Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[pgg]

i just noticed the title of this thread is “
Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time"

shouldn't it be "celebrating the 2nd Amendment One Mass Murder at a Time"?

First of all, the answer is no, because I started the thread four years ago and the former is the title I chose, to discuss recreational shooting.

Second, if you’re going to be a troll, go do it elsewhere. I’m happy to see gun control discussed in my thread, but no one is going to troll it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Southpaw]

Air Force head says Texas gunman's history should have been reported

Law should’ve been followed. It isn’t always, and loopholes exist, and occurrences like Sutherland Springs occur.

My question however related to Stephen Paddock. sb247 was uncomfortable admitting he’d have defended his right to own assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US history, so he laid forth criteria which is absolutely impossible to follow or enforce. He should’ve just been honest and admitted he’d have defended his right to own the weapons as he killed soft targets who neither knew where the bullets were coming from or where to seek refuge.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

Neither per the evidence so far. Per your criteria he legally owned assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US History.

Exactly, this is why we need to confiscate all guns immediately. If registration is the Trojan horse we use to do it, so be it. The combination of registration, ATF, and IRS would be a powerful means to confiscate guns.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

Law should’ve been followed. It isn’t always, and loopholes exist, and occurrences like Sutherland Springs occur.

My question however related to Stephen Paddock. sb247 was uncomfortable admitting he’d have defended his right to own assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US history, so he laid forth criteria which is absolutely impossible to follow or enforce. He should’ve just been honest and admitted he’d have defended his right to own the weapons as he killed soft targets who neither knew where the bullets were coming from or where to seek refuge.

The solution is simple, make guns illegal and give citizens one year to hand them over to the government. Additionally, make selling ammunition illegal without a special permit that is prohibitive because of expense. All ammunition sales should be monitored.

 

[Southpaw]

That’s how the universe works. We can’t ban all items that just might get misused by someone someday. Even things you find scary like guns are legitimately owned by normal people. We can’t go all minority report and predict the future so yes, the cost of people maintaining their rights is that occasionally someone will misuse those rights and for their first offense there really isn’t much that can be done about it. Some people do evil things and we might not be able to prevent their first one

You were very uncomfortable answering the original question, rightfully so, so you laid forth some BS criteria which can’t be enforced. So now I ask, how many soft targets must be killed before you acknowledge something must change in America with regard to assault rifles? How many 6 and 7 year olds, and countless other innocents, must die, for the sake of assault rifles (note, not all guns) to defend against tyranny?

 

[Southpaw]

Even things you find scary like guns are legitimately owned by normal people.

For the record, and I’ve repeatedly stated this despite numerous posters accusing me of being ‘idiot’, ‘liberal’, and ‘trying to take your guns away’, etc. I am very comfortable with both handguns and rifles used for hunting. I see little utility for assault rifles, as it’s worst potential use is mass murder. I believe the 2nd amendment can be respected, hunters can remain happy (myself included), sportsman can keep shooting targets, 20 six and seven year olds can live to see another day in CT, and 22,000 folks could’ve enjoyed their country music concert (58 dead and over 500 injured), all without assault rifles.

 

[deleted480308]

Law should’ve been followed. It isn’t always, and loopholes exist, and occurrences like Sutherland Springs occur.

My question however related to Stephen Paddock. sb247 was uncomfortable admitting he’d have defended his right to own assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US history, so he laid forth criteria which is absolutely impossible to follow or enforce. He should’ve just been honest and admitted he’d have defended his right to own the weapons as he killed soft targets who neither knew where the bullets were coming from or where to seek refuge.

I’m not uncomfortable at all with my answer. I was specific because I didn’t know the man’s legal history. There must be a justifiable personal reason to remove someone’s rights

You were very uncomfortable answering the original question, rightfully so, so you laid forth some BS criteria which can’t be enforced. So now I ask, how many soft targets must be killed before you acknowledge something must change in America with regard to assault rifles? How many 6 and 7 year olds, and countless other innocents, must die, for the sake of assault rifles (note, not all guns) to defend against tyranny?

