• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by wing2000, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    Got an interesting article about it.

    But yet, as far as I'm aware, no one is proposing to make it available. But yet they don't want to restrict the private sale of guns. Hmm.

    It would, indeed.

    Well, you feel it's information we all need to know. So, certainly. At least come up with something.

    Are guns more dangerous than cars?

    There's somewhere between 257-300 million firearms in the United States. There's 32,000 firearms related deaths.

    There's 250 million or so cars in the United States. There were 32,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents.

    In terms of accidental deaths, cars are far more dangerous than guns.

    What's fallacious about the historical fact that gun laws generally have followed a historical trend of becoming more and more restrictive? Every gun law that is proposed is generally more restrictive than the last one that was passed.

    So how would another law have stopped him? He didn't follow a plethora of other laws.

    So there is no guarantee that it will work? If it fails will the government repeal it, or will they pass something else that doesn't work, too?

    Dianne Feinstein said it, not me. So, it's a perfectly accurate characterization.

    Guns are pretty much inanimate metal. And wood. And polymer.

    I'm sure you're well aware of how many people who commit murder have a prior criminal history. It's something like 90%. Perhaps the solution isn't to ban inanimate hunks of metal. Perhaps the solution is removing career criminals from society?

    Connecticut had an assault weapons ban before Newtown.

    So how would a law stop a suicidal maniac?

    Laws criminalizing possession of inanimate pieces of metal are just dumb. What benefit does society get from that? Here's a piece of steel. You can have it. Here's a CNC machine. You can have it. But...use the CNC machine to perform a few machining operations on the piece of steel, and you can't have it? What kind of sense does that make?

    Was he a convicted felon? Was he the subject of a protection order? Had he been adjudicated mentally defective? If not, then it wouldn't have kept him from buying a gun, unless the gun store said, "No."

    Precursor chemicals to create weapons of mass destruction aren't as dangerous as a rifle?

    They're still subject to misuse, so shouldn't they be more heavily regulated. There's a whole government program dedicated to regulating the transfer of fertilizer. Wouldn't you want them to watch precursor chemicals, too?

    Well, guns accidentally kill far fewer people than cars.

    Some people need killing.
  2. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Interesting it may be, but I fail to see the point you're trying to make with it.

    I'm sure someone will figure it out at some point.

    Again, not my job. I'm not writing the legislation, nor do I have any connection to NICS or anything similar. When the bill is written, I have no doubt there will be provisions in it to administer the required background checks.

    Yup. Guns kill when used properly. Cars don't.

    How many first graders can one person kill with a single car? Compare that to what Adam Lanza did.

    And yet, the Second Amendment remains. Fancy that....

    Had the ban on assault weapons still been in effect, his mother would not have been able to buy them legally, like she did.

    Would it have prevented him from getting them anyway? I dunno. But it sure would have been harder, and that very well might have made a difference.

    Also, five kids escaped when he reloaded. If he'd had to reload more often because he didn't have access to high capacity magazines, how many more might have?

    There are no guarantees with any law.

    Better than doing nothing. That will guarantee more deaths.

    If she called for a ban on all guns, then anything less than a ban on all guns is a compromise. So....

    And if that's all they are, as I said, there's no problem. That is, until someone picks it up....

    Sure, let's do that too. But that alone isn't enough.

    So? People can cross the border into Connecticut from other states. I know, I've done it.

    By keeping assault weapons out of his hands before he kills other people.

    Less guns in the hands of people who can't pass a background check.

    Again, it isn't the inanimate metal that's the problem, it's the people who are using it.

    We don't have to worry about Adam Lanza getting more guns.

    But you're right, no law will prevent every single possible maniac from obtaining an assault weapon and mowing down first graders with it, but we have to do what we can.

    Doing nothing isn't acceptable.

    Bleach and vinegar by themselves, no.

    Sure, but unlike guns, bleach and vinegar have other uses than killing.

    Newtown wasn't an accident.

    I can name 26 who didn't.

    -- A2SG, guns can't tell the difference, and that's the problem.....
  3. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    Shouldn't Congress figure out the ramifications before they pass a law? Otherwise they're setting themselves up for a New York style failure.

