by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics
Because there are many unstable people driven by very old instincts of acts of violence capable of going out of control of thier anger, I think a gun ban may be a good idea to protect society in general, at least puting some kind of limit on fire power.
Something writen over 200 years ago needs to be examined in the light of devopement that have transpired since then.
Don't let the gun-nuts divert the issue.
The issue is whether automatic assault riffles have a place in modern society and whether someone's selfish desire to brandish dangerous weapons should supercede innocent childrens right to life.
How is that the issue? Automatic weapons are strictly regulated. He didn't use an automatic rifle. If it's a right to life you are concerned with, are you OK with 3x the amount of people dying for our convenience, i.e., for cars? Is this about preserving life or hating guns? I only ask becauses concistently the details and commentary on the weapons are wrong and, despite the fact that at leat 60 people died in cars yesterday, no one seems to care.
Why?
Whenever I hear, 'the right to bear arms' . . . I always think of owning a bear's arms. LOL.
Skeeter
yeah, why don't we take fast cars off the market?
don't be a dope, they take them away from people who abuse the driving laws................
same thing for guns...............
I don't own one, but if a sane person with no criminal intentions needs one to feel safe, who am I to judge???
The problem with only looking at laws in their original form is that they are not and were not meant to be static. The implementation of laws change because they are living laws. You have to interpret and reinterpret them over and over again because the world changes.
are you OK with 3x the amount of people dying for our convenience, i.e., for cars? Is this about preserving life or hating guns?
Where have I said I hated guns? I have owned plenty and enjoy shooting. Stop misrepresenting what I say.
While there are a high number of vehicle deaths the fact remains that transportation provides immense benefits to millions of people every day. I do not think you can honestly claim the same thing for civilian-owned guns, especially large capacity ones. There is no legitimate need to have them. Really, there is no argument you can make. Want to shoot them? Fine, go to a controlled and licensed shooting range and have a blast. Why does anyone need one (or more!) at home?
Also, many vehicle-deaths are because of additional factors such as alcohol and drugs.
But hey, if you want to defend the right for class-rooms full of children to be massacred all for some indoctrinated ideology you have, go ahead and do your best. The rest of the world will continue shaking their collective head and wondering what the hell is wrong with you.
Well I'm not unreasonable. I just wish people would be realistic and honest. There is no way we're going to be able to tell an Eskimo that he can't take his beat up old 30-30 out and take his yearly allotment of game, for example.
When it comes to a compromise, if somebody believes every center-fire semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine should be moved to Class III status, or banned entirely, I wish they would just say so.
Instead, we have made-up political terms like 'Assault Rifle' that have no real technical definition.
I think it would be pretty easy to categorize things into 'real-use' weapons (e.g. hunting rifles) and 'things that only tiny-penis whackos think they need' (i.e. large capacity, automatic / semi-automatic etc...)
Keep the former, ban the latter. How is it difficult? Every other civilized country manages to come up with sensible laws.
BTW: Does no one think it's a little strange that a kindergarten teacher needs to own several semi-automatic weapons? WTF is that about?
People need to stop bringing up violent video games and movies in discussions about instances like we had yesterday. Britain as well as tons of other countries have access to the SAME video games and the SAME movies and love them the SAME as Americans do. There is no evidence linking video games and movies to violent tendencies. Normal people who don't go on shooting rampages know the difference between reality and fantasy. We pick that up at an early age.
The problem is when people commit these acts they search through their house and find things like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. They immediately say that this is why they committed the act. That house also had potato chips and dental floss. Maybe there is a link between potato chips and violent tendencies.
There is only one connecting factor in all of these tragedies. The perpetrator suffered from depression.
I think it would be pretty easy to categorize things into 'real-use' weapons (e.g. hunting rifles) and 'things that only tiny-penis whackos think they need' (i.e. large capacity, automatic / semi-automatic etc...)
It's surprisingly difficult, because plenty of hunting rifles have semi-automatic actions and the need for a fast followup shot with large dangerous animals, like european wild boar and bears is legitimate. Any legislation with teeth in it is going to take away at least some weapons with legitimate uses and people are going to scream bloody murder.
Maybe they should just be allowed to scream themselves hoarse, but I wonder...
Have you ever seen a shooting competition with historic weapons, Simon? Sometimes they're called 'Coyboy action shoots' (I hate that name...) There was a young lady at the last one I attended who was so fast with a lever action rifle that there were three empty shells spinning in the air at any given moment while she was shooting. (I took a string of pictures...)
Some of the lever action models that were chambered in the shorter pistol cartridges had a capacity of 10 or more, which is why they were so popular right after the Civil War.
