Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[bluethread]

You aren't allowed to own a bomb, and similarly you aren't allowed to own a machine gun.

Yes, that is current law and neither was used in La Vegas. So, what now? By the way, in the 1700's, cutting edge weaponry, even though it was considered just as terrorizing as we consider current technology, was not banned. "(D)uring the Revolutionary War, our Navy was primarily private. We launched only 64 ships, and relied on 1,697 privateer vessels. These were mostly warships, mounting 14,872 guns to the U.S. Navy's 1,242." Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress has the following power: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" "Since one cannot be a privateer without a warship, the fact that this ( Letters of Marque and Reprisal) is in the Constitution demonstrates that it's authors fully expected armed warships to be in private ownership. A warship was basically the WMD of it's day, the most destructive weapon in existence. A ship's battery could level a coastal city." Isaac Botkin, Documentary Filmmaker and Inventor

[myth-one.com]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[center]
Guns don't kill people,



CONGRESS DOES!





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17




[/center]

[Donray]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

Who has heavy machine guns besides the armys of all countries?

Mexico has gun controls and do you think people don't have them? The only ones that do are criminals.

No laws will stop a person that wants a gun from getting one. We have laws againt drugs and yet these are easy to get and manufacture. Gun will be the same and manufactures by crimials organiztions that can make money selling them or smuggling them into the counrty.

First step is have a manotory federal prison time of say 25 years for anyone convictd of a crime iand had a gun. Second make a law that places mental distubed people on a national datbase and allows police to check if they have any weapons.

[AgnosticBoy]

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

There is no such thing in the US as "unregulated" sale of guns. Perhaps we can say that the current regulations are not good enough.

Secondly, I believe that assault rifles should be sold. Their purpose is for self-defense just like hand guns. Some may then say why not just allow handguns but some of these same handgun only crowds unknowingly answer their own question. If assault rifles are often used for "mass killings", can't they also be used for "mass killings" of VIOLENT attackers. Examples would be civil unrest (race riots, natural disaster looters, etc). As a worse case scenario, assault rifles can be used to defend against an invading country or some corrupt tyrannical government takeover.

Among the developed nations, mass gun violence is a problem that seems to be unique only to America. Could it perhaps be attributable to the fact that we allow almost anyone in this country to own a gun? Well, duh? The more guns we have out in the public, the higher the likelihood that somebody is going to use their gun for malicious purposes.

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the two are linked in anyway then you are in denial.

It is true that reducing or banning GUNS would reduce GUN violence but it would not reduce violence via other weapons (knives, fists, cars, etc.). Secondly, it doesn't take banning guns to reduce gun violence because we don't see gun violence amongst our police and military force.

Texas keeps stats on gun crime committed by LAWUL gun owners vs. unlawful gun owners. The stats show that lawful gun owners account for <1% of gun crime. Besides that, how the hek do you expect others to stop violence in other forms? You expect me to rely on my fist when someone has a knife? Guns bring in an easy tactical advantage of being able to use maximal force w/ minimal injury.

Example: Bad guy comes at me with a knife. Good guy pulls out gun and shoots him without having to make any physical contact with him as I would if I didn't have a gun.

You're right, he could've done any of those things. Do you know why he didn't? Because it was far easier for him to kill people using a gun rather than engineer a bomb, or drive a truck into the crowd.

Oh, nevermind the White supremacist that used his VEHICLE to run over protestors in Charlottesville, VA!

I see no rationale for banning guns, or even assault rifles, that would fix the problem that you're seeking to fix. The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to kill 32 people. The problem with your logic is that it applies to ALL guns, so why don't those in your camp just simply say you want to ban all guns?

Concerts are heavily guarded. The amount of security associated with public events like a concert would make it completely infeasible to sneak a bomb in or drive a truck into the crowd. The machine gun allowed this psycho to completely bypass the concert's security. All he had to do was sit in his hotel room and shoot at the crowd through the window. In this case, the gun was a far more efficient and deadly weapon of choice. Sure, he could've ran people down or tried to construct a bomb that would've probably failed, or he could've tried to use a knife and he may have even been able to stab 1 or 2 people before getting tackled to the ground. But, the reason why he didn't do any of those things is that he had access to machine guns, and his guns allowed him to carry out the killing far more efficiently than any of the other options.

