[BREAKING] School Shooting in Conn. at Elementary School

This is the most simplistic analysis. Why does the second amendment afford you rights to semi-auto rifles and hand-guns specifically? As far as I'm concerned, the second amendment was written when "arms" were inaccurate muskets that took a full minute to reload. Why not allow full autos and bazookas then? Where do YOU draw your brightline?

Protecting yourself for the government? Maybe this was true in 1793, when the government was also using muskets that take a minute to reload, but newsflash: an arsenal of full autos couldn't protect you from the limitless resources of the government.

I ask you again, why is a shotgun insufficient for self-defense?

 

I also want to call out this argument, which has been made by a bunch of people.

Reason why drugs are more difficult to outlaw than guns:

1. Drugs are more easily made and transported: they can be grown organically and transported from person to person in an almost undetectable manner.
2. When you use drugs, it's usually done in a non-public place/the privacy of your own home. So if you commit a crime with drugs, usually the police can't see you. When you use a gun for harm, you're necessarily going out into the public to do so, creating more of an opportunity for the police or the public to see your gun before you act.
3. The market for getting high is a lot higher than the market for owning an illegal firearm. Presumably, the punishment for owning an illegal firearm would be much higher than possession of a drug, deterring buyers.

Will we ever eliminate all guns? Probably not. Can we get to the point where we increase barriers to access/committing crimes that result in deaths? Absolutely.

Now let's stop with the stupid comparisons and examples.

 

It affords me rights to rifles because how can you fend off a radical government with muskets with they have rifles? I'm not saying the government is going to radicalize overnight, but armed citizens certainly help slow that process.

So you think that the founders of this nation, some of the smartest men of their time couldn't comprehend improvements of weapons? Do you realize that changes in weapons from about 1700-1800? They were well aware of technological advancements.

A shotgun is insufficient for self defense because of the size. Take a weapons self defense class and they can show you countless ways to disarm someone with a long gun. Simple geometry can also show you how it is easier to defend yourself with handgun than a shotgun.

The bottom line is, I don't have to convince you because the Constitution of the United States does that for me. Why should we allow people to have free speech? What good is hate speech? Shouldn't being able to rationally voice your opinions be enough? No, free speech is free speech and as long as you aren't threatening anyone directly, go nuts.

 

You've posted more than anyone else in this thread and you blame the media -- you'll have to find a better excuse than that.

 

I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change my mind. I can make a firearm in my house using a CNC machine or a 3D printer. All for about 1000 bucks. If you outlawed them tomorrow, you have no chance of getting rid of them. Guns don't wear out, they last hundreds of years. Meanwhile, technology to build your own gets cheaper by the day, and people are doing just that. See the custom AR-15 market for details.

 

I encourage you to look through this thread. I haven't posted any "correct" news since the first day. I haven't checked news channels or read articles except ones listed here. Heck, just last night I was saying that his mom worked at the school because that is what I heard the first day.

Sure, I'm going to post something that is easily debunked by a Google search

 

You have to draw the line somewhere, we can all agree, and that line is drawn at semi auto. I love the youtube of the automatic Bushmaster. Classic to keep trying to blur the lines of semi auto with auto.
Look, the line is drawn and I don't feel it needs to be even more! I feel more comfortable defending my family with a semi auto Glock than a non semi auto.
It is not a need, it is a right. It is freedom. Freedom costs, everything costs. If we want safe, then we can ethnically profile airline passengers, we can have greater controls on alcohol, tobacco, fast food, all cars capable of speed greater than 55mph...but I'd rather not live in that world...

 

1. Dude, get this through your head: the United States will never, ever, ever come to a point where violent revolution by the citizenry is necessary. If it does, then no matter what weapons you have, that revolution will be stamped out, very quickly. Unless you are a total paranoid nutjob, you have to realize that whether you have a fully automatic rifle or a shotgun, you will lose against the government. There is no deterrence. Luckily, in the real world, we don't have to worry about that because that will never happen. Let's take it a step further though, if you believe that the primary justification for the second amendment is to fend off the government, then why shouldn't we have the right to the same weapons they have? Why shouldn't I be able to own a tank, to deter the government from oppressing me?

2. I think that it's easy to say now that they could envision what technology would look like, but 20 years ago do you think people could envision what an iphone was? Do you think that people in the 1300s could think that a gun would ever exist? I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily had anything in mind like the weapons of today. Certainly, it's not a certainty enough to justify a no holds barred second amendment interpretation.

