Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KimGordon67]

Well, I realize, and apologize, for the fact that these gun deaths are such a small number in comparison to abortions as to make you question their relevance. I mean, they're nothing in comparison to the figures for abortion (214,000 in the US so far this year alone).

You can see how many abortions there have been for the world and the US here...
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

You're the only person who keeps bringing abortion to the table.

(I love that he has me on 'ignore' ... either it means that he actually doesn't know WTF I'm saying about him, or he does know but can't do anything about because he told me he was 'ignoring' me.)

 

[Hypoxia]

You're the only person who keeps bringing abortion to the table.

There'd be fewer abortions if fetuses were issued handguns, .357s at least; none of that .25 caliber crap. With dum-dums. But surgical assistants could shoot the armed embryo first. Where will it ever stop?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Of course, there's always the option of saying We care about human life more than we care about guns.

 

[Hypoxia]

Of course, there's always the option of saying We care about human life more than we care about guns.

Commie ratfink!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Of course, there's always the option of saying We care about human life more than we care about guns.

Or we could keep our rights and you could just move to a WONDERFUL place that doesn't consider such things important like the UK!

You have at least 2 civil rights less there to worry about, no guns and no free speech.

Sounds like a paradise for you!

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Of course, there's always the option of saying We care about human life more than we care about guns.

Personally, I care about the Constitution.

 

[phrodeau]

Personally, I care about the Constitution.

Then you must know it isn't perfect and needs occasional correction.

 

[Blue]

Treating the constitution as though its some sort of unalienable omniscient entity that can never be incorrect or changed is really culty. Jefferson himself said you need a new constitution every 15 years to keep up with change. You are allowed to disagree with the constitution you know. Its not some infallible holy text.

In the case of guns (and the implication that the 2nd doesn't allow for any tighter gun control than already exists) you literally have an amendment that is demonstrably causing more harm than good to the US population but you want to keep the status quo because "muh constitution".

The simplicity is mind boggling.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Then you must know it isn't perfect and needs occasional correction.

True. For now, however, it establishes that "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged."

I do not want to see any right being strictly limited, even if it does not impact me personally. For example, I'm not a criminal, but I want criminals to have all the rights afforded them under the Bill of Rights. Likewise, I'm not a gun owner but, unless and until we amend the Constitution to change the Second Amendment, I want gun owners to have their constitutional right.

Once you say one part of the Bill of Rights can be limited strictly, that sets a precedent. I do not want to see that precedent set.

****

Treating the constitution as though its some sort of unalienable omniscient entity that can never be incorrect or changed is really culty. Jefferson himself said you need a new constitution every 15 years to keep up with change. You are allowed to disagree with the constitution you know. Its not some infallible holy text.

In the case of guns (and the implication that the 2nd doesn't allow for any tighter gun control than already exists) you literally have an amendment that is demonstrably causing more harm than good to the US population but you want to keep the status quo because "muh constitution".

The simplicity is mind boggling.

Yes, it's a simple concept. It even has a simple name:

"The Rule of Law."

Again, once you decide the government can disregard one right under the Constitution, you have set a precedent that allows them to disregard other rights.

If "why does anyone NEED a gun?" becomes a legitimate test, then so does "why does anyone NEED to practice their religion in a way we find odd?" or "why does anyone NEED to read Marx?" or "why does anyone NEED a jury of their peers?" Do you really want the government able to take away your rights because it decides you don't "need" them?

.​

 

[Carnal_Flower]

In other words, I care less about human lives than I do about guns.

My right to have a gun is more important than your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would rather hug a gun than my own kid. I don't care that my own kid or grandkid or wife or friend gets shot up. I'd rather have my gun.

I don't care that kids are being shot up in school.

I'm too afraid to have a revolution.

I'm too scared to change the laws.

If America stands for murder, I'm all for it.

It's all about me, me, me.

I just don't care.

True. For now, however, it establishes that "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged."

I do not want to see any right being strictly limited, even if it does not impact me personally. For example, I'm not a criminal, but I want criminals to have all the rights afforded them under the Bill of Rights. Likewise, I'm not a gun owner but, unless and until we amend the Constitution to change the Second Amendment, I want gun owners to have their constitutional right.

Once you say one part of the Bill of Rights can be limited strictly, that sets a precedent. I do not want to see that precedent set.

 

[Blue]

Once you say one part of the Bill of Rights can be limited strictly, that sets a precedent. I do not want to see that precedent set.

****
Yes, it's a simple concept. It even has a simple name:

"The Rule of Law."

Again, once you decide the government can disregard one right under the Constitution, you have set a precedent that allows them to disregard other rights.

If "why does anyone NEED a gun?" becomes a legitimate test, then so does "why does anyone need to practice their religion in a way we find odd?" or "why does anyone need to read Marx?" or "why does anyone need a jury of their peers?" Do you really want the government able to take away your rights because it decides you don't "need" them?

.​

The 2nd amendment isn't part of the bill of rights.

And no, I don't want the US government to arbitrarily take peoples rights. I want them to abide by the concept of representative democracy and do what >90% of Americans want which is make stricter regulations on the possession of guns. Which they refuse to do because they're corrupt oligarchs.

In the case of gun regulation you literally don't support the rule of law if you don't also at least conceptually accept that there should be increased gun control because the vast majority of Americans want stronger gun control.

 

[phrodeau]

"A well-regulated militia being necessary…"

So where is it?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

In other words, I care less about human lives than I do about guns.

My right to have a gun is more important than your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would rather hug a gun than my own kid. I don't care that my own kid or grandkid or wife or friend gets shot up. I'd rather have my gun.

I don't care that kids are being shot up in school.

I'm too afraid to have a revolution.

I'm too scared to change the laws.

If America stands for murder, I'm all for it.

It's all about me, me, me.

I just don't care.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I am saying I care about the liberty and human dignity protected by The Rule of Law and a vigorous Bill of Rights more than I care about the debatable claim that restricting gun rights at this point in time would make our citizens safer.

Look, if you are right, and restricting gun rights will so obviously make us safer, I have enough faith in people and the democratic process to believe the Constitution can and will be amended to allow that sort of restriction on bearing arms. Unless and until that happens, however, I don't want to see any constitutional rights tread upon.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

The 2nd amendment isn't part of the bill of rights.

Okay. It's cute when you try to join in an adult conversation, but it's now time for you to go play and let the big people talk.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

"A well-regulated militia being necessary…"

So where is it?

It's a matter of statutory Construction. The full amendment (which IS found in the Bill of Rights, Blue), declares:

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.

Specific and absolute statutory statements always trump more general ones. Thus, the part of the Second Amendment that controls is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So say the courts.

I'll be honest. I find that somewhat unsatisfactory myself. The way I look at, "militia" can mean many different things. Here, it is must be read in its broadest sense. In that case, the militia becomes everyone who could aid in "the security of a free State." Essentially, pretty much everyone beyond childhood.

 

[Blue]

Okay. It's cute when you try to join in an adult conversation, but it's now time for you to go play and let the big people talk.

>Googles
I was thinking of something else. Of course though, it's a strong sign of intellectual maturity to degrade your opponent as a child because of a mistake.

Anyway. I don't know if this is what you meant because it's so on-its-face ridiculous so I'd like clarification, but by what you've posted you're saying you're against increased gun regulations until you get a constitutional amendment to the 2nd to allow for increased gun regulation?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Treating the constitution as though its some sort of unalienable omniscient entity that can never be incorrect or changed is really culty. Jefferson himself said you need a new constitution every 15 years to keep up with change.

Cite?

The 2nd amendment isn't part of the bill of rights.

BAAAAHAHAHAH!!!

Ok so you don't know about the Bill of Rights or the US and it's laws.

And no, I don't want the US government to arbitrarily take peoples rights. I want them to abide by the concept of representative democracy and do what >90% of Americans want which is make stricter regulations on the possession of guns. Which they refuse to do because they're corrupt oligarchs.

Why would it do that?

The US is NOT a democracy....what fucking planet are you on?

In the case of gun regulation you literally don't support the rule of law if you don't also at least conceptually accept that there should be increased gun control because the vast majority of Americans want stronger gun control.

That's mob rule, not rule of law.

In other words, I care less about human lives than I do about guns.

My right to have a gun is more important than your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would rather hug a gun than my own kid. I don't care that my own kid or grandkid or wife or friend gets shot up. I'd rather have my gun.

I don't care that kids are being shot up in school.

I'm too afraid to have a revolution.

I'm too scared to change the laws.

If America stands for murder, I'm all for it.

It's all about me, me, me.

I just don't care.

Where do you come up with this shit??LOL

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

>Googles
I was thinking of something else. Of course though, it's a strong sign of intellectual maturity to degrade your opponent as a child because of a mistake.

Anyway, this high and mighty middle-ground attitude really isn't as strong an argument as you seem to think it is. I don't know if this is what you meant because it's so on-its-face ridiculous so I'd like clarification, but by what you've posted you're saying you're against increased gun regulations until you get a constitutional amendment to the 2nd to allow for increased gun regulation?

Well, there are mistakes, and there are mistakes. You have to admit, writing "The 2nd amendment isn't part of the bill of rights" is a doozy (your trouble with basic capitalization aside), especially as you apparently had to use Google to figure out what you had said wrong. It still calls into question whether you have the basic understanding of the Constitution and the law to participate meaningfully in this conversation.

As does the rest of your comment above. I am exactly saying that I am "against increased gun regulations until... a constitutional amendment... to allow for increased gun regulation." That is how the Constitution works.

I'll give you an example. When originally passed, the courts determined that a federal income tax violated a provision of the Constitution. A majority of people at the time thought a federal income tax was a good idea, so they amended the constitution to allow it.

Likewise, strict limitations on the right to bear arms are currently unconstitutional. If a majority of people think limiting this right is a good idea, then they need to amend the constitution. Again, it's what is necessary to maintain the Rule of Law.

 

[My I]

In other words, I care less about human lives than I do about guns.

My right to have a gun is more important than your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would rather hug a gun than my own kid. I don't care that my own kid or grandkid or wife or friend gets shot up. I'd rather have my gun.

I don't care that kids are being shot up in school.

I'm too afraid to have a revolution.

I'm too scared to change the laws.

If America stands for murder, I'm all for it.

It's all about me, me, me.

I just don't care.

Wow. More childish ignorance. Really wasn't expecting that. Maybe you should go back to Starbucks, sit down in the middle of the floor and start screaming your head off because they put fat free in your cappuccino instead of the whole cream you demanded.

Your assumptions are not only childish and ignorant, they leave me thinking YOU are the one who needs to be institutionalized. Because if you actually BELIEVE the horseshit you are spouting, then YOU are the one who is bat shit crazy. And I don't want delusional farktards like YOU around MY kids.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The US constitution guarantees citizens the right to possess arms, however it does not specify what constitutes “arms.” Clearly, it was anticipated that the government which gives the right also has the authority to regulate the entire scope of “firearms” ownership by civilians.

I’ll be back later, I’m on my way to march with millions of other sane people.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The US constitution guarantees citizens the right to possess arms, however it does not specify what constitutes “arms.” Clearly, it was anticipated that the government which gives the right also has the authority to regulate the entire scope of “firearms” ownership by civilians.

I’ll be back later, I’m on my way to march with millions of other sane people.

Obviously....but your side doesn't want to "regulate" they want to prohibit.

Enjoy wasting your time and likely money!!!

 

[My I]

The US constitution guarantees citizens the right to possess arms, however it does not specify what constitutes “arms.” Clearly, it was anticipated that the government which gives the right also has the authority to regulate the entire scope of “firearms” ownership by civilians.

I’ll be back later, I’m on my way to march with millions of other sane people.

Your definition of "sanity" is different from mine. And much of the rest of the world. Take carnal flower-child with you. I hope when you two start a riot, the tear gas canisters hit you in the head knock some sense into you.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

NRA tool.

Here's the facts:

The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[30] after the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[31] Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."[32] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[33]

Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. However, passage of the GCA galvanized a growing number of NRA gun rights activists, including Harlon Carter. In 1975, it began to focus more on politics and established its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), with Carter as director. The next year, its political action committee (PAC), the Political Victory Fund, was created in time for the 1976 elections.[34]:158 The 1977 annual convention was a defining moment for the organization and came to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution".[35] Leadership planned to relocate NRA headquarters to Colorado and to build a $30 million recreational facility in New Mexico, but activists within the organization whose central concern was Second Amendment rights defeated the incumbents and elected Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the NRA-ILA

So basically, this whole "If you take away our guns the entire United States is going to go down the drain" was never a part of the NRA until they saw it would make good marketing to idjits.

Scroll ahead 40 years and they have an army of morons parroting their b.s. like it's gospel.

It's not about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution. it's about the gun industry and the dumb fucks who are its willing tools.

Or we could keep our rights and you could just move to a WONDERFUL place that doesn't consider such things important like the UK!

You have at least 2 civil rights less there to worry about, no guns and no free speech.

Sounds like a paradise for you!

 

[BotanyBoy]

NRA tool.

Here's the facts:

So basically, this whole "If you take away our guns the entire United States is going to go down the drain" was never a part of the NRA until they saw it would make good marketing to idjits.

Scroll ahead 40 years and they have an army of morons parroting their b.s. like it's gospel.

Totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I said.

Stay on topic.

It's not about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution. it's about the gun industry and the dumb fucks who are its willing tools.

Unfortunately for you and the other anti-civil rights folks....it absolutely is.

No matter how badly you want to pretend 2A isn't there, doesn't say what it says and is outdated.

That's not reality.....reality is it is there, it means what you wish it doesn't and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

U-oh, there's that flower thing again. It just doesn't STFU.