Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[My I]

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

The truth is we don't NEED any of those things. As human beings we need basic food, shelter and enough clothing to keep from freezing to death. Anything beyond that is a personal choice.

Aaaahhhh.... Personal choice. THE very, most BASIC of our rights in The United States of America. We have the freedom to choose the things we like. No one dictates to us what we wear, what we eat, what we drive, what we can say....

Oh... wait... There are people who like to misinform us and say things like "the vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet" and that everyone must stop eating animal based foods. We have people telling us that we can't wear fur or leather. We have people telling us we must drive economical cars. And we have people who tell us that we can't oppose what they say because THEY have freedom of speech. (as if anyone opposed does not)

Those people want to strip your rights from you to force you live THEIR lifestyle whether you want to or not. Forget your basic freedom of choice. They are doing what is "Best" for you. THAT is true fascism, my friends. And it is unconstitutional.

Want to know what else is unconstitutional? Punishing innocent people for the actions of others. What if I took your "smart" phone away from you and told you you could never have another because someone down the street was texting and driving and hit another car and killed 5 people? Would that be fair? What if I took your car and told you you could never drive again because hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year? would that be fair? What about shutting down the internet because some people cyberbully others? Or watch porn? Would that be fair? Or banning fast food restaurants because they cause obesity? Would that be fair?

And now because an insane boy was able to purchase a rifle and shot up a school, you want to take those rifles away from law abiding, perfectly sane people. And further, you want to force people to have psychological exams to even purchase a gun. What other right in our constitution requires that? Do you have to prove you are sane or even know what you are talking about before you can stage a public protest/march/rally?

Perhaps you should have to. Given the amount of misinformation (and flat out lies) that are spread, maybe that would be best. Or maybe we just make it a Federal Felony Offense to knowingly spread misinformation in public forums/media/gatherings.

Tell you what I'll do. I'll give if you do. I'll accept a ban on the so called assault weapons if YOU accept a ban on cellular devices that can be operated while traveling at more than 3mph.

But I know you won't. Because YOU have rights. YOU have freedom of choice. And you don't mind trampling everyone else's rights and freedoms as long as you get to keep yours.

So here's a simpler solution. Why don'r we ALL stop destroying things just because we don't personally like them? That sounds fair to me. How 'bout you?

 

[phrodeau]

What's the third word of the Second Amendment, hm?

 

[Adre]

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

Ever seen 50 unsuspecting civilians killed in minutes by any of the items listed above?

 

[KeithD]

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

None of those were designed solely to kill a maximum number of people in a minimum amount time. Was this a trick question or are you really that stupid? (Don't bother to answer. I know which one it is).

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Be Careful What You Wish For!


Let me begin by saying I am not a "gun person." A friend took me to a shooting range once and taught me how to fire her pistol. It was interesting, even fun, but not so much that I got myself a gun, or have even gone out of my way to shoot one again. Thus, I have nothing directly at stake in the whole gun debate.

What I do have at stake is the integrity of the Bill of Rights.

The whole notion that you should have to show some sort of "need" to exercise a constitutional right is a dangerous precedent to seek. The "right to bear arms" is in the Second Amendment. The First Amendment includes the right to say and write what you want. I would think at a site like this, no one would want to make such rights conditional on "need."

After all, why does anyone need to write erotica? If we only have the right to do what we need, and not also what we want, then what constitutional protection remains for Literotica?

If you don't like that it is good enough for someone to simply want a gun to have one, then amend the Constitution. For now, please don't try to limit the constitutional rights of others, because that will justify others coming to limit yours and mine!

 

[sr71plt]

The second amendment literally says those in an organized militia have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say others outside an organized militia (which we don't have anymore other than the armed forces and national guard) do and it doesn't specify what arms they have a right to bear. It doesn't say anyone outside an authorized military unit has the right to own and splatter a bunch of people with an assault rifle. You don't have the right to own a Stinger missile in the United States. It doesn't say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit the types of weapons one can own--and Congress already limits that. Try to buy a weapons-functioning Sherman tank and see how far you get with that.

I don't recognize that someone's right to own a weapon of fast and mass slaughter of innocents supersedes the right of me or anyone else to live. Gun nuts' juvenile selfishness does not override the right not to have my or anyone else's guts splattered against the wall in a school, theater, or church.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Well ya see, when the g'vnt comes after me, I kin shoot them bastards. Ignoring all the weapons they have at their disposal, of course.

 

[contrifan32]

Let me begin by saying I am not a "gun person." A friend took me to a shooting range once and taught me how to fire her pistol. It was interesting, even fun, but not so much that I got myself a gun, or have even gone out of my way to shoot one again. Thus, I have nothing directly at stake in the whole gun debate.

What I do have at stake is the integrity of the Bill of Rights.

The whole notion that you should have to show some sort of "need" to exercise a constitutional right is a dangerous precedent to seek. The "right to bear arms" is in the Second Amendment. The First Amendment includes the right to say and write what you want. I would think at a site like this, no one would want to make such rights conditional on "need."

