50+ Culturally Enriched in Orlando

[WISD0MTREE]

No, Obama should ban all guns.

Maybe we can let people keep black powder rifles

Oh, I actually love guns. I've fired some that would make you cream your pants. Best of all time was the mini-gun. 5,000 rounds in 90 seconds.

 

I own and will always own guns, regardless of the law.

My point is I like guns, but they're not suitable for everyone.

That went downhill for you fast. Do you happen to be an 82 year old senator? 

 

Oh, I actually love guns. I've fired some that would make you cream your pants. Best of all time was the mini-gun. 5,000 rounds in 90 seconds.

 

I own and will always own guns, regardless of the law.

 

I also believe it should be a privilege, a "right" you must earn, to own weapons. No one complains that they have to take training, written, and driving tests to get a drivers license. It should be equally difficult to prove that you are responsible enough to own something that you can use to murder 100 people with in a few minutes. Then again, I believe people should have a license before being allowed to procreate. There's a lot of irresponsible people out there. We make them buy insurance and buckle up and not text n drive. They can't do those simple things unless they're forced to. You really think it's a good idea that anyone and everyone should have a deadly weapon?

Ex-mil? The only US based minigun manufacturer I know of refuses to sell to anyone aside from the military and police. 

 

But as you said above, "Obama should ban all guns."

 

First off, you don’t need a background check to buy a car. None of those things you mention are needed if I keep my car on private property. How about I just keep my firearm on my private property? 

 

It’s MUCH harder to buy a gun than buy a car, especially if your history includes criminal behavior. For a car, both new and used, in both cases you write a check and sign a title. There is less paperwork in buying a car than purchasing a gun. When buying the car, you don’t have to have two forms of government issued ID (depending on the state), have to fill out a “car transference form,†sometimes need a pre-existing Firearms Owners Card, and undergo a background check. 

 

And about registering cars, those registries have been misused on occasion. Government registries have a rather disturbing history of being used against their citizens. For example, at least 74 law enforcers were suspected of misusing the DAVID car registration in Florida in 2012, a nearly 400% increase from 2011, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Officers were pulling down photographs and private information of people, sometimes for purposes of revenge. (Source) 

 

 

something that you can use to murder 100 people with in a few minutes

So... Not a gun? Orlando was the largest mass shooting by a civilian (police are civilians, except MPs) in the US and the dude only got about 50 people. I would like to propose mandatory background checks on boxcutters, fertilizer, and paint thinner.

 

The largest mass shooting in the US... 

 

[Peter Quill]

You are all stupid and so is religion.

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand but K.

[WISD0MTREE]

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand but K.

The dude did it in the name of an extremist organization which pledges allegiance to a religion and the president blamed another religion. 

[SoS]

That went downhill for you fast. Do you happen to be an 82 year old senator?

 

Ex-mil? The only US based minigun manufacturer I know of refuses to sell to anyone aside from the military and police.

 

But as you said above, "Obama should ban all guns."

 

First off, you don’t need a background check to buy a car. None of those things you mention are needed if I keep my car on private property. How about I just keep my firearm on my private property?

 

It’s MUCH harder to buy a gun than buy a car, especially if your history includes criminal behavior. For a car, both new and used, in both cases you write a check and sign a title. There is less paperwork in buying a car than purchasing a gun. When buying the car, you don’t have to have two forms of government issued ID (depending on the state), have to fill out a “car transference form,†sometimes need a pre-existing Firearms Owners Card, and undergo a background check.

 

And about registering cars, those registries have been misused on occasion. Government registries have a rather disturbing history of being used against their citizens. For example, at least 74 law enforcers were suspected of misusing the DAVID car registration in Florida in 2012, a nearly 400% increase from 2011, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Officers were pulling down photographs and private information of people, sometimes for purposes of revenge. (Source)

 

 

So... Not a gun? Orlando was the largest mass shooting by a civilian (police are civilians, except MPs) in the US and the dude only got about 50 people. I would like to propose mandatory background checks on boxcutters, fertilizer, and paint thinner.

