A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Ikari said:

I disagree, I do think that they serve the same purpose, defense of life, liberty, and property from any threat. I do think that not only is it relevant today, it is necessary for us to understand the importance and to be properly trained and prepared. It's not to say that we should fly off at the littlest of things; but you cannot be lax in your duty and responsibilities to the Republic either. Free is a low entropy state, it necessitates continual work merely to maintain, even more to improve. If you don't put in the work at all, it WILL degrade; without doubt, without exception. It's essentially physics.

Click to expand...

I think I can, and done just that without a weapon. I also think a weapon is too often used to ignore good sense. However, I have not said completely ban all weapons. Just that some restriction is not the apocalypse.

Rocketman said:

Just like left wingnuts got bat**** crazy over 30 kids but support abortion while ignoring alcohol and drug related deaths among kids.

Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about?

The reality is, gun nuts are nuts. Period. They oppose any and all sensible regulation or ANY regulation period. They believe that the second Amendment is absolute, which it isn't. They don't understand how Constitutional law works.
These gun nuts are so out of sync with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Most Americans have had enough. The question is going to be whether the Republican party continues to align themseleves with these fringe elements and further drive the party towards extinction. Or whether they will wise up and recognize that aligning themselves with the radical fringe is not taking their party anywhere.

Boo Radley said:

I think I can, and done just that without a weapon. I also think a weapon is too often used to ignore good sense. However, I have not said completely ban all weapons. Just that some restriction is not the apocalypse.

Click to expand...

It is most certainly possible to do without a weapon. It is in fact preferable to do without a weapon. Intelligent and informed voting and participation in the Republic can allow us to keep the Republic free without resorting to violence. But nothing is infinite, all that lives must die, and all government will trend towards tyranny. If we are lax, we lose it, if we lose it we are left with little choice.

disneydude said:

Wtf are you talking about?

The reality is, gun nuts are nuts. Period. They oppose any and all sensible regulation or ANY regulation period. They believe that the second Amendment is absolute, which it isn't. They don't understand how Constitutional law works.
These gun nuts are so out of sync with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Most Americans have had enough. The question is going to be whether the Republican party continues to align themseleves with these fringe elements and further drive the party towards extinction. Or whether they will wise up and recognize that aligning themselves with the radical fringe is not taking their party anywhere.

Click to expand...

Nothing is more fringe than a progressive that supports regulating interstate commerce because of the bad behavior of a single individual. You support this gun ban but want to keep alcohol legal even thought it kills more people?

Rocketman said:

Nothing is more fringe than a progressive that supports regulating interstate commerce because of the bad behavior of a single individual. You support this gun ban but want to keep alcohol legal even thought it kills more people?

Click to expand...

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting returning to prohibition? Just like a right-winger....try the same failed ideas and hope for different results. BTW...this has nothing to do with "bad behavior by a single individual". Sensible regulations on guns have been needed for a long time and based on a wide range of behaviors. There is no reason we shouldn't have waiting periods, registration requirements, gun show loophole closures and bans on military type assault rifles. That is just basic common sense.

disneydude said:

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting returning to prohibition? Just like a right-winger....try the same failed ideas and hope for different results. BTW...this has nothing to do with "bad behavior by a single individual". Sensible regulations on guns have been needed for a long time and based on a wide range of behaviors. There is no reason we shouldn't have waiting periods, registration requirements, gun show loophole closures and bans on military type assault rifles. That is just basic common sense.

Click to expand...

There's nothing sensible in any of that. That's just paranoia and fear.

disneydude said:

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting returning to prohibition? Just like a right-winger....try the same failed ideas and hope for different results. BTW...this has nothing to do with "bad behavior by a single individual". Sensible regulations on guns have been needed for a long time and based on a wide range of behaviors. There is no reason we shouldn't have waiting periods, registration requirements, gun show loophole closures and bans on military type assault rifles. That is just basic common sense.

Click to expand...

Did I say that? Absolutely not, but the fact remains more people including kids are killed by drunk drivers each year than Lanza and Holmes killed together. Why are liberal crazies trying to ban alcohol or cars? Oh yeah because that death rate is acceptable for them.

Of course it has to do with bad behavior. One crazy or ten crazies does not equal punishing the rest of the nation. We already have wait periods on handguns which are attributed to more deaths than assault weapons. For your information the Bushmaster Lanza used was not a military rifle or even a mil spec rifle. It was a civilian rifle.

