You’re some guy living in a warzone in suburban America that requires killing or harming dozens of people a day? :dubious:
Bzzz try again know it all…
I regret to inform you that posting on internet message boards has been found to be “not necessary”. You are hereby ordered by the federal government to cease, immediately.
Is my burlap sack capable of killing people from a hundred yards away, terrorizing crowds, and generally useless as a clothing item?
I’ll take the lard that I can use to accidently kill my kids if they touch it
If a conservative, and generally its conservatives, wants to ban books, why arent they afraid it would lead to the bible being banned? Its a book too, right?
Guns are dangerous and unnecessary. Thats why they should be banned. There are a lot things that we can do but we do not do them. I could rape my neighbors right now, but I dont. That doesnt mean I should be immobilized in my home so that I cannot possibly rape anybody
For starters, the expired law has definitions of what should be banned. “Assault weapons” are merely an easy way to refer to a group of weapons that have certain capabilities that should be allowed for civilians to own or use.
Sure, you can have your muskets
Fun question, answer this without using any of the standard gun control advocate points:
Why shouldnt I be allowed to own a large bomb for protection? How about a nuke? If I have it strapped on me everywhere I go, then nobody would be stupid enough to rob or attack me, right?
I love how politicians mangle weapon buzzwords to make them sound more intimidating. “High-capacity magazines”? Oh, you mean normal-sized magazines until the 10-year AWB made lower-capacity magazines the standard? Assault weapons? Oh, you mean rifles that look scary since they resemble military weapons but are functionally no different from hunting rifles?
What I don’t get about the latest threats of a AWB is that Americans are supposed to give up their constitutional rights to help out Mexico? Huh?
Sorry, I was simply trying to help you out. I’m racking my brain trying to figure out a situation in which you need assault weapons in your everyday life. Maybe you like to act out Terminator movies in your spare time?
Because you’re an asshole? Without “gun advocate” points like the Constitution, you pretty much limit the debate don’t ya?
Well, that pretty much sums up your argument right there. Of course, you do realize that banning something as ubiquitous as guns in America is not only constitutionally impossible, but downright stupid, right? Do you really think all the criminals will line up to hand their guns in? The only thing a gun ban would do is prevent people who follow laws from owning guns… And the last thing I want to live in is a society where only criminals are armed.
The rest of your arguments are generally junk and aren’t worth replying to. It’s pretty obvious you don’t value your life enough to defend it, but that’s a personal decision and you cross the line once you start saying I shouldn’t be able to defend my life either.
Do you think banning LCMs would reduce gun related violence? Why or why not? That’s the question you should be asking, not “why do you need item ?”
Do you think banning LCMs would reduce gun related violence? Why or why not?
Maybe he’s a hunter? Maybe he’s a gun collector? Maybe he likes that second amendment which says American citizens should not have their right to bear arms infringed upon by the federal government?
And honestly, it doesn’t *matter *if you can think of a situation of when anyone needs an “assault weapon” in everyday life. It’s not the government’s job to decide that.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
The White House declined to comment on Holder’s remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
So lets review the process… The Attorney General publicly reiterates the political goals of the President who nominated him and the White House refers the subject back to the Department of Justice which is run by the Attorney General. Seems pretty clear to me. How could you take this to mean anything except Obama’s stated goal?
Well, besides your argument being completely illogical since you’re seriously putting forth the argument to strap a nuclear weapon to yourself for protection, there’s a lot of reasons. For one, the constitution doesn’t say we have a right to bear nukes. Nukes aren’t an effective deterrence against crime. Most criminals aren’t going around committing crimes with nukes. Nukes are capable of harming significantly more people than guns.
Should I continue or have I proven how dumb that argument is yet? :dubious:
Put them goalposts back.
The metric you used was not lethality, but necessity.
Smart conservatives realize that, yes, once you start down the road of banning books you’re at the point where if a rival religious sect gains prominence and power over you, they can ban the translation of the Bible that you prefer to use. Many who want to use their power over others never really consider that the shoe might be on the other foot some day.
Much like you want to ban guns because they aren’t “necessary”, but you aren’t willing to give up your posting to a recreational message board.
Shall we follow this through to its logical conclusion?
Along with guns, we’ll ban McDonalds food (indeed, all junk food while we’re at it), alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex among couples who don’t plan on having children with each other…
And yet, you, by your own admission, are a potential rapist. Surely that’s as dangerous as a gun that likewise, could be used to shoot some child right. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be used in a crime, just like you’ll probably never rape your neighbors. But you want gun owners constitutional rights to be abridged while you speak out against the same injustice if it was done to you.
Like I said, those who fantasize about wielding power over other people rarely consider that it might be directed at them.
Nope, you don’t get out of it that easily.
Explain, specifically, what makes a gun an “assault weapon”, how it differs from a “non-assault weapon” and why civilians should not have them to own or use.
So your previous objection to guns due to their potential lethality is a bullshit rationalization.
Check.
From the article linked way back in the OP:
Let’s hope that Obama himself isn’t so stupid as to think an AK-47 is a “sophisticated gun.” Anyone who honestly thinks so-called “assault weapons” are “sophisticated” probably has a VCR blinking “12:00”, looks desperately each day for the “any” key on their keyboard, and probably has gone to work with a toiler plunger stuck on their head at least once this last calendar year. :rolleyes:
Not only that, but isn’t this more evident of a problem with drugs than with guns? Why not attack the problem itself instead of attacking a side effect of the problem? It’s like seeing a fire and instead of putting the fire out, you start reinforcing the building… Well yeah, but the fire is going to continue to burn…
Speaking of drugs, I have a suggestion that would eviscerate the cartels with the stroke a pen and no shots being fired, and it would require the violation of exactly 0% of the US Constitution.
Simple, legalize drugs.
+100000 to the above…this should have been done a LONG time ago.
I’m still chuckling though over all the people who told me I was being paranoid and that I was a chicken little and that I should relax and calm down and that Obama had bigger fish to fry, he’ll be too busy with the economy, the Dems “learned their lesson” about gun control, etc etc, all the typical claptrap - I hope you all CHOKE on the gigantic serving of crow that you’re going to have to eat now.
Not even TWO MONTHS into the new administration, no less, and this has already happened.
(shakes head in disbelief)
And the hell of it is, I was just starting to think that the post-election panic buying was actually subsiding. Ha! Think again…get ready to pay three grand for Century Arms junk cobbled together from parts kits…IF you can even find one for sale three months from now.
ETA - anyone want to buy a box of 7.62x39 ammo? Only 24.99 apiece.
I wonder if you feel the same way about the M40 sniper rifle? Appropriate for civilians or not? 3 times the energy at 300 yards compared to the puny 5.56
Argent: Yep, it’s like trying to fight the gangsters of the Prohibition era by banning Tommy Guns instead of ending Prohibition.
I would advise against trying to engage YogSosoth - he’s just a bonafide “anti” who is never going to see eye to eye with us on this issue, and quibbling with him about it is just distracting from the real arguments that are important to discuss - namely, that this proposal by our new attorney general is an absolutely absurd, do-nothing, feel-good measure that will accomplish precisely jackshit in dealing with drug crime in Mexico, and the “assault weapon” ban itself is built on the most rickety logical structure imaginable, being based on fearmongering and deceitful rhetoric and outright lies.
Going back and forth with someone who genuinely thinks that “guns are dangerous and unnecessary” will get us nowhere.