Printable View
Ha! Haven't you ever heard, there's no such thing as a free lunch? The Founders knew that if the government was going to provide something to someone else that they would first have to confiscate it from another. They were not about to start confiscating anything from anyone. You know that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" thing. But we're way off topic now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Surely there is a simple compromise? Obviously banning all firearms won't work so why not simply ban those that are able to cause the most damage in the hands of a lunatic? Ban automatic and semi-automatic hand guns and rifles as well as high capacity magazines. People can still own bolt-action rifles and revolvers for hunting, target shooting and self defense.
It's not perfect but the Second Amendment is upheld (people can still own a gun) and the impact of events like Newtown are lessened (5 shots between reloads has to be less devastating than 30).
Millions upon millions of people own guns. The vast majority of them will never commit crimes. Most of them do not own a gun to kill people. The vast majority of people own guns for sport or entertainment (with the benefit of personal protection). So I would argue your point that the purpose of a gun is solely to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Everything IS dangerous, if used in an improper way. You can not legislate that away.
You're right, it was exchanged for free killing of 6 year old kids!What an improvement. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That's the reason only lightly touched upon in this thread. It's also the predominate reason I support our second amendment and the reason it was put in there in the first place. It's the ultimate right of any people to change their government when that government becomes too oppressive. It's recently been exercised in Libya and Tunisia and is currently being exercised in Syria. It was exercised by us in the late 1700s. There may be some future time when we need to do it again. Both Nixon & Bush II tried to go in that direction without success. I am not willing to bet there will never be someone who, in the crisis of the moment, tries that again. Once you let any of the freedoms you enjoy go, be it speech, assembly, press or anything else - like bearing arms, you won't easily get them back.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
With the number of rounds that are being reported as having been fired, even if this guy had 30 round magazines, he still had to reload multiple times. Sadly smaller magazines wouldn't have changed things noticeably. Automatic guns are effectively banned, and not used in this case. Do you honestly think that in this situation a bolt action .22 would have had fundamentally different results?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Why is it so hard for some to realize that there is evil in this world, and that no about of legislation will change that.
That's such a sick statement that I won't even respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Cars are exactly like guns in that, if they are misused, death and destruction can result. So the comparison is valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Absolutely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The sole design and purpose of an assault rifle is to kill human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible.
An automobile, as mentioned, is a mode of transportation.
Yet, we mandate the registration of the former without thought :rolleyes:
The founders obviously didn't have any cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke