Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Just the more reason to get our laser beam guns. No rules against automatic pulse laser rifles.....
I read a story a while ago about a guy that got drunk and drove a car and killed five teenagers. He should have never drove a car.
The right to bear arms is a right, driving a car is a privilege, yet FAR more people are killed in car accidents than with guns in this country.
Your example only reinforces my point. Cars are registered, you require a test and a licence to drive them, their performance is restricted, etc. All of those things lower car accident deaths. Many still happen of course but it would be much worse without those measures. Same measures for guns then? Didn't think so.
That's a pretty poor comparison. How many cars are on the road each day as compared to how many guns are put in a position to kill someone? Guns kill far more people than nuclear weapons do each year, yet nukes are illegal for me to own. What gives!?!
My point is that owning a gun is a constitutional right yet we argue about who can and can't own one yet anyone over 16 can get a license to drive a car. Cars kill many more people than guns do and the argument that restricting and licensing them reduces accident and death is valid but the point is the potential to do harm with a vehicle is greater than with a gun.
And the nuclear weapons argument is ridiculous. Weapons of mass destruction are not in question here. Comparing guns to nuclear warheads is quite the stretch.
And the nuclear weapons argument is ridiculous. Weapons of mass destruction are not in question here. Comparing guns to nuclear warheads is quite the stretch.
No, that's not true at all, the potential is much higher with a gun no matter which way you slice it. The reason there are more deaths with cars is because cars are used much more often. And they are actually extremely unsafe. That's why governments regulate them.
The relative potential danger will depend on the situation. I could very easily get in my car and crash into the local Wal-Mart killing lots of people. The same could be said about a gun although aiming a gun and fatally shooting someone is not always that easy. If the intent is there, the potential for killing people is going to be great whether a gun is used or a car. My point is that there are vastly more cars available to do harm with than guns if the intent is there to do harm.
What I am saying is that the amount of people killed by something is not always a good indicator of its relative danger. If you spent as many hours a day waving a gun around as the average person does driving, in proximity to as many people as your car is in proximity to, I wonder how things would look.
Anyone over 16 cannot get a license to drive a car. There are all sorts of restrictions on licensing all over the country. The primary concern for these restrictions is the potential that they will do harm to themselves or their fellow citizens with the vehicle, the same reason for which gun restrictions exist.
The fact that owning a weapon is a constitutionally protected right does not render it immune from regulation, it just creates a point at which regulation cannot really exceed. This doesn't mean that all regulation for non-protected activities must necessarily exceed this level. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I'm quite happy for them to ban mental patients from owning firearms. The restriction on convicted felons doesn't keep me up at night either.
The 2nd amendment was added to protect the people from being oppressed by the government. The idea was that a well armed citizenry would be able to stage a meaningful resistance against an oppressive federal government, similar to what had just been done to Britain less than 20 years prior. The amendment implied that the citizenry would form their own militias (i.e. non-government controlled armed forces) to keep the federal and state governments in check.
The problem is that when this amendment was written there was no such thing as cars, trains, planes, satellites, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, computers, semi-automatic/automatic weapons, ect. There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.
I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.
The problem is that when this amendment was written there was no such thing as cars, trains, planes, satellites, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, computers, semi-automatic/automatic weapons, ect. There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.
I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that everyone should own a gun just because the constitution grants it. I would be quite concerned if everyone in this country suddenly was given a gun to carry around. However, there are plenty of laws already in place to regulate firearms and overall they work well. Legal gun owners are not the ones you see shooting up the local mall on the front page of the paper.
Police rarely protect people from law breakers. Most criminals are apprehended AFTER they break the law. I have no ill will towards law enforcement officials but there are not nearly enough of them to adequately enforce the law and protect everyone from harm.
I don't know the law where you are from but I have to fill out a form and get an instant FBI check to purchase a firearm unless it is from a private seller. I just bought an "assault weapon" and while I had no trouble buying it, they did record the sale and run a background check on me. Personally I am fine with that. It keeps felons and crazies from buying dangerous weapons and lets law abiding folks acquire legal firearms.
