Discussion: The Second Amendment V

i am a registered republican and even i agree that assault weapons need to be banned at the federal level but that won't happen anytime soon because someone at capitol hill will just filibuster it .

 

i dont know if anyone told you yet, but an AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle.. it's neither a fully automatic rifle or an "assault weapon"

 

Define assault weapon.

And keep in mind that the AR-15 is deadlier than most standard issue WWII weapons.

 

i really dont have to define that term, since that term was strictly invented by people who dont know what a gun is, nor how they operate... many people already in this thread have pointed that out before, and I need not bring it back up for the millionth time... but, just for his sake, i'll be kind:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

You know, I did take some issue with the term, because it seems like they were trying to make people confuse assault weapons with assault rifles, which are by definition fully automatic, which AR-15's are not.

But at the end of the day, sneaky liberals, aside, the AR-15 is a very deadly weapon, quite well suited for assault.

It's something most people on Omaha Beach would have really liked to have when they started the assault. Not to start an M1 vs AR-15 debate.

 

so is any other firearm, however banning one gun, or any gun for that matter, wont stop overall violence... look at the cities that participate in excessive gun control and gun restrictions... cities like New York and Chicago... they have the highest crime rate in the United States... that's gun control at work.

like others have said in the past in this thread, gun bans wont stop crime or violence.

 

No that's not gun control at work, that's a high population density with alot of poor people.

Of coarse it won't completely stop gun violence, question is how much will any given thing slow it down. Saying well it won't stop something completely so what's the point doing it is a terrible argument. It's basically avoiding the question at hand, giving a simplistic answer to it that doesn't give any incite what exactly is bad about it. Saying S#!t is going to still happen is not a winning argument, now coming up with ways it might make things worse is.

Going by that logic, we never are going to stop drunk driving so should we just make that legal as well(as long as you don't kill anybody while drunk behind the wheel all is fine)

 

and you honestly think a full out gun ban is going to stop criminals from attaining a firearm?... oh wait, no, you just want the law abiding citizens to not be able to purchase one... oh okay, so when a murderer breaks into your home with an AR15, and starts to rape your wife, i guess you're gonna run up to him and yell at him "hey, you cant do that! that gun is illegal!"... unlike you, not only am i going to protect myself, i have the God-given right to protect myself... it's called, you guessed it, the 2nd Amendment... and there are a few people- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, George Mason, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine- who actually did a great job in defining what exactly that amendment entails...

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

these men founded our country, and knew better than the corrupt politicians we have today, who only wish to deprive the people of their civil rights and liberties, and the sheep who actually believe the lies that they call truth... so on an ending note, i quote Patrick Henry and John Paul Jones, if owning a gun, or any other amendment, is ever to be considered illegal:
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
"I have not yet begun to fight!"
"If it is treason, then make the most of it!"

 

So create a strawman and argue against that. First you use the argument that poop is still going to happen if we create laws so why bother and now this(watch out somebody who wants more background checks really wants to ban all guns and is using back ground checks as code)

Where exactly did I say we should have a full out gun ban? Most people who want to make laws just want background checks and a few more want to limit magazine size. Of coarse it's much easier arguing against the odd person or gun stealing boogieman who wants to completely abolish guns but most on the gun law side would be against them as well.

Ah yes now give us this hypothetical scenario that might happen to 1 in a million people(and that is probably being generous) to spread fear how we need guns then talk about a bunch of guys who lived in a place that was much different(ie you didn't have as highly populated areas that generally lead to more gun violence and they didn't have bazookas or high capacity guns, which I am guessing many on the pro gun side feel it's our god given right to own because George Washington 235 years ago said everybody should have a gun(in a time that only muskets existed) and a bazooka by definition is a gun so how dare the government try take that away)

As I said most people aren't saying take away ALL guns so I don't see why all your points seem to be in debate with that

 

Or the ability to drive outside of New York City an buy any gun without a background check.

 

I fail to see why responsible gun owners should be punished because of a rare few who aren't responsible.

If you want to actually make a difference in gun crime, go after the illegal guns. Those that account for over 90% of all crime.

Start getting rid of those, and you start also reducing legal firearm ownership because the need for them for self-defense will drop.

 

that's one point that some of the posters above fail to understand.
they also fail to understand that banning a firearm is not going to stop criminals from getting them... something our founding fathers understood very well.

 

I do want to stress the word responsible in responsible gun owner.

If you've proven yourself to be irresponsible (even before purchasing a firearm, through background checks), then you're abusing your right to firearms. A right that was intended to protect one's ability for self-defense (even from the government), not to take lives indiscriminately.

 

Background checks is a reasonable thing to ask for when it comes to things that can (and are regularly used to) take out an entire room full of people.