Not uncomfortable at all. There is no number. People do evil things and reducing the rights of uninvolved and unresponsible citizens is not an appropriate response. I’ll also point out you aren’t asking to ban some odd niche firearm. Semiautomatic rifles are quite literally the norm in rifles, the vast majority sold are semiautomatic

For the record, and I’ve repeatedly stated this despite numerous posters accusing me of being ‘idiot’, ‘liberal’, and ‘trying to take your guns away’, etc. I am very comfortable with both handguns and rifles used for hunting. I see little utility for assault rifles, as it’s worst potential use is mass murder. I believe the 2nd amendment can be respected, hunters can remain happy (myself included), sportsman can keep shooting targets, 20 six and seven year olds can live to see another day in CT, and 22,000 folks could’ve enjoyed their country music concert (58 dead and over 500 injured), all without assault rifles.

the second amendment wasn’t about hunting and handguns kill far more people than rifles. I get that the big events are scary but this is an inappropriate emotional response

 

[Southpaw]

I get that the big events are scary but this is an inappropriate emotional response

Big events are scary? I really have no clue what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Everything I stated was factual and typed without emotion.

 

[deleted480308]

Big events are scary? I really have no clue what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Everything I stated was factual and typed without emotion.

Handguns kill significantly more people than rifles and you are going after rifles. You are doing so because the big events are scary and get more news but a handgun is far more likely to be the source of a bullet if you die by gunshot

For that matter you’re also more likely to die by stabbing or clubbing, but again a rifle you don’t understand is scarier and makes an easier argument

 

[Southpaw]

I’m not uncomfortable at all with my answer. I was specific because I didn’t know the man’s legal history.

You weren’t specific at all. You said he shouldn’t have had an ‘assault rifle if he was planning a violent crime’. Of course he was but how in the world would anyone know that before the crime was committed? He had no record. No history of mental disease. How in the world could anyone legally follow the criteria you laid forth?

 

[Southpaw]

Handguns kill significantly more people than rifles and you are going after rifles. You are doing so because the big events are scary and get more news but a handgun is far more likely to be the source of a bullet if you die by gunshot

For that matter you’re also more likely to die by stabbing or clubbing, but again a rifle you don’t understand is scarier and makes an easier argument

You can say I don’t understand rifles all you want, but you’re simply wrong. I just disagree with what you believe should be legal. And when you say ‘big events are scary’ I wish you’d call it what it is. 20 dead 6 and 7 year olds, hundreds (thousands?) of other innocents dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles. That’s neither inappropriate nor emotional, it’s just fact.

 

[deleted480308]

You weren’t specific at all. You said he shouldn’t have had an ‘assault rifle if he was planning a violent crime’. Of course he was but how in the world would anyone know that before the crime was committed? He had no record. No history of mental disease. How in the world could anyone legally follow the criteria you laid forth?

Nope. I don’t remember saying assault rifle and I didn’t say if he was planning because we aren’t mind readers. I said he couldn’t legally own a firearm if he was convicted or indicted for planning an attack.

We cannot predict the future. A first time criminal who is smart enough to keep quiet cannot be stopped from ever attempting something. That’s a hard truth but it is true.

 

[deleted480308]

You can say I don’t understand rifles all you want, but you’re simply wrong. I just disagree with what you believe should be legal. And when you say ‘big events are scary’ I wish you’d call it what it is. 20 dead 6 and 7 year olds, hundreds (thousands?) of other innocents dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles. That’s neither inappropriate nor emotional, it’s just fact.

I’m very aware the guy in texas killed kids. He was a piece of garbage and I’m more than ok with him dying. That doesn’t mean I’m ok with reducing the rights of the 300milliom americans left. That’s not how this works

 

[Southpaw]

If he had not been a)convicted (or indicted and under the process of trial) of a violent crime or of b)planning/threatening one or deemed c)medically psychotic/dangerous then there would be no appropriate reason to restrict his ownership. Just owning those items does not make someone a criminal, nor should it

Earlier post. How would you or anyone know if he’s planning or threatening?

 

[deleted480308]

Earlier post. How would you or anyone know if he’s planning or threatening?

The false implication in your question here is that you seem to assume we can predict these things. We can’t

We would only know if he was dumb enough to talk about it

Some things are not preventable, it sucks

 

[Southpaw]

I’m very aware the guy in texas killed kids. He was a piece of garbage and I’m more than ok with him dying. That doesn’t mean I’m ok with reducing the rights of the 300milliom americans left. That’s not how this works

Yep he killed kids. Adam Lanza killed more. Increasing restrictions/banning assault rifles doesn’t limit your rights anymore than taking all Tesla electric cars off the planet limits your right to purchase and drive a car.

