USA Shootings (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

 No you haven’t, you’ve added parameters, like “innocent people” .   My question was....  Why do you continually dismiss the intended design and intent of guns?  

what is the intent and design of a gun ?

my guns are intended to hunt, self defense, shooting clay pigeons .........nowhere ever is the intent and design for killing innocent people

 

[Stealthycat]

In this same post you admit that there would have been less deaths if he tried with a knife , but also state that the problem isn't guns.  I am not sure how reconcile that in your head.  

the problem isn't the weapons used - if it was, places with heavy gun restrictions would never see murders

but they do - because the problem still exists 100% intact - the problem is gangs, drugs, and domestic violence. Without legal guns, all that still exists 100% and it exists with illegals guns, knives, bats, etc

you're missing the core problem - the very small % of people out there who want to kill/murder others. Stop them - and the weapons won't matter. How do you stop them ? like we stop anything in our society that causes issues ........... common sense laws, education, hard sentencing for breaking the law etc but in the end, we're a free society and citizens have a responsibility to do things right. What you cannot take away is a persons right to self protection which brings me to this

So you’re a little guy trying to compensate?

absolutely

I'm 5' 8" and 163# ........ I'm not a fighter, not overly strong ...... call me weak and a little guy trying to compensate for being weak - that's ok, I am what I am. Now, understand too that almost all women are small and little and weak .......... why do you want all women to be unarmed and victims -fish- ?

as I said above - we need to rid society of criminals, gangs and druggies, domestic violence ......... but until we do, people HAVE to have a way to protect themselves or you're just creating a society of victims. Women and men need to be able to protect themselves. A concealed carry knive, baton, guns - whatever you choose - is absolutely 100% our choice, not the Govt's to make but us

 

[KarmaPolice]

the problem isn't the weapons used - if it was, places with heavy gun restrictions would never see murders

For the 100th time, this is completely incorrect and you know it.  You would expect to see a decrease in murder, not 0 murders.  

 

[dkp993]

 No you haven’t, you’ve added parameters, like “innocent people” .   My question was....  Why do you continually dismiss the intended design and intent of guns?  

what is the intent and design of a gun ?

 my guns are intended to hunt, self defense, shooting clay pigeons .........nowhere ever is the intent and design for killing innocent people

Unbelievable. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If someone was trying to kill you, would you rather they have an AR15 or a purple dildo?

I know which I would prefer had been the weapon when it came time for my friends to read my obituary.

 

[The Indestructible]

I for one would support laws that would require gun manufacturers to intend just a little bit harder that their guns not be used to kill innocent people.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Unbelievable. 

why ?

guns are designed for many things - murdering people is illegal, guns are not supposed to be used for that not any more so than anything else is when used as a weapon

you don't understand that ?

I for one would support laws that would require gun manufacturers to intend just a little bit harder that their guns not be used to kill innocent people.  

what would the wording of that law be ?

do you feel the same way about needing more laws that require auto manufacturers and alcohol and knife and poison manufacturers etc just a little bit harder that their products not be used to kill innocent people.   ?

 

[parrot]

why ?

guns are designed for many things - murdering people is illegal, guns are not supposed to be used for that not any more so than anything else is when used as a weapon

you don't understand that ?

Why do you keep pretending not to understand what people are saying?  The AR-15 platform is the civilian semi-auto version of the M-16/M-4, the standard issue infantry weapon for our armed forces.  These weapons were designed from day 1 to allow soldiers to effectively and efficiently shoot other soldiers.  The shooting of people is their raison d'etre.  

 

[dkp993]

Why do you keep pretending not to understand what people are saying?  The AR-15 platform is the civilian semi-auto version of the M-16/M-4, the standard issue infantry weapon for our armed forces.  These weapons were designed from day 1 to allow soldiers to effectively and efficiently shoot other soldiers.  The shooting of people is their raison d'etre.  

As are 99% of guns. But I’m done trying with SC.  He knows exactly what he’s doing and the point I’m making. He’s shaping the narrative to suit his beliefs, that a gun is just a tool like anything else yet magically he doesn’t apply that logic to other killing tools like grenades or bombs or rocket launchers, etc.  

