Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

18910111214»

Comments

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    other

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    for the record:

    1) I have stated that, in a perfect world, it would be great if no guns were around.
    2) I have stated that the 2nd ammendment is just that, an ammendment, which can be repealed at any time. I have not stated it SHOULD be replealed, but that simply stating "it's in our constitution" does not make any argument whatsoever. it's not the law of gravity. it's man made and can be changed.
    3) I think PJPower makes an excellent point. Think about this: in the 80's, parents were outraged about teen sex. "Abstinence!" they'd all cry. "Don't teach my kid how to do it!" they'd yell. Well, guess what. That didn't fucking work. Give them condoms and at least if they are going to do it, they might do it safely. Empower them with knowledge on the consequences, and they just might not do it at all.

    His suggestions have a lot of merit. Just because you are anti-gun (like I am), doesn't make his suggestions baseless.

    1: I wish it was a fair/perfect world to, but perfection is merely an individual perception and means something different to everyone.
    2: Ratifying an amendment is a major thing and has direct implications on the entire integrity of the other rights that we as Americans hold as inalienable. Should be a very last resort in my opinion.
    3: Thank you for having an open mind and I agree 100%. I love the "empower with knowledge and consequences" part. When I was a counselor, teaching people to consider the consequences of their actions and refrain from negative impulsive behavior was a full time job.
    2. I don't consider the second ammendment an inalienable right. that's the problem. so many americans believe that their right to own a gun is a HUMAN RIGHT, which it is not. freedom is. speech is. religion is. clean air and water is. possession of anything (gun, knife, person, gummy bears) is not. that's a right given by the government elected by/for the people. which can be taken away.
    I guess to me it falls under the freedom part. Freedom to choose how to protect yourself and your family. Being forced to rely on someone else to do that is not freedom at all.
    There has to be limits to what one can employ to protect themselves with. I don't think that is for debate as a line has been drawn and accepted without much resistance (no hand grenades, no bazookas, etc.).

    One's idea of freedom cannot trump the safety of others.
    Sorry, not going to get rilled in, lol
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Yes
    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    No

    Can anyone explain to me why gun supporters feel like they must compare weed and vehicles to their guns?

    just to name a few things that kill more people than guns:
    cancer, obesity, PEOPLE, prescription drugs, medical malpractice.....there is quite a list but anti gun folks don't care about the truth.

    Godfather.

    so are you suggesting we outlaw cancer? oh wait, the republicans probably wouldn't allow it anyway. it's my god-given right to die a horrible death as an AMERICAN.
    nooooooo....lets outlaw freedom..wait, the government does it all the time.

    Godfather.

    it dosen't matter to me what a man dose for a living you understand..
    as long as his interest's don't conflict with mine.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    edited July 2016
    other

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 2,807
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    Other than the 1/2 bathroom in your house, what room could you not effectively use your shotgun? The laundry room maybe? In either case, why would a potential person there to do harm to you or your family, be in either of those rooms?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    No

    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    Other than the 1/2 bathroom in your house, what room could you not effectively use your shotgun? The laundry room maybe? In either case, why would a potential person there to do harm to you or your family, be in either of those rooms?
    burglars and other sorts of criminals in a home could be in any room of the house...even under your bed ! hahhahhahhahhahhahha

    Godfather.

    it dosen't matter to me what a man dose for a living you understand..
    as long as his interest's don't conflict with mine.
  • Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    If you need training for a shotgun... you need training for an assault rifle or a handgun too so that counter point is moot.

    You speak of maneuverability... well... maybe, but that's really reaching for something. A shotgun has far superior stopping power and has that advantage over an assault rifle: so even if we took your point that a shotgun would be difficult to handle in, for example, a closet as legitimate... it also features characteristics that make it superior for home defence.

    Nether of those items legitimizes the 'need' for an assault rifle over a shotgun when speaking to protection.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    edited July 2016
    other

    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    If you need training for a shotgun... you need training for an assault rifle or a handgun too so that counter point is moot.