    This is Congress, and idiots (but I repeat myself). Should we really take that chance?

    Two points:

    -Killing someone is not necessarily a net negative for society.

    -Cars are more dangerous accidentally based on the number of deaths relative to the number of cars, than guns are when used to intentionally kill people.

    Timothy McVeigh killed twenty children with fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a panel truck. Anyone who can follow simple directions released by the US government can build a car bomb.

    Congress would never ignore the Constitution, would they? Maybe with the Alien and Sedition Acts?

    Do you know when she obtained her rifle? If it was before 1994, then it's grandfathered in.

    Prior to the shooting Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban.

    It's a matter of a second or so to swap out an AR-15 magazine. How far can a kid get in a second?

    I think the death toll has more to do with the abysmal response of the police department.
    Thirty rounds is standard capacity for an AR-15.

    Making a law to stop people who don't follow laws from getting a gun because it's against the law certain would fall under that.

    Not necessarily. Congress should not act in haste. Perhaps delaying or doing nothing is the best thing to do.

    So...they really do want to take away all guns, irregardless of the meaning of the Constitution.

    Tens of millions of gun owners picked up their guns and didn't go out and kill people. Sorry, mere possession of a firearm doesn't turn people into crazy killers.

    Actually, it probably is enough. You're talking about legislation that is going to impact hundreds of millions of people based on the actions of around 400 people if that. That's it. If you could snap your fingers and remove all assault weapons from the United States today, the absolute highest ceiling of impact that it could possibly have would be to prevent around 400 murders. There's around 14,000 or so murders in the United States, per year. So, the maximum impact that it could have would be to prevent around 400 murders.

    Now, parse what I said, very carefully, because it does not take into account whether or not people would choose a different weapon, and I was using the FBI data for a "rifle" which includes "assault weapons" so the number is very probably even lower than my estimate. In reality, it's probably far, far lower than 400. My number above also presupposes that people who commit murder with a semi automatic rifle don't break the law and obtain one and use it anyway.

    Remember, murder is an action. An assault weapon is an implement or a tool. There are other tools that one can use for murder. And the vast majority or murderers are career criminals with exposure to violence. If you remove those people from society based on their conduct, I estimate it's possible to reduce the murder rate to around 1400 or so per year.

    And people can download the schematics to make a 3d printed AR-15 magazine off the internet. How well does the ban stand up after that?

    What about if someone uses a 3d printer to create the part of the AR-15 that is legally considered the firearm?

    Hmm. Are you going to ban 3d printer technology now?

    If you want to ban or heavily regulate firearms, you have to regulate the machines to make them. Otherwise, the criminals can still get them.

    If you could remove every single so called assault weapon from the United States with a snap of your fingers, how many murders would you prevent? The best answer I could come up with was an absolute maximum number of around 400. That's it. That's how much good such an insipid law would do. That's it. It might possibly prevent 400 murders. Maybe. That's barely even statistically significant.

    But if you're nefarious and mix them together. Kind of like fertilizer and diesel fuel or petroleum jelly and potassium chlorate or nitric acid and paper.

    But they're precursor chemicals and should be regulated, right?

    In terms of the number of murders in the United States, it's not statistically significant, either, and should not form the basis for any rational policy decisions.

    At Newtown, the good guys were forbidden to have guns. That's the problem.
  4. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Gee, I hope someone thought of that when they drafted the bill!

    So don't. By all means, contact your representatives and let them know!

    Bad argument when the victims were elementary school kids.

    Once again, the deaths at Sandy Hook were not accidental.

    You're comparing accidental misuse with intentional use. Please note what I said:

    "Guns kill when used properly. Cars don't."

    Your point being....what? Ban fertilizer, diesel fuel and panel trucks?

    Legislatures pass unconstitutional laws sometimes. It happens.

    No idea.

    Oh goodie. I'm sure the families of those kids at Sandy Hook will be consoled by that.

    [QUOTEPrior to the shooting Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban.[/QUOTE]

    And it proved ineffectual. Which is why a federal ban is a better idea than state ones.

    Five got far enough.

    If Lanza needed more time to reload, who knows how many others could have made it? Who knows how those delays would have helped law enforcement get to him faster?

