Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Again: O reason, not the need.

The Constitution's wording implies that the right to bear arms is basic, for one thing. For another, given that the vast majority of people who own assault weapons don't commit mass murder, the amount of people whose rights are being infringed by such a ban vastly outweighs the practical number of deaths reduced (if any will be).

So I guess the first 13 words were put there for the fun of it?

[Elegiac]

It's getting really difficult to respond to some posters when they provide logic saying. "Logic it was banned before it can be banned again" when the actual logic is. Their was a certain reason that it was banned for almost a decade. There is a very certain reason that it was kept out of the hands of the public. If you sincerely cannot understand what I meant that it was banned before then after the Ban.

The spike in shootings used in killings to kill. Then I really do not know what to tell you honestly.

Also I did not say shopping mall. I said like you know. Just as well as I do. The more bullets you can fire off in the shortest amount of time less chance of people getting away and general point why does someone need an AR-15 capable of shooting more then a hundred bullets in less then a minute. If you look at the situation logically there was a reason it stayed banned.

There is a reason for this thread and why the Dems are pushing against it. If everyone was fine and Gun Owners were legally and responsible with their weapons. There would be no debate. Case and Point you CAN Modify a Military Assault weapon into a Fully Automatic no amount of pestering me about my current knowledge of weapons will change that.

I also love how you slammed Reagan for AGREEING with people on the assault weapons man as regarding it as his mental status. (I suppose it only when he AGREE's with you that you use him)

Because -need- and -reason- does not come into it, for the umpteenth time. People have a Constitutional right to bear arms, how they choose to express it as long as it hurts no one else is their prerogative. And considering the majority of assault-rifle owners don't commit murder, I'd say that philosophy has worked pretty well thus far.

The modification components are already very illegal, so that's a moot point.

---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 04:54 PM ----------

So I guess the first 13 words were put there for the fun of it?

Which is another interpretation; I am going by the one the Supreme Court has upheld for two centuries.

[shise]

None need assault guns to defend themselves. A simple gun should do it, yet it shouldn't be needed. Is the USA the jungle or what? Get proper education if that's the case, take problems form their roots.

[FusedMass]

Because -need- and -reason- does not come into it, for the umpteenth time. People have a Constitutional right to bear arms, how they choose to express it as long as it hurts no one else is their prerogative. And considering the majority of assault-rifle owners don't commit murder, I'd say that philosophy has worked pretty well thus far.

The modification components are already very illegal, so that's a moot point.

---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 04:54 PM ----------



Which is another interpretation; I am going by the one the Supreme Court has upheld for two centuries.

To counter post about the need and want. I am going to re-direct you to Joe Biden. That pretty much says because you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't mean you can take home a grenade launcher. Everything has to have its limits.

“You have an individual right to own a weapon both for recreation, for hunting and also for your self-protection,” he said. "But just as you don’t have an individual right to go out and buy an F-15—if you’re a billionaire—with ordnance on it, just like you don’t have the right to buy an M-1 tank, just like you don’t have a right to buy an automatic weapon" you should not be able to get other weapons for which there is "no reasonable societal justification, or constitutional justification."

[Elegiac]

To counter post about the need and want. I am going to re-direct you to Joe Biden. That pretty much says because you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't mean you can take home a grenade launcher. Everything has to have its limits.

“You have an individual right to own a weapon both for recreation, for hunting and also for your self-protection,” he said. "But just as you don’t have an individual right to go out and buy an F-15—if you’re a billionaire—with ordnance on it, just like you don’t have the right to buy an M-1 tank, just like you don’t have a right to buy an automatic weapon" you should not be able to get other weapons for which there is "no reasonable societal justification, or constitutional justification."

Which, I'm sorry, is absolute bullshit. Liberty is the norm, not the exception; the onus of justification is on the people attempting to curtail the liberty in question, not on gun owners.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Which is another interpretation; I am going by the one the Supreme Court has upheld for two centuries.

And I'm going to make my own opinion based on the wording of the document rather than citing an interpretation that other people have made.

Which, I'm sorry, is absolute bullshit. Liberty is the norm, not the exception; the onus of justification is on the people attempting to curtail the liberty in question, not on gun owners.

The reasoning is implicit in the context unless you've ignored the arguments completely; that being that the risk posed by possession of such weapons is too great. Whether or not that justification is reasonable is rather unclear for many.

