Then you shouldn’t have claimed otherwise. I’m not sure what the actual numbers are but I would not be surprised if it is, or is fast becoming the most popular sporting rifle in America.
Yes, just like bolt action rifles. You have a bolt action right? And lets not lose track of the original argument regarding genocide for which a military type rifle has a lot of advantages going for it. And I can’t help but notice that you think your guns should be legal, but mine shouldn’t. That’s seems a little self serving.
OK, I just think you should be free to upgrade should you ever desire to do so.
Historically many societies have had that quality. What percent of them do you think have lost that superiority?
How can you be sure, how often has it happened?
Yeah, lots of black swans out there.
Not sure about that. I’m a licensed CCW holder and took a class to get it. My state recently allowed concealed carry without a permit with no change in crime rate that I am aware of, and the 2011 Norway shooter jumped through all such hoops to obtain firearms before he embarked on his massacre.
I never said yours should be illegal. I said that they should be registered and restricted to those who choose to test for them. Want one? fine, go and get your license, test and register for it, then make your purchase though a gun dealer, not at wal-mart or a gun show.
You didn’t read the article did you? This was addressed early on. It is the weak who are empowered by the gun, not the strong. And that strength grows in numbers.
We already have an armed populace in charge of keeping the peace. They’re charged with enforcing the laws. Laws regarding the sale of drugs. Laws regarding the protection of property. Laws regarding the safety of women from rape. Have we stopped any of this? No. There isn’t the tiniest chance we will stop these crimes from happening and the criminals involved represent the minority of society. When a crime is committed it’s rare that law enforcement stops the act. The norm is to arrive late with a clipboard to take note of what happened. That’s the reality. Police protection is an allusion. We stand or fall as a society based on the behavior of it’s citizens.
A government exists at the convenience of it’s people. Take away that authority and it quickly falls apart. You can see the results in the Arab spring.
Are high capacity magazines OK by you then? Also Walmart if they sell guns is a gun dealer and does background checks the same as anyone else. The same thing happens at guns shows when a dealer sells a gun.
And right now, we the people are trying to figure out how to reduce the number of us who get shot and killed every year. Not everyone is helping with that effort.
Sure they are. The pro-gunners are letting the anti-gunners know that they are barking up the wrong tree when they seek to remove/modify amendments designed to ensure that our government remains of, by, and for the people.
So what would you do if the majority of Americans feel that semiautomatic firearms should not be owned by individuals, and their representatives enact a law to that effect, and the judciary finds that the law is consistent with the constitution?
What would the majority of Americans do? How about putting you in jail for running your mouth because Amendments are now a function of majority rule?
If you really cared about protecting people you’d be in favor of empowering people with that protection and not restricting them. Because taking away guns does not address the problem of violence. There are no shortages of tools available to carry out that violence. Deadly force can take any form. If the teachers of Shady Hook were armed they would have had something to defend themselves with against a variety of tools used to commit murder. Your solution addresses nothing and would have stopped nothing.
So you’re suggesting, if I understand correctly, that you might use your weapon to circumvent American due process of law, the will of the American people, and the properly enacted and legally righteous laws of the American government?
As for our First Amendment rights (note the number of letters in “amendment”) are you contending that there are no currently accepted and acceptable limits to free speech, assembly, press, or exercise of religion? Really?
Or should we take up arms against our need to get a permit for a march, or to be arrested at a sit in, or to be liable for yelling fire in a theater?
As I said, I’m not exactly sure what I would do. I would have to judge the situation. If I were to choose to break the future law it probably would not be wise to advertise it ahead of time. If you lived in re-civil war, might you break certain states laws to help smuggle slaves to freedom?
No I’m not contending that at all. Something more severe, more North Korean if you will, like you couldn’t debate politics in your home or on the internet. Won’t you answer my question?
I’m mildly dyslexic, if I don’t have my macbook I might make a spelling error. For that I apologize. Thanks for pointing out my disability. You win that point. I hope it makes you feel good.
Since it’s been demonstrated that they are the same then there is no reason to eliminate one because it sets up the elimination of the other. You’ve just demonstrated the same slippery slope mentality that was used to create laws that prevent smokers from smoking in their own house.
1: of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity
2 a: exhibiting or marked by courage and daring
b: supremely noble or self-sacrificing
Sure they get broken sometimes, as do bones of those suffering from learned helplessness.