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.
That's about enough of this endless argument for me. Bye.
You guys are in an endless loop;
you are in a maze of twisty passages;
sign on wall reads, "2nd amendment is not going away."
Certainly the 2nd is here to stay. And the ex post facto clause makes sure that all existing guns are here to stay.
But each new mass shooting brings new and disturbing insights into the mindset of gun nutters.
No , I actually hadn't. I did have some hope though that we would find that if you thought " yeah, if my neighbor has his garage stacked to the ceiling with AR15s and keeps buying as many as often as the law allows then we might have a problem that needs looking into" , then we would be on the same side of the fence , even if our numbers were far apart.
But the answer that there is no number of AR15s a guy could buy that would get you to wondering about him is, as I said, mind boggling. Not a pre determined conclusion at all. One arrived at solely by your answer .
Well, you are talking about matters that are "his" right and that one should respect another's rights.
It is like not being concerned such as being intrusive by what books someone has in their library. Remember what Justice Thurgood Marshall said that if the 4th amendment means anything it is that a man in his home can be secure about what he reads and what his thoughts are.
Someone at home reading Mein Kampf may not be political correct in this day and there are no doubt those who would like to haul them out about it..........................but that is his right.
1) Because statistically, AR15s and similar firearms account for a minuscule number of firearms deaths. They don't even have their own category on the charts, the number is so low. They are included in the category of rifles, and that category accounts for less than 4% of firearms deaths in the United States.
2) Because it won't end with AR15s. It has been proven over and over again by the anti-gun crowd that they prefer to nibble at gun ownership rather than take huge bites. It will start with AR15s, and when that doesn't stop firearms deaths (which it won't, as has already been proven by previous laws) they will move on to the next "evil" group of guns, and the next, and the next. The term "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a perfect descriptor of the liberal plan for gun control.
3) Because it is nobody's business how many guns or what type of guns I, you, or anyone else owns. The government is not authorized to, and in fact is strictly forbidden from, pass any law which infringes upon the right of the citizenry to own firearms. This was done purposefully by the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and it was done for the purpose of ensuring that the citizenry could, if necessary, produce a viable defense in the case of invasion or unconstitutional government action.
In short, for those of us who actually pay attention and educate ourselves on the subject, the idea of placing a limit on the number of firearms that can be owned by an individual is not only ridiculous but is about one step away from fascism. In case you missed it, the vast majority of gun owners tend to be slightly on the conservative side simply due to the fact that owning firearms has been deemed anathema by the progressive left. Unlike liberals, and contrary to recent media spin, conservatives tend to dislike fascism.
I understand this argument about the stats, number of deaths due to whatever causes, but this argument fails to take into account the sort of society we want to live in and how we are defined by what we do about certain problems like these crazy people who want to do this kind of thing to innocent people at a public event, like a concert or church congregation or sporting event...
Take the recent stats related to innocents killed by bombs for example. How do they relate compared to other gun related deaths? Not all that high. Right? Yet is this any sort of justification to allow bombs on Walmart shelves? Of course not!
Accordingly, the issue here is not so much the stats and/or whether there are a certain number of deaths due to XY or Z cause that ranks high enough among the others to deserve attention and proper action. The issue is what we CAN do about any cause and whether it makes good sense to allow weapons of these sorts to be sold and/or possessed by citizens. Same as we might consider the availability of grenades, sticks of dynamite, poison, bombs.
We can all find other ways to kill, other weapons, but make any of these that really have no legitimate use worthy enough to make them commonly available, legal?
Well, you are talking about matters that are "his" right and that one should respect another's rights.
It is like not being concerned such as being intrusive by what books someone has in their library. Remember what Justice Thurgood Marshall said that if the 4th amendment means anything it is that a man in his home can be secure about what he reads and what his thoughts are.
Someone at home reading Mein Kampf may not be political correct in this day and there are no doubt those who would like to haul them out about it..........................but that is his right.
So we are determining that whack jobs deserve the right to create an arsenal to kill dozens without us having the right to be concerned abut them doing this if we notice the large and frequent gun purchases?
Do you not read this and see why others wonder at the gun nutter mindset?