[Elegiac]

And I'm going to make my own opinion based on the wording of the document rather than citing an interpretation that other people have made.

You can ignore the Common Law surrounding the matter if you like. The Supreme Court is hardly 'other people' when it comes to matters of Constitutional Law.

[FusedMass]

Which, I'm sorry, is absolute bullshit. Liberty is the norm, not the exception; the onus of justification is on the people attempting to curtail the liberty in question, not on gun owners.

If Vice President Joe Biden's words do not move you.

Then allow me Kindly to point to Ronald Reagan who many Republicans Hailed as their hero. They still compare him back then to current candidates. Sincerely you cannot get any bigger then Ronald in the Republican Party. They are known for being fierce protectors of right to bear arms. This is what he said.

These are from the NY Magazine and all quotes have ample links.
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.

“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.

“Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control.”

--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022209608

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

You can ignore the Common Law surrounding the matter if you like. The Supreme Court is hardly 'other people' when it comes to matters of Constitutional Law.

Do you let the Supreme Court form all your opinions? Or just the ones that you can't logically justify. Also, Common Law applies to whether a decision is fair based on previous decisions, assuming those decisions were fair.

[Elegiac]

If Vice President Joe Biden's words do not move you.

Then allow me Kindly to point to Ronald Reagan who many Republicans Hailed as their hero. They still compare him back then to current candidates. Sincerely you cannot get any bigger then Ronald in the Republican Party. They are known for being fierce protectors of right to bear arms. This is what he said.

These are from the NY Magazine and all quotes have ample links.
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.



“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.

“Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control.”

--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022209608

Implying I care about what Ronald Reagan said.

This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. I am a staunch Democrat, but am against the assault weapons ban.

[Rocko9]

And Reagan was wrong. Jesus Christ, you're like a broken record.

[FusedMass]

And Reagan was wrong. Jesus Christ, you're like a broken record.

Again. I get it. He's wrong because he is agreeing with the point.

HOWEVER

If he did not agree with it and posted some Anti Gun Law Message. That would be used in this thread against me. That's like me saying George Washington was incorrect when he said those quotes. If you are going to reply with quotes from people who were President of this nation. Then allow me to use my own quotes to show that people DID care about the issue.

Your one sentence line does not leave anything to debate unless you count slamming people in favor of some gun control.

[Rocko9]

No, he was wrong because he was going against the Constitution. ", shall not be infringed." is what it implies. Banning firearms, or a certain type, is infringing.

[Elegiac]

Do you let the Supreme Court form all your opinions? Or just the ones that you can't logically justify. Also, Common Law applies to whether a decision is fair based on previous decisions, assuming those decisions were fair.

Hardly. I happen to believe in individual gun ownership period; I am using the Supreme Court's -repeated- findings in the favor of the interpretation I support as legal backup to my views.

I already admitted that your opinion was a valid interpretation; but since the common law errs on my side, I play by the rules already set.

---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 05:10 PM ----------

Again. I get it. He's wrong because he is agreeing with the point.

HOWEVER

If he did not agree with it and posted some Anti Gun Law Message. That would be used in this thread against me. That's like me saying George Washington was incorrect when he said those quotes. If you are going to reply with quotes from people who were President of this nation. Then allow me to use my own quotes to show that people DID care about the issue.

Your one sentence line does not leave anything to debate unless you count slamming people in favor of some gun control.

"O, reason not the need" is a quote from King Lear, by William Shakespeare. Just fyi.

[Svifnymr]

It's getting really difficult to respond to some posters when they provide logic saying. "Logic it was banned before it can be banned again" when the actual logic is. Their was a certain reason that it was banned for almost a decade. There is a very certain reason that it was kept out of the hands of the public. If you sincerely cannot understand what I meant that it was banned before then after the Ban.

The spike in shootings used in killings to kill. Then I really do not know what to tell you honestly.

The ban was put into place because they knew folks could be convinced that these weapons were somehow more dangerous. They aren't, yet you still believe it, so they achieved their goal.

Also I did not say shopping mall.

What else is a "crowded mall"?

I said like you know. Just as well as I do. The more bullets you can fire off in the shortest amount of time less chance of people getting away and general point why does someone need an AR-15 capable of shooting more then a hundred bullets in less then a minute. If you look at the situation logically there was a reason it stayed banned.

You're making up things again. The AR15 does not fire any faster than any other semi-automatic, and if you tried to fire almost 2 shots a second, they'd be wildly inaccurate.

