Reality Check on Gun Control

[QUOTE=iamgine]Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.[/QUOTE]

The main reason the 2nd amendment was put in place was simply to allow the people a form of defense against a tyrannical government.

They (founding fathers) were smart enough to realize power corrupts and if the people can't defend themselves or at least put up a good fight, then there would simply be no 1st amendment. The ban of automatic firearms will lead to the ban of pistols down the line. This is not a slippery slope.

If law abiding citizens are using these firearms for protection from the government and other criminals, then why would it matter what form of protection they are using. [B]Guns don't kill people, psycho deranged kids and criminals kill people.[/B]

Why are you after the good guys. The argument should center around deranged kids and illegal purchases of firearms, not the people who are law abiding citizens. That is the fallacy in your argument since the argument is fallacious to begin with.

[QUOTE=iamgine]Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.[/QUOTE]


This is the sort of impractical thinking that bothers me about this legislation. Sure rifles, and by that I mean assault rifles, are extremely dangerous. Their higher exit velocity, capacity, etc, make them more dangerous than handguns.
But if we're really trying to resolve the problem at hand, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed by handguns. So what is the real purpose of extra legislation on assault rifles.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]What many people fail to realize is that the 2nd amendment means just that: the second most important freedom we have in a free nation. Freedom of speech is the most important because it allows us to convey our ideas and thoughts without retribution.

Why is the possession of guns so damn important you ask .. when we have the freedom to speak our mind against those in power (you know the people with the money, power, and bigger guns), we will need some sort of protection if those in power do not like what we have to say.

So the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to protect our right to say whatever the f*ck we want even if it pisses off the people controlling this country.

Today we can call our President an idiot and not be fearful he's going to put a rope around our necks and hang us.

That is why it was put under numero 2. The SECOND most important freedom a free man can have; what the f*ck is the point of being free if you don't have the power to protect yourself.

If a guy tries to rob my house, I should have the right to shoot him; if some dude wants to rape me in the a*s, I should have the right to stop him; if the government wants to abolish the constitution and be a dictatorship, the people should have the right to try to fight against that.

So what if our arms won't be up to par against the military; it sure as hell is better than a f*ckin' knife.

You are taking guns from law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves. [B]The real problems are criminals who possess illegal arms and mental teenagers who are f*cked up in the head and shooting up schools.[/B] Go after those f*ckers. Why would you want to take guns away from the people who are only possessing firearms to protect themselves.

By equating them altogether is a [b]generalized fallacy,[/B] which is a premise I cannot support.

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

That's the fallacy because if the criminals and deranged kids are getting these guns through illegal means, that is a failure of law enforcement and government officials who should find some measure to prevent such access, not the people themselves. Huge difference.[/QUOTE]

And how does that relate to a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state?

TIL the Bill of Rights is ordered according to importance.

What do you need an assault rifle for?

[QUOTE=Jackass18]What do you need an assault rifle for?[/QUOTE]
To protect you against a tyrannical govt of course.

Historically speaking, if the govt wanted to get rid of you they'd find other ways. Having a shoot out isnt no.1 on their list.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]What do you need an assault rifle for?[/QUOTE]

How is an assault rifle lethal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. That is not the real issue; the real issue has been tainted by logical fallacies (appeal to emotions and generalization) to equate crazed psycho kids who attain these arms illegally as a reason to ban them.

A thousand armed citizens defending the constitution against a tyrannical government is more lethal than a thousand pistol holders, or god forbid, knife fighters.

[B]That is the original premise of the 2nd amendment.[/B] If such weapons end up in the hands of criminals and little psycho kids, then that is a failure in enforcement, mainly parents and law enforcement officers, not a failure in the amendment in and of itself because law abiding citizens are only using it for protection similar to a cop using it to protect himself.

