• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 31.0%

  • No

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • No, amend it to make possession of a gun VERY difficult with tons of background checks and psych eva

    Votes: 25 35.2%

  • I can be agent M

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
Hercules56 said:
There are no voices in my head. Get back to the topic.
Click to expand...

You've got me confused. You can respond to things that... I don't know how you want to phrase this... other people don't read, and that's on topic? But if someone points out that you are responding to... things that others are not reading... then that's off topic?
 
Anyways.....

Back to the topic.

Yes, amend the 2nd Amendment so its clear that states and Congress can choose to regulate gun possession and usage. Within reason. Ultimately the right to defend yourself and others from deadly force with deadly weapons must be respected.
 
Hercules56 said:
A Glock can easily kill just as many people as an AR-15 in the exact same amount of time. Yet they are not assault weapons, no one considers them to be such. Even in the strongest assault weapon ban laws, they are not banned.

Proving that your laws are based on absolute ignorance.
Click to expand...



Hercules56 said:
As far as you not giving a damn about the inalienable right to self defense with deadly weapons, that's your cross to bear.
Click to expand...

IOW, you CAN'T quote me saying that I don't "believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon". Glad we can agree that I never said that.
 
It would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon" if that's what someone believed.

Likewise, it would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self defense, but only in proportion to the perceived degree of threat."

Or:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon, if the situation warrants and one is ready to hand, but I don't believe in the right to possess or carry a deadly weapon for the purpose of self-defense."

Saying any one of these things, and then following it up with an explanation of how one would apply such a belief to questions of gun control policy, could possibly lead to some new and interesting ideas being raised and discussed. The debate doesn't have to bog down yet again in "prove I said X" nonsense.
 
theprestige said:
It would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon" if that's what someone believed.

Likewise, it would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self defense, but only in proportion to the perceived degree of threat."

Or:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon, if the situation warrants and one is ready to hand, but I don't believe in the right to possess or carry a deadly weapon for the purpose of self-defense."

Saying any one of these things, and then following it up with an explanation of how one would apply such a belief to questions of gun control policy, could possibly lead to some new and interesting ideas being raised and discussed. The debate doesn't have to bog down yet again in "prove I said X" nonsense.
Click to expand...

In general I believe human beings have the right to defend themselves and others against deadly force with deadly weapons.

However, that right is not unlimited. Not all weapons should be an option, not all persons should be able to use such a right if they are totally ignorant of the law or have emotional issues that may cause abuse of this right.
 
Reframing it as "defending yourself with a deadly weapon" is profoundly disingenuous, methinks. The issue with high capacity long range weapons is that you are not likely to need to defend yourself from attackers 1000 yards away. Its... just a silly proposition. In terms of self defense, a shotgun is beyond adequate for self defense. Beyond that we are talking about offensive weaponry.
 
Thermal said:
Reframing it as "defending yourself with a deadly weapon" is profoundly disingenuous, methinks. The issue with high capacity long range weapons is that you are not likely to need to defend yourself from attackers 1000 yards away. Its... just a silly proposition. In terms of self defense, a shotgun is beyond adequate for self defense. Beyond that we are talking about offensive weaponry.
Click to expand...

Rifles that fire .223 are useful for hunting.

However I have no problem with semi-auto rifles that shoot .223 being regulated under the NFA.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Rifles that fire .223 are useful for hunting.
Click to expand...

Duh. And? Magazine restrictions, etc. The problem with modified military weapons is that they make poor hunting rifles. Basically, modified military weaponry is not needed for non-military home use. You wanna play army? Join the army. They'll let you kill people. Home defense is a different game with different arms.

Eta: your eta: that's all most people are really shooting for. Have modified military hardware fall under restricted use. Home protection weapons are fine, but the threat posed by Walmart availability of modified military weapons exceeds the legit sporting use
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families. It's insane.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
Stacyhs said:
Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families-------WITH DEADLY FORCE------- It's insane.
Click to expand...


