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.
You are re-hashing very simple arguments that have been dealt with ad-nauseum.
It is until it's abused.
It is until it's abused.
It is until it's abused.
It should be the same. Don't infringe upon the right until it is abused, and then any infringement should be extremely small, and only should deal with the particular abuse in question.
Just because someone MAY scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater is no reason to limit free speech. Get it?
Yes, but at the same time, you won't be able to publish a Nazi rant op-ed, you won't be able to organize a KKK rally in the town square. And I never proposed taking the right away; just more controls, like a background check and required training.
Yes, but at the same time, you won't be able to publish a Nazi rant op-ed, you won't be able to organize a KKK rally in the town square. And I never proposed taking the right away; just more controls, like a background check and required training.
Your posts make it pretty clear that you haven't a lot of life experience.
I can certainly publish a Nazi rant op-ed. I may drive readers away from my paper, but I am not precluded by law from doing it. Plenty of KKK rally's happen. No problem as long as they get the permit and behave themselves.
Except that same right jeopardizes my rights, if you abuse it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute; freedom of the press isn't absolute; freedom to organize isn't absolute; why should gun control be different? Especially since there's more at stake here.
Then they are not rights, but only a privileges, threatened with violence, if you abuse your privilege.
Yes, but at the same time, you won't be able to publish a Nazi rant op-ed, you won't be able to organize a KKK rally in the town square. And I never proposed taking the right away; just more controls, like a background check and required training.
In the scope of things gun violence is far more pervasive in the underworld than by law abiding gun owners. How many guys buying guns out of a van are going to have a background check? Why is this fact always ignored?
Can anyone say, with conviction, that more regulation will lower gun violence?
I think the government has a hard enough time doing what they have to do as it is. How about they start fixing what they've screwed up before taking on more!
What do you mean I don't..? No Apaches were taken down in the LA Riots.. No National Guardsmen were killed in a firefight .
No, but what did happen was many Koreans defended their stores and lives with the use of semi-automatic rifles.
Quote:
So you want to enable more chaos and looting and
murder?
No, we want good people who are just trying to survive the aftermath of such an event to be able to defend themselves against all the looting, chaos, and murder.
Quote:
Because there are too many people
using them for other
purposes.
There are? Mass shootings make up less than 1/10th of 1% of all crime. Rifles of ANY type, are used in less than 400 out of the 12,000 gun murders that occur every year in this country. I don't think these rifles are as much of a problem as you and others would have us believe.
Quote:
Nuclear bombs are the best tool for self defense, actually. No one
will **** with you if you have one. Doesn't mean you have a right to owning
them.
A nuclear bomb is a good self defense weapon? How so, considering that you'd likely kill yourself in the process of setting it off?
Quote:
You don't need basically a machine gun to
hunt
Basically a machine gun? lol. Wow you guys are funny.
You missed my point. It's crazy to think you can allow civilians to just buy any and all weapons.
Not to mention one M1 Abrams can take out as many Shermans as it wants, as long as you give it ammo.
Okay, I'm sorry. I was mistaken. But I still believe you don't need one of those just for self-defense.
Why buy it, when it is civilians in the private sector, making it for the US army? Why not make it yourself?
I'm sure there are retired machinist & metallurgists, capable of producing an improved model.
Yes, but at the same time, you won't be able to publish a Nazi rant op-ed, you won't be able to organize a KKK rally in the town square. And I never proposed taking the right away; just more controls, like a background check and required training.
If its not your business, if you run it do what you want.
Yes you can, they have to grant them a permit or they can be sued for violation of your 1st and 14th Amendment rights..
You implied it..That is more then enough to make it act in defense of the our rights and the means to protect them.
Those are my infringements, and that is akin to taking a right away...Who the hell are you to deny a person access to the tools of self defense?
Who defined what training is needed?
What about people who cant afford the amount of money and or time that is needed to exercise a unalienable right?
There are? Mass shootings make up less than 1/10th of 1% of all crime. Rifles of ANY type, are used in less than 400 out of the 12,000 gun murders that occur every year in this country. I don't think these rifles are as much of a problem as you and others would have us believe.
Do you honestly believe that facts matter to these people?
They think putting a pistol grip on a carbine makes it an assault rifle!
That's like saying "painting flames on a car makes it more dangerous to drive!"
Our founding fathers disagreed on lots of things, and came together via consensus. It is hard to believe the same disagreements would not have occurred, had they even been able to envison these weapons, or 100 other recent inventions..all of which seemed eons beyond the scope of mankind 238 years ago.
Its humorous watching folks act like they always sang in unison from the get go.
Our founding fathers disagreed on lots of things, and came together via consensus. It is hard to believe the same disagreements would not have occurred, had they even been able to envison these weapons, or 100 other recent inventions..all of which seemed eons beyond the scope of mankind 238 years ago.
Its humorous watching folks act like they always sang in unison from the get go.
Looks like they we dead set on letting the people decide and have freedom of that choice and not the centralized federal government deciding for them. Shall not be infringed, is pretty powerful all in itself.
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.
