All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
1/18/2013 7:31 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 1/18/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I remember, but am still at a loss as to why, if you don't think anyone "needs" a HCAW, and we finally smarten up enough to realize this as a collective, what is the problem with getting them out of circulation as much as is possible?

Because we weren't smart enough to outlaw them sooner, anyone who legally purchased one should get to keep theirs? I just don't get this mindset.

When the "legal pot" stuff was all the rave (k2 or something), many people bought it legally. Then most states made it illegal. Since it was made illegal, you could get in trouble for possessing it, even though you bought it legally.

Is this different? Or do you believe that the legally purchased fake pot should have been allowed to be possessed until the purchaser smoked it all and he should just not be allowed to buy any more going forward?

Legal pot was simple law.

Gun ownership is an issue of Constitutiontionaly guaranteed freedom.

You all are represented by Congresspeople...Why do you need to critize the President? No one would ever say that.

It needs to be put out every day that gun bans do not reduce violent crime in America. There is evidence to support that it actually leads to more gun violence.

Still waiting for any evidence to support the ban.

 

1/18/2013 7:34 PM
There are limits to "Constitutionally guaranteed freedom".

Can you yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater under your First Amendment rights?

Can you own an RPG launcher under your Second Amendment rights?
1/18/2013 7:59 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 7:35:00 PM (view original):
There are limits to "Constitutionally guaranteed freedom".

Can you yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater under your First Amendment rights?

Can you own an RPG launcher under your Second Amendment rights?
I agree with this.

A ban on a specific type of weapon in no way diminishes the 2nd Amendment, imo. There would still be many many legal gun ownership choices.

Unless anyone can offer a legitimate need for Joe Citizen to own a HCAW, it really is a no-brainer.

1/18/2013 8:22 PM
I am waiting for anyone to give any evidence that a gun ban would reduce crime in America.

And defend against government tyranny is a legitimate reason.
1/18/2013 8:22 PM
This is what the debate has become.

The citizens need to show a reason for their freedom.

1/18/2013 8:29 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2012 8:37:00 AM (view original):
This interests me in a personal way.   I live in a subdivision but there is a protected wetland butted up against my backyard.  Lots of wildlife back there.   Seems that wild boar have entered the mix.   For those who are unfamiliar with them, they're nasty creatures built like a tank.  They'll run unless they feel cornered or surprised. Then they'll attack.  Can easily kill a dog.   I have three and I happen to walk them in the area behind my house twice a day.

I have some guns but I do not have a handgun that will stop a wild boar.  As I do live in a neighborhood, I can't strap a high-powered rifle to my back.  So I've been researching handguns.  Those that know don't seem to think there is a handgun powerful enough to stop a boar with a single shot.  So, in my mind, I need something powerful enough to pierce boar skin and has multiple shot capability.

I have no designs on shooting people but I've just laid out a scenario where I need a firearm capable of killing a lot of people in a short time frame.  Should this gun be banned?
I think I have read this post 10 times over the last week and laugh every single time.

Yeah, you need a friggin ak47  so you can walk your dog in a wild boar infested swamp.  
1/18/2013 9:03 PM
He showed a reason to own a weapon Obama is trying to ban.

Can you now show a reason to ban them?

1/18/2013 9:09 PM
You Americans crack me up.
1/18/2013 9:12 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 8:22:00 PM (view original):
I am waiting for anyone to give any evidence that a gun ban would reduce crime in America.

And defend against government tyranny is a legitimate reason.
Maybe in 1787, it was a legitimate reason.

In 2013, you're just drinking the Kool Aid of the right wing nutjobs.
1/18/2013 9:13 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 9:03:00 PM (view original):
He showed a reason to own a weapon Obama is trying to ban.

Can you now show a reason to ban them?

To cut down on the scope and ease of mass shootings.
1/18/2013 9:57 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 8:22:00 PM (view original):
I am waiting for anyone to give any evidence that a gun ban would reduce crime in America.

And defend against government tyranny is a legitimate reason.
1) I don't think anyone is arguing gun ban = reduction in crime rate. I do not believe that correlation is true at all.

What I'm seeing is the idea that if less people have access to HCAW it will be MUCH harder to have massacres like Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc etc.
Over 2/3 of the "massacres" occurring in the last 30 years have been with an automatic weapon.

Many of us just feel that it would be better if firing 60 rounds in 30 seconds weren't as easy of an option for someone intent on doing harm. HCAW serve no legitimate purpose, yet are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

2) If you think for a second that an armed citizenry has a snowballs chance in hell of putting down a tyrannical government you are delusional. Those days are long long gone.

The only way a tyrannical government doesn't win that fight, is if members of the military decide to turn on their leaders. Otherwise it is not even a fight really.
1/18/2013 10:24 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 4:46:00 PM (view original):
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!
of course not?

That's all you got?
1/19/2013 2:31 AM
I dont understand the question. Could you rephrase it?
1/19/2013 8:17 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2013 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2013 6:35:00 PM (view original):
No, it's not. The gun is now illegal. Keep it at your own risk.
And that's where we differ.    Don't give me a right, because no one has any rights, and then take it away. 
What?
Prohibition.   Alcohol is legal.  Alcohol is not.   The govt said "You can drink.   No, wait a minute, you cannot."

How'd that work out anyway?
1/19/2013 8:19 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/18/2013 6:58:00 PM (view original):
Not overreacting. Making certain behavior illegal allows us to prosecute people before they actually kill someone.


Again, do you think criminals care whether their weapon of choice is legal?

All you do by making specific, legally purchased guns illegal is make law-abiding citizens criminals.

Do you understand the criminal element?

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.