Some in here said: "Calm down... they aren't going to ban your guns."
- Thread starter Sam Fisher
- Start date
As Jagger implies, you can't simply pick and choose which parts of the document you choose to follow. The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, is law and without a Constitutional amendment to change it, the sheer existence of the 2nd Amendment stands as "good enough reason" for someone to own a semi-automatic rifle with no further reasoning necessary, regardless of the time in which it was written as well as your personal feelings towards it.
As for the second part of my initial statement, the point is that to say we should overturn the 2nd Amendment because guns have potential to hurt people is essentially the same as saying we should overturn the 1st Amendment because words have the ability to hurt people.
You don't see a good reason for people to own a semi-automatic rifle, just the same as I don't see a good reason to express free speech in an intentionally hurtful manner. Both opinions are equally irrelevant because the right to own a semi-automatic weapon and the right to use free speech to intentionally degrade and/or hurt someone are Constitutionally protected and are not governed by individual sensibilities. The choice you have in the matter is whether or not to exercise those rights, not to infringe on others for doing so.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
If you were a real man, you'd just stare them down.
I'm hanging around here too much, apparently.
Cottonmouth and Water Moccasin are merely different names for the same species of snake.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Here's a good reason to own an assault rifle....
IT'S MY RIGHT!!!
Only reason any American needs.
IT'S MY RIGHT!!!
Only reason any American needs.
Kingfisher
Here Zombie, Zombie, Zombie...
Calling them "assault weapons" is a misnomer. Everyone who I know, who owns one doesn't call them "assault weapons or assault rifles". We call them by their brand names or nick names. The shit-tastic media fucks have labeled it because it sounds scary and gets more attention.
Example, there's going to be a gun show this weekend. So the fucking news media splashes a AK-47 with a 30, underneath the words GUN SHOW. Neither you can buy in this state!
Diane the cunt Feinstein's press conference the other day, displayed guns you haven't been able to get since the 70's! One of them was an original Armalite with the Bakelite fore-end for fucks sake! Can we say pre-Vietnam! But it looks scary to the complete idiots and misinformed. Scared of something equals stupid.
Besides you're in Glasgow. You don't get guns. Hell, I heard the other day if you're 15 or under they card you if you want to buy a gun magazine. Sure you have really low gun crime rates... but physical assaults, rapes, murders, general crime are rather high. If you use a gun to defend yourself from the criminal, you get punished and the criminal gets a pint and sent on his way. English Laws are fucked up.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
To your point, you're right; there really isn't a good reason that supports a (true) need for (misnamed) "assault weapons" or any other sort of weapon. And as Mayhem spelled out, if we were to look around our homes and garages, I'd say most of what we'd see wouldn't fit a true need. Generally speaking, most things are probably just things we wanted at some point. I know that I don't need one car that can top 150, let alone three. All I really need is basic transportation that will keep up with 70 mph traffic and get me to work. And no, I don't need a gun (one or ten... pistol, rifle or shotgun). I never tell people that I need guns, because that would be a lie. But I'm into fast cars and I'm into firearms. And since I'm (generally) a good fella, I don't see why the bad actions of bad guys should affect me, when nobody wants to do anything about the bad guys, who do bad things with what they have... but are forbidden by law from having. It kind of hurts my feelings that politicians think that taking something out of my hands will solve a problem largely created by people who aren't supposed to have guns to begin with. Seriously, I really don't get that logic. I don't think the problem of high speed crashes by drunk drivers would be solved by banning my cars either. But no, there's no real reason that I need those particular cars... or guns... or most anything else. Food, water, shelter, clothing, heat, employment and transportation pretty much meet my actual, basic needs.
:yesyes:
Yep, that's how it needs to be done, if people really want to accomplish this thing. That's just how we do it and how we should continue to do it.
Di Fi just represents the other side of the coin that is occupied by the rad right wing extremists. She's just a left wingnut instead of a right wingnut.
The media (the left leaning portion, anyway), I guess to build ratings, misnames weapons and misreports the facts quite often. What amuses me is when someone claims that we shouldn't have access to automatic weapons in the U.S. Uh, generally speaking, we don't. What few that are out there (legally) were made before 1986 and I don't believe one of those legally owned weapons has been involved in a crime for 20 years or so. As you say, (true) assault weapons are full auto or select fire weapons. Even the barrels on the AK variants that are available in the U.S. are not the same ones that come on real AKs - which are real assault weapons. But they look similar, so the media runs with it. And they sure do look scary! :eek: So, according to Di Fi, let's just make them look less scary and everything will be fine. She's kinda special, ain't she? Like a slightly more intelligent, kosher version of Sarah P@lin, IMO.
This argument about gun ownership will somehow protect you or make you less of a target is completely false too. Like you said I live in Glasgow, which has some of the highest crime rates and poverty in all of Europe. Indeed of the top 10 most deprived areas in the UK, 5 are in Glasgow. Glasgow has a population of around 600,000, roughly the same as Boston.
