All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
1/18/2013 4:44 PM
You know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking that just because people COULD kill a classroom full of kids with a ******* brick, that we might as well just let them do it with an assault weapon.  That's pretty ******* stupid.

Look at all the mass killings in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so.  Let's say since OKC, since that was a large and noteworthy event.  What has been the weapon of choice in most (if not all) of these mass killings?  Bricks?  Machetes?  Baseball bats?  Letter openers?  Or high capacity assault weapons?
1/18/2013 4:46 PM
Posted by rcrusso on 1/18/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

[...]

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

And drug gangs can only exist in a free society.

Should we ban freedom to eliminate street gangs?

The idea that the concept of a government not being able to take arms from its free citizens is based in slave culture is insane.

Did slave owners benefit from owning weapons...yes. Was that the reason we created the 2nd Amendment...of course not!
1/18/2013 4:54 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
You know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking that just because people COULD kill a classroom full of kids with a ******* brick, that we might as well just let them do it with an assault weapon.  That's pretty ******* stupid.

Look at all the mass killings in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so.  Let's say since OKC, since that was a large and noteworthy event.  What has been the weapon of choice in most (if not all) of these mass killings?  Bricks?  Machetes?  Baseball bats?  Letter openers?  Or high capacity assault weapons?
No, you know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking you can stop ******* psychos and criminals with your pissy little laws.   That and overreacting because a bunch of children were killed by a goddam psycho.   That and using the deaths of these children to push your stupid ******* agenda on the rest of the world.

SECURE THE ******* SCHOOLS AND STOP REACTING TO THE WEAPON USED WHEN ANY NUMBER OF WEAPONS WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE.
1/18/2013 4:59 PM
1/18/2013 5:03 PM

You know what's funny?   A similar argument I had in these forums about legalizing murder.

Murder rates would not spike.   People are capable of killing people or they're not.   Removing specific guns from the public will stop me and you from purchasing them.   It will not stop someone who intends to use said gun to kill a bunch of people.    With the exception of Shady Hook(and we can't be sure), these mass murderers went thru extensive planning.  Don't you think they'd plan to get the gun they wanted to use?

1/18/2013 5:04 PM
No, what's stupid is sneaking a rule into a spending bill requiring senate confirmation of the head of the ATF. Or not allowing the ATF to inspect gun dealers inventory records. Or not requiring gun dealers to even keep inventory records.

****, we might as well just put the NRA in charge of legislation and cut out the middlemen, they've already bought direct access to lawmaking. 
1/18/2013 5:06 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):

You know what's funny?   A similar argument I had in these forums about legalizing murder.

Murder rates would not spike.   People are capable of killing people or they're not.   Removing specific guns from the public will stop me and you from purchasing them.   It will not stop someone who intends to use said gun to kill a bunch of people.    With the exception of Shady Hook(and we can't be sure), these mass murderers went thru extensive planning.  Don't you think they'd plan to get the gun they wanted to use?

If murder WAS legal, and there was a rash of killings and someone suggested making murder illegal, would you respond with, "well that's stupid, anyone that wants to murder isn't going to be stopped by a law?"
1/18/2013 5:30 PM
Anyone who wants to murder isn't stopped by the law.    They're stopped by something inside them that tells them not to commit murder.   Much like many of us were, at one time, ****** at our mothers, chose not to kill them and then not to collect some guns in order to kill a bunch of first graders. 

Laws stop people who would normally abide by them anyway.  
1/18/2013 5:42 PM
Laws also enact punishment for those who disregard them.

So while you are 100% correct about a law not stopping a lawbreaking person, it DOES allow the legal system to lock them up when they do so.

If murder were not illegal, I also agree that the murder rate wouldn't skyrocket. but we would have no way of penalizing people who did commit murder.

THAT's why you make something illegal.
1/18/2013 5:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
You know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking that just because people COULD kill a classroom full of kids with a ******* brick, that we might as well just let them do it with an assault weapon.  That's pretty ******* stupid.

Look at all the mass killings in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so.  Let's say since OKC, since that was a large and noteworthy event.  What has been the weapon of choice in most (if not all) of these mass killings?  Bricks?  Machetes?  Baseball bats?  Letter openers?  Or high capacity assault weapons?
No, you know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking you can stop ******* psychos and criminals with your pissy little laws.   That and overreacting because a bunch of children were killed by a goddam psycho.   That and using the deaths of these children to push your stupid ******* agenda on the rest of the world.

