Active Users:767 Time:23/12/2024 07:20:43 AM
Never is a long time; just renewing a license requires retaking the eye exam most places. Joel Send a noteboard - 23/12/2012 02:16:54 PM
I will start by saying I agree with you about high capacity magazines and possibly even semi-automatic rifles. I don't think people have any real need for them and I think they should go. But I also think you are wrong by thinking getting rid of these kinds of weapons will prevent any future mass murders. This same attrocity could've easily happened with a shotgun, some pipe bombs, and hand guns.

And really, if its not going to prevent crazies from doing stuff, why make a useless law?


I did not say that we should ban x or y, you read that into my post. I did make the point that such weapons only purpose is to kill and to kill quickly that was as far as I went.

------

I am personally for some sort of limit on the amount of capacity guns and especially small guns are capable of using at a time. A gun that can fire 30 rounds in quick succession ceases to be a tool and only becomes a weapon. If you are not military or police you do not need such a thing, and these weapons are being use in a negative way that makes society worse.

I am also for multiple paperwork and other form of requirements to own a gun. For example mandatory background checks. Registration of the guns that you possess. And to receive any new gun or ammunition you must perform a total of 20 hours of gun safety a year or a combination of hours of practice at a gun range to show that your competent and safe with a gun.

We have about 30,000 car deaths each year. We have about 30,000 gun deaths each year in the US (about 55% of these deaths are suicides.) We require registration, certification, and proficiency tests with cars for we recognize their awesome power to create destruction even though cars are such a useful tool for an individual as well as society. I would argue the useful benefit of cars greatly surpasses the usefulness of guns and we have very little regulatory mechanism with the use of guns.

Why have stronger regulation upon firearms than we do for driving an automobile (which is by no means Constitutionally protected)?

How many eye exams have you had to take to get a gun? Not that, y'know, SAFE GUN USE REQUIRES GOOD VISION. :rolleyes: Why have stronger regulations on cars than we do for firearms? The Constitution does not prohibit regulation (as you already conceded in noting courts have ruled felons and the mentally ill can be denied Second Amendment rights.) Letting people have any and all guns PROVIDED they meet simple easy conditions does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. That satisfies both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment far better than letting everyone have any bolt action .22 they like and denying everyone SAMs. Which better ensures the public can resist federal tyranny?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1004 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 932 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1185 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 536 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 865 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 917 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 935 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 852 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 843 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 906 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 880 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 866 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 892 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 873 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 918 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
Yes people can always still kill each other, humans are very ingenuitive - 22/12/2012 04:42:04 AM 836 Views
I took a driving exam when I was 16, and have never been tested since, nor will I ever be. - 23/12/2012 01:17:05 PM 985 Views
Never is a long time; just renewing a license requires retaking the eye exam most places. - 23/12/2012 02:16:54 PM 900 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 776 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 945 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 998 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 567 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 928 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 731 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 893 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 950 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 898 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 899 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 822 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 584 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 831 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 811 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 506 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 805 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 791 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 509 Views

Reply to Message