    The only thing that allowing large capacity magazines helped was the killer. It didn't help those kids.

    Then think of it this way: if he had a pistol, not an automatic weapon, he would have needed more time to shoot, and more time to reload. That extra time would have saved how many kids, do you think?

    Oh good.

    Tell me, for what possible reason would a responsible gun owner need that many bullets fired in that short a time?

    And please, don't tell me just cuz he wants to. Give me a legitimate reason.

    Laws don't prevent every possible crime, and yet, we still pass them. Under your logic, why pass any laws at all?

    That's what happened before. Until Dec. 14th.

    The time to do nothing is over.

    They're not.

    If that's their goal, they compromised.

    No one ever said it did.

    Similarly, billions of people didn't steal things from other people, and yet, theft is still a crime. So we pass laws for some reason.

    Considering what happened in Newtown, I don't think so.

    Preventing one means it worked.

    Again, if your point is that we should punish murderers, I agree.

    Let me see if I follow you here: people will find a way to circumvent the law so.....


    No laws at all?

    Is that what you're saying here?

    No, but we can, and do, outlaw certain applications of legal machinery. For example, try to use a color printer and copy a $20 dollar bill sometime and see what happens.

    As I said before, no law can guarantee no one will ever break it. That doesn't mean we stop passing laws.

    If you're suggesting we regulate gun manufacturers and limit what kinds of weapons they are legally allowed to manufacture for private use, I'm all for that.

    That'd be quite fine with the family members of those 400 people, I'd imagine.

    It'd be a start.

    Your point being...?

    As soon as we figure out a way to know beforehand who will use them properly and who will use them improperly, we will.

    I disagree. I think the wanton murder of twenty children in an elementary school should be a wake up call. Fortunately, others agree with that.

    Sorry, but I can't buy that the solution to gun violence is more guns.

    -- A2SG, we're a society, we have to be able to do better than that.....
  5. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    They probably didn't.

    I do. And it's really easy.

    *shrug* So what.

    "Guns kill when used properly. Cars don't."[/QUOTE]

    There was pretty much no way to predict the deaths at Sandy Hook, so why should we make laws based on something like that?

    Cars are still more dangerous.

    So, even in this instance, you can't show a law would have prevented anything if you don't know where she got her rifle. If it was from the black market, well, gee, a law wouldn't have prevented that.

    If I give you a legitimate reason, you'll just move the goalposts. Because he wants to is a perfectly legitimate reason. Just like it's a perfectly legitimate reason to exercise any of our rights. Because he wants to should be all the reason anyone needs. (Or, in the case of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, because I don't want to.)

    Because criminal laws regulate conduct, and generally there's a victim. Who's victimized by my simple possession of an object that I purchased in legitimate commerce?

    Can't let a crisis go to waste, can we?

    Hmm. Probably nothing. I bet If I scanned a copy of a $20 bill on my printer right now, nothing would happen.

    If you want to stop people from getting guns, you pretty much have to make everyone live in the stone age.

    But there aren't even any statistical means to prove that it prevented one death. The best statistics I could find showed "rifles" which means everything from the 1861 Enfield rifled musket to an AR-15. It doesn't even appear that the FBI collects statistics on whether or not an "assault style weapon" was used in any sort of killing. So there doesn't exist any way to show that the law has even any effect.

    What I'm saying is that laws to criminalize possession of objects don't work. The war on drugs has been an astounding success. Had your dog shot lately?

    No. You have to go further than that. You have to ban the private possession of any sort of machine tools or 3d printer.

    Still not a valid reason to make public policy.

    Did you even read what I wrote, though? That's the absolute maximum ceiling that you could effect, and it's certainly not even that high. And you're talking about people who committed murder. So, there's no guarantee it would prevent those 400 murders because they could just choose another tool. The bottom line is that an assault weapons ban makes good headlines but it doesn't accomplish anything at all.

    Not even close. It would not have any statistical impact on murders at all.

    Those chemicals and items combined in those fashions are used to create explosives. They're far more destructive than firearms.

    Why not just prevent people from having them altogether? That way, there's no worries.

    It's a gun free zone. What good would another law saying that guy isn't supposed to have that gun there, accomplish? Why do you want to repeat failed history?

