On a side note, there is a completely different justification for owning such weapons: to prevent invasion by a foreign army and to fight an insurrection should our own government be overthrown by a foreign power.
Highly unlikely? Yes. Possible? Sure, unless you ignore history.
Actually, I believe in 2ndA, I just think it's not appropriate to use it as a "blanket" response.
No disrepsect intended, but if you going to stretch that far, I guess they should allow RPGs and all other heavy weaponries, too. After all, we need all we can to defeat the enemies in case that happens.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Yes, I do.
On a side note, there is a completely different justification for owning such weapons: to prevent invasion by a foreign army and to fight an insurrection should our own government be overthrown by a foreign power.
Highly unlikely? Yes. Possible? Sure, unless you ignore history.
Actually, I believe in 2ndA, I just think it's not appropriate to use it as a "blanket" response.
No disrepsect intended, but if you going to stretch that far, I guess they should allow RPGs and all other heavy weaponries, too. After all, we need all we can to defeat the enemies in case that happens.
"So are one of you guys ever going to say where the line is?"
I don't know where the line should be, WSC. But I will almost always favor the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective secondary to my own personal political philosophy. Perhaps the line should be drawn where weapons can only be used to kill in mass amounts indiscriminately -- rocket launchers, landmines, things like that. "For all the flag waving freedom grasping I see, I fail to feel any more
free or safe knowing these weapons are out there amongst the citizens of
this country."
Surely though WSC you believe that others can reasonably believe differently, right? I mean it wouldn't really be equitable for you to step on the individual rights held by others merely because you fail to feel any more free or safe, would it? "Most of the rest of the world looks at this country and has no idea
why we allow weapons to be sold to every day citizens or even
manufactured. We are so focused on fear and tyrannical government that
we have lost sight of what we should be focusing on and that is
improving safety, not increasing weapons."
I think this type of approach is ignorant of history WSC (or at least ignores history). Who does the citizenry turn to in order to "improve safety"? Their government. What happens historically when the government has a monopoly on force? Bad things against a citizenry that cannot fight back or resist. "I find it extremely naive to hide behind fear as a means of rationalizing these weapons."
How is wanting to oppose tyranny hiding behind fear? If anything, being willing to immediately give up your individual rights in exchange for the appearance of safety -- and let's be honest, the appearance of safety is all that would occur if "assault weapons" were banned -- is extremely naive and reeks of hiding behind fear to me.
WSC, if I remember correctly, you are against the DHS as a generalized concept, no? And it is because they only give the appearance of safety, right? Same thing here with a proposed ban on these types of weapons.
"But hey...keep going, the NRA and gun corporations love you..lining
their pockets at the expense of others under the fear of government has
worked for centuries and profits corporations..you are playing right
into the hands of those you despise."
Maybe. Or maybe I've actually given a lot of thought to these types of issues and come out on them in a different way than you do.
I guess in your book that makes me naive, stupid, and uninformed. That's a shame.
0
"So are one of you guys ever going to say where the line is?"
I don't know where the line should be, WSC. But I will almost always favor the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective secondary to my own personal political philosophy. Perhaps the line should be drawn where weapons can only be used to kill in mass amounts indiscriminately -- rocket launchers, landmines, things like that. "For all the flag waving freedom grasping I see, I fail to feel any more
free or safe knowing these weapons are out there amongst the citizens of
this country."
Surely though WSC you believe that others can reasonably believe differently, right? I mean it wouldn't really be equitable for you to step on the individual rights held by others merely because you fail to feel any more free or safe, would it? "Most of the rest of the world looks at this country and has no idea
why we allow weapons to be sold to every day citizens or even
manufactured. We are so focused on fear and tyrannical government that
we have lost sight of what we should be focusing on and that is
improving safety, not increasing weapons."
I think this type of approach is ignorant of history WSC (or at least ignores history). Who does the citizenry turn to in order to "improve safety"? Their government. What happens historically when the government has a monopoly on force? Bad things against a citizenry that cannot fight back or resist. "I find it extremely naive to hide behind fear as a means of rationalizing these weapons."
How is wanting to oppose tyranny hiding behind fear? If anything, being willing to immediately give up your individual rights in exchange for the appearance of safety -- and let's be honest, the appearance of safety is all that would occur if "assault weapons" were banned -- is extremely naive and reeks of hiding behind fear to me.
