***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (6 Viewers)

[Rayderr]

So apparently the bushmaster .223 is the same weapon the DC snipers used. The sniper attacks took place in 2002. The assault weapon ban was in effect then. Lot of good that did.

Just saw this. So what you are saying, is that a law abiding citizen in the great state of Connecticut, a mother of two, would have found a way to illegally obtain this bushmaster? Is she going to go the the ghetto of Hartford to get this gun? And I pose this question. Do you think banning this gun, would stop some gun crime? If this gun were banned? Whose rights are we abridging? I forgot where the Constitution said the right to bear arms shall be unregulated. We obviously have already regulated guns in that you can't have automatic weapons, so what more do you need to make that jump to this gun?

In all honesty, I doubt the guy would've said, "Aww, man! I was all set to go on a murderous rampage, but I don't have a .223 Bushmaster. Oh well, maybe I'll go play some WoW instead." They guy did have handguns and would've just used those. Cho, the VT shooter, had just hand guns and managed to kill and injure more people than this Lanzo guy.

I know this fallacy has become "facts" to gun rights activists. That no matter what we do, the criminals will always win unless we give everyone guns. That the criminals will always find a way. Could I not make the same about terrorists? No matter what we do, we'll never be completely secure and there will always be terrorist attacks? Should we just open the border and stop all the TSA stuff?Do you think that a Bushmaster or any other semi-automatic rifle is more deadly than a single shot rifle?

No where have I ever said that they will always win, and therefor do nothing. And as already stated, I am not a gun owner nor do I intend to ever become one. I actually do believe we need tighter gun control. But I want it to be effective. Let's look at all of the mass shootings and see what could've been done to prevent these. This one, there's not much realistically that would've guaranteed it be stopped. For Cho, allowing mental health professionals to put people on a no gun list would've stopped him. 2 years prior to the shooting he was actually found to be a danger to himself and others by a physician. A judge even agreed with the assessment. Yet, he was still able to go out and get guns. So let's work on stuff that we know would've stopped people, not just limit the number of dead in a mass shooting to a more acceptable number.

 

[Rayderr]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

How will assault weapons be defined?

Not sure.

Here's how it was defined in the previous ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine.

 

[sporthenry]

So apparently the bushmaster .223 is the same weapon the DC snipers used. The sniper attacks took place in 2002. The assault weapon ban was in effect then. Lot of good that did.

Just saw this. So what you are saying, is that a law abiding citizen in the great state of Connecticut, a mother of two, would have found a way to illegally obtain this bushmaster? Is she going to go the the ghetto of Hartford to get this gun? And I pose this question. Do you think banning this gun, would stop some gun crime? If this gun were banned? Whose rights are we abridging? I forgot where the Constitution said the right to bear arms shall be unregulated. We obviously have already regulated guns in that you can't have automatic weapons, so what more do you need to make that jump to this gun?

In all honesty, I doubt the guy would've said, "Aww, man! I was all set to go on a murderous rampage, but I don't have a .223 Bushmaster. Oh well, maybe I'll go play some WoW instead." They guy did have handguns and would've just used those. Cho, the VT shooter, had just hand guns and managed to kill and injure more people than this Lanzo guy.

I know this fallacy has become "facts" to gun rights activists. That no matter what we do, the criminals will always win unless we give everyone guns. That the criminals will always find a way. Could I not make the same about terrorists? No matter what we do, we'll never be completely secure and there will always be terrorist attacks? Should we just open the border and stop all the TSA stuff?Do you think that a Bushmaster or any other semi-automatic rifle is more deadly than a single shot rifle?

No where have I ever said that they will always win, and therefor do nothing. And as already stated, I am not a gun owner nor do I intend to ever become one. I actually do believe we need tighter gun control. But I want it to be effective. Let's look at all of the mass shootings and see what could've been done to prevent these. This one, there's not much realistically that would've guaranteed it be stopped. For Cho, allowing mental health professionals to put people on a no gun list would've stopped him. 2 years prior to the shooting he was actually found to be a danger to himself and others by a physician. A judge even agreed with the assessment. Yet, he was still able to go out and get guns. So let's work on stuff that we know would've stopped people, not just limit the number of dead in a mass shooting to a more acceptable number.

But the biggest refrain we keep hearing is that Cho would have found a way to obtain the guns regardless. So therefore, the mental health thing wouldn't work either. See how that thinking works. I'm not just arguing for just the banning of assault weapons but to not address that either is unacceptable. And minimizing damages is one of the conditions that people look at when making legislation. Of course there is no acceptable number to kill people but basic math, what is marginally better for society, 1 dead or 100 dead?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Nobody in this thread has attempted to be funny more than you Otis.

He's a lawyer so cut him some slack. He can flip from funny to victim mode at the drop of a hat as it suits. Was funny is that he trys to crack on huge groups of people on a regular basis but when someone obviously cracks on him he deflects it to look like they are busting on homeless and starving orphans.

 

[Joe T]

Gotta love the guns are entertainment argument.

Reminder: Otis made that argument.

 

[sporthenry]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

And with this, the thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Rayderr]

So apparently the bushmaster .223 is the same weapon the DC snipers used. The sniper attacks took place in 2002. The assault weapon ban was in effect then. Lot of good that did.

Just saw this. So what you are saying, is that a law abiding citizen in the great state of Connecticut, a mother of two, would have found a way to illegally obtain this bushmaster? Is she going to go the the ghetto of Hartford to get this gun? And I pose this question. Do you think banning this gun, would stop some gun crime? If this gun were banned? Whose rights are we abridging? I forgot where the Constitution said the right to bear arms shall be unregulated. We obviously have already regulated guns in that you can't have automatic weapons, so what more do you need to make that jump to this gun?

In all honesty, I doubt the guy would've said, "Aww, man! I was all set to go on a murderous rampage, but I don't have a .223 Bushmaster. Oh well, maybe I'll go play some WoW instead." They guy did have handguns and would've just used those. Cho, the VT shooter, had just hand guns and managed to kill and injure more people than this Lanzo guy.

I know this fallacy has become "facts" to gun rights activists. That no matter what we do, the criminals will always win unless we give everyone guns. That the criminals will always find a way. Could I not make the same about terrorists? No matter what we do, we'll never be completely secure and there will always be terrorist attacks? Should we just open the border and stop all the TSA stuff?Do you think that a Bushmaster or any other semi-automatic rifle is more deadly than a single shot rifle?

No where have I ever said that they will always win, and therefor do nothing. And as already stated, I am not a gun owner nor do I intend to ever become one. I actually do believe we need tighter gun control. But I want it to be effective. Let's look at all of the mass shootings and see what could've been done to prevent these. This one, there's not much realistically that would've guaranteed it be stopped. For Cho, allowing mental health professionals to put people on a no gun list would've stopped him. 2 years prior to the shooting he was actually found to be a danger to himself and others by a physician. A judge even agreed with the assessment. Yet, he was still able to go out and get guns. So let's work on stuff that we know would've stopped people, not just limit the number of dead in a mass shooting to a more acceptable number.

But the biggest refrain we keep hearing is that Cho would have found a way to obtain the guns regardless. So therefore, the mental health thing wouldn't work either. See how that thinking works. I'm not just arguing for just the banning of assault weapons but to not address that either is unacceptable. And minimizing damages is one of the conditions that people look at when making legislation. Of course there is no acceptable number to kill people but basic math, what is marginally better for society, 1 dead or 100 dead?

Re: Cho- I'm not saying he would've found a way. I'm pretty positive that worst case scenario he probably would've come up is stabbing the original 2 students (quick ban knives!) but the mass shooting that followed would not have happened. Banning assault weapons isn't going to do much good. Look a couple posts up. I listed what qualified as an assault weapon in the original assault weapons ban. There are a ####load of weapons that can do an awful lot of damage that don't fall under that category. The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Paranoia can be a debilitating mental condition.I don't doubt that the founding fathers would be smart enough to see things in the context of the era that they live in.

 

[Glass Joe]

So apparently the bushmaster .223 is the same weapon the DC snipers used. The sniper attacks took place in 2002. The assault weapon ban was in effect then. Lot of good that did.

Just saw this. So what you are saying, is that a law abiding citizen in the great state of Connecticut, a mother of two, would have found a way to illegally obtain this bushmaster? Is she going to go the the ghetto of Hartford to get this gun? And I pose this question. Do you think banning this gun, would stop some gun crime? If this gun were banned? Whose rights are we abridging? I forgot where the Constitution said the right to bear arms shall be unregulated. We obviously have already regulated guns in that you can't have automatic weapons, so what more do you need to make that jump to this gun?

In all honesty, I doubt the guy would've said, "Aww, man! I was all set to go on a murderous rampage, but I don't have a .223 Bushmaster. Oh well, maybe I'll go play some WoW instead." They guy did have handguns and would've just used those. Cho, the VT shooter, had just hand guns and managed to kill and injure more people than this Lanzo guy.

I know this fallacy has become "facts" to gun rights activists. That no matter what we do, the criminals will always win unless we give everyone guns. That the criminals will always find a way. Could I not make the same about terrorists? No matter what we do, we'll never be completely secure and there will always be terrorist attacks? Should we just open the border and stop all the TSA stuff?Do you think that a Bushmaster or any other semi-automatic rifle is more deadly than a single shot rifle?

No where have I ever said that they will always win, and therefor do nothing. And as already stated, I am not a gun owner nor do I intend to ever become one. I actually do believe we need tighter gun control. But I want it to be effective. Let's look at all of the mass shootings and see what could've been done to prevent these. This one, there's not much realistically that would've guaranteed it be stopped. For Cho, allowing mental health professionals to put people on a no gun list would've stopped him. 2 years prior to the shooting he was actually found to be a danger to himself and others by a physician. A judge even agreed with the assessment. Yet, he was still able to go out and get guns.

So let's work on stuff that we know would've stopped people, not just limit the number of dead in a mass shooting to a more acceptable number.

But the biggest refrain we keep hearing is that Cho would have found a way to obtain the guns regardless. So therefore, the mental health thing wouldn't work either. See how that thinking works. I'm not just arguing for just the banning of assault weapons but to not address that either is unacceptable. And minimizing damages is one of the conditions that people look at when making legislation. Of course there is no acceptable number to kill people but basic math, what is marginally better for society, 1 dead or 100 dead?

Re: Cho- I'm not saying he would've found a way. I'm pretty positive that worst case scenario he probably would've come up is stabbing the original 2 students (quick ban knives!) but the mass shooting that followed would not have happened. Banning assault weapons isn't going to do much good. Look a couple posts up. I listed what qualified as an assault weapon in the original assault weapons ban. There are a ####load of weapons that can do an awful lot of damage that don't fall under that category. The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

 

[jonessed]

I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.

a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?

Taxpayers would end up with the bill. That really shouldn't be a problem though given the apparent desire for a solutionThere would have to be a pretty robust appeal process as well.

F that. No way I should have to pay extra taxes to weed out who should have a gun.Let the buyers pay.

It would never get implemented any other way. The fees would be hundreds of dollars at a minimum. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court.Are you guys even looking for possible solutions or are you just throwing out wish lists? The bolt action rifles only, charging hundreds in fees, nullifying the Second Amendmnet, etc. none of that is going to happen.

How is this different from payment of a sin tax? You take the users of said services. Why is that unreasonable?

You don't have a Constitutional right to soda or cigarettes. It will never fly. The clear objective is to price guns out of the market. Even assuming you could get something like this out of Congress there is no way the courts are somehow going to miss what's being done.And that's the rub. You don't want rational gun legislation, you want to ban guns. People that support gun rights know this and will use all the leverage they have to stop even minor changes.