 

The largest mass shooting in the US...

 

Yeah, I am. But, the gun was privately, legally owned. I don't know the history of my friend's gun. But, the fact that he had it must mean that at some point someone was selling mini-guns to private citizens.

 

Regulating the operation of cars is the most effective way to reduce the harm they cause, due to the nature of how cars are used. Regulating the operation of guns is ineffective, bcs of the nature of how guns are used. Cars are always visible and operated in public. They're only dangerous under those conditions. So, you only police them under those conditions. Guns are not always visible when in public and they're just as dangerous (reportedly moreso) in the owners' home as they are in public. We really can't regulate guns effectively in the same way we do cars. Unlike cars, we must (and do, but need to increase) restrictions on who may own guns. Would such a restriction be ineffective? Maybe, but that's no reason to not enact a law. If a minor inconvenience to decent people could prevent even one tragedy it's worth it.

 

I don't want a blanket ban on guns. So, I want the !@#$ing NRA to accept some meaningful restrictions.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yeah, I am. But, the gun was privately, legally owned. I don't know the history of my friend's gun. But, the fact that he had it must mean that at some point someone was selling mini-guns to private citizens.

 

Regulating the operation of cars is the most effective way to reduce the harm they cause, due to the nature of how cars are used. Regulating the operation of guns is ineffective, bcs of the nature of how guns are used. Cars are always visible and operated in public. They're only dangerous under those conditions. So, you only police them under those conditions. Guns are not always visible when in public and they're just as dangerous (reportedly moreso) in the owners' home as they are in public. We really can't regulate guns effectively in the same way we do cars. Unlike cars, we must (and do, but need to increase) restrictions on who may own guns. Would such a restriction be ineffective? Maybe, but that's no reason to not enact a law. If a minor inconvenience to decent people could prevent even one tragedy it's worth it.

 

I don't want a blanket ban on guns. So, I want the !@#$ NRA to accept some meaningful restrictions.

That must have been pretty cool. 

---

Do you need to take a mandatory class for your other rights? How about a mandatory voting class? A mandatory free speech class?

 

While gun safety classes are a decent idea and most responsible gun owners favor them for concealed carry, the “mandatory†part is where the problem lies. There can be no intermediary that stands as a gatekeeper between me and a fundamental civil liberty, otherwise it’s not truly a right. You don’t see any possible scenario where giving the government the ability to officially deny a Constitutional right could be subject to abuse? This is not a hypothetical. There are places in the country where government officials wrongly use their authority to unconstitutionally deny firearm permits to people. Watch the undercover videos here: http://www.nj2as.com/ . They make criminals out of law-abiding people who just want their 2A rights. 

 

Maybe we can get together and both agree to ban swimming pools first? Because the rates of swimming pool deaths are greater than for both guns or cars. More people die of accidental drownings in swimming pools per 100,000 pools than accidentally die from 100,000 guns. I'll be happy because I don't own a swimming pool and banning them won't infringe on a fundamental civil liberty, and you can be happy because you’ll still get to own a car. When we finally get all the swimming pools banned, then we can move on to arguing about guns and cars.

http://www.aquaticnet.com/media-statistics3.htm

And FBI 2004 stats for consistency. (I accidentally closed it before linking. Google them if you don't believe me.) 

---

And "compromise" like we have been? You see, usually when anti-gunners talk about “compromise,†they propose actions that take rights away from gun owners and give nothing back in return. The only thing, in my opinion, that could be seen as a true compromise in any anti-gun law would be the sunset clause in the last AWB. 

[SoS]

Yeah, I've been blessed with friends and family that hold licenses to own automatic weapons. I fired an fully automatic uzi when I was 10 thanks to my uncle. My dad and his brothers had enough firepower to arm a respectable company. My uncle had a gun store, so I guess a few companies could've been armed by the family.

