Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban....

[dead0man]

I'm sure people like you believe that gay sex is as deadly as an assault weapon.

gay sex isn't, but anal sex might be.  It certainly kills more Americans each year.  I don't know how you'd break down how much use the anus is getting vs the assault weapon, so specific numbers of casualties over time would be impossible to figure out.  In the way that more people die in swimming pools than rocking climbing doesn't make swimming more dangerous than rock climbing.  So I don't know if it's "as deadly" but one could certainly make the argument.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't know how you'd break down how much use the anus is getting

Mrs dead0man: I've told you before, only on your birthday!

[they don't love you like i love you]

something smells like straw in your post Frenchy BRTD...

No seeing as how someone in this very thread stated that the purpose of owning assault rifles is to defend from government tyranny.

A.they didn't say assault rifles
2.missiles ain't small arms
III.there are always three things

The post is in reference to me saying that there's no point in owning submachine guns except for that and he says that's a valid reason. So at the very least the argument is people need submachine guns to DEFEND AGAINST TYRANNY!

As for missiles not being small arms, that's the point. How on Earth do you defeat a tyrannical government with only small arms? Even third world rebel forces rely on arsenals of missiles and mortars.

[dead0man]

I don't know how you'd break down how much use the anus is getting

Mrs dead0man: I've told you before, only on your birthday!

meh, overrated if you ask me (and nobody ever does), but to each their own.  I don't think it should be outlawed even if it is dangerous and I don't like it.  I understand that's a foreign concept to some people

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think it's quite obvious that a Constitution Party avatar means fetuses and guns are more important than actual human lives.

I'm fairly moderate on abortion and do not believe in fetal personhood or imposing undue burdens on women seeking abortion. Thanks for playing though. I understand that stereotyping is easier than thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. I hope you aren't surprised that some of us who are protective of the right to keep and bear arms are also protective of the right of gay men to have consensual butt sex. Even though the former has been recognized as a fundamental right for centuries and the latter for barely a decade, I think both are important liberty interests. Many of us do ... again stereotyping tends to make one look foolish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. Not sure if I should point out that no military in the world would use single-function rifles or that when the 2nd Amendment was ratified all guns were "military-grade".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Arms" under the 2nd Amendment does have some definitional limits. For starters, they must be capable of being carried by a single infantryman. I know colloquially "arms" now means "weapons" generally, but the definition of "arms" contemporaneous with the passage of our constitution did have the former distinction. It's why the Articles of Confederation required each State to stockpile both arms (individual weapons) and field pieces (crew served weapons), instead of just saying arms to mean both. That would clearly exclude nukes and anthrax and missiles and tanks and all of the other large military weapons that anti-gunners think they are clever invoking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As do I. Since grammatically the prefatory clause does not place a condition on the operative clause, I guess that means you agree that machine guns should be easier to get since a common infantryman carries one?

[dead0man]

(actually a common infantry man carries an M4, which is an assault rifle, only a crew of 2 out of each squad would have an LMG (SAW M249), but that doesn't take away from your point as they are both equally as illegal(virtually), just a nitpick)

[Mr. Reactionary]

As for missiles not being small arms, that's the point. How on Earth do you defeat a tyrannical government with only small arms? Even third world rebel forces rely on arsenals of missiles and mortars.

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/129/Media/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

This is a fascinating book written by someone much more radical than myself. Pages 515 - 749 detail a fictional scenario that explains the possibility. Basically you focus on targeted assassinations of bureaucrats, because by the time your dictator is so evil they are deploying nukes and tanks and missiles into the heart of their own country, it's unlikely that they'd have the backing of most soldiers. You really think the average soldier is going to shoot up a Kansas Church with his tank just because a tyrant ordered him to?

[Hermit For Peace]

The Sig MCX is a carbine therefore a rife which is a type of arms, thus as it relates to the 2ND shall not be infringed upon.  Automatics(Thompson SS) have been banned since 1934 unless you owned one of the pre-banned ones which only the super rich could prob afford and or collectors.  A missile isn't something granted to you as a right to own because its not a firearm.

Fetuses are people despite the lefts love for killing the unborn and using them as spare parts.


Speaking of sex and guns.  2 guns if I could afford or the 1934 ban was ever lifted.

The Glock 18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw-o3p4ZMtE   

Beretta 93R  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1cFUJEaYrI

Pure sex right there.

Couple things: I'm a female and have never ever ever been interested in guns. I don't know anyone who owns a gun and I will admit I am pretty ignorant about all the different kinds.

Now having said that, your post brought a couple things to mind. The first is: SEX.

That's it! Sex and also power is the big allure to these things. That's why the NRA will fight to the death anyone who tried to take away their manhood. At least, this is what seems obvious to me.