 

[Apple Jack]

What if he's....not pretending?

 

[KarmaPolice]

What if he's....not pretending?

Even scarier. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Why do you keep pretending not to understand what people are saying?  The AR-15 platform is the civilian semi-auto version of the M-16/M-4, the standard issue infantry weapon for our armed forces.  These weapons were designed from day 1 to allow soldiers to effectively and efficiently shoot other soldiers.  The shooting of people is their raison d'etre.  

which military uses a semi-auto AR 15 like I can buy at Bass Pro ? none? 

not the same weapon - btw if I own a knife that the military often carries, do I have an assault knife ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

As are 99% of guns. But I’m done trying with SC.  He knows exactly what he’s doing and the point I’m making. He’s shaping the narrative to suit his beliefs, that a gun is just a tool like anything else yet magically he doesn’t apply that logic to other killing tools like grenades or bombs or rocket launchers, etc.  

of course you're done because you attempted to paint a picture that isn't true 

show me people who hunt with grenades or use bombs for skeet or rocket launchers for waterfowl - they don't

but I can show you people who use the weapons these anti-gun zealots want to ban for small game, varmints, sport shooting etc

magically you don't understand that ?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

which military uses a semi-auto AR 15 like I can buy at Bass Pro ? none? 

not the same weapon - btw if I own a knife that the military often carries, do I have an assault knife ? 

I still have my Kabar.  Quality knife and quite utilitarian.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

of course you're done because you attempted to paint a picture that isn't true 

show me people who hunt with grenades or use bombs for skeet or rocket launchers for waterfowl - they don't

but I can show you people who use the weapons these anti-gun zealots want to ban for small game, varmints, sport shooting etc

magically you don't understand that ?

The 2nd amendment was unconcerned with hunting.

 

[joffer]

you guys

 

[KarmaPolice]

Unbelievable. 

As are 99% of guns. But I’m done trying with SC.  He knows exactly what he’s doing and the point I’m making. He’s shaping the narrative to suit his beliefs, that a gun is just a tool like anything else yet magically he doesn’t apply that logic to other killing tools like grenades or bombs or rocket launchers, etc.  

I am getting there too.  He has shown time and again the lack of desire to read what somebody posted and/or make an attempt to digest it and respond accordingly.  Basically he is just quoting and reposting the same stuff - weapons don't matter (after admitting they did), they can't be dangerous if they don't kill millions a day,  stop targeting law abiding citizens (even though red flag laws he is for would do just that), etc, etc..  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Why do you keep pretending not to understand what people are saying?  The AR-15 platform is the civilian semi-auto version of the M-16/M-4, the standard issue infantry weapon for our armed forces.  These weapons were designed from day 1 to allow soldiers to effectively and efficiently shoot other soldiers.  The shooting of people is their raison d'etre.  

He seems to like to pretend that guns were originally built for skeet shooting, but along the way we just happened to figure out that they would be also good for killing things.  

 

[Guinis72]

of course you're done because you attempted to paint a picture that isn't true 

show me people who hunt with grenades or use bombs for skeet or rocket launchers for waterfowl - they don't

but I can show you people who use the weapons these anti-gun zealots want to ban for small game, varmints, sport shooting etc

magically you don't understand that ?

If you outlaw grenades, bombs, or rocket launchers then only outlaws will have grenades, bombs, and rocket launchers!!  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

"Well-regulated militia" is so often conveniently left out. Specifically the "well regulated" part, and the "militia" part. But by all means, keep going in here. Seems like fun. 

 

[-fish-]

"Well-regulated militia" is so often conveniently left out. Specifically the "well regulated" part, and the "militia" part. But by all means, keep going in here. Seems like fun. 

It’s meaningless now under our Supreme Court’s rulings—that’s why it’s left out

 

[parrot]

which military uses a semi-auto AR 15 like I can buy at Bass Pro ? none? 

not the same weapon - btw if I own a knife that the military often carries, do I have an assault knife ? 