 

We were actually never allowed to use auto fire in the military, since I was more of a cop than combat. I fired a .50 machine gun there. Cool, but not nearly as cool as a mini-gun. Nothing like shooting a month's income in 2 minutes.

 

We were actually educated on the 1st ammendment. If you will recall that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". Schools never did tell us under what circumstances to use deadly force. Funny.

 

We have a fundamental right to own muskets. Future military grade weapons were never specified as a right. For that matter, I used to have a right to own people. Don't you think some things change that change what's considered a reasonable right?

 

People generally kill themselves in pools, not other people. There are safety laws regarding pools. If ten of thousands were being killed by other people with pools there would be more regulations against the possession and/or use of pools. The lack of pool lobbyists would make it easy.

 

The real place where the government is out to get you is in bread and circuses. They don't need to repress anyone. They just make them passive.

 

Yes, I would become a criminal if guns were outright banned.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I live in rural Central Kentucky. If a drunk idiot drives up my driveway and tries to break in at 2 AM, what am I do to? It would be a good 10-15 minutes for the police to arrive- and that's assuming any officer for the city or the county is awake and on patrol at that late a hour.

 

Or, alternately, what if the coyotes get real close and go after my cats or dogs? One night last year, they flanked both sides of the house and only went away because my stepdad shot at them with his .38.

 

What are the people to rely on hunting for their subsistence during certain parts of the year to do?

 

Or, what about the people who work in arms manufacturing suppose to do who they lose their jobs?

 

What about the 2nd Amendment? 

 

What about all the people who wouldn't surrender their guns? Millions of people wouldn't obey such an order. Would local law enforcement be expected to arrest all of them?

Having been to Texas I am slightly more open to the gun lobby. I do think you guys do have a reason for hunting rifles, do you need a AR-15 for hunting, probably not - a bolt action rifle would probably do the trick, works on deer certainly!

 

When people mention the 2nd Amendment I do think, it's been amended, there's a clue in the name! It isn't a sacred right.

 

If I lived in Mid Wales I would be a good half hour from the nearest nick, but our police are all professionals and we have 24 hour policing cover all the days of the year. I know some of y'all don't trust the cops, but then maybe that is part of the problem.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Having been to Texas I am slightly more open to the gun lobby. I do think you guys do have a reason for hunting rifles, do you need a AR-15 for hunting, probably not - a bolt action rifle would probably do the trick, works on deer certainly!

 

Hunting is not what the 2nd Amendment is for.

 

 

When people mention the 2nd Amendment I do think, it's been amended, there's a clue in the name! It isn't a sacred right.

It is a portion of the Bill of Rights which were added after the initial Constitutional laws were set into place which were  made up of offices and legislative law parameters were established. The Bill of Rights were added, I believe, before 1793. The Bill of Rights are a right, considered sacred to many, to the citizens of the United States.

 

 

If I lived in Mid Wales I would be a good half hour from the nearest nick, but our police are all professionals and we have 24 hour policing cover all the days of the year. I know some of y'all don't trust the cops, but then maybe that is part of the problem.

Professional Police still take at least six minutes to arrive to the scene of the crime. You guys still have deaths/murders out there and many still go unsolved, and yes, by gun.

 

If you believe everything gets reported to the public, even statistical numbers, you live in a world of elves and fairies.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yeah, I've been blessed with friends and family that hold licenses to own automatic weapons. I fired an fully automatic uzi when I was 10 thanks to my uncle. My dad and his brothers had enough firepower to arm a respectable company. My uncle had a gun store, so I guess a few companies could've been armed by the family.

 

We were actually never allowed to use auto fire in the military, since I was more of a cop than combat. I fired a .50 machine gun there. Cool, but not nearly as cool as a mini-gun. Nothing like shooting a month's income in 2 minutes.

 

We were actually educated on the 1st ammendment. If you will recall that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". Schools never did tell us under what circumstances to use deadly force. Funny.

 

We have a fundamental right to own muskets. Future military grade weapons were never specified as a right. For that matter, I used to have a right to own people. Don't you think some things change that change what's considered a reasonable right?