WSC, if I remember correctly, you are against the DHS as a generalized concept, no? And it is because they only give the appearance of safety, right? Same thing here with a proposed ban on these types of weapons.
"But hey...keep going, the NRA and gun corporations love you..lining
their pockets at the expense of others under the fear of government has
worked for centuries and profits corporations..you are playing right
into the hands of those you despise."
Maybe. Or maybe I've actually given a lot of thought to these types of issues and come out on them in a different way than you do.
I guess in your book that makes me naive, stupid, and uninformed. That's a shame.
As far as the 2nd A goes it is outdated. I don't believe that they ever envisioned a weapon that could shoot and kill as fast and faster than they could pull the trigger. The forefathers were smart but not so in todays world...
[Quote]
The anti-gun left like to use the term semiautomatic guns/rifles as assault weapons,but any gun can be used to assault someone ..with a semiautomatic gun you must pull the trigger for every single bullet that exits the gun....
semiautomatic ..mostly means ..not automatic.The rifle Adam Lanza had was a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle..
...as far as what the Founding Father ever envisioned ..I don't believe they ever envisioned Americans killing classrooms and classrooms full of preborn sons and daughters in the womb, for that matter ...........
0
[Quote: Originally Posted by darkhorse12]
As far as the 2nd A goes it is outdated. I don't believe that they ever envisioned a weapon that could shoot and kill as fast and faster than they could pull the trigger. The forefathers were smart but not so in todays world...
[Quote]
The anti-gun left like to use the term semiautomatic guns/rifles as assault weapons,but any gun can be used to assault someone ..with a semiautomatic gun you must pull the trigger for every single bullet that exits the gun....
semiautomatic ..mostly means ..not automatic.The rifle Adam Lanza had was a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle..
...as far as what the Founding Father ever envisioned ..I don't believe they ever envisioned Americans killing classrooms and classrooms full of preborn sons and daughters in the womb, for that matter ...........
I didnt call you stupid. I think you and others in the camp have rationalized owning weapons under pretenses which are flimsy at best and are nothing but fear based.
Most other countries think we are stupid suckers the way we make decisions and are in fear as a way of existing..but as I said fear brought us to this point and it will continue to drag this country down. Fear caused many wars, killed many people, fear rarely saves lives. Fear means profits and profits are what drives the media and plays into the hands of corporations.
I wont comment on where your line is or what the definition of mass killings are..I consider what happened last week as mass killing and it fits my definition perfectly. We wont deal with this issue though, we havent and wont because corporations stand to loose too much money..so just watch as lobbyists and groups will pull on their choke chain and stop anything from happening in congress.
0
kapono,
I didnt call you stupid. I think you and others in the camp have rationalized owning weapons under pretenses which are flimsy at best and are nothing but fear based.
Most other countries think we are stupid suckers the way we make decisions and are in fear as a way of existing..but as I said fear brought us to this point and it will continue to drag this country down. Fear caused many wars, killed many people, fear rarely saves lives. Fear means profits and profits are what drives the media and plays into the hands of corporations.
I wont comment on where your line is or what the definition of mass killings are..I consider what happened last week as mass killing and it fits my definition perfectly. We wont deal with this issue though, we havent and wont because corporations stand to loose too much money..so just watch as lobbyists and groups will pull on their choke chain and stop anything from happening in congress.
Before I answer your question, do you really think all kindergarden teachers should be armed?
Well it was more playing off of sara's post that more guns and the USA becoming an armed police state is his vision of utopia...
But it could be said that based on the recent events that every kindergarden teacher should be required to have two things when the they teach... a diploma with a degree in education and an assault rifle...
and any teacher that does not walk in to the class room of kindergardeners with their assault rifle loaded and ready just does not care about the kids or america...
So no... I do not share in the vision of a north korean police state american utopia...
but could you answer the question then please...
Wasn't there a ban on assault rifles in Australia? What were the outcomes of such a ban....
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
Before I answer your question, do you really think all kindergarden teachers should be armed?
Well it was more playing off of sara's post that more guns and the USA becoming an armed police state is his vision of utopia...
But it could be said that based on the recent events that every kindergarden teacher should be required to have two things when the they teach... a diploma with a degree in education and an assault rifle...
and any teacher that does not walk in to the class room of kindergardeners with their assault rifle loaded and ready just does not care about the kids or america...
