Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[GO IRISH!!!]

Dude! Tried to rep you, but gotta spread it around first. I watched some of her press conference today. What a farse! I couldn't stomach very much of it.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

The list is out, fellas. These are the weapons the hideous cu#t wants banned.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

What's an "AK-47 type pistol"?

 

[JadeBrecks]

What's an "AK-47 type pistol"?

Would assume this

 

[JadeBrecks]

Armalite m15 22LR Carbine???!!! Its a freaking Ruger 10/22 with a new body. Im sure banning that alone will save the world.

Spas 12 but not the benelli m4? There is no rhyme or reason to this list. It is purely a feel good list.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It seems to me that if you're going to ban types of guns, you'll have to specify something like bullet size, or number of bullets fired per second, or whatever.

Banning by only "type" just means people will create more "types".

 

[JadeBrecks]

It seems to me that if you're going to ban types of guns, you'll have to specify something like bullet size, or number of bullets fired per second, or whatever.

Banning by only "type" just means people will create more "types".

You are assuming these people are using reasoning...and you are sadly mistaken.

 

[JadeBrecks]

"Ruger mini-14 tactical rifle m14/20 cf"

So if it isn't that model mini-14 is it legal?

 

[brandonnash]

Armalite m15 22LR Carbine???!!! Its a freaking Ruger 10/22 with a new body. Im sure banning that alone will save the world.

Spas 12 but not the benelli m4? There is no rhyme or reason to this list. It is purely a feel good list.

The civilian m4 is a 6 shell gun. The spas is a 9 round. Still no sense because it is under their whole 10 round rule.

I guess I better run get my maverick 88 security model. Its pretty close at 8 shells.

 

[JadeBrecks]

The civilian m4 is a 6 shell gun. The spas is a 9 round. Still no sense because it is under their whole 10 round rule.

I guess I better run get my maverick 88 security model. Its pretty close at 8 shells.

But if you look at the 22 they banned I assumed they were going off of what looks mean. Who would ever draw up a list like this and base it off what the firearm could do. Shmm

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Rahm Emanuel presses banks on guns - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

 

[DSully1995]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Banning guns because of their misuse is like banning the First Amendment because one might libel or slander.</p>— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/294861284011290624">January 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
haha i got it sweet(damn no i didnt screw it,), Dr Paul makes a good point, what to do...

 

[IrishJayhawk]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Banning guns because of their misuse is like banning the First Amendment because one might libel or slander.</p>— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/294861284011290624">January 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
haha i got it sweet(damn no i didnt screw it,), Dr Paul makes a good point, what to do...

It's not similar at all.

It's not a ban of the second amendment...it's a ban of certain firearms. It would be similar if anyone was saying that we should ban ALL guns. We're talking about the limitation of weapon ownership, which I think most people think we should have...unless you think that civilians should own tanks or missile launchers (which would put you in a tiny minority). Just like we're not banning the first amendment, but we do limit it. We can't libel or slander.

 

[IrishinTN]

Armalite m15 22LR Carbine???!!! Its a freaking Ruger 10/22 with a new body.

The squirrel and varmint populations just breathed a huge sigh of relief.

 

[mgriff]

It's not similar at all.

It's not a ban of the second amendment...it's a ban of certain firearms. It would be similar if anyone was saying that we should ban ALL guns. We're talking about the limitation of weapon ownership, which I think most people think we should have...unless you think that civilians should own tanks or missile launchers (which would put you in a tiny minority). Just like we're not banning the first amendment, but we do limit it. We can't libel or slander.

Yes we limit it to the fact that you can't harm someone else with your first or second amendment rights. If you do you face the consequences. That means nothing about not having the ability to. It's personal repsonsibility. I can choose to use my right to libel or slander someone, but I don't. I can choose to use my second amendment rights to shoot someone, but I don't.

If I can't have a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself then neither should Congressman or the President. If you're saying they, or their bodyguards, are allowed to have them to protect their well-being then that's saying that their life is more important or valuable than mine.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yes we limit it to the fact that you can't harm someone else with your first or second amendment rights. If you do you face the consequences. That means nothing about not having the ability to. It's personal repsonsibility. I can choose to use my right to libel or slander someone, but I don't. I can choose to use my second amendment rights to shoot someone, but I don't.

Best rebuttal to this point that I've seen yet. That said, we aren't born with guns (though some acquire them very shortly after birth...). We are born with the ability to speak. I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.