I do take offense to the term assault weapon as it is makes little sense. I don't intent to assault anyone with mine and prefer to call it a self defense weapon. Deer rifles are far more powerful than the average AR-15/AK-47 and are far more prevalent than assault rifles.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between
1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15
Thanks ahead of time...
1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15
Thanks ahead of time...
You left out one little detail... that was a Police Officer who did the shooting...
http://www.koco.com/news/13819....html?rss=okl&psp=news
I don't feel the threat of my car being taken away from me should the political winds blow in that general direction, unlike what I feel by owning a firearm. Throughout history, the registration of weapons has generally led to confiscation... I don't think its a valid comparison between the two...
Cars are registered to be driven on public roads. You are licensed to drive on public roads. Neither registration nor a license is required to own a car and use it on private property.
If you're advocating a similar licensing system for guns (unrestricted private use, license required for public use), I'm happy to inform you that it already exists--it's called a concealed carry permit.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
This bothers me, because Obama seems like such a smart guy.
Does he not realize the last time this happened crime actually went UP in America?
It doesnt work man! It only disarms law-abiding people, and the criminals now have an edge.
Does he not realize the last time this happened crime actually went UP in America?
It doesnt work man! It only disarms law-abiding people, and the criminals now have an edge.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Are you saying that somehow makes it better? Seriously? For me that makes it much worse - police should be properly paid so people with a brain can join. That guy should never have been a cop.
If a weapon, or any rounds from that weapon, NEVER leave the owner's property, nobody else can see it or hear it, nobody else has to be involved in any way, then I don't see how that's anyone's business but the owner's. Unless they're seriously mentally ill of course, like some posters here.
Of course, most people want to take their guns hunting, or to the range. That's what they're for after all. So I don't see how that situaion applies.
I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
There are no "functional" differences between any two weapons.
Both "function" to maim/kill. As do all guns. Unless you can show me a rifle of which it's function is to water the gardenias or flip hamburgers on the grill out back...
Is that the answer you were looking for? Perhaps you were looking to ask a different question?
Edit: let me rephrase my response. A guns "function" is to shoot a bullet. It is the owner who aims that bullet to whatever purpose he/she wishes...whether it be to maim/kill or shoot at coke bottles.
I don't think many people here are actually arguing for this law are they? I'm certainly not. It doesn't make sense to me. I'm just responding to some of the ridiculous statements being made supposedly in opposition to it.
I didn't read through this whole thing, I'm sure it's filled with typical liberal bullshit. The first few pages were enough.
When many people were out there buying guns because Obama was elected, the libs asked why are they so paranoid? There is no need to buy more guns. Those who believe in the right to bear arms said that Obama's track record speaks for itself. Now it looks like it's coming so the libs resort to the 'but why do you need that kind of gun?' tactic. Typical P&N...
When many people were out there buying guns because Obama was elected, the libs asked why are they so paranoid? There is no need to buy more guns. Those who believe in the right to bear arms said that Obama's track record speaks for itself. Now it looks like it's coming so the libs resort to the 'but why do you need that kind of gun?' tactic. Typical P&N...
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
You have no idea how any of the weapons I listed actually function, do you?Originally posted by: OrByte
There are no "functional" differences between any two weapons.
Both "function" to maim/kill. As do all guns. Unless you can show me a rifle of which it's function is to water the gardenias or flip hamburgers on the grill out back...
Is that the answer you were looking for? Perhaps you were looking to ask a different question?
Edit: let me rephrase my response. A guns "function" is to shoot a bullet. It is the owner who aims that bullet to whatever purpose he/she wishes...whether it be to maim/kill or shoot at coke bottles.
Their purpose is certainly to shoot a bullet... now, explain to me how each of the guns I listed does that -- focusing particularly on their functional differences.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter