To be honest, I'm not even really for banning guns, but back to my original point SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. If 1 childs life is saved because of it, then it was worth it.
But I guess I'm like the 'stupid general public' which you referred to me as in your post. This subject is not black and white, which you make it out to be.
So we should take a huge dump on the Constitution of the United States because you think one random situation is more likely than another?
Brilliant.
Also, FYI, a person doesn’t have to “use their gun to kill the bad guy” in order stop a violent crime.Most of the time the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter violent crime.
0
Quote Originally Posted by earthWake:
Actually, Cops would have them. With your theory, the only people who would not have them are normal people, and I am okay with that.
What is more likely?
1 - A normal person stops a robbery, mugging, murder (etc) and uses their gun to kill the bad guy.
2 - A normal person has their gun stolen by a family member and used in a shooting...A normal person uses their gun to kill an unarmed teen...A normal person accidently discharges their gun and kills an innocent kid.
Scenario 2 is MUCH more likely, no way you can argue that.
To be honest, I'm not even really for banning guns, but back to my original point SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. If 1 childs life is saved because of it, then it was worth it.
But I guess I'm like the 'stupid general public' which you referred to me as in your post. This subject is not black and white, which you make it out to be.
So we should take a huge dump on the Constitution of the United States because you think one random situation is more likely than another?
Brilliant.
Also, FYI, a person doesn’t have to “use their gun to kill the bad guy” in order stop a violent crime.Most of the time the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter violent crime.
You only "need" water to survive, but people like to drink other things. Most people enjoy shooting guns as a form of entertainment or as a hobby......
Guns yes. I support that . I specifically asked about assault rifles. I'll ask again: Why does Joe Average need an assault rifle? I'm not looking for analogies, I'm looking for a well thought out answer.
I'll start it off:
Joe Average needs an assault rifle because...........
0
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
You only "need" water to survive, but people like to drink other things. Most people enjoy shooting guns as a form of entertainment or as a hobby......
Guns yes. I support that . I specifically asked about assault rifles. I'll ask again: Why does Joe Average need an assault rifle? I'm not looking for analogies, I'm looking for a well thought out answer.
I'll start it off:
Joe Average needs an assault rifle because...........
So do law-abiding citizens need heroin to protect themselves from criminals with heroin?
analogies aren't for everyone.
i'll do my best to simplify it further. the sole purpose oif my response was to show the flawed logic in the argument that we shouldn't enact gun laws because people won't obey them and will still have guns,. because you can say that about every law, with drug laws being the bext example, the logic is flawed.
now, as that bsimple analogy passes you by, if you want to add the element that guns are different because law abiding citizens would be disadvantaged because criminals would still get guns and they wouldn't, that's a different argument that obviously is makes the analogy less relevant. but that's not what depeche and i were responding to. but you have to think to recognize the differences in arguments.
in any case, with that additional element added to the argument, that's one reason i don't have a strong position either way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
So do law-abiding citizens need heroin to protect themselves from criminals with heroin?
analogies aren't for everyone.
i'll do my best to simplify it further. the sole purpose oif my response was to show the flawed logic in the argument that we shouldn't enact gun laws because people won't obey them and will still have guns,. because you can say that about every law, with drug laws being the bext example, the logic is flawed.
now, as that bsimple analogy passes you by, if you want to add the element that guns are different because law abiding citizens would be disadvantaged because criminals would still get guns and they wouldn't, that's a different argument that obviously is makes the analogy less relevant. but that's not what depeche and i were responding to. but you have to think to recognize the differences in arguments.
in any case, with that additional element added to the argument, that's one reason i don't have a strong position either way.
So we should take a huge dump on the Constitution of the United States because you think one random situation is more likely than another?
Brilliant.
Also, FYI, a person doesn’t have to “use their gun to kill the bad guy” in order stop a violent crime.Most of the time the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter violent crime.
Id imagine there are tons of instances where just knowing someone has a gun stops the person from even thinking of going there. They pick somewhere else
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
So we should take a huge dump on the Constitution of the United States because you think one random situation is more likely than another?
Brilliant.
Also, FYI, a person doesn’t have to “use their gun to kill the bad guy” in order stop a violent crime.Most of the time the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter violent crime.
Id imagine there are tons of instances where just knowing someone has a gun stops the person from even thinking of going there. They pick somewhere else
For the people that ask what we need assault rifles for, we need them to defend our property against anyone attempting to take our guns away. They make a great weapon to defend against a mob attacking one's home.
But its not just that. The government starts by taking one thing away. Then after a few months to a year, they move on to handguns. Then eventually, any weapon used in defense of yourself or your property.
0
For the people that ask what we need assault rifles for, we need them to defend our property against anyone attempting to take our guns away. They make a great weapon to defend against a mob attacking one's home.