After all, why does anyone need to write erotica? If we only have the right to do what we need, and not also what we want, then what constitutional protection remains for Literotica?

If you don't like that it is good enough for someone to simply want a gun to have one, then amend the Constitution. For now, please don't try to limit the constitutional rights of others, because that will justify others coming to limit yours and mine!

Very well put Josephine.
Have you noticed that in most cases a well thought out rebuttal to a argument that has been beaten to death around here is usually meet with name calling?

 

[coachdb18]

The second amendment literally says those in an organized militia have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say others outside an organized militia (which we don't have anymore other than the armed forces and national guard) do and it doesn't specify what arms they have a right to bear. It doesn't say anyone outside an authorized military unit has the right to own and splatter a bunch of people with an assault rifle. You don't have the right to own a Stinger missile in the United States. It doesn't say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit the types of weapons one can own--and Congress already limits that. Try to buy a weapons-functioning Sherman tank and see how far you get with that.

I don't recognize that someone's right to own a weapon of fast and mass slaughter of innocents supersedes the right of me or anyone else to live. Gun nuts' juvenile selfishness does not override the right not to have my or anyone else's guts splattered against the wall in a school, theater, or church.

I'll just begin by saying you're wrong, and move past the bullshit. Scalia was in the throes of making the individual right to bear arms in an uninfringed manner ABUNDANTLY clear when he inconveniently died, but my fondest hope is that Trump gets to pick at least three more justices to drive the point home in his stead.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll just begin by saying you're wrong, and move past the bullshit. Scalia was in the throes of making the individual right to bear arms in an uninfringed manner ABUNDANTLY clear when he inconveniently died, but my fondest hope is that Trump gets to pick at least three more justices to drive the point home in his stead.

You are just the sort of self-possessed, inhuman, crazy gun nut who shouldn't be allowed to own a peashooter. You are royally fucked up. I can only hope that it's just a fantasy Internet role you're playing here. Because the positions you've espoused on this porn site don't qualify you to exist in the human race.

 

[dan_c00000]

What I do have at stake is the integrity of the Bill of Rights.

So you're saying the Constitution can't be changed? Someone better alter the slaves. Moron.

 

[dan_c00000]

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit?

Only someone who jerks off to guns would spend $4k on an Armani suit.

 

[someoneyouknow]

I'll just begin by saying you're wrong, and move past the bullshit. Scalia was in the throes of making the individual right to bear arms in an uninfringed manner ABUNDANTLY clear when he inconveniently died, but my fondest hope is that Trump gets to pick at least three more justices to drive the point home in his stead.

Considering the man claimed to be a constitutionalist yet routinely went against the Constitution whenever he felt like it, he's hardly one to look up to.

In case you're wondering, Scalia routinely expanded the power of government over the people, the exact opposite of the literal intent of the Constitution and completely at odds with Madison, who wrote it, and the Founding Fathers who gave their reasons for needing it in the first place.

Forget the 9th Amendment. To him it didn't exist.

 

[coachdb18]

So you're saying the Constitution can't be changed? Someone better alter the slaves. Moron.

Once again, neither the US Constitution, nor specifically the Bill of Rights GIVES you the right to self defense and to bear arms in that effort, that right is a HUMAN right, found in NATURAL law. The BO is only the governments promise not to even TRY to infringe on that basic right. To try and repeal the 2nd amendment would in no way affect the right itself, it would only serve to be the government backing away from that most early and basic promise to the People as a basic premise that the government was not to be feared, and would respect the rights named in the BOR. If the government decided one day to no longer support freedom and respect for the People, that is why the framers stated in the Declaration of Independence;

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[dan_c00000]

that is why the framers stated in the Declaration of Independence;

You do realize you can change the Constitution, right? And the way to change it is literally contained in the Constitution itself, right?

For example, when slavery existed or prohibition existed or women couldn't vote that was changed. You could just as easily toss the Second Amendment and replace it with one declaring you a fucking moron and providing universal health care.

Also, the Declaration of Independence isn't a law and is, therefore, meaningless to any moronic argument you may have.

 

[coachdb18]

You do realize you can change the Constitution, right? And the way to change it is literally contained in the Constitution itself, right?

For example, when slavery existed or prohibition existed or women couldn't vote that was changed. You could just as easily toss the Second Amendment and replace it with one declaring you a fucking moron and providing universal health care.

Also, the Declaration of Independence isn't a law and is, therefore, meaningless to any moronic argument you may have.

Back to civics lesson 101 for the boy, we've been over this COUNTLESS times...

The framers argued for and against including these rights from Natural Law in the body of the Constitution, and those opposed won. But those for inclusion refused to sign, so the compromise was to make them amendments. This is all in the Federalist papers... please, try to keep up.

 

[contrifan32]

You do realize you can change the Constitution, right? And the way to change it is literally contained in the Constitution itself, right?