Also, the next thing is, it's VERY expensive to use those guns that you linked to. Fire off a 32 round in seconds, then keep doing it and doing it over and over. What a waste of $$$. Who can afford it?

To people who have no need for guns, all this hullabaloo about owning them, that it's your "right" to have military-grade kill machines, blah blah blah....all sounds like a bunch of _____.

I believe that the Second Amendment has been twisted and turned to the point of total nonrecognition from what the Founding Fathers originally meant. They had no vision of modern-day weapons and are probably turning over in their graves at thought of what we have done with their words.

[Joe Republic]

Can somebody summarize the arguments given thus far against banning (at the very least) the AR-15?  The only coherent (yet laughably invalid) argument I've seen is "bbut gubmint tranny!!"  Well okay, somewhat coherent.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller. The frothing from the mouth by gun nuts and their apologists will be absolutely delicious.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't know anyone who owns a gun

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably the same people who can afford to get passport and vacation in foreign countries, or who can afford to own and stable a horse, or who have an amateur pilots license and fly their own Cessna on the weekends, or who enjoy sailing on their own boat, or who spend unGodly amounts of money on superbowl tickets or March Madness tickets or Katy Perry tickets. Some people can afford to have their own swimming pools. Others collect cars. There are tons and tons of expensive hobbies out their. I've never seen the logic in spending all that money on any of these hobbies, but I don't see how that makes it objectively wasteful. Just wasteful to me because I am not interested in them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that, but then again that doesn't make it a knowledgeable viewpoint. I will never have a need to donate money to a Socialist or go to a Unitarian Church or have sex with another man, that doesn't mean I think those who do such things are full of ____ or have no right to do such things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This logic has been so thoroughly debunked it's practically a parody of anti-gunner logic. Earlier this year all 8 Supreme Court justices including Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and frickin Breyer (who hates rights) unanimously agreed that the 2nd Amendment is not somehow limited to 1791 technology. Otherwise there would be no free speech protections for protest signs made on posterboards, no religious protections for Mormons, no press protections for Newspapers printed on laser printers, no warrant protections against cars, and no torture protections against the electric chair.

[dead0man]

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller. The frothing from the mouth by gun nuts and their apologists will be absolutely delicious.

and here I thought this was about safety or some other fear nonsense.  It's just about getting a "win" and feeling smug?  I don't think your cohorts (and the politicians you serve) want you advertising that so obviously.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can somebody summarize the arguments given thus far against banning (at the very least) the AR-15?  The only coherent (yet laughably invalid) argument I've seen is "bbut gubmint tranny!!"  Well okay, somewhat coherent.

I think the best argument is that we don't need an argument. You are proposing that the government impose a limitation on a fundamental constitutional right. The burden of justifying this is on the government. It is an exceptional burden to overcome. And screeching about whether a rightholder needs to have their right is nowhere close to meeting the government's burden. If I said all Mormons should be summarily shot because of their religious beliefs without due process, no one would have to argue as to why that shouldn't be done. What if I toned it down and just said we should limit the number of times someone can consensually have sex each day to 3 times. Again, no one would have to argue as to why that shouldn't be done either, even though clearly no one "NEEDS" to have sex more than 3 times a day.

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller. The frothing from the mouth by gun nuts and their apologists will be absolutely delicious.

and here I thought this was about safety or some other fear nonsense.  It's just about getting a "win" and feeling smug?  I don't think your cohorts (and the politicians you serve) want you advertising that so obviously.

Oh look, our resident gun nut apologist tries to be cute.

[Hermit For Peace]

I don't know anyone who owns a gun

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably the same people who can afford to get passport and vacation in foreign countries, or who can afford to own and stable a horse, or who have an amateur pilots license and fly their own Cessna on the weekends, or who enjoy sailing on their own boat, or who spend unGodly amounts of money on superbowl tickets or March Madness tickets or Katy Perry tickets. Some people can afford to have their own swimming pools. Others collect cars. There are tons and tons of expensive hobbies out their. I've never seen the logic in spending all that money on any of these hobbies, but I don't see how that makes it objectively wasteful. Just wasteful to me because I am not interested in them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that, but then again that doesn't make it a knowledgeable viewpoint. I will never have a need to donate money to a Socialist or go to a Unitarian Church or have sex with another man, that doesn't mean I think those who do such things are full of ____ or have no right to do such things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This logic has been so thoroughly debunked it's practically a parody of anti-gunner logic. Earlier this year all 8 Supreme Court justices including Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and frickin Breyer (who hates rights) unanimously agreed that the 2nd Amendment is not somehow limited to 1791 technology. Otherwise there would be no free speech protections for protest signs made on posterboards, no religious protections for Mormons, no press protections for Newspapers printed on laser printers, no warrant protections against cars, and no torture protections against the electric chair.