None.  What does that have to do with anything I said?

Ah, assault knives, I see we're to the part of the discussion where you try to devolve it into a debate over labels and semantics.  There's a surprise.  

 

[Mookie]

The tyrannical government excuse is just a bogus marketing campaign.  Demonize the disenfranchised.  Stir up fear and panic.  Encourage weaponization to protect "us traditional" Americans from "them".  Doesn't seem to make sense when you're bleeding out on the pavement of a WalMart parking lot just because you looked at a guy funny for having bull nutz on his back bumper.      

 

[urbanhack]

I am getting there too.  He has shown time and again the lack of desire to read what somebody posted and/or make an attempt to digest it and respond accordingly.  Basically he is just quoting and reposting the same stuff - weapons don't matter (after admitting they did), they can't be dangerous if they don't kill millions a day,  stop targeting law abiding citizens (even though red flag laws he is for would do just that), etc, etc..  

Welcome to 2018.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Welcome to 2018.  

I haven't had the amount of interaction with him as most around here, I guess.  

 

[Stealthycat]

The 2nd amendment was unconcerned with hunting.

what do you think it was concerned with ?

the guns available to people in that time - the most powerful guns available - were the very ones the founding fathers WANTED in the hands of citizens, in the hands of everyone, no age discrimination

 

[Stealthycat]

I am getting there too.  He has shown time and again the lack of desire to read what somebody posted and/or make an attempt to digest it and respond accordingly.  Basically he is just quoting and reposting the same stuff - weapons don't matter (after admitting they did), they can't be dangerous if they don't kill millions a day,  stop targeting law abiding citizens (even though red flag laws he is for would do just that), etc, etc..  

what do you want me to say KarmaPolice ? I disagree with many anti-gun views and they've been repeated often as my vies have been repeated

take this "well its designed to that, its the intent" argument ........ ok, lets say my AR15 was forged and sold as an item that's meant to kill people. Why haven't I killed anyone with it? Why would I have purchased it? Why hasn't the 20 million or us who have them killed people everyday ? they're MEANT to do it, right? DESIGNED and INTENDED to kill people. 

so why are the used in less murders than hammers and knives ?

let me try an analogy ......... you know I love them

the fastest cars you can buy in the US right now ... you'd think since they're built to drive fast, that they're also going to be the #1 cars given speeding tickets, right ? I mean that IS their intent and design right? to go 180 mph ?

Dodge Challenger

Corvette

Camaro

Ford Shelby

Tesla Model S

that's the top 5 fastest ......... https://www.carfax.com/blog/fastest-2018-cars

the top 5 ticketed?

Lexus ES 300

Dodge Stratus

Acura CL

Tacoma

Mazda Tribute

surprised? I mean really, the cars NOT designed and intended to speed are the ones speeding ?   maybe, just maybe, the intent of a corvette isn't to drive it 140 mph everyday ?

maybe the intent of an AR15 isn't to kill innocent people ?

maybe .... its the choices people make in what they drive and how responsible they are ?

 

[-fish-]

what do you think it was concerned with ?

the guns available to people in that time - the most powerful guns available - were the very ones the founding fathers WANTED in the hands of citizens, in the hands of everyone, no age discrimination

When it was written, it was concerned with allowing existing militias to keep their guns.   At the time, there was a fear that slaves would revolt in the absence of militias.   In addition, militias were under state control, so allowing states to keep their militias was part of a compromise made to hold the states together.  

It had absolutely nothing to do with hunting.   

 

[Stealthycat]

None.  What does that have to do with anything I said?

Ah, assault knives, I see we're to the part of the discussion where you try to devolve it into a debate over labels and semantics.  There's a surprise.  

they're not military weapons - that was your connection not mine

you wanted to try and say because military has a similar design, they need to be highly regulated but the knives used by the military you have no problem with civilians owning at all right ?

 

[-fish-]

they're not military weapons - that was your connection not mine

you wanted to try and say because military has a similar design, they need to be highly regulated but the knives used by the military you have no problem with civilians owning at all right ?

