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

[fivekatz]

Guns are DESIGNED to kill. You can put them to other uses. You use them to threaten. You can use them to hammer nails. But they are designed to kill.

Cigarettes were designed for smoking. They are nicotine delivery systems. They also happen to be carcinogenic and causes of lung and heart disease. But that is not what they are designed to do. Still, it's not a good idea to smoke, nor to give government subsidies to tobacco companies nor to make a constitutional amendment that guarantees that every citizen has a right to smoke. Note, not having a constitutional guarantee is distinct from having an all out ban. Even though we don't have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the legal right to smoke, plenty of people legally smoke.

Cars are designed to transport people from place to place. They can be used for other things. You can make your home in a car. You can use it murder pedestrians. Driving entails risks to others. That's why we require drivers to take a test, obtain a license and buy insurance. There's no constitutional guarantee for car ownership. There's no right to own a car. Still lot's of Americans own cars.

Why do we need a constitutional guarantee to own a semi-automatic weapon? We don't. The 2nd Amendment clearly applies to muzzle loading muskets. There's a hundred years or more of precedent for extending the interpretation to manually operated (non-semi-automatic and non-automatic) hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no need to extend it further. If you need to fire thirty rounds in less than a minute to hit your target, then you aren't doing it right. Try aiming.

Look we don't need to ban semi-automatic weapons, but we can interpret the Constitution rationally so that not all citizens are guaranteed the right to buy them.

I agree. It is a document of guidance an intent of principle and wasn't and isn't perfect. The 2nd Amendment after all was part of a series a Bill of Rights to amend the original constitution.

The original document plus the Bill of Rights did not grant women the right to vote or prohibit the sale and ownership of other human beings. We amended to oversights.

Most recently the conservative SCOTUS equated money with speech and again affirmed corporations as individuals in regards to speech, while our laws exempt them from the same stringent debtor requirements that US put into law for individuals in 2005.

So SCOTUS seems to play fancy and loose with this "sacred" document. Clearly the Founders had no fucking idea that drones, nuclear warheads, automatic weapons, chemical weapons or other forms of mass destruction would exist when they suggested that the population should bear similar weapons to the government to form a militia.

Nobody has ever been able to or tried to prove that the lack of registration, license, restriction of either the sale or ownership of firearms up to and including assault weapons (which are by definition weapons of mass destruction , thanks for the jazzy line DICK Cheney) have ever saved more lives, made domestic tranquility or democracy more safe but 12,000 people a year are dying.

Slow the death toll by creating safety laws that require registration, license and restrict the sale of assault weapons and create harsh penalties for violators, both sellers and owners who do not follow that code.

Americans have the right to bear arms but not without restriction, any more than I have the pursuit to happniess if what makes me happy is pissing on your lawn.

[trish]

In any discussion, no one is worthless who can present a persuasive argument. Doesn't matter if they get a vote or not. You only need to sway the votes of those who listen and decide. One would've thought that was obvious.

[fivekatz]

In any discussion, no one is worthless who can present a persuasive argument. Doesn't matter if they get a vote or not. You only need to sway the votes of those who listen and decide. One would've thought that was obvious.

Particularly in a forum like this.

If some of us find the view of those who view us from a far uncomfortable, perhaps it is because they don't understand us or perhaps it is they understand us all too well.

[my my my!]

Particularly in a forum like this.

If some of us find the view of those who view us from a far uncomfortable, perhaps it is because they don't understand us or perhaps it is they understand us all too well.

Very well said.

The really heated arguments like Death Penalty , Gun Control , Abortion , Gay Marriage/Rights always get heated discussions because people are pretty set in their ways of thinking. Somebody on the other end might not be keen to agree , ever. And politicians know if they do something to favor one side, they are going to upset the other side. It's a risk they might have to take

I agree with everyone's right to their opinion. If Trish, volkov and others want more gun control, stricter gun regulations they are welcome to vote , petition, manifest, gather in public places for their desires to come to fruition.Just like I and other gun owners are welcome to do the same.

I thought we all understood that. To those that I have insulted, I sincerely apologize, and I have been insulted first by others as well.

Politics and Religion board:
Two topics to avoid in light company, this board was especially created for you to "tote the party line" and voice your opinions, thoughts and beliefs on whatever tickles your fancy or currently gets your goat. All political & religions threads BELONG HERE.