    Quite frankly, that's reality. There are evil people in the world, and they do evil things. A firearm is a tool, and can be used either for good or for ill, and it is the intent of the user that determines that, as is the case with any other technology. To ban or limit the possession of firearms is to leave the weak and meek at the mercy of the strong and murderous. When seconds count, as in the Newtown massacre, the police were fifteen minutes away. They didn't arrive until ten minutes after the shooter had stopped shooting. Until then, he had free reign of the school and no one with any sort of equal means to stop him, because they had been disarmed and made victims by legislative fiat. Of course, someone in possession of a pistol at that school would not have guaranteed that the killer would meet effective resistance, but, it would have offered someone a chance of offering effective resistance. Isn't it worth consideration that perhaps a firearm in the hands of someone with the will and the courage to use it could have prevented the killer at Newtown during is spree? During his spree, no one had effective means of mounting resistance which would have matched him force for force. No one. Congress denied those people at that school their most effective means of fighting back. There's evidence to show that when confronted by a random stranger armed with effective means of resistance, that spree killers turn their weapons on themselves and end it. Why should our children by at the mercy of the spree killers of this world? Shouldn't we encourage the teachers to mount effective resistance with effective tools?

    We as a society need to accept the fact that there is evil in this world, evil that exists outside of our civilized rules of behavior. We as a society need to realize that the police can't protect us from evil like they failed to protect children in Newtown, and in fact that the police have no duty to protect us. We need to stop our condition white navel gazing and text messaging and be aware of what's around us. I've been in a situation where it seemed that there were two wolves scoping me out. They looked like predators. I didn't look like prey, and I live in a state that recognizes my right to self defense, and they moved on. Is your life so valueless that you are not willing to defend it? Do you expect the police to defend it when you will not?
  6. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    I somehow doubt that. But the text of the Senate bill is available on line, feel free to check it out and contact your elected representatives to let them know.


    Once again, your empathy is touching.

    There's no way to predict someone will rob your house, so why make laws based on that either?

    Stand in front of a car with someone operating it properly, then stand in front of a gun also with someone operating it properly, see which one makes you feel safer.

    True enough.

    That by you means just give up? Sorry, I don't think like that.

    Try me. I promise I won't debate you on it.

    See, here's the thing: even responsible gun owners I've spoken to readily admit that no responsible gun owner NEEDS an assault weapon. Other weapons work just as well for any reasonable reason given.

    But by all means, if you have a reason why you need an assault weapon where no other firearm will do, I'll be happy to listen.

    Some objects shouldn't be freely available to those who aren't qualified. By the same logic, you can't go out and buy plutonium or a neutron bomb at Wal-Mart.

    I don't consider the children massacred at Sandy Hook to be a waste.

    Wanna bet?

    Let me tell you a story, the high school I went to has a printing department, where kids can learn printing as a trade. One year, as a joke, some kids printed $10 bills with teachers faces on them. They were visited by the Treasury Department.

    Sure. But try and print it and pass it off as real, see what happens.

    Point being, even if a piece of equipment is perfectly legal, it can still be used illegally. A credit card is legal, but try and use it to open your neighbor's door and you've committed a crime.

    You don't have to go that far back, I don't believe there were many guns around during the Renaissance. As for automatic weapons, you only need go back to before the First World War or so.

    And there are no statistical means to prove it didn't.

    So let's err on the side of caution and reasonableness and make sure everyone who wants to buy one has to pass a background check first.

    Seems the least we can do.

    See, that's not what's going on here. All that's going on is ensuring that everyone who buys a gun needs to pass a background check first. There's nothing unreasonable or onerous about that.

    Not necessarily, since they do have perfectly legal applications. We can, on the other hand, prosecute those who use those pieces of equipment illegally.

    Roughly 90% of Americans disagree with you on that.

    I disagree.

    And what's more, the alternative (ie doing nothing) is worse.

    If it prevents the murder of one first grader, i'd consider it well worth it.

    Your mileage may vary, of course.

    Again...your point being...?

    Fine by me. Care to offer a way to do that?

    Because I don't buy the argument that more guns somehow equates to less gun violence. The math doesn't work.