FTFY.

:)
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
It would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon" if that's what someone believed.

Likewise, it would be easy enough for someone to say:

"I believe in the right to self defense, but only in proportion to the perceived degree of threat."
Or:

"I believe in the right to self-defense with a deadly weapon, if the situation warrants and one is ready to hand, but I don't believe in the right to possess or carry a deadly weapon for the purpose of self-defense."

Saying any one of these things, and then following it up with an explanation of how one would apply such a belief to questions of gun control policy, could possibly lead to some new and interesting ideas being raised and discussed. The debate doesn't have to bog down yet again in "prove I said X" nonsense.
Click to expand...

I tried that. See the highlighted. Instead, all I got was strawman arguments.
 
Thermal said:
Duh. And? Magazine restrictions, etc. The problem with modified military weapons is that they make poor hunting rifles. Basically, modified military weaponry is not needed for non-military home use. You wanna play army? Join the army. They'll let you kill people. Home defense is a different game with different arms.

Eta: your eta: that's all most people are really shooting for. Have modified military hardware fall under restricted use. Home protection weapons are fine, but the threat posed by Walmart availability of modified military weapons exceeds the legit sporting use
Click to expand...

No, folks are calling for assault weapons to be BANNED and confiscated. Not simply regulated.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, folks are calling for assault weapons to be BANNED and confiscated. Not simply regulated.
Click to expand...

Some people are, some people aren't. What we call assault style weapons probably should be banned outright. There's no legit sporting purpose for an AK-47 and it's brethren. High powered rifles should generally have sporting restrictions put on them.

What it all boils down to is what you value. I put the lives of Parkland students and Pulse nightclub patrons and Vegas concert goers far above guys who want to play army. Guns for home defense, for those worried about an onslaught of Huns, are fine, but short range only. For those who think it's like totally bad ass to own an AR-15, I point to the graves in Sandy Hook and suggest they get their priorities straight.
 
Thermal said:
Some people are, some people aren't. What we call assault style weapons probably should be banned outright. There's no legit sporting purpose for an AK-47 and it's brethren. High powered rifles should generally have sporting restrictions put on them.

What it all boils down to is what you value. I put the lives of Parkland students and Pulse nightclub patrons and Vegas concert goers far above guys who want to play army. Guns for home defense, for those worried about an onslaught of Huns, are fine, but short range only. For those who think it's like totally bad ass to own an AR-15, I point to the graves in Sandy Hook and suggest they get their priorities straight.
Click to expand...

I agree. Well said.
 
Thermal said:
Some people are, some people aren't. What we call assault style weapons probably should be banned outright. There's no legit sporting purpose for an AK-47 and it's brethren. High powered rifles should generally have sporting restrictions put on them.

What it all boils down to is what you value. I put the lives of Parkland students and Pulse nightclub patrons and Vegas concert goers far above guys who want to play army. Guns for home defense, for those worried about an onslaught of Huns, are fine, but short range only. For those who think it's like totally bad ass to own an AR-15, I point to the graves in Sandy Hook and suggest they get their priorities straight.
Click to expand...

Most mass-shootings have not been committed with assault weapons. I guess that means all the folks pushing for a new federal AWB need to get their priorities straight.
 
Hercules56 said:
Most mass-shootings have not been committed with assault weapons. I guess that means all the folks pushing for a new federal AWB need to get their priorities straight.
Click to expand...

Unless the majority of mass shootings are with assault weapons, we should allow assault weapons? Is the fact that assault weapons are responsible for the deadliest mass shootings irrelevant?

The involvement of semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings

Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1982, there has been a known total 65 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
Unless the majority of mass shootings are with assault weapons, we should allow assault weapons? Is the fact that assault weapons are responsible for the deadliest mass shootings irrelevant?
Click to expand...

So you want to BAN assault weapons and confiscate them? Why not also semi-auto handguns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom