Another example of how the US is idiotic

[Kevin]

Good point TF about extremes and defining them. I just think when we jump from Ak-47 to nukes, the difference is clear in my opinion.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Kevin

[HaloMagic]

But where is the line?

[Crampknees]

I prefer to just stone people. 

[Crampknees]

I went into Starbucks with a wheelbarrow full of rocks the other day. 

[Crampknees]

Obama will never take away my right to hurl rocks.

[Tank]

I went into Starbucks with a wheelbarrow full of rocks the other day. 

 

if your goal is to hurl rocks at people who are willing to spend $8 for a cup of coffee, you're going to need a few dozen quarries.

[Kevin]

But where is the line?

Good question HM. I agree it's important to define what that line is. Just think it's dumb to bring up nukes.

[Schildog]

I think it's dumb you can't see the logic in it.

[Kevin]

I think it's dumb you can't see the logic in it.

I'm not saying we can't define what is extreme when it comes to guns but when you bring up a weapon that can kill a hundred thousand people in a few moments, I don't think it does anything to solve the issue.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Kevin

[Kevin]

Having said that schildog, Kings in 5? Gkg.

[Crampknees]

I'm not saying we can't define what is extreme when it comes to guns but when you bring up a weapon that can kill a hundred thousand people in a few moments, I don't think it does anything to solve the issue.

I guess you are not talking about my wheelbarrow of rocks.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

exactly. if i want a nuke, i'm getting a nuke.

 

I want my own F-16. After all, it's a weapon.

[arch stanton]

They do make a certain point by being extreme which is that the weapons are much harder to define than the targets are. Schools, theaters, malls, beaches etc. Places where people gather in masses. If these places are left unprotected they can be attacked by practically anything. So, you can take steps to defend vulnerable places or you can argue about how many things you can take away from people who have no intention of harming anyone. If, and this is a huge if in my mind, you are actually interested in preventing mass shootings. I personally thing you're much more interested in minding my business.

[Jason]

I don't like how I am being stereotyped as extremist just because I own multiple firearms or an assault rifle. I don't have a real need for them other then for hunting and self protection but it isn't causing any harm to myself or anyone else. It isn't fair to put responsible gunowners in the same boat as a type of people that commit these mass shootings. Obviously some of us here are not going to agree on this at all, which is okay.

[halobob]

Abortion

[Angelsjunky]

I don't like how I am being stereotyped as extremist just because I own multiple firearms or an assault rifle. I don't have a real need for them other then for hunting and self protection but it isn't causing any harm to myself or anyone else. It isn't fair to put responsible gunowners in the same boat as a type of people that commit these mass shootings. Obviously some of us here are not going to agree on this at all, which is okay.

 

I hear you, Angels N Skins, and agree that responsible gunowners shouldn't be in the same boat as people who commit mass shootings. But as someone said, there's a grey area, and the fact is that our current gun laws enable people who shouldn't own guns to own or acquire them and commit violence.

 

My original post was pointing out two things - 1) that there's immense (and ridiculous IMO) resistance to passing stricter legislation on gun laws, and 2) the second amendment is held up and protected like it is sacrosanct, yet it was created in a very different time and place when owning guns to protect one's home was actually relevant - i.e. right after the Revolutionary War, if the need for forming a militia arose.

[Kevin]

I guess you are not talking about my wheelbarrow of rocks.

I said hundreds of thousands. Not tens of thousands.

[mp170.6]

I hear you, Angels N Skins, and agree that responsible gunowners shouldn't be in the same boat as people who commit mass shootings. But as someone said, there's a grey area, and the fact is that our current gun laws enable people who shouldn't own guns to own or acquire them and commit violence.

 

My original post was pointing out two things - 1) that there's immense (and ridiculous IMO) resistance to passing stricter legislation on gun laws, and 2) the second amendment is held up and protected like it is sacrosanct, yet it was created in a very different time and place when owning guns to protect one's home was actually relevant - i.e. right after the Revolutionary War, if the need for forming a militia arose.

 

Doesn't your line of thinking concern you a bit?  Your first post referred to the "outdated" second amendment. 

 

The moment you change the 2nd Amendment is the moment a dangerous precedent is set.  Changing any other amendment is then fair game because the message it sends Congress is that people are flexible to changing basic liberties.  For instance, what if Congress followed suit by changing the 4th Amendment to permit police to search your home and car whenever they felt like it?  Or how about a radical Congress revoking your right to a jury trial (7th Amendment).  Hell, why not go a step further and scrap the 13th Amendment to allow slavery again? 

 

What you're suggesting is really dangerous territory and I hope we never head that direction. 

[Lou]

I just want to have flash bangs. Can I buy those at a gun show (that's a serious question)?

 

That would be sweet!

[Hollyw00d]

The resistance to gun control. Such stupidity - our ridiculous obsession with guns and the out-dated second amendment.

Outdated? No freaking way.

Americans may have to protect themselves from their own government someday, violently if necessary. That threat will never change, no matter what the times.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Hollyw00d

[ABC]

Outdated? No freaking way.

Americans may have to protect themselves from their own government someday, violently if necessary. That threat will never change, no matter what the times.

 

Made more sense when both sides had muskets. You're not going to be able to stop today's army with an AK, Desert Eagle or anything else available legally or in alleys.

[TobiasFunke]

Americans may have to protect themselves from their own government someday, violently if necessary. That threat will never change, no matter what the times.

 

Why do so many Americans get boners thinking about this?

[mtangelsfan]

Why do so many Americans get boners thinking about this?

I'm guessing very few of us are excited about that prospect.

 

However, it isn't like our government has been a benevolent force for good for the last 60 years or so.  It isn't also like we haven't seen rights disappearing over the last couple of decades either.

[Hollyw00d]

Made more sense when both sides had muskets. You're not going to be able to stop today's army with an AK, Desert Eagle or anything else available legally or in alleys.

true, but my hope is that most of the.military won't want to kill their own citizens, and will side with the people

[TobiasFunke]

I'm guessing very few of us are excited about that prospect.

 

I would have to disagree with you on this