Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

HughFreakingDillon

Yes

just had to post this as I thought it was hilarious:

Ray J. T.

HughFreakingDillon said:

just had to post this as I thought it was hilarious:

it is true though. The knife doesn't cut it by itself.

Ray J. T.

http://youtu.be/seH3bsymNJ4

Godfather.

No

Degeneratefk said:

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.

Degeneratefk

Yes

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

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.

That doesn't answer the question. But thanks for the effort.

HughFreakingDillon

Yes

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

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.

PJPOWER

other

HughFreakingDillon 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2) I have stated that the 2nd ammendment is just that, an ammendment, which can be repealed at any time.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.

HughFreakingDillon

Yes

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

PJPOWER

other

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Yes

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

PJPOWER

other

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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.

Godfather.

No

HughFreakingDillon said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

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.

PJPOWER

other

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

Degeneratefk

Yes

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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?

Godfather.

No

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Yes

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

PJPOWER

other

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Yes

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

PJPOWER

other

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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...