If I can't have a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself then neither should Congressman or the President. If you're saying they, or their bodyguards, are allowed to have them to protect their well-being then that's saying that their life is more important or valuable than mine.

Another fair point. But, to a certain extent, their lives are more important than ours in terms of maintaining an orderly society. A presidential assassination is pretty disruptive to a democracy.

 

[JadeBrecks]

It's not similar at all.

It's not a ban of the second amendment...it's a ban of certain firearms. It would be similar if anyone was saying that we should ban ALL guns. We're talking about the limitation of weapon ownership, which I think most people think we should have...unless you think that civilians should own tanks or missile launchers (which would put you in a tiny minority). Just like we're not banning the first amendment, but we do limit it. We can't libel or slander.

It is the same thing. We do not limit anyone's first amendment. You are allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want. Are their consequences for misusing your first amendment. Yep. Just like it is with your second amendment. We do not limit you on what you can say and when you can say it. Banning "assault weapons" would be like the government shutting down social media. You don't "NEED" it. You can communicate with people through other channels of communication. It doesn't matter if you have the ability to do it or not the option for mail, phone, tv, or radio communication is still out there so we wouldn't be taking away your right. But unfortunately a very small percentage use social media to prey on small children and do them harm. So because of this we remove everyone's ability to use social media. When it is put that way it sounds retarded. But look at the similarities. You have a constitutional right to free speech and firearms. Banning social media or "assault weapons" wouldn't take away all your rights too free speech or firearms. People misuse social media "assault weapons" to harm children either to scare or kill them. Removing social media or "assault weapons" would be for the "greater good".

And as a little side note read the tail end of the second amendment. "shall not be infringed." Not that you are only allowed one channel to one type of firearm. But that your right shall not be infringed upon period.

 

[JadeBrecks]

But, to a certain extent, their lives are more important than ours in terms of maintaining an orderly society. A presidential assassination is pretty disruptive to a democracy.

That is why we have a chain of command. If the worst were to happen we have a replacement for the president (referring to the presidential position not an actually person) and a replacement for his replacement and so on and so forth. A presidential assassination would be disruptive to a democracy but my death would be pretty "disruptive" to my wife, family, friends, and employer. As would their deaths be "disruptive" to me.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It is the same thing. We do not limit anyone's first amendment. You are allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want. Are their consequences for misusing your first amendment. Yep. Just like it is with your second amendment. We do not limit you on what you can say and when you can say it. Banning "assault weapons" would be like the government shutting down social media. You don't "NEED" it. You can communicate with people through other channels of communication. It doesn't matter if you have the ability to do it or not the option for mail, phone, tv, or radio communication is still out there so we wouldn't be taking away your right. But unfortunately a very small percentage use social media to prey on small children and do them harm. So because of this we remove everyone's ability to use social media. When it is put that way it sounds retarded. But look at the similarities. You have a constitutional right to free speech and firearms. Banning social media or "assault weapons" wouldn't take away all your rights too free speech or firearms. People misuse social media "assault weapons" to harm children either to scare or kill them. Removing social media or "assault weapons" would be for the "greater good".

And as a little side note read the tail end of the second amendment. "shall not be infringed." Not that you are only allowed one channel to one type of firearm. But that your right shall not be infringed upon period.

Two honest questions:

1. The amendment also says that the firearms are part of a "well regulated militia." How do you interpret that?

2. By your logic...if I can afford one, I should be able to purchase a tank or scud missile. Do you agree? If not, why?

 

[mgriff]

Best rebuttal to this point that I've seen yet. That said, we aren't born with guns (though some acquire them very shortly after birth...). We are born with the ability to speak. I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.



Another fair point. But, to a certain extent, their lives are more important than ours in terms of maintaining an orderly society. A presidential assassination is pretty disruptive to a democracy.

So then because you value their lives more than mine, I have to acquiesce? I have no say because you and maybe even a majority of Americans feel the same way? What happeend to tyranny of the majority? Where are the rights of the minority?

 

[mgriff]

Best rebuttal to this point that I've seen yet. That said, we aren't born with guns (though some acquire them very shortly after birth...). We are born with the ability to speak. I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.



Another fair point. But, to a certain extent, their lives are more important than ours in terms of maintaining an orderly society. A presidential assassination is pretty disruptive to a democracy.

Also, we are born with the capacity for speech, it isn't a given. We are also born with the capacity to shoot guns. Neither happens once we pop out, they are both learned.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

A presidential assassination is pretty disruptive to a democracy.

We don't live in a democracy.

