[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

I guess you prefer the status quo with lots of dead kids like the NRA does.

Many of us don't and the tide is changing. Just look at how many businesses cut ties with the nra this past week.

At once makes the problem even that more impactful to solve

I prefer the status quo where guns are legal. Yes. And I hope this is does not change in my lifetime.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by dfwuno

I will answer the question that you won't about what would you do if you were the only one outside of a building with a 45 and inside was someone firing a semi automatic gun. You would not go in alone. Nor would a lot of law enforcement people (who by the way are also against the public owning of assault weapons) until more backup arrived. And to say more guns is the answer is just wrong. You are the type that say we need to harden our schools and provide more armed guards but will be the first to complain that your taxes are too high to pay for it. Again very very few people want to throw out the 2nd Amendment but more and more are slowly turning to the fact that assault weapons should not be allowed except for the military. The upcoming election cycle will probably not be enough to turn the tide but the day is coming hopefully sooner than later. And the day we all need to pack heat to go anywhere will be reduced if not eliminated.

No, please stop talking in my name, because it's insulting.

I don't advocate armed security or metal detectors at school. I'm not advocating any solution because I don't believe there are any good solutions. I do believe that banning guns (if we managed to get control of 270 million of them) would lower our gun crime rates but I'm not prepared to do it because that impedes on the freedom of others to own a gun. Not only is this a 2nd Amendment issue, but I believe every human being has a right to own a firearm on the very least his or her property. To me this is non-negotiable.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

My argument is not that we shouldn't ban guns because we don't ban alcohol. I'm forcing you people to come to terms with why you're ok with alcohol and not with guns.

I know the answer, it's because you alcohol and probably don't use guns. You think guns are scary. But in reality, we can live and get by just fine with guns being legal just as we do with alcohol.

My argument for not banning guns is it's a freedom that we enjoy, and I don't want to give up one of my freedoms because someone somewhere misused it.

No, you're not forcing anyone to come to terms with anything because your logic is flawed. I don't think guns are scary, I own guns, so does my husband who did two tours with the USMC in Vietnam. Neither of us believe that our enjoyment of guns would be jeopardized by restricting the sale of semi-automatic weapons with detachable high capacity magazines. Those guns are built for one purpose; killing large numbers of people quickly. I don't think it's right or moral to expect us to spend billions of dollars a year guarding schools in order to make sure you can "enjoy" those particular guns..maybe it's time to learn to have fun with a less deadly toy?

You want to compare every possible cause of death to guns and say "but what about" and that is absolutely illogical. More children have died in swimming pools than in mass shootings but parents can control their child's access to swimming pools; they don't have to send them to school and pray that they don't drown. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the difference.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

No, please stop talking in my name, because it's insulting.

I don't advocate armed security or metal detectors at school. I'm not advocating any solution because I don't believe there are any good solutions. I do believe that banning guns (if we managed to get control of 270 million of them) would lower our gun crime rates but I'm not prepared to do it because that impedes on the freedom of others to own a gun. Not only is this a 2nd Amendment issue, but I believe every human being has a right to own a firearm on the very least his or her property. To me this is non-negotiable.

No one is talking about banning guns but your 2A right to own guns is NOT unlimited you need to come to terms with that. Even Scalia said there are limitations and in November 2017 SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to the Maryland assault weapon ban.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You want to compare every possible cause of death to guns and say

No I don't. I'm not comparing guns to swimming pools or cars - I'm comparing them to alcohol for a reason. You don't think I thought of those other reasons? And while you can control if you build a swimming pool you cannot control if your kid or yourself gets hit by a drunk driver. This is a fact. And why I'm using alcohol as a comparison. I'm not arguing to ban alcohol too - I'm arguing that banning every product that is misused leads to a worse quality of life.

No one is talking about banning guns but your 2A right to own guns is NOT unlimited you need to come to terms with that. Even Scalia said there are limitations and in November 2017 SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to the Maryland assault weapon ban.

I disagree wholeheartedly and at the end of the day will resist any laws to restrict firearms even so called assault rifles. This like I said is non-negotiable, and I hope I win against this pointless onslaught on our rights to own property (aka guns).

[dfwuno]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

No, please stop talking in my name, because it's insulting.

