FOX News poll: 67% of Americans support ban on assault weapons

[Shelly2inme]

Not to put meat on the table...

I think the reason people want to be able to choose which type of gun they own is because they want more than just a way to go hunting and to put meat on the table. I think some want a more advanced weapon so that they can fight back against any future government tyranny. That is the reason that the constitution makes it clear that people have the right to be armed. An unarmed society will always be plundered by power hungry rulers. Do you think they would allow any guns in North Korea? Of course not. Governments that want to disarm "their" subjects want to control "their" subjects.

 

[silver gurl]

I think the reason people want to be able to choose which type of gun they own is because they want more than just a way to go hunting and to put meat on the table. I think some want a more advanced weapon so that they can fight back against any future government tyranny. That is the reason that the constitution makes it clear that people have the right to be armed. An unarmed society will always be plundered by power hungry rulers. Do you think they would allow any guns in North Korea? Of course not. Governments that want to disarm "their" subjects want to control "their" subjects.

The right to bear arms was ratified in 1791. Time has changed. Don't you think?

 

[BotanyBoy]

NRA puts out a magazine that's full of clips and quips.

No one I know hunts with a military weapon. They all use 30-30s or 30-06s or similar.

Be they bolt, falling block, break, lever action, semi or full auto the basic design was or is military.

From bolt action to BAR.

 

[RoryN]

I think the reason people want to be able to choose which type of gun they own is because they want more than just a way to go hunting and to put meat on the table. I think some want a more advanced weapon so that they can fight back against any future government tyranny. That is the reason that the constitution makes it clear that people have the right to be armed. An unarmed society will always be plundered by power hungry rulers. Do you think they would allow any guns in North Korea? Of course not. Governments that want to disarm "their" subjects want to control "their" subjects.

You deplorables have ZERO issue with "power-hungry rulers" as long as they hate the same people you do.

That's why the above rings so hollow.

The fact that you're too stupid to own your hypocrisy is why you shouldn't be trusted with, or allowed to own, an assault rifle.

 

[settledseas]

Doesn't matter if 100% of Americans support banning all guns; only amending the Constitution can legally achieve that result and actually produce any substantially, practically effective lowering of gun violence in America today (by tyrannically, anti-constitutionally, outlawing all gun ownership).

Note 1: see innumerable authoritative studies which unarguably conclude the previous "assault" weapons ban didn't affect American gun violence in any measurable way at all.

Note 2: a number of so-called "Democrats" are now widening their "assault" weapon categorization to include all semi-automatic weapons in general, which effectively includes virtually every rifle and handgun in law-abiding Americans' possession today.

Note 3: a number of so-called "Democrats", including presidential hopefuls Biden and Gillibrand, are openly on record now for confiscating, once they are banned, the hundreds of millions of "assault" weapons now in Americans' hands by government force.

Note 4: common citizens have no "democratic" vote in amending the Constitution - only those who are elected to represent citizens do. And those representatives don't swear in their oaths of office to do the will of the people (which is a logical thing when only a certain group of people elect them), they swear to "protect and defend the Constitution".

That's the glorious, individual liberty-loving difference between majority/mob rule - democracy - and America's constituted "Republican Form of Government".

well said. . .
yet, for all the good , on both side. there too are a many ill's. and whereas the law is for the people, by the people. we find it is some of the very people that foul it.
me, i say let guns be open to all. that can and have passed a stern test. on how and care of a weapon. that are of age ( set by lawmakers ).
now! before you stone me. hear me out! if and i say if!
most of the citizens at gilroy, el paso and other mass shootings. had had their weapon on them at the time. yeah some would have been harmed, but not as many as it was. we, that kno, would have could have stopped him right then and there. and the many harmed would have a lot fewer. and i say this, knowing other will come to the aid , and with skills. will detour all but the harden one with a sole intent for malice.
but thats just me, a nobody.

ss

 

[BotanyBoy]

The right to bear arms was ratified in 1791. Time has changed. Don't you think?

What has changed to make being armed less valid of a right??

 

[silver gurl]

What has changed to make being armed less valid of a right??

It is no longer cowboys and Indians.
Extreme mental illness is now running rampant.
Quite a bit has changed.
You know it, I know it.

 

[FukLuk]

It is no longer cowboys and Indians.
Extreme mental illness is now running rampant.
Quite a bit has changed.
You know it, I know it.

We no longer use muskets.
The mentally defective people like SpazBot2K weren't allowed access to firearms.

 

[bigsly]

The right to bear arms was ratified in 1791. Time has changed. Don't you think?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant any right to keep and bears arms; it specifically, purposely, and expressly forbids government that it shall not infringe on a natural right most then considered to be unalienable, i.e., above the purview of government.

The Constitution can be "changed" at any time, as it has been during its entire existence. But than can ONLY be done by constitutionally amending it and NO OTHER WAY. PERIOD.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It is no longer cowboys and Indians.
Extreme mental illness is now running rampant.
Quite a bit has changed.
You know it, I know it.

So??

Cowboys and Indians might be gone but criminals and crazies aren't.