 

[deleted480308]

Yep he killed kids. Adam Lanza killed more. Increasing restrictions/banning assault rifles doesn’t limit your rights anymore than taking all Tesla electric cars off the planet limits your right to purchase and drive a car.

But it does by definition. Something I can freely buy now you want to ban. Something in my house you want to send the police to seize. You want me in jail for my possessions, that’s a big deal

 

[psychbender]

20 dead 6 and 7 year olds, hundreds (thousands?) of other innocents dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles. That’s neither inappropriate nor emotional, it’s just fact.

Where do you get this figure of thousands dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles? Rifles of any sort make up a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the country. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths (whether total, or in mass-shooting events) are from pistols, not "assault rifles." You are a hunter, you have firearms training, you know better than this.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

Where do you get this figure of thousands dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles? Rifles of any sort make up a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the country. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths (whether total, or in mass-shooting events) are from pistols, not "assault rifles." You are a hunter, you have firearms training, you know better than this.

This is exactly why all firearms need to be registered with the owner in preparation for confiscation. The only solution is to remove them so they can't harm people. Guns kill people. There are 100s millions of guns and taking them away is going to be a long process that we need to start now.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Where do you get this figure of thousands dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles? Rifles of any sort make up a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the country. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths (whether total, or in mass-shooting events) are from pistols, not "assault rifles." You are a hunter, you have firearms training, you know better than this.

Not many people have died from Ebola either, but we all know how scary that **** is!

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

The false implication in your question here is that you seem to assume we can predict these things. We can’t

We would only know if he was dumb enough to talk about it

Some things are not preventable, it sucks

I think you're stating there are evil people in the world and we can't stop them. I agree. We can greatly reduce the tools they have available. We need to step up to the plate like every other advanced nation.

 

[psychbender]

Not many people have died from Ebola either, but we all know how scary that **** is!

Right, it's scary, but I'm not going to prevent my family from coming into contact with anyone from Africa, on the grounds that they might have ebola.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I think you're stating there are evil people in the world and we can't stop them. I agree. We can greatly reduce the tools they have available. We need to step up to the plate like every other advanced nation.

It’s all selective.

It’s ok to racially profile, to ban a religion, or build a wall to feel safe from outsiders but don’t touch a gun that can one person can use to kill 50 people!

 

[pgg]

Increasing restrictions/banning assault rifles doesn’t limit your rights

Sure it does.

These rifles have always been legal, and you want to make them illegal.

One example, one piece of history.

The US National Matches have been held in Ohio every year for more than a century, using the current state of the art military rifles in their semi-automatic form (ie, semi-automatic, not machine guns). These rifles have always been available to everyone. The matches are run by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, an organization created by Congress to foster marksmanship skills and coordinate competition for all Americans, including juniors. Semi-automatic rifles have been the standard there since the M1 Garand was adopted by the US military in the 1930s.

I compete with an AR15. Although I’m a member of the Navy team, the military teams are guests of the CMP at the annual national matches. Most of the 1000+ competitors that get to nationals each year are civilians.

Semi-automatic rifles chambered in 30-06, .308, and .223 have been in widespread public hands for many decades.

Over the last 20-30 years, the AR15 has become the most popular target rifle in the US.

California’s recent semi-automatic rifle ban has ended a class of marksmanship competition that has over 100 years of history behind it.

Quit pretending you’re not out to limit and outright revoke rights that have been safely enjoyed for literally hundreds of years. Quit telling me these bans aren’t affecting my rights. They are.

There is no problem with the rifles. There are a tiny, tiny number of crimes committed with them each year. The rational approach to addressing those crimes doesn’t involve banning rifles.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

It’s all selective.

It’s ok to racially profile, to ban a religion, or build a wall to feel safe from outsiders but don’t touch a gun that can one person can use to kill 50 people!

It really goes to show the high level of ignorance in our country, we are way behind the rest of the advanced world. My hope is that someday guns will not be available. It will be a major culture shock at first, but once the dumb ass farmers and elite white privilege get over it, everything will be fine and everyone will see how much better things are.

 

[pgg]

It’s all selective.

It’s ok to racially profile, to ban a religion, or build a wall to feel safe from outsiders but don’t touch a gun that can one person can use to kill 50 people!

None of those things are OK! What’s wrong with you?

