U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
14,633 posts, read 12,140,354 times
Reputation: 25955

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
If my hobbies resulted in children being murdered I would gladly give it up. Then again I have a conscious.
Why are you pre judging good law abiding citizens that owns firearms as being murders?

I think, you should just shut up with your nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:53 PM
 
Location: San Diego
34,971 posts, read 31,991,770 times
Reputation: 19443
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Grasshopper View Post
I have viewed the video in the OP, and I find the line of reasoning to be flawed. If one argues that an AR-15 is something that people should be able to have just because they like it, that would seem to be valid if it were not a tool that has been used to kill so many people. Tools that are dangerous are generally not allowed, even if they are nice to own. A gun is not a couch. We should not be allowed to have as many as we want, any kind we want. They are different from other possessions because they can result in the efficient death of our fellow citizens. I am very aware that many people own these guns and never use them to hurt anyone. But they are deadly instruments. That's why we license and regulate cars and their drivers - because they can be deadly tools if used incorrectly.

As to the thought that because the police and the military also like and want AR-15s, that, to me, does not add anything to the argument that civilians should have them. We don't demand flame throwers, land mines, military helicopters, or all kinds of other military equipment. The jobs that the military and the police do demand that they are appropriately armed. Civilian life does not require semi-automatic rifles.

I suppose it is a matter of balancing rights. Any semi-automatic gun can take the lives of human beings so efficiently, is the right to own one in balance with others' right to live? Sure, you can take a life with a frying pan, but it is not so efficient that you can kill 50 people within a few minutes. That level of killing efficiency seems very like a car to me, in that you can kill multiple people in a very short time. But cars are useful (obviously) in other ways. We tolerate their danger because of that, and try to manage that danger with restrictions on how they are used, who uses them, and constantly making safety enhancement, etc. So why should that not be done with such deadly weapons as AR-15s?
Do you find fault with the existing 20K firearm laws? If you want to give up your rights, have at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,021 posts, read 938,045 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Grasshopper View Post
I have viewed the video in the OP, and I find the line of reasoning to be flawed. If one argues that an AR-15 is something that people should be able to have just because they like it, that would seem to be valid if it were not a tool that has been used to kill so many people. Tools that are dangerous are generally not allowed, even if they are nice to own. A gun is not a couch. We should not be allowed to have as many as we want, any kind we want. They are different from other possessions because they can result in the efficient death of our fellow citizens. I am very aware that many people own these guns and never use them to hurt anyone. But they are deadly instruments. That's why we license and regulate cars and their drivers - because they can be deadly tools if used incorrectly.

As to the thought that because the police and the military also like and want AR-15s, that, to me, does not add anything to the argument that civilians should have them. We don't demand flame throwers, land mines, military helicopters, or all kinds of other military equipment. The jobs that the military and the police do demand that they are appropriately armed. Civilian life does not require semi-automatic rifles.

I suppose it is a matter of balancing rights. Any semi-automatic gun can take the lives of human beings so efficiently, is the right to own one in balance with others' right to live? Sure, you can take a life with a frying pan, but it is not so efficient that you can kill 50 people within a few minutes. That level of killing efficiency seems very like a car to me, in that you can kill multiple people in a very short time. But cars are useful (obviously) in other ways. We tolerate their danger because of that, and try to manage that danger with restrictions on how they are used, who uses them, and constantly making safety enhancement, etc. So why should that not be done with such deadly weapons as AR-15s?
Dangerous tools are often "allowed".

Many firearms have been used to kill.

The military does not "like and want" AR15s.

None of those regulations you mention apply to simply own a car. I can own any vehicle, modify it in any way, and transport it anywhere across the US to use as I please on any welcoming private property or public property without any registration or insurance or licensing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,575 posts, read 9,638,629 times
Reputation: 12113
Killing pigs, what else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:56 PM
 
Location: San Diego
34,971 posts, read 31,991,770 times
Reputation: 19443
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
Your response is overtly emotional and your failing to make an argument.
Dude, your diatribe is tripe/estrogen laced emotion. I mean, seriously. Do it for the "babies" gets really old and stank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,575 posts, read 9,638,629 times
Reputation: 12113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
*sigh*

No civilian "needs" to own high-end weaponary, and I'm tired of the laughable excuses to justify it. You don't "need" one to hunt or stop robbers -
How long before I don't NEED a 357 magnum? 38 Special will do. Heck, a well placed 22 is plenty. Sorry, take this game somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Central NJ and PA
2,515 posts, read 819,331 times
Reputation: 1730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
Huh, I am pro 2a, dont know how you got I am against gun ownership. Carry on..
I'm sorry. I mixed this thread up with another one, and with my back-and-forth with Rambler.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,021 posts, read 938,045 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
If my hobbies resulted in children being murdered I would gladly give it up. Then again I have a conscious
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut View Post
Why are you pre judging good law abiding citizens that owns firearms as being murders?

I think, you should just shut up with your nonsense.
It is simply nonsense. There are hundreds of millions of firearms owners whose hobbies have not resulted in murder of any kind. It's a deceitful premise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,575 posts, read 9,638,629 times
Reputation: 12113
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Grasshopper View Post

As to the thought that because the police and the military also like and want AR-15s, that, to me, does not add anything to the argument that civilians should have them.
Parkland should have put an end to the argument that you don't need to have guns because police carries them for you. This didn't occur to you now, did it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2018, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,021 posts, read 938,045 times
Reputation: 1433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Dude, your diatribe is tripe/estrogen laced emotion. I mean, seriously. Do it for the "babies" gets really old and stank.
Agreed. I thought the irony was obvious enough that it was too easy of a mark to mention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top