Again, since you never read any case law, you're just wrong again.   The courts have ruled that these weapons are military-grade weapons converted to civil use.   That means that they don't fall under the "commonly used for home defense" analysis in Miller.    That's the difference, not your arbitrary semantics.   

 

[Stealthycat]

Again, since you never read any case law, you're just wrong again.   The courts have ruled that these weapons are military-grade weapons converted to civil use.   That means that they don't fall under the "commonly used for home defense" analysis in Heller.    That's the difference, not your arbitrary semantics.   

that's the problem with antigunners

if it were AR15's ya'll came after, that's one thing ..... but the laws your zealots write and try to pass affects my rifles that I hunt with , my shotguns, the rifles I varmint hunt with, etc etc

I've proven this and the responses go so far as to say "oh well, you only need a single shot anyway"  all the way to "repeal the 2nd !"

its not AR15's your side wants to ban and eliminate - its all guns and you know it, I know, the Democrats know it and the NRA knows it

its not about stopping criminals or crimes, making women safer ......its about an agenda to ban, eliminate, highly restrict etc something you don't use, have or want but you want to force everyone else to do what you want them to

its bullying .... fish, you're bullying me !

 

[Stealthycat]

Again, since you never read any case law, you're just wrong again.   The courts have ruled that these weapons are military-grade weapons converted to civil use.   That means that they don't fall under the "commonly used for home defense" analysis in Miller.    That's the difference, not your arbitrary semantics.   

then which military on earth using them ?

pretty simple question to answer 

 

[-fish-]

that's the problem with antigunners

if it were AR15's ya'll came after, that's one thing ..... but the laws your zealots write and try to pass affects my rifles that I hunt with , my shotguns, the rifles I varmint hunt with, etc etc

I've proven this and the responses go so far as to say "oh well, you only need a single shot anyway"  all the way to "repeal the 2nd !"

its not AR15's your side wants to ban and eliminate - its all guns and you know it, I know, the Democrats know it and the NRA knows it

its not about stopping criminals or crimes, making women safer ......its about an agenda to ban, eliminate, highly restrict etc something you don't use, have or want but you want to force everyone else to do what you want them to

its bullying .... fish, you're bullying me !

These are not "anti-gunners."  These are judges in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal, many of them appointed by Republicans.   You refuse to learn about how the law about gun control actually works, but continue to argue inane positions as if you do.   

In the eyes of the law, assault rifles exist regardless of your NRA talking points.   Those weapons are subject to broader regulation than handguns.   Justice Scalia is one of the most conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court, and is primarily responsible for the law as it stands, along with a conservative majority.

 Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Assault rifles are not considered to be "in common use at the time."   They are, as the 4th circuit said, military-style weapons converted to civilian use.   That means that there is no right for civilians to own such weapons.   According to the 4th Circuit, the military-style guns used in a disproportionate share of the mass killings in the U.S. are outside the aegis of the Second Amendment because they are most suited for military use.

The US Supreme Court chose not to take this issue up, which leaves this ruling in place as to assault rifle bans.

Although you choose to remain intentionally ignorant, it doesn't make you any less wrong.   

 

[-fish-]

then which military on earth using them ?

pretty simple question to answer 

do you know what the word converted means?

 

[KarmaPolice]

what do you want me to say KarmaPolice ? I disagree with many anti-gun views and they've been repeated often as my vies have been repeated

take this "well its designed to that, its the intent" argument ........ ok, lets say my AR15 was forged and sold as an item that's meant to kill people. Why haven't I killed anyone with it? Why would I have purchased it? Why hasn't the 20 million or us who have them killed people everyday ? they're MEANT to do it, right? DESIGNED and INTENDED to kill people. 

so why are the used in less murders than hammers and knives ?

let me try an analogy ......... you know I love them

the fastest cars you can buy in the US right now ... you'd think since they're built to drive fast, that they're also going to be the #1 cars given speeding tickets, right ? I mean that IS their intent and design right? to go 180 mph ?

Dodge Challenger

Corvette

Camaro

Ford Shelby

Tesla Model S

that's the top 5 fastest ......... https://www.carfax.com/blog/fastest-2018-cars

the top 5 ticketed?

