America's Gun Violence

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard

If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.

Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.

Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias

ridiculous

Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.

There was artillery back then...

Godfather. said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard

If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.

Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.

Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias

ridiculous

Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.

There was artillery back then...

Yep, and anyone and everyone could own them if they had the means...people put them in their front yards...What's your point?

there was no law saying you couldn't own a Gatling gun back then I'll bet.

Godfather.

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.

I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.

yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.


Godfather.

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard

If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.

Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.

Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias

ridiculous

Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.

People do not agree with you...straw man arguments.

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.

I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.

yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.


Godfather.

I agree with GF here. I've head HRC, Obama and others refer to the AR-15, even though it wasn't used. If there are implying "assault rifles" then they should just say assault rifles, and not use AR-15 as a broad term for all assault rifles. Yes, the gun was probably similar, but the AR-15 gets singled out, and has been on this thread 100 times. You can easily adapt it further to limit the number of rounds and reloading capabilities to make it like any other rifle and will keep many gun owners happy and satisfy those who want more gun control as well, but that is never suggested. Just a full out ban on a gun that wasn't used but has become the icon for terrorist attacks.

JeffBR and I did just that!

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.

I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.

yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.


Godfather.

ridiculous....as I asked before...what is the difference between an AR-15 and the weapon the Orlando shooter used?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/guns-used-kill-49-orlando-high-capacity-common-weapons/85887260/

The Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, which means each shot requires a separate pull of the trigger. The Sig Sauer MCX rifle takes an AR-15 style magazine and ammunition.

You are making an argument similar to "why won't he say radical islamic terrorist?"....doesn't matter when both subjects are the same damn thing