SECURE THE ******* SCHOOLS AND STOP REACTING TO THE WEAPON USED WHEN ANY NUMBER OF WEAPONS WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE.
Right..  

Because I'm sure if assault guns were banned and removed from circulation, mass shootings would be replaced by mass brickings.  Or mass box cutterings.

Thanks for setting me straight.
1/18/2013 5:47 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 1/18/2013 5:42:00 PM (view original):
Laws also enact punishment for those who disregard them.

So while you are 100% correct about a law not stopping a lawbreaking person, it DOES allow the legal system to lock them up when they do so.

If murder were not illegal, I also agree that the murder rate wouldn't skyrocket. but we would have no way of penalizing people who did commit murder.

THAT's why you make something illegal.
This.

If it's illegal to own an assault rifle and a neighbor see's Crazy Jim out in the woods practicing his aim with an AR-15, Crazy Jim can be locked up. Or we can wait until he murders someone and then say there's nothing we could have done, he wanted to kill people, laws be damned.
1/18/2013 5:49 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 1/18/2013 5:42:00 PM (view original):
Laws also enact punishment for those who disregard them.

So while you are 100% correct about a law not stopping a lawbreaking person, it DOES allow the legal system to lock them up when they do so.

If murder were not illegal, I also agree that the murder rate wouldn't skyrocket. but we would have no way of penalizing people who did commit murder.

THAT's why you make something illegal.
This.

If it's illegal to own an assault rifle and a neighbor see's Crazy Jim out in the woods practicing his aim with an AR-15, Crazy Jim can be locked up. Or we can wait until he murders someone and then say there's nothing we could have done, he wanted to kill people, laws be damned.

Crazy Jim would know his AR15 is illegal.   Therefore, you're not going to see him until he's firing it at you.

Yep, problem solved.

1/18/2013 5:50 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
You know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking that just because people COULD kill a classroom full of kids with a ******* brick, that we might as well just let them do it with an assault weapon.  That's pretty ******* stupid.

Look at all the mass killings in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so.  Let's say since OKC, since that was a large and noteworthy event.  What has been the weapon of choice in most (if not all) of these mass killings?  Bricks?  Machetes?  Baseball bats?  Letter openers?  Or high capacity assault weapons?
No, you know what's ******* stupid?  Thinking you can stop ******* psychos and criminals with your pissy little laws.   That and overreacting because a bunch of children were killed by a goddam psycho.   That and using the deaths of these children to push your stupid ******* agenda on the rest of the world.

SECURE THE ******* SCHOOLS AND STOP REACTING TO THE WEAPON USED WHEN ANY NUMBER OF WEAPONS WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE.
Right..  

Because I'm sure if assault guns were banned and removed from circulation, mass shootings would be replaced by mass brickings.  Or mass box cutterings.

Thanks for setting me straight.
I'm sure the criminal element will line up to turn in their AW.  

Good call, Overreacting Orville.
1/18/2013 5:51 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 1/18/2013 5:42:00 PM (view original):
Laws also enact punishment for those who disregard them.

So while you are 100% correct about a law not stopping a lawbreaking person, it DOES allow the legal system to lock them up when they do so.

If murder were not illegal, I also agree that the murder rate wouldn't skyrocket. but we would have no way of penalizing people who did commit murder.

THAT's why you make something illegal.
I've already said "require all firearms to be registered".
I've already said "dole out crazy prison sentences to anyone caught with an unregistered weapon".

Not sure what else you need to do.  Criminals aren't turning in their guns.   You know, because they're criminals.
1/18/2013 5:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 1/18/2013 5:42:00 PM (view original):
Laws also enact punishment for those who disregard them.

So while you are 100% correct about a law not stopping a lawbreaking person, it DOES allow the legal system to lock them up when they do so.

If murder were not illegal, I also agree that the murder rate wouldn't skyrocket. but we would have no way of penalizing people who did commit murder.

THAT's why you make something illegal.
This.

If it's illegal to own an assault rifle and a neighbor see's Crazy Jim out in the woods practicing his aim with an AR-15, Crazy Jim can be locked up. Or we can wait until he murders someone and then say there's nothing we could have done, he wanted to kill people, laws be damned.

Crazy Jim would know his AR15 is illegal.   Therefore, you're not going to see him until he's firing it at you.

Yep, problem solved.

Or he has it in his trunk and a cop finds it during a traffic stop. Or the cops find it in his house when they come to break up the fight between him and his old lady. Or credit card records reveal that he bought one ten years ago while they were legal, so he gets a letter from the ATF asking him to politely turn it in.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.