Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[FusedMass]

she was shot with the first bullet of a legally purchased weapon...so neither of those would have helped unfortunately.

The person targeted her like a Hunter would stalk his prey. Perhaps if we had detailed background and medical checks the violently mentally ill would not have weapons and therefore this situation would not have happened like this. It's not solely on weapons part that's a piece of the puzzle it takes background checks (more detailed ones) combined with other things to make it work.

[Vyxn]

the reason why the pro gun collation is against any type of weapon ban is if we agree with it then we will be agreeing that guns are the problem and not the culture
so then if we agree that banning assault rifle even though the are used in less then 2% of the gun murders will solve the problem then we concede and will loose the argument when it comes to banning hand guns that are used in the majority if gun murders
so it is not so much about assault rifle but what will eventually follow if we concede to that argument we have no grounds to stand on with any gun argument so we might as well just void the 2nd amendment and that is the ultimate goal of the left

[downnola]

Some democrats might, some republicans might. Ultimately I will not. As much as I would love for guns to not exist, it will not happen in the feasible time most of us have. Even then I doubt they will ever be gone.

I wouldn't want a world without guns. It's not because I want the world to mimic the set of a wild western either. The world is a very violent place, and without guns there is no equalizer for the weak and powerless.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

the reason why the pro gun collation is against any type of weapon ban is if we agree with it then we will be agreeing that guns are the problem and not the culture
so then if we agree that banning assault rifle even though the are used in less then 2% of the gun murders will solve the problem then we concede and will loose the argument when it comes to banning hand guns that are used in the majority if gun murders
so it is not so much about assault rifle but what will eventually follow if we concede to that argument we have no grounds to stand on with any gun argument so we might as well just void the 2nd amendment and that is the ultimate goal of the left

Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile

[Atrea]

there are extremes on both sides we can go to extreme on the isolationist spectrum and we can end up with the situation like we did in WW2 that we could have saved millions of lives if we got involved sooner then what we did.
I would like to ask what if Japan didn't attack us would there been a Jew left in Europe.
So yes it is easy to say don't get involved but if you look back in history not getting involved gives you a worse out come then if you did
Evil is like a cancer best out come is when you treat it early and aggressively

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of history is simply staggering. I am literally at a loss for words.

[Reeve]

Funny that you called anyone else Biased.... since you use the words of CNN and MSN as holy scripts.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 07:47 AM ----------



It clearly says Arms, which refers to firearms, and Anthrax is not a firearm, neither is mustard gas, or any other asinine thing you can come up with.

Firearms are a type of arms. Arms refers to (from define:arms in Google):

Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms"

Weaponized Anthrax could fall under that. Unfortunately the Founders had no frame of reference to realize that the nature of armaments would change so completely when they wrote that second amendment. Back then, an armament meant a musket as tall as a man that took 30 seconds to reload and wasn't particularly accurate. I wonder if they would have had the same opinion on the right to bear arms if they were looking at small easily concealable very accurate guns that could fire 12 shots in the space of a couple seconds.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Firearms are a type of arms. Arms refers to (from define:arms in Google):

Weaponized Anthrax could fall under that. Unfortunately the Founders had no frame of reference to realize that the nature of armaments would change so completely when they wrote that second amendment. Back then, an armament meant a musket as tall as a man that took 30 seconds to reload and wasn't particularly accurate. I wonder if they would have had the same opinion on the right to bear arms if they were looking at small easily concealable very accurate guns that could fire 12 shots in the space of a couple seconds.

Yes, I think they would have had the same opinion.

[Waaldo]

"An AR-15 military assault rifle can kill 100 people in a minute" - Piers Morgan

Please, for the love of humanity, deport this fucker already. The worse part is that no one he ever has on as a guest can defend themselves against these idiotic comments!

[GennGreymane]

i still love the irony of people being angry at the british guy, and wanting to deport him because of what his views are (aka hating on his first amendment rights) so they can legitimize there second amendment rights....

[FusedMass]

"An AR-15 military assault rifle can kill 100 people in a minute" - Piers Morgan

Please, for the love of humanity, deport this fucker already. The worse part is that no one he ever has on as a guest can defend themselves against these idiotic comments!

Actually they tried to deport him. The petition failed shortly. The White House ruled that citing freedom of speech is not enough reason alone to deport someone. If that were true Fox News would have been thrown in jail a long long time ago.

