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.
Sorry, I don't equate calling certain firearms particularly dangerous to demonizing all of the people who own firearms. But I only do that because I don't use false equivalencies to further my narrative.
All firearms are dangerous. But if the average agent/soldier of the government can possess a type that is "particularly dangerous" then the citizen retains the right to keep and bear the exact same "particularly dangerous" weapon to be equal to that agent/soldier of government and act as a bulwark against tyranny. The bulwark does not work if the citizen is so heavily outgunned by the average agent/soldier of the government.
If you think the best way to reduce/eliminate these shootings is to outlaw/ban a "particularly dangerous" weapon, then the reasonable compromise that adheres to letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment is to ban those same "particularly dangerous" weapons from use/carry by the agents/soldiers of the government, and do that FIRST, before you tell the citizen what they may or may not do.
Good point. We should not keep a specific gun out of the hands of these terrorists but keep guns that have certain capabilities like firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds or whatever it is. That is the crux of the problem. Weapons manufactured to kill as many humans as possible in a very short period of time. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers.
A weapon is not designed to kill.
A weapon is designed to send a projectile out of a barrel at high velocity.
It is up to the end user in how it’s deployed.
So once again it’s the individual and not the article. Using your argument, cars should be banned for use by alcoholics.
All firearms are dangerous. But if the average agent/soldier of the government can possess a type that is "particularly dangerous" then the citizen retains the right to keep and bear the exact same "particularly dangerous" weapon to be equal to that agent/soldier of government and act as a bulwark against tyranny. The bulwark does not work if the citizen is so heavily outgunned by the average agent/soldier of the government.
If you think the best way to reduce/eliminate these shootings is to outlaw/ban a "particularly dangerous" weapon, then the reasonable compromise that adheres to letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment is to ban those same "particularly dangerous" weapons from use/carry by the agents/soldiers of the government, and do that FIRST, before you tell the citizen what they may or may not do.
First of all, I was addressing the OP's premise that someone believes that the "millions of gun owners" themselves are the problem because it is simply not true. If you want to concede that point, we can move on to issue #2.
Secondly, the Supreme Court (along with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 9th Circuits) has already made it clear that certain types of weapons are and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Trying to play word games with the term "particularly dangerous" does not change that fact.
First of all, I was addressing the OP's premise that someone believes that the "millions of gun owners" themselves are the problem because it is simply not true. If you want to concede that point, we can move on to issue #2.
I agree that millions of gun owners are not the problem, nor is a particular style/type of weapon owned by those millions of gun owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
Secondly, the Supreme Court (along with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 9th Circuits) has already made it clear that certain types of weapons are and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Trying to play word games with the term "particularly dangerous" does not change that fact.
That the Supreme Court and the lower courts gets things wrong and does so on behalf of the tyrants that appointed them for life does not invalidate either the natural rights of the individual, nor the intent of explicitly limiting the powers of the government over the individual's natural right to keep and bear arms.
In the order of evolving to tyranny, the SCOTUS was first when they gave themselves the power of the super legislature with Marbury v Madison a the foundation, and then later rulings that said because they decided that and what they decide is above all other branches and courts and that's because they decided it is, and since they decide what is what is what, well then it's decided. They invented their super-legislature powers and then spent 200 years saying well yeah, supreme because supreme.
The citizen should be the equal o the agent/soldier of government. Period. Virtually every mention of keeping and bearing arms from the mid 18th Century to the day the ink dried on the 2nd Amendment is clear on why that natural right should neither be infringed or limited in any way. The oppressor should fear the armed citizen and thus be afraid of attempting to oppress them, and that is the natural order of a free state - the government fears the citizen. That breaks down if the average government agent/soldier has weaponry that is more powerful and/or capable than what the average citizen is allowed to have.
I agree that millions of gun owners are not the problem
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
nor is a particular style/type of weapon owned by those millions of gun owners.
No. The ubiquity of weapons designed to cause mass casualties are indeed one element of the problem because they enable people to do significantly more damage than they could otherwise do while adding little, if any, benefit to society as a whole.
That the Supreme Court and the lower courts gets things wrong and does so on behalf of the tyrants that appointed them for life does not invalidate either the natural rights of the individual, nor the intent of explicitly limiting the powers of the government over the individual's natural right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
In the order of evolving to tyranny, the SCOTUS was first when they gave themselves the power of the super legislature with Marbury v Madison a the foundation, and then later rulings that said because they decided that and what they decide is above all other branches and courts and that's because they decided it is, and since they decide what is what is what, well then it's decided. They invented their super-legislature powers and then spent 200 years saying well yeah, supreme because supreme.