    You speak of maneuverability... well... maybe, but that's really reaching for something. A shotgun has far superior stopping power and has that advantage over an assault rifle: so even if we took your point that a shotgun would be difficult to handle in, for example, a closet as legitimate... it also features characteristics that make it superior for home defence.

    Nether of those items legitimizes the 'need' for an assault rifle over a shotgun when speaking to protection.
    My argument was not that shotguns are more superior or less superior for home defense. I just stated that you should use what you are fit to use. A 12 gauge shotgun is a hell of a weapon, but I've definitely met people that cannot handle them due to their recoil or weight. They will most definitely stop a person, but most hunting shotguns are large and would not maneuver around a hall corner or confined space very well. A nice shorter barreled "tactical" shotgun with rails for a light would probably be the better option, but those are probably on the ban list along with "assault rifles". They actually make rifle bullets and pistol bullets that are not barier penetrating so that it will not go through the wall and hit a next door neighbor. It's all an individual's prerogative as to what weapon they can best defend themselves and their family with. Again, we should be educating more individuals in these things to prevent accidental loss of life due to mishandling.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    If you need training for a shotgun... you need training for an assault rifle or a handgun too so that counter point is moot.

    You speak of maneuverability... well... maybe, but that's really reaching for something. A shotgun has far superior stopping power and has that advantage over an assault rifle: so even if we took your point that a shotgun would be difficult to handle in, for example, a closet as legitimate... it also features characteristics that make it superior for home defence.

    Nether of those items legitimizes the 'need' for an assault rifle over a shotgun when speaking to protection.
    My argument was not that shotguns are more superior or less superior for home defense. I just stated that you should use what you are fit to use. A 12 gauge shotgun is a hell of a weapon, but I've definitely met people that cannot handle them due to their recoil or weight. They will most definitely stop a person, but most hunting shotguns are large and would not maneuver around a hall corner or confined space very well. A nice shorter barreled "tactical" shotgun with rails for a light would probably be the better option, but those are probably on the ban list along with "assault rifles". They actually make rifle bullets and pistol bullets that are not barier penetrating so that it will not go through the wall and hit a next door neighbor. It's all an individual's prerogative as to what weapon they can best defend themselves and their family with. Again, we should be educating more individuals in these things to prevent accidental loss of life due to mishandling.
    Until the shorter barreled tactical shotgun proves to be hazardous to society, they wouldn't be on my ban list.

    And with the training you are advocating for... such guns should become useful in a homeowner's hands. A .410 shotgun would be appropriate for a smaller person.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    edited July 2016
    other

    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    No problem if you wish to abstain.

    But the debate that currently exists is centred on where 'that line' should be. As mentioned... grenades and bazookas are currently on the other side of that line.

    Some think it's fine right where it is. Others think that that line needs some refinement. The handgun epidemic and sporadic displays of mass murder with rifles designed for mass murder lead some to think that revisions are necessary.

    I never truly understand why people argue that a shotgun cannot offer a homeowner a solid measure of protection.

    A shotgun or anything for that matter is not going to help you unless you have trained with and know how to use it. You still have to know how to hold and aim a shotgun. It's all about situations. If you are in a small room where you cannot properly maneuver a shot gun, then it's probably not the best option for home protection.
    If you need training for a shotgun... you need training for an assault rifle or a handgun too so that counter point is moot.

    You speak of maneuverability... well... maybe, but that's really reaching for something. A shotgun has far superior stopping power and has that advantage over an assault rifle: so even if we took your point that a shotgun would be difficult to handle in, for example, a closet as legitimate... it also features characteristics that make it superior for home defence.

