Hardly a settled matter.I'm fine with the dead end. The 2nd Amendment has passed its time. I don't care about any of your reasons for keeping it. And even if it doesn't mean every gun is gone. It sure as hell will cut down on the number that go out to the crazies in the future.
You can do what you want. But the status quo isn't working.Hardly a settled matter.
Or should I just respond with ?
Except for the ones thst believe your arsenal is a threat, or an opportunityI don't think society is about to collapse, but I'm prepared to protect my family in the event of loss of services and civil unrest in the event of a disaster (ie new madrid fault 100 year quake hitting).
I don't think my house is going to be destroyed by a tornado, but I have an insurance policy for that, too.
Again... if you are confident in the ability of government and law enforcement to keep you safe in the event of natural disaster, that's cool. I am not telling you you can't settle for that as something that gives you peace of mind. You do you. I'll do me. Everyone's happy
I can entertain many arguments that the second amendment is anachronistic in this day and age. I am very willing to discuss its repeal or replacement. what I cannot support, and this does not go to your argument but to that of others frequently made, is that we should have the Courts interpret it away, or congress legislate it away.I'm fine with the dead end. The 2nd Amendment has passed its time. I don't care about any of your reasons for keeping it. And even if it doesn't mean every gun is gone. It sure as hell will cut down on the number that go out to the crazies in the future.
How would you amend it?I can entertain many arguments that the second amendment is anachronistic in this day and age. I am very willing to discuss its repeal or replacement. what I cannot support, and this does not go to your argument but to that of others frequently made, is that we should have the Courts interpret it away, or congress legislate it away.
There is a process for amending the Constitution. I want that followed. I prefer rule of law over sophistries.
Nor would it affect the thing I thought we were trying to stop here.Maybe I've asked this in this thread already. If they were required to be colored pink, would as many be sold?
I mean, the color doesn't affect the function of the weapon.
I have no problem with that.I can entertain many arguments that the second amendment is anachronistic in this day and age. I am very willing to discuss its repeal or replacement. what I cannot support, and this does not go to your argument but to that of others frequently made, is that we should have the Courts interpret it away, or congress legislate it away.
There is a process for amending the Constitution. I want that followed. I prefer rule of law over sophistries.
I am less confident than you that ridding a violent and sick society of guns will reduce violence. Tool users will find other very effective tools. That said, maybe our national fascination with gunplay has desensitized us, so perhaps it will be more effective than I anticipate.You can do what you want. But the status quo isn't working.
Again, that is your opinion. I respect your right to have it.I'm fine with the dead end. The 2nd Amendment has passed its time. I don't care about any of your reasons for keeping it. And even if it doesn't mean every gun is gone. It sure as hell will cut down on the number that go out to the crazies in the future.
I believe the onus is on those who want this done, but by a new amendment repealing th second and replacing it with something similar but with a strong definition of "arms".How would you amend it?
This is highly subjective and depends on what you are referring to. I'd assume you are referring to the recent event, but I can't really be sure.You can do what you want. But the status quo isn't working.
There's a reason burglars usually head next door when they hear a dog barking. I don't have to be a hard target... I just have to be harder than your house next door.Except for the ones thst believe your arsenal is a threat, or an opportunity
I'd rock this in a pinch. Beats strong words, fist waiving and a 8" chef's knife.Maybe I've asked this in this thread already. If they were required to be colored pink, would as many be sold?
If I had that weapon in a societal collapse situation I would eliminate the pink. The color draws attention and would compromise your cover. Easy enough to do though with spray paint and a bit of burlap. Would I buy that or use it if the law required that color, sure, if I thought I needed that weapon the color would be no impediment. In fact I believe several NFL players tried to pick those up for breast cancer month.I'd rock this in a pinch. Beats strong words, fist waiving and a 8" chef's knife.
For now. It's high time we revise the outdated 2nd amendment.Certainly your right to have those perceptions. I respectfully disagree. Thankfully, at least currently, the law is on my side.
