Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 34. (Read 36627 times)

I think I could kill someone with a squirt gun, although it would be easier with my AK. My point is that the weapon is irrelevant. It takes a person with malicious intent to assault another. They might use a gun or a Bible or a railroad spike or a large dried fish. Whatever they use, they are the assailant and not the weapon. They should face justice without offering them the excuse of "an evil gun made me do it".

No, you cannot kill someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun, no matter how hard you pull that trigger. There is a difference between an AK-47 or other assault rifle and a squirt gun.

What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. 

Wow, what a strange placement of decals on this one.

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

Well I did follow the challenge to the letter didn't I?

Did you say "polity" as a clever way to avoid saying "government" in your definition of "country?"

That was the original definition anyways. Nowadays the word country means a geographic region and the polity that controls that region.

Makes the rules and enforces them where?  Everywhere? 

As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much?  eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today.   And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly.  How so if it is simply a geographical area?

A comment I liked:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/04/Violent-Crime-Drops-As-Gun-Sales-Rise-In-Virginia

...."an interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening our gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crime." And although he stressed that this increase in gun ownership and the corresponding decrease in violent crime do not necessarily prove people ought to reject future gun control laws, he said that the drop in violent crime "really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns would have any effect on crime."

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

I am a die hard supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe it is every persons God given right to acquire the means to defend themselves, as well as their duty to contribute to the overall safety of our society as a whole.

You don't have to look too far back to see that the right to bear arms was, is, and always will be the bedrock by which free countries are built upon. It is so disgusting to hear people harp and complain about how people don't need guns, and often assert "that's what they have the police for". Or, "the only people who should have Assault weapons should be the military and police".

I would point out that during the revolutionary war, the only ones that had the equivalent "Assault Weapons" at the time were the British Red Coats... And we all know how much protection they afforded the colonists. As such, be sure to thank a Frenchmen if you live in the USA. Our countries fate literally depended on them and their willingness to sell us "Assault Weapons" and Ships.

And without bantering about the dangers of having a state where only the Police and military are armed, I would point out that the police are primarily a reactionary force. One which exists to put down those who cannot conform to society when they intrude on the rights of others - Which is a good thing and beats the hell out of an Anarchistic society in which you can't walk out of your front door without the threat of being killed, robbed, or raped. It is this reactionary limitation of police which makes it necessary that everyone should be armed.

An armed society is a safe society, one which not only has the means to stop incidents like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, or Aurora but also one in which its very existence serves as a deterrent to those who would commit such acts. Think about it... would Adam Lanza have targeted Sandy Hook if he knew that he would be outgunned 3 to 1 in the minutes before his rampage? I would bet blood he wouldn't.

...So yes, I am definitely for the right to bear arms more so, I am for the right to own the biggest guns legally possible, not because I need them but because I can and as such I will continue to to fight harder, spend more, and be louder than those who would give their rights away at the drop of a hat. And I hope others continue to do the same.

Aside from my opinion, and my support for the Second Amendment, I am also an Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer that supports the Bitcoin Community as well.

If you ever find yourself looking for arms, you can purchase from me using Bitcoin. All sales must conform to ATF regulations for transfer and shall follow the same guidelines as Fiat Purchases. No Exceptions.

Check out our auctions on GunBroker.com, or contact me directly if interested.

Thanks for reading.

Yes, I kinda did.

Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands?

The only way to do that is to shoot them, or take them while threatening them with your own gun. Criminals don't follow laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. And thus, they will still be able to get guns and other weapons illegally. The person who is using their own gun to take away the criminals' guns can be either police, or private security, or just a private citizen. Really no different than the way it is now.


Or do you just not care?

Not care about what? That criminals have guns? That depends. If I have more guns and security than they do, then no, I don't care. If they have guns, are near my area, and I don't have a gun because I'm not allowed to use one, and the prolice rarely respond on time, then I would care. Luckily, for me personally, I live near, but not IN, a high crime area, and the police station is a few blocks over. But just because I am lucky doesn't mean I would deny others who might need guns for protection from getting them. Criminals have them, despite the laws banning them.

Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well?

Yes. Gun deaths will rise and rise until most criminals and idiots are shot and killed off. Then, when everyone knows that being a criminal or a negligent idiot might get you shot, gun deaths will decrease.

I want the same for a lot of things. For example, we have more and more people depending on pensions and social security, because they don't care to save up for retirement while they are working. And the situation is getting worse and worse, as more and more people see that they don't have to save for retirement, while the amount we have to pay out continues to grow. If we were to cut, or drastically reduce retirement payments, sure, there will be a lot of people who will be very poor and destitute for a while, but as more and more people realize that they need to save, lest they end up like those broke old people, the number of people who are poor and dependent on government pensions will go down. It's called personal responsibility. We teach people that it's not needed when we have government step in and take care of things for us (be they financial or personal security). As a result, more and more people become dependent, and by extension ignorant/stupid. You can't fix that problem other than by removing the nanny state and forcing people to start learning how to take care of themselves.

Of course the argument could be made (leave it for me, the guy in favor of "pro choice" vis a vis guns), to make the argument for the fascist...

• GUNS ARE LIKE FLOURIDE IN THE WATER!  GUNS ARE LIKE MEASLES AND SMALL POX VACCINATIONS!
• THE WISE ELDERS OF SOCIETY MUST TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO!

You see, even for those who are pro choice of guns, many of us recognize certain social imperatives across the whole of society.

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

But that's pretty much the progressive creed, since the early part of the 20th century, when they championed Eugenics.  Scientific, right?

The emergence and distorsion of many social sciences including psychology, sociology is based on the idea that experts should guide and control the population.

Oh, back to the grim reality of areas where guns are banned....FirstAscent's progressive utopia TODAY IN NEW YORK:

http://gothamist.com/2013/07/26/subway_stabbing_victims_suit_agains.php

But don't worry...just control the media and control what's printed, and everything will appear WONDERFUL!

Imo science is used to support significant amounts of tyranny in our society.  Which quite saddens me being a huge science enthusiast.

People should not be compelled to do or not be able to do things based on whether it is a scientifically good idea or not.  eg.  just because smoking is considered bad does not mean it should be banned.  Same for healthy food, you should be allowed to eat what is scientifically proven to be bad for you if that's what you wish.  etc.

Science says guns are dangerous obviously, just as many implements are dangerous.    That doesn't give anybody the right to start deciding who gets to own them and who doesn't.  The minute you shoot someone with one is when it becomes an issue, just as you get questioned the minute you decide to impale someone with your kitchen knife but not before just because you own one.

Your scientific findings are flawed.  Else you'd agree that ice cream should be banned, because increased ice cream sales lead to more stolen cars!  Correlation does not equal causation.

M

It's always telling when the name calling starts.

M