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 fact is no matter how illogical the 2nd Amendment is, it is the law and even though we have a democratic way to overturn it, it has survived, so until it is overturned we are stuck with it and its consequences. It is a weird situation but it is what it is. I am a big believer in democracy so if the American people want people running around with concealed weapons and want guns sold to nut cases, and are OK with the occasional mass slaughter, they are getting just what they want.
Question, Why should ordinary citizens be allowed to not only possess, but use military assault weapons, capable of firing multiple rounds per second, as a killing machine of many, at one time?
As we have seen by scanning the responses, the bulk are simply deflections or patronizing efforts to sidestep the issue. Pretending that they don't understand the question or demanding some technical jargon or description has served them well in the past when this question is asked. They get a free pass that way by pretending that the question is irrelevant or meaningless.
There is no real answer "why" because there is no rational reason for it. In a rational world this would not be happening. A private citizen has no business owning or possessing these weapons. To possess is to use -- there are no effective safeguards in place to stop it. If you are asking why, the only answer is that the system is broken and there are forces (NRA, manufactureers, lobbyists, extremists) who want to keep it that way. When a member of congress is paid $2 million by the NRA and a dozen more are paid almost as much, the gun lobby owns those Senators and Reps. They have a death grip on gun control policies.
As we have seen by scanning the responses, the bulk are simply deflections or patronizing efforts to sidestep the issue. Pretending that they don't understand the question or demanding some technical jargon or description has served them well in the past when this question is asked. They get a free pass that way by pretending that the question is irrelevant or meaningless.
.
I can't agree. Often times the response merely states that the features that define a 'military-grade' (or miltary style or assault rifle or assault weapon) rifle usually don't make them more deadly and that they aren't particularly more deadly than many other general classes of firearms.
If you want to write law you have to be able to define something, and I would hope that the definition actually reflects physical reality. I'm afraid that using a variant of Potter Stewart's explanation of what pornography is doesn't help anyone, it just confuses the reader.
As we have seen by scanning the responses, the bulk are simply deflections or patronizing efforts to sidestep the issue. Pretending that they don't understand the question or demanding some technical jargon or description has served them well in the past when this question is asked. They get a free pass that way by pretending that the question is irrelevant or meaningless.
There is no real answer "why" because there is no rational reason for it. In a rational world this would not be happening. A private citizen has no business owning or possessing these weapons. To possess is to use -- there are no effective safeguards in place to stop it. If you are asking why, the only answer is that the system is broken and there are forces (NRA, manufactureers, lobbyists, extremists) who want to keep it that way. When a member of congress is paid $2 million by the NRA and a dozen more are paid almost as much, the gun lobby owns those Senators and Reps. They have a death grip on gun control policies.
Your answer tells me you skipped over most of thecresponses including mine with links to numerous incidents where having a semi automatic weapon (what you call assault rifles), saved the lives of homeowners and their families.
The recent slaughter of innocent people in this country has people all over the internet telling lies, telling truths, blaming this one, or that one, and I have yet to see this question brought up specifically, on any forum.
The one thing I ask is that you LEAVE POLITICS OUT OT THIS DISCUSSION, and give an honest answer to this question.
If you feel a political answer is your only recourse, then please take it somewhere else.
Question, Why should ordinary citizens be allowed to not only possess, but use military assault weapons, capable of firing multiple rounds per second, as a killing machine of many, at one time?
Bob.
Personally, I think what is/are commonly called "assault weapons" should be reserved for the military and police. However, strong sanctions against them is obvious should they go overboard using it on innocent people.
Question, Why should ordinary citizens be allowed to not only possess, but use military assault weapons, capable of firing multiple rounds per second, as a killing machine of many, at one time?
If the question is honest, you have comprehension problems.
That said if you do have comprehension problems, here goes.
The active issue is...
"not only possess, but use..."
Truth is you don't care that one or many people possess anything from cars to ball point pens. You also don't care that they use those things in any lawful manner. You'd object to someone with intent driving across a school yard in a car at high speed during recess, you'd object to someone stabbing another person in the neck with a ball point pen.
