Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[alexis52]

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!

well spoken I salute you

 

[Hypoxia]

The US Constitution's Bill of Rights was written when slavery was legal, Indians were non-persons, only adult white male property owners had the vote, and firearms were single-shot muzzle-loaders. Thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment is based on a national model with a strong navy, no standing army, and a supervised (well-regulated) citizen militia to be called up for DEFENCE, not armed aggression. Except for the Navy, thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize insurrection. It does not grant y'all license to violently oppose our gov't, and your personal firearms are no match for a professional military anyway. You protect your freedom with ballots, not bullets.

I predict sweeping changes in law and action. Don't think things won't change. They do.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The US Constitution's Bill of Rights was written when slavery was legal, Indians were non-persons, only adult white male property owners had the vote, and firearms were single-shot muzzle-loaders. Thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment is based on a national model with a strong navy, no standing army, and a supervised (well-regulated) citizen militia to be called up for DEFENCE, not armed aggression. Except for the Navy, thangs ain't like that now.

100% irrelevant.

Arms are arms.

The right of the people = individual right.

"shall not be infringed" is straight forward enough to shut your contextual bullshitting right down.

, and your personal firearms are no match for a professional military anyway.

The Vietnamese, Iraqi's, Afghanis among others have done pretty well all things considered. There is a reason guerrillas are so fucking hard for professional militaries to overcome.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. - Mark Twain

You protect your freedom with ballots, not bullets.

It can be and has been both.

I predict sweeping changes in law and action. Don't think things won't change. They do.

Good luck getting rid of the US Constitution comrade!!! LOL

 

[coachdb18]

I somewhat agree with your statement, but a couple of corrections need to be noted. You said...

The right to bear arms was given by the authors of the constitution for the security of the public at large.

The founders did not give us the right to bear arms, they merely made the promise that this pre-existing right would never be challenged by the US government.

Your further statement then is a natural, but wrong conclusion because of this assumption that the government dispensed this right in the first place, and therefore has a right to take it away. Couldn't be further from the truth.

While it may be necessary to have a psychiatric data base to red flag potential shooters and people who should not be allowed to have guns along with a cooling off period (one month or so between purchase and receipt), and an age restriction (maturity has to be taken into account ) ,bannning any type of fire arm will only result in disturbed offenders from coming up with other means to kill large groups of people.

So you are generally supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but the Amendment demands that it be accepted as a pre-existing human right, not a dispensed right at the whim of government.

 

[My I]

The US Constitution's Bill of Rights was written when slavery was legal, Indians were non-persons, only adult white male property owners had the vote, and firearms were single-shot muzzle-loaders. Thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment is based on a national model with a strong navy, no standing army, and a supervised (well-regulated) citizen militia to be called up for DEFENCE, not armed aggression. Except for the Navy, thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize insurrection. It does not grant y'all license to violently oppose our gov't, and your personal firearms are no match for a professional military anyway. You protect your freedom with ballots, not bullets.

I predict sweeping changes in law and action. Don't think things won't change. They do.

I predict your sweeping changes will fail. The Constitution of The United States of America is the basis for ALL law in this country. The Amendments to that constitution were all added to GIVE rights to the people, NOT take them away. The only exception being the 18th. Guess which is the only amendment to be repealed.

If you don't like the law in this country, tough shit, it's still the law. I doubt you are one who obeys the law when it doesn't suit you anyway. Don't like the laws here? Then go and start your own country and make whatever laws you want. Or officially declare war on the United States of America and Have at it.

Just stop with the veiled and vague and empty threats.

 

[phrodeau]

I somewhat agree with your statement, but a couple of corrections need to be noted. You said...



The founders did not give us the right to bear arms, they merely made the promise that this pre-existing right would never be challenged by the US government.

Your further statement then is a natural, but wrong conclusion because of this assumption that the government dispensed this right in the first place, and therefore has a right to take it away. Couldn't be further from the truth.



So you are generally supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but the Amendment demands that it be accepted as a pre-existing human right, not a dispensed right at the whim of government.

I predict your sweeping changes will fail. The Constitution of The United States of America is the basis for ALL law in this country. The Amendments to that constitution were all added to GIVE rights to the people, NOT take them away. The only exception being the 18th. Guess which is the only amendment to be repealed.