3. For the basic self-defense you would need in your own home, a shotgun is plenty for deterrence and for self-defense. Only in the rarest of cases can someone disarm you of a shotgun (when they wouldn't otherwise be able to do it with a handgun) and then subsequently harm you. On the other hand, the countless accidental deaths as a result of handguns, the fact that you can easily conceal them to commit crimes, and the large firepower of the rifle suggest that even if a small number of people die in failed self-defense attempts with their shotguns, we would outweigh those deaths significantly by decreasing the crimes/accidental deaths of handguns.

4. You contradict your own free speech analysis with your note at the end (the bolded part). What is the principled justification behind restricting free speech in the cases of inciting violence? Because allowing that free speech would harm the ability of others to actualize their right to life. Similarly, the same justification could be used to ban certain types of harmful weapons.

You're going to have to do better than that.

 

1000 bucks and access to a 3D printer is way more of a barrier than what it takes to buy drugs.

Nice job ignoring all of my arguments though.

 

That's the point. I don't give up my freedoms easily. My freedoms have been bought and defended with the blood of millions of brave American men and women.

Our founding fathers were not ignorant men, they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the second amendment. There is a reason that our Constitution only has 27 amendments. A government document written nearly 250 years ago has only been revised a handful of times.

Look at the last time an amendment was passed to outlaw something, it's this thing called the 18th amendment, which was repealed with the 21st. Outlawing doesn't help, see the war on drugs for details.

Why are people so anti-gun but they're cool with cigarettes and alcohol? According to the CDC alcohol kills over 39,000 Americans per year and cigarettes kill more than 440,000 per year. But you have no problem drinking a beer or having a smoke.

 

I'm not ignoring any of the arguments. To grow large amounts of weed you need expensive equipment, so the "tools" are an investment. I could be a CNC machine today and start making parts for an AR-15 and turn a profit in a few days. I don't do it, because I don't have to. If they outlawed the sale of new AR-15s tomorrow, I'd make my own. Simple as that. Either way, rifles only account for 4% of all gun related deaths, and this INCLUDES hunting rifles. You're the one ignoring the facts.

 

I didn't contradict myself with the free speech comment, the US Supreme Court made that ruling.

A shotgun is not a sufficient weapon for self defense in my opinion. I've been to firearms training, I have carried a handgun for over three years. I have no doubt that in a home invasion scenario I would be better off with my handgun than a cumbersome shotgun with a small ammo capacity. That is my choice afforded to me by the Constitution of the United States. You could probably live off of $30K thousand a year, so why don't you give the remaining money to the government or poor people? Oh that's right, because you don't have to... you have a right to what you earn.

You also point out that I think I am delusional for thinking I can hold off a military power with simple weapons? Have you seen the war in Afghanistan?

 

Because people can consent to the risk on their own and the primary intent of cigarettes/beer isn't to harm?

You've responded to one of the three arguments I made, with an assumption that isn't backed by facts.

Even if 4% are rifles a) those are still lives that matter and b) I'm also talking about handguns.


Dude, you're not able to justify your position at all. What would it hypothetically take for you to reconsider your views? I don't get why people cling to their original premise once it's challenged.

 

Probably a bullet to the brain of one of his six-year-old relatives.

 

Primary intent of cigarettes isn't to harm? Have you seen the side of a cigarette pack lately? Tens of thousand die every year due to illnesses caused by second hand smoke.

The same is said of alcohol. Nearly 11,000 die every year due to alcohol related car accidents.

Go ahead, pick and choose which is more evil. The #1 killer in America is heart disease, should we ban all unhealthy food to?

If the Constitution of the United States isn't justification enough for you, you have problems.

 

Responding to your paragraphs:

1. Yep, the US Supreme Court decided that BASED ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Interestingly, we're debating over valid interpretations of the constitution. You've again, justified my argument and contradicted your own.

2. A shotgun would be sufficient for most home invasions easily, unless you think home invaders are trained in martial arts/can easily disarm individuals. Willing to go out on a limb and say most aren't.

3. I can't tell if you're being serious with this argument. You do realize most deaths in the War in Afghanistan are due to RPGs and IEDs right? Do you think that we should legally have access to these weapons "just in case" the government goes crazy on us? Furthermore, geographical advantages of the Taliban have been largely responsible for the pro-longing of that war. Something tells me the U.S. government would be a little more than adept at fighting on its own turf.

 

It doesn't matter consent. The result is deaths. Alcohol, and tobacco directly results in tens of thousands of deaths including children per year. But apparently that kind of death seems acceptable...

 

I've had several family members killed in gun related crimes, and it didn't change a thing. I've had an uncle shot and killed over a few bucks in drugs and one stabbed to death on his front porch just chilling and drinking beer. I've also had another uncle blow his brains out with a shotgun.

There are 320 million people in this country, bad **** happens. History is full of people savagely killing each other over nothing.

 

Apparently saving lives isn't the goal. Lol

 

I'm sorry to hear that man... This was in the states???