Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

[Skylancer81]

The numbers dying are coming down. And more gun control will reverse that trend. Background checks, sure no problem all for them every weapon every time. Mental health is a bigger issue with tragedies then the weapons involved. Better mental health care far fewer tragedies.

However we really need hammer/blunt weapon control. They kill 10
times the people guns do each year.

A side note:

Gun ownership vs homicide rates world wide.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/u-n-...-in-homicides/

[my my my!]

I am not a gun enthusiast in the sense that I don't own one but I do like studying the history of them and there historical impact.

And yes I do know that civilian versions of these gun are Semi-Auto and not Full-Auto but in the case of the shooting of Gabby Giffords the shooter had an AR-15 variant that was Semi-Auto he emptied the clip in 17 seconds. I realise that a Semi-Auto fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger and if you are proficient you can get allot of rounds off in a short amount of time.

Personally I consider anything that is used by the military, law enforcement, or anything with a clip or magazine over 10 or 15 rounds to be an assault weapon. Because you don't need anymore than that unless you are assaulting something or someone!

And I don't see why gun owners like you get so up in arms about the thought of limiting guns. What is so bad why can't you just give one reason as to why you need this things other than "I need them" or "The government needs to be kept in check" or "I need to protect my family".

I have nothing against protecting your family, but the amount of dead from guns each year is tragic. Every one was horrified by the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and that killed around 3000 people, but no one bats an eye at the over 10,000 dead a year from US citizens killing US citizens.

Also the same day as the Newtown massacre there was another attack on a school in China. An adult male attacked the school he only had a knife out of the 20 kids he was able to get to none of them had severe wounds or needed to be hospitalized. Whereas here a person goes to a school and kills 28 people, 0 to 28 what was the main factor that was different a GUN.

The amount of dead from respiratory illness due to smoking is way higher than that of guns, but cigarette sales have not been banned, they only enacted higher prices and taxes and forced health risk advertising(including billboards having to be a certain distance from schools etc).

I'm not up in arms about LIMITING what guns or how many you can own. (although I still think it should be a non-issue, America has been Oprah-ize enough that the gun control freaks came out in droves again). I'm saying they cannot take MY guns. Why? Because I own them, legally. That is stealing, and yes by a legit governing body.

Robert Louis, for being the twat he is, brought up the slavery issue. At some point it was about FINANCIAL Reimbursement(nowadays you cant talk about the civil war without some uneducated moron bringing up adherence to the institution of slavery as the cause). Basically the federal government and alot of people said slavery is bad, let's abolish it and you know the story. What alot of people do not know, is that the federal government had no real plan of reimbursing slave owners for their investment (harsh as it sounds, slaves were property and quite expensive). It's the equivalent of today, the federal government saying something like (just for making a point, dont take it literally please) " vehicles are the single greatest environmental threat, health hazard *insert other reason here*. "We are going to confiscate all cars, and not giving you anything"

How would the common american react? "Oh my god, you better pay me for my car I invested *insert dollar amount here* into my car!" As well as "you're taking my car over my dead body" or "what are you going to give me to get around ? I can't possibly get around without a car". These would be very legit and in some people's cases, very grave concerns. There would be the people that take it up the ass and relinquish their car, and there would be the ones that would not , without a some sort of fight, either legal, or through violent means.

Sound ludicrous? that's essentially what was done to slave owners (albeit for the right reason, as slavery is never justifiable).

Now weapons, are a totally different animal than slavery as I mentioned to robert. How can many people owning the same thing (weapons*but can be replaced by cars*) be limited to what they can purchase due to the actions of others.

Scenario, applying everything justly.
Car owner gets in vehicle , due to imprudent behaviour , runs over and kills several little girls. Other car owners are told "due to this driver's imprudent behaviour you can no longer purchase a car"

Gun owner goes nuts, goes to school , kills little children. Other gun owners are told "due to the gun owner that went nuts, you can no longer purchase a care".

Does this mean cars should be banned? of course not, that's stupid. Same thing with guns. They should be kept from insane people somehow, but how do you detect stupid? How do you detect criminals? How do you detect imprudent drivers? How do you detect stupid texters that cause fatal accidents? How do you stop it?