I don't advocate armed security or metal detectors at school. I'm not advocating any solution because I don't believe there are any good solutions. I do believe that banning guns (if we managed to get control of 270 million of them) would lower our gun crime rates but I'm not prepared to do it because that impedes on the freedom of others to own a gun. Not only is this a 2nd Amendment issue, but I believe every human being has a right to own a firearm on the very least his or her property. To me this is non-negotiable.

Nothing should or could be done....Wow that's a view even to the right of the NRA. And the public needs to realize there are a lot of people out there with the same opinion that it is a complete 2nd Amendment issue and refuse to research or fact check that viewpoint while all the time screaming Fake News, Liberal Media and how about knives and autos and alcohol.........and you don't know what your are talking about blah blah blah

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by dfwuno

Nothing should or could be done....Wow that's a view even to the right of the NRA. And the public needs to realize there are a lot of people out there with the same opinion that it is a complete 2nd Amendment issue and refuse to research or fact check that viewpoint while all the time screaming Fake News, Liberal Media and how about knives and autos and alcohol.........and you don't know what your are talking about blah blah blah

I consider my views to be to the Left of the NRA since Liberalism is in favor of more liberty - including owning guns. It just so happens that the American Democratic party is not very liberal on this issue.

And I don't know what I'm talking about? You don't know even the basics of our 2nd amendment, the bill of rights, the 14th amendment, or even what an assault rifle really is.

[dfwuno]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

I consider my views to be to the Left of the NRA since Liberalism is in favor of more liberty - including owning guns. It just so happens that the American Democratic party is not very liberal on this issue.

And I don't know what I'm talking about? You don't know even the basics of our 2nd amendment, the bill of rights, the 14th amendment, or even what an assault rifle really is.

So I guess conservative justice Scalia's opinion on the matter was wrong.
And all the articles when you google The Second Amendment is not Unlimited or The Second Amendment is not Absolute are all wrong and Fake News.........Its fine if you want to hold the opinion that banning assault weapons creates a slippery slope to more traditional gun bans which I don't think would be the case but to say the federal government can not ban assault weapons because of the Second Amendment is WRONG. Or are all these articles wrong and written by uneducated fools. And we are back to alcohol in 4 3 2 1.......

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

No I don't. I'm not comparing guns to swimming pools or cars - I'm comparing them to alcohol for a reason. You don't think I thought of those other reasons? And while you can control if you build a swimming pool you cannot control if your kid or yourself gets hit by a drunk driver. This is a fact. And why I'm using alcohol as a comparison. I'm not arguing to ban alcohol too - I'm arguing that banning every product that is misused leads to a worse quality of life.

We have done a lot to reduce DUI traffic fatalities. Since the 80's the number of DUI caused traffic fatalities have been cut in half, that happened not by banning alcohol but by raising the drinking age in states where it was 18, better vehicle safety and tougher penalties for offenders. We have done nothing since Columbine to reduce the possibility that mass shootings will occur in our churches, schools, theaters or entertainment venues..NOTHING. The NRA's answer is "we need more guns", so we arm the teachers and the lunch lady and if that doesn't work well then what, will they claim we need to arm the students? What's next, arm the priest so that he can defend the church if a mass shooter shows up, require that every person who attends a concert carry a gun? I am tired of hearing it. I own guns I don't want guns banned but the idea that it's perfectly ok to arm people with a weapon that serves no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people in a very short time makes me sick.

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

I disagree wholeheartedly and at the end of the day will resist any laws to restrict firearms even so called assault rifles. This like I said is non-negotiable, and I hope I win against this pointless onslaught on our rights to own property (aka guns).

Your right to carry a semi-auto with a high capacity detachable magazine is not guaranteed. Scalia didn't promise if in Heller and by the Supreme Court refusing to hear the challenge to the Maryland assault weapon ban they tacitly agreed with the lower court's opinion; "In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage."

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

My argument is not that we shouldn't ban guns because we don't ban alcohol. I'm forcing you people to come to terms with why you're ok with alcohol and not with guns.

Because alcohol in and of itself is not a mass murder device. An ar15 can be, more so than a shotgun for example.

It's a fallacious argument