    I don't agree.

    And if someone were calling for an outright ban on all firearms, that'd be a cogent argument. Since no one is, it doesn't work.

    I'm sorry, were teachers armed beforehand?

    I'm willing to consider it, but it's still insane.

    See, I'm a father. My child goes to an elementary school. The idea of guns in her school scares the bejeebus out of me.

    Your mileage may vary, of course.

    There has to be a saner solution. I'm of a mind we try to find it before we start arming first grade teachers.

    I've lived over 50 years without the need of a firearm of any kind. I plan to continue doing so.

    That said, I have no problem with you owing a gun if you want one...but I do expect that you be able to pass a background check first. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

    -- A2SG, and it's also reasonable to limit the sorts of weaponry you, as a private citizen not subject to any form of military discipline or training, are
    allowed to own.....
  7. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    Good. I'm glad you feel that way.

    Because someone is victimized if my house is robbed.

    Done both. I feel less safe with the car person.

    So do the same thing or something similar and expect a different result.

    I just did. It's all the legitimate reason that I need.

    Because I can. That's all the reason that I need. I don't need to justify the exercise of any of my natural rights.

    So now you're moving the goalposts from making a photocopy which is something completely victimless to fraud, which is something that is not completely victimless.

    Just because something can be used illegally is not a reason to ban it.

    No, actually they go back to 1200 A.D. If a society has the capacity to forge or cast metal, that society can create a firearm. Repeating firearms go back to the 18th century.

    And yet you want to pass another one. See the problem here?

    There's already a law against selling a firearm to a prohibited person. Of course, the government really doesn't prosecute many prohibited people who attempt to purchase firearms. So, let's pass another law that they won't enforce.

    It won't ensure anything. It will make people feel like they're Doing Something™

    If someone were to remove the serial number on and sell it to a prohibited person, there's no way to prove it. Which makes any such restriction only meaningful to people who follow the law. Guess what? If a person removes the serial number, reports the gun stolen, and then sells it to a prohibited person, the law is meaningless.

    It's not illegal to manufacture guns for your own use. If I wanted to, I could buy a CNC machine and churn out AR-15 lowers. If I decide I want a cooler AR-15, I can stamp a serial number on it, and then put it on consignment.

    Prisons can't keep guns out. What makes you think that banning guns in a society with Home Depot would make anyone safer?

    So what. That doesn't mean that they're right.

    You can buy those chemicals, ball bearings, and steel plate without a background check. Then you've once you do that, you can make a claymore mine.

    umm...I just said that doing something pretty much won't affect the problem at all.

    Which means that doing something is probably worse because it creates an imaginary sense of safety.

    I can't. I want people to have them.

    Read what I said and play find the strawman.

    Here it is for your perusal:

    In the case of the Newtown shooter, more violence administered to him would have been a good thing because then he can't administer violence to little first graders. And the police took fifteen minutes to show up with appropriate tools because teachers are denied them. What's wrong with that?

    No they weren't. How did that gun free school zones act work out?

    Does that include police officers? If it doesn't, it's probably an irrational fear.

    One could hire armed security and basically turn every single public school into a gaol and require every single person who comes onto campus to submit to a TSA like screening. Of course the TSA misses guns regularly, so that's not a guarantee, but, if you just leave a school open that's just asking for trouble. In order to prevent a spree killing, you'd have to do something that scares the bejeebus out of you.

    Do you call the men with guns if you're the victim of a crime?

    Unless of course the gun that I happen to want is an assault weapon and looks scary.

    It is limited. Of course a flamethrower is legal for me to own.
  8. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    You know what I find disgusting, the exploitation of the horrific death of children and their grieving parents to push a political agenda...

    The laws proposed would have accomplished nothing to stop that lunatic, and to make matters worse this push concerning people with "mental illness" from owning firearms.

    Excuse me, for having a different cognitive style, but I'm not mentally ill, I'm just different. People on the spectrum tend to be the victims of violent crimes, not the one committing the crime, I don't know what that individual's problem was, but there was more to it than simply Autism. Even if he had been bullied and teased when he was younger, taking it out on innocent children is just plain wrong...