 

People generally kill themselves in pools, not other people. There are safety laws regarding pools. If ten of thousands were being killed by other people with pools there would be more regulations against the possession and/or use of pools. The lack of pool lobbyists would make it easy.

 

The real place where the government is out to get you is in bread and circuses. They don't need to repress anyone. They just make them passive.

 

Yes, I would become a criminal if guns were outright banned.

That's pretty cool. I used to hang out at the range during summer when all of my friends were at summer camps or something my parents couldn't afford to do. Some of the guys kind of felt bad for me, so I've shot some pretty cool guns (not a minigun, sadly). 

 

MP? 

 

Your analogy fire doesn't hold. Actually, you can shout “fire†in a crowded theater, when there’s an actual fire. That’s when it’s actually legal to do so. Any other time would be an illegal use of speech, in other words, you’re inciting mayhem. In the same way, we should punish illegal acts of gun use, not restrict them all beforehand. If someone shouts “fire†in a theater in order to create a disturbance, we should punish him after he does so. We don’t punish him beforehand because it’s impossible to tell what he’s going to do beforehand and we don’t punish people for thinking about doing crimes, only after they actually commit them. In the same way, you can’t “punish†gun owners for crimes they might commit beforehand. It’s perfectly legal to own a gun and even use it in self-defense. It is only after someone abuses that right and uses the gun in a bad, illegal way that we can then arrest/try/punish him. Put another way, we don’t preemptively restrict rights because a few people might abuse them.

 

Point to me where the Second Amendment says "muskets." Protip: You can't. Muskets were never specified as a right; Only "arms." Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? Do you still write with a quill pen? Your keyboard can recruit more terrorists per day than a pen and quill can. How do you feel about arming the police with muskets and flintlocks? How well do you think that would work out? So, you can see why I don’t really want to be stuck with the technology of the 1700’s when it comes to self-defense. 

 

 Alright, let's take that logic and apply it to guns. There were 2,596,993 deaths in the US in 2013. Only 33,636 were firearm related (1.2% of all deaths). 60% of gun related deaths are from suicides. So this 33,636 number should be 13,454, or 0.4% of all deaths in 2013. This .4% includes gang related violence, accidents, etc. 

On the topic of deaths, however, let's look at auto accidents. In 2013, 33,804 people, or 1.3% of all deaths in 2013, were from auto accidents. More than guns. Plus, I doubt you are committing suicide in a car wreck. 

Sources:

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

 

Just like you can type many ways (home keys, etc.), they can get you in many ways. 

 

Then why do you want guns to be banned? Do you want to become someone's !@#$ in prison? 

 

Having been to Texas I am slightly more open to the gun lobby. I do think you guys do have a reason for hunting rifles, do you need a AR-15 for hunting, probably not - a bolt action rifle would probably do the trick, works on deer certainly!

 

When people mention the 2nd Amendment I do think, it's been amended, there's a clue in the name! It isn't a sacred right.

 

If I lived in Mid Wales I would be a good half hour from the nearest nick, but our police are all professionals and we have 24 hour policing cover all the days of the year. I know some of y'all don't trust the cops, but then maybe that is part of the problem.

AR-15s are used all the time for hunting. You can use them to hunt anything you’d normally hunt with with a .22LR or .223 round. You can also get them chambered in larger rounds too. Check it out on the web, there are dozens of sites that talk about hunting with AR-15’s and such. They are much lighter and more reliable than some other semi-auto guns. (I personally dislike AR-15s, but it's all about preference.) Really, the nice thing about hunting with AR-15’s is that many AR’s allow you change calibers by switching out the upper receiver and bolt carrier group. This flexibility makes the AR one of the most versatile rifles there is for hunting all manner of game. Smaller rounds take smaller game, and larger rounds take larger game. Now you don’t have to buy a different gun for different game, just certain parts. 

---

"It isn't a sacred right." 