Well you're arguing as if there's not 100% safeguard against gun violence, then we should ban all guns, or at least assault rifles. That's faulty reasoning because banning guns will not fully prevent mass shootings. Look up the gun violence in Mexico where guns are banned, or the mass shooting in Cumbria, England in 2010.

What gave the Vegas shooter an advantage over security was not necessarily the assault rifle but rather it was his location. He was on the 32nd floor, far removed from the security guards. Some may argue that the security at the hotel should've been better. Had the shooter been near armed security guards at the concert then he would've likely been shot.

Right, but if these guns were not sold on the market it would have been far more difficult for him to get his hands on one. That is the point. I somewhat share your view that even if the government banned guns, people would just go underground and a black market for guns would be inadvertently created. However, just because bad people will try to find ways around the law doesn't mean that we shouldn't create laws to begin with. Are you saying that we shouldn't outlaw robbery because bad people will commit robberies regardless of what the law says?

That is a fatalistic, not to mention illogical, position.

I agree. It would be far more difficult for him to get an assault rifle, but it doesn't take banning assault rifles to make it harder. To claim that's the only option is unreasonable which is why I'm a bit skeptical of the "real" agenda here. Either it's an agenda, or you might just be arguing based off of an emotional knee jerk reaction.

[myth-one.com]

But targeted and strategic bans of heavy firearms are in no way a violation of the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own a bomb, and similarly you aren't allowed to own a machine gun. Plain and simple.

How so?

Here is the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Definition of Arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments.

A bomb is an arm.

A machine gun is an arm.

A nuclear weapon is an arm.

A rock can be an arm.

A broken beer bottle can be an arm.

So with a simple reading -- under the second ammendment individual citizens should be able to keep and bear even nuclear arms -- as long as we make them available to the military as needed to secure the nation.

Or, has the second amendment been amended to restrict certain arms?

[brianbbs67]

But targeted and strategic bans of heavy firearms are in no way a violation of the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own a bomb, and similarly you aren't allowed to own a machine gun. Plain and simple.

How so?

Here is the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or, has the second amendment been amended to restrict certain arms?

Unfortunately is has been, majorly, twice. !937 and 1968.

I am surprised no one has pointed out the obvious misuse of the terms assault rifle, machine gun and heavy weapons by the OP and supporters.

England banned guns and now have "knife" violence issues to the point of them considering a knife ban. I guess rocks and sticks follow that.

The real problem , evil, is never addressed.

[Tcg]

I am surprised no one has pointed out the obvious misuse of the terms assault rifle, machine gun and heavy weapons by the OP and supporters.

Without explaining the reason you think these terms are being misused, this "point out" isn't very helpful.

England banned guns and now have "knife" violence issues to the point of them considering a knife ban. I guess rocks and sticks follow that.

The amount of death and injury that a single attacker can achieve with a high round capacity semi-automatic rifle far exceeds that which would result from a knife attack by a single attacker. Any argument that avoids addressing this fact is flawed from the outset.

I'd also be very interested in some sources that back up your claim that England is, "considering a knife ban."

The real problem , evil, is never addressed.

While we wait for you to resolve the problem of evil in the world, I suggest we limit access to high round capacity semi-automatic rifles to lessen the damage individuals intent on committing acts of evil can do.

[AgnosticBoy]

I am surprised no one has pointed out the obvious misuse of the terms assault rifle, machine gun and heavy weapons by the OP and supporters.

Without explaining the reason you think these terms are being misused, this "point out" isn't very helpful.

I think Brian's point is that Lumping in "assault rifles" with "heavy machine guns" tends to be a tactic used to say they belong in the same class. In other words, it's a sneaky way to put people's minds that it is just as unreasonable for a 'civilian' to have a "heavy machine gun" as it is for an assault rifle. The OP and many Democrats fail to point out that the civilian style assault rifle is NOT in the same class of a fully-automatic weapon.

The amount of death and injury that a single attacker can achieve with a high round capacity semi-automatic rifle far exceeds that which would result from a knife attack by a single attacker. Any argument that avoids addressing this fact is flawed from the outset.