    What many people here don't understand is that people on the spectrum tend to be very big about right and wrong, attacking innocent children that never did anything to him, that were no possible threat to him, as someone on the spectrum, I don't see how someone else on the spectrum could pull something like that. I'm serious, we're very big on rules, right and wrong, and I don't see how anyone could think that killing kids like that was justifiable...

    So we have a law that would not have done anything to stop what happened, all this law does is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get a firearm, and it sets the stage for a gun registry.

    Quite frankly trusting the government with information that could lead with the deprivation of everyone's 2nd Amendment rights is quite frankly completely insane.
  9. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    And someone is victimized if someone who shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon gets one. Sorry, did I say victimized? I meant massacred.

    Bully for you. I'd say you're in a very small minority.

    Well, if we do nothing we all but guarantee more massacres.

    Okay then.

    The right to bear arms isn't absolute.

    What goalposts? If you photocopy a $20 bill and try to pass it off as real, that's counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is illegal.

    The point being, photocopiers are legal to own and use, but certain uses are illegal. We can, and do, outlaw certain specific uses of legal objects.

    I never said it was.

    Okay then.

    Yup. The problem is people who shouldn't own guns are allowed to buy them without a background check beforehand. Not only guns, but assault weapons.

    If you don't see that as a problem, then we're not living in the same reality.

    Or we could close the loophole were people who can't pass a background check can still buy guns anyway.

    As to prosecution of firearm related crimes, there is something that can be done to facilitate that: confirm a director of ATF now.

    And doing nothing will do....well, nothing.

    Still not a better solution.

    Let me see if I get your point here: people circumvent the law so....what? No laws?

    And your point is....?

    Who said it would?

    Whether or not you agree, the fact is it's perfectly valid. And popular support means it will likely pass.

    And your point is....?

    Maybe it will, maybe it won't...but as I said, doing nothing will all but guarantee more massacres.

    I, for one, don't favor that.

    Who said any law can ensure safety?

    The best we can hope for is to do something that might help, because doing nothing won't.

    If you don't agree with these ideas, feel free to offer your own...but all I've heard so far is more guns, and as I said, I don't buy that as an answer.


    If you're seriously suggesting arming first grade teachers and you don't see a problem there, then I truly am not able to communicate with you.

    Let me see here...they weren't armed before, and they aren't armed now... Um....

    I'd rather see a cop on detail in a school than armed teachers, I have to say.

    Or we could try to find a sane solution.

    Universal background checks and limiting the availability of assault weapons seem like reasonable ideas to me.

    I'm sure I would if I needed to. Which is another reason why I don't feel the need to own one myself.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to limit the availability of something as dangerous as an assault weapon. We already limit other forms of weaponry that are dangerous, like nuclear weapons and the like.

    Good, but there need to be more.

    Oh goodie.

    -- A2SG, give more ideas to the sociopaths out there, whydon'cha....
  10. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    You do realize that criminals are more apt to use handguns, not weapons like an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic rifle.

    That's one possibility, the more likely possibility is that we have a dishonestly biased left wing media that is unwilling to allow an honest debate on the subject to take place.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

    Equating a hunting rifle with an atom bomb isn't exactly an honest comparison either...

    Just cause someone owns an AR-15 with a standard magazine, does not mean they are going on a shooting spree... Going on a violent shooting spree is illegal, but so is going on a rampage with a knife slitting a dozen peoples' throats... I don't see anyone in a rush to ban kitchen knives...

    Are you trying to imply that I'm mentally ill simply because I'm on the Autistic Spectrum?

    Btw, it's fairly obvious that you have no idea what an assault weapon is (most democrats seem fairly clueless when it comes to firearms). There is more than one type of AR-15, the one that is a semi-automatic is not an assault weapon. Democrats seem to think every gun that happens to look scary is an assault weapon even if said firearm has the exact same capability as another gun that they don't think is an assault weapon that happens to look a little different.

    Yeah, that's rather obvious since he isn't falling for a bunch of trumped up political talking points...

    You do realize that the New York State Police is in serious trouble atm...

    You mean confirm someone that would pull another stunt like Fast & Furious, I actually have a better idea, call for Eric Holder to resign.

    And doing something stupid without thinking things through (which is what you are proposing) is often worse than doing nothing.