Lexus ES 300

Dodge Stratus

Acura CL

Tacoma

Mazda Tribute

surprised? I mean really, the cars NOT designed and intended to speed are the ones speeding ?   maybe, just maybe, the intent of a corvette isn't to drive it 140 mph everyday ?

maybe the intent of an AR15 isn't to kill innocent people ?

maybe .... its the choices people make in what they drive and how responsible they are ?

Another terrible analogy. Uh, maybe because the high end sports cars are 10x more expensive than a Stratus, so there are more Stratuses and Tacomas to get speeding tickets in?   

Nobody said the intent of an AR is to "kill innocent people", no matter how many times you post that and make it seem so.  

 

[The Indestructible]

what would the wording of that law be ?

do you feel the same way about needing more laws that require auto manufacturers and alcohol and knife and poison manufacturers etc just a little bit harder that their products not be used to kill innocent people.   ?




2

I think that using the qualifier "innocent" is nonsensical and irrelevant.  If guns aren't intended to kill innocent people, somebody somewhere is doing a horrible job of manifesting that intent in guns because guns sure do kill a lot of innocent people.    

 

[KarmaPolice]

......its about an agenda to ban, eliminate, highly restrict etc something you don't use, have or want but you want to force everyone else to do what you want them to

I find it interesting that most people I know who feel the same way about guns as you do have the same views on other things (ie abortions) which laws do exactly what you are complaining people want to do to you here - force them to do what you want them to do.  

 

[dkp993]

that's the problem with antigunners

if it were AR15's ya'll came after, that's one thing ..... but the laws your zealots write and try to pass affects my rifles that I hunt with , my shotguns, the rifles I varmint hunt with, etc etc

Lol, this is comical. You do realize you are the very definition of a zealot right?

 

[Stealthycat]

In the eyes of the law, assault rifles exist

problem is, the anti-gunners try to pass laws that also target and restrict people's hunting guns, self defense guns, shooting sports guns .......... my son's turkey shotgun would be banned with some of the "assault rifle" laws 

care to comment on that fact ?

do you know what the word converted means?

its what Timothy McVeigh did to a U-Haul van right ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

Nobody said the intent of an AR is to "kill innocent people", no matter how many times you post that and make it seem so.  

fantastic - we agree on something else ... but other posters have insisted guns are intended for and designed to kill people .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million guns literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

 

[Stealthycat]

I think that using the qualifier "innocent" is nonsensical and irrelevant.  If guns aren't intended to kill innocent people, somebody somewhere is doing a horrible job of manifesting that intent in guns because guns sure do kill a lot of innocent people.    

guns don't kill anyone - people choose to use them as weapons

define "a lot " ..... of all the guns in the US, how many are used every year with human death? Compare it to other things. Give me some percentages. Overall, when guns are looked at with everything else ............ is it REALLY " a lot " ?

or is that just what you see on CNN and fish's Brady Campaign rhetoric and talking points ? i've posted multiple times how guns are NOT highly likely to cause your death when compared to other things, especially AR15 and "assault rifles" ....... used in less deaths than knives and hammers.

guns are made to be tools - humans choose the purposes just like they do with drugs, knives, cars, hammers, bat's, poisons etc  Yes, I'll stand firm that guns are not designed and intended to be used to murder innocent people, no more so than cars are designed and intended to drive fast and break speeding laws/rules.

 

[Stealthycat]

I find it interesting that most people I know who feel the same way about guns as you do have the same views on other things (ie abortions) which laws do exactly what you are complaining people want to do to you here - force them to do what you want them to do.  

its odd isn't it ?

as a blanket rule, people who support guns, support pro-life and pro-capital punishment and border security

people who are anti-gun support killing babies in the womb, leniency to violent criminals and allowing illegal people to flow into the USA

a Right isn't something you force or don't force ............ you don't want to have a gun? don't buy one, I'm not trying to stop you at all 

 

[KarmaPolice]

its odd isn't it ?

as a blanket rule, people who support guns, support pro-life and pro-capital punishment and border security

people who are anti-gun support killing babies in the womb, leniency to violent criminals and allowing illegal people to flow into the USA

a Right isn't something you force or don't force ............ you don't want to have a gun? don't buy one, I'm not trying to stop you at all 

Mean that you bemoan people trying to force you into certain things here with your guns, but have no problem forcing women to do what you want them to.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

fantastic - we agree on something else ... but other posters have insisted guns are intended for and designed to kill people .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million guns literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

Pretty sure they have said they were designed to kill - you added the "innocent people" which was what people are having issue with.  