But its not just that. The government starts by taking one thing away. Then after a few months to a year, they move on to handguns. Then eventually, any weapon used in defense of yourself or your property.
i'll do my best to simplify it further. the sole purpose oif my response was to show the flawed logic in the argument that we shouldn't enact gun laws because people won't obey them and will still have guns,. because you can say that about every law, with drug laws being the bext example, the logic is flawed.
now, as that bsimple analogy passes you by, if you want to add the element that guns are different because law abiding citizens would be disadvantaged because criminals would still get guns and they wouldn't, that's a different argument that obviously is makes the analogy less relevant. but that's not what depeche and i were responding to. but you have to think to recognize the differences in arguments.
in any case, with that additional element added to the argument, that's one reason i don't have a strong position either way.
I’ve got nothing against analogies as long as they are good ones.
Banning heroin doesn’t really impact law-abiding citizens.They don’t want or need heroin and not having it doesn’t leave them at the mercy of a criminal that does have it.
Guns are, obviously, much different.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
analogies aren't for everyone.
i'll do my best to simplify it further. the sole purpose oif my response was to show the flawed logic in the argument that we shouldn't enact gun laws because people won't obey them and will still have guns,. because you can say that about every law, with drug laws being the bext example, the logic is flawed.
now, as that bsimple analogy passes you by, if you want to add the element that guns are different because law abiding citizens would be disadvantaged because criminals would still get guns and they wouldn't, that's a different argument that obviously is makes the analogy less relevant. but that's not what depeche and i were responding to. but you have to think to recognize the differences in arguments.
in any case, with that additional element added to the argument, that's one reason i don't have a strong position either way.
I’ve got nothing against analogies as long as they are good ones.
Banning heroin doesn’t really impact law-abiding citizens.They don’t want or need heroin and not having it doesn’t leave them at the mercy of a criminal that does have it.
Id imagine there are tons of instances where just knowing someone has a gun stops the person from even thinking of going there. They pick somewhere else
Exactly.I think each year there are probably hundreds of thousands of cases where a criminal is going to commit a crime, but decides to take their business elsewhere because they think or know the victim has a gun.
Hell, I have firsthand experience with that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
Id imagine there are tons of instances where just knowing someone has a gun stops the person from even thinking of going there. They pick somewhere else
Exactly.I think each year there are probably hundreds of thousands of cases where a criminal is going to commit a crime, but decides to take their business elsewhere because they think or know the victim has a gun.
Absolutely allow gun ownership per our 2nd Amendment, as gun control emboldens criminals and causes crime to skyrocket.
But if assault weapons are acceptable, so should personal ownership of hand grenades, tanks, bombs, and anything else that is solely used for mass destruction and devastation.
0
Absolutely allow gun ownership per our 2nd Amendment, as gun control emboldens criminals and causes crime to skyrocket.
But if assault weapons are acceptable, so should personal ownership of hand grenades, tanks, bombs, and anything else that is solely used for mass destruction and devastation.
"If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns."
Take guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals get to keep theirs and who do you think most of those “people” are going to be?
"Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle."
Again: assault rifles are very tightly regulated by the ATF and even if the ATF does give a person the green light to get an assault rifle they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
I haven’t heard of a single case in the past decade of a civilian legally owned assault rifle being used to commit a violent crime.
I believe the Newport shooter used his mom's weapons that she legally purchased. Any civilian caught with an assault weapon (criminal record or not) needs to be locked away for a long time. This also goes for ANYONE selling them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
"If people have guns then people are going to be killed by guns."
Take guns away from law-abiding citizens while criminals get to keep theirs and who do you think most of those “people” are going to be?
"Nobody's ever been able to enlighten me as to why Joe Average would need to own an assault rifle."
Again: assault rifles are very tightly regulated by the ATF and even if the ATF does give a person the green light to get an assault rifle they can expect to pay at least $10,000 for one.
I haven’t heard of a single case in the past decade of a civilian legally owned assault rifle being used to commit a violent crime.
I believe the Newport shooter used his mom's weapons that she legally purchased. Any civilian caught with an assault weapon (criminal record or not) needs to be locked away for a long time. This also goes for ANYONE selling them.
Absolutely allow gun ownership per our 2nd Amendment, as gun control emboldens criminals and causes crime to skyrocket.
But if assault weapons are acceptable, so should personal ownership of hand grenades, tanks, bombs, and anything else that is solely used for mass destruction and devastation.
Again:
It amazes me how ignorant the average anti-2A person is.Back in 94 they ranted and raved about how evil “assault weapons” were in order to get them banned.They couldn’t care less what the guns could actually do.They simply went after the ones that looked “evil.”
They went after AR-15’s because they looked “menacing,” but left Mini-14’s alone because they looked like hunting weapons even though they have pretty much the same capabilities.
These are the same geniuses that tried to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they claimed that pistol grips were designed to allow the shooter to fire the weapon from the hip and firing the weapon from the hip magically makes the gun more deadly.
It cracks me up how these simpletons think “assault weapons” are death machines while other semi-automatic rifles that accept high capacity magazines are somehow less deadly simply because they don’t look as scary.
Oh, and do you know what happened after the last ban? The only thing that changed was the prices went up.That’s it.You could still get whatever you wanted; you just had to pay more for it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
Absolutely allow gun ownership per our 2nd Amendment, as gun control emboldens criminals and causes crime to skyrocket.
But if assault weapons are acceptable, so should personal ownership of hand grenades, tanks, bombs, and anything else that is solely used for mass destruction and devastation.
Again:
It amazes me how ignorant the average anti-2A person is.Back in 94 they ranted and raved about how evil “assault weapons” were in order to get them banned.They couldn’t care less what the guns could actually do.They simply went after the ones that looked “evil.”
They went after AR-15’s because they looked “menacing,” but left Mini-14’s alone because they looked like hunting weapons even though they have pretty much the same capabilities.
These are the same geniuses that tried to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they claimed that pistol grips were designed to allow the shooter to fire the weapon from the hip and firing the weapon from the hip magically makes the gun more deadly.
It cracks me up how these simpletons think “assault weapons” are death machines while other semi-automatic rifles that accept high capacity magazines are somehow less deadly simply because they don’t look as scary.
Oh, and do you know what happened after the last ban? The only thing that changed was the prices went up.That’s it.You could still get whatever you wanted; you just had to pay more for it.
I believe the Newport shooter used his mom's weapons that she legally purchased. Any civilian caught with an assault weapon (criminal record or not) needs to be locked away for a long time. This also goes for ANYONE selling them.
And what does that have to do with assault rifles?
As for your proposed assault weapons ban: there’s a better chance of the Cowboys winning the Super Bowl this season than there is of that happening.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
I believe the Newport shooter used his mom's weapons that she legally purchased. Any civilian caught with an assault weapon (criminal record or not) needs to be locked away for a long time. This also goes for ANYONE selling them.
And what does that have to do with assault rifles?
As for your proposed assault weapons ban: there’s a better chance of the Cowboys winning the Super Bowl this season than there is of that happening.
just because one might favor less assault weapons being readily available does not mean one is against the 2A. Our forefathers probably thought everyone should own a musket or long rifle, not sure how they would feel about everyone owning a machine gun.
0
just because one might favor less assault weapons being readily available does not mean one is against the 2A. Our forefathers probably thought everyone should own a musket or long rifle, not sure how they would feel about everyone owning a machine gun.
just because one might favor less assault weapons being readily available does not mean one is against the 2A. Our forefathers probably thought everyone should own a musket or long rifle, not sure how they would feel about everyone owning a machine gun.
If someone is in favor of banning certain semi-automatic weapons because they look scary to them, then yeah, I think they are anti-2A.
Everyone owns a machine gun, huh?Were they passed out in mass or something because I didn’t get one?
And I think the Founding Fathers made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
just because one might favor less assault weapons being readily available does not mean one is against the 2A. Our forefathers probably thought everyone should own a musket or long rifle, not sure how they would feel about everyone owning a machine gun.
If someone is in favor of banning certain semi-automatic weapons because they look scary to them, then yeah, I think they are anti-2A.
Everyone owns a machine gun, huh?Were they passed out in mass or something because I didn’t get one?
And I think the Founding Fathers made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.
If someone is in favor of banning certain semi-automatic weapons because they look scary to them, then yeah, I think they are anti-2A.
Everyone owns a machine gun, huh?Were they passed out in mass or something because I didn’t get one?
And I think the Founding Fathers made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.
Just because you, or i for that matter think something.It does not mean we can not be wrong.
And i know for a fact that you have no idea about what our forefathers would think about our rights to purchase assault weapons.But thanks for informing me that not everyone owns a machine gun.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
If someone is in favor of banning certain semi-automatic weapons because they look scary to them, then yeah, I think they are anti-2A.
Everyone owns a machine gun, huh?Were they passed out in mass or something because I didn’t get one?
And I think the Founding Fathers made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.
Just because you, or i for that matter think something.It does not mean we can not be wrong.
And i know for a fact that you have no idea about what our forefathers would think about our rights to purchase assault weapons.But thanks for informing me that not everyone owns a machine gun.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Well they're looking to the correct people but unfortunately they (libs) don't want to accept the truth.
Hot Forum Topics
