I’ve been for the 2nd Amendment my whole life. Until last night.

But you should be able to modify the one on the bottom with bumper stock fairly easily.

 

I have been darkly joking for some time that the tipping point will be when most Americans have been involved in a mass shooting or have a close friend or family member who's suffered one.

I already know people from Sandy Hook, directly, who survived that horror. So it's not completely impossible that we'll get to the point where a lot of the nation is traumatized.

 

You know your position is crap when your only reply is calling the opposition "anti-civil liberties radical".

How about actually stating why the US needs rights, including use of deadly weapons, far disproportional compared to the rest of the world? I've seen you in many threads now and your only "points" are "uh he would've found another way", saying everyone in disagreement with the 2nd amendment is a *insert random strings of curse words* or just saying "LOL".

 

Not to be lost in all this... then candidate Trump said...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cksay-trump-offers-no-solution-fu/725911001/#

And then now president Trump did...
Trump Repeals Rule Designed To Block Gun Sales To Certain Mentally Ill People
February 28, 20176:34 PM ET
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...lock-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

 

You know your position is crap when it can be accurately described as being "anti-civil liberties"

I mean, that's all that really needs to be said about it.

 

Same with healthcare, many US citizens sadly lack empathy and compassion. Who gives a f when you're not the victim and suffering, right?

 

Again, how about actually stating why you are opposed to this? What is "anti-civil liberties" in saying that the 2nd amendment in its current form needs to be abolished?

Not even sure why you are on the "D&D" section of this board when you are not 1% willing to actually debate and exchange arguments.

 

It seems like a good half the time, the reaction is moar guns. A guy gets mugged at gunpoint and comes away thinking that it would have somehow been better if he was packing heat. I hear that story more often than this musician's conversion.

 

where do you draw the line at being "anti-civil liberties"? Are high explosives covered under the 2nd amendment? Are RPGs covered? Are anti-tank missiles covered? Are SAMs covered? Are CIWS covered? Are fighter jets with functional fire control systems covered?

 

So you are asking me what would be "anti-civil liberties" about abolishing rights granted by the bill of rights? Are you seriously asking me this? Would repealing the first amendment count as being "anti-civil liberties" in your book? What about the 13th amendment? How about the 15th or 19th?

When you take up a position where you want to strip rights from the people and say that giving the people rights was the worst mistake ever....again, what else needs to be said?

 

Funny thing is these people don't understand shootouts one bit. When there's one aggressor in a heavily crowded place and people pull out their own guns in self-defense, within a matter of seconds a large part of the crowd won't be able to distinguish the original threat, resulting in a bloody mess and casualties.

 

You do realize that there is a difference between saying that the 2nd amendment has limits and saying that you want it abolished right? I was responding to someone who wanted it abolished and no one here is advocating for those types of weapons to be covered by the 2nd amendment.....so I'm not sure what your point was.

 

Simply amazing why how morons like you are not able to come up with actual points and have to resort to the "OUR RIGHTS" phrases.

AGAIN, why do Americans need the right to carry firearms, when these aren't needed anywhere else in modern countries, resulting in far less gun crimes?
Simple f***in question, don't avoid it and talk about freedom crap again.

 

Based on your logic, saying "2nd amendment has limits" is also being "anti civil liberties". The 2nd amendment obviously does not place any restriction against any of the weapons I mentioned just like it does not place any restriction against modern firearms. If the weapons I mentioned are not covered by the 2nd amendment, why are modern firearms covered?

 

Many posters here, including you, are saying that stricter laws aren't a solution and come up with bs excuses, so you are actively advocating for them to be part of your rights and don't want to see a change.

 

Why do Americans need the right to free speech? or the right to vote?

I hope you understand that essentially this is what you are asking me. Why do people need their rights protected?

 

The two rifles are pretty much the same ... minus a hand grip and a flash suppressor and the cool menacing black look. Unless they have proprietary magazine slots, the both can take the same standard high capacity magazine. Either way, they shoot the same ammo at the same rate of fire with the same accuracy and can hold whatever size magazine you can find. To answer your question, since they are pretty much the same gun, yes, it can be modified to fire automatically.

 

Lol, I had to hit unignore to see what Yung-T was talking about, and apparently I started it. I think I've been around long enough that people know I'm not radical, but whatever. As for civil liberties, I don't think you have to be pro- and anti- to have a discussion about which liberties we want to give ourselves as a society. But, we would have huge political inertia to overcome, featured in reactions like yours, that are probably too big to overtop.

 

Avoiding a simple question again, even if directly called out on it. Nice.

Just sad to see grown adults only being able to spout "but it's our rights", ages of manipulation in full effect.

 

The gun control discussion was effectively over when the NRA and the gun fetishists tossed up their hands, said "aw shucks" and were ok with little white children being murdered at elementary school.