Looking at the crime figures for 2009/10 in Glasgow for murder and assault there were 3,069 across the city. In the same year there were 4,029 in Boston, almost a thousand more. I picked the year 2009/10 purely because it was the first year that I came across when looking up crime stats. I realise that there is no point continuing this debate as it divides opinion to a massive extent, but I just wanted to point out that the whole myth about people being safer owning a gun is simply not true.
Quite a few of us do in fact need them, though. One of my siblings is a PO in a big ass city with tons of nutters - attractive girls in her own right; same city judges, DAs, cops and those of us that live in high crime areas do in fact, if not "need" them at least have a right to them. :2 cents:
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
You're missing my point. There's a big difference between what some people (truly) need, in order to perform their jobs (law enforcement, military, etc.), versus someone who simply wants something because of where they live (high crime area) or what they like to do (hunt or target shoot). If you confuse needs and wants, then you'll be fighting a losing battle in these sorts of discussions. And while you may be able to get something because you have the right, it's more likely that you actually get it because you want it. There's no crime in wanting something versus needing it - always remember that.
My girl, who isn't really into guns, though she will go target shooting with us sometimes, once asked me why I needed this gun or that gun. My reply to her was the same reply that I have given everyone else who has asked me that question: I don't *need* any gun. I don't *need* to hunt (there is a Kroger not far from me). I don't *need* to target shoot. I told her that I had guns for the same reason that she had 114 pairs of shoes (or whatever). They're just things that I wanted and so I bought them. Simple as that. :dunno: I stay away from the slippery slope, where I would try to turn wants into needs in order to justify what I have.
Sam Fisher
Banned
Same as a guy or gal who buys the most expensive Ferrari or Lamborghini available. Not because he or she "needs" it. It's because they "want" it. And who on this planet has a right to prevent them from owning one.... or two or three of them?
What's next? Some government commission telling law-abiding citizens that they HAVE to use fluorescent light bulbs? Or, that their toilet can only flush a gallon and a half of water instead of three gallons?
Oh, wait. They already have climbed up inside everyone's asshole and made it a regulation on those things mentioned above.
So then what will be the next step? Requiring everyone to drive the same kind of fuel efficient vehicle? What about the family that has a camper and a boat and they always go to the lake every summer and spend their vacation spending money at a campground? Those people will have to sacrifice their enjoyment so that we can all save the fucking planet?
Californians are already told what days they can turn on their BBQ grill. Oh, and plastic bags are now the scourge of the earth. First it was the McDonalds styrofoam burger containers. Now it's plastic and fracking.
We allow the government to basically tell us how to live. Yet most of the elected government do as they fucking want. Do you think Al Gore drives a Smart Car?
Or, any of the Hollywood elite? Hell no... they drive full sized SUV's, including their private jets - - Global warming advocates???? PUHLEEEZE!!!!!
But we "common folk" are expected to be good little citizens and save the planet.
(By the way, I wouldn't mind owning a Smart Car for tooling around town on errands) But... I don't want to be TOLD that I have to own one!
What's next? Some government commission telling law-abiding citizens that they HAVE to use fluorescent light bulbs? Or, that their toilet can only flush a gallon and a half of water instead of three gallons?
Oh, wait. They already have climbed up inside everyone's asshole and made it a regulation on those things mentioned above.
So then what will be the next step? Requiring everyone to drive the same kind of fuel efficient vehicle? What about the family that has a camper and a boat and they always go to the lake every summer and spend their vacation spending money at a campground? Those people will have to sacrifice their enjoyment so that we can all save the fucking planet?
Californians are already told what days they can turn on their BBQ grill. Oh, and plastic bags are now the scourge of the earth.
First it was the McDonalds styrofoam burger containers. Now it's plastic and fracking. We allow the government to basically tell us how to live. Yet most of the elected government do as they fucking want. Do you think Al Gore drives a Smart Car?
Or, any of the Hollywood elite? Hell no... they drive full sized SUV's, including their private jets - - Global warming advocates???? PUHLEEEZE!!!!!
But we "common folk" are expected to be good little citizens and save the planet.
(By the way, I wouldn't mind owning a Smart Car for tooling around town on errands) But... I don't want to be TOLD that I have to own one!
JaanaRuutu
Official Checked Star Member
Let me preface this by saying that i both hunt and own guns, and I come from a family of hunters and gun owners, on both my Finnish side and my American side.
My brother owns "assault weapons", as does my father, but they both agree that if a law were passed in the US that said they couldn't keep them anymore, they would get rid of them. Why? Because we don't need them to hunt. We also don't need huge magazines o take down deer, either. I was born in Staten Island, New York - aka, a total dump. I lived in a terrible neighborhood where there were shootings and stabbings all the time. i remember watching someone out my window get shot NINE TIMES when I was about 4 or 5. Even still, we never thought that owning guns somehow made us safer, or made us less of a target than people that didn't own guns.