Someone that does not value the importance, privilege and satisfaction and overall self peace of owning a gun might not understand it, ever. I feel sorry for any fool that breaks into my house.

Can you say the same? Will he/she hold you at gunpoint, shoot your wife/husband and still take all your stuff? Perhaps. well, maybe he is a "good" criminal and will only steal, and only use the gun to threaten you, but he means no harm. You're ok with that feeling?

Well I'm not fine with that, I like and cherish the right to defend my property with the weapons I bought legally.

I do agree with Quiet Reflections though.

[Skylancer81]

Here is another real good read on Fire Arm deaths vs motor vehicle deaths.

http://awaitinginspiration.com/2012/...ehicle-deaths/

[fivekatz]

My my my, I don't think that anybody is coming to get your guns.

But comparing cars and guns is a loose argument. You need a license to drive a car, it is considered a privilege and not a right. Your car has to registered. There are regulations on manufactures of cars what they can sell to general public (not everybody gets to buy a NASCAR).

And most of all cars are made to transport living things, guns are made to kill or injure them.

Now I don't think that there should be a ban on guns, but trafficing should be much better controlled, owners needing to licensed and registered and the types of weapons sold restricted meaning an virtual ban on assault weapons.

This issue is the third rail in American politics because if it wasn't just maybe the 99% of Americans get the shaft from the other 1% might ask them to cut it out.

[trish]

Reimbursement(nowadays you cant talk about the civil war without some uneducated moron bringing up adherence to the institution of slavery as the cause). Basically the federal government and alot of people said slavery is bad, let's abolish it and you know the story. What alot of people do not know, is that the federal government had no real plan of reimbursing slave owners for their investment (harsh as it sounds, slaves were property and quite expensive). It's the equivalent of today, the federal government saying something like (just for making a point, dont take it literally please) " vehicles are the single greatest environmental threat, health hazard *insert other reason here*. "We are going to confiscate all cars, and not giving you anything"

Really? Lordy, Lordy those poor slave owners! They'd be up to their ears in debt. Prolly loose their dignity and their inheritance. Oh lordy, but excuse me honey if I be laffin'.

[trish]

You have to have liability insurance on each vehicle you drive. Shouldn't it be the same for each gun you own? Better yet, each bullet?

[my my my!]

One less idiot that thinks he can take on the United States & all of it's fire power with a pop gun. I'm all out of sympathy for big talking anonymous whiners, & other such pussies. Wanna hang on to your toys? Then stop sniveling or spouting idle threats (We all know that punks like you won't actually follow through & die like you should.), & help come up with a workable plan to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics who shoot up crowds of people who are unarmed. Right now, you're the best argument for gun confiscation.

Aww, you did not like what I said.

First off, fuck off. Second, I don't want or need your sympathy. A classless asshole like you , is better left out of my thought process. But for the time being, here you go,

Your Insults are ok. For me It's about rights. I called you out on it. It's ok with you , if they take away a right we have because you don't agree with it. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

I'll never use my firearms on people , unless they come in Illegally into my home, and yes, this would include law enforcement and government "enforcing" a "law" that directly violates the guidelines in a constitutional amendment. My use of firearms is in a controlled environment with people that know how to handle firearms. I am truly saddened by what happened to the children in Newtown, but that does not all of the sudden make me incapable of handling firearms.

If the government thinks I deal in narcotics (I don't), by all means they are entitled to get a search warrant and knock down my door and come in ready to pull the trigger and fill me full of lead.

I am not a little kid *anonymous whiner and whatever else you wrote*, and I stand by my principles. Although I sincerely hope it never happens. We all gotta pay the piper sometime , and we all pay in different ways.

I'll tell you this though hippifred, I'm ok with you getting shot up in your house. It's your choice to not own weapons and have a chance at defending yourself. And I would not mourn you for being a fool. And It's your choice to feel however you want about me.