Cops who are regularly armed don't go on mass shootings and in fact protect others within their vicinity simply because they are armed. The same can be said of law abiding, well trained regular citizens like you and I.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This premise is full proof and irrefutable. If you can't find a counter argument, then your position is fallacious. Period.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Ok so you admit criminals acquire their guns illegally and most of the crimes are committed through these measures, then why the f*ck are you going after the registered law abiding gun owners.

See the contradiction dumbsh*t.

I'm not a gun nut, I just think your premise is flawed and stupid.[/QUOTE]
Wtf are you talking about?

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]How is an assault rifle lethal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. That is not the real issue; the real issue has been tainted by logical fallacies (appeal to emotions and generalization) to equate crazed psycho kids who attain these arms illegally as a reason to ban them.

A thousand armed citizens defending the constitution against a tyrannical government is more lethal than a thousand pistol holders, or god forbid, knife fighters.

[B]That is the original premise of the 2nd amendment.[/B] If such weapons end up in the hands of criminals and little psycho kids, then that is a failure in enforcement, mainly parents and law enforcement officers, not a failure in the amendment in and of itself because law abiding citizens are only using it for protection similar to a cop using it to protect himself.

Cops who are regularly armed don't go on mass shootings and in fact protect others within their vicinity simply because they are armed. The same can be said of law abiding, well trained regular citizens like you and I.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This premise is full proof and irrefutable. If you can't find a counter argument, then your position is fallacious. Period.[/QUOTE]
Idiots I swear.

[QUOTE=andgar923]To protect you against a tyrannical govt of course.

Historically speaking, if the govt wanted to get rid of you they'd find other ways. Having a shoot out isnt no.1 on their list.[/QUOTE]

Semi-autos in the hands of a good number of people who want to protect their Democracy is good enough against an army of tyrannical supporters in an urban warfare setting.

What do you want them to do .. start throwing rocks or something.

[QUOTE=andgar923]Idiots I swear.[/QUOTE]

He's my new favorite poster.

Its like a comedy show.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Semi-autos in the hands of a good number of people who want to protect their Democracy is good enough against an army of tyrannical supporters in an urban warfare setting.

What do you want them to do .. start throwing rocks or something.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

[QUOTE=MMM]I have not seen anyone argue that and the propose legislation isn't going to take away guns. So, where does the bold'd come from??? For someone that pretends to be logical, I find it strange that your arguments are not based on reality.[/QUOTE]

By those not versed in logic, the argument has successfully used a logical deception (generalization) to say law abiding citizens are the same as psycho deranged kids when they possess a firearm.

It's like drugs: if someone smokes pot, they are as bad as a heroin addict although the pot doesn't even come close to the harmful effects of heroin, but the generalization works since most people are too stupid to figure out it is a deceptive use of logic.

The govt has a million ways to get rid of people. Do you delusional f*cks think it will be a shoot out like its a western movie?

Wanna know the difference between gorilla wars we fight in abroad vs an uprising here?

THEY'RE GORRILLA FIGHTS ABROAD!!!

The US has full control here, it's their home turf. If a silly militia wants to have a standoff they'll be taken care of before it actually starts. Do you not think any sort of organized movement isn't being tracked and bugged? Don't you think they can freeze their finances? Start a media campaign against them? Etc. etc. all this before a single shot is fired.

And if it comes down to it, a single drone strike will take care of them.

[QUOTE=andgar923]The govt has a million ways to get rid of people. Do you delusional f*cks think it will be a shoot out like its a western movie?

Wanna know the difference between gorilla wars we fight in abroad vs an uprising here?

THEY'RE GORRILLA FIGHTS ABROAD!!!

The US has full control here, it's their home turf. If a silly militia wants to have a standoff they'll be taken care of before it actually starts. Do you not think any sort of organized movement isn't being tracked and bugged? Don't you think they can freeze their finances? Start a media campaign against them? Etc. etc. all this before a single shot is fired.