I agree that a knife attack would not cause as much deaths as an assault rifle, therefore assault rifles are more dangerous. Hek, cars and trucks are more dangerous than knives. They may even be more dangerous than guns, because guns are restricted in certain areas like schools, whereas cars and trucks are allowed and the recent Terrorist attack trend has been using cars and trucks to run over people.

While we wait for you to resolve the problem of evil in the world, I suggest we limit access to high round capacity semi-automatic rifles to lessen the damage individuals intent on committing acts of evil can do.

I can agree with you if "limiting" does not involve banning it for all civilians.

If you're interested, I can give you some ideas on how to reduce gun violence w/out banning assault rifles. I'll give you a hint, just look at how the military and police force, while having a mass of guns of all kinds, are able to do it. If you're afraid of cops and soldiers with big guns, then it wouldn't work for you.

[Tcg]

I think Brian's point is that Lumping in "assault rifles" with "heavy machine guns" tends to be a tactic used to say they belong in the same class.

I'll wait to see if Brian has the nerve to explain his claim. Pretending to be a mind reader, as you are doing, isn't terribly helpful to this discussion.

I agree that a knife attack would not cause as much deaths as an assault rifle, therefore assault rifles are more dangerous. Hek, cars and trucks are more dangerous than knives. They may even be more dangerous than guns, because guns are restricted in certain areas like schools, whereas cars and trucks are allowed and the recent Terrorist attack trend has been using cars and trucks to run over people.

Feel free to explain what your babbling about cars, trucks and terrorists has to do with this discussion.

If you're interested, I can give you some ideas on how to reduce gun violence w/out banning assault rifles. I'll give you a hint, just look at how the military and police force, while having a mass of guns of all kinds, are able to do it. If you're afraid of cops and soldiers with big guns, then it wouldn't work for you.

Don't give me a hint, explain it logically and support your claim with facts. Facts are what matter here not your vague reference to some magical solution you can't explain with words. Oh, and if you are interested in details, which you haven't yet shown to be, I never mentioned assault rifles.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'll wait to see if Brian has the nerve to explain his claim. Pretending to be a mind reader, as you are doing, isn't terribly helpful to this discussion.

Here's a poster circulating on facebook on my page and all over my friend's pages and I'm sure it will soon pop up on the pages of many others:


The obvious problem here is that a 'civilian' style assault rifle is not the same thing as a 'military' style assault rifle. The latter is fully-automatic. The former would be no different than a handgun with a 30 round clip.

I agree that a knife attack would not cause as much deaths as an assault rifle, therefore assault rifles are more dangerous. Hek, cars and trucks are more dangerous than knives. They may even be more dangerous than guns, because guns are restricted in certain areas like schools, whereas cars and trucks are allowed and the recent Terrorist attack trend has been using cars and trucks to run over people.

Feell free to explain what your babbling about cars, trucks and terrorists has to do with this discussion.

Hey, I'm not trying to make you look bad or anything. I just simply disagree with you. This is a debate site - you should expect some disagreement, especially ones back with logic and evidence!

You brought up banning assault rifles. Your reasoning was that it could cause a lot more damage than a knife. Do you agree that cars and dump trucks would be more dangerous than a knife when used as a weapon? At least in Europe, terrorists have driven over a mass gathering of people. A White supremacist did the same in Charlottesville, VA.

If you're interested, I can give you some ideas on how to reduce gun violence w/out banning assault rifles. I'll give you a hint, just look at how the military and police force, while having a mass of guns of all kinds, are able to do it. If you're afraid of cops and soldiers with big guns, then it wouldn't work for you.

Don't give me a hint, explain it logically and support your claim with facts. Facts are what matter here not your vague reference to some magical solution you can't explain with words.

I thought you were for "limiting" since that is the word you choose to use as opposed to "banning".

I'm sure we can both agree that cops carry handguns, and occasionally, carry an assault rifle in the trunk of their vehicle. So if Guns were the problem or were causing evil, why aren't cops committing mass murders as opposed to PROTECTING us with those guns?!!!!!

Based on this example, the solution is rather simple. Stop selling guns without adequate training and background checks. Everyone who wants to buy a gun, should undergo ROUTINE (not just one time) training and background checks, similar to those that cops go through. Nowadays, people can just walk into a gun store and walk out with an assault rifle the same day, with NO training and with a CURRENT and limited background check.