[vaeevictiss]

Firearms are a type of arms. Arms refers to (from define:arms in Google):

Weaponized Anthrax could fall under that. Unfortunately the Founders had no frame of reference to realize that the nature of armaments would change so completely when they wrote that second amendment. Back then, an armament meant a musket as tall as a man that took 30 seconds to reload and wasn't particularly accurate. I wonder if they would have had the same opinion on the right to bear arms if they were looking at small easily concealable very accurate guns that could fire 12 shots in the space of a couple seconds.

i think they left it that way on purpose. "arms" referred to what was available at the time. When all that was available was a single shot musket, then thats what you had. They knew weapon technology would advance...how much...probably not. But im sure there is a very staunch reason why they did not put "the right of the people to keep and bear a single shot musket...".

When people bring up stupid things like "oh so you think you should have a nuke". thats really not being realistic. the government wouldnt use a nuke against the people. If anything it would simply be firearms that were used in a worse case scenario of confiscation and unconstitutional imprisonment. The 2A simply called for the people to be equally armed as their oppressors in a tyrannical movement. If you want to remove the AR15 from the hands of normal citizens, because it is a "military weapon" then they should also be removed from the hands of all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies as well.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 09:40 AM ----------

Actually they tried to deport him. The petition failed shortly. The White House ruled that citing freedom of speech is not enough reason alone to deport someone. If that were true Fox News would have been thrown in jail a long long time ago.

i dont think it was a freedom of speech that people were mostly mad at, but the spreading of blatant lies "An AR-15 military assault rifle can kill 100 people in a minute" because idiots just eat that shit up.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Actually they tried to deport him. The petition failed shortly. The White House ruled that citing freedom of speech is not enough reason alone to deport someone. If that were true Fox News would have been thrown in jail a long long time ago.

How does this make sense at all?

[Rukentuts]

i dont think it was a freedom of speech that people were mostly mad at, but the spreading of blatant lies

Yeah, because he's the only one that blatantly does this.

[Waaldo]

i still love the irony of people being angry at the british guy, and wanting to deport him because of what his views are (aka hating on his first amendment rights) so they can legitimize there second amendment rights....

Woa, woa, woa, there are a lot of people in America that want to ban guns, why is it that the only one we want out of this country is Piers? It has nothing to do with his views, it is because he is an ignorant tool. He has no idea what he is talking about, and all he does is interrupt and call people names when they don't agree with him. And he get's all of his facts out of his hugely inflated ego.

[Reeve]

Yes, I think they would have had the same opinion.

I don't. I think they would have looked at modern weapons and realized that handguns are highly destructive in the hands of criminals and not particularly effective against the far better equipped/trained military. Besides, I think what the founders were really looking for with that amendment was a well equipped state militia (National Guard), which we in fact DO have.

[Rukentuts]

it is because he is an ignorant tool. He has no idea what he is talking about, and all he does is interrupt and call people names when they don't agree with him.

Then where's the petition to deport O'Reilly?

[Reeve]

Then where's the petition to deport O'Reilly?

Heh, or Glenn Beck? We can't just start kicking people out of the country because we think they're ignorant or because we disagree with them.

[lockedout]

Whoever voted yes to this poll doesn't know what an "assault weapon" is since they don't exist. It is just a made up blanket term for any rifle that looks aggressive.

[FusedMass]

i
i dont think it was a freedom of speech that people were mostly mad at, but the spreading of blatant lies "An AR-15 military assault rifle can kill 100 people in a minute" because idiots just eat that shit up.

I'm not trying to excuse what he said. I just pointing out stations like Fox News have on daily bases distorted the truth to shape their reality and project their Anti Liberal Hate Speech. If this station knowingly and institutionally seeks to mislead people then Piers Morgan. I honestly don't think he's trying to mis-lead the American People.

I think he means to say. An AR-15 can fire a hundred bullets in under a minute. Not that it can kill 100 people in under a minute. Unless the shooter was shooting 100 people separately in that time space.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I don't. I think they would have looked at modern weapons and realized that handguns are highly destructive in the hands of criminals and not particularly effective against the far better equipped/trained military. Besides, I think what the founders were really looking for with that amendment was a well equipped state militia (National Guard), which we in fact DO have.

Do you really think they, some being inventors, were too stupid to think that guns would change and progress with technology?

Also, I don't see how anyone could ever argue that the 2nd amendment is all about, only referring to, or having the focus of a militia.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 09:49 AM ----------

I'm not trying to excuse what he said. I just pointing out stations like Fox News have on daily bases distorted the truth to shape their reality and project their Anti Liberal Hate Speech. If this station knowingly and institutionally seeks to mislead people then Piers Morgan. I honestly don't think he's trying to mis-lead the American People.

I think he means to say. An AR-15 can fire a hundred bullets in under a minute. Not that it can kill 100 people in under a minute. Unless the shooter was shooting 100 people separately in that time space.

Are you really saying CNN isn't biased? Are you serious?