No one here has argued for racial profiling or banning a religion. I don’t know if anyone in this thread favors a border wall, because the topic hasn’t even come up. Those topics are completely unrelated to gun control.

Your arguments are a fluid flight of ideas.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

Sure it does.

These rifles have always been legal, and you want to make them illegal.

One example, one piece of history.

The US National Matches have been held in Ohio every year for more than a century, using the current state of the art military rifles in their semi-automatic form (ie, semi-automatic, not machine guns). These rifles have always been available to everyone. The matches are run by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, an organization created by Congress to foster marksmanship skills and coordinate competition for all Americans, including juniors. Semi-automatic rifles have been the standard there since the M1 Garand was adopted by the US military in the 1930s.

I compete with an AR15. Although I’m a member of the Navy team, the military teams are guests of the CMP at the annual national matches. Most of the 1000+ competitors that get to nationals each year are civilians.

Semi-automatic rifles chambered in 30-06, .308, and .223 have been in widespread public hands for many decades.

Over the last 20-30 years, the AR15 has become the most popular target rifle in the US.

California’s recent semi-automatic rifle ban has ended a class of marksmanship competition that has over 100 years of history behind it.

Quit pretending you’re not out to limit and outright revoke rights that have been safely enjoyed for literally hundreds of years. Quit telling me these bans aren’t affecting my rights. They are.

There is no problem with the rifles. There are a tiny, tiny number of crimes committed with them each year. The rational approach to addressing those crimes doesn’t involve banning rifles.

The right to own guns is one that I'm in favor of removing. Owning a gun because one has a pulse should not be allowed.

 

[pgg]

It really goes to show the high level of ignorance in our country, we are way behind the rest of the advanced world. My hope is that someday guns will not be available. It will be a major culture shock at first, but once the dumb ass farmers and elite white privilege get over it, everything will be fine and everyone will see how much better things are.

I have to say - though I think you’re a fool - I do appreciate your honesty.

Most of your allies who favor gun control still pretend their ultimate hope and goal isn’t a compete ban and confiscation.

 

[pgg]

The right to own guns is one that I'm in favor of removing. Owning a gun because one has a pulse should not be allowed.

It’s your right to believe that, and I respect that.

But that view is why I can never vote for a Democrat. Even though I agree with many (most) of the party’s other positions, the bottom line is that you and they are determined to take away my civil right to keep and bear arms. I can’t accept that.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

I have to say - though I think you’re a fool - I do appreciate your honesty.

Most of your allies who favor gun control still pretend their ultimate hope and goal isn’t a compete ban and confiscation.

all I'm saying is enough guns and white privilege. We need to take this country back and removing guns is a great start.

 

[psychbender]

all I'm saying is enough guns and white privilege. We need to take this country back and removing guns is a great start.

So, what other basic rights do you think should be taken away from those who think differently than you in order to take this country back?

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

So, what other basic rights do you think should be taken away from those who think differently than you in order to take this country back?

I think hate speech shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech, if you say something cruel and offensive you should be punished. No guns. Religion should be practiced behind closed doors, it shouldn't be advertised anywhere including currency and our pledge.

 

[psychbender]

I think hate speech shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech, if you say something cruel and offensive you should be punished. No guns. Religion should be practiced behind closed doors, it shouldn't be advertised anywhere including currency and our pledge.

So, you want to ban the entire first amendment, along with the second amendment? Ok, at least you're honest. Probably a troll, but honest.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

So, you want to ban the entire first amendment, along with the second amendment? Ok, at least you're honest. Probably a troll, but honest.

No troll. Want to eliminate the entire constitution and start over. The whole thing was written by a bunch of white racist slave owning males. That in and of itself speaks volumes and is the reason for white privilege and the plight of blacks.

 

[pgg]

I think hate speech shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech, if you say something cruel and offensive you should be punished. No guns. Religion should be practiced behind closed doors, it shouldn't be advertised anywhere including currency and our pledge.

OK

So that takes care of the first two Amendments

What do you think about forcing known criminals to testify against themselves and search/seizure laws?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you’re not cool with quartering troops in private homes because they have guns.

 

[pgg]

No troll. Want to eliminate the entire constitution and start over. The whole thing was written by a bunch of white racist slave owning males. That in and of itself speaks volumes and is the reason for white privilege and the plight of blacks.

I would never have guessed that Poe’s Law would make an appearance in this thread before Godwin’s Law.