There is a reason for this thread and why the Dems are pushing against it. If everyone was fine and Gun Owners were legally and responsible with their weapons. There would be no debate. Case and Point you CAN Modify a Military Assault weapon into a Fully Automatic no amount of pestering me about my current knowledge of weapons will change that.

If you could acknowledge this simple phrase, it'd work wonders.
"The AR15 is no easier to modify than any other semiautomatic firearm, rifle/pistol/shotgun."

And you also neglected, once again, that no one DID it. None of these shootings had a modified AR15.

I also love how you slammed Reagan for AGREEING with people on the assault weapons man as regarding it as his mental status. (I suppose it only when he AGREE's with you that you use him)

I don't think I've ever mentioned Reagan before on this website. I'm not a republican, I don't consider him a god. His mental state was going downhill towards the end of his presidency, and people widely believed that Nancy was strongly involved in managing him.

To Poster above me

If you want me to. I can find the link where the sole weapon he used was the AR-15. He only used a handgun to kill himself at the end. That's not just me talking that's from witness and from the person who performed the medical report on the kids noting that many of them have been shot more then twice.

The video on youtube has the medical examiner saying everyone he'd seen was killed with the rifle. It is unclear to me if he means "everyone he examined" (7 people at that point) or everybody in total. Either way, the early reporting was a mess, so some folks are still going by the 3rd or 4th report that said "earlier reports were wrong, he didn't have a rifle", which was then contradicted later on when they said he had a rifle and 2 handguns.

[Spectral]

If changing an AR-15 from semi-automatic to fully automatic is so easy, without looking it up, please tell explain to the class how to do it.

This is a bad point. Someone can be aware that something is trivial for people with expertise without knowing how to do it.

[Sicarus]

If Vice President Joe Biden's words do not move you.

Then allow me Kindly to point to Ronald Reagan who many Republicans Hailed as their hero. They still compare him back then to current candidates. Sincerely you cannot get any bigger then Ronald in the Republican Party. They are known for being fierce protectors of right to bear arms. This is what he said.

These are from the NY Magazine and all quotes have ample links.
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.

“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.

“Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control.”

--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022209608

You're treating Ronald Reagan like he's our messiah, the dude is/was wrong about guns, that's it, plain and simple.

Just as you pick apart my posts to what suits you, we can pick apart the view of politicians and how it suits us.

[FusedMass]

No, he was wrong because he was going against the Constitution. ", shall not be infringed." is what it implies. Banning firearms, or a certain type, is infringing.

That could mean ANYTHING. Could I have An AK-47 delivered to my house with it painted gold and unlimited amount of ammo. Of course not while you are in your legal right to protect yourself with a weapon. (Hand Gun. Shot Gun etc) it does not say that banning assault weapons would infringe on that right. If it did the first ban would not have passed.

The notion from that quote using it to counter your arguments with no logical and reasonable limit is a bit out there. Also I concur with the other poster about you. Trying to get a poster from this thread to spell out how to adjust an assault weapon from semi automatic to fully automatic is not a winning argument from your side.

Also

Aanza Used Bushmaster .223 Rifle to Kill

Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults in two classrooms at Sandy Hook Elementary with three to 11 gunshots each, according to a coroner who performed seven of the autopsies. Police believe most of the shots came from a Bushmaster .223, a semi-automatic assault rifle. The killings ended when Lanza shot himself with one of two semi-automatic pistols he also carried.

http://www.drudge.com/news/163910/la...223-rifle-kill

[Spectral]

And back to the AR-15. The very idea that their capable of being turned from normal semi automatic's and converted to Fully Automatic which is as long as you hold down the trigger the weapons keeps firing bullets. Combined with their requiring to need a hundred bullets before you have to re-load. If you cannot tell the difference from the weapon damage from a pistol and an AR-15.

So, it doesn't really matter that they're almost irrelevant from a policy perspective, the part that they could be really bad is enough?

I know I've said it already and that it's kind of personal, but you're treating this issue emotionally rather than rationally.

[Spectral]

Then allow me Kindly to point to Ronald Reagan who many Republicans Hailed as their hero. They still compare him back then to current candidates. Sincerely you cannot get any bigger then Ronald in the Republican Party. They are known for being fierce protectors of right to bear arms. This is what he said.

You need to stop with the "well if Reagan said it, everyone should go with it" routine. This isn't a plain left/right issue, and frankly, fuck Reagan.