Petition to have Piers Morgan deported

[maxpower]

It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?

Nobody said anything about a total ban on firearms. Stop equating one with the other and putting words in people's mouths.

It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?

Seanchai is right. That's a ridiculous, specious argument. Automobiles aren't banned because, although they are unfortunately involved in some deaths, the function of a car is transportation. It's not a weapon of warfare whose only function is to kill a large number of people quickly, as is the semi-automatic asault rifle - a weapon with no civilian application other than to fulfill an individual's Rambo fantasies.

True, more training would reduce the number of fatalities (both with automobiles and firearms). As for the number of murders involving firearms; people who want to kill other people are still going to kill, if not with firearms, then with knives, clubs, even rocks.

How do you know? Maybe the fact that they know they can kill with impugnity from 30, 50, 100 feet away is what does it for them. They might not want to get up close and personal with a knife or other instrument, when the chance of reciprocal damage is greater. I'm not saying that the homicidal mind doesn't desire what it desires, but do we need to make it so fucking easy for them?

[loren]

Nobody said anything about a total ban on firearms. Stop equating one with the other and putting words in people's mouths.

Have you read the purposed "Assault Weapons Ban"? (I'm assuming not) For example, my .40 cal pistol would be classified as an assault weapon, the STANDARD magazine holds 11 rounds. One has to keep in mind, that it is unlawful for Congress to pass ex post facto laws. Not to be dissuaded, the liberals believe they have a way around this. They purpose to allow lawful American citizens, to keep the newly classified assault weapons they already own, provided they apply for and obtain a Federal permit.

...a weapon of warfare whose only function is to kill...

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death. This is true from the earliest hand cannons, which were more dangerous to the user than the recipient, all the way up to the M16. The thought process behind that is to take more men out of the fighting line at the critical moment. If you kill an enemy soldier, he will just simply lay there. If you wound him, his friends are likely to remove him to an aid station, which would take at least two soldiers to do; therefore, with one bullet, you could effectively remove between three and five soldiers. Granted, up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a soldier had about a 40% chance of death from the wound between two hours and three days after being shot.[/COLOR]

[trish]

Oh, that's all right then. It's perfectly fine to have people on the street, in shops and schools to secretly carry weapons explicitly designed to maim, wound, cripple and decommission armored soldiers.

[thombergeron]

Have you read the purposed "Assault Weapons Ban"? (I'm assuming not) For example, my .40 cal pistol would be classified as an assault weapon, the STANDARD magazine holds 11 rounds. One has to keep in mind, that it is unlawful for Congress to pass ex post facto laws. Not to be dissuaded, the liberals believe they have a way around this. They purpose to allow lawful American citizens, to keep the newly classified assault weapons they already own, provided they apply for and obtain a Federal permit.

So you acknowledge that Feinstein's proposal does not actually ban the very silly penis substitute that you currently possess? That what you are referring to as a "ban" does not actually remove any of the 300 million firearms in the U.S. from private ownership?

It is not unlawful for Congress to impose retrospective regulations. Congress cannot retrospectively criminalize prior acts, but Congress has passed, and the Supreme Court has upheld, many regulations with retrospective effects. The sex offender registration is one such regulation with retrospective effects.

Feinstein's proposal is entirely prospective simply because a retrospective ban is a political non-starter. So even the most rabid anti-gun "liberal" in the U.S. Congress acknowledges that it is not possible to ban firearms already in private possession. And still, gun nuts like you insist that someone out there is scheming to take away your very silly penis substitute.

Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death. This is true from the earliest hand cannons, which were more dangerous to the user than the recipient, all the way up to the M16. The thought process behind that is to take more men out of the fighting line at the critical moment. If you kill an enemy soldier, he will just simply lay there. If you wound him, his friends are likely to remove him to an aid station, which would take at least two soldiers to do; therefore, with one bullet, you could effectively remove between three and five soldiers. Granted, up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a soldier had about a 40% chance of death from the wound between two hours and three days after being shot.

This is incorrect, and really, laughably so. While the debilitating effect of battlefield wounds on unit cohesion is one aspect of modern infantry tactics, a rifleman's job is to kill the enemy, period. It's been 20 years, but I can assure you that all of my weapons training, from HMG to rifle to bayonet, was focused squarely on putting my enemy down so that he did not get up again. DoD's original spec for the 5.56x45 cartridge was that it be capable of penetrating a Soviet steel helmet at 500 yards. Trust me, when an infantryman fires his rifle at the enemy, he's not trying to hurt his feelings.