Using something for a different purpose doesn't ignore what they were invented to do.  Also, a vast majority of those guns weren't used for any purpose yesterday, but that also doesn't matter to the discussion or decrease their lethality.  

 

[parrot]

fantastic - we agree on something else ... but other posters have insisted guns are intended for and designed to kill people .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million guns literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

but other posters have insisted lawn mowers are intended for and designed to mow lawns .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million lawn mowers literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

 

[KarmaPolice]

but other posters have insisted lawn mowers are intended for and designed to mow lawns .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million lawn mowers literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

Oh yeah? Well I rode my mower to the gas station down the road for a soda, and people race them, so lawn mowers weren't designed to mow lawns!  

 

[parrot]

Oh yeah? Well I rode my mower to the gas station down the road for a soda, and people race them, so lawn mowers weren't designed to mow lawns!  

 

[-fish-]

problem is, the anti-gunners try to pass laws that also target and restrict people's hunting guns, self defense guns, shooting sports guns .......... my son's turkey shotgun would be banned with some of the "assault rifle" laws 

care to comment on that fact ?

its what Timothy McVeigh did to a U-Haul van right ? 

Sure.  I don’t care if your son’s turkey shotgun is banned.  For one, there has never been a ban with confiscation, so he’d keep it and it would never affect him.   You love to lie about this.

Even if we believed your lie, he can hunt turkey with something else, so his ability to hunt a turkey is unaffected.  If he needs a semiauto shotgun to hunt turkey, he should find a new hobby.  

 

[-fish-]

but other posters have insisted lawn mowers are intended for and designed to mow lawns .......... that's their purpose and yet, yesterday in the USA, 500 million lawn mowers literally wasn't used for that at all

hmmmmm

somebody needs to think about all of that innocent grass.

 

[-fish-]

Yes, I'll stand firm that guns are not designed and intended to be used to murder innocent people, no more so than cars are designed and intended to drive fast and break speeding laws/rules.

I really shouldn't even respond to this horrible analogy, but....

Guns are designed to kill.  Guns don't know who is guilty or innocent.   They don't know if the bullet fired out of them is going to hit a paper target or a 6 year old kid on a playground.   They just fulfill the design of their manufacture, which is to kill things (or in some cases, to simulate killing things).  Is your son's turkey shotgun for making friends with turkeys?   LAWS help prevent these deadly weapons from being misused, just like laws help prevent me from driving a Dodge Hellcat 160 miles an hour through a neighborhood full of kids.   And it has been proven--by facts, not anecdotes, lies or talking points--that stricter laws results in less gun violence.   

The major difference (obvious to any rational person) is that a car is used for transportation and for shipping which are necessary purposes in our society.   A car has a purpose that is fundamentally necessary.  So as flawed as they are, we heavily regulate their sale, registration and insurance.   We heavily regulate their operation, and we have strict penalties for misuse...including criminal penalties.

In all of your inane car analogies, you never argue that we shouldn't have laws in place involving cars.   Yet you continue to argue that we shouldn't have laws for guns.  You keep trying to rely on the second amendment, but you've shown time and time again that you don't actually understand how our laws work at all.   Your son has no right to his turkey gun.  You have no right to an AR 15.   None.  And that's an opinion from one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court.  So yes, I hope your son's gun gets banned.  I hope your AR 15 gets banned.  I hope you lose the ability to carry, whether open or concealed.   Because you don't have a "right" to any of those things.   And everyone else has a right not to get shot by a gun toting idiot.