Ikari said:

There's nothing sensible in any of that. That's just paranoia and fear.

Click to expand...

Really? How is a waiting period "Paranoia and fear"?

How is requiring people to register their guns like we register a vehicle "paranoia and and fear".

How is closing loopholes that allow people to willy/nilly buy weapons at gun shows that they couldn't elsewhere "paranoia and fear".

How is a ban on unecessary assault weapons "paranoia and fear".


The reality is that the only "paranoia and fear" is coming from the gun nuts and the anti-government wackos that have the distorted belief that everyone is out to get them and are coming to take away their guns.

Rocketman said:

Did I say that? Absolutely not, but the fact remains more people including kids are killed by drunk drivers each year than Lanza and Holmes killed together. Why are liberal crazies trying to ban alcohol or cars? Oh yeah because that death rate is acceptable for them.

Of course it has to do with bad behavior. One crazy or ten crazies does not equal punishing the rest of the nation. We already have wait periods on handguns which are attributed to more deaths than assault weapons. For your information the Bushmaster Lanza used was not a military rifle or even a mil spec rifle. It was a civilian rifle.

Click to expand...

How is requiring a waiting period "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is requiring loopholes for gunshows closed "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is requiring registration of guns "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is banning assault weapons "Punishing the rest of the nation?"

The vast majority of the country supports all of these things. The only people who are crying uncontrollably about them are the far out fringe gun nuts that will cry about ANY regulation of weapons. Period.

There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

disneydude said:

How is requiring a waiting period "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is requiring loopholes for gunshows closed "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is requiring registration of guns "punishing the rest of the nation?"

How is banning assault weapons "Punishing the rest of the nation?"

The vast majority of the country supports all of these things. The only people who are crying uncontrollably about them are the far out fringe gun nuts that will cry about ANY regulation of weapons. Period.

Click to expand...

We already have waiting periods.

I could care less about the gun shows, however until you regulate gun sales on the street, gun shows are a small portion of the factor being addressed.

If you are banning true assault weapons it doesn't, Lanza used a civilian rifle. Assault weapons are full auto.

disneydude said:

Really? How is a waiting period "Paranoia and fear"?

Click to expand...

They are unnecessary and produce no positive result. It's the use of government force to infringe upon the exercise of rights for the null case. I call that irrational.

disneydude said:

How is requiring people to register their guns like we register a vehicle "paranoia and and fear".

Click to expand...

Government databasing, big brother scrutiny for what? What do we get? Except an easy to access list of people who have guns? What does it prevent? Nothing. So you want the government to infringe upon my property, my right to secure myself and papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure for what? Nothing. Again, irrational.

disneydude said:

How is closing loopholes that allow people to willy/nilly buy weapons at gun shows that they couldn't elsewhere "paranoia and fear".

Click to expand...

What does it solve? What does this use of government force net us? Was there a significant amount of illegal guns being passed through gun shows?

disneydude said:

How is a ban on unecessary assault weapons "paranoia and fear".

Click to expand...

What does it net you? How many crimes are carried out with "assault weapons"? How many of those were legally purchased and registered? Government force against the free exercise of rights with no net gain. Irrational

disneydude said:

The reality is that the only "paranoia and fear" is coming from the gun nuts and the anti-government wackos that have the distorted belief that everyone is out to get them and are coming to take away their guns.

Click to expand...

The reality is that some of you live in such fear of low probability events that you will excuse any amount of government force to feel a little bit better. But truth be known, y'all piss yourselves at the slightest of thumps and without cause, without sound demonstration of gain, you elicit government against the free exercise of rights. You don't even understand the statistics, nor the reason for acknowledging rights, nor the consequences and repercussions of freedom. But you'll trade my freedom for some perceived "safety"; and in so doing you demonstrate why we still need guns. Irrational monkeys do irrational monkey things, and I do not believe I should be held accountable and subjugated to your stupidity.

disneydude said:

View attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

Click to expand...

Unless of course they are in the military or LE or plan to be and want to practice on their own time. Of course, you can hunt with them. Just because there are alternatives does not mean they could not be used for hunting. Either way, it is a fight the left lost the second Obama started issuing EO's.

disneydude said:

View attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

Click to expand...