This is going to get delayed for 2+ months due to the fiscal cliff and the deficit ceiling, then you are going to have to try to get Midwest Democrats to sabotage their 2014 bids and vote against gun rights, then you are going to have to somehow get Republicans to jump onboard. All of that before it evens hits the courts, which would be a massive hurdle for anything being described here.

The most that is going to happen is a re-institution of the AWB which is larely irrelevant since you haven't been able to buy an AW for decades anyway.

The zeal on this issue is pretty high on both sides so neither side gives an inch. The result is the status quo.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

You do realize that it takes 2/3s of the house and the senate AND the states to amend the constitution. This was done on purpose.

 

[urbanhack]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be.

Really? With all of the technological advancements, access to data about individuals, etc. Can you expand on this?

 

[Joe T]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

Are you guys talking about an outright ban of guns or some subset of guns?

 

[jonessed]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

You do realize that it takes 2/3s of the house and the senate AND the states to amend the constitution. This was done on purpose.

And 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. It's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

 

[Rayderr]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away.

and that's why the gun crowd will fight you. because your goal is an outright ban and this is just the first step towards that.

 

[Apple Jack]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Right, because that 9mm you have is going to go a long way towards combatting the aerial/tank/drone/etc strikes on you and your house.Just...wow.

 

[Otis]

I once dated a girl from Georgia. We went to visit her family over Thanksgiving. They lived a ways outside of Atlanta. We went to her grandmother's house. It's one of these situations where the grandmother owns a plot of land, and it's subdivided and one kid builds a house on an adjacent lot, and the in-laws build next to that, etc.

The arsenal of weapons these people owned was mindblowing. They proudly showed me around the house to the various stashes of guns, pistols, rifles, an AK47, etc. None under lock and key. Children lived all over these homes.

After dinner, they got really amped up to go out and shoot the guns. I was so uncomfortable with the whole scene and wanted to play along and be accepted by the family. So out we go, back behind where the pet hog lives. And there's an area in a big field where you go to shoot guns. They set up some logs and some crap as targets.

And so we go out back with a collection of shotguns, pistols, rifles, AK47 assault rifles, and other things I don't know the names of. And with a million rounds of ammunition. We took turns; even the aunts and grandma got in on the action. And there I was, a good ol' hillbilly, out in the field, shootin' some guns. All the while I was wondering about a bullet ricocheting; about people far out into the woods who might be going for a walk and get hit by a stray bullet; the kids standing around who might just grab one and start firing randomly. I was stunned at how irresponsible this was, and at how cavalier they were about this. And this was just totally normal and fine for them. I have no double that everyone else in the neighborhood would think this is fine and do the same exact things.

Get some horseshoes. A bocce court. Find something else to do after Thanksgiving dinner. This is a ticking time bomb. You're not responsible enough to have a constitutional right to something that potentially deadly.

And it dawned on me how widespread this sort of thing probably is in America.

So you hypersuperduper ultra elite gun nerds who have fancy guns and keep them in a safe and shoot them in your gun league -- you're right, your gun is probably not the one that will be part of the next tragedy. But it may well be. And if it's not, it may be ones that are far more irresponsibly maintained. And that's the problem.

I'm sorry that we're screwing up your Thanksgiving fun, but it's not worth the risk. And I'm not making that decision for YOUR family, I make that decision for MY family.

And I bet the parents of those 20 kids sure wish they could have made that decision to keep guns out of Mrs. Lanza's house.

This is such easy math. I don't understand the pushback and never will.

I suspect this is a lot more prevalent than the gun guys are willing to admit.

Aside from leaving guns laying around where kids can get them, I'm not seeing the big deal here. Whenever we visit my parents, my dad always takes my kids (10 and 13) out shooting. I find it kind of boring personally, but I can undestand why some people enjoy it.