 

[Futuredoc23 23]

OK

So that takes care of the first two Amendments

What do you think about forcing known criminals to testify against themselves and search/seizure laws?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you’re not cool with quartering troops in private homes because they have guns.

I'm not saying there isn't some good stuff in the constitution, but it needs a face lift. The easiest way is to start over.

 

[nimbus]

I think hate speech shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech, if you say something cruel and offensive you should be punished. No guns. Religion should be practiced behind closed doors, it shouldn't be advertised anywhere including currency and our pledge.

If only we could start over.

 

[nimbus]

I just heard a description of the constitution as a “framework for argument”. It is apparently serving this purpose.

 

[deleted59964]

First of all, the answer is no, because I started the thread four years ago and the former is the title I chose, to discuss recreational shooting.

Second, if you’re going to be a troll, go do it elsewhere. I’m happy to see gun control discussed in my thread, but no one is going to troll it.

you're right - my apologies, I got frustrated at seeing what's happening and that nothing will change.

I don't have a problem with people appreciating firearms - they can be beautiful examples of craftsmanship or technology.
My problem is with the BS arguments people put forward to justify unrestricted access to them, and the resulting misuse causing multiple fatalities.

I'm out.

 

[pgg]

No worries - it’s a debate that often shortens my fuse as well. I do like having my positions challenged. Echo chambers don’t do my side any good either.

 

[Southpaw]

Where do you get this figure of thousands dead in mass shootings due to assault rifles? Rifles of any sort make up a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the country. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths (whether total, or in mass-shooting events) are from pistols, not "assault rifles." You are a hunter, you have firearms training, you know better than this.

I questioned the number thousands (hence the question mark). I just googled ‘number of deaths from assault rifles’ and looked over a few articles. Yes, the overwhelming number of deaths are from handguns. I stated as such much earlier in this debate. I believe what drives someone to go into a church, theater, school, or any other public place and begin randomnly shooting soft targets with an assault rifle-style weapon is very different than what drives people to kill one another with handguns, the vast majority of the time. So I believe we have two separate gun issues, and two separate solutions must be sought, and I admittedly care more about the killing of soft targets in typically safe places (where no one is armed generally) even though it occurs considerably less often.

 

[Southpaw]

There is no problem with the rifles. There are a tiny, tiny number of crimes committed with them each year. The rational approach to addressing those crimes doesn’t involve banning rifles.

I appreciate your posts, respect your 2nd amendment rights, and admire your sportsmanship. I can’t think of a different way to address a problem which is responsible for the killing of soft targets in ‘safe’ places by people who more often than not, purchase the guns legally. Just enforcing the law isn’t working, as we’re seeing an increase in the number of mass shootings and increasing numbers of deaths.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I questioned the number thousands (hence the question mark). I just googled ‘number of deaths from assault rifles’ and looked over a few articles. Yes, the overwhelming number of deaths are from handguns. I stated as such much earlier in this debate. I believe what drives someone to go into a church, theater, school, or any other public place and begin randomnly shooting soft targets with an assault rifle-style weapon is very different than what drives people to kill one another with handguns, the vast majority of the time. So I believe we have two separate gun issues, and two separate solutions must be sought, and I admittedly care more about the killing of soft targets in typically safe places (where no one is armed generally) even though it occurs considerably less often.

What you have described is domestic terrorism vs. domestic violence.

I think the first step is to start calling these types of crimes an act of terrorism. Anybody who is able to kill a large group of innocent people in a public domain or “soft target” should be called a “terrorist,” and not just use the term strictly for muslims.

This discussion isn’t just about gun control but about the rights for all Americans.

Let’s be real, guns were designed for one reason and one reason alone (to kill) and certain guns (yes, “assault rifles) should be described as “weapons of mass destruction.” I know some of you really like to hunt or shoot cans or shoot whatever is around your house and claim you got 59 types guns for “protection.” I know pgg won’t like this, but just because I really love radiation, does not give me the right to own a nuclear weapon.

 

[deleted480308]

What you have described is domestic terrorism vs. domestic violence.

I think the first step is to start calling these types of crimes an act of terrorism. Anybody who is able to kill a large group of innocent people in a public domain or “soft target” should be called a “terrorist,” and not just use the term strictly for muslims.

This discussion isn’t just about gun control but about the rights for all Americans.

Let’s be real, guns were designed for one reason and one reason alone (to kill) and certain guns (yes, “assault rifles) should be described as “weapons of mass destruction.” I know some of you really like to hunt or shoot cans or shoot whatever is around your house and claim you got 59 types guns for “protection.” I know pgg won’t like this, but just because I really love radiation, does not give me the right to own a nuclear weapon.

The reason we have a natural right to obtain those weapons is precisely because they are good at killing. That is the point. It is good for good people to be physically capable of killing

 

[psychbender]

I questioned the number thousands (hence the question mark). I just googled ‘number of deaths from assault rifles’ and looked over a few articles. Yes, the overwhelming number of deaths are from handguns. I stated as such much earlier in this debate. I believe what drives someone to go into a church, theater, school, or any other public place and begin randomnly shooting soft targets with an assault rifle-style weapon is very different than what drives people to kill one another with handguns, the vast majority of the time. So I believe we have two separate gun issues, and two separate solutions must be sought, and I admittedly care more about the killing of soft targets in typically safe places (where no one is armed generally) even though it occurs considerably less often.

I disagree. The motive is not different, just because the tool used is different. He wanted to kill as many people as he could in as short a time. The shooter at VT used only handguns, yet he still managed to kill 32 soft targets in safe places in very short order. Given the close quarters, the shooting in the Texas church would have had a similar outcome and body count had he used only handguns.

You are correct that there are different issues at work, with regard to most gun deaths (associated with gang activity, with few individuals killed at a given time) and mass shooting incidents. The solution to mass shootings is not just to round up all "assault rifles" (which is still a made-up, nondescript term), as they can still carry out their plans with handguns. Or home made explosives. Or cars. It takes away one tool, but does not address the actual problem.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[RadOncDoc21]

So the argument I’m hearing is that since there are objects in the world that can also be used to kill people (cars, planes, hammers, etc), we shouldn’t ban assault rifles?

 

[deleted480308]

So the argument I’m hearing is that since there are objects in the world that can also be used to kill people (cars, planes, hammers, etc), we shouldn’t ban assault rifles?

the argument you are hearing is that some people misusing semi automatic rifles does not negate the useful and appropriate right of others to own them

 

[pgg]

I think the first step is to start calling these types of crimes an act of terrorism. Anybody who is able to kill a large group of innocent people in a public domain or “soft target” should be called a “terrorist,” and not just use the term strictly for muslims.

No.

Terrorism has a very specific definition: the use or threat of violence, for the purpose of instilling fear to promote a political end.

Words have meaning. You can’t just make up words, or make up definitions for existing words to suit your argument of the moment.

Let’s be real, guns were designed for one reason and one reason alone (to kill) and certain guns (yes, “assault rifles)

There you go again. The term “assault rifle” has a specific definition: a select-fire weapon chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an “assault rifle”.

hould be described as “weapons of mass destruction.”

And again.

The definition of a WMD is a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. This term has been in use for many decades and is the foundation of a number of international treaties, not to mention the US strategic policy concerning use of our own WMDs.

Since ‘round about the time the Patriot Act was passed, in order to aid prosecutors, the term WMD has been inserted in some laws for emotional effect and to enhance sentences.

Just a day or two ago some stupid air traffic controller was charged with making a WMD because he had a pipe bomb. So, while I’ll acknowlwdge that you’re not necesssrily alone in your misuse of the term, the company you keep in your misuse of the term isn’t very flattering.

A pipe bomb is not a WMD. Neither is any gun.

I know some of you really like to hunt or shoot cans or shoot whatever is around your house and claim you got 59 types guns for “protection.” I know pgg won’t like this, but just because I really love radiation, does not give me the right to own a nuclear weapon.

You’re still making arguments that have been responded to multiple times already in this thread.

Twice already I’ve responded to your comment about personally owning nuclear weapons, and agreed that you can’t do so, that the Constitution doesn’t protect any such right, and laid out a specific rationale for why not, and why rifles are different.

Why on earth would you write

I know pgg won’t like this, but just because I really love radiation, does not give me the right to own a nuclear weapon.

You don’t know any such thing; indeed I’ve written the very opposite in this very thread.


What exactly is your purpose in this discussion if you don’t even read or respond to the things people actually write?

 

[BobBarker]

Ruger Vaquero 45 LC
Got it at the pawn shop for $350. They had it marked quite a bit higher.