So no... I do not share in the vision of a north korean police state american utopia...
but could you answer the question then please...
Wasn't there a ban on assault rifles in Australia? What were the outcomes of such a ban....
WSC -- how is it that my position is based on fear but your position that these types of weapons need to be banned not based on fear (of future attacks) as well?
0
WSC -- how is it that my position is based on fear but your position that these types of weapons need to be banned not based on fear (of future attacks) as well?
WSC -- how is it that my position is based on fear but your position that these types of weapons need to be banned not based on fear (of future attacks) as well?
Our fears are different and that is the point.
You fear the government..I fear the repeated mass killings of citizens BY citizens.
I also do not think owning those weapons makes you any safer, especially if your scenario were to play out..all it would do is cause more death, it would not hold off the government or tyranny of any kind.
But..it does make money for the gun lobby and corporations..that we know for sure.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
WSC -- how is it that my position is based on fear but your position that these types of weapons need to be banned not based on fear (of future attacks) as well?
Our fears are different and that is the point.
You fear the government..I fear the repeated mass killings of citizens BY citizens.
I also do not think owning those weapons makes you any safer, especially if your scenario were to play out..all it would do is cause more death, it would not hold off the government or tyranny of any kind.
But..it does make money for the gun lobby and corporations..that we know for sure.
I dont think banning assualt weapons will solve everything... but I think that just leaving things how they are is not a solution either...
This current political climate is that the NRA/2nd amendment people are clutching to the guns and making that the most important point in all of this because legitimately there are movements towards banning assault rifles...
however the president and politicians must address the issue some how...
I wonder about agreeing with the fact that guns are not the problem but people are and personal responsibility might be the route... If you own a gun you are 100% responsible for all outcomes with it... so if it gets stolen that is your liability, problem, issue and you are 100% liable and responsible for what happens with it...
therefore who ever the gun was stolen from in the mall shooting should be prosecuted for the murders because it was his personal responsibility to store, secure and lock away his guns or report it stolen... It could be said that it was his negligence that resulted in the tragedy... Perhaps we should be going after him as if he had locked his guns away in a safe that only he could access then none of this would have happen...
stiffer penalties, longer and harsher sentences or simple prosecuting them as being liable and responsible will allow gun owners to keep their weapons and will address the access issue we saw in the mall shooting...
and how can anyone be against personal responsibility and accountability for their own weapon?
0
so what is the solution?
I dont think banning assualt weapons will solve everything... but I think that just leaving things how they are is not a solution either...
This current political climate is that the NRA/2nd amendment people are clutching to the guns and making that the most important point in all of this because legitimately there are movements towards banning assault rifles...
however the president and politicians must address the issue some how...
I wonder about agreeing with the fact that guns are not the problem but people are and personal responsibility might be the route... If you own a gun you are 100% responsible for all outcomes with it... so if it gets stolen that is your liability, problem, issue and you are 100% liable and responsible for what happens with it...
therefore who ever the gun was stolen from in the mall shooting should be prosecuted for the murders because it was his personal responsibility to store, secure and lock away his guns or report it stolen... It could be said that it was his negligence that resulted in the tragedy... Perhaps we should be going after him as if he had locked his guns away in a safe that only he could access then none of this would have happen...
stiffer penalties, longer and harsher sentences or simple prosecuting them as being liable and responsible will allow gun owners to keep their weapons and will address the access issue we saw in the mall shooting...
and how can anyone be against personal responsibility and accountability for their own weapon?
You are adding war deaths, that is our country against another. My contention is US citizen vs US citizen.
I am also not interested in tangent hunting, so locking up drug criminals or womens rights are diversions to me. The issue is guns, not alcohol or cigs or pot. I do not see a rationalization for mass production and expansion of assault weapons.
0
kapono,
You are adding war deaths, that is our country against another. My contention is US citizen vs US citizen.
I am also not interested in tangent hunting, so locking up drug criminals or womens rights are diversions to me. The issue is guns, not alcohol or cigs or pot. I do not see a rationalization for mass production and expansion of assault weapons.
As far as the 2nd A goes it is outdated. I don't believe that they ever envisioned a weapon that could shoot and kill as fast and faster than they could pull the trigger. The forefathers were smart but not so in todays world...