I personally am new to this particular section of the forum, and interpreted the "Two topics to avoid in light company" to mean that discussion could get pretty heated to include some insults. To me "moron" and "asshole" are said in the same context , and you all might not feel the same. I will refrain from using that type of language in the future.

[robertlouis]

And you are a self admitted ass Kisser who grovels at all the ladies here. Really classy act you are. Grow some balls first before coming into a conversation about American Gun Rights and Gun Control. Your opinion is worthless. Why? Because you can't do anything about it. I can, my vote actually will matter, and I will accept the outcome whatever it may be. You on the other hand, are just a rambling Brit.

You really care about people dying "unjustly"? Go donate all your money to an African charity. After all those are human lives worthy of being saved right? I'm pretty sure you wont do that. Show that you care through your wallet, and post your receipts here. Show some proof. Accept the challenge? Or is what is going on in America more important than the drought stricken areas of Africa?

Stop worrying about what is going in America or move over here so you can actually influence gun control through a vote. Other than that, what you say does not matter, really.

That's like Americans trying to convince the UK to get rid of your monarchy isn't it? You welcome or reject the opinions, but the truth is Americans don't have a say in the matter.

My my, my my my. Is that really the best you can do? My views are invalid because I don't have a vote so you can shut them down, just like that. Wouldn't you have been a wow to have around during the battle for civil rights. Balls? It takes some to get into a debate with someone who's probably polishing his cock, sorry, I meant *ahem*, "assault rifle" while he's reading this

And as for my byline, I forgot that some people just don't understand the concept of irony. Oh well, can't be helped. And as it happens I do contribute on a monthly basis to a charity based locally here whose organisers are personal friends so that I know my money is going directly to build schools and provide education to deprived parts of Kenya and Uganda. I'll say no more on that subject; I wouldn't want them and their fine work to become sullied by association with your sordid and infantile mind games.

And in the meantime, I note that you haven't taken issue with a single one of the points that I raised, but prefer to deal in the currency of insult. Your prerogative. But let me make it clear that neither I nor any others on HA who support the notion of reasonable gun control in the US have suggested at any time placing a prohibition on the ownership and use of firearms by private citizens. I recognise that at a practical level that simply isn't feasible, and also that within American culture it is entirely accepted. I respect that.

The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable control" in this context. The biggest obstacle to conducting that debate appears to be that the very notion of any sort of control, however slight, is greeted by the gun lobby and their cheerleaders with hysterical and non-listening opposition.

I don't want you to lose your guns. I'm sure that you're a responsible gun owner and use your arsenal responsibly. But doesn't it make sense for further testing of psychological suitability and the curbing of uncontrolled sales at gun shows to be introduced so that you can avoid further tragedies like Newtown? Is that really too much to ask?

And finally, as a UK republican - which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to the GOP - I'd welcome anything short of armed insurrection to rid us of our anachronistic monarchy. The UK, especially England, is riddled with class issues, and it starts with the royals. All help gratefully received!

[fivekatz]

Very well said.

The really heated arguments like Death Penalty , Gun Control , Abortion , Gay Marriage/Rights always get heated discussions because people are pretty set in their ways of thinking. Somebody on the other end might not be keen to agree , ever. And politicians know if they do something to favor one side, they are going to upset the other side. It's a risk they might have to take

I agree with everyone's right to their opinion. If Trish, volkov and others want more gun control, stricter gun regulations they are welcome to vote , petition, manifest, gather in public places for their desires to come to fruition.Just like I and other gun owners are welcome to do the same.

I thought we all understood that. To those that I have insulted, I sincerely apologize, and I have been insulted first by others as well.

Politics and Religion board:
Two topics to avoid in light company, this board was especially created for you to "tote the party line" and voice your opinions, thoughts and beliefs on whatever tickles your fancy or currently gets your goat. All political & religions threads BELONG HERE.

I personally am new to this particular section of the forum, and interpreted the "Two topics to avoid in light company" to mean that discussion could get pretty heated to include some insults. To me "moron" and "asshole" are said in the same context , and you all might not feel the same. I will refrain from using that type of language in the future.

Avoiding calling folks morons and assholes will tend to make a bit less defensive and perhaps a bit more focused on the rest of the points you are trying to make.

