Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
See, that's the problem. This just isn't going to happen. Consider this. It is estimated that 40 percent of the gun sales occur in unregulated gun shows. However, millions of guns change hands each year between family members and others. Private trades and sales, gifts, and inheritances, that are virtually untraceable; all legal and not likely to be illegal anytime soon.

And you can't do that without registration.

And criminals are not required to register there guns. So, what's the point of making a group of people unlikely to commit crimes register their guns?
 
Upvote 0

SharonL

Senior Veteran
Oct 15, 2005
9,957
1,099
Texas
Visit site
✟23,316.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another thing to look at is in their planning, they put in the bill that you cannot pass your weapons down to the next generation - you would have to turn them in if the owner dies.

I have a friend whos grandfather or great grandfather fought in the battle of the Alamo with his own gun. He has this gun now and is looking forward to passing it down to the next generation. I don't think that is in the bill now before Congress - but I haven't seen the bill. But it is on their planning agenda.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I can do that handily, in this recent example. Guess who got left alone during that riot?

Um...Kevin McAllistair?

Kind of like prohibitions on drugs?

Hopefully, better than that.

Why? What's the point? You're less likely to be shot to death by a rifle than to die in a tornado.

So? I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

And yet you don't seem to know what an assault weapon is.

I don't need to know. The 1994 federal ban defined the term, I have no problem sticking to that.

Since you don't seem willing to define what they are,

Again, the term has been defined.

you can't claim that situations would or would not be different (from your point of view) based on whether or not assault weapons are present.

I don't have to. All I need to do is make the obvious observation that assault weapons are deadlier than regular arms.

Maybe we should ban rocks and sticks and claw hammers because they're deadly weapons.

If you want to suggest banning all deadly weapons, take it up with your elected representative. Personally, I never advocated any such thing.

Which is basically anything.

True. But some things more than others. It doesn't take an expert on firearms to say an assault weapon is deadlier than a clump of dirt.

According to the CNN website, the police took 20 minutes to get there. 3 shots a minute is sixty shots. How many shots did he fire with his AR-15?

More than if he had to reload after every shot.

Civil War soldiers could manage four shots a minute.

Then perhaps it would have been better had Lanza been born a century earlier. It sure as hell would have been better for those kids.

No, actually, he killed as many people as he did because it's a gun free zone, and there wasn't an armed citizen there to shoot him. The government denied people the effective means of defense against him.

IT WAS A FREAKIN' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!!!

Are you saying the world would be a better place if kindergarten teachers were armed?

Man, we do not live on the same planet.

A2SG, you may also want to note that I did not call for the banning of everything that may possibly be deadly.....

Nope. Just "deadly weapons."

No, I didn't. Check again.

Well, you can use dirt to obtain potassium nitrate which is an ingredient for explosives. Should we ban potassium chlorate (it's in matches) because you can combine it with petroleum jelly to make a plastic explosive filler. How about fertilizer? (We all know how that turned out.)

Again, I never said any such thing.

-- A2SG, dunno who's saying the things you're arguing against, 'cuz it wasn't me....
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Save the hyperbole, the purpose of a gun is fire a bullet. It is the choice of the operator whether it's aimed at a paper target, used for hunting, being used for justifiable self-defense or for illegal purposes.

The latter three are examples of killing, the first is practicing to kill more accurately.

My statement stands.

AR-15s are routinely used for target shooting as well as hunting and self-defense. They are popular because they are light, accurate and customizable. They are the most popular variety of rifle in the US with over 3 million sold. So again, what specifically makes an AR-15 so deadly? It is the relatively light .223 cal round? Is it the pistol grip? Is it the telescoping stock or flash suppressor? Because those are the features an 'assault weapons' ban actually bans and not the actual gun.

The burden of proof the ban something should be a higher than a media campaign (i.e. them being labeled 'assault rifles') and saying "people don't need it." It's been pointed out time and again these firearms are used in a fraction of all homicides, the facts contradict your claim that they are "so deadly", if they were so deadly we'd be seeing them used to commit many more murders.

