Saunders Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Again, pro-gun people, answer this: Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle? Civilians don't own assault rifles (for the most part). They were banned 30 years ago. What civilans own today is the AR-15 (AR stands for armalite, the original manufacturer), which is not, by definition, an assault rife. The difference is, people who don't know anything about guns, don't know that. Of course, they also think you can buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Which of these guns is a hunting rifle, and which is an assault rifle. Also, why are they classified as that? They both fire the same round at the same velocity, and are semi automatic rifles. Lots of people use AR-15's for hunting, animal control, and self defense. It's an excellent platform that can be configured to any size person to make it easy to use. Just because it's a black rifle, doesn't make it more effective, or scary. Of course, I wouldn't expect today's media to know the difference... 2 Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Again, pro-gun people, answer this: Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle? Civilians don't own assault rifles (for the most part). They were banned 30 years ago. What civilans own today is the AR-15 (AR stands for armalite, the original manufacturer), which is not, by definition, an assault rife. The difference is, people who don't know anything about guns, don't know that. Of course, they also think you can buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Which of these guns is a hunting rifle, and which is an assault rifle. Also, why are they classified as that? They both fire the same round at the same velocity, and are semi automatic rifles. Lots of people use AR-15's for hunting, animal control, and self defense. It's an excellent platform that can be configured to any size person to make it easy to use. Just because it's a black rifle, doesn't make it more effective, or scary. Of course, I wouldn't expect today's media to know the difference... Thats pretty funny... Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I laugh at people who think a law is going to stop people from committing a crime. The article that "someone" posted shows multiple ex-cons who are breaking the law by acquiring guns, so somehow another law is going to stop them from doing it, no they will find a new way to get guns. I agree we need to make it as difficult as possible to keep guns out of criminals hands, but it needs to also respect the rights of citizens to the right to ear arms. Did the ex cons go to a federally licensed gun dealer? No? Why not? Would it not "make it as difficult as possible to keep guns out of criminals hands" by restricting ways these criminals can buy a gun? The right to bear arms is not an absolute right without restrictions. You can't take a weapon into a courthouse or in your carry on on a plane. You can't own certain weapons. Some restrictions already exist. Dealers already do background checks. To act like its an absolute right that can't be regulated in any way is naive. If you don't "think a law is going to stop [sOME] people from committing a crime" then you must think we should have no laws at all. Ziggy? Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I'm sort of seeing the other side to this. I believe the 2nd amendment shouldn't be considered unlimited (which it isn't) and there are good sense types of restrictions that should be placed on it, limits that come about with the advancement of technology and which do exist presently. The thing with high capacity magazines or assault rifles is, hand guns or shotguns or any manner of whatever is left legal, are perfectly good enough to do the trick. A mass murderer or non-mass murderer may be marginally less effective but pull out a couple of handguns and fire a round every several seconds into a crowd ... those types of events are still going to happen. So in banning them the government restricts a certain class of commercial items, and to what end? The people, I don't even want to call them mentally ill since I don't believe they are some total minority, separable class of the populace, the people who one day decide to do these things still have access to all the technology they need to accomplish what they want. I think a couple things provide the best counter: -government buyback & dismantle programs to provide a nice easy means and incentive for people who don't want them to give away their guns & ammunition. Less stuff out in circulation. Less people who sell them in other private deals to who knows who. Less semi-responsible people whose future crazy newphews gain access to their stockpile. Some track record of success in other countries. -more friendly public carry laws. I think this has some track record as well, but I can't find the study now. Our constitution is based mainly on a certain level of confidence afforded to our citizens. I think this falls into line with that also does present a deterrent. The NRA and hunters everywhere support limiting the # of rounds that can be loaded when hunting for ducks. (3 shells is it?) Link to comment
Junior Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I've seen this making the rounds on Facebook: If someone would be so kind as to insert the Nathan Fillion looking bewildered Gif here, I would be highly appreciative. Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and guns? 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I can't make videos post. But click the link. Excellent ad for gun control: Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and guns? Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and politicians? Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I can't make videos post. But click the link. Excellent ad: give us a summary before we just blindly click the link. Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and guns? Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and politicians? yes. They are arguing against passing laws based on the fact that criminals will still break the laws. This is always true, from STOP signs right on up to the law against killing someone. Yet they are called lawmakers. Odd. Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and guns? Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and politicians? yes. They are arguing against passing laws based on the fact that criminals will still break the laws. This is always true, from STOP signs right on up to the law against killing someone. Yet they are called lawmakers. Odd. So, ban everything is what you're saying? Or unban everything? Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and guns? Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and politicians? yes. They are arguing against passing laws based on the fact that criminals will still break the laws. This is always true, from STOP signs right on up to the law against killing someone. Yet they are called lawmakers. Odd. So, ban everything is what you're saying? Or unban everything? No and no. Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something. Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years. Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy. Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations. Find out what happened to: Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something. Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years. Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy. Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations. Find out what happened to: Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html 1. Of course. Which is why we try to limit laws that only affect law abiding citizens. 2. Thinking that applies directly to firearms doesn't exactly work. See, DC, NY, and california. 3. Um.... you know that is entirely untrue, right? 4. See, DC vs Heller 5. Unsure of your point. Link to comment
Someone Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 No and no. Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something. Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years. Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy. Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations. Find out what happened to: Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html Um........ you know that's incorrect, right? It is actually correct. It doesn't happen that way 100% of the time, but it happens. I have posted examples in this thread. If you want to claim that it is incorrect, please provide some documentation. Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 No and no. Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something. Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years. Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy. Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations. Find out what happened to: Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html Um........ you know that's incorrect, right? It is actually correct. It doesn't happen that way 100% of the time, but it happens. I have posted examples in this thread. If you want to claim that it is incorrect, please provide some documentation. Unless you are an FFL, you cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to you legally. It must be shipped to a licensed FFL, and cannot be shipped to any other location, unless, you are an FFL. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html Link to comment
Recommended Posts