Gun control debate (merged)

#21,453
#21,453
Vol Main said:
Banning Assault Rifles


Herschel Walker just gave a rambling speech, with a line about "taking your rights away." I always supported Second Amendment, and I still do. I know all of the arguments for it, and I've made them in the past. I still think everything I said was reasonable and right, except for one thing. When it got a lot of children killed, it stopped being right.


So don't talk to me about taking away your rights or "the security of a free state." High capacity, semi-automatic, high powered rifles on the market do not make us more secure. Obviously, they make us less secure. If you do not believe me, ask parents of those dead children. Ask the children who survived. Ask any sensible person. Do I think police should knock on your door and take away your rifle? No, and I want to quash talk of any proposed legislation to that effect, as quickly as possible. I believe that owning high capacity magazines, i.e. over seventeen, should be illegal. But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing.


Look-it, I've owned a few semi-automatic long guns. I enjoyed shooting them and learning about them. I used to carry an M-16 rifle as a soldier and thought I had the right to own a high powered, semi-auto rifle if I wanted as a civilian. No, I don't. I have no right to weapons of war when they are the guns of choice to commit mass murders one after the other. Will the murders continue after people are no longer able to walk out of guns stores with assault rifles? Yes, but the murders will not be nearly as bad, and police will be able to respond more quickly and effectively.


I want gun owners to understand that banning the sale of assault rifles is not the end of their gun rights, not the end of our country, and not the end of the world. I imposed a self-ban, and I'm doing just fine. I do not need one, and neither do you. I do not want one, and I don't think you should.
Click to expand...
So criminals won’t be able to get these weapons if they are banned? If that works, we should ban meth and crack etc…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and GroverCleveland
#21,455
#21,455
evillawyer said:
Just Google do guns in the home make you safer. There's a sh*t ton of work out there saying no.
Click to expand...

Should we turn in our stairs, too? A lot of people manage to fall down them. Then there are cars - there are some really good statistics on deaths and injuries with those. Sometimes cars even light up a garage and burn the house down. A lot of things can make life less safe, but we keep them around and don't try to ban them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423
#21,457
#21,457
LouderVol said:
That's a lot of dead children for places with no guns. I wonder why there are any?

Or are their child deaths acceptable, just as long as the gun that did it is banned?
Click to expand...
Correct, people killed with knives, blunt objects, or fists are actually less dead than those killed by guns. Glad to help
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#21,460
#21,460
OrangeTsar said:
Correct, people killed with knives, blunt objects, or fists are actually less dead than those killed by guns. Glad to help
Click to expand...
Until they can establish an acceptable threshold they dont have an argument. Our gun deaths could be less, and so could theirs, apparently.

Most wont come out and say zero, which would mean no guns at all, including in the hands of the government. But it's what they are pushing towards.
 
#21,461
#21,461
GoVols15 said:
Words are cheap! Prove it! Oh you can’t. Please don’t quote the liberal media. Go to the source like our founding fathers and the Constitution itself!
Click to expand...

Ok.

Thomas Jefferson:

As Jefferson argued, "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom” and “completely adverse” to the “spirit of this country.” Instead of relying on the potentially despotic and overgrown institution of a standing military, Jefferson instead favored the use of militia. Looking to the city-states of Ancient Greece and Rome for example, Jefferson longed for an idealized agrarian society, where “every citizen” is obliged “to be a soldier” in militia service.
Click to expand...

None But an armed nation can dispense with a standing Army
Click to expand...

Hamilton:

In Federalist Paper no. 8 "The effects of Internal War in producing Standing Armies, and other institutions unfriendly to liberty" Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) warned of the dangers to liberty when the importance of the military is elevated above that of the citizenry:
Click to expand...

Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty
Click to expand...

Madison:

"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Click to expand...

Monroe:

Our union is not held together by standing Armies, or by any ties other than the positive interests and powerful attractions of it's parts towards each other
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, UT_Dutchman, GroverCleveland and 5 others
#21,464
#21,464
C-south said:
Absolutely which is why it’s bs.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to explain, in detail, how a chart that displays exactly what it says it displays is BS.

Or you can just say that it's not the subject you want to talk about and would prefer to change the subject.
 
#21,468
#21,468
pro life until shot by someone who has lost touch with reality with a closet full of war weapons. Nobody is taking your guns away completely. Rational people are tired of watching irrational people point guns at Americans.
 
#21,473
#21,473
AshG said:
I'd like you to explain, in detail, how a chart that displays exactly what it says it displays is BS.

Or you can just say that it's not the subject you want to talk about and would prefer to change the subject.
Click to expand...

They pick 23 convenient countries to make up a number that seems greater than anything else. It’s not. Of course 5% of the time you’re right every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top