Of course you're not.They can find something else to enjoy. If the upside is potentially avoiding another incident like Newtown, and the downside is your kids will have to go out and play horshoes with grandpa for fun instead of shooting stuff, how in god's name is there not an obvious right answer here?

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

I get that it's fun. I see the parallel between this and video games. The analogy comes off the tracks when you consider that the shooting involves keeping guns in the house. Those can be used to kill people. Nobody is going to get hurt from my Duck Hunt cartridge.

 

[Otis]

Gotta love the guns are entertainment argument.

This thread just baffles me. I have to keep reminding myself of various things.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Nobody in this thread has attempted to be funny more than you Otis.

Not sure who you are, but I don't find this all that funny.

 

[Rayderr]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

You do realize that it takes 2/3s of the house and the senate AND the states to amend the constitution. This was done on purpose.

And 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. It's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Link to where we can only discuss politically viable policies in the FFA?

I agree with this.Along that line, I propose we hire an all powerful wizard who will cast a spell over the entire world that will prevent anyone from doing harm to another.

 

[Otis]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

 

[Joe T]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

In your reality, is a person allowed to keep a gun in the home for home defense?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

The Glock is not an assault weapon. Yet it's been used in CT, Aurora, VTech and AZ. So what good has really been accomplished?

...which is why an outright ban is the only real solution.

You have to crawl before you can walk. An outright ban is not going to happen, at least not right away. This bill does not have to be perfect, if it gets some weapons out of circulation it is a progressive step. The conversation is going to evolve over time and perhaps the culture will too.

Are you guys talking about an outright ban of guns or some subset of guns?

I haven't advocated for an outright ban and not sure if it would ever come to that. I don't own a gun though and I would like to see the number of guns that are in the U.S. right now reduced as a positive initial step.

Would I like the culture to evolve and change over time, yes? This isn't an issue that is going to be solved by this generation.

 

[Otis]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

It's totally insane. I imagine people who think this way living up in the mountains miles from civilization. What world are they living in?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

In your reality, is a person allowed to keep a gun in the home for home defense?

Sure. I am pretty moderate on this issue actually. I just don't have much of a tolerance for crazy talk.

 

[Otis]

Gotta love the guns are entertainment argument.

Reminder: Otis made that argument.

Huh??

 

[Otis]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

In your reality, is a person allowed to keep a gun in the home for home defense?

Sure. I am pretty moderate on this issue actually. I just don't have much of a tolerance for crazy talk.

Then you're in the wrong thread, friend.

 

[Joe T]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

In your reality, is a person allowed to keep a gun in the home for home defense?

Sure. I am pretty moderate on this issue actually. I just don't have much of a tolerance for crazy talk.

Me either.That's why I asked if you guys were talking about an outright ban on guns.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

And if it no longer has anything to do with protecting against government overreach then.....

It is as important now as then and always will be. An unarmed people are at risk of not being a free people. Your time would be better spent trying to not desensitize the youth of this country to graphic violent video games and movies. You may think your goals are valuable but you are misguided.

Pretty sure that in your dystopian science fiction world where we are going to need to protect ourselves from the government, your guns are going to be useless.Having the mindset that we need to protect ourselves with guns from the govt at this point in the history of the united states is wacky.

It's totally insane. I imagine people who think this way living up in the mountains miles from civilization. What world are they living in?

Ever watch the show Doomsday Preppers? These are those people. People buying 10 AR-15s with thousands of rounds of ammunition in preparation of whatever they have convinced themselves is going to be their doomsday scenario. Thinking the US is going to devolve into Mad Max if the stock market crashes. I mean take a quick look at this video fo a 15 year old, http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-preppers/interactives/prepper-score-jason-beacham/ preparing for the apocalypse. Might want to watch this kid for the future.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-

Honestly, this isn't 1776. Even if we want to go with the hypothetical that an armed populous would even stand a chance against the military etc, we do realize that planes also exist. King George isn't marching on Lexington and Concord anymore with his troops.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

 

[Rayderr]

Link to where we can only discuss politically viable policies in the FFA?