Extreme mental illness is all the more reason for me to arm myself.

I don't see how anything has changed with regard to being armed or not.

There is no less a need for the ability to defend oneself today than there was in 1776, 1791, 1880, 1911 or 2004.

 

[jaF0]

... but thats just me, a nobody ...

... and worthless BB.


Not really a surprise that the SS comes out as an ignorant, worthless dumbfuck.

 

[settledseas]

hmmm . .so add a PSYE test to it.
when in doubt!!
and we may not be as in the days of cowboys and indians.
it has gotten worst, home invasions, robberys , kiddnapings, carjackings.
you'er right, it is not a simple was it once was.

 

[settledseas]

hey!! there's my honey bun!! hi jaFO !!
how ya been gorgeous? ahh there you go with them sweet word o'ers.

you say that. but i kno 3 accounts. where lives were saved. cause the guy next door . . had his weapon, and was looking out.

 

[BotanyBoy]

We no longer use muskets.

Irrelevant.

The mentally defective people like SpazBot2K weren't allowed access to firearms.

Your beloved god state the federal government...the daddy you never knew...says otherwise and taught me how to use them for MAXIMUM effect.

 

[silver gurl]

So??

Cowboys and Indians might be gone but criminals and crazies aren't.

Extreme mental illness is all the more reason for me to arm myself.

I don't see how anything has changed with regard to being armed or not.

There is no less a need for the ability to defend oneself today than there was in 1776, 1791, 1880, 1911 or 2004.

Can we agree that certain people, should not be allowed to carry?

 

[FukLuk]

Irrelevant.



Your beloved god state the federal government...the daddy you never knew...says otherwise and taught me how to use them for MAXIMUM effect.

You'd be dead before your even reached for that pistol, scooter.

 

[jaF0]

Can we agree that BBs should not be allowed to carry?

Sho' nuff!

 

[settledseas]

Can we agree that certain people, should not be allowed to carry?

most certainly!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can we agree that certain people, should not be allowed to carry?

Sure.

But I don't think that's in dispute.

The blanket and or accessories bans just to be assholes to the gun owners out there is what the stink is being raised over.

No reason why we can't have a background check/licensing system that's 50 state wide and shall issue.

Except that the (D)'s would never have any part of it because that would preserve the very civil rights they want destroyed and this is about getting shit on 2A supporters shoes...that's why they are pushing for another "assault accessories" fail ban. It's all about "Fuck you gun owners" and nothing else, otherwise they would stop with that shit.

 

[bigsly]

Can we agree that certain people, should not be allowed to carry?

Already "certain people" aren't "allowed to carry", e.g., the perp in Philadelphia yesterday was prohibited by law from even having any weapons near him, let alone possessing and actually using any.

If you're even suggesting that "certain people" be denied their unalienable right to protect and defend their life and property by anyone or government without their full 4th Amendment rights totally honored, too (as that perp was accorded), then you're simply proving how emotionally socialist, how anti-American political principle you plainly are.

 

[HisArpy]

"I just came with my family from deer hunting. I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway at a deer," adding, "I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

"If you need 30 rounds, you should be shopping for your meat at the grocery store"

The second amendment is NOT about hunting.

It starts with "A well regulated Militia..." That kind of means it isn't about hunting. At least to most people.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The second amendment is NOT about hunting.

It starts with "A well regulated Militia..." That kind of means it isn't about hunting. At least to most people.

But if it's not downplayed how will the anti-civil rights folks infringe on the individual liberties of the people without looking like anti-civil rights authoritarians??

 

[HisArpy]

But if it's not downplayed how will the anti-civil rights folks infringe on the individual liberties of the people without looking like anti-civil rights authoritarians??

Simple, they'll just tell the uninformed that they didn't have those rights "given" to them in the first place.

There's an entire line of thinking that because the 2A is about "A well regulated Militia..." that weapons of war are the weapons "the people" are supposed to have. Limiting their right to keep and bear those arms violates the strict letter of the Constitution as well as the understanding of the Framers.

 

[colddiesel]

No one I know hunts with a military weapon. They all use 30-30s or 30-06s or similar.

Bloke that works for me regularly uses a somewhat adapted Lee Enfield 303 for killing mainly feral animals. He needs accuracy at distance combined with a degree of robustness. He is very skilled with 'roos, pigs, wild dogs, foxes and the like but anything bigger like water buffalo or a scrub bull he will only use it if he has what he calls a perfect shot, ie. a certain kill at close range.

But it's pretty close to original military spec.

 

[Shelly2inme]

Time is always changing

The right to bear arms was ratified in 1791. Time has changed. Don't you think?

Time never stops so yes, time has changed. This is not 1791. People have not changed. Tyrants are still tyrants. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The constitution was an effort to create a method of government that would have built in protections from FUTURE tyrants. They understood the lessons of history. No matter how benevolent a current ruler might appear time will wash them out and they will be replaced. In time corruption soils every government that men devise. So, they were trying to give people a legal protection to keep corrupt future rulers, like the ones we have today, from being the only ones with the weapons.