And if it comes down to it, a single drone strike will take care of them.[/QUOTE]

:roll: @ "gorilla warfare"

Shut up, ret@rd.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Anti-gun advocates are riding on 2 fallacies:

1. Appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook)

2. Generalization (possession of a firearm by a psycho deranged kid by illegal means is the same thing as possession of a firearm by a well trained law abiding citizen).

Don't even go there homeboy.[/QUOTE]

Its funny that you can say all this and not realize how insane you sound. You can give me a lot of ramblings about how guns "don't kill people" but you still can't answer this question >>>>

[QUOTE=Jackass18]What do you need an assault rifle for?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Its funny that you can say all this and not realize how insane you sound. You can give me a lot of ramblings about how guns "don't kill people" but you still can't answer this question >>>>[/QUOTE]

That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I [B]really[/B] don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

[QUOTE=bmulls]That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I [B]really[/B] don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]

Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.[/QUOTE]

What? You didn't address my point and you didn't make any point yourself.

We don't outlaw things in this country simply because you don't think other people "need" them.

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.

^^ that is your logic.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.[/QUOTE]

This type of language plays right into the slippery slope argument. But i do find it difficult to care about gun rights in a country where gay marraige is illegal.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]What do you need an assault rifle for?[/QUOTE]

Because he's a horrible shot. Can't hit the broadside of a barn so he needs 30 rounds to do what any competent gunman can do with 3 or 4

[QUOTE=bmulls]What? You didn't address my point and you didn't make any point yourself.

[B]We don't outlaw things in this country simply because you don't think other people "need" them. [/B]

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.

^^ that is your logic.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you don't know how the law works in this country, but we do in fact outlaw things in this country all the time because we think other people "don't need them" -- especially when a large enough portion of the population sees 1) no beneficial usage for the item in question and 2) the item can be used to cause a great deal of damage.

That's the reason why we have outlawed drugs, certain types of weapons (i.e. sawed off shotguns), explosive equipment, etc. Why should assault weapons be any different?

Assault weapon ban being included is a political move. Dems and Repubs will argue about it for a while, it eventually gets dropped, Repubs get to feel like they got a W by getting rid of the ban in the legislation, and eventually the bill is passed with the more important/effective policies in tact.

[QUOTE=bmulls]

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.
[/QUOTE]

And, guess what. In areas of public safety like sports event the amount of alcohol i can buy and when i can buy it is controlled. cant buy 3 bottles of beer in one trip or after the 7th inning. who gives a shit that majority of the other 20 thousand people there arent enjoying my profanity. im over 21 and theres a goddamned constitutional amendment repealing prohibition.

[QUOTE=Charlie Sheen]And, guess what. In areas of public safety like sports event the amount of alcohol i can buy and when i can buy it is controlled. cant buy 3 bottles of beer in one trip or after the 7th inning. who gives a shit that majority of the other 20 thousand people there arent enjoying my profanity. im over 21 and theres a goddamned constitutional amendment repealing prohibition.[/QUOTE]

I have never said I'm against regulations, I am arguing against an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazine size.

[QUOTE=bmulls]I have never said I'm against regulations, I am arguing against an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazine size.[/QUOTE]

Would you be cool with 100+ ammunition clips? I do have an opinion on this, but I'm not asking to argue, just curious.

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Maybe you don't know how the law works in this country, but we do in fact outlaw things in this country all the time because we think other people "don't need them" -- especially when a large enough portion of the population sees 1) no beneficial usage for the item in question and 2) the item can be used to cause a great deal of damage.

That's the reason why we have outlawed drugs, certain types of weapons (i.e. sawed off shotguns), explosive equipment, etc. Why should assault weapons be any different?[/QUOTE]

Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.

