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.
the difference is, cars serve a useful purpose for ordinary people. it is impossible to live without cars in modern society. hence they cannot be banned.
DH lived without one for years. They can be a hindrance in some areas.
the difference is, cars serve a useful purpose for ordinary people. it is impossible to live without cars in modern society. hence they cannot be banned.
but assault rifles serve no useful purpose. their only purpose is to kill and maim. we can live without them. they can be banned and we'll be better off without them because they serve no useful purpose (unless you're a mass killer or a paranoid anti-government freak). you want to have a hunting rifle? fine. that is your right and no one will ever take that from you.
I live without a car now and do just fine without one, there are still a few places where you can live a good life without a car, and then there are even more places where you can manage without a car, but there are definitely a lot more places in this country where you can't survive without a car.
You know this question gets asked all the time when the gun debate comes up, especially on the talking head talk shows in the late evening. Piers Morgan asks all the pro gun people why an average citizen needs an assault weapon, and I've yet to hear the most satisfactory answer from any of these pro gun folks. The question is a legit one, and the proper way to answer it is very obvious.
Instead of giving the obvious answer, these guys drift off into the answer of "we need them for the possibility of gov. tyranny" answer. While this answer IS the original intent of the second amendment and still remains a valid reason to this day, giving this answer does not help our cause in the least. Most people hear that answer and cringe, and call us gun nuts and conspiracy theorists and so forth.
So, when asked the question, I just can't understand why these so called prominant gun rights advocates don't skip all the tyranny mumbo jumbo and just get right down to the real answer: we don't NEED to have a NEED to own an assault weapon. Not at all. The Constitution doesn't say we have to show a valid need for a weapon, it simply says we have the right to own a weapon or "arms" to be more specific. It is YOU, all the people who want to ban assault weapons, who must prove the need to do so, not us.
I can already anticipate your answer, which will be something to the effect of "I'd say 20 kids being slaughtered shows a need to ban them" { yes, you people are very predictable } That logic doesn't work. How many kids are killed in car accidents every year? How many kids are killed with other weapons every year? How many kids/people are killed with hammers, wrenches or other blunt objects every year? Most importantly, why are we not considering a ban on those things? Because we can't live our lives that way, We can't just ban anything and everything the has a potential risk factor of being usd to take innocent lives.
So let me ask YOU, why do we NEED to ban so-called "assault weapons"
I would say that 20 kids being slaughtered demonstrates a need for semi-automatic rifles to be in the hands of more of the right people.
The tool isn't the enemy - the problem is the bad people using them.
A gun in the hands of a law abiding and responsible citizen is a beneficial thing.
I would say that 20 kids being slaughtered demonstrates a need for semi-automatic rifles to be in the hands of more of the right people.
The tool isn't the enemy - the problem is the bad people using them.
A gun in the hands of a law abiding and responsible citizen is a beneficial thing.
Agreed......
Now if we could just find a way to strengthen and enforce the laws we have and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, we might not have to fight for our rights every time some nut goes on a rampage....
That would be a real possibility, after we disarm all you gun nuts. It might come as a surprise but many police officers around the world, manage to do their jobs just fine, without firearms.
That would be a real possibility, after we disarm all you gun nuts. It might come as a surprise but many police officers around the world, manage to do their jobs just fine, without firearms.
Please...what drugs are you on? Must be some good stuff. Not only do you want civilians disarmed, but LEOs too. Somehow this doesn't supprize me. Those LEOs are jokes....a mall security guard has more power. "Hault....hault....I'll arrest you".
That would be a real possibility, after we disarm all you gun nuts. It might come as a surprise but many police officers around the world, manage to do their jobs just fine, without firearms.
not quite. that's why I said they should be banned for ordinary people.
I agree, all ordinary people such as those people that dont want them, cops and fleas should all be banned from having them.
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.