If you don't like the law in this country, tough shit, it's still the law. I doubt you are one who obeys the law when it doesn't suit you anyway. Don't like the laws here? Then go and start your own country and make whatever laws you want. Or officially declare war on the United States of America and Have at it.

Just stop with the veiled and vague and empty threats.

Did the Constitution give us rights or not? I can’t decide.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Did the Constitution give us rights or not? I can’t decide.

You should read some books and find out for yourself!



LOL

 

[My I]

Gun control at work.

Couldn't get a firearm, sooo....

I actually drove by this scene this morning on I35 about 7:00am.

 

[zotique]

The US Constitution's Bill of Rights was written when slavery was legal, Indians were non-persons, only adult white male property owners had the vote, and firearms were single-shot muzzle-loaders. Thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment is based on a national model with a strong navy, no standing army, and a supervised (well-regulated) citizen militia to be called up for DEFENCE, not armed aggression. Except for the Navy, thangs ain't like that now.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize insurrection. It does not grant y'all license to violently oppose our gov't, and your personal firearms are no match for a professional military anyway. You protect your freedom with ballots, not bullets.

I predict sweeping changes in law and action. Don't think things won't change. They do.

You make sense.

The rest of these posters are crazy as shithouse rats.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You make sense.

The rest of these posters are crazy as shithouse rats.

Another genius who wants to believe in whatever and support it with name calling.....because actually reading the law and formulating an argument of your own is hard.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Another genious

 

[BotanyBoy]

Another genious

Good looking out bro!!

You ever figure out what an "assault" rifle is or come up with an argument why it needs to be banned but not other semi automatic rifles?

 

[zotique]

Another genius who wants to believe in whatever and support it with name calling.....because actually reading the law and formulating an argument of your own is hard.

Wrong. To grossly distort and misinterpret a 227 year-old piece of legislation without considering the historical context of the time for your own convenience is not a valid argument.

It really is so dim witted that it deserves name calling but if your self esteem is that delicate I'll refrain for now.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wrong. To grossly distort and misinterpret a 227 year-old piece of legislation without considering the historical context of the time for your own convenience is not a valid argument.

It really is so dim witted that it deserves name calling but if your self esteem is that delicate I'll refrain for now.

What gross distortions and misrepresentations exactly do you find with the current SCOTUS rulings on 2A ?

LOL you think you can hurt my feelings much less with name calling ...that's cute.

The only reason for name calling is because you can't answer the question I just asked you and it pisses you off just like it sent Hypoxia running for the iggy bunker.

 

[coachdb18]

Wrong. To grossly distort and misinterpret a 227 year-old piece of legislation without considering the historical context of the time for your own convenience is not a valid argument.

It really is so dim witted that it deserves name calling but if your self esteem is that delicate I'll refrain for now.

The New York Times might report that the US Constitution was repealed today on a porn site called ‘Literotica’, probably run it as a banner headline, but somehow I don’t think it would affect US jurisprudence, nor much affect the already dismal lack of trust in the ever so Neanderthal reporting of the NYT.

My general observation is that Donald Trump will almost certainly be naming three more associate justices to the SCOTUS, and I’m sure from the ones already on the list he’s named that 2A rights will be far safer in the near future, and for a VERY long time.

 

[oggbashan]

...
The founders did not give us the right to bear arms, they merely made the promise that this pre-existing right would never be challenged by the US government.

...

The right to bear arms in the 13 Colonies, and in England before the American Revolution was generally restricted to white property-owning males, not by legislation but by economics. Any firearm was an expensive object. The poor couldn't afford them.

In the United Kingdom after World War 1 the government had a surplus of weapons. They offered them for sale at low prices. Anyone could buy an obsolete rifle or revolver for pennies. Current weaponry was more expensive.

If you wanted, you could buy crew-served heavy machine guns, trench mortars and even artillery - but the unstated requirement was that you had to be landed gentry to be an approved buyer. If you could fire your new artillery at extreme range and the shell wouldn't leave your lands - you were approved.

An example: A .303 Vickers Machine Gun and boxes of belted shells would cost five pounds. That five pounds would employ a parlourmaid for a third of a year, or pay a skilled artisan for a couple of months.

The weapons sold privately after World War 1 became very useful in 1940 after Dunkirk. Some Home Guard units were fully equipped from the local landowner's gun room.

 

[phrodeau]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/

Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?

Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.

Life sure is scary for white guys.

 

[zotique]

https://www.facebook.com/ATTNVideo/videos/1822963301341956/

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/

Life sure is scary for white guys.

Nah...for the prosperous enough to have something to loose, but not prosperous enough to have security services.

People should consider their ability to protect their families, nobody else will do it for you unless you're SUUUUUPER rich or powerful.


The racial aspect is the socialist aspect....because guess who wants to take all the shit from white guys? Including their lives in some cases?

Hint: It's not other middle class white people.

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://www.facebook.com/ATTNVideo/videos/1822963301341956/

Oh...as I suspected.


I was right the first time when I said you just want to believe in whatever and support it with name calling.....because actually reading the law and formulating an argument of your own is hard.

 

[phrodeau]

Nah...for the prosperous enough to have something to loose, but not prosperous enough to have security services.

People should consider their ability to protect their families, nobody else will do it for you unless you're SUUUUUPER rich or powerful.


The racial aspect is the socialist aspect....because guess who wants to take all the shit from white guys? Including their lives in some cases?

Hint: It's not other middle class white people.

So do you think people should be allowed to use their TANF money to buy weapons?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So do you think people should be allowed to use their TANF money to buy weapons?

Random question.....

Not anymore than food stamp recipients should be allowed to buy soda, sweets, fast food or ciggs with their welfare.


Why? What the fuck does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[My I]

https://www.facebook.com/ATTNVideo/videos/1822963301341956/

Wow. Just as I suspected. You liberals get all your info from memes on Facebook and twitter. And none of it is true. Oh, there are some slivers of truth in there but nothing that tells the real story. How 'bout a quote from an Aussie police officer who actually SEES FIRST HAND how their gun control measures work?

from Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ...
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ...
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"

Yeah, GUN crime went down. but just like the UK overall crime rates went UP. Why? Because they took away the honest, law-abiding citizens means of defending themselves.

Stop trying to be CNN, reporting only what serves your purpose and tell ALL the truth.

But that would mean you don't get your way. Gee, that's just too bad. In this world you don't always get your way. In fact you rarely get YOUR way. But the Law is still the LAW. Deal with it, Scooter.

 

[My I]

Random question.....

Not anymore than food stamp recipients should be allowed to buy soda, sweets, fast food or ciggs with their welfare.


Why? What the fuck does this have to do with the discussion?

It doesn't. Just another typical Liberal tactic.

"Let's distract everyone from the truth and the facts by trying to steer the debate towards a meaningless tangient and use hypothetical situations to prove... well they don't really prove anything other than we don't really know what we're talking about. But that's beside the point."

 

[Blue]

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ...
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ...
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"

Yeah, GUN crime went down. but just like the UK overall crime rates went UP. Why? Because they took away the honest, law-abiding citizens means of defending themselves.

In the UK in 2015-2016 there were 571 homicides.
In the same time frame (recorded between different months of the years but also in a 365 day period) there were 15,883 homicides in the USA. The 8th highest rate in the world for the years 2014-2015 and 5000 more than China (12th) which had a population >5x larger than the USAs. Compare with the UK and Australia at the same time: 70th and 102nd respectively.
Even if you adjust for population, the USA still has a homicide rate 4.2x that of the UK in that year.

In the same time frame the USA had an overall crime rate of 372.6 per 100,000 and the UK roughly 730 per 100,000.

Conclusion: Crime is higher in the UK than the USA but you are far more likely to be killed by crime in the USA. By a tremendous margin.
I don't even need to wonder why that is; it's because of the insanely easy access to guns in the USA. More guns = vastly deadlier crime. Hypothetically; If I'm going to choose a country to live in based solely on its mugging statistics. In the UK I have the option of being 2x more likely to be mugged but 20% as likely to die from it than in the USA. Obviously the odds are that it is significantly more acceptable to live in the UK. Where there is more crime but less guns.

You can't reduce a complex issue like the severity of international crime rates down to dichotomous single-issue talking points like you did in your post and expect to have an accurate view of the problems.