I use one just like this one for hog and deer hunting. It is a civilian produced gun that is only semi auto and not used by the military. Your comparison is like calling a corvette a race car when it isn't.

disneydude said:

View attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

Click to expand...

If the people don't possess militarily effective firearms, how do you expect them to be able to form a well functioning militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state?

haymarket said:

I imagine it would have to pass some sort of smell test in front of the Supreme Court.

My own suspicion is that limiting a person to an old firearm with only one shot would not pass that test while the current NY law just passed allows lots of choices for a person and probably would pass that test,. But that is just my personal opinion.

Click to expand...

so a seven round limitation-which was based on nothing more than it was less than ten-is OK

at what point IN YOUR OPINION-does the limitation violate the amendment?

disneydude said:

You are missing the point...the point being....gun nut wackos will cry about ANY restriction on guns. Period.

Click to expand...

anyone who actually understands the constitution and supports the bill of rights would cry about any absolute possession restrictions on firearms--that is true. because firearms are clearly protected

but we don't cry about USE restrictions-such as banning firing a pistol in a public library or shooting deer in a municipal park or using your 12 bore to smack pigeons on Times Square

those sort of restrictions are clearly legitimate. what is illegitimate is a governmental unit issuing certain firearms to their own CIVILIAN employees and then claiming that the same firearms have "no legitimate purpose whatsoever" when owned by other civilians

Rocketman said:

Just like left wingnuts got bat**** crazy over 30 kids but support abortion while ignoring alcohol and drug related deaths among kids.

Click to expand...

most of them don't care about the kids-you don't see them making a big stink over all the poor black kids slain each month in Dem controlled anti gun Chicago. They cannot use the deaths of those kids to either bash the NRA, the GOP or appeal to the upper middle class white soccer moms who cannot identify with black children whose parents are drug dealers or hs dropouts.

disneydude said:

View attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill. Only a wacked out gun nut or a crazed mental patient would have a desire for one. And that alone is good reason to ban them. Period.

Click to expand...

Moronic post alert

if those were real M16 automatic rifles they would be clearly the most protected weapon under our constitution. But CIVILIAN POLICE are issued those things all the time so your comment is just pure psychobabbling ignorant blather

TurtleDude said:

so a seven round limitation-which was based on nothing more than it was less than ten-is OK

at what point IN YOUR OPINION-does the limitation violate the amendment?

Click to expand...

don't have a specific magic number and I doubt the Court does either.

haymarket said:

don't have a specific magic number and I doubt the Court does either.

Click to expand...

which of course is the plan. first they limit it to 20 rounds than to 10 than to 7 and then to 5 and then to two and then its easy to ban them all

the only thing that makes rational sense is limiting most citizens to the same stuff civilian LEOs are issued

anything else violates the concept of estoppel

I have already stated in a poll I started that any limit is an infringement.

Haymarket, do you have an opinion what would be an infringement?

TurtleDude said:

which of course is the plan. first they limit it to 20 rounds than to 10 than to 7 and then to 5 and then to two and then its easy to ban them all

the only thing that makes rational sense is limiting most citizens to the same stuff civilian LEOs are issued

anything else violates the concept of estoppel

Click to expand...

I believe this is what is known as the employment of the fear of the Slippery Slope. It permits one to ignore a somewhat minor and even reasonable proposition in favor of instead arguing against an extreme one of their own creation and invention.

The use of such a tactic violates basic intellectual integrity and substitutes a phony issue for a real one.

TurtleDude said:

I have already stated in a poll I started that any limit is an infringement.

Haymarket, do you have an opinion what would be an infringement?

Click to expand...

You have asked this several times this evening and I gave you a clear answer each and every time. My mind does not change with the repositioning of the hour hand on the clock.

If the government adopted policies which denied citizens the right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would have been INFRINGED.

haymarket said:

I believe this is what is known as the employment of the fear of the Slippery Slope. It permits one to ignore a somewhat minor and even reasonable proposition in favor of instead arguing against an extreme one of their own creation and invention.

The use of such a tactic violates basic intellectual integrity and substitutes a phony issue for a real one.

Click to expand...

incrementalists never admit that a next step is coming. to do so would destroy their arguments.

do you recall what Cuomo said when people claimed that a ten round limit was a stepping stone to more limits?