Use the 2nd Amendment to Outlaw Assault Weapons

[myth-one.com]

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."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

============================================

Politicians often claim that, "The gun doesn't kill people, the person kills people."

True, but people with an assault rifle can kill many more victims in the same amount of time than a person with a regular rifle.

Duh!

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

Basically, your point is to effectively ban assault weapons or make them harder to get.

The reasons you mention are that the authorities can not protect us from them and that they are more lethal than "regular" rifles. I agree with your facts to some degree, but I disagree with your conclusion to ban assault rifles. Here are my reasons:

1. Citizens should have options for an "effective" means of self-defense. Banning assault weapons will likely leave you with guns that take a long time to reload. When trying to defend yourself, the longer time you take to reload (esp. if you miss the first shot), the more opportunity you give to a violent suspect to attack you, and that's especially true if there are multiple violent suspects on the attack.

For anyone who wants to ban all guns then they're essentially saying they're okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

2. The guns are not the problem. If guns themselves were a problem then why do you trust cops with them? Why are cops allowed to walk into schools and banks with guns? You trust them because they have been trained and tested, correct? With that said, why not require the same training and tests to regular citizens who want guns? Require that anyone wanting to own a gun to undergo periodic psych evals, gun safety and training/education, etc. So far, this is not done. Doing a ONE time criminal background check is obviously not enough to probe into mental health.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 2 by AgnosticBoy]

I am okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 2 by AgnosticBoy]

I am okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

That's exactly what a criminal would say, as well.

[Bust Nak]

I am okay with people not being able to defend themselves.

That's exactly what a criminal would say, as well.

I have no problem agreeing with criminals in this instance, even as our motives are different. Mind you don't fall into the trap of guilt by association.

[AgnosticBoy]

I have no problem agreeing with criminals in this instance, even as our motives are different. Mind you don't fall into the trap of guilt by association.

You are guilty by implication. You know criminals want to attack easy targets and by not wanting people to defend themselves, you leave them as easy targets. So yes, your view is responsible for people not being able to stop violent crime. And when they can't stop violent crime, they are of course injured or worse.

[Bust Nak]

You are guilty by implication. You know criminals want to attack easy targets and by not wanting people to defend themselves, you leave them as easy targets. So yes, your view is responsible for people not being able to stop violent crime. And when they can't stop violent crime, they are of course injured or worse.

That's fine, I am guilty of that much. It's a price worth paying for an overall safer society.

[AgnosticBoy]

You are guilty by implication. You know criminals want to attack easy targets and by not wanting people to defend themselves, you leave them as easy targets. So yes, your view is responsible for people not being able to stop violent crime. And when they can't stop violent crime, they are of course injured or worse.

That's fine, I am guilty of that much. It's a price worth paying for an overall safer society.

I'm not sure what logic you're going by. Cops carry guns and we don't see them going on shooting sprees. Certain state stats also show that less than 1% of gun crime are committed by "lawful" gunowners. That proves guns and "overall safety" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 8 by AgnosticBoy]

I am not just talking about crime here, but accidents and sucides too. And I am not talking about merely removing guns from the lawful, but making it harder for the unlawful to get hold of them too.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 8 by AgnosticBoy]

I am not just talking about crime here, but accidents and sucides too. And I am not talking about merely removing guns from the lawful, but making it harder for the unlawful to get hold of them too.

I'm referring to that, as well. Those can be dramatically decreased or kept at a low percentage while still allowing guns. Surely, you're not talking about a perfect scenario because even if we ban guns, there would still be crime and suicides via other means. There is no solution that would ensure no suicides and homicides.