As for the number of murders involving firearms; people who want to kill other people are still going to kill, if not with firearms, then with knives, clubs, even rocks.

I'll leave you with this thought. For an individual who wants to use a firearm to kill as many human beings as possible, a fully automatic weapon is going to be the most effective choice. But fully automatic weapons are banned from civilian possession in the U.S. (and yet somehow, the Republic endures). And thus, spree killers don't use fully automatic weapons, because they can't get them. Certainly, had Adam Lanza gotten his hands on an M249 SAW, he could have put down a lot more first-graders. But he had to settle for an .223 Bushmaster with a 30-round magazine, so he could only kill 20 of them. That crazy knife-wielding Chinese person that mouthbreathers are currently obsessed with wounded 22 schoolchildren, but managed to kill none. That seems an important distinction to me.

No one is arguing that it's possible to end all murder, but logically and empirically, if a society limits the killing capacity of weapons that are available to murderers, then murderers won't be able to murder quite as many people.

[thombergeron]

Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death.

Thinking further on this absurd idea that you got from somewhere: if it were true that a wounded soldier is more debilitating to a military force than a dead soldier, why do soldiers wear body armor at all? By your logic, command would rather have a dead soldier than a wounded one. So why issue helmets and kevlar? DoD has spent tens of billions of tax dollars on improving battlefield survival of wounded personnel. You're saying that all that effort is counterproductive?

This is one of those things that seems like a clever, counter-intuitive insiders view, until you think about it for a minute and a half.

[notdrunk]

I don't like jumping into gun debates because there are mouth breathers on both sides. However...

But fully automatic weapons are banned from civilian possession in the U.S. (and yet somehow, the Republic endures).

Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons isn't banned in this country. There is a lot of red tape; however, you (individual) can own one that was built and registered before May 1986. Most states allow ownership of these fully automatic weapons too. Before the Hughes Amendment of 1986, there were 100,000+ fully automatic weapons owned by individuals. If you want a nifty new automatic AR (e.g., TAR-21), just become a class three dealer. Your only buyers of those weapons would be local and federal agencies though.

So, if you have the cash and patience, you can own a M16A1.

[loren]

So you acknowledge that Feinstein's proposal does not actually ban the very silly that you currently possess? That what you are referring to as a "ban" does not actually remove any of the 300 million firearms in the U.S. from private ownership?

Feinstein's proposal is entirely prospective simply because a retrospective ban is a political non-starter. So even the most rabid anti-gun "liberal" in the U.S. Congress acknowledges that it is not possible to ban firearms already in private possession. And still, gun nuts like you insist that someone out there is scheming to take away your very silly penis substitute.

Did you actually read the first part of my post? I guess not, feinstein's plan WOULD ban my specified pistol, along with most of the rifles I own. I would only be allowed to keep them if I was able to obtain a federal for them.

penis substitute

I actually do own some dildos and vibes. Which come to think of it, the smallest of which is at least twice as big as the pathetic, little dicket that you have.

[loren]

Does anyone remember how well that worked out?

[trish]

Hitler also believed one plus one equals two, used modus ponens in his arguments and pushed for the development of an atomic bomb, as did we. Regardless of what Ghandi or Hitler or Julius Caesar did, firearm regulation is a good idea. As far as registration goes, all we need is NRA’s membership list, which I’m sure is easy to hack.

[Prospero]

With all this nonsense from the pro gun lobby I'd like to make two observations.

One. A reminder that the second amendment talks about a "well regulated" militia and not a geNeral free for all. So that should allow for rules without infringing anyone's constitutional rights.

Two. If we accept the argument that it is people and not guns that kill people then it is equally valid to argue that guns make it far easier for those people to kill people. As Trisha mentioned a couple of weeks ago on the same day as the killings in Connecticut, a man attacked a group of children in China at a schhol. None of the Chinese died. If their attacker had used a gun the result would have been very different.

So the argument is really irrefutable. Guns make it far easier for people to kill people. And the constriction clearly allows for their regulation.

So go to it America and begin to curb this madness.

And in response to Loren's remark about expecting better fro me, I'd simply say that someone of his rabid attitudes deserves nothing better.