Come up with a plan? I did support a plan that was brought up where I live starting with a gun shop (which included the++ more thorough and lengthy background checks, +++a HIGHER age limit to buy guns(30 age to buy, not sold to anyone below in ANY case *too many of the shooters are teens and early 20's school age kids++ but my state senators and congressmen , city mayor and others that could influence such measures are nowhere to be reached for comment or verification of receipt of such proposals.

[broncofan]

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

Would be hilarious to see you get banned.

I don't have much time for this argument, but I find it quite amusing that in your previous post you believe that the civil war was fought over reimbursement for the emancipation of slaves. This argument is specious. A rational person with risk-neutral preferences is indifferent between the future income stream their assets produce and a one time payment representing that income stream discounted to present value. So it makes sense that slave owners would not have minded being paid a one time sum equal to the amount they could accrue from their exploitation of human beings as chattel. And naturally they did mind having their abuse of human beings declared illegal.

The entire act of emancipating the slaves depended on them not being treated as property. People cannot be used as plows or farm equipment nor can they have their rights affirmed when their emancipation comes attached to a sum of money compensating their slavemasters for a purported loss. They lost nothing but their right to abuse human beings. In addition to being a gun nut, you are also a reactionary moron.

[robertlouis]

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

I think I'll do just that. You're clearly someone with whom it's simply impossible to have a rational argument, with your bizarre view that your ownership and use of items whose sole purpose is to maim and kill is infinitely more important than the right of innocent citizens not to get mown down ever more frequently in mass shootings simply because idiots like you will brook no infringement on your so-called right to carry weapons. Wallow in your self-righteousness as the bodies pile up.

What a total fuck-up.

I'm glad I live in the UK where we have I guess a pretty draconian attitude to gun ownership. Oh, and why is that? Because on the blessedly rare occasions that we have a mass shooting (3 times in 60 years), we are proactive and make the ownership and use of firearms increasingly tougher.

And our rate of gun deaths relative to the USA, taking population into account (UK 60m/USA 300M) ? 2%. 2 FUCKING PERCENT!!!! Read and absorb, assuming you're capable of doing so. Actually, I don't believe you're stupid, I just think that you have a blind spot the size of Saturn where guns are concerned.

Your country has a disease. And you're one of the bacteria. Moron.

[my my my!]

Would be hilarious to see you get banned.

I don't have much time for this argument, but I find it quite amusing that in your previous post you believe that the civil war was fought over reimbursement for the emancipation of slaves. This argument is specious. A rational person with risk-neutral preferences is indifferent between the future income stream their assets produce and a one time payment representing that income stream discounted to present value. So it makes sense that slave owners would not have minded being paid a one time sum equal to the amount they could accrue from their exploitation of human beings as chattel. And naturally they did mind having their abuse of human beings declared illegal.

The entire act of emancipating the slaves depended on them not being treated as property. People cannot be used as plows or farm equipment nor can they have their rights affirmed when their emancipation comes attached to a sum of money compensating their slavemasters for a purported loss. They lost nothing but their right to abuse human beings. In addition to being a gun nut, you are also a reactionary moron.

No, I'm saying that SLAVERY is Bad. very bad, one of the most inhuman conditions that any human has ever been put through or could be put through (it still exist to this day)

I don't know what you find amusing. I brought it up because Robert Louis brought it up in this conversation about gun ownership/rights etc.

These are civil war facts, not liberally sugar coated to spare any side any guilt or shame:
The North fought to preserve the union, and to end Slavery. The south Seceded, and was FORCED (the north said come back into the union willingly or by military force) to fight to preserve and defend their way of life (which inlcuded slavery, personally I'm glad they lost but times were different then and blacks were property to many southerners, and they were human to others), because believe it or not through your liberal skull, to most slave owning southerners, slaves were PROPERTY. And they were not ok, with the government all of the sudden coming and saying "by the way, you're losing all your property because we say so". The United States never came up with a real reimbursement plan ( slavery was bad, and many americans died for what could've been settled peacefully) In reality the United States really messed up , by the pre civil war policy of 50/50 one free state for every slave state or territory. This showed that the united states was willing to tolerate slavery as long as they condemned it, until the tensions boiled over and led the United States into it's divisive civil war.

You call me moron, I'm ok with it I feel the same about you. simple as that.