For example, when slavery existed or prohibition existed or women couldn't vote that was changed. You could just as easily toss the Second Amendment and replace it.

This is true, and I think that you and your ilk should start that campaign and see where it goes... along with universal healthcare.

 

[coachdb18]

This is true, and I think that you and your ilk should start that campaign and see where it goes... along with universal healthcare.

As I've stated previously, Obamacare should be amended to make mandatory conceal carry the law of the land. After all, the government established it has a right to require us to buy something we feel we neither want nor need, if they deem it 'health protective', there's no better protection of your health than a loaded gun.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

The truth is we don't NEED any of those things. As human beings we need basic food, shelter and enough clothing to keep from freezing to death. Anything beyond that is a personal choice.

Aaaahhhh.... Personal choice. THE very, most BASIC of our rights in The United States of America. We have the freedom to choose the things we like. No one dictates to us what we wear, what we eat, what we drive, what we can say....

Oh... wait... There are people who like to misinform us and say things like "the vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet" and that everyone must stop eating animal based foods. We have people telling us that we can't wear fur or leather. We have people telling us we must drive economical cars. And we have people who tell us that we can't oppose what they say because THEY have freedom of speech. (as if anyone opposed does not)

Those people want to strip your rights from you to force you live THEIR lifestyle whether you want to or not. Forget your basic freedom of choice. They are doing what is "Best" for you. THAT is true fascism, my friends. And it is unconstitutional.

Want to know what else is unconstitutional? Punishing innocent people for the actions of others. What if I took your "smart" phone away from you and told you you could never have another because someone down the street was texting and driving and hit another car and killed 5 people? Would that be fair? What if I took your car and told you you could never drive again because hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year? would that be fair? What about shutting down the internet because some people cyberbully others? Or watch porn? Would that be fair? Or banning fast food restaurants because they cause obesity? Would that be fair?

And now because an insane boy was able to purchase a rifle and shot up a school, you want to take those rifles away from law abiding, perfectly sane people. And further, you want to force people to have psychological exams to even purchase a gun. What other right in our constitution requires that? Do you have to prove you are sane or even know what you are talking about before you can stage a public protest/march/rally?

Perhaps you should have to. Given the amount of misinformation (and flat out lies) that are spread, maybe that would be best. Or maybe we just make it a Federal Felony Offense to knowingly spread misinformation in public forums/media/gatherings.

Tell you what I'll do. I'll give if you do. I'll accept a ban on the so called assault weapons if YOU accept a ban on cellular devices that can be operated while traveling at more than 3mph.

But I know you won't. Because YOU have rights. YOU have freedom of choice. And you don't mind trampling everyone else's rights and freedoms as long as you get to keep yours.

So here's a simpler solution. Why don'r we ALL stop destroying things just because we don't personally like them? That sounds fair to me. How 'bout you?

I have an opportunity to get a deal on a low mileage M-1 tank. Are you o.k with that?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Ok, then I presume you would be supportive of legislation that endows gun ownership solely for the right to self defense.

Blowing away kids in a classroom is not self defense.

Once again, neither the US Constitution, nor specifically the Bill of Rights GIVES you the right to self defense and to bear arms in that effort, that right is a HUMAN right, found in NATURAL law. The BO is only the governments promise not to even TRY to infringe on that basic right. To try and repeal the 2nd amendment would in no way affect the right itself, it would only serve to be the government backing away from that most early and basic promise to the People as a basic premise that the government was not to be feared, and would respect the rights named in the BOR. If the government decided one day to no longer support freedom and respect for the People, that is why the framers stated in the Declaration of Independence;

 

[phrodeau]

As I've stated previously, Obamacare should be amended to make mandatory conceal carry the law of the land. After all, the government established it has a right to require us to buy something we feel we neither want nor need, if they deem it 'health protective', there's no better protection of your health than a loaded gun.

Of course, that explains why you need protective eyewear and earmuffs on the practice range, because loaded guns are so healthy.

 

[jaF0]

Why does anybody really NEED a blowjob?

 

[CCorteeze]

Why does anybody really NEED a blowjob?

I bet you wish you had a constitutional right to one!

 

[My I]

I have an opportunity to get a deal on a low mileage M-1 tank. Are you o.k with that?

I'm fine with it. But the first time you use it to destroy property, kill people or even threaten to, keep your eye out for a pair of A-10s. Prosecute and punish the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

You o.k. with that?

 

[My I]

You do realize you can change the Constitution, right? And the way to change it is literally contained in the Constitution itself, right?

For example, when slavery existed or prohibition existed or women couldn't vote that was changed. You could just as easily toss the Second Amendment and replace it with one declaring you a fucking moron and providing universal health care.

Also, the Declaration of Independence isn't a law and is, therefore, meaningless to any moronic argument you may have.

Those amendments GAVE rights to make people equal. NOT take them away and make them victims.