Only 3% of murders in the United States every year are from rifles. Less than half of that are from what the media and politicians incorrectly describe as "assault" rifles. The problem is most of the people calling for assault rifle bans don't even know what an assault rifle is. Most hunting rifles sold are more powerful and deadly than the .223 assault rifle aka AR15. Simply put, they're misguided. You totally figured me out! There are no fewer than five topics I've CLEARLY stated my gun positions in, with THOUSANDS of words. I've been more forthcoming in what I believe than 99% of the people that post in D&D. Lycos, go get it!
Why? Let's assume that X% of people get killed because it is so damn easy to use an automatic repeating weapon that fires a high volume of bullets in a very short span of time. Isn't it worth saving X%? [[If mentally handicapped people can use these weapons to such deadly effect, then surely one wonders if they ought to be available to anyone?]] I find the use of a percentage argument rather callous (as I labelled selfish above) - one bemoans ones own "right" to bear arms regardless of the cost to anyone else....
Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Gabrielle Giffords, Sikh temple... all pistols. One of the Virginia Tech shooter's guns was a .22 (the least deadly round on the market). And while the theater shooter had a rifle, he did the most damage with the shotgun. The people leading the charge are completely clueless to the firearms they want to ban. So what you're suggesting is we should only ban weapons that are used in mass shootings? Fine, ban the make and model of each gun used in a mass shooting. Ridiculous, right? Debunking or disproving something doesn't make something else true or the focus.
Yes, according to the celebrated case of gunnuts v. reality, the supreme court held 5-4 that anything that makes them throw an interweb tantrum is unconstitutional because America!
here we see an example of another tried and true leftist tactic define your opponents views for them, cast them in the worst possible light, use caricature and hyperbole Colbert has made a career of it
Yeah, because no bigtaxxx or Trader_Jorge post or rudan or tons of handles I can't even remember, et cetera, et multi alia, has ever done *anything* remotely like what you describe. Come on, man. If you don't like his posts, ignore him. Stick to the topic, like this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/on-eve-of-newtown-recommendations-most-back-new-gun-control-measures/ Most Americans back new gun control rules.
that's right, he should be allowing people to have more arms. Why can't we have tanks, missiles, and mortar shells? All of these things are much more needed today to defend against tyranny. Where is the NRA when we need them?
They have an antiquated view of "arms," and I want my own drone. The 2nd Amendment assures me that I can have my own fleet of drones to protect my home. "Militia" can include unmanned aircraft, to say nothing of "arms."
Are you referring to fully automatic rifles or semi automatic rifles? Hand guns are typically semi automatic. You call it callous, but I call it ignorant to imply that assault rifle bans are effective. There are gun control issues, but banning assault rifles does very little good. If you want better gun control, then suggest something that will have an impact. We don't need 'feel good' legislation just because assault rifles look mean. Further, address the issues beyond the 100 or so people who die in massacres a year instead of forsaking the 1000's who die in the non-sensationalism shootings.
I want drones too. Those are pretty cool. But I also think I should have the right to build bombs. I mean, it's a slippery slope. A bomb is a type of arm, by banning it, next you know, they will take away people's assault weapons. If we all had bombs in our house, no crook would dare try to rob it in fear of being blown up. If every car had a bomb in it, no one would car-jack. If every plane had a bomb in it, no one would even think about trying to commandeer it.
WMD's, tanks and artillery are silly arguments in regards to the 2nd amendment. But I think I could go for some drones.
This. I'd have a lot more respect for anti-gun zealots if they had intelligent arguments. SCREAMING and hollering about these HORRIBLE "assault rifles" when they kill less than 2% of those murdered. As my other thread says, ending the war on drugs would save TENS OF THOUSANDS of more lives than banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Heck, even if people said "let's ban handguns because they account for the most murders" I'd have a lot more respect for them... because at least that is a logical stance.
Long guns, hand guns, and blunderbuss were considered part of the arms envisioned and continue to be what is extended to the people. We have enough gun regulation. Gun shows need to be examined but beyond that, my conscience says we are where we need to be right now without anything else. Obama has helped generate a lot of gun and ammo sales tho.
The advancement of firearms during the lives of our forefathers were 10-fold compared to the advancement of the firearms in our lives. The semi-automatic rifles and handguns of today are nearly identical mechanically to rifles and handguns made 100 years ago. The Colt 1911 pistol and it's many variants haven't changed much in 102 years. Do people realize how much guns advanced from the 1750s to 1850, or 1725 to 1825? The founding fathers were well aware of where the technological advancements of firearms would lead us, to say otherwise is shortsighted and ignorant.
yes, semi-automatic back then meant that you only had to pack the gunpowder one time instead of 3. The knew someday, that guns would be able to fire hundreds of bullets a minute and rip massive holes in people from long range. That's why they couldn't wait to fight the war. Because they had to win the war before automatic weapons came - it's written right there by Thomas Jefferson.
Wow... What a stupid and silly argument. I believe the 2nd amendment states "arms".... not the right to bear "small arms".... And ARMS technology has increased at a rate greater in the past 100 years than between the years of 1750-1850 with the rise of nuclear and biological weapons with the travel capacity of a basaltic missile that can reach space and back. No, the founding fathers did not think far ahead with their wording of the second amendment. They were great and revolutionary men but they were not perfect and one thing they could of done better was word the second amendment in a more clear and elaborate manner.
