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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,756 posts, read 23,840,029 times
Reputation: 14671
With the story posted up above, I'd like to bring up a point. The 71 year old guy in Florida was able to intervene with a simple handgun. The 2nd amendment laws protecting the right of gun ownership should remain intact. One question that begs to be asked though is why is it that automatic assault weapons such as the ones used in Aurora and Newtown are in the hands of civilians?
Why is it that we must have the extremes. What is the purpose of having the NRA crowd vehemently defending civilian rights to own assault weapons firing up to 50 rounds per minute. Do we really think that our 18th century forefathers envisioned this when authoring the Constitution? And at the other extreme why must the discussion of gun regulations be a threat to the NRA crowd, since when does that have to mean taking away all guns for use of self defense?
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 12-17-2012 at 09:01 AM..
With the story posted up above, I'd like to bring up a point. The 71 year old guy in Florida was able to intervene with a simple handgun. The 2nd amendment laws protecting the right of gun ownership should remain intact. One question that begs to be asked though is why is it that military grade assault weapons such as the ones used in Aurora and Newtown are in the hands of civilians?
Why is it that we must have the extremes. What is the purpose of having the NRA crowd vehemently defending civilian rights to own assault weapons firing up to 50 rounds per minute. Do we really think that our 18th century forefathers envisioned this when authoring the Constitution? And at the other extreme why must the discussion of gun regulations be a threat to the NRA crowd, since when does that have to mean taking away all guns for use of self defense?
At the time of our country's founding, the weapons available to civilians were the same as those available to the military. What makes you think that the founding fathers would have wanted it to be otherwise?
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,756 posts, read 23,840,029 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
At the time of our country's founding, the weapons available to civilians were the same as those available to the military. What makes you think that the founding fathers would have wanted it to be otherwise?
From a rational point of view I don't believe they envisioned automatic weapons firing 50 rounds per minute falling into the hands of mentally unstable people with intent to harm their own citizenry.
With the story posted up above, I'd like to bring up a point. The 71 year old guy in Florida was able to intervene with a simple handgun. The 2nd amendment laws protecting the right of gun ownership should remain intact. One question that begs to be asked though is why is it that military grade assault weapons such as the ones used in Aurora and Newtown are in the hands of civilians?
Why is it that we must have the extremes. What is the purpose of having the NRA crowd vehemently defending civilian rights to own assault weapons firing up to 50 rounds per minute. Do we really think that our 18th century forefathers envisioned this when authoring the Constitution? And at the other extreme why must the discussion of gun regulations be a threat to the NRA crowd, since when does that have to mean taking away all guns for use of self defense?
First of all, they are not assault weapons. Assault weapons are only fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons.
Second of all, why should civilians not own "military grade assault weapons?"
Lastly, should we discuss limiting your right to peacefully assemble? Should we discuss regulating who can be searched or have property seized without a warrant or probable cause? Should we discuss restricting your access to legal counsel should you be charged with a crime? Should we discuss limiting who you are allowed to worship?
If you are not willing to discuss limiting your inherent individual rights in these other matters, why would any rational person want to discuss limiting their inherent individual rights under the Second Amendment?
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,756 posts, read 23,840,029 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
First of all, they are not assault weapons. Assault weapons are only fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons.
Second of all, why should civilians not own "military grade assault weapons?"
Lastly, should we discuss limiting your right to peacefully assemble? Should we discuss regulating who can be searched or have property seized without a warrant or probable cause? Should we discuss restricting your access to legal counsel should you be charged with a crime? Should we discuss limiting who you are allowed to worship?
If you are not willing to discuss limiting your inherent individual rights in these other matters, why would any rational person want to discuss limiting their inherent individual rights under the Second Amendment?
This is my point, you are straying off topic thinking rational gun laws would threaten your right to asemble and worship. That's paranoia and makes your response very evasive to the real topic at hand. Why is it neccessary for civilians to possess these extreme this extreme type of weaponry?
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 12-17-2012 at 09:04 AM..
Is it possible to have a mature discussion about Gun Control without extremes?
On most issues, the extremes make the most noise and gain the most attention. And they make finding an acceptable solution that much less likely by polarizing opinions.
From a rational point of view I don't believe they envisioned automatic weapons firing 50 rounds per minute falling into the hands of mentally unstable people with intent to harm their own citizenry.
They also couldn't envision 700 children being educated in a single location. They couldn't envision classrooms that banned guns. They couldn't envision gas powered vehicles. Jets. The internet.
But they knew too well how a government could quickly become tyrannical, and that the only defense against that was an armed population.
This is my point, you are straying off topic thinking rational gun laws would threaten your right to asemble and wroship. That's paranoia. Why is it neccessary for civilians to possess these extreme this extreme type of weaponry?
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.
Is it possible to have a mature discussion about Gun Control without extremes?
