Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?
They want to make you register every gun.
They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.
They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.
They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.
They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.
They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.
They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.
Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."
You, of course, agree that we should be able to own nuclear weapons, right? Because, like you said, liberals want to "limit the type of weapon you can own."
Does anyone need to buy 6,000 round for personal defense? Depends, how many types of guns are you going to buy for and for how long? And by the way, Holmes didn't use 6,000 rounds, did he? So that hysterical argument is superfluous. How many rounds did he fire in the theater? You don't know, do you? It wasn't 6,000, so stop saying that.
Do try to keep up, Mustachio. Legal gun dealers are not selling guns to people illegally. Holmes had to pass background checks, he passed. Unless you have information I don't, the apples to donkey balls comparison you are trying to make would necessitate the ATF to do a background check on the narcotraficantes they sold the guns to. I guessing that the sicarios who bought the illegal guns failed to qualify under federal law. How does this compare with Holmes? It's a stretch and you failed.Wasn't it earlier that this month the GOP found Holder in contempt of congress because they were disgusted with his oversight of a program that allowed weapons like this to fall into the hands of criminals? Why was it that in that case conservatives acknowledged that the availability of these guns would cause or increase senseless violence and could not be permitted to fall into the wrong hands, but here we are a few weeks later and conservatives have already slipped back into "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mode?
We don't know yet that Holmes is insane. We are hearing that he has no criminal record and no history of mental illness. We know that he could easily have purchased these guns illegally, the ammunition as well. So what exactly are you saying?
Would you stop with assault rifle thing? We know that you don't know what you are talking about. Your aversion to public ownership of AR-15 guns is because (list them all, please)?
An AR-15 can be excellent for home defense and with the right defensive load can be safer for innocents in other rooms and for neighbors over a pistol shooting JHP or ball. But you want to ban assault weapons because...?
Though you didn't bring it up let's address the drum magazine. I personally don't care if people want to own them. You couldn't give me one. I certainly would never depend on one to protect me or mine. They jam. Shooters know they jam. I wasn't surprised to read that the drum mag jammed on Holmes. If you are planning to shoot at me I'd want you to have a gun or magazine that is known to jam.
Last edited by Risky Thicket; 07-22-12 at 05:28 PM.
I don't agree with that, but the rest of the post is good. I think the ar15 is a great all-around rifle with countless possible accessories/modifications, but it would be a very poor choice for home defense.An AR-15 can be excellent for home defense and with the right defensive load can be safer for innocents in other rooms and for neighbors over a pistol shooting JHP or ball.
Secondly, my oldest brother has about a hundred pairs of shoes. I find it appalling and have many times used the words "stockpile" and "cache" in reference to them. Your comments are betraying your bias, which is obviously that you hate tree huggers, hippies, liberals, those who drop out, turn on, tune in, go green, eat flax seed and oppose guns. But here's the thing: we all agree that the government should prohibit some weapons. We might not agree on which ones, but we all agree that certain things (like nuclear weapons) we shouldn't be allowed to have no matter how many background checks we pass. This is the argument. It's so dishonest to claim that this debate is one side trying to take away your guns and the other side is the constitutional group of patriots trying to defend everybody's freedom. Of course we're not going to agree on anything when you go into it with that mindset.
Again, with the Holder thing: two weeks ago conservatives acknowledge that semi-automatic rifles are dangerous and shouldn't fall into the wrong hands. Now, suddenly, gun control is back in the news with this issue and everybody is quick to say "there's nothing wrong with these weapons and prohibiting them will only make things worse." Well, I think, and many others think, that we should be more careful, have a more thorough process, and try to prevent these things from happening.
I'm going to get frozen yogurt now. I'm sorry I won't be able to argue back.
You wonder how some people manage to raise a fork to their mouth every day when they are unable to put together a coherent argument. That's ok, another desperate reach. I see lots of desperation on the left, and tons of laughing on the right.
Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 07-22-12 at 05:34 PM.