The citizen should be the equal o the agent/soldier of government. Period. Virtually every mention of keeping and bearing arms from the mid 18th Century to the day the ink dried on the 2nd Amendment is clear on why that natural right should neither be infringed or limited in any way. The oppressor should fear the armed citizen and thus be afraid of attempting to oppress them, and that is the natural order of a free state - the government fears the citizen. That breaks down if the average government agent/soldier has weaponry that is more powerful and/or capable than what the average citizen is allowed to have.
Hey take it up with the Supreme Court, then. I happened to think their opinion is more informed and has more sway on the subject than yours. You can rant about Marbury v. Madison and Heller all you want, but it is the functional equivalent of angrily waving your fist at the sky.
But, as has been pointed out many times, the premise that citizens need certain types of weapons to shoot Government agents who are subjectively deemed to be oppressing them is not only impractical, it is almost certainly not what the Framers intended.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,567,170 times
Reputation: 16693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday
Right. These same people will use that argument to ban Muslims again and not understand the irony. The issue is that it is not just a few people causing problems. They have state governments and a terrorist organization, the NRA, with deep pockets and influence in DC. Much more of a threat than any Muslim terrorist could ever be.
Perhaps you could cite the source of where you found that it is a fact these are the exact same people that want both of these things together. Or are you making ASSumptions?
Because the issue is not about one killer, it's about the same thing happening over and over again
very true, the same thing does happen over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
It's happening less over the years. Plus the guns aren't the problem. they are a symptom. Single parenthood is cause of the problem.
also true, guns are not the problem here, they are merely a tool that is used in an incorrect manner. and single parenthood is but one part of the problem. there is evil in this world, and to combat that evil, good must step up and confront it. the problem is that evil never leaves the world. as has been noted many many times, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffnecked
Bingo. It's about killers not firearms. So glad someone has correctly identified the problem. You can take the guns away but killers will still kill. Address that issue and America might solve the problem. Ignore it and it'll be the same old same ole.
well said, and very true also. as i noted, evil exists in this world. evil is the root problem here and it will never be eradicated. the best we can do is control it. people have been killing each other since man first walked upright. as man has progressed we have found ways to kill more efficiently, take away our guns wont mean that mass killing will suddenly stop. it just means that those evil ones intent on killing will find another way to kill as many people as possible. it may be a truck bomb, or pressure cooker bombs, or other IEDs, or someone might crack a chemistry book and come up with some kind of poison gas weapon.
the point here is that humans are a creative and inventive bunch, and we can figure out how things works, and how to do good and do evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
I am not so sure the reporting reflects what really happened. Not that I can defend them at this point but I wonder if something important has been left out of the reporting.
I don't believe the average citizen would do any better than trained professionals in a situation of this sort.
i think you underestimate the average person. while it is true that the average person is not a trained police officer, it is often times the average person that ends up doing extraordinary feats courage, sometimes because they have decided that enough is enough and someone needs to do something now.
it has been noted many times that if someone is willing to give up their life, they can often times kill someone that seems to be too well protected. the same thing can happen if someone is wiling to give up their life to SAVE others as well. if one is wiling to give up their life to save the life of a bunch of children, then they too can stop a school shooter, with or without a gun of their own.
in the case of parkland, the officers FAILED in their duty. in fact instead of going in and confronting the shooter, they sat outside and waited, and waited, and waited. remember the shooting lasted six minutes, and the deputies waited outside for four minutes before doing anything.
on top of that they stopped paramedics from entering to care for the wounded. how many could have been saved had medical help been given in a timely manner?
so the LEOs missed 39 opportunities to stop this guy, and didnt. then they let this guy continue shooting even though they were on the scene and could have done something to stop him. and hen they refused to let EMTs go in to help the wounded, even though they should have done so as part of their response training. but instead of blaming the people that failed in their duties, and instead of blaming the people that prevented others from doing their duties, and instead of blaming the perosn that decided to shoot up the school in the first place, lets instead do something that we know doesnt work and blame the tool for the problem.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,567,170 times
Reputation: 16693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mollygee
No, all I see are two guys, now turned to mince meat, lying on the ground. Who wins what?
Well maybe you if the bad guy was trying to shoot you and the good guy took him out.
The way the anti gunners see it, they would like it if 2 more "gun nuts" were gone.
"One killer", yeah because there's only been a single gun murderer in the US in the last few decades . You can close the thread now.
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.
. You can close the thread now.