Civil but aggressive debate is a part of free speech. One of the greatest of the Founding Fathers pissed off lots of people, he knew it, he went as far as to say that there would be no great monuments ever built to him, and you can tour Washington, DC and you will find no monument to John Adams.

He was wise enough to know when it was time to write the Declaration of Independence to pick a less polarizing figure in Thomas Jefferson to write it,

But he did not leave the stage or the debate and did his best while not always succeeding to not alienate others to point they would not listen to his arguments.

Which on balance aside from the Alien and Sedetion Act were amongst the best of the first 50 years of this republic.

So while you and I may not agree on what types of weapons should be commonly owned and sold and how that process should be governed, I welcome your opinions and applaud the applaud the tone of this last post to encourage the continued discussion of this issue, which is whether you are a citizen of the US or a member of this forum that is a citizen of another part of the world has caught all our attention in face of so much carnage in the last few years, punctuate by the execution of those babies by assault weapon in the hands of a mental ill citizen.

Seriously, good post, cheers!

Disagrement done agreeably is the hallmark of democracy throughout the world.

[my my my!]

My my, my my my. Is that really the best you can do? My views are invalid because I don't have a vote so you can shut them down, just like that. Wouldn't you have been a wow to have around during the battle for civil rights. Balls? It takes some to get into a debate with someone who's probably polishing his cock, sorry, I meant *ahem*, "assault rifle" while he's reading this

And as for my byline, I forgot that some people just don't understand the concept of irony. Oh well, can't be helped. And as it happens I do contribute on a monthly basis to a charity based locally here whose organisers are personal friends so that I know my money is going directly to build schools and provide education to deprived parts of Kenya and Uganda. I'll say no more on that subject; I wouldn't want them and their fine work to become sullied by association with your sordid and infantile mind games.

And in the meantime, I note that you haven't taken issue with a single one of the points that I raised, but prefer to deal in the currency of insult. Your prerogative. But let me make it clear that neither I nor any others on HA who support the notion of reasonable gun control in the US have suggested at any time placing a prohibition on the ownership and use of firearms by private citizens. I recognise that at a practical level that simply isn't feasible, and also that within American culture it is entirely accepted. I respect that.

The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable control" in this context. The biggest obstacle to conducting that debate appears to be that the very notion of any sort of control, however slight, is greeted by the gun lobby and their cheerleaders with hysterical and non-listening opposition.

I don't want you to lose your guns. I'm sure that you're a responsible gun owner and use your arsenal responsibly. But doesn't it make sense for further testing of psychological suitability and the curbing of uncontrolled sales at gun shows to be introduced so that you can avoid further tragedies like Newtown? Is that really too much to ask?

And finally, as a UK republican - which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to the GOP - I'd welcome anything short of armed insurrection to rid us of our anachronistic monarchy. The UK, especially England, is riddled with class issues, and it starts with the royals. All help gratefully received!

Your very first post directed at me was an Insult. Sorry, sincerely. I dished it out like you did.

I'm not saying I WILL or CAN shut down your vote, It's just your vote or opinion essentially does not matter here (in america, HA is a public forum and I appreciate your opinion that way). America (our politicians) only listens to foreigners when it comes to America potentially or actually losing money. If you really want to make a difference, you can start a movement where Brits boycott travel to the USA to show solidarity with the families of the victims of Newport. Or simply because you no longer feel safe traveling to America.

Calling me a bacteria is not going to get gun control passed Robert. You might be under that impression that as a Brit you might sway a vote here in America. You can have all the opinions you want about abortion in the USA, death penalty in the USA, gay marriage in the USA etc. As long as you don't or can not contribute something real that will matter in real life to those issues then your opinion is essentially not valid, right?

Do you see it differently?

I'm not being mean, I just don't think people in other countries can influence issues in other countries just by simply stating an opinion as opposed to doing something that would influence that issue in real life.

Sorry for Insults earlier Robert, I refrain from such behaviour in this discussion for the sake of civility and respect to you.

[Jericho]

I Want, I Want, I Want.
Sometimes, an adult has to so No, you can't have. for the good of the child!

[trish]

Please, please, please may I have it? <3

[Jericho]

Please, please, please may I have it? <3

Always my dove...And twice on Sundays!