It is a fact that assault weapons are deadlier than handguns. It is also a fact that handguns are used more often, especially in the commission of a crime, than assault weapons.

The second fact does not negate the first one.

Again, you talk about gun violence as if guns are causing violence, as if inanimate objects are making people do this.

No, I'm talking about the fact that someone with a gun is deadlier than someone without a gun. The gun doesn't kill alone, that's true; but it's also true that someone can kill easier and more effectively with a gun than the could without one.

How about we actually do things to address why people are committing acts of violence.

Sure. What do you suggest?

All firearms are capable of killing, so by your reasoning we should ban all guns.

Not at all.

-- A2SG, I don't know whose reasoning you were using there, but it wasn't mine....
 
Upvote 0

Blackguard_

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Feb 9, 2004
9,468
374
41
Tucson
✟18,992.00
Faith
Lutheran
All I need to do is make the obvious observation that assault weapons are deadlier than regular arms.

That's not "obvious" at all.

How does a flash hider or collapsible stock or McCarthy's infamous "barrel shroud" make a weapon "deadlier"?
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There are only about 5 people in the U. S. A. who could afford a nuclear bomb...

So instead of banning assault weapons, we should charge more for them. Say add a federal tax of two million dollars for every one.

That might work! Good idea!

-- A2SG, and it might help with the deficit, too! Win, win!
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Gun ownership was and still is growing. That's the reality.

So? Unless responsible gun owners are going out and stopping crimes like Batman, that has nothing to do with the statistics on crime.

You seem to have a problem with responsible gun owners owner a certain gun (really the magazine capacity of that weapon).

Once again, not responsible gun owners. The problem is when those guns fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

I'm in favor of limiting the magazine capacity, but only if lawmakers are first shown a demonstration of how fast smaller capacity magazines can be loaded into the AR 15, as well as demonstrations of the weapons-of-choice if assault-style weapons were banned.

These replacement weapons and ammo would be chosen by (under the advisement of) hardened criminals who know guns.

I know you think you're helping your case, but you're not.

-- A2SG, unless you want to ban all weapons of any sort, because that seems to be what you're selling....
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
See, that's the problem. This just isn't going to happen. Consider this. It is estimated that 40 percent of the gun sales occur in unregulated gun shows. However, millions of guns change hands each year between family members and others. Private trades and sales, gifts, and inheritances, that are virtually untraceable; all legal and not likely to be illegal anytime soon.

Maybe they should be.

-- A2SG, it is a huge loophole...one that Obama is trying to close, and I say good for him!
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What has the specific weapon that a mass shooter used got to do with anything?

I've got a collection of screwdrivers on my workbench. Do you know how many times people have been stabbed with screwdrivers, sometimes fatally? Are screwdrivers inherently dangerous weapons? Do I need to justify why I "need" so many screwdrivers?

Why do people have to justify why they need anything? Nobody needs a McMansion, nobody needs a fast car, nobody needs to earn the vast sums that some people strive to earn. What of it? What's wrong with "I want it, I earned the money for it, so I'm going to have it"?

I've addressed this point several times in this thread. But hey, what's one more time!

Screwdrivers, McMansions, fast cars, just about anything else you can name have functions beyond killing.

Assault weapons do not.

The deadlier something is, the more we need to regulate it and make it harder to obtain.

-- A2SG, this is the basic principle behind the fact that anyone can buy a screwdriver at Wal-mart, but you can't buy a nuclear weapon.....
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm still on this...

Why should my right to own a weapon(or anything really) which is legal under current law be infringed upon based upon what you think I do or do not need?

But your need, or lack of it, isn't what the law is based on. It's based on the fact that assault weapons are a threat to public safety, and unlike other things, there is no overriding need to balance against that danger.

Same logic as to why you can't buy a nuclear weapon.

What if we weren't talking about guns, but instead abortions, would your opinion be the same?

Um, how are you comparing them? Because they are not the same thing.

-- A2SG, to start with, one is a good where the other is a service....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That's not "obvious" at all.

How does a flash hider or collapsible stock or McCarthy's infamous "barrel shroud" make a weapon "deadlier"?