People like to toss the Second Ammendment around without taking into account the part where it says "well-regulated militia". WELL. REGULATED.
and the argument that bad people will still get a hold of these military-style weapons even if they're banned - well, then what in the world are you worried about? If it's going to be so easy to get them anyway, why should their legal status matter to you?
My brother owns "assault weapons", as does my father, but they both agree that if a law were passed in the US that said they couldn't keep them anymore, they would get rid of them. Why? Because we don't need them to hunt. We also don't need huge magazines o take down deer, either. I was born in Staten Island, New York - aka, a total dump. I lived in a terrible neighborhood where there were shootings and stabbings all the time. i remember watching someone out my window get shot NINE TIMES when I was about 4 or 5. Even still, we never thought that owning guns somehow made us safer, or made us less of a target than people that didn't own guns.
People like to toss the Second Ammendment around without taking into account the part where it says "well-regulated militia". WELL. REGULATED.
and the argument that bad people will still get a hold of these military-style weapons even if they're banned - well, then what in the world are you worried about? If it's going to be so easy to get them anyway, why should their legal status matter to you?
You honestly don't see a slippery slope, Rey? C'mon.
We don't really need a Mossberg Persuader either - that will inflict a lot more damage to a person than an AR - but you don't want to ban them? My little Marlin holds (tube loaded) 18 .22LR, should I not be able to hunt with that?
Huh?
I'm not sure I follow...
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
The slippery slope that I see is if you have to try to justify what you have based on you actually needing it. I don't do that... not with my firearms, my cars or anything else I own. So no, I'm not as prone to go sliding off that mountain, as soon as someone can logically or rationally show that I don't actually need what I *claim* that I need. One might actually be able to show that I don't need something. But good luck winning an argument based on what I want.
You see, Jaana Ruutu and others are making perfectly rational, logical arguments based on what is or is not needed to hunt or target shoot. I can't see you winning that argument, because they are largely correct on that basis. Let's say that I don't hunt or target shoot. So if I base my ownership of a particular rifle based on those needs, then that means that I have no rational, logical reason to have a long range tack-driver, like a Weatherby Mark V .338-378, if I don't hunt or target shoot, right? In fact, I don't really hunt that much anymore. And it's become hard to find the time to even do any long range target shooting these days. But I have that particular rifle... just because I want it. See how easy that makes my life versus those who have to justify everything they own or want to own?
this!
Mayhem
Banned
People like to read the 2nd Amendment with a great deal of selectivity. The amendment reads that we need a well regulated militia and we're not going to have one if the right to keep and bear arms is infringed. And your assertion that we "toss around" anything is patently absurd. This gets discussed to death on every forum, personal and technological, that I've ever been a part of.
And asking why we worry about legal status is one more childish statement in a debate that doesn't need any more. We worry about it because we are not criminals and we don't need to wake up one morning and find out that our government has made us one.
The slippery slope that I see is if you have to try to justify what you have based on you actually needing it. I don't do that... not with my firearms, my cars or anything else I own. So no, I'm not as prone to go sliding off that mountain, as soon as someone can logically or rationally show that I don't actually need what I *claim* that I need. One might actually be able to show that I don't need something. But good luck winning an argument based on what I want.
You see, Jaana Ruutu and others are making perfectly rational, logical arguments based on what is or is not needed to hunt or target shoot. I can't see you winning that argument, because they are largely correct on that basis. Let's say that I don't hunt or target shoot. So if I base my ownership of a particular rifle based on those needs, then that means that I have no rational, logical reason to have a long range tack-driver, like a Weatherby Mark V .338-378, if I don't hunt or target shoot, right? In fact, I don't really hunt that much anymore. And it's become hard to find the time to even do any long range target shooting these days. But I have that particular rifle... just because I want it. See how easy that makes my life versus those who have to justify everything they own or want to own?
I got you Rey. It is a right afterall. I do see the group that is running this campaign as seriously trying to get to the point they want: an all-out ban.
At the end of the day, the AR is a fairly moot weapon in the grand scheme, which the biggest lie of all in all of this. For example:
This is what troubles me so much. You alluded to "scary looking" weapons in previous threads, and that's the thing that gun grabbers all over fail to realize - or simply use - to forward an obvious: the end goal is sweeping confiscation.
I was stunned when Giffords Husband, a veteran of Iraq I, went on Piers and babbled on about "assault rifles," and how hunters should be held to X number of rounds in their rifles, the whole time avoiding the thing that paralyzed his wife and murdered a large quantity around her by Jared Loughner: a handgun. This is the slippery slope I see and have a problem with.
Similar threads