So any kind of weapon you dont care unless it's used illegally. So semi-auto rifles rationally should be the same, you really dont care until someone shoots up a school, mall, or discount store. Which is illegal already.
So even a person with a pre-ban M-16 (yes the select fire one) is not any issue for owning, or using that, exactly the same as drivers driving in their cars, and writers writing with their ball point pen. The issue is when they assault another with that weapon (and assaulting with a car, or pen, makes that item an assault weapon), that's already covered, assault is illegal, homicide is illegal.
So if we use that analysis of your question (and I presume that you're rational)
Your question becomes pretty nonsensical.
Why should people own and use items that can cause harm to one or many people when used illegally.
There's a lot of stuff in that question, even parts of your anatomy.
The recent slaughter of innocent people in this country has people all over the internet telling lies, telling truths, blaming this one, or that one, and I have yet to see this question brought up specifically, on any forum.
The one thing I ask is that you LEAVE POLITICS OUT OT THIS DISCUSSION, and give an honest answer to this question.
If you feel a political answer is your only recourse, then please take it somewhere else.
Question, Why should ordinary citizens be allowed to not only possess, but use military assault weapons, capable of firing multiple rounds per second, as a killing machine of many, at one time?
Bob.
I support all the gun control measures that mass murders will obey.
If mass murderers refuse to carry a firearm into a gun-free zone, then I support gun-free zones.
If mass murders won't use 30 round clips because they are illegal, then I support a ban on 30 round clips.
The recent slaughter of innocent people in this country has people all over the internet telling lies, telling truths, blaming this one, or that one, and I have yet to see this question brought up specifically, on any forum.
The one thing I ask is that you LEAVE POLITICS OUT OT THIS DISCUSSION, and give an honest answer to this question.
If you feel a political answer is your only recourse, then please take it somewhere else.
Question, Why should ordinary citizens be allowed to not only possess, but use military assault weapons, capable of firing multiple rounds per second, as a killing machine of many, at one time?
Bob.
They shouldn't.......and they don't in the current view of things.
Well, that's not quite accurate for one can own a machine gun after going through the necessary hoops and for most who might, paying tens of thousands of dollars to do so.
For most of us, most of the country, though, we can't. My AR-15 is not a military assault weapon, it is not capable of firing a round faster than as fast as I can pull the trigger. To do so is either now illegal or is a modification that should be illegal. I don't know where the rubber band method stands in the laws and regulations for I have just leaned on the ethics side of it. That is, the government has said my AR-15 should not fire faster than one pull of the trigger, so I have never tried the rubber band method for ethically at least, I believe it is wrong.
We get back to the desert patrol and finding a drug plane being loaded scenario I talked about in another thread. I'm on desert patrol, I come across a drug plane being loaded (say DC-3, pick up trucks, burros), what do I want to cripple them quickly so I can retreat and get out of there. A full auto AR-10. The -10 because that round will do horrors to engine blocks. Full auto because there are more of them than me and I need to lay down fire and get out of there.
The hilarious thing about it is.......I don't think there are any full auto AR-10s aside from the limited production line that was done in the 50s. My AR-10, a semi, isn't built from those but from new production, new plans. The AR-10 is a wonderful modernization to the M-14 but militarily wise, I think even these days that when they want what the M-14 will do, they pull them from storage and use an M-14.
So essentially, I have a rifle that the uninformed might see as a military rifle.......that no military in the world uses (I would stand to be corrected on the minute possibilities).
What almost all of the civilian population has is not a military weapon.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 08-07-2019 at 07:56 AM..
It seems no one wants innocent people to be killed by any means... right?
It seems there are bad people who want to kill innocent people... right?
So the question is how do we keep bad people from killing innocent people?
We have to know who the bad people are first... right?
We have to know why they're bad, so others won't become bad... right?
Once we know who's bad and what's making them bad we can administer a cure. This is how we treat and cure people.
They'll be a test later. Study
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.