So we are determining that whack jobs deserve the right to create an arsenal to kill dozens without us having the right to be concerned abut them doing this if we notice the large and frequent gun purchases?
Do you not read this and see why others wonder at the gun nutter mindset?
That is why we have rights so the individual is protected against the majority rule of the country.
Liberals, who are leading the charge for more gun control laws, have already shown that they are perfectly fine with fascist behavior. All you really have to do to see this fact is look at the recent idiocy involving the KKK, BLM, and Antifa. All three of those groups are despicable to most rational thinking people, but only the KKK is subject to censure by the left because they don't embrace liberal philosophies. Progressives seem to have no problem with resorting to unprovoked violence in order to shut them down, and even praise the groups that start the violence. So yes, in the case of gun control, especially when that gun control is pushed by liberals, it is one step away from fascism.
It's not just liberals, not anymore anyway...
Did you see or consider my comments 2279 and/or 2280?
I understand this argument about the stats, number of deaths due to whatever causes, but this argument fails to take into account the sort of society we want to live in and how we are defined by what we do about certain problems like these crazy people who want to do this kind of thing to innocent people at a public event, like a concert or church congregation or sporting event...
Take the recent stats related to innocents killed by bombs for example. How do they relate compared to other gun related deaths? Not all that high. Right? Yet is this any sort of justification to allow bombs on Walmart shelves? Of course not!
Accordingly, the issue here is not so much the stats and/or whether there are a certain number of deaths due to XY or Z cause that ranks high enough among the others to deserve attention and proper action. The issue is what we CAN do about any cause and whether it makes good sense to allow weapons of these sorts to be sold and/or possessed by citizens. Same as we might consider the availability of grenades, sticks of dynamite, poison, bombs.
We can all find other ways to kill, other weapons, but make any of these that really have no legitimate use worthy enough to make them commonly available, legal?
Why?
I understand all of those concerns, but I also realize that controlling guns is not the answer. Again, if gun control was the answer Chicago and Washington D.C. would be Utopias. The answer lies in education, and in treatment for those with mental disorders. It would also help if a certain segment of the population would stop fomenting hate and discord, but I don't see any hope for progressive liberals to suddenly become rational.
It would be tremendously helpful if those pushing for more gun control would actually look at the results of previous laws. For example, the Gun Free Zone law did nothing to stop school shootings, which weren't actually a huge problem before it was passed. The law was an attempt to protect children, but it actually turned our schools into hunting preserves for the criminally insane. The frequency of school shootings has doubled since it was passed.
The Assault Weapons Ban that was passed at the same time did absolutely nothing to stop firearms deaths. In fact, it was so useless that it was allowed to sunset.
Yet, here we go again with more cries from the social justice crowd that we need to pass more gun laws. We've tried gun control laws, and just like prohibition or the war on drugs, we have seen that they don't work. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result, and the progressive liberals have not only stepped into insanity, they are gleefully dancing in it and expecting the rest of us to join the rave.
That is why we have rights so the individual is protected against the majority rule of the country.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my question, which was is there any amount of AR15s your neighbor could amass that would concern you.
In addition, the majority has the right to be protected from the lunacy of the minority. We are talking about recognizing mental illnesses, not limiting anyones rights where this is not indicated.
That is why we have rights so the individual is protected against the majority rule of the country.
Or...
Why we have laws that protect the majority from allowing individuals to do whatever they wish regardless the consequences. Right? We have a system/process to determine what those laws should be, and that's the debate here. What should that process -- Congress -- do about this problem like all our many others?
Why do we have all the laws we do? That make drugs illegal? Prostitution, speeding, possession of bombs, euthanasia...
Not a one prevents the behavior we want ended, but the laws are in place regardless, enforced as much as reasonably possible as well. Why?
This has absolutely nothing to do with my question, which was is there any amount of AR15s your neighbor could amass that would concern you.
In addition, the majority has the right to be protected from the lunacy of the minority. We are talking about recognizing mental illnesses, not limiting anyones rights where this is not indicated.
You are talking about invading on a right and at this point, not the 2nd amendment but the 4th.
Unless there is reason for a judge to write a search warrant, it is really no one else's business.
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.