[Quote]
The anti-gun left like to use the term semiautomatic guns/rifles as assault weapons,but any gun can be used to assault someone ..with a semiautomatic gun you must pull the trigger for every single bullet that exits the gun....
semiautomatic ..mostly means ..not automatic.The rifle Adam Lanza had was a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle..
...as far as what the Founding Father ever envisioned ..I don't believe they ever envisioned Americans killing classrooms and classrooms full of preborn sons and daughters in the womb, for that matter ...........
Thanx for making my point slim.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
As far as the 2nd A goes it is outdated. I don't believe that they ever envisioned a weapon that could shoot and kill as fast and faster than they could pull the trigger. The forefathers were smart but not so in todays world...
[Quote]
The anti-gun left like to use the term semiautomatic guns/rifles as assault weapons,but any gun can be used to assault someone ..with a semiautomatic gun you must pull the trigger for every single bullet that exits the gun....
semiautomatic ..mostly means ..not automatic.The rifle Adam Lanza had was a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle..
...as far as what the Founding Father ever envisioned ..I don't believe they ever envisioned Americans killing classrooms and classrooms full of preborn sons and daughters in the womb, for that matter ...........
Well it was more playing off of sara's post that more guns and the USA becoming an armed police state is his vision of utopia...
But it could be said that based on the recent events that every kindergarden teacher should be required to have two things when the they teach... a diploma with a degree in education and an assault rifle...
and any teacher that does not walk in to the class room of kindergardeners with their assault rifle loaded and ready just does not care about the kids or america...
So no... I do not share in the vision of a north korean police state american utopia...
but could you answer the question then please...
Wasn't there a ban on assault rifles in Australia? What were the outcomes of such a ban....
I don't know the stats but based on your tone, I suspect a tragic event happened after the ban? Anyway, I said the same thing on post#23 as you did on post#59 yet no one seems to want to talk about that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
Well it was more playing off of sara's post that more guns and the USA becoming an armed police state is his vision of utopia...
But it could be said that based on the recent events that every kindergarden teacher should be required to have two things when the they teach... a diploma with a degree in education and an assault rifle...
and any teacher that does not walk in to the class room of kindergardeners with their assault rifle loaded and ready just does not care about the kids or america...
So no... I do not share in the vision of a north korean police state american utopia...
but could you answer the question then please...
Wasn't there a ban on assault rifles in Australia? What were the outcomes of such a ban....
I don't know the stats but based on your tone, I suspect a tragic event happened after the ban? Anyway, I said the same thing on post#23 as you did on post#59 yet no one seems to want to talk about that.
I don't know the stats but based on your tone, I suspect a tragic event happened after the ban? Anyway, I said the same thing on post#23 as you did on post#59 yet no one seems to want to talk about that.
Dont read too much into my tone... It is mostly just having fun on this site...
my understanding is that after the automatic weapons ban in reaction to shootings australia has not seen a shooting ever since...
also dont be surprised by a lack of intelligent discussion... all you have to do is look at who started the thread, his avatar and the intention behind it... simply complain, whine and cry about obama/dems with out offering any constructive solutions to making america better... just revel in america failing so that he can attribute obama/dems as being solely responsible for everything...
It could be said that this fumble in choice of strategy is why obama won in 2012...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
I don't know the stats but based on your tone, I suspect a tragic event happened after the ban? Anyway, I said the same thing on post#23 as you did on post#59 yet no one seems to want to talk about that.
Dont read too much into my tone... It is mostly just having fun on this site...
my understanding is that after the automatic weapons ban in reaction to shootings australia has not seen a shooting ever since...
also dont be surprised by a lack of intelligent discussion... all you have to do is look at who started the thread, his avatar and the intention behind it... simply complain, whine and cry about obama/dems with out offering any constructive solutions to making america better... just revel in america failing so that he can attribute obama/dems as being solely responsible for everything...
It could be said that this fumble in choice of strategy is why obama won in 2012...
Give the teachers guns? Hell Slim, a month ago you didn't even want to give them a pension!!!
Chief Tim Fitch who runs the St. Louis County PD say's ....As far as he’s concerned, more laws won’t save the life of a single student. Or mall walker. “If there’s somebody that’s really hellbent on doing something like this, they’re not going to care what the law is.”