I agree with this.Along that line, I propose we hire an all powerful wizard who will cast a spell over the entire world that will prevent anyone from doing harm to another.

My Link

I think a wizard would have have a better looking hat.

 

[Apple Jack]

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment is some sort of barrier against our government overreaching, you are aware that's an idiotic position, right? Because if the government decides to overreach and turn into a totalitarian state, they have drones now. And bunker busters. And daisy cutters. And sSeal Team 6. If the U.S. is willing to start killing its citizens, it doesn't matter if you have a slingshot or an AK-47. You're screwed.

Yeah, I think they may have overlooked that part.

 

[Ranethe]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Yeah, but an armed citizenry is our first line of defense when the Reds/terrorists/ Chinese/Socialists/Aliens/insert boogeyman here land on our shores.Don't you watch the movies?

 

[Rayderr]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

How will assault weapons be defined?

Not sure.

Here's how it was defined in the previous ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine.

DON'T TAKE MY GRENADE LAUNCHERS AWAY CONSTITUTION REPUBLICAN GUNS DEATH KILL!

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

 

[Apple Jack]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

Is "the military" responsible for protecting people after hurricanes? Or are you saying it's the job of "the government?" Hard to figure out what you are saying here.

 

[Apple Jack]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

Not everybody in the military is your grandson. There are others.

 

[urbanhack]

Kind of thought I had all the guns I wanted but with all stupid and irrational talk from Otis and others on here I may need to go out and buy an AR15 and AK47. Thank goodness there are gun shows in the area every weekend before the new year. I predict there are record sales over then next few weeks, cause you guys are nuts.

For you stupid people the 2nd amendment is to ensure our freedom against the government overreaching its authority. Plain and simple has nothing to do with hunting or entertainment. The founding fathers would laugh at Otis and his ilk.

Obama has been the best weapons seller in history and also how come you moral liberals have absolutely with Eric Holder illegally selling thousands of "assault weapons" in Mexico to the drug cartels. I guess Mexican lives are worth less than American lives.

You are all over emotional and irrational, the worst thing that could ever happen to this country is a total gun ban. Also most of you don't know squat about semi automatic weapons. The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

We agree on at least something.By the way, good luck keeping the United States military at bay with your gun collection. They ever come knocking, you and your wanna-be Rambo pals will be "ensuring your freedom against the government overreaching its authority" for about 90 seconds.

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

wow

 

[Rayderr]

Perhaps we need to create another gun control debate thread so that those interested in serious discussion and those that just want to make fun of each other have their own places.

Try having a serious conversation with a bunch of people who think it's a good idea to arm the public with military grade rifles with grenade launchers on them one of these days and see how easy it is to avoid making fun of them

Don't think anyone here is advocating to make grenade launchers legal.

 

[Apple Jack]

I dunno, I imagine grenade launchers are pretty entertaining.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Are you stupid enough to think that the military will turn on its parents, grandparents, neighbors, children and friends. The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

The US military is pretty good at ###-kicking.

Okay you win, my grandson will come and shoot me. I give up.

If you're shooting at him with your AK-47, you bet your ### he will.Basically, you've now shifted from, "my guns protect me" to, "human decency and American bond protect me." I'll believe the second part. I just don't believe the first bit.

How did that work out for Mubarek's regime, the military absolutely crushed the people. Oh wait they did not turn on their own population did they. Do you really think that the US Military would turn on the people that easily? Seriously think who is in the military?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

The government couldn't even protect NY and NJ when a hurricane hit. Your reality is not real.

I'm with you man. Let's stop fighting wars in other countries and start designing a weapon against natural disasters.I can't wait to see this technology.

 

[HellToupee]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

totally agreeThere is a lot of lunacy in this thread on both sides