    Anyways, as I said earlier what I find disgusting is people exploiting dead children to promote a political agenda, something that would do nothing to save their lives, but instead furthers a political agenda.

    But then like Rahm Emanuel says:
    Rahm Emanuel Says Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste - YouTube
  11. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Yup. But they can kill more people in less time with a assault weapons, so they're sufficiently dangerous that it's in the public interest to limit their availability.


    Tell me, which "dishonestly biased left wing media" is responsible for the belief that facing a properly operated car is safer than facing a properly operated gun?

    Thanks for that. Oh, and no one's giving up any essential liberties, unless you consider it an essential liberty to allow unfettered and unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for absolutely anyone.

    I didn't equate them. I simply said that some weapons are unavailable to private citizens without violating the right to bear arms.

    Never said it does.

    Right, because kitchen knives have uses that don't involve killing.

    But let's be honest here, if someone went on a killing spree with a knife they'd do a hell of a lot less damage than if they had an assault weapon.

    I never said a word on the subject.

    The definition of assault weapon is pretty specific both in the 1994 law and any proposed law being considered now. And "looks scary" is not a criteria.



    And that will help prosecute gun related crimes how, exactly?

    I don't think universal background checks and limiting the availability of assault weapons are "stupid" ideas at all. Many people agree, including most NRA members.

    It isn't exploiting those murdered children to demand we, as a society, do something to prevent future massacres. What we've done up to this point has resulted in more and more mass shootings, so clearly something needs to be done.

    I, for one, have no problem listening to other ideas, but all I've heard are cries for more guns, and I don't see how that makes things better.

    Well, I don't live in Chicago, so the opinion of that city's mayor doesn't affect me all that much.

    -- A2SG, of course, Newtown was the very first time emotions have prompted political action.....
  12. Glas Ridire

    Glas Ridire Well-Known Member

    Celtic Catholic
    The definition of "assault weapon" used in that legislation was written (in part) by this lady:
    Carolyn McCarthy - YouTube

    Why is it again, that a bayonet lug is a feature that defines "assault weapons"? How many assaults/ crimes have been committed where the presence of a bayonet lug made the crime more serious than it would have been if say. . . the lug was machined off?

    We could go scary feature by scary feature and the characterization fits . . . the 1994 ban did nothing to fundamentally change how a gun functions in a crime . . . or self defense scenario. It did force people to shave bayonet lugs on new AKs while increasing the price/ marketability for unaltered ones. For giggles I photo shopped the bottom one to have a 1994 AWB compliant thread protector pinned in place rather than that scary looking muzzle brake which serves the purpose of making the gun easier to shoot accurately and less likely to get rounds off target. Now tell me if I am wrong, but most of the time criminals are shooting at each other, right? So, why is it bad for mister Crip to get three rounds on mister Blood instead of one in mister Blood, one hitting little Sally doing homework in a second floor apartment and the third landing in a dog food bowl in suburbia? Did making that muzzle brake illegal really serve to make things safer? Made the AK look less scary though, right?
  13. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    People want to own assault rifles because they do look scary, right? I think you are projecting a bit.

    Some people are really arguing themselves out of the debate on this one. They try so hard to show that there is really no difference between assault rifles and another rifle that they make our case for us. If there is no difference then you are just as able to defend yourself with the non-assault rifle as with the actula AR. This means that an AR ban is consitutional since you are still able to purchase weapons that afford the same level of self defense.
  14. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    If you have an issue with the legal definition of assault weapons in any legislation, feel free to take it up with your elected representative.

    Personally, I don't care. I don't know enough about guns of any kind to speak on the subject. And please don't take that as an excuse to "educate" me, because I have no desire to learn about them.

    -- A2SG, and further, any attempt to say that I should will be ignored.....
  15. Jeffwhosoever

    Jeffwhosoever Faithful Servant Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    United States
    There is no assault weapon legislation now, at least not at the national level. We won.
  16. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion

    -- A2SG, let's see how long before the next massacre....
  17. Jeffwhosoever

    Jeffwhosoever Faithful Servant Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    United States
    You operate from a false premise. Studies done on the 1993 ban did not demonstrate any significant effect. In addition, less than 1% of homicides are committed with any type of AR-15 like weapon. In fact, more people die from body contact attacks than from AR-15 like weapons.
  18. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Which only proves that doing nothing won't help the situation, which is what I've been saying all along.

