I'd like to know something. We've had people with assault weapons, shoot up an entire class of 6 and 7-year olds. We're had them shoot up movie theaters. We've had them shoot a congress woman in the head. We've had them shoot up churches, temples, high schools, parks, and on and on... My question is what would these people have to shoot up that would be a step too far for the gun crowd? I'm thinking maybe a hospital newborn nursery? A retirement home? A daycare center? I mean I really can't think of anything that would shock these people into calling for an assault weapons ban. Maybe that is the problem, we should stop asking for this small minority's opinion and just do what makes sense to the bulk of us before none of us can leave the safety of our basements without the fear of being shot down in the streets.
Or even just better screaning techniques. Every shooter has had a long history of mental issues, and yet still was able to acquire weapons, legally.
So, you want a "majority rules" style of government. Good luck with that. Tell us the truth, do you leave the safety of your basement without fear of being shot? Probably, but there is a part of you that says, "I need to be cautious, regardless". It's the same reasoning people use for having alarm systems on their home. Or avoiding a dark alley. Guns aren't the problem, but rather those individuals who use them to cause harm. Society can do very little to defend against someone like Adam Lanza or Dzokhar Tsarnaev. People like that are going to find a way to let loose their rage and innocent victims will, unfortunately, die. You can babble on all day about "gun control", but what you need to focus on is how society should get to the root of the problem by identifying those individuals who are bent on destruction by any means. In the meantime, the best way to keep yourself from harm is by defending yourself. I'd recommend buying a gun.
I'm still waiting to hear what kind of mass shooting would actually affect you enough to want to ban assault weapons. It's a pretty simple question but I feel that there isn't enough integrity in the gun crowd to ever receive an honest answer and if there was ever enough integrity, the answer would undoubtedly be nothing is too heinous to ever want them to ban assault weapons. We should all pause and reflect on that reality for a moment and realize who we are dealing with.
People will still drive drunk, so should we abolish that law and say to heck with it? Just because a few will find ways around the law doesn't mean we have to be ignorant and assume it wouldn't do any good. I love my guns but like not wanting drunks on the same road I'm driving on, I don't want just anyone to have legal right to guns because others think its their right.
You do have the right to bear arms in this country but NOT any arms that you want. I say give them all single shot muskets like they had in the 1700's. There is your arms.
Placing limits on Constitutional rights is something we, as a people, should not take lightly. There will always be those who will abuse the liberties they possess. Taking away liberties for everyone is... well... un-American.
How far should that "constitutional right" extend? Shouldn't we, by that inane logic, be able to legally own and use rpg's and rocket launchers, 150 caliber tank rounds and bunker busting laser guided rounds? Where does it end? See how pathetically rediculous that arguement is? Probably not.
Indeed, where does it end? And exactly who decides? Does it end with fully-automatic weapons? Why not semi-automatics? .44 caliber revolvers? .38s? .22s? One-shot derringers? 1700's-style muskets? Exactly where would you place a limit on our right to bear arms?
Yet when someone tries to place limits the right screams about their constitutional rights being violated. Where would I personally place them? Within reason. I've nothing against fully automatic weapons providing they aren't fed rounds. Who needs a weapon capable of firing off 1000 rounds in six seconds? The military doesn't even use these. My main thing is regulating who can buy them. Mentally unstable, criminal past, not a citizen....sorry, no gun for you. They may find alternate means to acquiring them, but maybe they won't.
The last round of this, he could not even describe what an "assault weapon" was. The closest he managed to come said that squirrel guns should be banned. How far do you think a law that stated "squirrel guns are illegal to own" would get if that were the wording?
I think it is plain to see that there in no autrocity, no mass murder, no gun violence on any scale whatsoever that would ever persuade the gun crowd that any of these deadly high powered weapons should not be in civilian hands. My only remaining question is why are the inmates running the asylum?
No amount of mass shootings. Period. None. Mass shootings are comited by criminals . "A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies." Who said that? the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting but to protect from tyranny. Period. Shall NOT be infringed. Period.
Law abiding citizens......... And further, banning any firearm will not stop this. These shootings all happen in gun free zones.
Once again David, where is the line drawn? Ok, according to you, we need every conceivable type of weaponry known to man in every american home to be a free society.does that now apply to everyone? joe blow was excercising his constitutional freedom and right to blow away his neighbor because he didn't like the color of his house. Should joe blow still retain his constitutional rights to bare arms after he serves his three months in jail and three years probation? You knw, people spout the words constitution and right and freedom without even knowing what they mean. If they were meant to remain as open ended as you make it out to be, what was its purpose to begin with? It's useless as an interpretive guide, and people like you are taking full advantage of that fact.
