Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government is by the people of the people and for the people, so in effect we are the government. Tell that hag that she just made us exempt from any banning of guns, we get to keep them too.
Not that it matters, that simpleton Obama is never going to get his little fascist agenda through. The people won't allow it.
Keep on thinking our government doesn't have an agenda to take our guns and one day you will wake up wishing you had been a lot smarter than you are now. Think about Germany in the late 1930's...
The school and theatre shootings are sad events for sure, I agree that these innocent people did not not deserve to die at the hands of someone gone crazy. However, lets take airbags in car for instance. They save tens of thousands every year from severe injuries or death....my dad and his friend included in a highway speed accident....but every year a handfull of people are also injured or killed by the airbags. So are we going to mandate the removal of airbags and put the rest of us at risk?
I have relatives in UK and the criminals are far more brazen knowing that a homes occupants have no guns. Home invason with the owner present is far more common, as is rape and murder, where here it's only a small % by comparison.
Another sore subject is that we have a government which exists for itself, no longer for the people. Lobbying and "campaign contributions" line the pockets of those in charge while our jobs continue to be outsourced, our gov't spends itself broke, our dollars value keeps falling, while we have imported food and goods that sicken poison maim and kill, and less than 1% of it is checked at port....and that's just the icing on the cake. The government is scared, and the last line of our defense is our guns. If they take them away, the rest of our constitutional rights will slowly go away and then they will have complete control of the sheeple.
Strict gun control doesn't mean that citizens can't overthrow a government if it becomes a tyrant. Just see Tunisia as an example.
i am far less concerned about losing assault weapons than the motive behind the desire to disarm america. for 10 years our leaders have tried to take away the culture religion and weapons of the people of the mideast. they failed. bek? assault weapons.
why all the hatred of americans their bibles and guns? more of the same?
Exactly right. Personally it would not affect me much if "assault weapons" were banned. I rely on a shotgun for home defense. I own several semi-auto rifles but it would not be the end of the world if I had to switch to lever action.
My Glock 19 w/ 15 round mag would be banned, but I would not really be fazed by a 10 round limitation. The chances of me getting into a gunfight are remote, and the chance of needing more than 11 (10+1) rounds in one are probably infinitesimal (albeit not zero).
The problem is that the ban on "assault weapons" contains the seeds of further bans, because it would not accomplish anything. The inexorable result would be efforts to ban pump shotguns, lever rifles, and eventually anything that goes 'bang.'
Let's just forget everything I said. Let's just do nothing at all.
Ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cecilsav
The shootings will continue. The people will die. The babies will be slaughtered.
What you're failing to understand is that those things will happen regardless of whether or not some gun ban is passed.
Nobody wants innocent people to die. Nobody. But you're arguing that we should assault the liberties of the law abiding, for literally no reason other than to "do something." You don't even care if that "something" will be effective. You just want to feel like you made a difference. I applaud the passion, but I refuse to quietly allow you to infringe on the rights of over 300,000,000 citizens so you can enjoy a false sense of security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cecilsav
I give up. I really do.
Good. Your position was based on a lie, anyway. Glad to see that you finally recognize the futility of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cecilsav
Yes it's emotional. It should be.
We should feel emotion over what happened, and continues to happen every day on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc. (funny how you haven't mentioned those mass killings), but we SHOULD NOT let those emotions dictate the laws we burden our citizens with. Those should be very carefully considered and a case based on logic and reason MUST be made for their existence. If the law will not have the desired effect, it should never become a law, and I think you know this, even if you don't want to admit it due to your bathing in emotion over this tragedy right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cecilsav
I pray that you don't get that call that someone you love has been gunned down by one of these weapons. I truly do.
My best friend stuck a .38 in his mouth and pulled the trigger when I was in my early 20s. Yeah, I got that call. It just so happens that a .38 is what I carry most often. Did his death have any impact on my decision to purchase or carry that gun? Not at all. I made those choices based entirely on other, unrelated factors.
Like I said, you can't let emotions dictate the choices you make - or the laws you create - that should be based on logic and reason. If you can't remove emotion from the legislative process, then you shouldn't be involved in that process to begin with.
What you're failing to understand is that those things will happen regardless of whether or not some gun ban is passed.
Nobody wants innocent people to die. Nobody. But you're arguing that we should assault the liberties of the law abiding, for literally no reason other than to "do something." You don't even care if that "something" will be effective. You just want to feel like you made a difference. I applaud the passion, but I refuse to quietly allow you to infringe on the rights of over 300,000,000 citizens so you can enjoy a false sense of security.
Good. Your position was based on a lie, anyway. Glad to see that you finally recognize the futility of it.
We should feel emotion over what happened, and continues to happen every day on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc. (funny how you haven't mentioned those mass killings), but we SHOULD NOT let those emotions dictate the laws we burden our citizens with. Those should be very carefully considered and a case based on logic and reason MUST be made for their existence. If the law will not have the desired effect, it should never become a law, and I think you know this, even if you don't want to admit it due to your bathing in emotion over this tragedy right now.
My best friend stuck a .38 in his mouth and pulled the trigger when I was in my early 20s. Yeah, I got that call. It just so happens that a .38 is what I carry most often. Did his death have any impact on my decision to purchase or carry that gun? Not at all. I made those choices based entirely on other, unrelated factors.
Like I said, you can't let emotions dictate the choices you make - or the laws you create - that should be based on logic and reason. If you can't remove emotion from the legislative process, then you shouldn't be involved in that process to begin with.
Can't rep you any more right now, but as usual this is a great post. While I don't think the anti-gun crowd wants to listen to logic on this subject, that doesn't mean that we should allow them to continue being illogical without attempting to educate them about the realities of firearms ownership.
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,272 posts, read 3,707,961 times
Reputation: 1511
The burden of proof isn't on those who are currently exercising their rights to own large capacity magazines - its on those who wish to take those rights away. Show me the evidence that this magazine restriction has worked in the past and will reduce crime. Until then, leave me and my "high capacity magazines" alone so I can better defend myself.
Also, Watch the guy in this video shoot just as fast as one 'high capacity" magazine using two "reduced capacity" magazines that are taped together (around 4 min mark). After watching this, the issue seems almost laughable.
Compromise - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions;
Gun owners compromise? What concessions are people like you willing to make? So far all I've seen are people who want to ban or limit honest citizens rights, it's all take no give. Absolutely zero concessions from the left. I suppose you think that "only" banning 1/2 of the guns people could own today is a compromise since you really want all of them banned.
If you actually proposed a true compromise maybe gun owners would be willing to discuss them, but so far the gun haters haven't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