    Nether of those items legitimizes the 'need' for an assault rifle over a shotgun when speaking to protection.
    My argument was not that shotguns are more superior or less superior for home defense. I just stated that you should use what you are fit to use. A 12 gauge shotgun is a hell of a weapon, but I've definitely met people that cannot handle them due to their recoil or weight. They will most definitely stop a person, but most hunting shotguns are large and would not maneuver around a hall corner or confined space very well. A nice shorter barreled "tactical" shotgun with rails for a light would probably be the better option, but those are probably on the ban list along with "assault rifles". They actually make rifle bullets and pistol bullets that are not barier penetrating so that it will not go through the wall and hit a next door neighbor. It's all an individual's prerogative as to what weapon they can best defend themselves and their family with. Again, we should be educating more individuals in these things to prevent accidental loss of life due to mishandling.
    Until the shorter barreled tactical shotgun proves to be hazardous to society, they wouldn't be on my ban list.

    And with the training you are advocating for... such guns should become useful in a homeowner's hands. A .410 shotgun would be appropriate for a smaller person.
    I've read article after article debating what round would be best used for home defense. You want one large enough to neutralize the threat and one small enough that you can handle and shoot accurately. Personally, I would never opt to use a .410 unless it was all I had at my disposal. But you are not going to win over an argument with me to ban semi-automatic rifles based on opinions as to whether or not they are effective home defense weapons. Biden's remarks a while back about "firing a couple shots in the air from a shotgun" are both illegal and unsafe, yet that crap gets repeated by the people that blindly agree with everything he says. Telling people "you should only use this gun or that gun" for home defense is misleading and possibly dangerous as well. People should research and make their own informed decisions as to what method of home defense would be most effective in their own situation.
    Are you trying to argue that anything that could be potentially hazardous to society should be banned? Two of the weapons used in Columbine were shotguns...
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Yes
    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    other

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    other

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    Lol, I know!!!! I have too much free time right now to get sucked into these arguments. Closer to mid-August I'll be pretty much non-existent around here. Good to take a break from these forums from time to time :)
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Yes

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    I know. I suck.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    Lol, I know!!!! I have too much free time right now to get sucked into these arguments. Closer to mid-August I'll be pretty much non-existent around here. Good to take a break from these forums from time to time :)
    Hey man. You keep posting aside from the exchanges we might have. Is it a case of you wanting to post and not be challenged on your posts? It is it a case of you not wishing to be challenged by me specifically?

    Because the way I see it... if I put something out there... I better be prepared to back it up versus thinking it should rest as is. And on an open forum... it's open to anyone seeking to take issue with it.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,876
    other

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    I know. I suck.
    There are those of us that love debating...why aren't we all lawyers? Oh yeah, homework sucks, lol
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    Yes

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    I know. I suck.
    not sure where this came from. my comment is more a testament to your ability to draw me back into a discussion whether i want to or not. it wasn't an insult.
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • Yes

    PJPOWER said:

    No. I'm arguing anything that is hazardous to society should be banned.

    I think assault rifles fit the bill. They've proven their destructive capabilities more than enough. We don't need to see more classrooms, theaters, and nightclubs to establish the fact that they are extremely dangerous and their 'preference' to some shouldn't trump public safety.

    Again, this is where our opinions differ. Good luck getting your "assault weapons" banned. I guess California should be a pretty "safe space" for the like minded. I'll continue to push public awareness and life saving techniques. Whether they should or should not be banned is a circle argument that I am done arguing about here, I feel like I've said all that I could possibly say on that topic without repeating myself over and over. Good luck!!!
    this made me laugh. so many times I have said to 30 "this argument is going nowhere, I'm out", only to be pulled back in. trust me.
    I know. I suck.
    not sure where this came from. my comment is more a testament to your ability to draw me back into a discussion whether i want to or not. it wasn't an insult.
    Sorry.

    We've had our moments and sometimes it's tough to discern what's more of the friendly nature outside of the Porch or Other Music forums.

    Thanks for clarifying.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,286
    Yes
    Anyone change their mind?
  • lastexitlondonlastexitlondon Posts: 910
    edited November 8
    Yes
    No guns at all are necessary.
    Post edited by lastexitlondon on
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
18910111214»
Sign In or Register to comment.