Are we playing Mad Libs now? The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of ______. 

---

I waited for an hour for an ambulance at my grandma's house in Texas as a kid. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away... 

If you are a foreigner, then I can understand why you don't understand why we don't trust cops. If you are an American, turn on the news or go outside or something. The police here are inept in large scale incidents. 

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-police-student-violence-20150427-story.html

https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/537092960077512704/photo/1

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/207346-ferguson-business-owners-really-want-potential-rioters-know-something/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIq-sFwA8Ac

 

A little background on this video. In the LA Riots, the police completely abandoned Koreatown to defend Hollywood. 

 

[SoS]

We do restrict rights.

 

"Arms"...so I can have nuclear weapons? Obviously, we don't want everyone to have any type of arms they please.

 

The stats on death rates are highly disingenuous they way you presented them. 99% of deaths were from natural causes. What percentage of deaths caused by intentional injuries were from guns? Not an insignificant number.

[Mutsuo Toi]

We do restrict rights.

 

"Arms"...so I can have nuclear weapons? Obviously, we don't want everyone to have any type of arms they please.

 

The stats on death rates are highly disingenuous they way you presented them. 99% of deaths were from natural causes. What percentage of deaths caused by intentional injuries were from guns? Not an insignificant number.

I kek at this

Nuclear weapon is too damn expensive, how the hell do you think you can afford that? even a god damn tank is much expensive for rich people.

Edited June 17, 2016 by lizard noob

[SoS]

NK has agreed to give me a nuclear weapon as a gift. It is my right to bear arms. What could go wrong?

[Mutsuo Toi]

NK has agreed to give me a nuclear weapon as a gift. It is my right to bear arms. What could go wrong?

 

>Implying NK would give away a nuclear weapon as a gift

>To their own enemy

[Donald Trump]

we should legalize guns in europe...banning them in america makes sense. but europe has been invaded by people from the middle east. id want to have a gun to keep myself safe!

[Sailor Jerry]

 even a god damn tank is much expensive for rich people.

Here you go.....I'll take a baker's dozen:

 

http://www.armyjeeps.net/M18hellcat/index.htm

[WISD0MTREE]

We do restrict rights.

 

"Arms"...so I can have nuclear weapons? Obviously, we don't want everyone to have any type of arms they please.

 

The stats on death rates are highly disingenuous they way you presented them. 99% of deaths were from natural causes. What percentage of deaths caused by intentional injuries were from guns? Not an insignificant number.

How so? 

 

As posted earlier ITT, what you’re talking about with nukes aren’t normal arms at all, however. It’s military ordnance. Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) A nuke is definitely ordnance. You are unlikely to get the government to issue you an NFA stamp for a nuke. The only way you will own one is illegally.

 

Alright, care to actually post stats with sources, like I have been for 5 pages now? 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

This might sound crazy to some people but for me the weirdest thing for me in Texas was seeing every cop having a gun. My nearest armed cop back home is twenty minutes away. If I lived in the country that would be an hour or longer. If your police are so untrustworthy why do they have guns?

[SoS]

How so?

 

As posted earlier ITT, what you’re talking about with nukes aren’t normal arms at all, however. It’s military ordnance. Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) A nuke is definitely ordnance. You are unlikely to get the government to issue you an NFA stamp for a nuke. The only way you will own one is illegally.

 

Alright, care to actually post stats with sources, like I have been for 5 pages now?

There are countless laws which restrict my rights to do what I might want to do.

 

Originally, the 2nd amendment allowed private citizens to own artillery and later gatling guns. Those rights have been eroded. If you're a purist, you would support my right to RPGs and WMDs. Originally, the 2nd amendment was intended to allow for private armies to defend America. That's defunct today. Should we encourage "a well regulated militia" today? The only conceivable enemy is the government, so good luck with that. Back in the day war was everywhere and constant with the natives and the neighboring colonies. After the civil war, I imagine they reasonably wanted to curb private armies.

 

Stats are readily available. And, it's just common sense that 2.25 million of the 2.5 million American deaths you cited were from natural causes. Intentional and unintentional injuries account for a tiny fraction of annual deaths. At least I don't give stats that are twisted to fit my talking points.

Edited June 17, 2016 by SoS

[WISD0MTREE]

This might sound crazy to some people but for me the weirdest thing for me in Texas was seeing every cop having a gun. My nearest armed cop back home is twenty minutes away. If I lived in the country that would be an hour or longer. If your police are so untrustworthy why do they have guns?

It's like that through all of America. I wouldn't call them untrustworthy, just inept. They over complicate everything. Here in America, you learn to involve police as a last resort. 

 

There are countless laws which restrict my rights to do what I might want to do.

 

Originally, the 2nd amendment allowed private citizens to own artillery and later gatling guns. Those rights have been eroded. If you're a purist, you would support my right to RPGs and WMDs. Originally, the 2nd amendment was intended to allow for private armies to defend America. That's defunct today. Should we encourage "a well regulated militia" today? The only conceivable enemy is the government, so good luck with that. Back in the day war was everywhere and constant with the natives and the neighboring colonies. After the civil war, I imagine they reasonably wanted to curb private armies.

 

Stats are readily available. And, it's just common sense that 2.25 million of the 2.5 million American deaths you cited were from natural causes. Intentional and unintentional injuries account for a tiny fraction of annual deaths. At least I don't give stats that are twisted to fit my talking points.

Then post examples. 

 

As posted earlier ITT, what you’re talking about with nukes aren’t normal arms at all, however. It’s military ordnance. Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) A nuke is definitely ordnance. You are unlikely to get the government to issue you an NFA stamp for a nuke. The only way you will own one is illegally.

Plus, A nuke is not a defensive weapon. I cannot target practice with a nuke. It will not fit in my pocket and make me safer as I walk through a dark, dangerous neighborhood. If I try to use it in self-defense, it will take me out along with my attacker (and a huge part of the city), so it defeats the purpose. You have a right to guns, which are "arms." You do not have a right to a nuke, which is definitely military ordnance.

 

It's common sense that nobody dies from guns. 

Try harder. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

-nra stuff-

[SoS]

It's my right to rape and plunder. The government infringes my rights.

 

Arms were originally any damn weapon perod. (Heller) and whatever other case has watered that down. Eroded my rights. The 2nd amendment was intended to guarantee me a private army that could rival any other army, in terms of available armaments. If you accept that I can't have hell fire rockets and chain guns on a stelth helocopter, so I can reduce a stadium full of fans to a bloody ruin, then how far from the 2nd amendment is limiting mag capacity or the type of fire rate?

 

I don't even get that??? How is that a response to me saying you claimed gun deaths were .04% of total deaths when you failed to mention the difference between natural causes and intetional injuries?

 

Really, a single shot gun would be entirely adequate for self defense. Self defense doesn't really encompass a shootout and average people couldn't fare well in a shootout. Shootouts are just not necessary for self defense. One menacing bullet is generally enough.

Edited June 18, 2016 by SoS

[Vahak]

Do you want me to show you what the Bible says about them?

Yeah noone is praising the bible here they're both pretty shit. 

[WISD0MTREE]

-snip-

Then why don't you type actual arguments? 

 

It's my right to rape and plunder. The government infringes my rights.

 

Arms were originally any damn weapon perod. (Heller) and whatever other case has watered that down. Eroded my rights. The 2nd amendment was intended to guarantee me a private army that could rival any other army, in terms of available armaments. If you accept that I can't have hell fire rockets and chain guns on a stelth helocopter, so I can reduce a stadium full of fans to a bloody ruin, then how far from the 2nd amendment is limiting mag capacity or the type of fire rate?

 

I don't even get that??? How is that a response to me saying you claimed gun deaths were .04% of total deaths when you failed to mention the difference between natural causes and international injuries?

 

Really, a single shot gun would be entirely adequate for self defense. Self defense doesn't really encompass a shootout and average people couldn't fare well in a shootout. Shootouts are just not necessary for self defense. One menacing bullet is generally enough.

Sure, kid. 

 

Even Barack Obama, a Constitutional scholar and a leading proponent for gun control by his own admission, conceded that it’s an individual right (although at the same time, in the same statement, he couldn’t resist calling for restrictions on the 2nd). Here is what he said at the time of the Heller decision: “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.â€

 

It's from your source, which is known as "common sense." I can play that game, too. 

 

Joe Biden, is that you? 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/joe-biden-defense-gun-case-jeffrey-barton-116178

And you seem to not know what you are talking about. 

http://www.wisn.com/news/video-shows-bouchards-owner-defending-his-store/34328414

And I'm not sure if it was this thread, but I have posted this on this subforum before. 

These types of firearms are used all the time for hunting. You can use them to hunt anything you’d normally hunt with with a .22 or .223 round. You can also get them chambered in larger rounds too. Check it out on the web, there are dozens of sites that talk about hunting with AR-15’s and such. The nice thing about hunting with AR-15’s is that many AR’s allow you change calibers by switching out the upper receiver and bolt carrier group. This flexibility makes the AR one of the most versatile rifles there is for hunting all manner of game. Smaller rounds take smaller game, and larger rounds take larger game. So you don’t have to buy a different gun for different game, just certain parts.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I had never heard of Steven Anderson until this thread. I was be surprised if anyone outside of America had. According to Wikipedia he is most famous for preaching a sermon advocating the murder of President Obama. Seems a real nice guy who really loves the ideals set down by Jesus. He is also a King James onlyist which makes me laugh....I assume being a protestant he ignores the fact that the original Authorised KJV had the apocrypha in it.

To me he is little more than Westboro 2.0, why should I take him as being representative of the Christian faith. As a Christian myself I would say he has little idea of what it means to be a little Christ. He represents only himself and not Christendom.

[SoS]

Then why don't you type actual arguments?

 

Sure, kid.

 

Even Barack Obama, a Constitutional scholar and a leading proponent for gun control by his own admission, conceded that it’s an individual right (although at the same time, in the same statement, he couldn’t resist calling for restrictions on the 2nd). Here is what he said at the time of the Heller decision: “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.â€

 

It's from your source, which is known as "common sense." I can play that game, too.

 

Joe Biden, is that you?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/joe-biden-defense-gun-case-jeffrey-barton-116178

And you seem to not know what you are talking about.

http://www.wisn.com/news/video-shows-bouchards-owner-defending-his-store/34328414

And I'm not sure if it was this thread, but I have posted this on this subforum before.

These types of firearms are used all the time for hunting. You can use them to hunt anything you’d normally hunt with with a .22 or .223 round. You can also get them chambered in larger rounds too. Check it out on the web, there are dozens of sites that talk about hunting with AR-15’s and such. The nice thing about hunting with AR-15’s is that many AR’s allow you change calibers by switching out the upper receiver and bolt carrier group. This flexibility makes the AR one of the most versatile rifles there is for hunting all manner of game. Smaller rounds take smaller game, and larger rounds take larger game. So you don’t have to buy a different gun for different game, just certain parts.

I don't think a .223 is all that great for big game. It was designed specifically to maim, not kill. Great for war, not so much for humane hunting. And .22 is cheap, probably cheaper than the BS of buying and changing the receiver. But yeah, they're nice light guns. I'd rather have an H&K, tho. That's my shit. I have a 33 and a full size .45. I want a 91, but that's costly.

 

Tbqh, I was only playing the gun control side so we could have a different discussion than muslims and cucks. It's interesting to see how both sides twist the same set of statistics, tho. I really do believe something more to prevent massacres needs to be done. Hell if I know what that is. Mopping up after won't satisfy the public. Some strict countries require character references. That might help weed out some weirdos. All I know is in a nation filled with guns I refuse to go without.