 

[mgriff]

We live in a fascist nation. That's not a shot at Obama, it's the same whether it's red or blue in power. Different sides of the same coin. Major banks launder money for blacklisted nations and drug cartels and they are too big to prosecute, but copyright violators get 20+ years and you can be thrown in jail for drug use, not even dealing, simple possession with the three strikes laws.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Two honest questions:

1. The amendment also says that the firearms are part of a "well regulated militia." How do you interpret that?

2. By your logic...if I can afford one, I should be able to purchase a tank or scud missile. Do you agree? If not, why?

1. It is so the people can ban together and for a "well regulated militia" to overthrow a tyrant government if the need be. (just like our forefathers had just finished) That way a government cant take away firearms and no longer be accountable to the people. Our forefathers had a hard time supplying the "militia" that fought off England and didn't want that to be a problem for future generations.

2. Can I ask why you would be so apposed to that idea? To quote a movie with a good point "If everyone is special than nobody will be special" The only reason a gun is special is if nobody else has one. (like the "gun free" zones all these mass shootings happen in) The only way a machine gun is special is if nobody else has one. If you pull out your gun to shoot someone and two or three people pull on you you aren't going to win. The only way that owning any weapon is better is when nobody else has one. Granted it would be harder to conceal a tank if it were illegal and nobody else could have one but if you make guns illegal they are much easier to hide from the authorities. Thus your laws create these special weapons and put people in more potential harm.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

We don't live in a democracy.

I apologize for my semantic mishap. I understand the distinction.

 

[chicago51]

First of all you can have restrictions on right. You got free speech. You will be arrested for going into a crowded movie theater and yell "fire!". An assault weapons ban would be uphold by the United States Supreme Court. Conservative judges have said you can place restrict the second amendment so rights are not the issue here.

The only issue here is affectiveness. No point of having a law that does not work. Now the question is will an assault weapons work? Fair question that we have argued about a great deal.

I think one issue we have failed to look at this from is a supply issue. I think an assault weapons can drie up the supply over time.

So how do that bad guys get guns specifically guns capable of taking out a large group of people?

a - Buy the gun legally from a licensed gun dealer as the have no criminal record.

b - Steal the gun from a gun owner who brought the gun legally.

c- Buy the gun illegally from someone who brought it legally.

I think we can agree that gun manufacters don't sell gun illegally on a street corners. Gun manufactors sell guns to gun dealers. Now gun dealers may sell guns illegally and the people they sell them to may resell them illegally.

So how would an assault weapons help stop criminals from obtaining them? Follow this train of thought.
a- Assault weapons are not produced by gun manufactors except for military purposes.
b- No distribution of guns to gun dealers because no guns are being made to be distributed.
c- So there are no gun dealers to buy from illegally or legally because there is no supply.
d- There are still are ton of these types of guns out there but over time the supply will run out.

Bottom line a criminal can't buy a new AR 15 if there are no AR 15s being produced.

I have heard comments along the lines that bad people will always break the law. The problem is without a supply even if bad guys won't to break the law they won't be able to because of availability because over time the supply will dry out up.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Another thing to look at. If you want to look at a country that has laws so nobody can legally own anything but a .22 you think you will see your gun free utopia? You think there will be no gun crime, mass shootings, and everyone will be happy with a free society? Take a look at our neighbors to the south. The people that have the weapons fight to run the place. (government vs drug cartel) If I turn in my firearms can you guarantee this will never happen? Can you guarantee my family will never fall into harm? Can you guarantee I will never have to answer to an over powered or dictatorship government?

 

[chicago51]

Another thing to look at. If you want to look at a country that has laws so nobody can legally own anything but a .22 you think you will see your gun free utopia? You think there will be no gun crime, mass shootings, and everyone will be happy with a free society? Take a look at our neighbors to the south. The people that have the weapons fight to run the place. (government vs drug cartel) If I turn in my firearms can you guarantee this will never happen? Can you guarantee my family will never fall into harm? Can you guarantee I will never have to answer to an over powered or dictatorship government?

The assault weapons Senate bill lets you keep your current firearms. It simply permits the sale and future manufactor for private consumer use. The goal of the bill is a long term, dry up the supply type of thing.

FYI I think the assault weapons ban fails anyway it will get fillibustered. There is 51 votes for it but not 60.

I do think universal background checks including the end of the gun show loop hole will pass.

I also think tougher gun traffic measures will pass.

50/50 on high capacity magazines passing.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Not just in Mexico either. Ask Colombia how their weapons ban is working.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If you want to destroy something, tax it.