Tell me what this ranch rifle does differently than the assault weapon in these pictures:

[IMG]http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/gforester/MyMini14RanchRifle.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.har-bar.com/images/640_Mini_027.jpg_Dennis_4_Tactical.jpg[/IMG]

I'll go ahead and tell you the answer: Nothing. They are literally the same gun, a Mini14, a gun introduced in the 60s which has been used as a ranch rifle for over 50 years. The 2nd pic is just a dressed up version. They shoot the same bullet, have the same action, everything is identical except for aesthetics. The difference is the first would be legal under the proposed AWB, the 2nd would be illegal.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.
[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gop20cry20baby.jpg[/IMG]

Keep crying. Support for more gun control/licensing/background checks is at 60% of the population and growing.

[QUOTE=Myth]Would you be cool with 100+ ammunition clips? I do have an opinion on this, but I'm not asking to argue, just curious.[/QUOTE]

I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.

Tell me what this ranch rifle does differently than the assault weapon in these pictures:

[IMG]http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/gforester/MyMini14RanchRifle.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.har-bar.com/images/640_Mini_027.jpg_Dennis_4_Tactical.jpg[/IMG]

I'll go ahead and tell you the answer: Nothing. They are literally the same gun, a Mini14, a gun introduced in the 60s which has been used as a ranch rifle for over 50 years. The 2nd pic is just a dressed up version. They shoot the same bullet, have the same action, everything is identical except for aesthetics. The difference is the first would be legal under the proposed AWB, the 2nd would be illegal.[/QUOTE]
The second one is lighter for one. And the pistol grip and handle allow it to be more accurate. The second one is a more effective killing machine.

[QUOTE=bmulls]The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.[/QUOTE]
How many people did he kill with those 30 rounds? If his magazine only held 10 rounds, how many lives would have been saved?

I'm just asking questions.

[QUOTE=Droid101]How many people did he kill with those 30 rounds? If his magazine only held 10 rounds, how many lives would have been saved?

I'm just asking questions.[/QUOTE]

How many seconds does it take to change a magazine? 1? Maybe 3? The Virginia Tech shooter carried a backpack with filled with 10 and 15 round magazines.

19 to be exact:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre[/url]

You limit the magazine size, they will simply carry more.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]The second one is lighter for one. And the pistol grip and handle allow it to be more accurate. The second one is a more effective killing machine.[/QUOTE]

:lol

Seriously this statement is laughable.

:lol

If a pistol grip improves accuracy, why do snipers use bolt action rifles?

This is why we can't have a legitimate discussion about these things. You guys literally have no clue what you're talking about. Your knowledge of guns comes from movies and Call of Duty.

[QUOTE=bmulls]I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.[/QUOTE]

Ok. So it sounds like you fear the "slippery slope." Correct?

[QUOTE=bmulls]:lol

Seriously this statement is laughable.

:lol

If a pistol grip improves accuracy, why do snipers use bolt action rifles?

This is why we can't have a legitimate discussion about these things. You guys literally have no clue what you're talking about. Your knowledge of guns comes from movies and Call of Duty.[/QUOTE]
Snipers are stationary often laying down or crouching in a undisclosed, unknown area.

The recent shooters are in crowded environments carrying the weapon while in motion.:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=bmulls]That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I [B]really[/B] don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]

How are they shitting on your rights when the law they are proposing is constitutional???

[QUOTE=bmulls]
But you know what I [B]really[/B] don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]

I just hope you take that same mindset when the issue of gay marriage comes up.

[QUOTE=Myth]I just hope you take that same mindset when the issue of gay marriage comes up.[/QUOTE]

I support gay marriage and you will not find a post by me that says anything otherwise

[QUOTE=bmulls]I support gay marriage and you will not find a post by me that says anything otherwise[/QUOTE]

Glad to hear it :cheers:

That is one aspect of hypocrisy that I struggle with, when somebody wants government to stay out of their lives, but then are fine with it impeding on others' lives.

[QUOTE=bmulls]I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.[/QUOTE]
I have yet to see a cogent argument on how banning fully auto guns (or other arms like rpgs, landmines, etc) is constitutional (according to the SCOTUS), but further restrictions on the type of arms you can own are not. You seem fairly reasonable, though entrenched in your view. Can you argue this?