Those aren't the only criteria that defined an assault weapon according to the 1994 federal law.

-- A2SG, the criteria was put forth in the bill, if you are interested...
 
Upvote 0

Blackguard_

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Feb 9, 2004
9,468
374
41
Tucson
✟18,992.00
Faith
Lutheran
Those aren't the only criteria that defined an assault weapon according to the 1994 federal law.

I know those were just examples, but surely you could tell me how the banned features would make a weapon "deadlier" if indeed "assault weapons" are deadlier than "normal" guns?
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I know those were just examples, but surely you could tell me how the banned features would make a weapon "deadlier" if indeed "assault weapons" are deadlier than "normal" guns?

Why do you assume I can tell you? I never claimed to be an expert on firearms.

If you want to debate the definition of assault weapons in the 1994 bill, or any new one proposed, speak to your elected representatives.

-- A2SG, me, I'm content with the definition as written, but if you want to further define the term, that's between you and your elected representative....
 
Upvote 0

Blackguard_

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Feb 9, 2004
9,468
374
41
Tucson
✟18,992.00
Faith
Lutheran
A2SG said:
Why do you assume I can tell you? I never claimed to be an expert on firearms.

Because you should have actual reasons for banning the things you want banned.

If you can't tell me, how the heck can you support it?

-- A2SG, me, I'm content with the definition as written, but if you want to further define the term, that's between you and your elected representative....

I'm not arguing the definition of "assault weapon", as that terms exists only in gun control propaganda and law, I'm arguing "assault weapons" aren't anymore deadly than "normal" guns.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Because you should have actual reasons for banning the things you want banned.

I do. I've stated them several times, in fact.

The potential for danger to public safety that comes from assault weapons outweighs the need of private citizens to own them.

Same principle as applies to nuclear weapons, in fact.

If you can't tell me, how the heck can you support it?

Because I don't need to be an expert on firearms to know that assault weapons are deadlier than regular arms, and as such, need to be regulated more.

I'm not arguing the definition of "assault weapon", as that terms exists only in gun control propaganda and law, I'm arguing "assault weapons" aren't anymore deadly than "normal" guns.

As I understand the law, it banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Semi-Automatic and automatic weapons can fire more bullets in less time than other guns, and that, by definition, makes them deadlier.

-- A2SG, that's about as specific as I can get. If you want to argue the specifics of the ban beyond that, you'll have to speak to your elected representatives....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The potential for danger to public safety that comes from assault weapons outweighs the need of private citizens to own them.

Let's try this again, and this time with pictures. Here are two pictures of rifles. Which one is deadlier and should be banned as an assault weapon?

Picture 1:


Picture 2:


Please everyone, just let A2SG answer.
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Which one do they arm soldiers with because those weapons are more deadly?

Probably the one with a detachable bayonet lug. Now with twice the evil as a regular bayonet lug, because it can hide!
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Let's try this again, and this time with pictures. Here are two pictures of rifles. Which one is deadlier and should be banned as an assault weapon?


Please everyone, just let A2SG answer.
Define "DEADLY"! I bet a musket is deadly too but try to mow down a bunch of school kids with it:doh:

What is the magazine capacity of the rifle in picture 2 (3 ?). It look like a self loading rifle and not a bolt action.

An assault rifle is one designed to combat more than one person. Hunting game does not require a gun with 30 odd round magazines that is self loading.

You take a 3 round magazined bolt action and I take any 30 round semi auto rifle and we go shoot people in some office or school. Then we compare the kill count and injury count before we are overwhelmed by the police or the people we are shooting manage to run away to safety.

Basically it all comes down to magazine capacity and loading time. The faster you can shoot more rounds the more you will kill when it comes to shooting civilians.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,438
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Let's try this again, and this time with pictures. Here are two pictures of rifles. Which one is deadlier and should be banned as an assault weapon?

Picture 1:


Picture 2:


Please everyone, just let A2SG answer.

No idea.

Man, you've just proven that I'm not an expert on firearms! What a coup, I've only been saying that all along!

-- A2SG, care to explain what point you think you're making?
 
Upvote 0