    So, got any ideas?

    -- A2SG, and please, do not say "more guns," because that clearly won't solve the problem....
  19. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    You mean it's in the government's interest to limit their availability and people are stupid enough to go along with it...

    If a gun is being aimed arbitrarily at an innocent person then quite frankly it is not being handled in a proper manner... Guns are an inanimate object, people choose to pull the trigger.

    You know that song and dance routine is getting more than a little old, the fact you can't tell the difference between an AR-15 and something that would be considered an artillery piece demonstrates that you really have no credibility on this subject.

    You do realize the interior components of the military version of the AR 15 are completely different from the civilian version...

    Guns can be used for competition shooting you know...

    Actually it would depend...

    You were irresponsibly throwing the mental illness explanation around...

    Considering there are essentially identical guns with one being banned and the other not, for simple cosmetic differences and nothing more than that, would indicate otherwise.

    It would be holding people responsible for Fast & Furious and giving the Mexican Drug Cartels thousands of guns.

    It depends how the question was asked. The rhetoric usually doesn't match with reality, especially when the Obama Administration is involved...

    Except none of these proposals would do that, all it does is make it harder on law abiding citizens... I would argue the fact schools are a gun free zone makes them ripe targets for maniacs like what happened in Newton.

    If someone tries going on a shooting rampage in a building full of people that are armed and trained on the use of a firearm, that person is not going to get very far...

    If a few key people had firearms and training on the use of firearms, the Newton shooter could at the very least have been slowed down, which would have bought time for police to get there, which would mean several children would be alive today as a result.

    Before being the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel was Obama's Chief of Staff at the White House...

    Word of advice for future posts, don't make claims like that, when someone has already posted video that demonstrates that claim to be false.

    Not only is this not the first time Democrats have used emotion to try to prompt political action to push anti-gun legislation, this also isn't the first time Obama has tried to use emotion to push anti-gun legislation.

    Just Fast & Furious got exposed and undercut his last attempt.
  20. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Dude, the government IS the people. Didn't you ever read the Constitution?

    Who said it was arbitrary?

    See, here's the difference, if you missed it: there is NO proper usage of a car that includes hitting a person with it. That is not the case with a gun, as hitting your intended target (which may or may not be a person) IS the proper usage.

    Yup. And I have no problem with any gun that has no one touching the trigger. Problem is, people buy them and do that.

    Whether or not I, personally, can tell the difference doesn't matter. I'm not writing the legislation.

    And my personal knowledge about guns doesn't change the point, which is that it isn't an "essential liberty" to have unfettered and absolute access to any and all forms of weaponry. Your liberty and right to bear arms is intact even if certain types of weapons are banned or limited. Same logic for why you can't have a nuclear weapon.

    I don't, and further, I don't care.

    Yeah. And....?

    Not really. The only difference would be time. A knife killer needs more time to kill the same number of victims as someone with an automatic weapon.

    I did no such thing.

    Then take it up with your elected representatives. That's why you voted for them.

    Okay. And what about the guns in the hands of Americans who are murdering Americans with them?

    Far as I can tell, all polls yield similar results, so it seems the idea is put forth pretty clearly in all cases.

    Care to offer specifics on that?

    And I would argue that arming first grade teachers is insane.

    Neither will a lot of bystanders.

    Again, if you're suggesting arming first grade teachers, I think you've watched too many Die Hard movies.

    There have to be better ideas than that.

    Uh, yeah, I know. My point is...he isn't.

    He's the Mayor of Chicago.

    As such, his opinion matters about as much as Tom Menino's does.

    What, you never heard of sarcasm?

    Still got nothin' on the emotional blackmail used by anti-abortion advocates.

    So, basically, it's a zero sum game.

    Let's not forget, the Bush Administration tried something similar too. So while I don't disagree that it was a bad idea, the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on bad ideas.

    -- A2SG, and further, since it illustrates how bad an idea it is to have more guns out there, it doesn't exactly help your case....