Fitch’s solution: end the policies that give whack-jobs like James Holmes and Adam Lanza the comfort of knowing they’re walking into gun-free, target-rich environments . . .
Chief Fitch wants to arm teachers and school administrative personnel. He likens it to arming pilots after 9/11.
“I see it no differently,” he said. “Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn’t know which airplane he’s getting on, if the pilot is armed or not.”
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Give the teachers guns? Hell Slim, a month ago you didn't even want to give them a pension!!!
Chief Tim Fitch who runs the St. Louis County PD say's ....As far as he’s concerned, more laws won’t save the life of a single student. Or mall walker. “If there’s somebody that’s really hellbent on doing something like this, they’re not going to care what the law is.”
Fitch’s solution: end the policies that give whack-jobs like James Holmes and Adam Lanza the comfort of knowing they’re walking into gun-free, target-rich environments . . .
Chief Fitch wants to arm teachers and school administrative personnel. He likens it to arming pilots after 9/11.
“I see it no differently,” he said. “Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn’t know which airplane he’s getting on, if the pilot is armed or not.”
Agree mostly with WSC. The constitutional, absolutist gun advocates use the constituition for their basis, when even it is an interpretation & was written hundreds of yrs ago not long after the Revolution. The NRA will always love these folks & their profit motive has always been their overriding concern, even moreso today. While it's obvious that banning assault weapons will not prevent events like this from occuring (just as greater funding & access to mental health won't get rid of mental illness), the question is will banning them along with stricter regs, help lessen the # of injuries/deaths from gun violence that happens day in & out & will continue to.
Not the best analogy, but had the founders said it was every citizens right to take drugs, would that automatically translate to it should be legal today to be able to buy/sell the most addictive crack cocaine on every street corner?
0
Agree mostly with WSC. The constitutional, absolutist gun advocates use the constituition for their basis, when even it is an interpretation & was written hundreds of yrs ago not long after the Revolution. The NRA will always love these folks & their profit motive has always been their overriding concern, even moreso today. While it's obvious that banning assault weapons will not prevent events like this from occuring (just as greater funding & access to mental health won't get rid of mental illness), the question is will banning them along with stricter regs, help lessen the # of injuries/deaths from gun violence that happens day in & out & will continue to.
Not the best analogy, but had the founders said it was every citizens right to take drugs, would that automatically translate to it should be legal today to be able to buy/sell the most addictive crack cocaine on every street corner?
Oh right..any weapon produced by the gun manufacturers and slapped with an NRA endorsement miraculously falls under the million mile wide umbrella of the second amendment right?
What joke how we allow the gun lobby and corporate putzes to control this country.
Um, you don't know which weapons were used in the school shooting, which model & corresponding firepower and what that all means.
Further, banning "assualt weapons" has no impact on crime, nor would it have prevented this shooting - the 223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004.
That's why.
But of course you're not at all interested in crime control, you just want to punish your boogeymen.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So whats the problem banning these again?
Oh right..any weapon produced by the gun manufacturers and slapped with an NRA endorsement miraculously falls under the million mile wide umbrella of the second amendment right?
What joke how we allow the gun lobby and corporate putzes to control this country.
Um, you don't know which weapons were used in the school shooting, which model & corresponding firepower and what that all means.
Further, banning "assualt weapons" has no impact on crime, nor would it have prevented this shooting - the 223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004.
That's why.
But of course you're not at all interested in crime control, you just want to punish your boogeymen.
Um, you don't know which weapons were used in the school shooting, which model & corresponding firepower and what that all means.
Further, banning "assualt weapons" has no impact on crime, nor would it have prevented this shooting - the 223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004.
That's why.
But of course you're not at all interested in crime control, you just want to punish your boogeymen.
Well I guess you really nailed me there..especially the boogeymen part.
Yeah I dont know what model numbers or fire power or even guns mean..too big of words for my liberal mind. You really set me straight 14..
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Um, you don't know which weapons were used in the school shooting, which model & corresponding firepower and what that all means.
Further, banning "assualt weapons" has no impact on crime, nor would it have prevented this shooting - the 223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004.
That's why.
But of course you're not at all interested in crime control, you just want to punish your boogeymen.
Well I guess you really nailed me there..especially the boogeymen part.
Yeah I dont know what model numbers or fire power or even guns mean..too big of words for my liberal mind. You really set me straight 14..
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.
Hot Forum Topics