My view point may not be "knowledgeable" but it's my viewpoint nonetheless. I can't shake what I feel is right.

And yes I am ignorant of Supreme Court rulings, but the one I bolded makes me laugh. Not limited to 1791 technology? That is really really laughable, considering the Founders could never have had a clue in a million years what kind of havoc the type of guns we have today would be playing in our modern society.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

something smells like straw in your post Frenchy BRTD...

No seeing as how someone in this very thread stated that the purpose of owning assault rifles is to defend from government tyranny.

A.they didn't say assault rifles
2.missiles ain't small arms
III.there are always three things

The post is in reference to me saying that there's no point in owning submachine guns except for that and he says that's a valid reason. So at the very least the argument is people need submachine guns to DEFEND AGAINST TYRANNY!

As for missiles not being small arms, that's the point. How on Earth do you defeat a tyrannical government with only small arms?

Donald Trump.plans to defeat them with only small hands, so this may be a common belief on the right.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This logic has been so thoroughly debunked it's practically a parody of anti-gunner logic. Earlier this year all 8 Supreme Court justices including Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and frickin Breyer (who hates rights) unanimously agreed that the 2nd Amendment is not somehow limited to 1791 technology. Otherwise there would be no free speech protections for protest signs made on posterboards, no religious protections for Mormons, no press protections for Newspapers printed on laser printers, no warrant protections against cars, and no torture protections against the electric chair.

And yes I am ignorant of Supreme Court rulings, but the one I bolded makes me laugh. Not limited to 1791 technology? That is really really laughable, considering the Founders could never have had a clue in a million years what kind of havoc the type of guns we have today would be playing in our modern society.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Internal Citations Omitted for your reading pleasure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, have you really never considered that the 1st Amendment applies to speech on radios or televisions or the internet or microphones at rallies or any of the examples I included one sentence after the one you bolded? The founders were aware that things would change beyond their wildest dreams. That's why there is an entire article in the Constitution on how to amend it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Can somebody summarize the arguments given thus far against banning (at the very least) the AR-15?  The only coherent (yet laughably invalid) argument I've seen is "bbut gubmint tranny!!"  Well okay, somewhat coherent.

I think the best argument is that we don't need an argument. You are proposing that the government impose a limitation on a fundamental constitutional right. The burden of justifying this is on the government. It is an exceptional burden to overcome. And screeching about whether a rightholder needs to have their right is nowhere close to meeting the government's burden. If I said all Mormons should be summarily shot because of their religious beliefs without due process, no one would have to argue as to why that shouldn't be done. What if I toned it down and just said we should limit the number of times someone can consensually have sex each day to 3 times. Again, no one would have to argue as to why that shouldn't be done either, even though clearly no one "NEEDS" to have sex more than 3 times a day.

You know, I hope Clinton wins and appoints a couple of liberal justices on the Supreme Court that overturn Heller.

I don't get the image. Is it saying Clinton's ban isn't strong enough?

As for your riposte to Joe ... it makes no sense. if there was a serious movement backed up by powerful financial interests and a significant portion of the population to propose shooting Mormons or banning sex three times a day, then it would be an act of outright cowardice for opponents to just put up their hands and say "omg I don't even need to say why this is wrong it's just wrong".

[Mr. Reactionary]

As for your riposte to Joe ... it makes no sense. if there was a serious movement backed up by powerful financial interests and a significant portion of the population to propose shooting Mormons or banning sex three times a day, then it would be an act of outright cowardice for opponents to just put up their hands and say "omg I don't even need to say why this is wrong it's just wrong".

Perhaps I could have worded my statement better. What I meant is that we don't have to reduce our arguments to a benefits vs. burdens social balancing test. Clearly I am still arguing that banning such weapons is wrong, but I do not believe that we should have to argue that banning such weapons is bad because the social benefit of A > B. Should I argue that "If we kill all the mormons, that includes scientists and firefighters and other valuable members of society and thats why we shouldn't kill them"? There are so many other ways to fight a stupid proposed law then accepting that the ends justify the means. Things like the nature of rights, limits on governmental power, risk of violence, infeasibility ... none of these have to do with whether or not someone "NEEDS" this particular model gun or what so and so does with his gun and how valuable that is to society. Rights transcend that.  To quote noted right-wing gun nut Rachel Maddow:

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

But when a right is divisive you need extra info to back it up. Essentially everybody in the contemporary Western right believes that people have a right to not be shot for their religion or that people should be able to have sex consensually without a bureaucrat poking his nose in, but rights have to be won on utilitarian grounds. When slavery was made illegal, there were plenty of moral arguments made for the right to not be be owned, but the abolitionists made generous usage of utilitarian arguments that status quo was less economically productive than a non slave world. When homosexuality was legalised in my country, the clincher was that existing anti-sodomy laws made public officials vulnerable to blackmail and extortion. The right to vote was extended to Catholics, not because Peel had a love for papists but because there was a feelibg it was better than a revolution in Ireland. (Similar arguments of fears of instability were behind similar expansions of suffrage)

Like it or not, the right to own an assault weapon is something that divides Americans. You could find just as many Americans who support such liberal counterpoints like 'a right to healthcare' or abortion or whatever. Unless a right is accepted at large by a broad proportion of society, the moral defence that "it is a right" stumbles.

[dead0man]

"rights" aren't decided by what's popular at the time, that's kind of why we wrote the important ones down and made it hard to change them.


edit-or sh**t, what Ms Maddow said in the little picture up there that I didn't see until just now

[Mr. Reactionary]

Like it or not, the right to own an assault weapon is something that divides Americans. You could find just as many Americans who support such liberal counterpoints like 'a right to healthcare' or abortion or whatever. Unless a right is accepted at large by a broad proportion of society, the moral defence that "it is a right" stumbles.

Every right is "divisive" in certain contexts. I doubt very many people are supportive of the Westboro kooks protesting military funerals or the Scientologists or digital kiddie porn or videos of kitten stomping or letting obvious criminals off the hook because there was a defective search warrant. For centuries, our Constitution has recognized fundamental human rights that are not to be taken away on a whim. While I understand that not everyone agrees that these rights come from a deity or some form of natural law, it is clear that these rights did pre-exist our current government. And as written, these rights may not be violated by the government except under the pre-existing traditional exceptions recognized at common law. Some argue that a constitutional amendment could change that, and while I probably disagree, that is legally the minimum that must happen first. This is a binding promise to all citizens and again, has been that way for centuries. I do not see how we can expect each other to obey the law when we excuse our government from doing the same.

Utilitarian arguments cheapen the concept of rights and accept what I believe to be an incorrect worldview. And since I would argue that the law is already on the side of my opinion, jumping into the mud to argue about whether the utility of X right is > or < some fictional value we ascribe to society would be foolish. You are more than welcome to try and convince 38 States to try and amend the Constitution because something something you don't need that, but I don't think my argument is any less persuasive if I don't take the bait and let the rights-haters define where the argument should be. Slavery was immoral regardless of the effect on the wages of northern white workers. If someone sought to reimpose slavery, I doubt your first argument would be about the effect on wages.

[Hermit For Peace]

This isn't funny, but I thought I'd post it here. It's quite sad and ironic at the same time.

Gun shop owner fatally shot during concealed carry class

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Nothing aside from the fact that automatic weaponry is a better term than "assault weapons" for this sort of topic. Maybe I should've clarified my statement: Any semi-automatic modification of an automatic weapon OR automatic weapon.

How is it's origins relevant?  Isn't that sort of like classifying Coca-Cola as a narcotic since it used to have cocaine?  Or advising an alcoholic not to drink Welch's grape juice?

Are there any real arguments as to how an AR-15 is more dangerous than the guns that people would use instead if it were banned?

[MK]

The Sig MCX is a carbine therefore a rife which is a type of arms, thus as it relates to the 2ND shall not be infringed upon.  Automatics(Thompson SS) have been banned since 1934 unless you owned one of the pre-banned ones which only the super rich could prob afford and or collectors.  A missile isn't something granted to you as a right to own because its not a firearm.

Fetuses are people despite the lefts love for killing the unborn and using them as spare parts.

My point stands as strong as ever. The Second Amendment only relates to what has been been passed since 1934? Your arguments are not logical at all. You are saying that only guns as you define them are arms protected by the Second Amendment? In part, I do understand you. You have no problem at all with someone like Omar Mateen being able to obtain an assault weapon and massacring people you apparently have no sympathy for. If you knew any better, you would know that the Second Amendment was never intended to be for self-defense or hunting.

I'm sure people like you believe that gay sex is as deadly as an assault weapon. No, it isn't. If you believe that, you need serious help. Trump supporters like you don't give a rat's ass if gay people or Latinos die. Yeah, it was a coincidence that a mass murder was inflicted upon a gay bar on Latin Night.

Your right, it wasn't intended for Hunting, however it was intended for us NOT to be herded up like sheep and slaughtered like which took place in that Club. 


Trump supporter???    Where did you get that from?


Once again I want to know what is an "assault weapon" ?     Couldn't my right shoe smacking a liberal across the face for making silly claims like " shoots 700 bullets per minute" be an assault weapon?