Well, grudgingly and with a mild sense of discomfort. Mild I tells ya!
The hyperbole is strong with this crowd.
Oh, FFS, but I’ll play along.
Which of these things has killed the most innocent people?
a) high-capacity word processors
b) pop-up advertisements
c) military-style “assault” commercials
d) AR-15 semi-automatic rifles
<spoiler>
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
The correct answer is “d”
</spoiler>
Your argument is a joke.
You didn’t address his argument, which is that Constitutional rights apply to the tools of today, rather than at the moment of ratification.
From D.C. v Heller:
I would wager that the published works of Marx have resulted in more deaths than AR-15s, as it happens.
Guy can’t aim worth shit.
It seems to me, the issue here is that both sides are making ridiculous arguments. Other than the few extremists who either want ALL guns banned or ALL forms of weapons, everyone is in favor of some reasonable “common sense” restrictions on guns. You’re not going to find very many in favor of an individual right to purchase, transport, and possess nuclear weapons, but you’re not going to find many people saying we should ban a simple revolver or hunting rifle. Instead, we have people saying we need some restriction because of the latest shooting, and then the opponents saying we can’t because of second amendment rights, and we rarely actually get down to the actual merits, or lack thereof, of the proposed laws.
And we DO have these sorts of debates related to the First Amendment, we just don’t often have the knee-jerk reaction of “OMG DEAD KIDS” or “OMG 2ND AMENDMENT”. For instance, you’re not going to find many people saying we should allow death threats, or many people saying we should require a license to send email. But in the last 20 years we’ve had plenty of First Amendment speech issues related to the internet, SOPA and PIPA being one of the recent well known issues and how it would affect internet censorship. We also have First Amendment issues related to religion, though those often involve knee-jerk reactions too.
Anyway, I’d rather us stop with ridiculous analogies and knee-jerk reactions, we have to realize that, even for two people that generally have similar points of few, that what constitutes “common sense” laws between no guns and no restrictions isn’t going to be in the same place. Further, even if we can agree that changes need to be made, whether it’s increasing or reducing restrictions, the factors by which two different people will evaluate it are different. Ultimately, all this sort of stuff does is cause BOTH sides to dig in harder, get more contentious, and that increased contention just leaves the people sitting on the fence looking at both sides as foolish.
So are you arguing that we should ban stuff that wasn’t legal / didn’t exist in 1787, or are you arguing that we should ban “things [that have] killed the most innocent people”? If it’s the latter, I doubt that AR-15’s even crack into the top 10.
That’s because many on the gun-ban side don’t understand even the basic broad outlines of current gun laws. How are we supposed to have a worthwhile conversation on the lack of merits of their proposed laws?
You don’t actually know any gun owners, do you?
But his three cousins could make you die laughing!
He just needs to follow through with a bayonet.
Way he shoots, he should start with a bayonet.
Who on this board is in favor of permitting all forms of weapons? I can probably point out a few that would like to ban all guns. Both sides are not equally extreme.
Wanna bet?
As long as you put somebody like Feinstein in charge of your campaign against gun violence, you are not going to reassure many people that undermining the second amendment isn’t the ultimate goal. When an AWB is the first idea out of the gate and this retarded idea is parroted by the President of the United States, you can never get to the merits because you realize you are dealing with someone that is either lying or stupid.
The one factor that tips this debate is that there is a constitutional amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms and until the emotional appeals of tragedies like Newtown can sway 2/3rds of both houses and the legislatures of 38 states, you are pretty much stuck with that right to keep and bear arms. And when you undermine one constitutionally protected right, you undermine the sanctity of all of them.
Bayonet lugs would make them assault weapons and Feinstein would ban them.
muzzleloaders are notoriously inaccurate, there is no rifling.
This rant seems eerily similar to what the truth teller from the DPRK was preaching in this thread, except for the lack of pig dogs.
Someone wants to ban all semi automatic weapons, including the .22 Marlins kids get for their birthday.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:33, topic:656010”]
Or the Supreme Court decides it means having a state National Guard.
The guy was twelve feet away. It has a rather long barrel, that may have been a rifle.
Well, I could suggest that all guns except for revolvers and lever-, bolt- or pump-action long guns be banned, and any gun not banned is also completely unregulated, available for purchase by anyone at any time.
Reasonable?
Just spitballing, here.
I appreciate the effort that you’re taking in making an actual compromise. That’s a great start. On the specifics of this offer, I’d not be inclined to support it. I truly don’t want bad guys to have guns, and if I understand this proposal correctly, every mentally-ill person or fresh-from-prison felon would be able to obtain one, right? Also, I’m not ready to give up all semi-autos. My Glock is an exceptional self-defense weapon, and I’d prefer to keep it.
No, it’s quite a lie is what it is!
Gun laws have changed numerous times in significant ways over the years. Every time it was going to be the panacea to solving violence. None of them did squat!
But guns, in the abstract, haven’t changed. Machine guns, semi-automatics, and high capacity magazines have all been around for over 100 years.
Well, there is that.
I don’t know much about black powder guns, but I figure that rifling would get mucked up if you are pouring powder down the barrel and I thought black powder burned a lot dirtier (left more residue) than faster burning gun powder.
I could be wrong.
Nah, no gun should be completely unregulated, they need to be kept out of the hands of the criminal and the mentally ill.
Behold the “assault weapon” of its day, the rifle musket. The Springfield Model 1861 is a typical example. They fired a Minie ball, which is small enough to be dropped down the muzzle, but expands upon firing to fill the rifling grooves and produce an accurate shot.
Black powder is very dirty, and such weapons must be cleaned often to stay operable.