 

Fair enough and at least you not creating a boogieman argument(although I am still all for background checks and smaller magazines, sure it's not going to reduce violence and crime much but fact is it will reduce it some and that's better then nothing and no way do I see it infringing on somebody's right to buy or own a gun). I will say I like the illegal gun thing though

Let's be honest here most people don't live in areas that they need a stockpile of guns to protect themselves. The gun industry basically works on fearing people you need a gun(because somebody else will have one and rape your wife in the night, or the government is going to become tyrannical and you'll have no way to defend yourself, etc). i am guessing law of averages says I am less likely to get shot if I don't have a gun on me(and the other guy does), sure you might get the odd nut who will shot, but most just want what's in your wallet

In general to stop gun violence you have to go to areas with high gun violence and figure out what the real issue is(and chances are it's because they poor and that leads to bad situations where they believe a gun will help them get the upper hand)

On a side note if the Limit Gun Rights people really want to get the public to rally behind gun laws they should do what Reagan did in California, he said look black people have guns. lol

 

i have no problem with background checks whatsoever, but if we are to ban guns because they kill people, it's like saying we might as well ban spoons because they make people fat... that's how ridiculous this ban is. a ban will not solve the problem. it will only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from forms of tyranny and oppression.

like Thomas Jefferson said:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

maybe more thorough background checks will help, but either way, the real problem is the moral decline of a society, not guns. you give a society a better outlook on life, positive encourage and guidance, and have it ingrained in where they live, where they work, and where they learn, violence will greatly decrease.

 

I agree, we need to go where the problem is. For each problem, that is different. But the general rule I've found that works the best in my life is the 80/20 rule. If you can create general policies/procedures that address/fix 80% of the problems, then you can devote most of your time and resources to the toughest 20%.


For illegal gun crime: go where illegal guns will be highest. Usually high density cities, especially in gang areas.

For legal gun crime: background checks to weed out irresponsible/dangerous owners. Better tracking of gun sales. And stiffer penalties for irresponsibility. Possibly even incentives to promote responsibility (rebates on gun safes, for example).

For mass shootings: better identification and treatment of disturbed individuals. Background checks can be a start, but it's eventually going to require a complete change in how we view mental illness and it's treatment.

 

Please stop quoting that hypocritical son a ****. No one who owns slaves should be talking about freedom and slavery.

I'm not proposing a gun ban. What I am proposing is universal background checks. And really, perhaps licenses and training should be required for certain kinds of weapons (like what the Swiss have). Something needs to be done in any event.

 

i know you're not, but unfortunately, that's what it has come down to in this day and age... and when it comes to universal background checks...

http://youtu.be/jHmxY7zE5uc?t=45s

 

Then why bother with it? The M1 shoots a larger caliber than the AR. The only real advantage is the AR's higher capacity. As far as being "deadly" the M1 has a more powerful round. It's moot considering the debate is what was used in a war that no country had a real advantage in combat rifles. A better comparison is the M16 or M4 to the AR15. Fully auto or burst vs semiauto. Which one is better to mount an assault? Mounting an "assault" you'd much rather have a fully automatic rifle capable of laying down suppressive fire. So it's not quite well suited for an assault.

Quite frankly, it doesn't make one bit of difference the deadliness of the AR15 platform. It's a semiautomatic rifle that happens to look like a rifle used by the military. It kills people. Which is exactly what I would want it to do, and if I ever had to use it in a situation, I understand the platform well enough to make good use of it. It doesn't matter to me that people happen to use this particular rifle to do bad things. People use lots of tools to do bad things. Punish the f'ing people, and stop worrying about what they use.

I've seen others comment on what they think people need. That also doesn't make any difference. It's none of your business, nor is it your decision, what anyone else needs. There's lots of things that cause deaths, some even moreso than guns, that people don't need. But I don't see any of the hypocritical nimrods who think we need ban things or restrict magazine size to "save just one life" or "we just gotta do something" calling for a ban on smoking or drinking. Nor do I see them providing evidence that criminals will obey those restrictions. It's asinine.

 

You know, it's always that "one in a million" scenario until that **** happens to you. I don't think it's a "God given right". But it is provided for as a right guaranteed by the Constitution which is a document that defines the rights of citizens living within this country. What they used at the time is irrelevant, and a bazooka is not a gun.

 

If you want to live in a civilized society, you regulate what people can and can not do, or own. You have to sacrifice some personal liberties in return for others. That's the basic principle of law and order.

The gun rights people are coming of as children who only care about their toys. And that's what guns are are to many people here. A hobby.

Guns, especially semiautomatic rifles, are not action figures. They're not even paintball guns (which can cause minor injuries). They're extremely deadly weapons.

 

But see, that's not an accurate analogy. You wouldn't ban drunk driving. That's the same as banning murder. No, to compare with a ban or restriction on guns, you would have to ban certain types of alcohol or restrict their amount. So, we would ban all hard liquor and restrict people to one can of beer per day. Going by that logic, of course.

Try that out, we could save so many lives.