I think Facebook is doing more to speed up an impending societal breakdownI think these types of guns are doing more to speed up an impending societal breakdown. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not just asking EYLive, what changes would one like to make to the amendment?For now. It's high time we revise the outdated 2nd amendment.
Because sports cars aren’t designed for murdering large amounts of people as quickly and efficiently as possible?Why do we need sports cars that can go 120 mph?
So, an assault rifle by itself murders people? That's like saying a pack of cigarettes sitting on the table gives people lung cancer. There are millions of guns in this country. The question was, why do we need one that shoots 50 rounds as quickly as possible? The fact that there aren't millions of mass shootings every day just proves that the gun isn't the problem.Because sports cars aren’t designed for murdering large amounts of people as quickly and efficiently as possible?
This is actually way easier than you guys make it out to be.
I know 58 people who'd beg to differ today.So, an assault rifle by itself murders people? That's like saying a pack of cigarettes sitting on the table gives people lung cancer. There are millions of guns in this country. The question was, why do we need one that shoots 50 rounds as quickly as possible? The fact that there aren't millions of mass shootings every day just proves that the gun isn't the problem.
It (gun) certainly changes people. I deal with it all the time.So, an assault rifle by itself murders people?
1300 people died from smoking today. Yet, I can still buy as many cigarettes as I want.I know 58 people who'd beg to differ today.
Yeah and an ADT sign usually does the trick as well. They also go without the greatly increased risk of death to you and your family that owning a gun creates - https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-homeThere's a reason burglars usually head next door when they hear a dog barking. I don't have to be a hard target... I just have to be harder than your house next door.
Good. Smoke up. Not the issue being discussed here.1300 people died from smoking today. Yet, I can still buy as many cigarettes as I want.
yeah to yourself. Reason you can't smoke in restaurants anymore1300 people died from smoking today. Yet, I can still buy as many cigarettes as I want.
I was making parallels to other things we have in this country that kill people. Fast cars, cigarettes, unhealthy foods. It takes human interaction, usually in excess to make these things deadly. Assault rifles are no different.Good. Smoke up. Not the issue being discussed here.
I can't carry a gun in some places either.yeah to yourself. Reason you can't smoke in restaurants anymore
oh dear god.1300 people died from smoking today. Yet, I can still buy as many cigarettes as I want.
They aren't equivalent. So no reason to discuss them.I was making parallels to other things we have in this country that kill people. Fast cars, cigarettes, unhealthy foods. It takes human interaction, usually in excess to make these things deadly. Assault rifles are no different.
Praying might help.oh dear god.
Why do you want to ban assault rifles?They aren't equivalent. So no reason to discuss them.
Amen brother. The fact there aren't millions of murders every day just proves that murders aren't a problem.The fact that there aren't millions of mass shootings every day just proves that the gun isn't the problem.
Did you hear what happened in Las Vegas yesterday?Why do you want to ban assault rifles?
Are they all with assault rifles?Amen brother. The fact there aren't millions of murders every day just proves that murders aren't a problem.
So you want to ban assault rifles to save lives. Wouldn't banning cigarettes save even more?Did you hear what happened in Las Vegas yesterday?
Exactly the same reason I don't like people having access-to, or carrying, or enjoying sports competitions based on grenades or RPGs.Why do you want to ban assault rifles?
People can simply walk away from other smokers. Not true of guns.So you want to ban assault rifles to save lives. Wouldn't banning cigarettes save even more?
This is true. I still think the problem lies with people, not guns. If the desire is there to kill a large number of people, they will find a way.People can simply walk away from other smokers. Not true of guns.
Guns change people. I see it all the time.This is true. I still think the problem lies with people, not guns. If the desire is there to kill a large number of people, they will find a way.
The thread asks why does someone need an assault rifle. There are millions of assault rifles in this country and very few of them are used for mass murders.